University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Influences on the Use of Restorative Practices in a United Kingdom Junior School:
An Evaluation Study
by
Joshua Wayne Branthoover

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Joshua Wayne Branthoover 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Joshua Wayne Branthoover certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Wayne Combs
Helena Seli
Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Children’s behavior in school is influenced by many factors including peer affiliation, family
environment, and exposure to adverse experiences. When faced with student behavior issues in
school, school staff commonly choose to use exclusionary discipline practices that have been
shown to have relationships with short and long-term negative outcomes. The use of restorative
practices is one potential method to address behavior in schools and reduce the unintended harm
experienced from exclusionary discipline practices. The purpose of this study was to explore
teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in their daily work. The knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to this capacity were investigated at a
single junior school in the United Kingdom. The stakeholder group for this qualitative study was
teaching staff, comprised of teachers and teaching assistants, that had previously been provided
introductory training in restorative practices. The methodology used for this study was
qualitative interviews and document analysis. The recommendations provided include a
comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan based on the findings presented in the study.
These recommendations may assist the study site, and organizations in similar positions, to
understand steps needed to improve the implementation of restorative practices interventions.

v
Dedication
To my loving wife, Cassandra, all that I achieve is through your love and support. This process
has been one of many, though quite possibly the most challenging, milestones that would not be
possible without your commitment to our family and your willingness to take on burdens to
ensure our success. I am forever grateful.

To my sons, Soren and Koen, I appreciate your patience and understanding for any amount of
time that this endeavor took from my time with you. I hope my dedication to this pursuit serves
as a positive influence for you both to explore your passions and to aim for your highest goals.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my absolute appreciation to my dissertation committee chair, Dr.
Jennifer L. Phillips, for your contributions to my success. Your guidance and support were
always timely and on target for just what I needed to overcome each challenge I encountered. To
my committee members, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Wayne Combs, thank you for the time,
experience, and insight you provided in the dissertation process. Finally, I would be remiss
without acknowledging the support of other students within my cohort through this process.
Your participation in this journey along with me motivated me to fight on through all challenges.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 6
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 8
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 9
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Group and Stakeholder Performance Goal ................................................... 10
Purpose of the Study and Questions ................................................................................. 12
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 12
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 18
The Nature of Behavior in Schools ................................................................................... 19
Harmful Impacts of Traditional Retributive Discipline Models in School ....................... 22
Influence of Environment on Behavior Development and Exhibition ............................. 24
The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Influences on Prosocial Behavior Development ....... 26
Restorative Practices to Positively Influence School Environment and Student
Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 30
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework .......................................................... 36

viii
Teaching Staff’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ....................... 37
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 48
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 52
Study Questions ................................................................................................................ 52
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 52
Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan ........................................................ 54
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 59
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 61
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 61
What Are Teaching Staff’s Knowledge and Motivation for Using Restorative
Practices in Their Daily Work? ......................................................................................... 62
In What Ways Do Organizational Influences Impact the Teaching Staff’s
Capacity to Use Restorative Practices in Their Daily Work? ........................................... 77
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 89
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 92
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 92
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 96
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 109
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 110
Connection to the Rossier Mission ................................................................................. 111
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 111
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 142
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 145
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 146

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Group’s
Performance Goal
11
Table 2: Eleven Essential Restorative Practices 33
Table 3: Knowledge Influences 41
Table 4: Motivation Influences 44
Table 5: Organizational Influences 47
Table 6: Data Sources 53
Table 7: Findings and Evidence for Participants’ Conceptual Restorative
Practices Knowledge
66
Table 8: Participants’ Responses on Self-Efficacy for Using Restorative Practices 75
Table 9: Participants’ Responses on Organization-Provided Follow-On Training 85
Table 10: Comparison of Restorative Practices in Use on Training Aid Compared
to Displayed
87
Table 11: Summary of Findings 90
Table 12: Level 4: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods 102
Table 13: Level 3: Teaching Staff Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and
Timing
103
Table 14: Level 3: Required Drivers for Teaching Staff Critical Behaviors 104
Table 15: Level 2: Assessing Learning Program 107
Table 16: Level 1: Methods and Timing 108

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Social Discipline Window 31
Figure 2: The Restorative Practices Continuum 32
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 49

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Children’s social-emotional skills at school entry were found to have statistically
significant associations with successful outcomes at young adulthood in multiple areas, including
employment, education, criminal activity, mental health, and substance use, when evaluated 13
to 19 years later (Jones et al., 2015). Unfortunately, many children enter school not socially and
behaviorally prepared and experience challenges that negatively influence their academic success
(Bettencourt et al., 2018). During the 2018 and 2019 school year in the United Kingdom, almost
one third of students were deemed to be not school ready either cognitively, socially, or
emotionally (Public Health England, 2020a); there are clear disparities between the affluent and
those in need (Public Health England, 2020b). The methods schools use to address behavior may
have unintended consequences. The widely used approach to addressing school behavior issues
of excluding children from school, which is commonly referred to as suspension in the United
States, has lasting influences on students’ future success and has been shown to increase
likelihood of exclusions in the future (Cameron & Sheppard, 2006; Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen,
2013). School exclusions do not solve the underlying issues driving behavior (Standing et al.,
2012); on the contrary, they exacerbate the problem (Hemez et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2011) for
children that are the most vulnerable and in need (Cholewa et al., 2018; Timpson, 2019).
The use of restorative practices is one path to establishing a culture focused on equipping
students to handle behavior productively themselves as well as increase collaboration between
staff members (Mirsky, 2007). Jennings and Greenberg (2009) assert that socially and
emotionally competent teachers develop supportive relationships with students, encourage
student peer cooperation, assist students through conflict episodes, and serve as a role model for
proper communication and prosocial behavior exhibition. “Restorative processes offer people
2

proactive opportunities to understand one another and build relationships, to collaborate in
decisions, to prevent conflicts or, when conflicts do occur, to provide safe settings for their
resolution” (Wachtel, 2015, p. 16). This study seeks to understand the capacity of teachers in one
junior school in the United Kingdom to use restorative practices in their daily work.
Background of the Problem
Children bring vulnerabilities, experiences, and challenges from outside the school
environment that influence their behavior in school and academic success (Bettencourt et al.,
2018; Chapple & Vaske, 2010; Kosse et al., 2020). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are
associated with poor educational outcomes (Chapple & Vaske, 2010), bullying (Connell et al.,
2016), and violent behavior later in life (Brumley et al., 2017). Kosse et al. (2020) conducted a
multi-part study claiming causal evidence of the role of the social environment, including
socioeconomic status (SES), on prosocial behavior formation in school-aged children. SES was
found to be positively correlated with children’s preparedness to enter and succeed in the school
environment (Kosse et al., 2020; Public Health England, 2020b) and children that enter school
unprepared were more likely to suffer school achievement challenges (Bettencourt et al., 2018).
Research has shown the role of family in building communication and emotional skills as
well as the impact on prosocial behavior exhibition (Crane et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020).
Prosocial behavior development has been tied to parental interaction and the quality of the
parent-child relationship (Carlo et al., 2011; Crocetti et al., 2016; Mesurado & Richaud, 2017;
Van Ryzin et al., 2012; Véronneau & Dishion, 2010; Yoo et al., 2013). The many other
environmental exposures that children encounter, specifically various forms of media, have been
shown to influence empathy and prosocial behavior incident (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010; de
Leeuw et al., 2015; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015; Saldamarco & Pettijohn, 2019). The home and
3

family environment may have lasting impact on children and they also learn behavior from peers
in the classroom.
Adolescent prosocial behavior development and overall classroom behavior has been
strongly linked to peer norms (Hye-Young & Graham, 2018; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2018,
Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2020a; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2020b; Véronneau & Dishion, 2010).
Additionally, the impact of prosocial peer affiliation is so dominant that it has been found to
suppress genetic influences on non-aggressive antisocial behavior (Burt & Klump, 2014). In
addition to peers, teachers are presented with an opportunity to address behaviors and positively
influence children in their classroom.
School staff face challenges with behavior that needs to be addressed for the safety and
wellness of both students and staff. The trends of fixed-period exclusions since the 2013/2014
school year indicate that antisocial behavior in schools is a serious issue with persistent
disruptive behavior, physical assault against another pupil, and verbal abuse or threatening
behavior against an adult being among the most often cited issues (United Kingdom
Government, 2020). Further, nearly 20% of English children report experiencing bullying
(Department for Education, 2018). According to the Teacher Support Network, 70% of teachers
have considered leaving the profession due to behavior they encounter among their students
(United Kingdom Parliament, 2010). It is imperative that behavior is addressed but the common
method for addressing behavior by excluding children from school only treats the immediately
presented symptom. Providing a structured and supportive school environment (Heilbrun et al.,
2018), along with teaching staff equipped to build positive teacher-student relationships with a
diverse student population, is an alternative method to overcome the challenges of behavior and
achieve equity in school discipline (Gregory et al., 2016). Prilleltensky (2010) found that a major
4

factor for child wellness is partnership with children, “powerless children and youth cannot
effect the changes required in social institutions on their own; they need partners and advocates”
(p. 247).
Socially and emotionally competent teachers can serve as role models and help students
develop prosocial behaviors (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Teachers that deliberately encourage
and model prosocial behaviors motivate their students to develop and use the same (Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019; Spivak & Farran, 2012). Positive teacher-
student relationships have been shown to directly influence behavior in children (Ferreira et al.,
2016; Glüer & Gregoriadis, 2017; Wissink et al., 2014). Studies also point to the positive effect
mentor programs have on school-aged children (Gordon et al., 2013; Kosse et al., 2020).
Teaching social and emotional learning has implications for building prosocial behaviors as
shown by the link between self-regulation and prosocial behavior exhibition (Blake et al., 2015;
Cambron et al., 2017; Carlo et al., 2012; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Williams & Berthelsen, 2017).
This may manifest strongly through empathy development due to the strong correlation between
empathy and prosocial behaviors (Mestre et al., 2019; Van der Graaf et al., 2018; Yoo et al.,
2013). Schools are uniquely positioned to positively influence children throughout the critical
points in their life and to play a vital part in building an environment to effectively promote
prosocial behavior development.
Research strongly demonstrates the role of environment on prosocial behavior
development and this offers the opportunity for positive influence (Greitemeyer & Osswald,
2010; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). Restorative practices is one
method to deal with the dynamics of diverse children by building a connected community that
helps to develop the skills to process through challenging behavior in a safe and effective manner
5

(Mirsky, 2011). Acosta et al. (2019) assert that this is demonstrated by the desire for whole-
school participation and working with all stakeholders to provide a restorative environment for
children. Restorative practices is comprised of 11 essential elements of whole-school change
including affective statements, restorative questions, small impromptu conferences, restorative
staff community, fair process, reintegrative management of shame, fundamental hypothesis
understanding, proactive circles, responsive circles, restorative approach with families, and
restorative conferences (Mirsky, 2011). A major tenet of restorative practices is that “human
beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes
in their behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them, rather than to them or
for them” (Wachtel, 2015, p. 7).
The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) claimed that restorative
practices “is a social science that studies how to build social capital and achieve social discipline
through participatory learning and decision making” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 1). Rigorous research
into restorative practices is minimal, “but emerging evidence from descriptive reports and pre-
post evaluation studies suggest that RP is associated with improvements in students’ connections
to school, lower incidents of school discipline offenses and violent behavior, and improved
attendance” (Wang & Lee, 2019, p. 182). As of 2011, IIRP had compiled non-peer reviewed data
from 40 schools related to discipline statistics that showed restorative practices improved school
safety and reduced discipline issues (Mirsky, 2011). Jain et al. (2014) and McMorris et al.
(2013), both non-peer reviewed studies, have tentatively shown improvements related to school
connectedness, social-emotional development, or overall school climate. Restorative practices
has been found to create a safe space for relationship building to strengthen social bonds (Acosta
et al., 2019; Bouchard et al., 2016; Gregory et al., 2016). Research demonstrates that
6

organizations that focus on a restorative, vice a retributive discipline model, reduce the
occurrence of school exclusions through alternative accountability methods (Gregory et al.,
2018; Mansfield et al., 2018). Restorative practices is ideally designed to empower people in
decision making through participatory learning, influence positive behavior changes, provide a
process to deal with conflict, and build community (Wachtel, 2015). It is vitally important to
understand what influences behavior and to also recognize the short and long-term impacts to
children if the problem is left unaddressed.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The types of behavior exhibited in school impacts the individual (Hanniball et al., 2019)
and those around them (Ang et al., 2020). The traditional punitive manner in which schools
attempt to address and prevent undesirable behavior can have lasting impacts on the lives of
students for academic success (Lee et al., 2011) and into adulthood through increased justice
system involvement (Monahan et al., 2014). Further, the often-used methods disproportionately
negatively impact vulnerable populations (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Timpson, 2019). Schools
have the option to help students develop processes and build prosocial behavior skills (Pears et
al., 2015) that increase success into adulthood (Cambron et al., 2017).
Prosocial behavior has been found to have positive impacts on the lives of individuals
who exhibit them (Hanniball et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2020; Padilla-Walker et al., 2020) and may
serve to prevent negative issues during adolescence (Padilla-Walker et al., 2018). Ang et al.
(2020) claimed that “antisocial behavior is an important educational and public health issue
impacting individuals and society” (p. 595). Research recognizes the negative influence
childhood antisocial behavior, and the underlying contributing factors, has on academic and
future success for students (Cambron et al., 2017; Tieskens et al., 2018). Persistent disruptive
7

behaviors negatively impact the ability for all students to receive appropriate instruction
(Sullivan et al., 2014). Bullying and victimization negatively impacts the quality of life of almost
20% of children in the United Kingdom (Department for Education, 2018) and may lead to
harmful impacts ranging from anxiety to suicide (Hong et al., 2015).
A potential key to addressing undesirable behavior is modifying the whole-school
environment including traditional discipline strategies. Children need guidance and support to
work through behavioral issues (Price & Steed, 2016), similar to how schools teach traditional
subject areas. The average United Kingdom suspension time of around three days simply ensures
involved parties are back together in a similar situation, without support to address the
underlying issues, a few days later (Standing et al., 2012) and puts the child at increased risk for
future behavioral issues and harmful outcomes (Mallett, 2016). Research shows that traditional
school discipline models in response to undesired school behavior has a racial element that will
continue to disproportionally impact minorities if not addressed (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Losen
& Skiba, 2010; Losen, 2013). The most recent United Kingdom data available closely aligns
with previous years and shows that students with special education needs, or are eligible for free
school meal programs, or that are from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be excluded
(United Kingdom Government, 2020). An intersection of these factors increases the chance of
exclusion; over one third of excluded students placed in alternative provision education during
Key Stage 4 are later classified as not in education, employment, or training and 23% of young
offenders had been permanently excluded from school prior to sentencing (Timpson, 2019).
Exclusion itself is not the sole cause of these future troubles for students but defaulting to
exclusion is a missed opportunity to positively influence a child’s life.
8

Schools have the chance to serve as a major form of community and often the best, if not
the only, entity capable of improving the challenges vulnerable children face at critical points in
their life. “Inadequate levels of social and emotional functioning are increasingly recognized as
central to many public health problems” (Jones et al., 2015, p. 2283). Poor self-regulation, the
diminished ability to control one’s own behavior, impacts behavioral impulse control and the
handling of strong emotions (Cambron et al., 2017). Pears et al. (2015) demonstrated that a self-
regulation intervention overcame ineffective parenting occurring before school entry, positively
impacted children’s self-regulation, and improved school readiness skills. If left unaddressed,
behavior issues may continue into adulthood; however, building in processes for improving self-
regulation at critical points in a child’s life may prevent future issues and lead to greater success
overall (Cambron et al., 2017; Carlo et al., 2012). Recognizing and finding ways to solve this
issue is central to achieving the mission of the organization within this study.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Riverside Junior School (RJS, a pseudonym) is a Department for Education (DfE)
funded school in the United Kingdom. RJS is one school within a three-school system overseen
by a common board of trustees and serves across the entire school grade system. The mission of
RJS is to motivate, engage, and equip children with the skills to succeed in modern life. RJS has
360 students ranging in age from seven to 11 in school years three to six.
As is common for schools within the United Kingdom, RJS has a Head Teacher and an
Executive Head Teacher that are in charge of the daily operation of the school. There are around
50 full-time staff members including four administration, 32 teachers and teacher assistants, and
16 support staff. According to RJS senior leadership, approximately two years ago, the school
was experiencing a growing issue with student behavior that resulted in increased resource use to
9

address. RJS began looking for alternative methods for addressing the issues the school was
experiencing and chose to conduct restorative practices training provided by a local non-profit
community mediation organization. All staff members participated in the training program; the
training signaled the start of the school’s cultural shift to restorative.
Organizational Goal
RJS’s goal is that the school will establish a restorative culture through the use of
restorative practices to positively influence prosocial behavior development. The Head Teacher
established the goal almost two years ago when faced with increasing behavior and performance
issues that the existing culture, policies, and procedures were not addressing. The achievement of
the goal will be measured as outlined in the integrated implementation and evaluation plan
presented in Chapter Five, specifically for teaching staff, and may offer similar opportunities for
other stakeholders within the organization.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are several stakeholder groups that are central within the system to achieving the
organizational goal. School administration, comprised of the Head Teacher, supporting staff, and
the board of trustees establishes the school’s goals and sets priorities. School administration
largely determines how the rest of staff dedicates resources and how they focus their attention on
challenges. School administration has set the goal of addressing student behavior through the use
of restorative practices and are responsible for ensuring resource allocation and best practices are
carried out in pursuit of the goal.
The 32 teaching staff members are critical to the change effort for several reasons.
Teaching staff are a critical nexus between school leadership and the children in the classroom.
Teachers have the most interaction with the children and are tasked to use restorative practices
10

with their students when completing daily work. Teaching staff also must be motivated to carry
out this change. As discussed earlier, the teacher-student relationship and the ability to both
model prosocial behaviors and motivate students to exhibit prosocial behaviors positions them as
critical stakeholders in this problem.
There are stakeholder groups outside of the school that influence achieving the
organizational goal. Foremost, parents are among the largest influences on their children through
much of their early life and are central to children’s behavior development (Mesurado &
Richaud, 2017; Yoo et al., 2013). Parental support of the change effort through use of restorative
practices in the home environment and reinforcing the value to their children could be
instrumental to the change effort. Secondarily, the community at large contributes to behavior
development through exposure to various people and institutions outside of the home or school
environment. Unfortunately, parents and the community are assumed to be predominantly
unfamiliar with the use of restorative practices which limits the ability to influence the use of
restorative practices outside the school environment. Providing restorative practices training to
parents is thought to be valuable but coordinating training and getting buy-in and participation
from parents has been considered a barrier to date.
Stakeholder Group and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Fully recognizing that all stakeholders play a critical role in achieving the goal of using
restorative practices to promote prosocial behavior development, the stakeholder of focus is
teaching staff interacting with students daily in the classroom. The primary reason teaching staff
have been chosen is because they spend the majority of their time immersed with students in the
classroom, are positioned to have the most amount of time observing and interacting with
students, and are a critical nexus between administration staff and students. Table 1 provides an
11

outline of the organizational mission, organizational goal, and stakeholder group’s performance
goal.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Organizational mission
The mission of the Riverside Junior School (RJS) is to motivate, engage, and equip
children with the skills to succeed in modern life.
Organizational goal
RJS will establish a restorative culture through the use of restorative practices to
positively influence prosocial behavior development.
Stakeholder group’s performance goal
100% of RJS teaching staff will use restorative practices in their daily work.

