Defining the Types of Factors in Educational Peaceful-coexistence.

Author(s):

Salvador Peiró-i-Gregòri(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 02 A, Effectiveness of Promoting Non-Academic Contents in Educational Institutions

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

15:15-16:45

Room:

B231 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Jana Poláchová Vaštatková

Contribution

The coexistence in peace is a regulator of the good march of the social interaction. Corollarily, the educational institution should take care of the factors to vitalize this by that value. In this sense, the cognitive contents, the affective aspects and the expressive of the educational center must charge sense through an educational ethos. School violence and educational peaceful coexistence are valued in opposition. In general, an indicator that the coexistence at school is not right occurs when there are assaults, indiscipline, etc. The first researches on this subject consisted on bullying (Olweus, 1978), in France that was called “school violence”.

In this context the school discipline is a mode of life in accordance with laid down rules of the society to which all members must conform, and the violation of which are questionable and also disciplined. It is seen as a process of training and learning that fosters growth and development (Imaguezor, 1997). The aim of discipline is therefore, to help the individual to be well adjusted, happy and useful to his society (Nakpodia, 2010,145).

The school’s discipline (Gento, 2003) is related with the fulfillment of the norms (Rigby, 1996), for to help the individual to be well adjusted, happy and useful to his society (Nakpodia, 2010, 145). But interpersonal relationships are disturbed for insults, emotivism what impedes the dialogue (Alanen, 2003).

Reports point out the importance of the family, mainly when there is absence of maternal affectivity (US, 1990), or presenting poverty in stimuli to alphabetize, selfcontrol, etc. (Peiró, 1997). In this sense, the disorganized home could promote negative feelings that are taken to the schools (Rigby & Slee, 1991).

Also, teachers are moved by a structuralism that could be focused only implementing an authoritarian model or doing nothing; already, to going on a routine, or teaching by unethical over-specialization; all of those are causing little sensitivity to the relational and emotional aspects of the pupils, or going on communication with difficulties (Palomero & Fernández, 2001). A research (OAVE, 2009) mentions structuralism and rigidity is related as causing the dissolution of the teacher’s authority, or teachers are perceived as a knowledge transmitter, possessor of knowledge… Likewise, the way on implementing norms, or that may not apply frequently, or at other times are a kind of penal codes (Cerrón, 2000, 15). Those already may make difficult

Since there are factors (Blaya, 2005; Peiró, ECER 2007), for improve schools is necessary to systematize the researches did on them. On this way, Marais & Meier (2010: 45-48) distinguished two groups: I) Internal systems’ factors: developmental stage of the learner, inexperience or ignorance, curiosity, need for belonging… II) Concerning to external:
related the family, friends, and emanating from society. There have located similar found (Peiró, 2001; CDC, 2011), but as distinct as compared to prevention of risk (Debarbieux, 2012). The influence of factors has been pondered (Tillmann, 2005, 97). Before explanations accounted that teachers are increasingly isolated (ANPE, 2011). Therefore, the causal explanation is necessary to train future teachers.

For a pedagogic view, there is a multifaceted causation, there are not lineal neither rigid outlines, nor dual causality. The analysis found the 35 variables. This research pretend to confirm the seven clusters, and their reclassification from formal and informal education. Consequently: some questions may be formulated. One: if the educational reality could provide results that the theoretical framework of the research has adduced. Also, it could be possible to classify the induced information insets, according with the opinion of stakeholders? Also, we wonder if there are similarities or dissimilarities in different years and school strata.

Method

It consist: a) To is use the language’s analysis to study and documentation with the purpose of making analysis of articles, etc. To classify variables as sets of issues, in order to have a consistent set of questions, thus facilitating the interpretation of the data. b) The empirical for a descriptive-explanatory, surveying through specific questionnaires, applying the EXCEL, calculating averages and “t” of Student. c) The use of reasoning with phenomenology as part of the whole work, could be specifically used here with synthetic focus. To compose and design the questionnaire was followed an analytic-synthetic reflection. Also, we will make the discussion and elaboration of conclusions and proposals. Students, teachers and parents wear the population implied. It is impossible to make studies totally designed according to the procedure of representative sampling. There is because the people have lack of enthusiasm in answering to questionnaires that demand certain grade of attention and complexity. Neither, staff communly is excited to reflect relative problematic situations to their teaching, mainly when they concern to features that touch with problems of psychic health. For enough educational, to apply time to answer to these reagents means to subtract him for other professional tasks, valuing that it is little what receive for this effort (Castanedo, 1993). Consequently, we have not opted for samplings for quota or intentionally foreseen. I invited to participate at random, according to "available fellows to collaborate" for convenience or chance. We know that this procedure is not compactly perfect, but it is the one that more usually are used (Polit & Humgler, 1997, 238-239). The total was 792 persons during 10 years. The quantitative limits is knew calculating the “p” on “t” of Student. The different users have participated on-line questionnaires using the webpage: http://www.violencia.dste.ua.es/. You should consult the questionaire in the file “VIOLENCIA ESCOLAR”, the questionnaire nº 3.inter using this special password: p_estudio. An independent webmaster, from a private company, acts as a statistician and computer specialist, providing charts and graphs to make the final report (& the presentation).

