Aggressive child behavior in scgool playgrounds - Essay Example

AGGRESSIVE CHILD BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS Introduction Various unacceptable behaviors among children emerge these days and are continually manifested by them at school settings. More parents and guardians are becoming concern about their children's behavior as well as their relationships with others; knowing that these are essential components which will direct towards building healthy and also enjoyable relationships, or else, discontentment with oneself as well as other people may occur. Besides, further implications such as social dissatisfaction, lower self-esteem and depression can result and may become predictive of more problems like dropping out of school, poor mental health, juvenile delinquency and aggression among children (National Network for Child Care, 1996 ; Williams & Asher, 1993). According to Delveaux & Daniels (2000, p. 672), aggression, bullying and violence on school playgrounds have become one of the decisive issues for several researchers and educators. In fact, recent incidents of school shootings as well as assaults have already raised concerns regarding the nature and cause of the said aggressive acts. All the more, aggression is one indicator that is greatly researched as far as child adjustment is concerned. This paper highlights the prosocial and antisocial behaviors of children based on an investigation conducted to small group which is composed of young males and females. Pro-social and antisocial behaviors are indicators of aggression of children on school playgrounds. Also, to ascertain the difference that gender makes when it comes to playground behavior in children is the primary goal that is presented herein; while on the surface one may tend to believe that overall boys would be more aggressive than their female counterparts, one can never assume this rational. Delveaux and Daniels discovered: ''Some gender differences were discovered in the degree to which children endorsed various goals and strategies. In the present study, girls were more likely to endorse goals of equality and maintaining relationships with the focal peer, whereas boys reported greater desire for self-interest and revenge. In addition, girls gave higher ratings to prosocial strategies, and boys were more likely to endorse physically aggressive strategies.'' (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000, p. 672) Correspondingly, the idea is anchored to the social-ecological theory which further points out that, background characteristics of an individual somehow influence aggressive and violent behavior. Several, longitudinal studies have also demonstrated that, a person's stability is considerable in relation to the patterns of aggression beginning childhood to adulthood. Stability is likely a function of continuity when in comes to both the child's constitution and his or her environmental factors. Pepler, Craig & Roberts (1998) added that in general, physically aggressive children have been found to manifest informational processing biases, comparative to their non-aggressive peers, at a certain stage of their behavioral development. Note that to Aldgate, Jones, Rose, & Jeffery (2006, p. 201), there could be other aspects of the child's environment which also contribute to their aggressive and victimizing behaviors. As a matter of fact, the concept of healthy personality development is an important psychological aspect in controlling some functions of aggression and violence and on this regard self-concept and self-esteem go hand in hand in coping favorable social relationships. METHOD Direct observation of several area school playgrounds by the researcher was the primary method of data gathering for this study. As developed in the literature review it is apparent that the use of naturalistic observations is a key tool in studying children unaffected by authority figures dissuading them for their natural behaviors (Hersen & Ammerman, 2000). The target behaviors were noted in the survey tool; this narrowed and refined the focus of the behavior as well as set limits to the number of observed behaviors during a time period covered. Participants The subjects were the elementary school students whose ages ranged from approximately six to twelve years of age. Their behaviors were observed during the course of their free time (breaks) between each lesson. Participants were evenly distributed, i.e. equal boys and girls (50% boys and 50% girls) so that to prevent any distortion within the analysis of the data gathered and the results produced. Materials / Apparatus Within this study, independent variable was the area of the playground and the particular personalities of the children, which they brought to it. The environmental conditions were also considered as independent variables in the mix meaning whether or not students are being supervised or not by a teacher that has playground duty. Usually, when a supervisor is present during breaks at elementary school playgrounds, children adopt a more assertive or neutral behavior in order to avoid the consequences of a bad and aggressive action. Moreover, dependent variables were observed in the interactions of the different personalities within the school playground matrix. These interactions and the resultant independent variables were given a rating scale in the observational survey tool. This scale was used to create graphic representations of the behavior and a subsequent scale measure indicated the prevalence and differences between the two. Procedures The observer monitored five participants per school playground over ten-minute intervals each which constitutes the observation session, i.e. the total observation period per playground which are equal to fifty minutes. The observation occurred over a ten day period in which a total of fifty participants who took part. In order to minimize any individual bias or prejudice from preconceived beliefs regarding violent behavior and gender, the observer adopted a rotation of sites. In other words, the observer visited a different elementary school playground each day over a two-week period in total. Hence, ten elementary school playgrounds were included in the study. This is expected to assist in bringing the error rate into acceptable norms. All observations were recorded on individual questionnaires (see Appendix A), one for each student was used to evaluate different behaviors, both pro and anti-social. One chart was used for girls the other for boys. All observation data were placed in the SPSS electronic statistical computer program and a final blended analysis were produced and are presented below. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 1. Measures of Central Tendency on Children's Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors Components Total Prosocial Behavior Total Antisocial Behavior Total Activity Mean 12.22 19.76 31.98 Median 12 20 32 Mode 12a 20 37 Std. Deviation 3.88 4.95 7.88 a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown Table 1 shows the outcome of Mean, Median, Mode and the Standard Deviation derived from the scores taken from each sample of the study. Note that the data under Prosocial Behavior, the Mean, Median and Mode are closely the same (12-12.22). This simple means that, the responses of children are normally distributed (Wuensch , 2005). The mean or average is calculated by adding the corresponding scores or values, then, divided by the total number of values (GraphPad Software Inc., 2007). The mean data in the above table simply reveal that, more children tend to exhibit antisocial behavior or intense manifestations of antisocial behavior are being practiced by them when compared to prosocial behavior. As for the median, it is considered as the 50th percentile or half the values are lower than the median, and other half are higher. By contrast (Free Software Foundation, Inc., 1991). According to Wuensch, 2005, in asymmetrical distributions whereby the mean and median appear not the same, the distribution of scores or responses are said to be skewed (more than half of the observations or the cases are either below or above the mean). In this case, it is negatively skewed. The standard deviation on the other hand, represents the distribution of the specific responses around the mean (Syracuse University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2009); which indicates the degree of reliability or consistency among the given responses. This is important since the standard deviation, parallel with the mean, provides greater understanding of the data. In general, children's behavior somehow incurred a deviation of about 7.88 from the standard score in a normal curve. It was reiterated by Leff, Costigan, & Power (2004) that the school playground during the recess period can also be an opportune setting in which children's prosocial skills can be promoted. It is also during this time when social skills of these children. as well as their conflict management abilities can be reinforced, taught and/or monitored. Other than that, Eme & Kavanaugh (1995, p. 407) elaborated that, children who are persistently antisocial, typically suffer from deficiencies in neuropsychological functioning. Table 2. Statistical Table of of Children's Behavior When Group Based on Gender Indicators Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Total Prosocial Behavior male 25 11.8 3.49 0.7 female 25 12.64 4.27 0.85 Total Antisocial Behavior male 25 19.24 4.21 0.84 female 25 20.28 5.65 1.13 Total Activity male 25 31.04 7.12 1.42 female 25 32.92 8.64 1.72 The first column of the above table presents the indicators of the study; second column specifies the gender categories, which is followed by another column for N or the total class size for each group or category. Next is the corresponding mean or average for every indicator aligned on the third column; while standard deviation and standard error follows. Standard deviation is a gauge or measure which signifies the quantity of variability of the responses or scores found in each group. Obviously, female children are observed to have higher mean scores for both indicators (prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior) when compared to male children. Expectedly, the total results revealed that female children still incurred higher mean than that of the males. The results imply that although more female children exhibit prosocial behavior, that are also more of them who manifest antisocial behaviors. The outcome of the investigation is not surprising. In fact, it is somewhat congruent to the study conducted by Delveaux & Daniels, (2000, p. 672), where they discovered that girls were more likely to certify goals of equality as well as maintaining relationships with their focal peer. Boys are reported to have greater desire for self-interest and also for revenge. Furthermore, girls gave higher ratings to prosocial strategies; the boys were more likely to show physically aggressive strategies. Indeed, there are some gender differences by which children endorsed several goals and strategies. Also, Eme and Kavanaugh (1995) have discovered that between females and males, males have greater biological tendency as far as aggressive physical behavior is concerned. It would appear to be a forceful pronouncement, even though the explanations basically used to explain such aggression are frequent somewhat speculative. Table 3. T-test for Equality of Means between Samples Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Total Prosocial Behavior ,779 ,382 -,762 48 ,450 -,840 1,103 -,762 46,159 ,450 -,840 1,103 Total Antisocial Behavior ,866 ,357 -,739 48 ,464 -1,040 1,408 -,739 44,366 ,464 -1,040 1,408 Total Activity ,144 ,706 -,840 48 ,405 -1,880 2,238 -,840 46,305 ,405 -1,880 2,238 Table 3 is the table reflects the t-test results and analysis, indicating the non-significant of significant differences among the indicators or variables presented on the first column. Moreover, table 3 shows the t-test statistics together with Levene's test of homogeneity of variance. Also, the null hypothesis for the Levene test states that, the variances are homogeneous and for this specific set of data under the indicator of prosocial behavior; the Levene's test is not significant, F(1, 48) = .779, p = .38, indicating the the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, that is, the variances are homogeneous. The homogeneity assumption has been met. This is same with the antisocial behavior (indicator) F(2, 48) = .866, p = .35; however, in the totality it can be generalized that for the total activity (both prosocial and antisocial behaviors), F(3, 48) = .144, p = .706 indicates the Levene's test is significant and null hypothesis is rejected. Meaning, there is significant difference in the aggressive behaviors of children when analyzed according to gender. Figure 1. Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior of Male and Female Children Conclusions In the light of the aforementioned discussions, the following generalizations are drawn: 1. The prosocial behavior of children are normally distributed, while the antisocial behavior is negatively skewed. 2. Female children have higher prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior than male children. 3. In general, the Levene's test is significant and null hypothesis is rejected. There is significant difference in the aggressive behaviors of children when analyzed according to gender. REFERENCES Archer, J. (1999). Unexplored territory. Education Week. Vol. 19, No. 15.p 22-25. Audain, T. (1987). Home education: The third otion.The Canadian School Executive Ballmann, R. E., (1987). The How and Why of Home Schooling. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books. Benning, Victoria (1997). Home-Schooling's MassAppeal. The Washington Post (January 20). Bielick, S., K. Chandler, and S.P. Broughman (2001). Homeschooling in the United States: 1999 (NCES 2001-033). Brandly, Mark (1997). "Home Schooling Leaps Into the Spotlight." The Wall Street Journal (June 9).Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Influences on Human Development. Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press. Eller, C. L. and Storrs, CT. (1996) National network for child care. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System. Cook, Stephanie (1999). "Report Card on Home Schooling in US." The Christian Science Monitor (March 25). Delahooke, Mona (1986). Home educated children's social/ emotional adjustment and academic achievements: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: California School of Professional Psychology. Farrell, A. D., & Danish, S. J. (1993). Peer drug associations and emotional restraint: Causes or consequences of adolescents' drug use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 327-334. Farris, Michael P. (1997). In solid evidence to support homeSchooling. The Wall Street Journal, 5. GraphPad Software Inc., 2009 Interpreting results: Mean, geometric mean and median. Retrieved June 01, 2009 from http://www.graphpad.com/help/Prism5/prism5help.htmlwhich_normality_test_should_i_.htm Gooderham, Mary (1996). Web's a winner for home schoolers. The Globe and Mail Gordon, Edward E. and Elaine H. Gordon (1990). Centuries of tutoring: A history of alternative education in america and western europe. New York: University Press of America. Grover, S. V. & Edsley, R. C. (1988). Family environment and attitudes of homeschoolers and non-homeschoolers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 798. Grubb, D. (1998). Homeschooling: Who and why Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA (November 3-6). Gutterson, David (1993). Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense. New York: Harvest Books. Grusec, J.E. 1982. The socialization of altruism. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press. Grusec, J.E., Dix, T., & Mills, R. 1982. The effects of type severity, and victim of children's transgressions on maternal discipline. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 276-289. Hoffman, B. School Choice: A dilemma. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from http://www.edarticle.com/pdf/article-2723.pdf Lefton, L. A., (1994) Psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Medlin, R.G. (2000). Home schooling and the question of socialization. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 107-123. Moore, R., (1986). Research on sociability. The Parent Educator and Family Report, 4, 1. Moore, R. (1986). Research on sociability. The Parent Educator and Family Report. Vol. 4, no. 1. National Home Education Research Institute. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from http://homeschoolinformation.com/homeschooling/homeschool_statistics1.htm Nemer, K.M. (2002). Understudied education: Toward building a homeschooling research agenda. Occasional Paper No. 48. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Office of the Institutional Research and Assessment, Syracuse University. 2009. Analyzing and interpreting data. Retrieved June 01, 2009 from http://oira.syr.edu/oira/Assessment/AssessPP/Analyze.htm Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn J. (1991) Do parent-child relationships change during puberty Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47- 66. PTA National Office of Programs and Public Policy National PTA Public Policy Program 2007-2009 p. 1-8. Ray, B. (2003). Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling: Facts and Stats on the Benefits of HomeSchool. Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers.National Center for Ray, B.D. (2003). Home educated and now adults: Their community and civic involvement, views about homeschooling, and other traits. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Richman, Howard B., William Girten, and Jay Snyder (1992). Math: What works well at home. Home School Researcher. Vol. 8, no. 2. Richman, Sheldon (1994). Separating state and school. Fairfax, VA.: Future of Freedom Foundation. Rudner, Lawrence M. (1999). Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 7, no. 8 (March 23). Smedley, Thomas C. (1992). Socialization of home schooled children: A communication approach. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Radford, VA: Radford University. The National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98030/3.asp UNICEF (2008) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 8, 2009 from http://www.unicef.org/crc/ Welner, K.M. and K.G. Welner (1999) Contexualizing homeschooling data: A response to rudner. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 7, no. 13 (April 11). Williams, G. A. & Asher, S. R. (1993). Children without friends, learning about a child's strengths and weaknesses. In Todd, C.M. (Ed.), Day care center connections, 3(2), pp. 3-4. Wuensch, K. L. 2005. Skewness and the relative position of mean, median and mode. Retrieved June 01, 2009 from http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Skew.htm Yarrow, M.R., Scott, P.M., & Waxler, C.Z., 1973. Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240-260. Read More