12

Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this project is to explore the degree to which teaching staff at RJS are able
to use restorative practices in their daily work. While a complete performance evaluation would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis is the teaching staff
stakeholder group. The analysis focused on teaching staff’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to using restorative practices in their daily work. The following
three questions guided this study:
1. What are the teaching staff’s knowledge and motivation for using restorative
practices in their daily work?
2. In what ways do organizational influences impact the teaching staff’s capacity to use
restorative practices in their daily work?
3. What are the recommendations to support teaching staff’s use of restorative practices
in their daily work?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework is a systematic and analytical model
devised to increase clarity of organizational goals and determine the relevant knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences needing improvement to close the gap from existing
performance to desired performance. The framework was adapted to facilitate exploration of this
problem and used as a conceptual framework. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact RJS teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in their daily
work was developed through the use of applicable research as well as exploring appropriate
learning and motivational theory. The methodological framework is a qualitative case study
comprised of document analysis and individual interviews.
13

Definitions
• Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are “Traumatic events occurring before age 18.
ACEs include all types of abuse and neglect as well as parental mental illness, substance
use, divorce, incarceration, and domestic violence” (Childwelfare.gov, n.d., para. 1).
• Affective Statements are an informal restorative practice, the use of “I” statements to
make individuals “aware of the positive or negative impact of their behavior” and to
“encourage students to express their feelings” (Acosta et al., 2019, p. 879).
• Affective or Restorative Questions are an informal restorative practice, a series of
questions designed to prompt reflection and to work through situations with someone that
may have done harm that have slight variations among practitioners. The IIRP promotes
the use of the following five questions:
1. What happened?
2. What were you thinking of at the time?
3. What have you thought about since?
4. Who has been affected by what you have done?
5. What do you think you need to do to make things right? (Wachtel, 2016, p. 7)
• Antisocial Behaviors include “a wide variety of attitudes and actions that violate the law,
social norms, and others’ personal or property rights” (Ang et al., 2020). In the school
environment these behaviors can include school misconduct, delinquent behavior,
vandalism, and violence (Wissink et al., 2014).
• Circles are a more formal or structured restorative practice, “group (i.e., classroom or
community) discussions where participants sit in a round formation” (Wang & Lee, 2019,
p. 182).
14

• Fair Process is the restorative practices process to “allow students to provide input into
decisions affecting them; explain the reasoning behind decisions to the students affected;
clarify expectations so students understand implications of the decision” (Acosta et al.,
2019, p. 879).
• Fixed-Period Exclusions are when a pupil is excluded from school for a set period of
time (Department for Education, 2017a).
• Fundamental Hypothesis of Restorative Practices is a restorative practices principle that
“people are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive
changes in behavior when those in authority do things with them, rather than to them or
for them” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 6).
• Key Stages (KS) are the way England’s curriculum is organized into blocks based on the
age of children. KS1 is 5 to 7 years old, KS2 is 7 to 11 years old, KS3 is 11 to 14 years
old, and KS4 is 14 to 16 years old (Gov.UK, 2020).
• Permanent Exclusions are when a pupil is excluded and will not return to that school
(Department for Education, 2017a).
• Prosocial Behavior is voluntary behavior “performed to benefit others, rather than benefit
the self” (Twenge et al., 2007). “Prosocial behaviors include comforting others, providing
emotional support, sharing resources, and providing instrumental help to enable others to
reach their goals” (Williams & Berthelsen, 2017).
• Reintegrative Management of Shame seeks to “avoid labels that stigmatize wrong-doers;
discourage dwelling on shame; acknowledge person’s worth while rejecting unacceptable
behavior (i.e., separate the deed from the doer)” (Acosta et al., 2019, p. 879).
15

• Restorative Approach with Families is using “restorative practices during interactions
with family members, including proactive circles that focus on intentional
communication of positive student behavior and academic achievement” (Acosta et al.,
2019, p. 879).
• Restorative Conferences are among the most formal restorative practices, “a restorative
conference is a structured meeting between offenders, victims and both parties’ family
and friends, in which they deal with the consequences of a crime or wrong-doing and
decide how to best repair the harm” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 6).
• Restorative Practices is “a social science that studies how to build social capital and
achieve social discipline through participatory learning and decision making” (Wachtel,
2016, p. 1). Commonly referred to with the abbreviation RP in the literature. “Restorative
practices” is used as either a collective or plural noun depending on if the writer is
referring to the collective field of study or body of practices or the plural specific
restorative practices such as affective statements or circles.
• Restorative Practices Continuum is the concept that restorative practices range from
informal to formal, including affective statements, affective (restorative) questions, small
impromptu conference, group or circle, and formal conference. “Moving from left to
right on the continuum, as restorative practices become more formal, they involve more
people, require more planning and time, and are more structured and complete” (Wachtel,
2016, p. 4).
• Restorative Staff Community is the “use of restorative practices to resolve staff conflicts
and proactive circles to build sense of community among staff” (Acosta et al., 2019, p.
879).
16

• School Readiness is “a measure of how prepared a child is to succeed in school
cognitively, socially and emotionally” (Public Health England, 2015, p. 4).
• Self-regulation is “Self-regulatory systems lie at the very heart of causal processes. They
not only mediate the effects of most external influences, but provide the very basis of
purposeful action” (Bandura, 1991, p. 248).
• Small Impromptu Conferences lay in the middle of restorative practices continuum,
“asking several affective questions of both the wrongdoer and those harmed creates a
small impromptu conference” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 9).
• Socioeconomic Status (SES) is “the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is
often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation. Examinations of
socioeconomic status often reveal inequities in access to resources, plus issues related to
privilege, power and control” (American Psychological Association, n.d.).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized across five chapters. Chapter One provided an outline, common
terminology surrounding the study, and introduced key concepts. Further, Chapter One provided
an introduction to the problem, goal, organization, and stakeholder of focus. Chapter Two delves
into a review of the literature that supports the area of study. Topics including the role of
environmental influences on prosocial behavior development and exhibition, how school climate
and staff influence prosocial behavior development and exhibition, and how restorative practices
can positively influence prosocial behavior development and exhibition are explored.
Additionally, Chapter Two presents the RJS teaching staff’s knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that are central to exploring within this study. Chapter Three goes in-
depth into the methodology of this study including details about participants, the collection of
17

data, and plans for analysis. Chapter Four focuses on the assessment and analysis of data
gathered in this study. Finally, Chapter Five provides research supported recommendations for
implementation and research possibilities in the future.
18

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review investigates several common types of school behavior, the harmful
impacts of traditional retributive school discipline models, and the influence of environment on
behavior development and exhibition. Further, the literature review explores the influence
teachers can have on prosocial behavior development and the potential for restorative practices
to serve as a way to positively influence school environment, student behavior, and reduce the
harm children experience from the unintended consequences of school exclusions. At the
completion of the review, the emphasis shifts to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic
framework and this study’s assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence teachers’ capacity to use restorative practices in their daily work.
The current school discipline and behavior management system fails children early,
often, and potentially places them on a difficult path to overcome for the duration of their life
(Cameron & Sheppard, 2006; Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen, 2013). “Students spend at least one-
quarter of their waking hours in schools, most of it in classrooms, one of the most proximal and
potentially powerful settings for influencing children and youth” (Pianta et al., 2012, p. 366).
Teachers hold a unique position within the community to be entrusted with such an influential
role in children’s development. Beyond increasing proficiency in traditional subject areas,
teachers find themselves intimately involved with managing relationships, influencing social-
emotional development, modeling appropriate behaviors, and addressing the behaviors of their
students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Research has demonstrated the positive relationship
between undesirable behavior in school and decreased academic achievement (Gu et al., 2011),
which highlights the importance of teachers addressing classroom behaviors for the benefit of all
students. With nearly a third of children finishing their first year of primary school in the United
19

Kingdom without the skills necessary to succeed in school (Public Health England, 2020a),
teachers are uniquely positioned to add value to these critical development opportunities and
build lasting prosocial behaviors into adulthood.
The Nature of Behavior in Schools
The behaviors exhibited in childhood educational settings vary across a spectrum ranging
from antisocial behaviors that do harm to prosocial behaviors that benefit others. Teacher views
about high frequency minor misbehaviors and severe misbehaviors were discovered to be
consistent throughout many countries and across a thirty-year period (Crawshaw, 2015).
Entering school is a new experience for children and requires skills they may not have yet
learned in early life at home with their family. Bettencourt et al. (2018) studied over 11,000
children and discovered that children entering school not socially-behaviorally prepared were
more likely to be retained in grade, need support services, and be excluded from school by the
fourth grade. Public Health England (2015) defines school readiness as “a measure of how
prepared a child is to succeed in school cognitively, socially and emotionally” (p. 4). Based on
the 2018 and 2019 school year, 28% of students were assessed to not be school ready at the
conclusion of their first year of primary school (Public Health England, 2020a) and taking SES
into account uncovered a 15% gap between the most affluent and the most in need (Public Health
England, 2020b). This data is concerning and highlights the need to look at behavior issues in a
similar way to other parts of the curriculum to help students where deficiencies are shown.
Persistent Disruptive Behaviors
One of the most common behavior issues that United Kingdom teachers face is persistent
disruptive behavior in the classroom (United Kingdom Government, 2020). In the landmark
article on the role of teachers in classroom behavior management, Feldmann (2001) defined
20

classroom incivility as “any action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning
atmosphere in the classroom” (p. 137). These interferences, or disruptions, detract from the
learning environment and negatively influence engagement, participation, and academic success
(Sullivan et al., 2014).
The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) maintains
oversight for education standards and are responsible for routine inspection of schools within the
United Kingdom (Ofsted, 2020). Ofsted (2014) reviewed inspections of nearly 3,000 schools
carried out between January and July of 2014 and found the prevalence of low-level disruptions
to be “deeply worrying” due to the impact to students and teachers through lost learning time and
increased stress on teachers attempting to address it (p. 4). Surveyed teachers indicate that many
different types of unproductive behaviors are seen in the classroom, and the most frequently
observed are disengaged and low-level disruption behaviors (Sullivan et al., 2014).
Bullying and Victimization
A pioneer in school bullying research, Olweus (1994) defined bullying as the repeated
exposure of negative actions upon an individual by one or more persons. However, bullying can
consist of a single occurrence of aggression if the perceived threat of future aggression exists
(Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). The Department for Education (2017b) asserted that bullying can
be carried out in varying manners that cause physical or emotional harm including in person,
through text messages, on social media or gaming platforms and may be related to actual or
perceived differences between children. Based on a 12-month period ending in March of 2018,
17% of English children between 10 and 15 years old reported being bullied in a manner that
frightened or upset them (Department for Education, 2018). The rate of occurrence for children
in England closely matches the 20% of United States children that report being bullied (NCES,
21

2017). Bullied children and adolescents are at increased risk for depression, anxiety,
hopelessness, and suicide (Hong et al., 2015).
Prosocial Behaviors
Prosocial behaviors are voluntary and are associated with providing support, cooperation,
and general benefit to others (Twenge et al., 2007; Williams & Berthelsen, 2017) including
through norms like “reciprocity, social responsibility, altruism, and volunteerism” (Siu et al.,
2012, p. 5). Adolescent prosocial behavior toward strangers was found to be positively
associated with higher levels of self-esteem and gratitude (Padilla-Walker et al., 2020). Children
can acquire prosocial behaviors from role models (Siu et al., 2012), and the classroom
environment specifically offers the opportunity for prosocial behavior development and
exhibition (Hyson & Taylor, 2011).
Johnston et al. (2019) discovered a positive relationship between classroom prosocial
behavior exhibition and teacher-developed prosocial lessons that included the topics of showing
respect for others, trusting others, recognizing peer uniqueness, accepting and treating others
fairly, cooperation, and teamwork. Adolescents learning in classrooms with higher collective
levels of prosocial behavior reported higher levels of prosocial behavior exhibition two years
later (Busching & Krahé, 2020). Research is starting to look at prosocial behavior not just as a
desirable outcome but potentially as a way to prevent negative outcomes during adolescence
(Padilla-Walker et al., 2018). Undesirable behavior issues create a challenge to be addressed and
the common methods of dealing with behavior in a punitive manner may have unintended far-
reaching consequences.
22

Harmful Impacts of Traditional Retributive Discipline Models in School
Instead of recognizing the need to help children through troubling experiences and life
deficiencies, school leadership often choose to punish and exclude even though research into the
harmful impacts of exclusion is profound (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Timpson,
2019). Potentially without fully understanding or considering the harmful unintended
consequences, retributive justice is based on using “control, deterrence, and punitive measures to
maintain order within the school system” (Smith et al., 2018, p. 2). In the 2018/2019 academic
year, schools in England issued 438,265 fixed-period exclusions, which was a continued upward
trend over prior years (United Kingdom Government, 2020). This amounts to over 400,000
instances where children were removed from school for up to 45 days with the exclusion serving
as the primary method to modify behavior and potentially increasing risk for unintended
consequences. Harmful impacts of school exclusions manifest in several ways including
disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations (Timpson, 2019), negatively impacting
academic success (Ibrahim & Johnson, 2019), and increasing risk for justice system involvement
(Monahan et al., 2014). Exclusion may gain the classroom temporary relief from the undesirable
behavior, but exclusion does not outweigh the potential life-long harm to the child (Hemez et al.,
2020; Lee et al., 2011) or their classmates (Perry & Morris, 2014).
Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Exclusions disproportionately impact vulnerable populations that are already most at risk
and further position them for continued harm. In England, 78% of permanent exclusions were
given to students that were classified as being in need for social care support, eligible for free
school meals, or identified as having some form of special educational needs (Timpson, 2019).
Additionally, the convergence of all three factors were present in 11% of permanent exclusions
23

