Question 1, Incident 1 - (Practicum 2a)

Tuesday, May 19th, 12.10 pm. I lead the classroom out to the school @ield introducing them to
a new game called Bottle Cap Fitness. I stood to the left hand side of the rugby @ield umpiring
the game. As a try was scored from one of the two teams, I asked a student to return the
bottle cap back to me in order to pass it on to the opposing team. As the student de@ied my
instruction, another student attempted to take it out of his grasp with the intentions to return
it back to me. The student who has de@ied my instructions, lashes out at his peer using
inappropriate language. Within moments the whole classroom was gathered around me and
the two students involved. In front of the class I informed the student that his language
towards others is unacceptable and prohibited in our school. I acted in an non restorative
manner raising my voice and telling the child to sit out of the game and not move until the end
of our session. The outcome of my non-restorative approach had detrimental effects on the
two children involved and also damaged my relationship with the child.

Question 1, Incident 2 (Tuesday visit)

Tuesday 12th April, I was in charge of my associates classroom, monitoring them in the school
@ield during Futsal training. I watched on and witnessed a child deliberately kick another child
in the back whilst he was on the ground after tripping over. In a stern voice I immediately
called the childs name who had kicked the victim. Standing outside of the Futsal game the
child who had misbehaved walked over to me. I told the child who had misbehaved to stand
on the sideline while I went to see if the victim in this situation was okay. On the sideline a
restorative conversation took place between myself and the offender. I asked the child to tell
the story where he admitted that he kicked the child on the ground due to him wanting the
ball. I prompted the child to explore the harm in this situation. The child was asked who was
affected? What could have resulted from you kicking your peer?. Me and the child identi@ied
the potential harm and injuries that could have accrued from his actions. I asked the child

how could you repair the harm and put things right?. He responded with apoligising to
Colin. I asked what exactly are you apoligising for?. The child stated for kicking him in the
back when he was probably already hurt from falling over. I then asked the child how he
would put things right between him and his peer. He responded with I will say I am sorry
kicking you, it wasnt a nice thing to do. To be sure that this child had fully understood the
effects of his actions I discussed our school values of respect and partnership. We discussed
how his actions go against our schools beliefs, asking how will he make sure this wont
happen again and you live up to our school values?. This conversation had a positive
outcome, rebuilding friendships and strengthening our own relationship.

Question 2, Incident 1.
In evaluating my response to this situation it has highlighted for me that as teachers you are
in a position of authority, how you demonstrate that authority is important (Roffey, 2011, p.
50). From re@lection I believe I did not use my authority appropriately, having an
authoritarian teaching approach, telling the child off in front of his peers, removing him from
the game and having a further punishment. During this practicum myself and this student did
not have a positive relationship. I was consistently telling this child off and writing his name
on the board. This authoritarian approach of constantly giving the child warnings and no
opportunities to explain his behaviour had detrimental effects to our relationship. Our job as
teachers is to select strategies & approaches based on what these will do to the quality of the
relationships (Ellis & Tod, 2009, p.54). However My strategy to control his behaviour
excluded him from the game only creating anger and rebellion from the child. This showed
me that teachers need critically to re@lect on their understandings of students behaviour
dif@iculties and on their understandings of what might need to change if these students are to
be included rather than excluded (Wearmouth, Mckinney and Glynn, 2007, p.38). At this

point in time of my teacher practice I did not have the appropriate tool kit of strategies(Ellis
& Tod, 2009, p. 57) to react appropriately.

Question 2, Incident 2.
Critically evaluating my response has shown my strengths of embedding restorative practice
in my teaching. Restorative conversation is a four step processes that creates opportunities
for rebuilding, strengthening and restoring relationships at the heart of a con@lict through
face-to face meetings (Matla & Jansen, 2011, p.112). These four steps include: telling the
story, exploring the harm, repairing the harm, and moving forward. My conversation with this
child had all four elements of a restorative conversation. These were; getting the child to
explain what had happened, discussing the effects his actions could have had on the child,
asking the child how he can repair his relationship with the child, and moving forward,
identifying how we can work in a partnership to make sure this never happens again.
However this would not have been successful without the respected and valued relationship
between myself and the student. Praniss framework shows the Importance of establishing
connections before any restorative work can be undertaken (Matla & Jansen, 2011, p.114). I
have established a positive relationship with this child through an authoritative teacher
presence, also resembling a democratic classroom that fosters both rights and responsibility
within the group(Roffey, 2011, p.65). This child has been exposed to my high but @lexible
expectations, as I strive to guide and encourage all students. An example of this democratic
approach is not forcing the child to apologise instead having guided conversation asking him
to come up with a suggestion to show how they are going to even things up(Roffey, 2011, p.
66).

Question 3, Incident 1.

If I was to approach this situation again in my current teaching practise, the outcome would
have been completely different working in partnership with the child, as children are more
likely to make positive changes when those in authority do things with them (Wachetel,
1999). I would have engaged in a restorative conversation putting things right between those
involved or affected by wrongful doing (Wearmouth, Mckinnry & Glynn, 2007, p. 39). In
changing my approach I would work to restore the relationship between the individual and
the victim. In this incident, the child apoligising to the victim was not evident, potentially
damaging the two childrens future relationship. An restorative approach would also give the
student the opportunity to re@lect on why what he had done was not appropriate, how he
could have harmed the child, and also allowed him to decide how he was going to restore the
two relationships. However at the heart of this outcome was the inability to establish a
positive/respected relationship from the beginning. When solving misbehaviour
Relationships between students & teachers remain central to effective conversations, and
every effort to build and enhance these relationships needs to be made (Matla & Jansen,
2011, p.125). If I could go back in time would make every effort to connect with this child and
make connections to his behavioural issues.

Question 3, Incident 2.
Although this incident had a positive outcome, there would still be elements that I would
change. Because this was my @irst time in control of the classroom without my associates
presence, I would have communicated my expectations to the classroom. I would promote a
authoritative/facilitative teaching approach. As Roffey, 2011 explains, it is important to
communicate expectations clearly, showing fairness and consistency. I would outline my
expectations prior to the lesson and get the children to come up with fair consequences for
not meeting these expectations.

References
Ellis, S., & Tod, J. (2009). Reframing behaviour management. In, S. Ellis & J. Tod, Behaviour for
learning. Proactive approaches to behaviour management (pp. 46-65). USA: Routledge.
Matla, G. & Jansen, G. (2011). Restorative conversations. In V. Margrain & A. H. Macfarlane
(Eds.), Responsive pedagogy: Engaging restoratively with challenging behaviour (pp. 110-127).
Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.
Roffey, S. (2011). The new teachers survival guide to behaviour (2nd ed.). London: Paul
Chapman.
Wachtel, T. (1999). Restoring community in a disconnected world. In Reshaping Australian
Institutions Conference: Restorative justce and civil society. (pp. 14). Austrailian National
University.
Wearmouth, J., Mckinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand
example. Educational Research 49 (1), 37-49.