A critical evaluation and the identification of next teaching and learning steps, focusing on a case study of an individual learner or a group of learners, based on an observed critical incident. Introduction The aim of this essay is to critically analyse an event within a classroom setting, using Tripp’s Critical Incident model (1993) to apply a reflective approach in aid of ensuring continued implementation of effective teaching practice. A Critical Incident is a specific occurrence or point of interest with potential for exploration and analysis regarding teaching and learning (Tripp 1993). Critical Incidents are used by student researchers as they present a unique opportunity for reflective practice which their lack of experiential knowledge may otherwise negate. It is how teachers engage with an occurrence that marks an incident as ‘critical’ (Tripp 1993). Observing the effectiveness of a specific methodology or school of teaching in a real classroom setting allows a student teacher to critique its effectiveness on different students and draw conclusions that they can then analyse and apply to their own practice (Kolb 1974). Tripp’s model of Critical Incident (1993) analysis can be broken down into four stages, which are the Identification of Incidents, Reflection, Analysis and Implications for Future Practice. The use of critical incident analysis permits a reflective approach which allows teachers to further their understanding of student needs and make continuous improvements to their knowledge and understanding of effective teaching methodology. Critical incident theory and using reflective practice allows educational practitioners to analyse and extract conclusions from an experience. This learning can then be applied to future practice, and it is through this experiential learning that information can be converted to knowledge (Kolb 1974). This essay will seek to reflect on and analyse an observed incident in a Year 6 English class in a Swansea Primary school. The class was a mixed ability class, in a school with 29% of students on Free School Meals, and 435 pupils. About 15 minutes into the lesson one of the students had to leave the classroom for an appointment. A Teaching Assistant, who was sat with a table of pupils at the front, got up to expedite this process as the class were in the middle of a group task. This caused her to leave her table of students and the teacher then had to direct all his attention to this table. This led to a drastic decrease in attention levels and an increase in disruptive behaviour. Literature Review Classroom management can be defined as the pre-emptive and reactive strategies taken by teachers to promote and encourage both educational and personal development in the classroom (Everston and Weinsten 2006) and minimise the impact of potential disruptions to teaching and learning. These disruptions range from everyday peer group dynamics to active bullying and harassment (Burger 2022). Effective classroom management is inextricably linked to both optimal teaching and learning, as students cannot learn or reach their potential in an environment which lacks structure and support (Hepburn and Beamish 2019). Educators should aim to create a learning environment in which students are actively engaged in the learning process, and self-motivated to learn both academic and social skills (Sullivan 2014). This contention is reinforced by the work of Greenwalt (2015). He discusses the notion of ‘classroom climate’, with particular emphasis placed on how climates support life-forms. He contends that ‘in order to wonder about the kinds of school and classroom climates that are desirable, we must first decide what forms of life we wish to sustain.’ Here the link between the learning environment and the quality of learning is further solidified. Greenwalt works from the basis that we as humans thrive best under ‘democratic communal living’ conditions in which educators must endeavour to ensure they provide the ‘richest levels of individual experiences and an equitable distribution of such experiences.’ Greenwalt (2015) identifies three types of strategies you must consider when cultivating your ‘classroom climate’. Firstly, you must consider the aesthetic and physical layout of your learning environment, deploying ‘suitable seating arrangements, wall decorations, varied layouts for different activities and a diverse, reconfigurable space’. The second aspect you must consider is the intellectual and emotional needs of your students, focusing on what emotions are present day to day in your class, whether they are addressed or reinforced if they are negative or positive respectively, and monitoring student engagement and emotional cues. The third aspect you must engage with concerns the social politics within your learning environment. This involves the behavioural dynamics that are prominent within the class, whether students are self-motivated or if they require prompting, trust, peer relationships and your own relationships with your students. Establishing and maintaining control over your classroom is vital, as the longer a teacher goes without control of their students the more difficult it becomes to regain it (Moskovitz and Hayman 1976). There is an important distinction between classroom