Chapter 1
ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY
- INTRODUCTION
This study aimed to explore the incidence of aggression in children in the Foundation Phase of the primary school, as well as the strategies used by teachers in dealing with the phenomenon.
The study sought to find answers to the question, namely, what are the causes of aggressive behaviour amongst children? The target group in this study was a group of children of five and six years old. The study was conducted at three schools in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. A qualitative approach was used. Qualitative research has actual settings as the direct source of data, and the researcher is the key instrument. Qualitative researchers go to the particular setting under study because the focus of the study is the specific context. Actions can best be understood when they are observed in the setting in which they occur, together with the data that are collected by people engaging in natural behaviour (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007:3-4). Interviews were conducted with principals, teachers and parents, and the children were observed in the classrooms and on the playground.
This study consequently also explored the role of the teacher in inhibiting and/or preventing children’s aggressive behaviour in the primary schools.
BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
As indicated above, this study explored the incidence of aggression in children, as well as the corrective measures put into place by teachers to assist the children to deal with aggression.
The study aimed to identify the occurrence of acts of aggression and to provide reasons for it, and what corrective measures could be put into place to assist the children to deal
with their aggression. The following question was also attended to, namely, is it possible that a child’s self-image may contribute to his/her aggressive behaviour?
Sociologist, Charles Horton Cooley believed that we shape our self-images by means of our interaction with various people. His theory engages the notion of the looking glass, which refers to a self-image that is based on how others perceive us. He suggests that (1902:179-184), as we see our faces, figures and dresses in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and as we are pleased or not with them as they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be, so in imagination we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are affected by it. A self-idea of this kind seems to have three principal elements: the imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagination of his judgement of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification. The comparison with a looking glass hardly suggests the second element, the imagined judgment, which is quite essential. What moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another’s mind (1902:179-184).
Hence, if we use Cooley’s theory to determine a child’s self-image, then it is understood that he or she would base his/her self-image on how their peers felt about them. If their peers, teachers, or family members have a negative perception of them, their self-image will be low. On the other hand, if their peers, teachers or family members have a positive perception of them, their self-image will be high.
Positive self-identity includes a sense of competence, of personal power, of self-worth and of purpose. Children who feel good about themselves are more likely to have positive interpersonal relationships and anticipate success in their encounters with other people (Han & Kemple 2006:242). The child with a low self-esteem can become trapped in a cycle of feelings of failure and rejection. Teachers, especially, play an important role in facilitating the growth of a child’s positive self-identity (Han & Kemple, 2006:242).
Children form their own groups on the playground. These networks are based on social attraction and a common interest, beginning in early childhood. Social networks vary with the child’s sex, age and social reputation. Girls’ networks are both smaller and more exclusive than boys’ (Hartup, 1992:260).