(Timpson, 2019). Several groups of ethnic minorities are excluded at very high rates including
some groups that are given fixed-period exclusions at three times the rate of Whites (United
Kingdom Government, 2020). This data closely matches the United States where elements such
as being a racial minority, having lower SES, and the presence of disabilities increased
likelihood of suspension (Cholewa et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 2013). Morris and Perry (2016)
asserted that 20% of the differences seen in school performance between Blacks and Whites can
be attributed to school suspensions. Researching nearly 30,000 students across more than 100
schools, Anyon et al. (2016) claimed that school connectedness is diminished for racial
minorities compared to Whites and the disproportionate use of school exclusion for minorities
negatively impacted school connectedness for all students. The disparity experienced by
vulnerable populations in the United Kingdom may be reduced by teaching staff who have
increased understanding of the need and use restorative practices with their students.
Negative Impact on Academic Success and Future Achievement
After controlling for a multitude of personal and school factors, including previous math
achievement, school exclusions significantly diminished math achievement in high school and
persisted through multi-year negative influence (Ibrahim & Johnson, 2019). Controlling for
distinctions between pupils, multiple suspensions were associated with decreased achievement in
English language arts and math (Hwang, 2018). In a meta-analysis of 53 cases across 34 studies,
Noltemeyer et al. (2015) determined a “significant inverse relationship between suspensions and
achievement, along with a significant positive relationship between suspensions and dropout” (p.
224). Although proposed as a less harmful alternative to out of school exclusions, a single in-
school suspension predicted significant risk for failure on a state issued standardized test even after
controlling for an assortment of personal and school elements (Smith et al., 2020). Further, in-
24

school suspension is associated with reduced grade point averages and higher risk of high school
dropout (Cholewa et al., 2018). Recognizing the social environment of schools, the increased use
of exclusionary discipline in schools produces unintended consequences by harmfully influencing
non-suspended students as well (Perry & Morris, 2014).
School-To-Prison Pipeline
Commonly referred to as the school-to-prison pipeline, disciplinary exclusion from
school increases the risk for justice system involvement for the excluded child around the time
period of the exclusion (Monahan et al., 2014). Excluded students are not usually a serious safety
risk to the student body or school (Mallett, 2016). Being excluded from school more than
doubles the likelihood of more serious out of school offenses among youth that have a history of
offending behaviors (Cuellar & Markowitz, 2015). Receiving a school exclusion starts a critical
shift toward increased odds of incarceration (Hemez et al., 2020) and increases the probability
for harmful outcomes into adulthood including criminal involvement, criminal victimization, and
incarceration (Wolf & Kupchik, 2017). The harmful impacts of traditional punitive school
discipline methods become even more concerning when the underlying influences and
contributing factors are considered.
Influence of Environment on Behavior Development and Exhibition
The nature of relationships, including family (Carlo et al., 2011; Crane et al., 2020) and
peer (Berger & Palacios, 2014; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2018), have a significant influence on
behavior. Supportive parental relationships encourage prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al., 2011)
and are negatively associated with adolescent antisocial behavior (Crocetti et al., 2016; Ibabe &
Bentler, 2015). Positive influences and processes within families increase children’s prosocial
communication (Crane et al., 2020), and deficient communication within the family factors into
25

undesirable behavior in adolescents (Lippold et al., 2013). Parental involvement was discovered
to mediate school climate and behavior problems (Caridade et al., 2020). Véronneau and Dishion
(2010) asserted that the interaction of peer acceptance and peer rejection predicted increases in
behavioral problems, friendships with high-achieving individuals predicted decreased behavioral
problems, and parental monitoring served as a buffer for pupils most vulnerable to develop
behavioral issues based on peer interactions. Affiliation with prosocial peers demonstrated a
negative relationship with observed rule-breaking behavior (Burt & Klump, 2014). Positive
relationships with mentors have been shown to reduce discipline issues and increase
connectedness (Gordon et al., 2013). Relationships, including positive, negative, or non-existent,
play a critical part in development overall and behavior specifically.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), with varying similar names in the literature
including childhood negative life events and negative childhood experiences, can serve as
predictors for bullying behavior in later adolescence (Connell et al., 2016). ACEs are linked to
negative emotions that are linked to maladaptive behaviors, but parental care and supervision as
well as social support moderates the effects of ACEs on behavior (Barrera et al., 2016). Further,
ACEs have a significant effect on violent behavior exhibition later in life (Brumley et al., 2017).
Most research has focused on severe adverse experiences, such as abuse and violence, but
enduring issues including unsupportive parental relationships and safety issues at school or home
may have deeper influence on the developing child (Odgers & Jaffee, 2013). ACEs, specifically
economic hardship and parental divorce or separation, are significantly associated with
emotional, development, and behavior problems in childhood (Thompson et al., 2020).
Additionally, lower childhood SES was found to be associated with an increased risk of ACEs
(Walsh et al., 2019). Chapple and Vaske (2010) discovered that neglected children had
26

considerably worse educational outcomes than children that were not neglected across all
evaluated outcomes at the bivariate level. The impact of ACEs can have lasting impact well
beyond childhood. In the landmark ACE study, Felitti et al. (1998) claimed “a strong graded
relationship between the breadth of exposure to abuse or household dysfunction during
childhood and multiple risk factors for several of the leading causes of death in adults” (p. 245).
Media exposure is a growing reality with youth between the age of eight and 18
consuming upwards of six to nine hours of content every day (Rideout, 2016). Perhaps most
concerning and another link to the SES disparity, Rideout (2016) claimed that lower-income
youth use nearly three more hours per day of media than higher-income youth. Media has been
shown to significantly influence behavior development and exhibition (Coyne et al., 2018; de
Leeuw et al., 2015; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015; Prot et al., 2014). Increased television viewing
time of four and five-year-old boys was found to be related to self-regulatory behavior issues
(Inoue et al., 2016). In a potential positive approach to addressing behavior, children exposed to
prosocial-media are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors (de Leeuw et al., 2015; Prot et al.,
2014). In a longitudinal study of 441 adolescents over several years, it was discovered that
viewing prosocial content predicted diminished aggression levels and slightly increased levels of
family oriented prosocial behaviors after two years (Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). Taking into
account the underlying factors that contribute to behavior development and exhibition allows
space for teachers to positively contribute to the wellness of students.
The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Influences on Prosocial Behavior Development
The school has the opportunity to offer the culture, connection, and continuity across the
lifecycle from pre-school to graduation to positively influence behavior in children that are
disadvantaged based on societal and family life deficiencies. Ideally a goal for all schools and
27

teachers, “a positive school culture is one where teachers and students care about and support
one another, share common values, norms, goals, and a sense of belonging” (Barr & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2009, p. 754). Teachers have the opportunity to build supportive relationships and
to serve as deliberate role models for their students in a way that will influence them into
adulthood (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). When teachers are prepared, engaged, and establish a
motivating relationship with students, students respond by increasing participation and
cooperation (Yasseen, 2010). Verbal encouragement and empathy from teachers are strongly
associated with prosocial behavior in the classroom (Spivak & Farran, 2012). Positive teacher-
student relationships were found to be related to decreased undesirable behaviors in the
classroom, but perhaps more importantly, were linked to reduced antisocial behavior outside of
school (Wissink et al., 2014). Duong et al. (2019) demonstrated that when teachers completed a
brief three-hour teacher-student relationship training, with ongoing support, the result was
significant improvements in academic engagement, teacher-student relationships, and disruptive
behavior.
Teaching children about prosocial behavior, even just one lesson, helps build a prosocial
environment beneficial for all children in the classroom (Johnston et al., 2019). Students bring
their experiences and challenges from home (Odgers & Jaffee, 2013) and benefit from being
explicitly taught how to manage the social and emotional issues they face (Ashdown & Bernard,
2012). Teachers have the opportunity to alter the trajectory of their students. When educators are
not equipped to handle disruptive or noncompliant behavior the children that are unable to
adhere to behavioral expectations are alienated (Whitted, 2011). Teacher perceptions of students
may influence how they are perceived socially by their peers (Johnston et al., 2019). The child
may get increasingly unsatisfied at school resulting in withdrawal or increasing behavioral issues
28

setting the child on a course of future academic issues (Whitted, 2011). Jennings and Greenberg
(2009) assert that
if a teacher understands that a student’s challenging behavior and difficulty with self-
regulation results from problems faced at home, he or she may show greater concern and
empathy and be able to help the student learn to self-regulate rather than resorting to
punitive or coercive tactics. (p. 493)
Self-Regulation
The research is clear on the role self-regulation plays in behavior in general (Bandura,
1991) and school success specifically (Blake et al., 2015; Cambron et al., 2017). Children
entering school have described school as a regulatory dynamic environment, expressed difficulty
in managing social interactions, and discussed missing support in some areas as they figure out
the new environment (Booth et al., 2019). Children that enter school unprepared are more likely
to suffer negative consequences (Bettencourt et al., 2018), and almost 30% of students entering
school in the United Kingdom are determined to be not school ready at the end of their first year
of school (Public Health England, 2020a). It is not cognitive delays that are the primary concern,
it is the social and emotional skill deficiencies that cause alarm (Whitted, 2011).
Self-regulation has a central part in converting prosocial norms into behaviors (Blake et
al., 2015). Reduced self-regulation in 5-year-olds, as indicated by impulsive behavior exhibition
and inattention, was a predictor for increased conflict with teachers, negatively impacted school
engagement, predicted academic competence in the next grade, and ultimately highlighted the
need for earlier self-regulation skill development prior to entering school (Portilla et al., 2014).
Cambron et al. (2017) asserted that deficient self-regulation in middle school predicted an
increase in high school antisocial behavior thereby reducing the probability of high school
29

graduation. Self-regulation is related positively to prosocial behaviors in the home and with
peers, including longitudinally (Carlo et al., 2012).
Empathy and Perspective Taking
Empathy is a multidimensional construct consisting of both cognitive (understanding)
and affective (experiencing) factors with both elements being required for delivering appropriate
responses in interactions with others (Belacchi & Farina, 2012). Empathy can be developed and
is linked to prosocial behavior exhibition. Farrant et al. (2012) discovered that children taught
perspective taking by their mothers had increased development of cognitive empathy skills and
displayed more prosocial behaviors. Preschool aged children that underwent an intervention
designed for promoting perspective taking showed a significant improvement in perspective
taking scores and an increase in prosocial behavior exhibition (Mori & Cigala, 2018). Improved
social perspective taking use was found to be associated with increased self-reported prosocial
behavior in adolescents (Tamnes et al., 2018).
In a study carried out over a 23-year period, Allemand et al. (2014) found that individuals
with improved empathy development during adolescence had higher empathy levels and self-
reported satisfactory social network integration 20 years later. Empathy plays a critical role in
behavior and influences how individuals perceive as well as manage conflict. Lower empathy
levels are associated with increased conflict during adolescence and lower to average empathy
levels are potentially associated with perception distortions about conflict occurrence (Van Lissa
et al., 2015). Adolescents showed increased likelihood to defend bullying victims when they had
higher levels of empathy (Hye-Young & Graham, 2018). Restorative practices is one method
that may help teachers to build the positive relationships and influence prosocial student
behavior.
30

Restorative Practices to Positively Influence School Environment and Student Behavior
Restorative practices potentially provides an alternative to traditional discipline and
behavior modification strategies, specifically exclusions, used in the majority of schools.
Restorative practices has historical foundational elements from the talking circles used by some
indigenous communities to discuss and address harm completed by a member of the community
(Mowrey, 2012) and in the last few decades developed out of restorative mediation in the
criminal justice system and community empowerment efforts throughout the world (Wachtel,
2016). The IIRP states that restorative practices “includes the use of informal and formal
processes that precede wrongdoing, those that proactively build relationships and a sense of
community to prevent conflict and wrongdoing” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 1). Restorative justice is one
aspect of restorative practices and is “a participatory response to wrongdoing” (Wachtel, 2015, p.
7). Unlike the traditional school discipline model that views wrongdoing as counter to rules and
policies, restorative practices conceptualizes harm as a breach between the relationships of
people (Smith et al., 2018).
The social discipline window is a conceptual model consisting of four quadrants based on
the two factors, control and support, being either low or high (Fine, 2018). Restorative practices
is high in both structure and support with a focus on “doing things with people, rather than to
them or for them” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 3). This authoritative style fosters an environment with
high expectations, clear communication, strong community norms and values, personal
responsibility and autonomy, and freedom of emotional expression (van Alphen, 2015).
Additionally, the environment provides high support to work through unacceptable behavior
while ensuring the person continues to be an appreciated community member (van Alphen,
2015). Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the social discipline window.
31

Figure 1
The Social Discipline Window

Note. From “Defining Restorative,” by T. Wachtel, 2016, International Institute of Restorative
Practices, p. 3. Copyright 2016 by International Institute for Restorative Practices. Adapted with
permission.

Although they are similar sounding terms, it is important to distinguish between
authoritative and authoritarian styles. Within the social discipline window, an authoritative style
is intended for those in power to work with people by providing high structure and support (van
Alphen, 2015). An authoritarian style focuses on those in power doing things to people through
high control and low support (van Alphen, 2015). Schools operating in an authoritative style
have been found to overcome parental support deficiencies to help students achieve academic
HIGH TO

punitive

authoritarian
WITH

restorative

authoritative

control (limit setting, discipline)
NOT

neglectful

irresponsible
FOR

permissive

paternalistic
LOW support (encouragement, nurture)
HIGH

32

success (Huang et al., 2017), have less reported bullying victimization (Cornell et al., 2015;
Gerlinger & Wo, 2016), and increased student perception of safety at school (Fisher et al., 2018).
Based on the over 400,000 exclusions in the United Kingdom in the 2018/2019 academic year
(United Kingdom Government, 2020) it is speculated that many schools in the United Kingdom
operated in the authoritarian and punitive frame within the social discipline window.
The restorative practices continuum is the foundation in all environments and ranges
from informal to formal procedures through the use of affective statements, affective or
restorative questions, small impromptu conferences, proactive and responsive circles, and formal
or restorative conferences (Wachtel, 2016). Figure 2 displays the restorative practices continuum.

Figure 2
The Restorative Practices Continuum

Note. From “Defining Restorative,” by T. Wachtel, 2016, International Institute of Restorative
Practices, p. 3. Copyright 2016 by International Institute for Restorative Practices. Adapted with
permission.

informal formal
affective
statements
affective
questions
small impromptu
conference
group
or circle
formal
conference
33

Encompassing and building on the restorative practices continuum, Acosta et al. (2019)
presented eleven essential practices for whole school change displayed in Table 2 and explained
in detail following the table.

Table 2
Eleven Essential Restorative Practices
Restorative practices
1. Affective statements
2. Restorative questions
3. Small impromptu conferences
4. Proactive circles
5. Responsive circles
6. Restorative conferences
7. Fair process
8. Reintegrative management of shame
9. Restorative staff community
10. Restorative approach with families
11. Fundamental hypothesis

34

Affective statements are “I” statements designed to communicate feelings in a manner
that increase awareness within the individual (Acosta et al., 2019) and improves communication
between members (Mirsky, 2011). Accurately identifying and expressing our feelings, including
being able to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, is critical to communicating clearly
(Rosenberg, 2015). Restorative questions are a series of standard questions aimed at prompting
self-reflection and deciphering the dynamics of an incident in a non-judgmental or accusatory
way by asking about what happened, what the individual was thinking, who was harmed and in
what way, and how to make things right (Acosta et al., 2019). Small impromptu conferences are
used to bring the wrongdoer and the harmed together in response to minor incidents to work
through restorative questions and if needed can be modified into the increased structure of a
circle (Wachtel, 2016). Circles, bringing people together in a physical circle of community with
one person speaking at a time, can be used for various reasons ranging from relationship building
to decision making (Wachtel, 2016). Proactive circles are done before incidents occur and
“provide opportunities for students to share feelings, ideas, and experiences to build trust, mutual
understanding, shared values, and shared behaviors” (IIRP, 2010, p. 9, cited in Mirsky, 2011).
Responsive circles are used for medium-level incidents and may help improve school climate by
addressing issues of conflict and building community (Wang & Lee, 2019). Restorative
conferences are intended to handle incidents of high severity, or repeated minor issues, and is
comprised of increased structure (Acosta et al., 2019) where the person accused of wrongdoing
hears from the affected person in a process that has an emotional impact on all involved parties
(Mirsky, 2011).
Focusing on the whole-school change, Acosta et al. (2019) described five additional
factors: fair process, reintegrated management of shame, restorative staff community, restorative
35

approach with families, and fundamental hypothesis as essential. Fair process consists of the
three principles of engagement, explanation, and expectation clarity (Wachtel, 2016).
Engagement is genuinely involving people in decisions that impact them, explanation is sharing
the reasoning of decisions with all involved parties, and expectation clarity is verifying
understanding of the decision and expectations going forward (Wachtel, 2016). The reintegrative
management of shame is the process of making sure the individual remains a valued part of the
community without unnecessary shame and labels (Acosta et al., 2019). Acosta et al. (2019)
assert that restorative staff community is using restorative practices to resolve conflict among
staff and restorative approach with families is the principle that school staff should use
restorative practices in discussions with family members. “The fundamental unifying hypothesis
of restorative practices is that human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and
more likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in positions of authority do
things with them, rather than to or for them” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 3).
Restorative practices has been shown to provide an accountability process for behaviors
(Chiramba & Harris, 2020) and it may address the underlying issues that lead to behavior
problems. Gregory et al. (2016) found that higher “RP implementation levels were associated
with better teacher-student relationships as measured by student-perceived teacher respect and
teacher use of exclusionary discipline” (p. 342). Positive teacher-student relationships are
associated with decreased levels of antisocial behavior (Cornell & Huang, 2016) and increased
academic achievement (Cornell et al., 2016). Acosta et al. (2019) claimed that restorative
practices “significantly predicted improved school climate and connectedness, peer attachment,
and social skills, and reduced cyberbullying victimization” (p. 1). Social-emotional development
occurs throughout the restorative practices continuum as involved parties reflect and discuss their
36

thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and the impact their behavior has on those around them (Acosta et
al., 2019; Jain et al., 2014; Mirsky, 2011; Wachtel, 2015; Wang & Lee, 2019). Restorative
practices is designed to provide a process to turn undesirable behavior exhibition into a learning
opportunity (Wang & Lee, 2019) to potentially counter the racial (Gregory & Fergus, 2017;
Losen & Skiba, 2010; Losen, 2013) and socioeconomic disparities (Cholewa et al., 2018;
Sullivan et al., 2013) that exist in traditional school discipline models.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is a process driven analysis tool that uncovers
information to ensure alignment between clearly established organizational goals and
discovering the gap between the existing performance level and the desired performance level
within the organization. The Clark and Estes (2008) multi-step process is as follows:
1. Define measurable organization goals;
2. Define and align individual or stakeholder goals to organizational goals;
3. Determine the performance gaps between actual and desired levels;
4. Analyze the causes of the gaps found;
5. Develop solutions to overcome the gaps;
6. Evaluate the outcomes.
Using this gap analysis model uncovered performance gaps falling into three categories
consisting of knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Attempting to develop a solution without identifying the cause(s) provides little hope of
actually solving the issue and may produce additional issues (Clark & Estes, 2008). Completing
a gap analysis provided a process designed to prevent insufficient solutions by studying the
potential causes of the performance deficits. Once the causes were understood, the final step was
37

to create an implementation and evaluation plan to overcome the gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This model does not appear to have been used previously for exploring the use of restorative
practices in educational settings but has been used for similar contexts, including related topics
with teachers as participants (Mahindrakar, 2019; Pai, 2019).
Teaching Staff’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This study is developed as an exploratory study adhering to the general gap analysis steps
as above and conducted as follows:
1. The organization goal is that RJS will establish a restorative culture through the use
of restorative practices to positively influence prosocial behavior development;
2. The stakeholder goal is that 100% of RJS teaching staff will use restorative practices
in their daily work;
3. Identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that influence stakeholder
capacity to reach the stakeholder goal by integrating motivation and learning theory;
4. Analyze the gaps that are discovered from the study;
5. Provide recommendations to overcome the gaps to reach stakeholder and ultimately
organization goals.
The identified assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are presented in
the next few sections.
Knowledge Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) consider knowledge to be among the three major causes of
performance gaps and assert that understanding the type of knowledge deficiency leads to more
successful solutions. This section discusses literature reviewed in an effort to identify knowledge
and skill influences related to using restorative practices in the daily work of teaching staff. To
38

meet RJS’s organizational goal of establishing a restorative culture through the use of restorative
practices to positively influence prosocial behavior development, all teaching staff need to be
able to use restorative practices effectively on a daily basis. It is salient to inspect the role of
knowledge and skills in any problem-solving effort because it plays a large part in individual and
organizational success. Grossman and Salas (2011) asserted that knowledge and skills, along
with attitudes, lead to environment specific performance enhancements and poorly trained
workers can produce costly issues.
The four dimensions of knowledge are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge includes the primary elements that a student must be
familiar with in a subject such as vocabulary, conceptual knowledge is the intersection of the
elements inside the wider assembly that permits their use together, procedural knowledge
encompasses the methods of how to do a process or procedure, and metacognitive knowledge is
a general familiarity with how cognition works as well as understanding of your own cognition
(Krathwohl, 2002). Each identified knowledge influence was categorized into one of the four
knowledge types. This categorization aided in ascertaining where the knowledge gap existed and
to more effectively improve development in that specific area during data analysis.
Teaching Staff Need to Know Their Role in Positive Teacher-Student Relationships
Teaching staff need conceptual knowledge related to restorative practices so they have a
deeper understanding of their role and the interrelationship between their own behavior, the
supportive relationships they build with students, and the influence on students. A critical aspect
of restorative practices is to provide high support within the social discipline window (Wachtel,
2016) with positive and supportive teacher-student relationships being vital in the school
environment. Teaching staff need to know that how they choose to interact, and the relationships
39

they build, with their students influences youth behavior (Spivak & Farran, 2012; Yasseen, 2010)
inside and outside the classroom (Wissink et al., 2014).
Teaching Staff Need to Know What Constitutes Restorative Practices
Most RJS teaching staff did not have prior knowledge of restorative practices before
attending the training program, so it is critical to ensure they have the conceptual knowledge of
the concepts that set the foundation for restorative practices. Conceptual knowledge is
knowledge of “the interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that
enable them to function together” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). For restorative practices, this
includes understanding affective statements, restorative questions, and about the available
methods, including circles, that can be used to address issues when they occur (Acosta et al.,
2019). If teaching staff fail to gain the conceptual knowledge about restorative practices they are
likely to experience barriers to expanding their knowledge and achieving organizational and
stakeholder goals.
Teaching Staff Need to Know How to Use Restorative Practices to Address Behavior
Restorative practices is comprised of individual practices that are used as part of a larger
system, so procedural knowledge is at the core. Procedural knowledge consists of “how to do
something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and
methods” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). Teaching staff need to know the steps to take when they
encounter various issues in the classroom. Among other procedures, teaching staff need to know
how to use affective statements to communicate with students, how to effectively use the
restorative questions to process through incidents when they occur, and how to facilitate
proactive circles to build community and responsive circles for behavior accountability (Mirsky,
40

2011). Knowing the procedures that make up restorative practices is integral to reaching the
stakeholder goal of using it in the teaching staff’s daily work.
Teaching Staff Need to Be Able to Self-Reflect on Their Own Effectiveness in Using
Restorative Practices
Metacognitive knowledge is needed for teaching staff to have the capacity to be able to
reflect during and after class sessions to determine if they were using restorative practices
effectively, or at all. Metacognitive knowledge is “knowledge of cognition in general as well as
awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). Teaching staff are
largely independent and left to manage classrooms without full-time oversight of activities. As a
result, much of their behavior and processes are not viewed or managed by other adults on a
consistent basis. “Metacognition is an essential skill in critical thinking and self-regulated,
lifelong learning” (Medina et al., 2017, p. 1). It is imperative that teaching staff be able to
recognize and understand their own thoughts and behaviors, specifically in relation to using
restorative practices, to improve their use of restorative practices in the classroom. Table 3
provides a summary of the knowledge influences that have an impact on the organizational
goals, mission, and success.

41

Table 3
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type Assumed knowledge influence
Conceptual Teaching staff need to know their role in building
positive teacher-student relationships

Conceptual Teaching staff need to know what constitutes
restorative practices

Procedural Teaching staff need to know how to use restorative
practices to address behavior

Metacognitive Teaching staff need to be able to self-reflect on their
own effectiveness in using restorative practices to
improve their use of restorative practices.

Motivational Influences
In addition to knowledge being an integral part of performance, motivation is a driver
that directly influences performance. This section discusses reviewed literature concerning
motivation-related influences that are relevant to teaching staff using restorative practices in their
daily work. Clark et al. (2006) assert that motivational theory and research usually centers on the
main factors of choosing to start novel behaviors, persisting through interferences, and putting in
the appropriate mental effort to achieve goals. The motivational theories that were used to add
value to this study are task value, self-efficacy theory, and attribution theory.
Teaching Staff Need to Value Using Restorative Practices
In his seminal work, Atkinson (1957) claimed that one of the factors that influences
motivation is incentive. Incentive “represents the relative attractiveness of a specific goal that is
offered in a situation, or the relative unattractiveness of an event that might occur as a
consequence of some act” (Atkinson, 1957, p. 360). Wigfield (1994) asserted that the value
42

placed on succeeding is an important driver of performance motivation in achievement. The
premise is that in order to be motivated to achieve a goal the individual must think that there is
value in achieving the goal.
As it applies in this problem of practice, teaching staff must value using restorative
practices. Boström and Palm (2020) found that teacher’s having higher value beliefs was a factor
in achieving improved outcomes compared to a group of teachers with relatively lower value
related beliefs. Foley (2011) found that “teachers’ value levels predicted their implementation
levels” (p. 199) in a K-3 evidence-based teaching intervention.
Teaching Staff Need to Have Confidence in Their Ability to Use Restorative Practices
Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of perceived self-efficacy and the role it plays in
motivation and behavior. Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s belief about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their
lives” (Bandura, 1994, p. 2). Bandura (1994) posited that self-efficacy is influenced and
developed through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences of others, social persuasion, and
stress reduction and emotional regulation. When an individual believes they have the ability to
complete a task, in general “they try harder, persist longer, perform better, and are motivated to
select more challenging tasks” (Wigfield et al., 2015, p. 659).
Restorative practices requires a significant shift from traditional ideas regarding how
teacher’s view and address student behavior, relationship dynamics, and discipline within
schools (Mirsky, 2011). With this shift is the potential teaching staff may have doubts in the
ability to carry out the needed perspective and behavioral changes. Self-efficacy has been found
to be a substantial factor in academic achievement (Motlagh et al., 2011), and teacher self-
efficacy was discovered to positively influence the motivation and success of students (Mojavezi
43

& Tamiz, 2012). Additionally, there is a significant positive relationship between self-efficacy
and teachers’ enthusiasm for their subject which further showed a positive influence on student
performance (Mahler et al., 2018).
Teaching Staff Need to Make Internal, Controllable Attributions for Positively Influencing
Desirable Behavior in the School Environment
A pioneer in research on attribution, Weiner (2010) claimed that attribution theory
centers on causes where “causes are invoked to explain outcomes or end results, such as success
or failure, rather than action; they are antecedents instead of (in addition to) justifications and can
apply to intended or unintended outcomes and to factors that may or may not be controllable” (p.
558). A major causal dimension is whether the individual considers a cause to be internal or
external to themselves, commonly referred to as locus of control (Weiner, 2010). A second factor
of causes is controllability and whether the individual believes the cause is subject to their
personal control (Weiner, 2010).
Teaching staff need to believe that positively influencing desirable behavior is internal to
and controllable by them. Andreou and Rapti (2010) found that variances in teacher experience
levels and their attributions for the cause of children’s behavior influenced their choices related
to handling problem behavior. Binfet and Passmore (2017) assert that “most teachers believe
they have a strong to moderate influence on shaping students’ kindness” (p. 37). Table 4
provides a summary of the motivation influences that have an impact on the organizational goals,
mission, and success.

44

Table 4
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Assumed motivation influence
Task value Teaching staff need to value using restorative
practices

Self-efficacy theory Teaching staff need to have confidence in their ability
to use restorative practices

Attribution theory Teaching staff need to make internal and controllable
attributions for positively influencing desirable
behavior in the school environment

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are the last of the three critical pieces, along with knowledge
and motivation, to be discussed for the influence they have on stakeholder success within an
organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) posit that organizational influences fall into one
of two categories, models or settings. They assert that models are the “shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47) and settings are the
interactions and processes that occur when multiple people come together to get things done. The
organizational influences of culture of collaboration, leadership serving as role models, and
ongoing training and support were explored.
School Needs to Support a Culture of Collaboration
Collaboration is a critical element for success in organizations and positively influences
autonomy and accountability (Fogel, 2020). “Collaborative culture can be defined as the shared
values, norms, and practices on the matter of teamwork and communication” (Meredith et al.,
2017, p. 25). A few important factors to establishing a collaborative culture are to define
common goals, understand the existing culture, and to clarify realistic benefits for all
45

stakeholders (Glowacki-Dudka & Murray, 2015). Nugroho (2018) found that having a
collaborative culture and sharing knowledge had a significant positive influence on
organizational learning.
The implementation of restorative practices in any organization, and teaching staff using
restorative practices in their daily work specifically, is ideally suited to benefit from a culture of
collaboration. Restorative practices is based on establishing a high structure and high support
environment as well as doing things with, not for or to, members within the organization
(Wachtel, 2016). A culture of collaboration ensures that teaching staff experience the same team-
oriented environment with peers and school leadership as they are expected to establish with
their students. Tallman (2019) asserted that teachers operating in positive collaborative
environments perceived trust, growth, mutuality, and satisfaction. The shared values, norms, and
practices provides the structure and support for teaching staff to collaborate with other members
of the organization to both grow their individual practice of restorative practices and establish the
whole-school cultural change for restorative practices to be successful. “Collaboration is a power
tool for professional development that creates opportunities for teachers to reflect on their
practice” (Tallman, 2019, p. 1).
School Leadership Team Need to Serve as Role Models by Using Restorative Practices
Leaders model desired behaviors, leading by example, with the goal of increasing
occurrence of those behaviors by others in the organization (Brown & White, 2009).
Cunningham et al. (2011) found that leaders modeling desired behaviors was one of the critical
elements that contributed to promoting workplace values and behaviors. “Of the array of learning
strategies to choose from when designing training programs, research suggests that behavior
modeling is of particular importance for the transfer of training” (Grossman & Salas, 2011, p.
46

111). Leaders maintaining a high commitment to change and modeling desirable behavior
positively influenced followers’ change commitment (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014).
For teaching staff to use restorative practices and modify how they interact with students,
it is important that they see school leadership modeling the behavior. As part of the restorative
practices’ implementation model, all staff, including administration, support staff, and teaching
staff, are normally provided training so restorative practices can be used in the whole-school
environment (Acosta et al., 2019). If leadership is not modeling the use of restorative practices it
may negatively influence teaching staff motivation to continue their practice. Further, using
restorative practices to build community and to resolve conflicts is one of the 11 essential
elements of restorative practices (Acosta et al., 2019). Leadership serving as role models for
using restorative practices signifies that it is valued practice within the organization and also
serves as a training aid to demonstrate effective strategies for implementation.
School Needs to Provide Ongoing Training and Support for Using Restorative Practices
There are key factors that must be in place for training to be successful (Grossman &
Salas, 2011). Among these are supervisor and peer support, resources and opportunities for
application, and follow-up training opportunities (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Abrell-Vogel and
Rowold (2014) demonstrated that leaders providing individual support to subordinates during a
change initiative had significant positive effect on the subordinate’s commitment to the change.
Formal training is just the beginning of the learning journey and learners should be provided job
aids, routine feedback, and post-training interventions about successfully reaching goals
(Grossman & Salas, 2011).
In order for teaching staff to effectively use restorative practices in their daily work they
need support from other staff, time to learn and develop their newly trained skills, and additional
47

training and feedback on their progress. Successful implementation of restorative practices
requires shifts in beliefs and behaviors that may present barriers to achievement. Wang and Lee
(2019) assert that applicable training and support is needed for teachers to achieve confidence
and proficiency in the use of responsive circles. The organization needs staff that are familiar
with restorative practices and a process that provides the ongoing training and support. Bandura
(2012) claimed “seeing people similar to oneself succeed by perseverant effort raises observers’
aspirations and beliefs in their own capabilities” (p. 13). Additionally, time needs to be provided
to allow for the development of restorative practices in a productive environment to strengthen
use in the classroom.
Table 5 shows the cultural models and settings that are essential to understanding how
teaching staff will achieve the stakeholder and organizational goals.

Table 5
Organizational Influences
Organizational influence category Organizational influence
Cultural Model Influence 1 The school needs a culture of collaboration among
all staff to support using restorative practices in
the whole-school environment

Cultural Setting Influence 1 The school leadership team need to serve as role
models by using restorative practices

Cultural Setting Influence 2 The school needs to provide ongoing training and
support for using restorative practices
48

Conceptual Framework
For this study, the conceptual framework explores the interrelationship of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact the capacity of RJS teaching staff to
effectively use restorative practices in their daily work. Like most culture change initiatives,
implementing restorative practices requires many levels and areas of transformation to be
successful in what is known as whole-school change (Mirsky, 2011). Teaching staff must
possess the requisite knowledge and skills, have the motivation to achieve the goal, and
experience the appropriate organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) to increase the
likelihood of reaching the stakeholder goal. The established research questions for this study
guide the process to understand the relationship between the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence RJS teaching staff capacity to use restorative practices in
their daily work.
Figure 3 displays the conceptual framework and demonstrates the interrelationship of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences presented in this study.

49

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework places a focus on understanding if RJS teaching staff possess
the appropriate conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge to demonstrate
competency in using restorative practices. Conceptual knowledge of restorative practices is
needed to understand the basic tenets of what restorative practices consists of as a foundation for
further learning and is required for teaching staff to understand their role in building positive
teacher-student relationships that contribute to the supportive environment needed in restorative
Stakeholder Goal
100% of RJS teaching
staff will use RP in their
daily work.
50

practices. Procedural knowledge is a necessity so teaching staff know how to carry out the
various procedures of restorative practices. Finally, the metacognitive knowledge ensures that
teaching staff have the capacity to reflect on their thoughts and behaviors about using restorative
practices to strengthen their practice.
As restorative practices may be an unfamiliar concept for RJS teaching staff and requires
modification of their classroom procedures, it is important to determine the level of motivation
for teaching staff to implement and use restorative practices. Task Value is used to determine the
value teaching staff place on using restorative practices in their daily work. Self-efficacy theory
is used to learn whether teaching staff have confidence in their ability to use restorative practices
effectively.
The last part of the conceptual framework consists of the organizational factors that are
needed by RJS teaching staff to reach the stakeholder goal. The RJS leadership team needs to
foster a culture of collaboration, to model the use of restorative practices with all staff, and to
provide the resources for ongoing training and support at the needed levels. The study seeks to
understand the teaching staff’s perceptions regarding these factors to find out the level of
incidence, if any, and the role the factors have in their knowledge and motivation to reach the
stakeholder goal.
As previously mentioned, the factors are interrelated with each other in the organizational
environment. Building skills through mastery experiences increases confidence in an individual’s
capability to perform a task which directly influences motivation (Bandura, 2012). The
organizational influence of providing ongoing training and support positively influences
knowledge gained from training and the motivation through support. Bandura (2012) asserted
that “under unambiguous feedback the stronger the self-efficacy the higher the performance
51

attainments” (p. 27). The organizational influence of the leadership team serving as role model in
the use of restorative practices may positively influence teaching staff’s expectation of success
and increase the value that teaching staff places on using restorative practices.
Summary
The literature review explored a body of research regarding school behavior (Hyson &
Taylor, 2011; Sullivan et al., 2014), the harmful impacts of traditional retributive school
discipline models (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Hemez et al., 2020), and the
influence of environment on behavior development and exhibition (Carlo et al., 2011; Connell et
al., 2016; Coyne et al., 2018). Additionally, the literature review examined the influence of
teachers on children’s prosocial behavior development (Johnston et al., 2019; Wissink et al.,
2014) and the potential for restorative practices to serve as a way to positively influence school
environment and student behavior (Acosta et al., 2019; Wang & Lee, 2019). The literature
suggests that teachers have the potential to help children process through life challenges
(Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), positively influence prosocial behavior (Spivak & Farran, 2012),
and use alternative methods for accountability (Mirsky, 2011; Wachtel, 2016; Wang & Lee,
2019) to prevent the harm that is evident from exclusionary discipline practices (Cholewa et al.,
2018; Losen, 2013; Morris & Perry, 2016). The literature review also presented the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact teaching staff’s capacity to use
restorative practices in their daily work through the lens of an adapted Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analytic framework. Chapter Three addresses the methodological approach for this study and
provide an overview of the validation process of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences for teaching staff.
52

Chapter Three: Methodology
The study focuses on the knowledge and motivation of teaching staff and the
organizational factors that influence the teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in
their daily work. The stakeholder group are primary teachers and teacher assistants that have
undergone previous introductory training in restorative practices while employed by Riverside
Junior School. Chapter Three is organized by starting with a review of the study questions and an
overview of the methodology of the study. It is followed by detailing the data collection,
instrumentation, and analysis plan to provide a clear outline of the study. Finally, my ethics and
role are discussed.
Study Questions
1. What are the teaching staff’s knowledge and motivation for using restorative
practices in their daily work?
2. In what ways do organizational influences impact the teaching staff’s capacity to use
restorative practices in their daily work?
3. What are the recommendations to support teaching staff’s use of restorative practices
in their daily work?
Overview of Methodology
This study was completed using qualitative interviews and document analysis.
Qualitative interviews were chosen because it is “necessary when we cannot observe behavior,
feelings, or how people interpret the world around them” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 426).
Interviews offered the best opportunity to gather data in the own words of those that have lived
the experience. Document analysis was chosen to gather data from items that tell the story of
policy, records, and visuals from the school that can be used to compare to data discovered in the
53

interview process. Specifically, materials that were generated from teaching staff were used to
evaluate knowledge and motivation factors based on how they were, or were not, used in the
classroom. Research questions one and two are addressed in this chapter. Research question
three is addressed in Chapter Five and is not discussed in this section. Table 6 displays the
alignment between the research questions and methods.

