THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO STUDY AGGRESSION IN GRADE R

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO STUDY AGGRESSION IN GRADE R

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the theoretical framework to study aggression in Grade R. This phenomenon of interest was considered critical to the study on aggressive behaviour of Grade R learners. I present a justification for my choice of theories which moves away from the nature to the nurture perspective. A dominant force in explaining the trajectory of aggression and aggressive behaviour can be explained by the age-old psychology debate of nature versus nurture. The question posed is as follows: Is genetic or the environmental factors of greater magnitude? Evidence shows that by ‘nature’ we mean inborn biological givens – the hereditary information we acquire from our parents at the moment of conception. By ‘nurture’, it is explained as the intricate forces of the physical and social world that influence our biological makeup and psychological experiences before and after birth (Berk, 2007:7).
This is not to discount the importance of the nature perspective but merely to ground the study in the social realm of experience and relationships. This type of knowledge is urgently needed in Grade R which should focus on children’s social and emotional development in the formative years. The latter is being side-lined in favour of cognitive development through a heavy focus on mathematics and language development in the South African context. This is concerning especially since Grade R is the entry point to basic schooling. I chose to use Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (SLT) and Social Cognitive Learning Theory (SCLT) as theoretical lenses to make sense of aggression and aggressive behaviour that emanates from it. These lenses together with the Bio-ecological Model, as proposed by Bronfenbrenner, assisted in providing insights to build a model for guidance and support,