Expected Outcomes

Regarding previous researches, findings reaffirm before results, but with. Cluster: I) Scores (average 2,45) display there is no clear and severe contradiction between social demands and school practices. II) Scores (1,92) explane that there are family influence on the climate into schools, but that's clearly not decisive. III) scores (2,26) show some defective informal education. IV) Escores (2,11) summarize the involvement of teachers in the socialization and morals processes of students, but with some lacks. V) Scores (3,45) manifest the bureaucratization of school activity is clearly observable. VI) The structuralism (average scores 2,31) usually happens in all years except in 2008. VII) The average of scores (2,36) shows there are problems concerning learning aims. Those shall be grouped: A) First three clusters show the influence of the informal education, being the family the principal responsible. B) Other four latest derivate of focuses professionals, each one denote a kind of reductionism of the educational process. Whereas the population, the global averages of the clusters are given in the formal and informal education, those almost give us an overlap. The more incisor group of issues is excessive bureaucratic. As the bureaucracy does not consider the primacy of person, relationships, affective, values, etc., it involves more organizational rigidity of schools. This means anonymity, leading disavowal and the subsequent rebellion of the students, which begin disrupting and continue with indiscipline. So, if the educational system expels the human values, this can cause multiple confrontations, and they could move to worse, although they are promoted in general from the socio-cultural context of where they are native the scholars. Taking partial results of research reported in other publications (Peiró, 2005), there are systematize some trends in conjunction with the predominant factors (I, II, III...).

References

Alanen, J. & Storey, A. (2003). Sneaking up on Immigration Swindlers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 18. ANPE (2011). Informe 2010-2011 del Defensor del Profesor. http://www.anpe.es/sin-categoria/2011/12/anpe-presenta-el-informe-2010-2011-del-defensor-del-profesor/ Blaya, C. (2005) Factores de riesgo escolares. Valencia, Centro Reina Sofía para el Estudio de la Violencia. CDC (2011). School Violence: Risk and Protective Factors. Cerrón, L. A. (2000). La conflictividad escolar como reflejo social: tomando una perspectiva global del problema. Tarbiya, 25. Debarbieux, E. (2012). La violence à l’école. In Cusson, M. (ed.). Traité des Violences Criminelles. Montréal: Hurtubise. Gento, S. (2003). Problemas de disciplina y aprendizaje en el sistema educativo. Madrid, Sanz y Torres. Hyndman, M., and Thorsborne, M. (1994). Taking Action on Bullying. Proceedings of First International Conference on Peer relations. Adelaide, Institute ofSocial Research. Marais, P. & Meier, C. (2010). Disruptive behaviour in the Foundation Phase of schooling. South African Journal of Education, Vol.30:41-57. Nakpodia, E.D. (2010). Teachers’ disciplinary approaches to students’ discipline problems in Nigerian secondary schools. International NGO Journal, Vol. 5(6), pp. 144-151, July. OAVE (2009). El modelo pedagógico es la causa de la violencia escolar. Obervatorio Argentino de Violencia en las Escuelas. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Palomero, J. E. y Fernández, M. R. (2001). La violencia escolar: Un punto de vista global. REIFOP, 41, 19-38 Peiró, S. (1997). La escuela ante los abusos y malos tratos. Granada. Grupo Editorial Universitario Peiró, S. (2001). Factores de violencia y calidad de la educación. In Núñez, L.; Romero, C. Evaluación de políticas educativas. Universidad de Huelva (Spain). Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools. And what to do about it. London: Jessica Kingsley. Rigby, K. & Slee, P.T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615-627. Tillmann, K. J. (2005). Factores de riesgo de la violencia escolar. Valencia, Centro Reina Sofía para el Estudio de la Violencia. US (2000, 2001, etc.). Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, Departments of Education and Justice.

Author Information

Salvador Peiró-i-Gregòri (presenting / submitting)

University of Alicante

Didáctica General y Didácticas Específicas.

Alicante

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.