Table 6
Data Sources
Study questions Method 1: Interviews Method 2: Document analysis
What are the teaching staff’s
knowledge and motivation for
using restorative practices in
their daily work?

X X
In what ways do organizational
influences impact the teaching
staff’s capacity to use restorative
practices in their daily work?
X X

54

Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan
Data collection was completed through the use of interviews and document analysis. The
study’s research questions directed the chosen strategy for the data collection process and the
development of the instruments used in the study. The interview process was best suited to
capture the depth of data needed to increase the researcher’s understanding of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative
practices in their daily work. Document analysis was used to triangulate the data from the
interviews and to add value to the research into the organizational influence.
Method 1: Interviews
Qualitative interviews were conducted in a one-on-one format. The interview process is
designed to gain the opinions and views of participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Patton
(2002) claimed that interviews serve to gather data that we cannot observe such as thoughts,
feelings, and the intention of participants. An interview process was chosen due to the nature of
the research questions and the desire to gather data about the thoughts and feelings of
participants.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants were selected using two different levels of purposeful sampling. The
first level was the selection of the study site: a school that has conducted restorative practices
training and made establishing a restorative culture a goal. The second level of purposeful
sampling was to choose teaching staff that have completed restorative practices training at the
study site. Teaching staff were purposefully chosen because they are ideally positioned to add
value to the study, “purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to
55

discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most
can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96).
Teaching staff were selected because they offer the best opportunity to learn about the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing their capacity to use restorative
practices in their daily work. Teaching staff include both teachers and teaching assistants. There
were 32 members of teaching staff at the study site, and 29 met the study criteria including
completion of restorative practices training. I expected to need to conduct between 10 and 15
interviews to reach saturation. All teaching staff were recruited at the same time through email
and in-person notification by a senior member of school staff.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol in Appendix A was used for data collection. The format of the
protocol is known as a semi-structured interview protocol where most of the interview was
guided by a set list of questions but allowed flexibility to explore opportunities to gather useful
data during the interview through the use of probes and follow-up questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Due to the potential variability in participants’ experiences with the study subject matter
and practice, the use of follow-up questions was important.
Patton (2002) asserted that there are six kinds of questions: experience and behavior,
opinion and values, feeling, knowledge, sensory, and background and demographic questions.
Understanding the types of questions can be useful when designing an interview protocol. In this
study, I sought to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
impact the capacity of RJS teaching staff to effectively use restorative practices in their daily
work. The type of questions primarily used in the interview protocol were experience and
behavior, opinion and value, feeling, knowledge, and background questions (Patton, 2002).
56

Data Collection Procedures
Since all potential participants share a common employer, a senior school employee
provided me with the contact information for each teacher and teacher assistant that meets the
criteria. I sent an email with the opportunity to participate and coordinated with each participant
individually for the completion of the interview. I provided incentive by offering a £10 gift card
for participation. Based on the University of Southern California’s COVID-19 restrictions on in-
person data collection, the interviews were completed using Zoom.
The interviews were held in 60-minute time slots, with 90-minutes available as needed,
and were video recorded with the permission of the participants. I primarily gathered data from
the transcribed video recordings after completion of the interview and also took notes during the
interview. Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommend taking notes in case there is an issue with
the recording.
Data Analysis
The purpose of data analysis is to make sense out of the data that was gathered (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). I used both a priori and in vivo coding to identify patterns or themes to
organize the codes that added value to understanding the experiences shared in the interviews. In
qualitative research, data analysis happens simultaneously with collection of data. The researcher
needs to use an organization system to manage the collected data in a meaningful way (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Creswell and Creswell (2018) describe a three-step data analysis process of
organizing and preparing the data, reviewing the data, and coding the data.
To organize and prepare the data for this study I transcribed interviews and began
arranging the data. When reviewing the data, I reflected on the potential meaning from the
participant’s interviews and evaluated the information. Data was coded to allow grouping and
57

arrangement. Saldana (2021) defined a qualitative analysis code as “most often a word or short
phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative
attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 5). A priori coding was used for this
study based on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors from the research
questions and defined in Chapter Two. A priori, otherwise known as deductive coding, is
recommended when the conceptual framework, research questions, and other parts of the study
indicate categories or themes will emerge from the collected data (Saldana, 2021). In vivo
coding, an inductive method using participants own words, was also used (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Due to the uniqueness of each qualitative study, there are many paths the process of
coding can take depending on the study and the researcher (Saldana, 2021).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is achieved in qualitative research by ensuring that research findings match
the reality of what is happening and that researchers are measuring what they think they are
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, capturing the reality of the teaching staff’s experience
related to using restorative practices in their daily work is paramount.
In this type of research, it is important to understand the perspectives of those involved in
the phenomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behavior in a contextual
framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is happening. (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, pp. 243–244)
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that a primary consideration for trustworthiness in research
is that the researcher has to be trustworthy by conducting the study ethically.
As it relates to this study, several methods were used to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness. These methods include triangulation, interviewee transcript review, and
58

reflexivity. Triangulation includes the use of multiple methods including checking what is said in
interviews to what is seen in documents so not to rely on a single source or method (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). After each interview was transcribed participants were given the opportunity to
complete an interviewee transcript review to ensure that it accurately reflected their experience
and answers. Finally, I used reflexivity through reflection and candidness about biases, values,
and individual background that may influence the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Method 2: Document and Artifact Analysis
Document analysis can serve as a major part of triangulation of data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Various types of documents can provide valuable information, “document is
often used as an umbrella term to refer to a wide range of written, visual, digital, and physical
material relevant to the study (including visual images)” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 105).
Artifacts are meaningful three-dimensional objects (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents and
artifacts that were relevant to this study were school records, school policy statements, teacher
instruction plans, and classroom objects. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) asserted that the researcher
should remain open in their search for meaningful documents that may add value to the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Documents were collected primarily by working with a senior school employee and no
artifacts were collected. I sent an email to the school representative with a list of requested
documents including all relevant records and policy statements related to restorative practices
within the school. Individual participants were asked to provide instruction plans and classroom
objects, as applicable, and only one document was collected. Under the current University of
Southern California COVID-19 related data collection restrictions on in-person data collection, I
59

did not visit the school to collect data. Document analysis was used to research influences that
may impact stakeholder capacity and along with interviews strengthen the research.
Data Analysis
Bowen (2009) asserted that documents can give rich data, but researchers should review
documents with a critical eye and be cautious in their use. Researchers must verify the meaning
of documents, not just take individual words or passages, to establish the contribution to the
study (Bowen, 2009). Data can be structured based on theoretical approaches and the researcher
can review the data to determine the story told based on the category themes (Dalglish et al.,
2020). I looked for data within documents that supported the research questions and provided
insight when reviewed relative to the interview data.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
Conducting research with human participants comes with immense responsibility.
Qualitative data collection methods often present ethical dilemmas, and participants may become
uncomfortable and reveal things they did not intend to (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was vitally
important for participants to understand participation is voluntary, that consent can be withdrawn
at any time and for any part they choose, and their safety throughout the study is paramount. I
ensured that potential participants understood the informed consent form, were comfortable and
gave permission to record, and were satisfied with the way the data was stored and secured.
Participants were assigned pseudo numbers, and all electronic data were password protected.
Risk of confidentially being compromised when using Zoom or other internet-based methods of
data collection is unlikely but was considered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once the participants
were comfortable with the process, qualitative interviews were able to begin.
60

As the primary instrument in qualitative research, researchers have to be open and honest
about how biases, interests, and the framework of the study shape collection and analysis of data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I had no prior relationship with any of the participants and had only
initial brief contact with a senior employee of the organization when gathering information for
the study design. I have experience in a similar field, have recently attended the same restorative
practices training as the participants, and have made several assumptions about the knowledge
and motivation of participants. It was imperative to reflect on these assumptions and to
understand how the assumptions may have influenced the study and to ensure that focus was
maintained to capture the voices of participants accurately. The design of the interview protocol
helped to mitigate assumptions and biases during interviews by adhering to pre-set questions and
probes designed to maximize the experiences of participants.

61

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this research study was to explore the degree to which teaching staff at
Riverside Junior School are able to use restorative practices in their daily work. Data were
collected for this study to increase understanding regarding the knowledge, motivation, and
organization assets and needs that influence teaching staff’s use of restorative practices. Multiple
sources of qualitative data were collected for this study, including interviews as well as
documents and artifacts. Data collection was first done by conducting interviews with eligible
participants, including asking participants about their awareness of document and artifacts
related to the study. At the conclusion of the interviews, a senior member of school leadership
provided what they deemed to be all the relevant documents and artifacts within the
organization.
Interview data were analyzed to assess whether each influence is determined to be an
asset or a need within the context of this study. If at least seven out of 11 participants answered
in a similar manner then it was deemed a majority. If a particular assumed influence was lacking
among a majority, the influence was determined to be a need. If a particular assumed influence
was present among a majority, the influence was determined to be an asset. Document and
artifact analysis was conducted only for two organizational influences to aid in determining
whether they were an asset or need. Each of the influences are presented below as either an asset
or a need with supporting evidence.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for this study were the teaching staff, including teachers
and teaching assistants, at Riverside Junior School. All participants meeting the criteria were sent
an email from a senior member of the school leadership team inviting them to participate in the
62

study. Eleven participants volunteered and completed interviews out of the 29 potential
participants invited to participate. Due to the small size of the population and participant group, I
am not divulging disaggregated information. Participants are identified in the discussion of
findings using pseudonyms, such as Participant One, Participant Two, and Participant Three.
What Are Teaching Staff’s Knowledge and Motivation for Using Restorative Practices in
Their Daily Work?
This research study used qualitative interview data gathered from school teaching staff to
increase understanding into the first research question: What are teaching staff’s knowledge and
motivation for using restorative practices in their daily work? The influences are categorized and
presented as either a knowledge or motivation influence. Interview data was used to determine
whether an influence was an asset or need. Each of the influences are presented below as either
an asset or a need with evidence to support the assessment.
Knowledge Findings
Four knowledge influences were explored to assess them as an asset or need; the findings
are presented below. The four knowledge influences and their assessment are the following: (a)
teaching staff need to know their role in building positive teacher-student relationships—asset;
(b) teaching staff need to know what constitutes restorative practices—need; (c) teaching staff
need to know how to use restorative practices to address behavior—need; (d) teaching staff need
to be able to self-reflect on their own effectiveness in using restorative practices to improve their
use of restorative practices—need. Each of these influences are discussed in more detail below
and evidence is provided to support each assessment.
63

Teaching Staff Possess Understanding About Their Role in Building Positive
Teacher-Student Relationships
The overwhelming majority of study participants indicated they understood their role in
building positive teacher-student relationships. As discussed in Chapter Three, teaching staff
behaviors, such as encouragement and emotional warmth, contribute to classroom prosocial
behaviors (Spivak & Farran, 2012) and are related to the high support environment central to
restorative practices. Participants appeared to have a clear comprehension of their role and the
importance of establishing positive relationships with students based on the responses to
interview questions. This finding is supported by 10 out of 11 teaching staff participants
expressing an understanding of their role in building positive teacher-student relationships.
Interview data demonstrated that teaching staff understand the importance of building
positive relationships with students. Study participants shared their perspectives on the
importance of building positive relationships with their students and focused on the various
needs of their students beyond the core curriculum. For example, when asked to describe their
role in building relationships with their students, Participant Three responded, “I think it’s the
most important part of the job … we care for the whole child. It’s one of the most important
things to get that bond and that level of trust with children.” Participant Two shared, “My role is
to make them feel safe, and secure, and trusted, and have the confidence to be able to talk to me
about any issues they’ve got.” Similarly, Participant Six discussed their role in building positive
relationships with their students, “I would say it’s one of the most important parts of the job. I
think if the children don’t respect you, or the children don’t feel valued, they’re not going to
learn, they’re not going to feel safe.” These responses indicate participants recognize their
64

students have needs beyond basic instruction and understand the value of building those
relationships.
In addition to discussing their understanding of their role in building relationships, 10 out
of 11 study participants also discussed their value for the role they play and how they view the
current state of the relationship they have with their students. When asked to describe their
existing relationship with their students, teaching staff shared examples of creating positive
relationships. Participant Three said, “I love getting to know the individuals and what makes
them tick, I think it’s essential.” Responding to the same question, Participant Five spoke about
their relationship with students, “I think I’ve got a really good relationship with them. I think
we’ve got a good trust and I think they know they can come to me if they need help or support.”
Participant Seven confidently answered, “I think it’s fantastic. I would like to think that they feel
I’m someone that they can come to at any point with anything.”
Divergent to the other participants, Participant Eleven focused on teaching and classroom
control when asked about building relationships with students. According to Participant Eleven,
“If you make it enjoyable along the journey, I think it’s nice, it makes it nice for you.”
Continuing the statement, Participant Eleven said, “They have to know the boundaries … I think
some people do tend to sort of try and overstep it, but I think as long as they’re very aware you
are the person in charge.” Participant Eleven also focused heavily on sharing subject knowledge
when describing the existing relationship with their students.
The majority (10 of 11) of participants’ responses support that interview participants
clearly understand their role in building positive teacher-student relationships. This is supported
by the specific examples shared by participants regarding their views on the current relationship
65

with their students. The responses also demonstrate that the participants think they are
succeeding in building those relationships with their students.
Teaching Staff Have Introductory Knowledge of What Constitutes Restorative Practices
Interviews with teaching staff indicated introductory and partial awareness of the
recognized restorative practices discussed in Chapter Two. Participants were asked two interview
questions to identify their conceptual knowledge related to restorative practices. The first
question asked for participants to explain in their own words what restorative practices are, and
the second question asked them what restorative practices they used, if any. All 11 out of 11
participants provided interview data indicating limited and undeveloped aspects of what
constitutes the expanded range of restorative practices in the school environment (listed in Table
2) or the five restorative practices (listed in Figure 2). The assessment of this influence focused
on the five restorative practices listed in Figure 2. Table 7 presents the key findings and evidence
covered in this section. Further explanation is provided for each finding following the table.

66

Table 7
Findings and Evidence for Participants’ Conceptual Restorative Practices Knowledge
Finding Evidence
Study participants provided
interview data that indicates
a lack of familiarity with
the breadth of what
constitutes restorative
practices
Participant 9: “I would say, almost discipline them less, kind
of get them to, like if there is any sort of conflict at all, sort
of ask them well, how do you think you’re going to make it
better?”

Participant 4: “I look at restorative practice as a way of getting
the children to take responsibility for their behavior. So,
we’re not looking at just punishing them, we’re looking at,
okay, why have you made these choices?”

Participant 8: “I think it’s not jumping in and telling kids off.
It’s getting them to reflect about their behaviors, why they
did something, how it would make other children feel, and
us teachers feel, and then to reflect on future behaviors.”

Study participants reported
using only two of the five
restorative practices
Participant 10: “We usually go and ask first what’s happened
to get the children to explain what’s happened … and then
hopefully it comes from them and they answer truthfully, or
they will say it’s not my fault.”

Speaking of the restorative questions, Participant 9 said: “I
would say that I don’t use all of it. But I’ve taken a couple
that I would say I kind of use as second nature now.”

Participant 5: “It's kind of like a five-point question. So, if a
situation occurs on the playground, they will come to us in
whatever heightened state of emotion or upset or frustration,
and then it's our role to kind of bring them back down again,
level out those emotions and get them to think about what's
happened.”

Analyzed data from other
interview questions
appeared to reveal
misconceptions about what
restorative practices is
Participant 5: “It is very much just a conversation with
children.”

Participant 9: “I wouldn’t plan for it, it kind of happens if
there’s a need for it.”

Participant 6: “I can’t say that I really plan for it until it’s
happened. And I know that’s probably not the right way.”

67

Finding Evidence
Participant 10: “Before this all came into practice, and we
started doing it, to be honest with you, I think it was just a
natural thing to do.” They later spoke of restorative practices
by saying they had previous similar experience, “But it
wasn’t called that, I think it was just called common sense.”

Note. Acosta et al. (2019) serves as the comparison for model restorative practices use in the
school environment.