Opening remarks

According to Bushman (2016:2), aggression is undeniably the gloomy face of human nature. Although aggression may have been adaptive in our primeval history, it barely seems adaptive in the present day. Aggression is deliberate rather than unintentional and the victim wants to steer clear of the harm (Bushman, 2016:2). The subsequent statement by Deckman, Pond and DeWall (2015:1), is relative to the study in the field of the research as violence and aggression are ubiquitous across human cultures and daily existence. Turning back the clock, it can be said that, for our early human ancestors, aggressive behaviour had significant adaptive value. In particular, aggression was useful for securing access to valuable resources, including food and shelter and then defending those resources once they were acquired. What’s more is that aggression is also effective in acquiring access to mates and protecting offspring. For this reason, aggression proved to be a worthy behavioural strategy for passing on one’s genes to successive generations. Humans depend on social groups for survival; therefore people must navigate between antisocial and pro-social impulses (Deckman et al. 2015:1).
According to Britt, Janus and McIntyre (2013:2), frustration is described as the interface between a physical, social, personal or environmental stimulus that involves inhibition of an organism’s activity and an organism’s emotional or primal response to that stimulus, which is typified by a “change in tension, disturbance of homeostasis and maladaptation,” and frequently expressed into anger, withdrawal, or aggression. Bushman (2016:3), states that aggression is not an internal response, such as having enraged feelings or belligerent thoughts (although such internal responses can raise the likelihood of actual aggression). Furthermore, Bushman (2016:3) asserts that “it is a behaviour that you can see.” With this being said, Bandura’s experiment laid ground to purposefully frustrating the children in the experiment in order to observe a reaction. This brought into question the ethical treatment of research participants and the participants being children. According to Lansford (2012:183), some critiques have questioned whether Bandura’s study would have been endorsed by a 21st century Institutional Review Boards (IRB) given the perspicuous modelling of aggression to which the children were exposed to as well as the goading in denying them access to the appealing toys that was meant to provoke the children’s own aggressive responses.
The following have been probed by scholars: the generalisability of the findings given that the child participants were all enlisted from the Stanford University preschool, and, thereby, more socioeconomically privileged than the broad population; the original study does not provide information about the children’s race, ethnicity, parents’ education, or other sociodemographic variables that are characteristically reported in the literature today. Ensuing research has documented sociodemographic differences in children’s mean levels of aggression. Furthermore Lansford (2012:183) stated that children with more educated parents (Nagin & Tremblay, 2001), from families with fewer stressors (Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991), and from two-parent households (Vaden-Kiernan, Ialongno, Pearson, & Kellam, 1995), on average, demonstrate lower levels of aggression than do children with less educated parents, from families with more stressors, and from single-parent households, respectively. Third, some researchers have questioned the ecological validity of the findings given that the aggression took place in a laboratory setting, which may not have shared certain key features with real-life settings, and that children’s aggression was coded in close temporal proximity to when they witnessed the adult model’s aggression. Given these limitations, it was not clear from the original study whether children would imitate aggression in real-life settings or would imitate aggression following a delay or over long periods of time. More recent studies have established that children do imitate aggression in a variety of contexts and even following lengthy delays between exposure to violence and behaving aggressively (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010; Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003; Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Anderson, 2003).
Devshi (2014:8) concurs with the authors above by stating that the fact that the learners were frustrated broached ethical concerns as they are intentionally subjected to behaviour that inflicted distress and could psychologically harm them (Devshi, 2014:8). There are also ethical concerns around psychological well-being as encouraging aggression could be contended to be ethically wrong as they may recreate this aggression in other forms or see this as a viable way to deal with problems in the future (Devshi, 2014:8). The study and social learning explanation could be argued to be short of internal validity as measuring how a child behaves towards a Bobo Doll (Devshi, 2014:7). This is nothing like a real person and may not be a justifiable measure of aggression. Some learners were overheard saying, “That’s the doll we have to hit” suggesting researcher bias may have inclined the learners to behave aggressively, also further undermining the study (Devshi, 2014:7).
According to Altin, Jablonski, Lyke and Spinella (2011:5), children were directed into a room where, there were many toys and the children immediately started playing with the toys. However, in order to frustrate the children, they were told that these toys were for other children and that they could not play with them. The children were then led into a third room. In this room there was an assortment of both non-aggressive and aggressive toys. The child was held in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by experimenters through a one-way mirror. The observers evaluated the subject based on numerous measures of aggressive behaviour including: the exact type of behaviour, the regularity of aggression, and who or what the aggression was aimed towards. Thus, it is possible that the children may not have acted aggressively if they had not been frustrated.
Knowing the concept of aggression helps to recognise the type of aggression that comes to the fore and probable ways of dealing with this. Aggression is further characterised as damaging, deleterious, antagonistic and often caused by frustration (Azimi, Vaziri & Kashani 2012:1280). Aggression can exhibit in several different forms. It can be physical, verbal or passive. Physical aggression is discernible by impudent hostility towards authority, being pugnacious, abusing others and destroying property. Verbal aggression and passive aggression are recognised as communication designed to cause pain to another person. It may be name calling and nasty remarks, slamming a door or silence and sulking (Azimi et al. 2012:1280). Brain (1986:12-14; Gasa, 2005:14) explicate aggression from a Freudian view which states that it stemmed from an innate, self-directed death wish that could be alleviated by redirecting it towards others. Aggression is an instinctive drive. In this case, aggression is derived from an innate fighting instinct, which is universal to all humans. Brain (1986:12-14; Gasa 2005:15), state that the frustration aggression hypothesis stems primarily from an outwardly elicited ‘drive’ to wound others; frustration brings forth a relentless ‘drive’ toward aggression. As noted, this study gives preference to the SLT and SCLT as an interpretation of aggression as theorised by Bandura (see a full discussion in the literature review of Chapter 2). Aggression from this viewpoint is a learned social response. (Brain, 1986:12-14; Gasa, 2005:15), states that Bandura (1973) argues that instrumental conditioning and social modelling are strongly involved in the acquirement of responses of aggression (Brain, 1986:12-14; Gasa, 2005:15).
Aggression is particularly detrimental in contemporary times, particularly since it seems to be so omnipresent in our daily interactions. As a result, it remains a considerable area of study within the social sciences, chiefly amongst social psychologists. Arguably, deliberations around the nature versus nurture controversy have continued for years. What will influence one’s position in this regard will depend on one’s perception of the perspective and one’s experiences of it. As a result the debate focuses on the comparative influence of genetic inheritance and environmental contributions to human development (Deckman et al. 2015:1).
In this chapter, each perspective will be elaborated on and, after evaluating each theory. It will be evident that the theoretical perspective in which aggression and aggressive behaviour are best understood is underpinned by the nurture perspective. The theoretical focus was re-examined by drawing from it the relevant theory. Hence, it provided more depth as to why the concept of aggression or aggressive behaviour is studied from this theoretical angle.
Marais and Meier’s (2010:1) research project, on “Disruptive behaviour in the Foundation Phase of schooling”, holds weight as it leans towards my study of aggression and the importance of why parents and learners require guidance and support with aggressive behaviour. Learners in this phase are in a developmental stage where they need to become skilled with the laws of society and learn to abide by sets of rules and conduct themselves using appropriate behaviour. This developmental stage overlaps with the beginning of formal schooling when the learning environment is controlled according to the rules pertinent to formal schooling. Lastly, this stage is also the fitting time to focus on managing disruptive behaviour as a means of assisting learners to nurture a self-disciplined lifestyle. Grade R is the first year in the Foundation Phase and this is the time to address problematic behaviour and provide guidance.
Taking the above paragraph into consideration, it is important to position parents as primary socialisation agents before a learner enters the learning environment. Thus, learners are at the start of their academic journey where they exhibit behavioural patterns that are built on their observations and modelling from their role models, i.e. their role models are their parents, caregivers, siblings and media icons. I used Albert Bandura’s SLT as it clarified aggressive behaviour from the nurture perspective.

BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC THEORIES

According to Imtiaz, Yasin and Yaseen (2010:99), it is alleged that aggression is due to both genetic (biological) factors and social (learned) factors. Biological factors alone do not influence the development of aggression. The social environment of the individual is a potent regulator of neurobiological processes and behaviour. In other words, aggressive behaviour is the product of the regulation of external and internal stimuli by living beings.
Kessenich and Morrison (2016:2), state that a primary point to consider is that the seventeenth century English philosopher John Locke depicted a young child’s mind as a tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which the child’s experiences are written. Kessenich and Morrison (2016:2), furthermore mention that Jean Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century French philosopher, also contended that human development was mainly a function of experience. Kessenich and Morrison (2016:2), also suggest another position to view this from is that of the nineteenth century scholars such as Gregor Mendel, Charles Darwin and Sir Francis Galton who drew attention to the importance of heredity in shaping development. While all these scientists afforded meaningful insights into the role of heredity and the environment, modern researchers have sought to additionally explore the dynamic interactions between nature and nurture that shape human development. The twentieth century saw the evolution of a range of theories of development that differentially called attention to the role of biological versus environmental factors. One key educational issue associated with this topic is the question of whether a learner’s entrance age, or maturational level, is crucial for school success. For this and other important educational questions, nature and nurture intermingle in complex ways to shape a learner’s academic growth (Kessenich & Morrison, 2016:2).

Nature perspective

In this segment my discussion is premised on the genetic inheritance and biological approach. Biological maturationist theories embody the contrasting swing of the theoretical pendulum. This framework posits that biologically and genetically predetermined patterns of change have a greater impression on development than environmental influences (Kessenich & Morrison 2016:2). Kessenich and Morrison (2016:2), state that the proponents of this approach became audible during the early twentieth century.
Kessenich and Morrison (2016:2), mention that there were theorists such as Freud and Arnold Gessell who propositioned that experiential influences were secondary to instinctive maturational mechanisms. This perspective regained popularity in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries as a result of major advances in genetic research, as well as the establishment of twin studies and behavioural genetics (Kessenich & Morrison, 2016:4). Thus, the major advances are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
Human aggression/impulsivity-related traits have a complex backdrop that is greatly influenced by genetic and non-genetic factors. Highly conserved brain regions, including the amygdala, which controls neural circuits and activates defensive, aggressive, or avoidant behavioural models, regulate the relationship between aggression and anxiety (Pavlov, Chistiakov & Chekhonin, 2011:1). The dysfunction of neural circuits accountable for emotional control was shown to represent an etiological factor of violent behaviour (Pavlov, Chistiakov & Chekhonin, 2011:1). In addition to the amygdala, these circuits also involve the anterior cingulated cortex and regions of the prefrontal cortex. Excessive reactivity in the amygdala coupled with inadequate prefrontal regulation serve to augment the likelihood of aggressive behaviour (Pavlov, Chistiakov & Chekhonin, 2011:1). Developmental alterations in prefrontal-subcortical circuitry as well as neuromodulatory and hormonal abnormality appear to play a role. Imbalance in testosterone/serotonin and testosterone/cortisol ratios (e.g., increased testosterone levels and reduced cortisol levels) enhances the proclivity toward aggression because of condensed activation of the neural circuitry of impulse control and self-regulation. Serotonin facilitates prefrontal inhibition and thus deficient serotonergic activity can increase aggression (Pavlov, Chistiakov & Chekhonin, 2011:1). Given these factors, according to Jalain (2014:11), researchers began to realise that serotonin played a key role in regulating aggressive behaviours in the mid-1970s. Hence, it is evident that the latter is directly related to the nature perspective as it relates to the biological approach. As my study focused on the nurture perspective, it is this perspective that will be implicit in the effects it has on Grade R learners’ aggressive behaviour.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 A commentary on the three scenarios
1.2 RATIONALE AND MOTIVATION
1.3 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.5 AIM OF THIS STUDY
1.5.1 Research questions
1.5.2 Objectives of this study
1.6 THE RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
1.7 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
CHAPTER TWO THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO STUDY AGGRESSION IN GRADE R
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Opening remarks
2.2 BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC THEORIES
2.3 BEHAVIOURISM
2.4 COGNITIVE THEORIES
2.5 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
2.5.1 Social Cognitive Learning Theory
2.6 BIO-ECOLOGICAL MODEL
2.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM
3.2.1 Background to the theory
3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH
3.4 A CASE STUDY APPROACH
3.5 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
3.6 SAMPLING
3.7 DATA COLLECTION
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS
3.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.9.1 Definition of ethics
3.10 TRUSTWORTHINESS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
3.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY
3.12 CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED IN THE FIELD
3.13 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR THE CONCEPTS OF AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR AND THE TYPES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 CONCEPTS OF AGGRESSION
4.3 CONCEPT OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
4.4 TYPES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE FACTORS LEADING TO AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 FACTORS LEADING TO AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
5.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SIX LINES OF INTERVENTION FOR DEALING WITH AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PARENTS’ NEEDS AND VULNERABILITIES
6.3 TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
6.4 TECHNIQUES AND BEHAVIOURS FOR DEALING WITH AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
6.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SEVEN A SCHOOL-BASED GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT MODEL TO ASSIST PARENTS AND LEARNERS WITH AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 THE CONCEPTS OF AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR
7.3 THE TREE OF NURTURANCE MODEL
7.4 SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL
7.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS 1, 2 AND 3
8.3 FINDINGS OF CHAPTERS 4, 5 AND 6
8.4 THE TREE OF NURTURANCE
8.5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
8.6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT