Positive Greetings? There must be more…Part 2

26 January, 2020 —

Positive Greetings? There must be more…Part 2

What happens when you contact the researchers of a headline grabbing study?

Share on:

by Bradford Research School
on the 26th January 2020

In his last post on the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) Improving Behaviour in Schools guidance report, specifically the headline that greeting pupils at the door was beneficial, Luke Swift finished with the words “…my next step in the search for answers was to contact the researchers (Cook et al) directly.” Here is what happened next.

So, to cut straight to the chase… I conversed with 4 of the researchers and they all admitted they simply didn’t know which of the components led to the positive impact on pupils.

In this post I’ll try to highlight some of the nuances of the study, identify some common key messages from the researchers who were kind enough to reply to my email and attempt to synthesise them into some tentative recommendations.

As suspected, as there were several components to this study (including the headline-grabbing greeting at the door) so without any thorough Principal Component Analysis (or PCA) – a growing trend in the US apparently – in which aspects are studied and tested in isolation, there’s no way of knowing which components led to the ‘significant improvements in academic engaged time and reductions in disruptive behaviour’ reported in the study. PCA does invariably take longer, cost more and is also, as is usually the case, not without its limitations either.

Andrew Thayer proposed that, concerning the study in question, a lack of PCA is not necessarily problematic for teachers as, in this instance, all components are relatively quick, easy and cheap to implement – there’s no reason not to implement them all. And whilst that didn’t answer my burning question, it’s quite difficult to dispute!

Although there was a distinct absence of definitive or empirical answers forthcoming, I was nonetheless keen to get a fuller picture of exactly what went on from the people who were there. Without giving a transcription of entire conversations or email correspondences I’ll try to shed some light on the more contentious aspects of study and outline a few of the most pertinent points from my discussions.

What is Said Matters

Contrary to many headlines, it wasn’t intended to be just a ‘Hello’. Thayer was keen to point out:

A simple "hello" is not necessarily the greeting we are looking for. If you must, pair it with an open-ended question that CANNOT be answered with one word like "good" or "fine." Instead, I often recommend teachers do one of two things with their greeting: 1) implement behaviour specific praise ("You have been so quiet in line, thanks so much. I can tell today is going to be a good day."); or 2) a specific relationship question, like, "Hey did you manage to win some games in Fortnite last night?" (this game is still everywhere in our schools!)

Who Says it Matters

It was generally felt that the greetings and pre-corrects at the door may well have had a positive impact, in part, due to the person they came from – the same study conducted with a series of substitute teachers may have shown very different results.

Christopher Daikos spoke passionately and at length regarding the quality of the relationship between the teacher and pupil and the importance of genuine, positive regard for pupils. He was also keen to see the part played by oxytocin in social bonding and the reduction of cortisol in school settings investigated further. He spoke positively of the work CASEL do which went on to feature prominently in the EEF’s guidance report on Improving Social and Emotional Learning in Primary Schools. An important question posed by Thayer was, “What happens as a student starts to feel like they belong more?” His speculative answer, “Likely, they start to conform to behaviour norms.”

Positivity Matters

The study required a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative comments from the teacher. In America, the average ratio is around a 1:19 positive to negative (according to one researcher) so this was potentially a huge departure from the norm for both staff and pupils. I am keen to hear the average UK ratio, but I imagine it wouldn’t be too dissimilar to the US in many settings.

All the Components Matter

It appeared that the consensus of the researchers – if courting conjecture – was that all aspects of the intervention combined to have the positive impact on learning time and behaviour. Daikos suspected ‘Each component emboldens the others’.

It Wasn’t Designed to ‘Fix’ Behaviour

Thayer also stressed:

I want to caution interpreting Positive Greetings at the Door as a behaviour problem "treatment." It is not. It is intended as a proactive classroom management strategy that blankets all students, problem behaviour or not, and has additional steps for students exhibiting needs. It is a behaviour insulator, not a solution.

In Summary

On reflection, what really stood out for me with these interactions with the researchers (to which I’m both grateful and indebted) is that behind the academic rigour and formality that their work demands they all cared deeply about young people and education. And this almost seems like an unstated recommendation, a message under the surface of the study in question revealed after gaining a more personal insight (and is also, perhaps, an underlying sentiment of Improving Behaviour in Schools guidance report too): clichéd though it may be, you’ve got to really care about the young people and making a positive difference (and I’m sure that you do if you’ve already endured my post this far!). A few recurring themes ran throughout my dialogue with the researchers:

Foster positive relationships;
Be consistent (and organised);
Be real: carry out the above with sincerity.

And despite not getting the empirical answers I originally sought, I’ll certainly be striving to continue positively greeting pupils at the door, ensuring there’s a ‘Do-Now’ learning activity ready on desks for pupils to begin immediately, supplying a 5:1 ratio of positive:negative comments to each student, pre-correcting individual and classroom behaviours, and delivering behaviour-specific praise. Thayer commented on the relative ease of implementation of this approach. But perhaps even more pertinent are the possible implications of not implementing these aspects. Yes, a greeting at the door is not the elusive silver bullet (nor was it ever going to be) but I believe this intriguing study does add some additional and meaningful support to the body of evidence suggesting that developing positive relationships and being consistent is more likely to get positive outcomes for the young people in our care.

Luke is a class teacher and English coordinator at Dixons Manningham Primary. He is a Research Lead for Bradford Research School and will be co-delivering our training on Improving Literacy in Primary Schools.

References

Cook, C. R. et al. (2018) ‘Positive Greetings at the Door: Evaluation of a Low-Cost, High-Yield Proactive Classroom Management Strategy’, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(3) pp149-159.* (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098300717753831)
https://casel.org/
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/SEL/EEF_Social_and_Emotional_Learning.pdf
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/Behaviour/EEF_Improving_behaviour_in_schools_Report.pdf