management and classroom discipline. Classroom discipline is ‘the responsive actions taken by teachers with an aim to change student behaviour’ (Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein 2006, p.181), with disruptive and disengaged behaviour being calmly corrected (Sullivan et al. 2014). While efficient classroom management does involve responsive actions, greater emphasis is placed on pre-emptive measures being implemented to prevent problematic behaviour from occurring, to support student learning. This may include extensive additional support for students with challenging behaviour (Bennett 2017), such as Teaching Assistants. These preventative measures aim to create an environment that is conducive to optimal student learning, as opposed to controlling behaviour, to create self-directed learners who can manage their own behaviour (Eisenmen 2015). This responsibility lies solely with the teacher (Sanders 1997). The impact that an effective teacher can have on a class can’t be understated. This is supported by the work of Marzano et al (2003). Marzano synthesised and collated data gathered over 35 years to isolate the correlation between teacher efficiency and student attainment levels. Students at the 50th percentile grade in 5 different educational scenarios were assessed 2 years later. It was found that students with an average school and an average teacher remained at the same grade, students with inefficient schools and inefficient teachers dropped to the 3rd percentile, students with the most efficient and an inefficient teacher dropped to the 37th percentile, students with the most effective schools and the most efficient teacher climbed to the 96th percentile, and students in an inefficient school with an affective teacher climbed to the 63rd percentile. The efficiency of the teachers and schools was based on the number of behavioural issues faced within the class and entire student population respectively. It is evident that an effective teacher who has control of his classroom and the learners within it can have a positive impact on student attainment levels, even within a subpar school, as there was a 13% increase in the grades within that demographic. Marzano’s research indicates that classroom management must be teacher-led, and directly effects student attainment levels. At a young age, children’s brain function is shaped hugely by their interactions with their peers and their environment, and exposure to nurturing experiences and relationships is essential to create students who can effectively engage with and understand the world around them across their entire lifespan (Rose 2016). The emphasis placed on environmental and social stimulus serves to reinforce the importance of effective classroom management in education, as it is imperative to the facilitation of cognitive development. Donaldson’s ‘Successful Futures’ (2015) states that ‘social competences, life skills and personal confidence’ were considered by all as desired outcomes from education (WISERD 2015). Rose’s reference to the importance of environmental stimulus in education and how it facilitates lifelong learning and development is further reinforced by Donaldson’s 4 Purposes (Curriculum for Wales 2022). The third purpose is to create ‘ambitious, capable learners ready to learn throughout their lives’. The environment in which students learn is of vital importance to ensuring students develop the necessary critical and social faculties to learn throughout their lives, and the fact that Donaldson has echoed these sentiments, and they have been implemented into national policy (Curriculum for Wales 2022) demonstrates the crucial role that effective classroom management has in ensuring effective teaching and learning. Case Study The Critical Incident that will be analysed in this essay occurred 15 minutes into a Year 6 mixed ability English class of 10 girls and 12 boys during the first lesson of the day. Students are grouped within the class by ability, in a layout with a row of students at the front and four tables, in each corner of the room. The table at the front, central, will be referred to as Table I, and as the teacher faces the room moving clockwise, they will be Table II, front left, Table III back left, Table IV back right and Table V front right. Table V consisted of the more behaviourally challenged students, and had a Teaching Assistant present, and Table III had the more able and talented students sat on it. The school has 402 students enrolled, with around 30% of students receiving Free School Meals. As part of a group activity shoes were handed around the class with students being encouraged to look at and touch the shoe and make inferences based on these stimuli. Child A, who was sat at the front of the class on the row of four had to leave the class for an appointment, and the TA proceeded to expedite this process. This led to her leaving Table V, which she was sat at. The teacher then directed all his attention to this table in the TA’s absence. As soon as the teacher had to focus solely on Table V and not on the rest of the class, another child on Table I, Child B, is immediately up and out of their seat disrupting the learning process. This redirecting of attention led to a decrease in student focus and engagement, and an increase in distraction and disruptive behaviour. This essay will seek to reflect upon this observation, and explore the following contentions: 1. Physical classroom layout is a crucial factor in behaviour management. 