Study participants provided interview data that indicates a lack of familiarity with the
breadth of what constitutes restorative practices. The interview question did not ask specifically
for the participants to name and explain restorative practices they were familiar with, but the data
across all participants were similar in that all described facets of the restorative questions and
using them with either one or more children to address behavior or conflict issues. These answers
suggest that participants may understand a portion of the core restorative practices’ philosophy,
“human beings are … more likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in
positions of authority do things with them, rather than to or for them” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 3), but
the participants did not demonstrate comprehension of the extensiveness of restorative practices
as a formal process and framework.
Study participants predominantly reported using only two of the five restorative practices
listed in Figure 2: (a) restorative questions with a single child, and (b) restorative questions in
small impromptu conferences following conflict between children. Participants’ answers indicate
only an introductory understanding of these two practices and lack of familiarity with the other
restorative practices; affective statements, groups or circles, and formal conferences. Answers
were varied among participants but were primarily comprised of inconsistent recallability of the
68

restorative questions they were provided in training and in card format to keep on their person as
a template.
Analyzed data from other interview questions appeared to reveal misconceptions about
what restorative practices is. Examples are provided in Table 7. Participants statements summing
up their impression of restorative practices into it being “just a conversation,” not planning for or
recognizing the parts of the restorative practices process for before behavior issues or conflict
occur, and thinking that restorative practices is what happens naturally without training, or is just
“common sense,” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the conceptual and procedural
knowledge of restorative practices.
For this knowledge influence to have been determined an asset, participants should have
more accurately described what constitutes restorative practices, explained the restorative
practices they use with increased accuracy and detail, and been familiar with or used additional
practices throughout the restorative practices range. Specifically, participant data did not indicate
the routine use of affective statements or circles, two of the foundational restorative practices
listed in Figure 2 that are expected to be routinely used. Though considered the most formal of
restorative practices, and not expected to be commonly used by teaching staff, the use of formal
conferences was not mentioned either. Finally, example quotes listed above that use language
that implies punishment is still part of the behavior management strategy, such as “discipline
them less” and “not looking at just punishing them.” These perspectives are counter to the
purpose of implementing restorative practices as an alternative to retributive methods.
Teaching Staff Possess Limited Procedural Knowledge of Restorative Practices
Interview findings indicate study participants need additional procedural knowledge for
using restorative practices to address behaviors. Procedural knowledge is the how of doing
69

something and includes the “criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods”
(Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). For this influence, teaching staff need to have the skills and know the
techniques and methods for using the five restorative practices listed in Figure 2. These include
knowing when and how to use affective statements, affective (restorative) questions, small
impromptu conferences, group or circles, and formal conferences. Teaching staff were
introduced to each of those procedures in their introductory training, but the data provided by
participants indicated only the use of the restorative questions and small impromptu conferences.
Further, the data appears to show varied levels of skill in their use.
The interview data provided by participants indicated most teaching staff did not have the
procedural knowledge to use the restorative questions correctly to address behaviors. As an
example, Participant Eight said, “With two children it is you know, what happened?” then
reported the use of some non-restorative practices questions they apparently thought were part of
the restorative questions, such as “Why did you do that? What made you do that?,” that appear
counter to the non-judgmental and non-accusatory goal of the actual restorative questions.
Participant Seven spoke about the restorative questions, “We were given questions … on a little
card these are questions you need to say. I don’t like that; it didn’t feel natural to me. We have to
… do it in our own way.” Similarly, Participant Nine told of only using a portion of the
restorative questions, “I would say that I don’t use all of it. But I’ve taken a couple that I would
say I kind of use almost as second nature now.” When asked about their confidence level with
using restorative practices, Participant Ten said, “Trying to remember them all in the right order
is a little bit impossible” and said they usually only use the first and last questions because they
don’t think some of the students are capable of understanding the process. These examples
70

demonstrate a lack of procedural knowledge and familiarity with the one restorative practice they
assert to use most often.
Interview data indicates teaching staff do not appear to routinely use or have familiarity
with three of the five restorative practices listed in Figure 2. Ideally, study participants would
have shared interview data indicating familiarity with and procedural use of affective statements,
circles, and formal conferences. Only one out of 11 participants provided interview data
describing the potential use of a version of affective statements. When asked about restorative
practices they used, Participant Six said, “Some of the kind of “I” sentences, saying how it
makes you feel, and kind of summarizing what the behaviors are that you are noticing.” Circles
are anticipated to be used proactively and responsively as a cornerstone of restorative practices
for people in all environments. Training and support are needed to have confidence and
proficiency in the use of responsive circles (Wang & Lee, 2019). Circles were mentioned by only
three participants, but they neither linked them to use as a restorative practice nor appeared to
understand the purpose of their use in restorative practices. Participant Four recognized the idea
of circles as a “great way to discuss restorative practice and positive behavior” and considered
circle time to be “quite a young thing” and proposed to “just have it as a discussion, rather than
circle time.” Participant Five described getting children together to discuss behavior in circles,
but when asked if they were familiar with the concept of restorative circles they answered, “no.”
Participant Six spoke of the Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) curriculum and said,
“we find it very difficult to fit in circle time and those kind of PSHE style discussions because it
can be quite focused on the math and English.” Finally, zero out of 11 provided interview data
indicating either awareness of or the procedural use of formal conferences.
71

Teaching Staff Do Not Routinely Self-Reflect on Their Use of Restorative Practices
Study participants provided interview data indicating they are not engaging in self-
reflection regarding their use of restorative practices. This influence was examined to explore the
level of teaching staff’s metacognitive knowledge with a focus on self-reflection related to the
use of restorative practices. Teaching staff need to reflect during and after restorative practices
use to determine if they were using restorative practices, and if so, to consider whether they were
using it effectively. A series of three questions were asked to gain data for participants’ self-
reflection on thoughts and behaviors to improve their use of restorative practices; they were
asked to share their last experience using restorative practices, to discuss anything they would
have liked to have done differently in that situation, and if they learned anything from the
experience that may influence their approach in future situations. Seven out of 11 participants
shared data that indicated a lack of self-reflection for restorative practices use.
Study participants provided interview data that indicates they do not routinely self-reflect
on their use of restorative practices. As an example, Participant Six shared a recent experience
and stated, “To be honest, I don’t, I haven’t reflected on it. I don’t know how I could have done
it any differently.” Similarly, Participant Eight provided an answer absent of reflection, “I don’t
know. I don’t know if I could have done anything differently.” Participant Ten said, “Not really
sure to be honest with you.” Beyond these very clear indicators about the lack of self-reflection,
several of the participants were able to reflect during the interview, but they did not provide data
that indicated routine self-reflection about their use of restorative practices.
Six participants shared interview data focusing on organizational factors that influence
their use of restorative practices. When asked what they would have done differently, Participant
Four stated, “I always think it’s time … you don’t get a lot of time.” Similarly, Participant Seven
72

said, “But it is all down to time. Often, you don’t feel you’re dealing with problems as best they
could be dealt with.” Participant Eleven stated, “I’d certainly be probably finding more time, the
right time, the quality time to actually be asking the questions.” Responding to a question about
how restorative practices has impacted their job, Participant Two indicated that they haven’t
reflected about restorative practices use in their work, “I don’t know. It’s hard to be reflective
and look back, perhaps it’s made small influences on classroom practice.” It is assumed that
participants do not routinely practice self-reflection in support of metacognitive knowledge
based on the preceding evidence.
Motivation Findings
Three motivation influences were explored to assess them as an asset or need and the
findings are presented below. The three motivation influences are the following: 1) teaching staff
need to value using restorative practices; 2) teaching staff need to have confidence in their ability
to use restorative practices; 3) teaching staff need to make internal, controllable attributions for
positively influencing desirable behavior in the school environment. All three motivational
influences were determined to be assets. Each of these influences are discussed in more detail
below and evidence is provided to support each assessment.
Teaching Staff Highly Value Restorative Practices
A large majority of study participants indicated a high value for using restorative
practices in their work. It was important within the study framework to understand the value
teaching staff placed on the use of restorative practices. The value that teachers place on
evidence-based teaching interventions has been found in prior studies to predict their
implementation levels (Foley, 2011). Three questions were asked related to the value of
restorative practices; all were found to be an asset leading to the conclusion that teaching staff
73

highly value restorative practices. Ten out of 11 participants shared situations where they found
restorative practices useful, 10 out of 11 participants provided interview data about how
restorative practices positively impacted their job, and seven out of 11 participants explicitly said
they consider restorative practices to be the most successful method they are aware of to address
conflict they encounter.
Ten of 11 participants reported they found restorative practices beneficial in their work
environment. When asked about situations where restorative practices was found to be useful,
Participant Five stated, “Any of the scenarios we use in the school setting is good because it’s
introducing the children to it as a tool at a young age … as a way of dealing with their problems
rather than lashing out.” Responding to the same question, Participant Seven said, “All the time
… the impact is that we then don’t have as many problems lasting in the classroom.” Participant
Nine shared a situation where they found restorative practices useful, “I guess with friendship
fallouts to be honest, when the friend’s fallout they just feel, both of them feel, unjust by what
the other person’s done and I think that’s quite good to get them to mend a friendship.”
All 11 study participants believe restorative practices has positively impacted their work.
When asked how using restorative practices has impacted their job, Participant One stated that
using restorative practices gives them “time back that I would ordinarily spend, basically arguing
with the children or them arguing with each other and me” and added it was also linked to their
philosophy on the role of a teacher, “I suppose a trust thing, they trust me to resolve things fairly.
Everyone has a voice and everyone needs to have their say, otherwise they feel frustrated, or
upset, or just unheard, really.” Speaking of behavior management in the classroom, Participant
Three shared, “there’s much more of a feel of we’re a team in the classroom and we work
74

together. And I think we’re more effective that way, rather than one person is in charge and
makes the rules and enforces them.”
Study participants believe that restorative practices is the best method they have
awareness of to deal with conflict. Participant Four stated, “I don’t think I have found any others.
I think restorative practices has to be my favorite because it is so positive.” Participant Three
shared their positive opinion about restorative practices, “I do think restorative practice is more
effective because the children are coming to the realization themselves. And it’s opening up
those thought processes and it does make them reflect upon.” Stating simply that restorative
practices is their preferred method, Participant Nine said, “I don’t think there is anything really
other that I would use.”
The preceding data indicates that participants highly value restorative practices. Data
across all three questions were provided that supports the assessment for this high value.
Participants found restorative practices useful, believe it has positively impacted their job, and
consider it the best method they are aware of to deal with conflict.
Teaching Staff Report High Levels of Confidence in Using Restorative Practices
Study participants interview data indicated high levels of confidence in using restorative
practices. Understanding teaching staff’s confidence level, or self-efficacy, for using restorative
practices was important to explore because self-efficacy has been linked to academic
achievement (Motlagh et al., 2011) as well as motivation and success (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012).
Interview responses from teaching staff indicated a high level of confidence in their capability to
successfully use restorative practices in their work. This conclusion is evidenced based on eight
out of 11 study participants reporting this influence as an asset.
75

Interview participants provided responses indicating high self-efficacy to successfully use
restorative practices. The majority of participants explicitly claimed they have high confidence
for the use of restorative practices. Table 8 displays the responses falling in the distinctly positive
category when asked to describe their level of confidence, if any, in using restorative practices in
their work.

Table 8
Participants Responses on Self-Efficacy for Using Restorative Practices
Participant Responses
1 I would say quite high.

3 I would say I’ve got quite a high level of confidence.

4 I would say I’m about average, I don’t feel unconfident. I’m quite
happy with it.

5 I’m pretty confident enough to do it and talk it through.

7 Yeah, absolutely fine. No problem now, nervous to start with …
but now, no, it’s not a problem at all.

8 So, I think pretty much I’m doing a good job.

10 I would say I am quite confident and do it. I wasn’t initially
because I was so confused by all the questions initially and
getting them in the right order.

11 Yeah, really quite confident with that. Getting them to talk about
what they’ve done and why and all those bits and pieces.

76

There were three responses that were questionable or clearly indicated a lack of
confidence. Participant Two stated, “No, not the best probably, because I don’t have a lot of
time. Because I don’t sit down and do those mediated conversations very often.” Participant Six
shared, “It’s difficult to know ... I feel like I need somebody to almost judge me. I think I deal
with things quite well.” Participant Nine said, “I’d say like a three out of five. I feel like I haven’t
looked it up for ages. So, I haven’t refreshed myself, so I don’t know how well I’m actually
doing it.” These responses vary from lack of confidence to uncertainty but did not fall explicitly
in the high confidence category.
It is important to note the reported high self-efficacy in contrast to the previously
assessed lack of conceptual and procedural knowledge presented earlier in this chapter. Study
participants potentially have overconfidence regarding their use of restorative practices.
Overconfidence can include “overestimating ability and overestimating the accuracy of one’s
knowledge” (Weinberg, 2009, p. 504). This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Teaching Staff Make Internal and Controllable Attributions for Positively Influencing
Desirable Behavior in the School Environment
Study participants provided interview data that indicates internal and controllable
attributions for influencing desirable behavior in the school environment. Study participants were
asked what they believed to be the contributing factors that influence desirable behavior in the
classroom among their students. The goal of this question was to obtain data regarding where
participants held internal and controllable attributions for influencing positive student behavior.
Ten out of 11 study participants provided interview data denoting they have internal and
controllable attributions for positively influencing desirable behavior in the classroom.
77

Study participants reported internal and controllable attributions for positively
influencing desirable behavior in the classroom. As an example, Participant One shared how they
had seen how their actions in the classroom directly influenced student behavior in the previous
week and stated, “Being organized, being calm, planning ahead … being organized and prepared
with your lessons. And I suppose foresee those difficulties that children might encounter.”
Participant Two said, “Maybe a positive classroom, a classroom where people are listened to and
valued. A classroom where children know that it’s fair and that some children aren’t treated
differently to others.” In addition to the children around them and the overall class environment,
Participant Five said, “I think it would be the people that influence them. Their role models, so
like their teacher, the LSA [Learning Support Assistant], and other positive children around
them.” Participant Seven shared their opinion, “I think good role models, I think … that the
children in the class know that we respect them, they will always have time to listen to them, that
we’re fair.” The data provided by participants indicates that they believe they play an important
part in the behavior of children they interact with and that behavior is influenced by the
environment they create.
In What Ways Do Organizational Influences Impact the Teaching Staff’s Capacity to Use
Restorative Practices in Their Daily Work?
This research study used qualitative interviews with teaching staff and documents and
artifacts provided by school staff to provide insight into the second research question: In what
ways do organizational influences impact the teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices
in their daily work? Document and artifact analysis was only conducted for two influences to aid
in determining whether it was an asset or need. In addition to the assumed influences explored in
78

this study, one additional finding emerged related to the influence of time and work demands.
Each of the influences are presented below as either an asset or a need with supporting evidence.
Teaching Staff Perceive a Collaborative Culture Regarding Restorative Practices
Interview responses from teaching staff indicated a perception of a collaborative culture
regarding restorative practices, but document and artifact analysis uncovered some gaps. The
assessment for this influence used both interview data and document and artifact data to aid in
determining whether the influence was an asset or a need. The findings for this influence are
mixed when comparing the interview data and the document and artifacts data. The interview
findings are presented below along with the evidence that indicates teaching staff perceive a
collaborative culture for the use of restorative practices within the organization. The document
and artifact analysis findings are presented below along with evidence that indicates there are
organizational gaps for this influence.
Interview Findings
Based on data analyzed from interviews, study participants perceive a collaborative
culture for the use of restorative practices exists in the organization. A collaborative culture
consists of a culture where members of the group share “values, norms, and practices on the
matter of teamwork and communication” (Meredith et al., 2017, p. 25). For this study, this
ideally includes common values, norms, and practices aligned with restorative practices that is
shared among team members in the organization. Acknowledging that there may be varying
perceptions about the understanding of the definition of a collaborative culture, all 11
participants reported a positive opinion for experiencing a collaborative culture regarding
restorative practices.
79

Study participants report a collaborative culture that supports their use of restorative
practices. As an example, Participant One stated, “Having a whole school philosophy and having
it embedded so deeply into not just the teaching staff but every member of staff … it’s quite a
strong thing for me.” Participant Four said, “I think having that consistent approach really helps
… that consistency across your behavior policy is what keeps, as a school, everybody following
along the same lines.” Participant Ten stated, “It’s about working together as a team, whether it’s
just in the group you’re in, or whether the whole school, and luckily the whole school do work as
a team.” Speaking of the use of restorative practices, Participant Eight shared, “I can hear it, I
can hear it going on in the school. I can hear it. Everybody, I can hear the dinner ladies do it. I
can hear teachers on the playground do it.” Participant Five said, “I think the fact that we’ve all
signed up to the same thing and we’re all doing the same thing means that as a school, and for
the children, it is a constant for them.” The preceding data provides evidence that participants
perceive a collaborative culture based on their experiences within the organization.
Document and Artifact Analysis Findings
Based on the documents and artifacts provided and analyzed, the organization needs to
improve the methods it currently uses to establish a collaborative culture for restorative practices.
The documents and artifacts reviewed for this influence encompass the relevant documents that
were provided by school leadership and a single interview participant. These items include the
behavior policy, a PowerPoint presentation about the school’s use of restorative practices and
future plans, a photograph of a school information board described previously in this chapter, the
restorative questions training card provided as an aid, a curriculum improvement plan for a
single subject that mentions restorative practices, and an advertisement and curriculum for the
“Teach Peace” student training program. These are pertinent to the collaborative culture by
80

reviewing the ways that the organization has fostered a collaborative culture related to the use of
restorative practices.
Most importantly, the behavior policy has not been modified to reflect restorative
processes and is offering a competing model and methods for behavior management. The
behavior policy has not been revised to account for restorative practices and details retributive
methods for handling behavior encountered in school. During review of the school’s behavior
policy the word “restorative” was not found, and the policy appears to have not been modified in
any manner to align policy with restorative vs retributive practices. There are some underlying
support policies that may fall under the idea of restorative, including involving bullying
perpetrators in discussion about what happened and providing opportunities for social and
emotional skill development. Finally, instead of advocating for the use of restorative practices
when dealing with student behavior issues, the behavior policy authorizes the use of escalating
sanctions that range from warnings to exclusion from school. It appears that teachers are being
offered the use of restorative practices but are being guided and bound by a competing behavior
management policy that is not in alignment with the philosophy or methodology of restorative
practices.
The PowerPoint presentation consists of 12 slides and is comprised of a snapshot of the
initial training received and RJS specific goals that are significantly out of date, and this
presentation is assumed to be the only option available to teaching staff on the school’s network.
Participant One said they assumed there was a restorative practices related PowerPoint on the
school’s network but had never “felt the need to go look for it.” Participant Ten mentioned that
they had went on the school’s website attempting to find a file related to restorative practices and
could not find it.
81

The organizational efforts toward establishing a collaborative culture supportive of
restorative practices use within the school appear to be minimal. The school information board
appears to be the only common area restorative practices presentation in the school and notably
only a few participants mentioned awareness of any restorative practices related visuals around
the school. Additionally, the card listing the restorative questions was mentioned as the only aid
provided by most participants. The sole curriculum improvement plan submitted by one of the
participants for one subject mentions a plan to ensure a consistent restorative approach
throughout the school on a continuous basis “in line with school policy” but did not result in
changes to the school’s behavior policy. Additionally, no other teaching staff provided similar
documents when specifically asked, so it is not apparent if similar documents previously or
currently exist.
The “Teach Peace” student training program is designed to equip older children in the
school to help other students handle conflict primarily in the playground setting. There is an
established curriculum from an outside entity and each year a new cohort is trained. Only two
study participants discussed the program by name. Participant Two spoke of the “Teach Peace”
children but was unsure if they were trained in the use of restorative practices. Participant Three
spoke of them highly and was aware they were trained in the use of restorative practices.
Overall, there are considerable gaps in the organizational factors of establishing a
collaborative culture found in the document analysis. Common values, norms, and practices for
restorative practices are likely difficult to establish with competing behavior management
practices and minimal promotion of restorative practices in written and visual work within the
school. The school’s continued support of the “Teach Peace” program is an asset but it appears
there is opportunity to be clearer with staff on the initiative.
82