2. Grouping students on tables by ability can be detrimental to effective classroom management in a mixed ability class. 3. Teaching Assistants should be deployed alongside an effective seating plan. The TA was placed with Table V as it consisted of some of the more potentially challenging students who require supplementary help to remain engaged while the teacher was delivering the lesson, and as soon as she departs this table, this requires a shift in the teacher’s focus from teaching the whole class to pacifying Table V. The increase in disruptive behaviour coincides directly with the teacher’s focus being shifted to Table V. This dip in focus and engagement is not present on Table III, on which all the students can be seen engaging with the task they have been set. Students on Tables I, II and IV can be seen with their heads on the desk, not engaging with the task they have been set. Here one of the potential issues that can arise when grouping students by ability within a mixed ability class can be observed. This issue can be better understood by considering the Behaviourist school of teaching. Behaviourists believe that the learner is passive and responds to environmental stimuli, and that behaviour is moulded through positive or negative reinforcement (Watson 2013). As the students on Table V require teacher supervision to focus on the task, and the students on Tables I, II and IV almost immediately stop working as soon as the teacher’s attention is elsewhere it can be surmised that the teacher has used Behaviourist methods in his classroom. This is because as soon as the possibility of positive reinforcement for engaging with the task is removed, most of the students become disengaged and uninterested in the task. By seating all potentially challenging students together on Table V and choosing to motivate students with external validation, the teacher has created a situation in which it is impossible for him to reinforce or correct desirable and unwanted behaviours respectively. As soon as that external validation is removed from the lesson, or cannot be provided, the students are at risk of losing interest and becoming distracted or disengaged. The implementation of a more Socio-Constructivist approach could yield more favourable results in this case. This is a branch of the Constructivist school of learning. Pure constructivism casts students as ‘lone scientists’, according to Piaget, who must seek to find meaning and ‘make sense’ of the world. Piaget’s idea of students as ‘lone scientists’ has been criticised for ignoring the role of peer relationships in cognitive development. Vygotsky built on Piaget’s concept with socio-constructivism and agreed with the emphasis Piaget places upon the learning environment but differed in his stance on the students being ‘lone scientists’. Vygotsky believed learning is a social and cultural experience, with great importance placed on peer and student-teacher relationships. By grouping students by ability in this class, the teacher has not created a diverse societal environment, and students will be exposed to very homogeneous language and behaviour. The teacher is missing an opportunity to utilise positive peer relationships to take some of the pressure off himself and the TA to control an entire table of behaviourally challenged students, and further exacerbating these issues by placing students who could become disengaged and then possibly disruptive together, as the phenomenon of ‘peer pressure’ can cause these students to encourage each other’s negative behaviour, instead of seeing positive behaviour modelled by their peers. The role of ‘more knowledgeable other’ can be assigned to any student. The role of ‘MKO’ can be seen as a facilitator for learning, a prevalent theme in Vygotsky’s ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ Theory. Teaching and Learning Methodology After observing the critical incident and considering the alternative measures which could be utilised to address it, I would attempt to apply more preventative measures to minimise the likelihood that disruptions to learning occur. Efficient classroom management ‘does not hinge on dealing with problems that have already arisen, but on preventing them in the first place (p.6 Robertson 1996). The first step towards achieving this would be to reconfigure the physical layout of the learning environment. The layout I observed in the critical incident consisted of a row of four students in front of the teacher and a table of four or five students in each corner of the classroom. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, the teacher cannot see every student’s face, as some of the students on the tables are facing each other, or facing the door or out of the window, all of which can cause distraction. I would rearrange the desks to ensure all students were facing the front, and direct focus to where the teacher is. The optimal classroom arrangement is a ‘conventionally arranged classroom with pupils in rows, facing the front’ (p.21 Robertson 1996), and Robertson goes on to explain that a classroom set-up in which ‘one cannot see or be seen by all pupils’ should be avoided (p.48 Robertson 1996). Arranging the tables in rows could also negate the problem presented by placing all the challenging pupils in one location, like Table V in the critical incident. While I understand that the group nature of the task the teacher set perhaps explains the classroom configuration, this could be addressed by bringing more items for the students to engage with and making it an individual task as opposed to a group one. This would perhaps allow allow the teacher to set his tables up in rows, which can lead to more positive behaviours, with disruptive students benefitting the most (Wannarka and Ruhl 2008). The fact that two studies carried out 12 years apart returned the same findings is indicative of the continued validity of this method. The issues presented by this classroom arrangement can be further compounded by the decision to group students by ability, with the less engaged and potentially disruptive students all sat together. These students are all sat together, facing each other rather than the teacher. I would seek to address this issue by creating a heterogeneous seating plan to deploy alongside the previously mentioned reconfiguration of the room to create a learning environment in which the possibility of distraction and negative behaviours are minimised. This idea of pre-emptive classroom structure is supported by Bennett in his book ‘Running the Room 2020’, especially in his ‘Fire Prevention Model’. The model essentially states that firefighting, taken here to represent classroom management, cannot simply involve seeking to put out fires when they start, but we must ‘design buildings that don’t catch fire often or easily’ (p.44 Bennett 2020). With this model in mind, I would aim to make use of the more able and talented pupils to reinforce positive peer modelling and encourage positive behaviour. This rearrangement would attempt to increase the distance between disruptive students, so that if a disruption occurs, like it does in the critical incident, with Child A leaving the room, I wouldn’t have to direct all my attention to one area of the classroom in the TA’s absence. Tom Bennett’s role as an international trainer and lecturer in the field of classroom management lends considerable validity to his work, as it can be implemented across multiple cultures and countries worldwide. This validity is further reinforced by his appointment as the United Kingdom’s advisor on school behaviour in 2015, as he is involved in the implementation of educational policy on a national level. The fact that the teacher’s attention is placed solely on Table V could potentially stop him from giving the other pupils in his class the reinforcement or corrections they may require, and a large number can be seen to be disinterested. Bennett stresses that a classroom must be configured and run ‘for the many not the few’ (p.39 Bennett 2020), a concept that builds on the contention that an effective teacher must be monitoring both general and individual behaviour within their classroom and noting its effects on learning (Rogers 2006). Rogers states that an ‘effective teacher monitors the activity in the group and moves around the room’ (p.71 Rogers 2006). This idea of proxemics involves moving closer to the students who aren’t engaging, and ensuring all students receive prompts and encouragement to engage. This is extremely difficult to do with the layout of the classroom and the seating plan I observed in the incident, which is why I would suggest implementing these changes. Rogers is an educational consultant for primary, post-primary and tertiary education, who is a former teacher. This first-hand experience at multiple age groups lends validity and adaptability to his approach to classroom management. Discussion When reflecting upon the case study and its findings, I have been presented with a uniquely beneficial viewpoint based on my own experiences as a teacher. The school that I have taught in has 20% of its students receiving Free School Meals. The school in which I observed my critical incident has 30% of its students receiving Free School Meals. This similarity in the socio-economic background of the students, as well as the fact that I teach a Year 7 group with several students that have Additional Learning Needs means I have been able to implement techniques and observe their effect on a similar student demographic. In addition to these similarities the school I teach in also uses mixed ability grouping. I have been able to essentially view the Year 6 group that I observed the critical incident in as the control group and my own Year 7 class as the experimental group because of the similarities present within each group. The independent variables that were altered are the classroom arrangement, which consists of rows of desks in my school, and the seating plan, which is heterogeneous as students are not sat in groups based solely on ability. Arranging my classroom so students are sat in rows facing the front of the class has allowed me to easily gauge whether they are paying attention and minimise distractions when I am speaking directly to them, and it also allows me to easily move amongst them when they are doing work that I have set them. The implementation of rows of seats in classrooms is further supported by the previously mentioned findings of Wannarka and Ruhl’s 2008 research. They found that seating arrangements are of paramount importance to effectively manage a classroom, and that seating students in rows leads to an increase in desirable behaviour, with typically disruptive students benefitting most. When considering the deployment of rows of seats in a classroom, I was very aware of the potential that this configuration can have for removing the role of a student’s peers on their learning. The idea that students must be facing forward and listening to the teacher can remove some the individual agency students require and negate the chance for group discussion. This issue can be addressed by simply asking students to turn around to the table behind them when a group discussion is required. This ties into the notion of the classroom needing to be a diverse and reconfigurable space (Greenwalt 2015). It is also important to move closer to those students you can see are not engaging, and to scan the classroom regularly, but you must do so inconspicuously to not distract other students (Rogers 2006). Within the critical incident I observed the teacher spending all his time focused on Table V, and paying no attention to the some of the other students in the class who could be seen to be disengaged and distracted. This could be due to the decision to seat all students based on ability. The implementation of a heterogeneous seating plan can address this issue as it allows the teacher to utilise peer relationships as a motivating factor for disengaged students. One of my Year 7 students entered my classroom late and was immediately uninterested, so I addressed this by seating him with some of the more able pupils in my class. The improvement in his attention was immediately noticeable. The validity of this method is supported by Robertson. Robertson states that it is ‘disconcerting for a child to see friends working when he doesn’t want to make the effort’ (p.72 Robertson 1996), and further enforces this contention by suggesting that ‘social disapproval can be a powerful means of changing behaviour’ (p.85 Robertson 1996). By seating students who are struggling to engage or complete work with students who are more capable you can utilise the positive impact that peer relationships can have on modelling behaviour. Robertson echoes this contention by explaining the importance of ‘creating roles for students in your class that offer opportunities for model character and abilities to be platformed’ (p. 136 Robertson 1996). Conclusions and Recommendations The reconfiguration of the classroom to consist of rows of seats could successfully address the lack of attention and engagement I observed during the task in the critical incident for several reasons. Firstly, all the students would be facing the front of the class, which would allow the teacher to see where their eyes and hands were always, as opposed to having some students sat with their backs to him. The validity of this contention is reinforced by Robertson’s work, in which he stresses the need for a ‘conventionally arranged classroom with the pupils in rows, facing the front’(p.21 Robertson 1996), a point which he further reinforces by explaining that educators must avoid classroom configurations in which ‘one cannot see or be seen by all pupils’ (p.48 Robertson 1996). This contention is supported by the work of Wannarka and Ruhl (2008). Their studies concluded that seating children in rows leads to an increase in the display of typically desirable behaviours. The fact that Wannarka and Ruhl drew the same conclusion despite their research being conducted 12 years after Robertson’s book was published illustrates the consistent effectiveness of seating children in rows. I have observed the comprehensively positive effect that a heterogeneous seating plan has within a mixed ability class first hand, in an educational setting that has numerous consistencies with the setting I observed my critical incident in. The utilisation of this type of seating plan makes use of positive peer relationships to increase the engagement levels of students and decreases negative behaviours by increasing the distance between problematic students in the classroom. This method can be most accurately displayed by considering Bennett’s ‘Fire Prevention’ model (Bennett 2020) and considering all possible pre-emptive measures when configuring your seating plan. The validity of Bennett’s work is underscored by his continued role and relevance within the British government’s implementation of education policy at a national level. When prescribing next steps for teaching, I would rearrange my classroom into rows, and make use of my fellow staff members and school records to gain a deep, comprehensive understanding of the engagement and aptitude levels of my students and tailor my seating plan to ensure the continued provision of effective teaching and learning. This collaboration with my peers when considering classroom management indicates my continued engagement with the Professional Standards for teaching, specifically the strand regarding working with others and managing the learning environment.