Modeling of Restorative Practices by School Leadership Positively Influences Teaching
Staff
The interview data suggests teaching staff perceive that school leadership model the use
of restorative practices at a level that positively influences their use of restorative practices.
Leadership choosing to model behaviors signals to employees that the behavior is valued and
provides an example to model for their development. Three questions were asked related to
school leadership’s use of restorative practices and all three were considered an asset. The
following three questions were asked: (a) to describe restorative practices interactions with
school leadership, (b) to what degree participants see school leadership modeling the use of
restorative practices, and (c) the influence of school leadership modeling restorative practices on
their own use of restorative practices.
Study participants perceive school leadership to be role models for the use of restorative
practices. Nine out of 10 participants provided answers indicating they believe school leadership
model the use of restorative practices. Participant Three said, “I have to say, I believe our
leadership team are fantastic at this. They very much lead the way with restorative practice …
They use this with both staff and children.” Participant Seven spoke positively about school
leadership, “They are strong advocates, I’ve seen them use it all the time. I can hear the head
teacher often in the corridors using it.” Speaking directly about school leadership, Participant
Two stated, “I see that process going on with children, they’re not just told off in a really strict
manner and back to class, they’re also listened to fairly. So, I would say that that culture is …
everywhere I see.” Study participants believe school leadership serve as role models for
restorative practices use.
83

Study participants report frequent restorative practices use by school leadership. Eight out
of 11 participants shared answers indicating they assess school leadership in a favorable way for
the frequency of their use of restorative practices. Participant One said, “As far as I’m aware, and
from what I have witnessed myself, it’s on all occasions it’s used.” According to Participant
Eleven, “Oh, yeah. All the time. Pretty much all the time.” Participant Three shared a personal
example of support from school leadership and also said, “Certainly, obviously, I’ve seen
[restorative practices used in] discussions with children.” It is clear from the study data that study
participants believe school leadership commonly use restorative practices.
Study participants believe that school leadership modeling restorative practices positively
influences their use of restorative practices. Seven out of 11 participants provided interview data
indicating that school leadership modeling restorative practices positively influences their use of
restorative practices. Participant Three stated, “Certainly, I mean with leaders, I think they need
to be able to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. And it just reinforces that global message
across the school.” Participant Five said, “I think it encourages me to persevere with it …
especially when you can see it is being used by my superiors.” Speaking of the head teacher,
Participant Seven said, “Yeah, I think hearing, you know, again, hearing your head teacher using
it” and continued on how if the head teacher uses restorative practices then “we’ve got to give it
a go.” Study participants believe school leadership’s restorative practices use positively
influences their use of restorative practices.
Lack of Ongoing Training and Support for the Use of Restorative Practices
Study data indicates a lack of ongoing training and support for the use of restorative
practices. This influence was assessed using interview data and document and artifact data to aid
in making the determination on whether the influence was an asset or a need. This influence was
84

determined to be a need based on both the interview and the document and artifact data. The
interview findings and the document and artifact analysis findings are presented below along
with the evidence supporting the determination.
Interview Findings
According to the interview data provided by participants, they have received minimal
ongoing training and support they related to their use of restorative practices. Ongoing training
and support includes several factors such as leadership support, job aids, feedback, and relevant
resources. The two interview questions for this influence were a single question for follow-on
training for restorative practices and a single question for resources provided by the organization
that supports the use of restorative practices. Answers provided by participants indicated
minimal to no organizational support in either area for the use of restorative practices.
Study participants report they have been provided no additional training on the use of
restorative practices since the initial school-wide training. Nine out of 11 participants explicitly
discussed the absence of additional training beyond the initial session to support their use of
restorative practices. Table 9 displays the answers provided by participants when asked about
follow-on training they had received on restorative practices after the initial session.

85

Table 9
Participants’ Responses on Organization-Provided Restorative Practices Follow-On Training
Participant Responses
1 None since the initial training, no.

2 I don’t think I’ve had any other than my initial input.

4 None. I think it would be good to have.

5 None, just that. And also, no follow-up, really, I suppose.

6 I can’t think that we’ve had any extra ones. I think we could do with
some follow-up.

7 None, none apart from our initial one.

8 No. Not that I’m aware of. No, I think talking to you, it would be
nice to go back and discuss it as a staff.

9 No, I don’t think I’ve had anything else.

10 Literally that little one two years ago and that is all.

Study participants interview data indicated being provided minimal resources that support
the use of restorative practices in their work. When asked about resources provided to support
the use of restorative practices, nine out of 11 participants acknowledged being provided a
physical card or sticker with the restorative questions as one of the few, if not the only, resources
they linked to the use of restorative practices. Participant Two stated, “I can’t think of any at all.
Other than the fact I’ve got a little reminder card that someone’s made a copy for me, if that even
counts.” Similarly, Participant Ten spoke of the lack of resources, “I don’t remember any
resources, to be honest with you. I think we just got given a little card with what we should do
and I think that’s about all we had.” Participant Eight said, “I don’t know of any. There might
86

have been a book floating around after the actual training … apart from a sticker that had the
questions on the back.” Participant Five shared, “None really. So, we’ve got a list of the five-
point questions that we have on our person.” A single participant spoke of a supporting person
within the organization leadership as a resource that was directly related to their use of
restorative practices. Speaking of this person, Participant One said they can go to them “for
support, … additional information, or if I’m struggling with anything regarding restorative
practices.” Study participants report minimal resources for the support of restorative practices.
The preceding findings validate the assumed organizational influence that asserts the lack of
ongoing training and support for the use of restorative practices. Reaching the stakeholder goal
may be negatively impacted without modification to this influence.
Document and Artifact Analysis Findings
Analyzing the provided document and artifacts data identified some potential competing
messaging from school leadership that may negatively influence teaching staff’s restorative
practices use. The first document is a photograph of a school information board that provided an
alternative version of the restorative questions than teaching staff were taught to use and is
different than the second document, a training aid of the restorative questions, that teaching staff
were provided to carry on their person. These examples are detailed to explain the findings
further.
A photograph of a school information board was provided that displays a different
version of the restorative questions than what teaching staff were taught and what they were
provided in card form to carry on their person as a training aid. It is important to note that there
are several variations of the restorative questions used in the community and I offer no judgment
on the preferred or more desirable version of them. This finding only focuses on the existence of
87

two differing versions of the restorative questions within the organization being presented to
teaching staff that may account for some of the indicated challenges to use questions in practice
and recall discovered in the interview data. Table 10 provides the two different versions of the
restorative questions in use at the school.

Table 10
Comparison of Restorative Questions in Use on Training Aid Compared to Displayed
Taught/Training aid Displayed
What happened? What happened?

What were you thinking? What were you thinking about at the time?

What were you feeling? What have your thoughts been since the
incident?

Who has been affected by this? Who do you think has been affected by your
actions? In what way were they affected?

What do you need to do to put things right? What do you need to do now to make things
right?

88

Competing Time and Work Demands Negatively Influence Use of Restorative Practices
Among Teaching Staff
A new finding that emerged from throughout the interview data that falls under an
organization influence is teaching staff’s perceived time and work demands that compete with
their use of restorative practices. Due to how often these demands were mentioned, it is assessed
to be a significant influence on teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in their work.
Ten out of 11 participants specifically mentioned time as a hindrance when asked about what
supports or hinders their ability to use restorative practices; additionally, time was mentioned
throughout the interviews at various points.
Study participants indicate work and time demands negatively influence their use of
restorative practices. Study participants described situations where they think they have to make
a decision between handling issues with children in a restorative manner or continue with their
primary teaching duties. Speaking of things that negatively influence the use of restorative
practices, Participant One stated, “Yeah, just time, just when you’re really under pressure, it’s
easy to dismiss problems without dealing with them fully.” Participant Two shared, “If
someone’s got really upset or angry, I don’t have time to calm for a long time first … So
sometimes I can’t deal with everything, but just because of my time.” Answering the same
question, Participant Eleven stated, “I’d say is simple reasons of time and availability. I’m plate
spinning, basically, I’m trying to deliver quality learning, I’m trying to help people with any
particular learning issues they might have.” Continuing on discussing competing demands,
Participant Eleven further expanded, “But it’s just, I can’t be out of the classroom dealing with a
problem when I’m trying to start a lesson at the same time.” Sharing how competing demands
can affect employee wellbeing by handling incidents during lunch or break times, Participant Six
89

said, “There is the pressure … you feel that you’re halfway through a lesson and something’s
happened, also you want to deal with it. But at the same time … you’ve got a jam-packed
curriculum.” Reflecting on past restorative practices use, Participant Five stated, “I think time
pressure would be a massive one for me, and the fact that it feels like a kind of rushed version of
restorative practice.”
This influence was added to the original list of assumed influences because of the
frequency it surfaced in the data. Participants entwined the competing time and work demands
throughout as a major influence on their use of restorative practices. The preceding findings
highlight the negative influence on the use of restorative practices and establishes this as a need
within the organization.
Conclusion
This chapter presented knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were
assessed to determine if they were an asset or a need within the organization. The interviews and
document and artifact data were analyzed to discover key findings for each of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Each of these findings were presented and explained
in detail along with evidence that has been provided to support each assessment. Table 11
displays the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences explored in this study and their
determination as an asset or need.
90

Table 11
Summary of Findings
Assumed influence Asset or need
Knowledge—conceptual: Teaching staff need to know
what constitutes restorative practices.

Need

Knowledge—conceptual: Teaching staff need to know
their role in building positive teacher-student
relationships.

Asset

Knowledge—procedural: Teaching staff need to know
how to use restorative practices to address behavior.

Need

Knowledge—metacognitive: Teaching staff need to be
able to self-reflect on their own effectiveness in using
restorative practices to improve their use of
restorative practices.

Need

Motivation—task value: Teaching staff need to value
using restorative practices.

Asset

Motivation—self-efficacy: Teaching staff need to have
confidence in their ability to use restorative practices.

Asset

Motivation—attribution: Teaching staff need to make
internal and controllable attributions for positively
influencing desirable behavior in the classroom.

Asset

Organization—cultural model: The school needs a
culture of collaboration among all staff to support
using restorative practices in the whole-school
environment.

Asset

Organization—cultural setting: The school’s leadership
team need to serve as role models by using restorative
practices.

Asset

Organization—cultural setting: The school needs to
provide ongoing training and support for using
restorative practices.

Need

Organization—cultural setting: Time and work
demands negatively influence use of restorative
practices.
Need
91

There were a few inconsistencies that surfaced from the data presented in this chapter.
Study participants provided interview data that indicated knowledge needs but also reported high
self-efficacy for using restorative practices. These knowledge needs may limit participants’
capability to accurately assess leadership’s use of restorative practices. Additionally, study
participants reported highly valuing restorative practices but also reported competing time and
work demands that, along with other organizational factors uncovered, do not support their use
of restorative practices. Acknowledging the inconsistencies, assessments were made based on the
data obtained and analyzed. Three out of four knowledge influences were determined to be a
need. Zero out of three motivation influences were determined to be a need. Two out of four
organizational influences were determined to be a need, including a new influence that emerged
from interview data. Chapter Five presents evidence-based recommendations and provide an
implementation plan to address the influences assessed as needs.

92

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Chapter Four presented this study’s findings in detail as discovered from interview
participants’ responses as well as analyzing documents and artifacts provided from within the
organization. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were explored with needs
identified in the knowledge and organizational categories. Chapter Five consists of a discussion
of the findings and positions these findings within past research discussed in the literature
review. Additionally, Chapter Five investigates the final research question for this study: What
are the recommendations to support teaching staff’s use of restorative practices in their daily
work? Recommendations related to the problem of practice are presented to address increasing
the knowledge and skills of stakeholders, improving organizational support, and modifying
organizational policies and procedures to align with the organizations goals. Then an integrated
recommendation plan is delivered for integrating the recommended changes using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, Chapter Five includes the
limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research, and conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
This qualitative study was conducted to determine the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that impact teaching staff’s use of restorative practices. The knowledge
needs identified included conceptual knowledge for what constitutes restorative practices,
procedural knowledge of how to use restorative practices to address behavior, and the
metacognitive knowledge for self-reflecting on the use of restorative practices. There were no
motivation needs identified, but key motivation findings discussed include the reported high
value and high levels of confidence reported for the use of restorative practices. The
organizational needs discovered included a lack of ongoing training and support for the use of
93

restorative practices, deficiency in modifying organizational policies and procedures to align
with the restorative practices framework, and teaching staff’s perception of competing time and
work demands for the use of restorative practices. Each of these are explored further in this
discussion within their respective categories.
Discussion of Knowledge Findings
As discussed in Chapter Two, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
were explored within this study. Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted knowledge and skill gaps as
one of the three critical elements that impede reaching organizational and stakeholder goals. In a
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) asserted that conceptual knowledge of a
subject was required for understanding classifications, principles, and models. Further,
Krathwohl identified procedural knowledge was related to subject-specific skills, methods, and
the criteria for when to use the suitable techniques. Study findings showed 100% of participants
indicated conceptual and procedural knowledge needs related to restorative practices.
Metacognitive knowledge is general knowledge about cognition, internal awareness of an
individual’s own personal cognition, and the use of this knowledge to adapt thinking and
operating processes appropriately (Krathwohl, 2002). Sixty four percent of study participants
were assessed to have a lack of routine metacognitive self-reflection for the use of restorative
practices. Lew and Schmidt (2011) concluded that self-reflection leads to academic performance
improvements. I concede that the questions I asked may have not been sufficient to uncover the
level and quality of participant’s self-reflection for their use of restorative practices. Participants
may routinely reflect and just not have reflected in a meaningful way on the specific previous
incident they shared. Ideally, participants would have discussed how they have reflected, learned,
and modified their practice to increase restorative practices use proficiency. Another option is
94

that the indicated restorative practices conceptual and procedural knowledge gaps, the high self-
efficacy for using restorative practices discussed later in this chapter, and organizational factors
also discussed later in this chapter may influence self-reflection regarding the use of restorative
practices. If teaching staff mistakenly think they already possess the required knowledge for the
use of restorative practices, have high self-efficacy about their use, and report limited time for
using restorative practices, then they may find little need or opportunity for self-reflection to
improve their practice. The confounding influence of the organizational influences on knowledge
are also discussed further in this chapter.
The needs identified in this study for conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge presents a challenge for teaching staff to use restorative practices in their daily work.
Teaching staff deficiencies in understanding the interrelated principles and models, the how and
when to use the procedures, and the self-reflection needed to successfully adapt is an impediment
to reaching stakeholder and organizational goals for using restorative practices. In their study on
the interrelationship between motivational beliefs and the use of metacognition among teacher
education students, Muwonge et al. (2017) asserted participants’ motivation, specifically self-
reported task value and self-efficacy, explained 38% of their metacognitive use variance.
Recommendations are presented to address these discussed conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive needs identified within the study.
Discussion of Motivation Findings
Self-efficacy and task value were discussed in Chapter Two as important motivation
factors related to participants’ use of restorative practices that would be explored in this study.
Lee et al. (2020) claimed that self-efficacy and task value were found to be significant predictors
for using strategies for self-regulated learning. Recognizing the connection between task value
95

and self-efficacy, Bandura (1994) asserted that there are many appealing things that people do
not attempt because they judge themselves to lack the capabilities to achieve. Teaching staff
valuing the use of restorative practices, and believing they have the capacity to achieve, is
important for reaching the stakeholder goal. In the current study, an average of 83% participants’
provided responses across three task value related questions indicated a high value for using
restorative practices. Additionally, 73% of study participants reported high levels of confidence
in using restorative practices. Teaching staff’s high task value and high self-efficacy for
restorative practice use is an asset that may be leveraged for future growth toward reaching the
organizational and stakeholder goals.
As mentioned in Chapter Four, the high self-efficacy when compared to assessed
knowledge needs may be indicative of overconfidence. Weinberg (2009) asserted that
overconfidence is the overestimation of ability and knowledge accuracy. One potential option,
when comparing reported self-efficacy to participants’ assessed knowledge, is that participants
may have misperceptions regarding their knowledge of restorative practices. Study participants
may have high self-efficacy for using restorative practices because they believe their skills are
consistent with their current, potentially limited, understanding of restorative practices based on
past training and organizational support. Even though there were no assessed motivation needs in
this study, the recommendations account for training and support to positively influence task
value and self-efficacy going forward.
Discussion of Organizational Findings
Participant motivation was assessed to be an asset, but it is important to have alignment
with organizational factors to achieve success. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that even for
people with high motivation, absent or insufficient processes or materials can negatively
96

influence accomplishing goals. Based on 82% of study participants responses, there is an
assessed need for ongoing training and support for the use of restorative practices. Providing
ongoing training opportunities is important to increase restorative practices proficiency.
Grossman and Salas (2011) claimed that a formal training period should have follow-up
opportunities for learning to aid in transfer of learning. Accountability and support are vital to
influencing the effective use of restorative practices. In an effort to identify cost-effective
training support activities, Martin (2010) discovered that techniques including performance
assessments, peer meetings, action plans, and supervisor consultations positively influenced
training transfer. Further, Awais Bhatti et al. (2013) found supervisor and peer support increased
trainee motivation to transfer learned skills.
Document and artifact analysis uncovered minimal modification to organizational
policies and procedures to align with the implementation of a restorative practices framework.
Additionally, 91% of study participants reported a perception of competing time and work
demands that negatively influenced their use of restorative practices. This failure to adapt
policies and procedures may be creating an environment of competing priorities and unclear
practices. These findings present an opportunity to propose recommendations to overcome the
assessed needs and offer a path to reaching organizational and stakeholder goals.
Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study was to explore teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative
practices in their daily work. Several needs were identified when examining the data from
qualitative interviews and document and artifact analysis. Three recommendations were
developed to address these gaps identified in the key findings in the knowledge and organization
categories. None of the assumed motivation influences were identified as needs, so none of the
97

recommendations are designed to address motivation. The first recommendation is to provide
training covering the complete range of restorative practices to develop teaching staff’s
conceptual knowledge as well as the use of restorative practices to positively influence
procedural knowledge. The second recommendation is to establish a formal development
program to monitor and support the use of restorative practices among teaching staff. The third
recommendation is to review and revise internal policies and procedures to align with the
restorative practices framework. These recommendations are detailed and evidence provided to
support the appropriateness of each recommendation.
Recommendation 1: Provide Training Covering Complete Range of Restorative Practices
The findings from the study that lead this recommendation is that teaching staff possess
introductory conceptual and limited procedural knowledge for restorative practices. Study data
indicated teaching staff were not familiar with the range of restorative practices or proficient
with the procedures of their use. To meet the goal of using restorative practices, teaching staff
need to have the conceptual knowledge for restorative practices. Acosta et al. (2019) defined
what these conceptual items are for using restorative practices in the school environment. To
successfully use restorative practices, teaching staff need to know the procedures of how to use
restorative practices with their students. Mirsky (2011) identified the procedures that teaching
staff need to have proficiency in to successfully use restorative practices in their work. Clark and
Estes (2008) asserted the need to provide training when employees need things demonstrated,
require practice, and need feedback to gain proficiency for a procedure. Cheung et al. (2019)
found that procedural and conceptual knowledge of teaching trainees supported the retention of
skills and the transfer of skills to novel situations.
98

It is recommended to provide school staff training consistent with the International
Institute of Restorative Practices evidence-based training covering a thorough introduction to
restorative practices and effective use of circles (International Institute of Restorative Practices
[IIRP], n. d.). This training is recommended to re-establish and strengthen the knowledge for
restorative practices presented to staff in the earlier session and increase awareness of additional
practices designed for the school environment. Additionally, it provides the opportunity for
skilled practitioners to model restorative practices techniques and for teaching staff to participate
in guided practice to build necessary skills under trained supervision. Aligned with social
cognitive theory, Bandura (1994) asserted that people desire competent models who possesses
the skills they are looking to acquire and that these models, through behavior and expressing
their thinking, transmit knowledge leading to effective strategies and skills.
Recommendation 2: Establish a Formal Development Program to Monitor and Support the
Use of Restorative Practices Following Training
The findings from the study related to this recommendation is a lack of ongoing training
and support for the use of restorative practices; additionally, teaching staff do not routinely self-
reflect on their use of restorative practices. Study data indicated that ongoing training and
support for the use of restorative practices has been deficient. Grossman and Salas (2011)
asserted that supervisor and peer support, resources and opportunities for application, and
follow-up training are key factors for training transfer to be successful. In what appears to be the
first and only systematic review of research on the use of restorative practices in schools,
Zakszeski and Rutherford (2021) found only three articles that discussed systematic
implementation supports for the restorative practices’ intervention. Wang and Lee (2019), one of
the three articles mentioned, recommended focused training or coaching as an option that may
99

support educators use of restorative circles. Additionally, participants in the Wang and Lee study
spoke of the desire for explicit training on the use of circles as well as opportunities to observe
and participate in leading circles with others. Similarly, 73% of this study’s participants
recommended observations and learning from others to learn about restorative practices. Ideally,
these support processes and resources can aid with staff self-reflection to positively influence
metacognition.
The recommendation for the study site is multi-part to build an environment supportive
of the use of restorative practices. The first element is to designate a member of staff to oversee
development of teaching staff’s use of restorative practices, identify and provide appropriate
resources and opportunities for growth, and coordinate ongoing training as needed to increase
proficiency in restorative practices and metacognition related to restorative practices. The person
filling this role will be given the title of Restorative Practices Coordinator; they must be familiar
with both restorative practices and accountability practices for monitoring the development of
adult learners. An important part of support includes having a clear vision, defining goals, and
assessing progress toward achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Recognizing the difficulties faced
in attempting individual behavior change, Church and Dawson (2018) asserted the need for
feedback tools and presented the Development Check-In as a tool that may potentially serve as a
feedback accountability mechanism for this recommendation. The Restorative Practices
Coordinator will be tasked with keeping school leadership informed of progress and to leverage
school leaders to support staff members’ development.
The second element of this recommendation is to establish a professional learning group
with coaches and peers to provide feedback and support. The professional learning group may
provide the opportunity to practice restorative practice procedures in a guided environment and
100

build community through leadership and peer support. The professional learning group will also
provide teaching staff the opportunity to share and reflect on their use of restorative practices to
potentially increase metacognitive knowledge related to their restorative practices use. With the
training provided in recommendation one as the baseline, this recommendation encompasses the
provision of additional resources, such as job aids, opportunities for additional training, and
leadership support, that is needed for growth and to support the change.
Recommendation 3: Review and Revise Internal Policies and Procedures to Align with
Restorative Practices Framework
The findings from the study related to this recommendation are that the organization’s
policies and procedures are not aligned with the restoratives practices framework; additionally,
teaching staff perceive competing time and work demands that negatively influence the use of
restorative practices. Study data indicated that no formal policies and procedures have been
modified since establishing the goal of using restorative practices in the organization and the pre-
existing policies are in direct competition with the change effort. Further, study participants
indicated they routinely encountered competing time and work demands that conflicted with
their use of restorative practices. A collaborative culture “can be defined as the shared values,
norms, and practices on the matter of teamwork and communication” (Meredith et al., 2017, p.
25). Specifically for this situation, it is important to ensure there are not competing
organizational practices while attempting to carry out a change initiative focused on
collaboration for the use of restorative practices. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that
performance problems are possible when there are conflicts between organizational goals,
policies, or procedures and to align the processes with organizational goals. In their article on
alignment for effective strategy execution, Srivastava et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of
101

evaluating policies in consideration of changes that are occurring. Lewis (2019) claimed that
communication practices are vital in the change process and that one type of formal
communication is the policies established by leaders in the organization. In this instance, the
organization’s failure to modify policies and procedures to reflect the change initiative sends
competing signals to members of the organization and fails to align the various parts needed to
carry out the change.
It is recommended for school leadership and staff to review and revise all organizational
directives to align with the restorative practice’s framework. As an example, the school’s
behavior policy does not account for restorative practices and relies on an escalating punitive
system to address student behavior. Additionally, school leadership need to identify and examine
the potentially competing time and work demands to ensure teaching staff understand
organizational priorities and have the time and space to achieve established goals. Aligning
school policies, procedures, and work processes to support the use of restorative practices is
needed to meet organizational and stakeholder goals.
Integrated Recommendations
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan is informed by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) that was designed to build on the original
work of Don Kirkpatrick. The New World Kirkpatrick Model reverses the four levels of the
original model to results, behavior, learning, and reaction in an effort to reprioritize, starting with
results, what is most important and how the levels should be considered in the planning phase
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Integrated recommendations are presented using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
102

Level 4, the most misunderstood of all the levels, is designed to be a combination of the
organizations purpose and mission that takes financial reality into consideration; every
organization only has one Level 4 result (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As a child education
institution, RJS’s mission is to motivate, engage, and equip children with the skills to succeed in
modern life. The organization’s decision to make using restorative practices a goal for the entire
school links it directly to their mission. Leading indicators are observations and measurements
that tie Level 3 critical behaviors to organizational goals and ultimately the Level 4 result
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 12 displays Level 4 outcomes, metrics, and methods.

Table 12
Level 4: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods
Outcomes Metrics Methods
Decreased incident of school
exclusions
Number of documented
school exclusions
School leadership maintain
lists of school exclusions
compared to historic
years

Increased occurrence of
children successfully
handling conflict
restoratively

Number of incidents
between children
resolving restoratively
without adult intervention
Teaching staff report
observations on
children’s handling of
conflict
Increased staff well-being due
to being properly equipped
to handle behavior issues
and improved cooperation
with students

Employee satisfaction and
well-being survey
School leadership conduct
annual staff satisfaction
and well-being survey
Decreased need for leadership
involvement in behavior
episodes

Number of incidents
teaching staff handle
restoratively without
referring to leadership
Teaching staff report
number of incidents for
which they successfully
use restorative practices

103

Level 3: Behavior
The first part of Level 3 is critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are the few but vital
behaviors the stakeholder group is expected to perform to achieve outcome targets (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 13 displays the critical behaviors that teaching staff must perform to
reach the targeted outcomes.

Table 13
Level 3: Teaching Staff Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing
Behavior Metric Method Timing
Use restorative practices in
interactions with
students to positively
influence student
behavior

Degree of restorative
practices use
compared to
alternative method
Teaching staff will
identify
opportunities and
use appropriate
restorative practice

Within 30
days
Use restorative practices to
help students address
conflict and build social-
emotional skills

Degree of restorative
practices use
compared to
alternative method
Teaching staff will
identify
opportunities and
use appropriate
restorative practice

Within 30
days
Use restorative practices in
interactions with other
staff

Degree of restorative
practices use
compared to
alternative method
Teaching staff will
identify
opportunities and
use appropriate
restorative practice

Within 30
days
Build self-reflection and
metacognition for the use
of restorative practices
Amount of time
dedicated to self-
reflection on
restorative practices
use
Teaching staff will
allot one hour each
week for self-
reflection
Within 30
days

104

The second part of Level 3 is required drivers. Required drivers are a new addition within
the New World Kirkpatrick Model and are the “processes and systems that reinforce, monitor,
encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 40). Table 14 shows the required drivers needed to support the critical behaviors
presented in the preceding table.

Table 14
Level 3: Required Drivers for Teaching Staff Critical Behaviors
Method Timing Supported critical behavior
Reinforcing
Instructor provides initial training on
restorative practices and
procedures for use

At start of intervention 1, 2, 3
Restorative Practices Coordinator
provides job aid(s) for restorative
practices use

At start of intervention 1, 2, 3
Instructor provides initial training on
metacognition and self-reflection

At start of intervention 4
Restorative Practices Coordinator
provides refresher training in
restorative practices and self-
reflection

As needed, at least
quarterly
1, 2, 3, 4
Restorative Practices Coordinator
establishes professional learning
group of coaches and peers

Immediately after
training
1, 2, 3, 4
School leadership team revises
policies and procedures to align
with restorative practices
framework
Within 30 days 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
School leadership team designate
member of staff as Restorative
Practices Coordinator to oversee
Immediately after
training
1, 2, 3, 4
105

Method Timing Supported critical behavior
development of teaching staff’s use
of restorative practices

School leadership team provides
information on the positive
influence of restorative practices
use in school
Within 30 days 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
School leadership team establishes
public acknowledgment procedures
for restorative practices use, an
example would be at staff meetings
or assemblies
Immediately after
training
1, 2, 3
Monitoring
School leadership team tracks
number and type of incidents
before and after restorative
practices implementation

Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Teaching staff monitors own
development as per development
plan designed by Restorative
Practices Coordinator

Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Restorative Practices Coordinator
implements restorative practices
focused observations into teaching
staff evaluations

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Restorative Practices Coordinator
establishes weekly self-reporting
for teaching staff to self-evaluate
restorative practice use
Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4

Of note, the revision of policies and procedures to align with the restorative practices
framework was added as a reinforcing required driver in the preceding table. The revision of
policies and procedures falls under the reinforcing category because it ensures organizational
policies and procedures do not drive competing behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
106

asserted that required drivers are key to people applying training on the job and decrease the
likelihood of people intentionally or inadvertently not modifying behaviors.
Level 2: Learning
For Level 2, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define learning as the level of
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment gained by participants from training. At
the completion of training, it is expected that teaching staff will be able to do the following:
1. Identify the restorative practices and describe their intended use (Conceptual
Knowledge);
2. Use restorative practices in interactions with students to positively influence behavior
(Procedural Knowledge);
3. Use restorative practices to address student conflicts and help them build social-
emotional skills (Procedural Knowledge);
4. Use restorative practices in interactions with other staff members (Procedural
Knowledge);
5. Self-reflect on their own use of restorative practices and assess their own use of
restorative practices (Metacognitive Knowledge).
These learning goals will be achieved through a training program incorporating in-person
training sessions, assessments, and job aids. The initial training will be a multi-day training
session to cover the required restorative practices information. The training will address the
assessed knowledge needs discussed earlier in this chapter. Job aids will be provided to address
the procedural knowledge needed to carry out each of the tasks including the use of affective
statements, restorative questions, and the use of circles. The components for assessing the
learning program are displayed in Table 15.
107

Table 15
Level 2: Assessing Learning Program
Method or activity Timing
Knowledge
Trainer given knowledge checks

Periodically during in-person training
Trainer led subject matter discussion Periodically during in-person training

Skills
Trainer led role play scenarios

As designed during in-person training
Trainer given performance test At conclusion of each session

Attitude
Trainer check-ins

Periodically during in-person training
Trainer observations

Periodically during in-person training
Confidence
Trainer observations

Periodically during in-person training
Trainer led open discussion

At conclusion of each session
Trainer provided post-assessment survey

At completion of in-person training
Commitment
Trainer check-ins

Periodically during in-person training
Trainer led open discussion At conclusion of each session

Trainer provided post-assessment survey At completion of in-person training

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 is the last area of evaluation and includes whether participants found the training
to be positive, engaging, and relevant to their work (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) categorize these factors within Level 1 as customer
108

satisfaction, engagement, and relevance. Table 16 details the methods and timing for evaluating
Level 1.

Table 16
Level 1: Methods and Timing
Methods Timing
Customer satisfaction
Trainer conducts “pulse-check” to detect
potential barriers to learning

Periodically throughout in-person training
sessions
Participants complete post-training evaluation
with questions for customer satisfaction

After in-person training sessions
Engagement
Participants attend in-person training sessions At the beginning of in-person training
sessions

Participants actively participate in training
activities
Periodically throughout in-person training
sessions

Trainer and members of school leadership
complete observations
Periodically throughout in-person training
sessions

Relevance
Trainer conducts “pulse-check” to determine
participants opinions
Periodically throughout in-person training
sessions

Participants complete post-training evaluation
with questions for relevance
After in-person training sessions

109

Limitations and Delimitations
This section presents and discusses the limitations and delimitations for this study.
Limitations and delimitations are present in all research. Theofanidis and Fountouki (2018)
asserted limitations for any study are the “potential weaknesses that are usually out of the
researcher’s control, and are closely associated with the chosen research design, statistical model
constraints, funding constraints, or other factors” (p. 156). This study’s limitations are discussed
related to sample size and mandated data collection restrictions. Delimitations are the limits or
boundaries that are under the control and set by the researcher including study design, research
questions, and choices about the sample (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). This study
delimitations are discussed related to the choice of study participants and study design.
Limitations
For this study, one limitation is the small sample size available at the study site. Another
considerable concern was the truthfulness of respondents as the questions relate to tasking in
their job and may have influenced their willingness to divulge any deficiencies in skills or
motivation. A considerable limitation for this study was the mandated COVID-19 protocols that
prohibited in-person data collection through the majority of the study. These limitations
potentially influenced participant recruiting and data collection due to not being able to visit the
study site. Even after the receiving permission from the USC institutional review board to move
to in-person data collection, the school maintained their prohibition on visitors resulting in the
entire study being completed remotely and relying on organization leadership at the study site to
provide document and artifacts for analysis.
110

Delimitations
When reviewing potential stakeholder groups to focus on for this study, I considered
school administration, teaching staff, and parents. Ultimately, I chose teaching staff at a single
school as the stakeholder of focus, which was a delimitation. Another delimitation is the design
of the interview protocol and the questions that were asked to participants. Each of these bound
and influence the design of the study and ultimately impact the data that is collected and
analyzed. A major delimitation, influenced primarily by the COVID-19 protocol prohibition on
in-person data collection, was the design of the study and not including observation as a data
collection method. The collected data has several gaps; I was not able to fully explore self-
efficacy and procedural knowledge and I think observation would have added immense value to
triangulate the data in a more comprehensive manner.
Recommendations for Future Research
For this study site specifically, the recommendations for future research are to
incorporate observations and to study other stakeholder groups. This study did not include
observations; doing so would have allowed a more robust assessment of participants’ knowledge
and skills as used in their work environment. Additionally, observations would have likely
increased my insight into the competing time and work demands discussed by participants in this
study. Examining data derived from other stakeholder groups, including school administration
and parents, could add value to understanding the overall situation due to each stakeholder
groups’ influence on reaching organization and stakeholder goals at the study site.
A recommendation for future research is to conduct more studies evaluating the results of
restorative practices interventions. There have been limited peer reviewed studies evaluating the
impact of restorative practices in any setting. Those that are published seemingly almost
111

exclusively focus in the primary and secondary education environments. Studies to assess if the
goal of restorative practices is being achieved at each site would add value to the overall body of
work in this area. Examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as well as
the impact of adults using restorative practices primarily in adult-focused organizations, such as
the business field, would likely be an asset to the field of study.
Connection to the Rossier Mission
The USC Rossier School of Education’s mission is focused on attaining educational
equity and improving learning opportunities for historically marginalized groups. This study is
directly connected with Rossier’s mission by acknowledging the educational disparities
experienced by historically marginalized groups and exploring alternative strategies to help
overcome the unintended consequences of exclusionary discipline practices that do harm to
academic achievement and life outcomes. Educating school leadership and teaching staff
regarding the impact of the procedures they use to address behavior and providing data aimed at
creating more equitable educational environments may help to reduce the harm for all students,
especially historically marginalized groups.
Conclusion
As discussed in Chapter One and Chapter Two, the traditional punitive process used in
schools for handling student’s behavior may lead to adverse issues. The use of restorative
practices was presented in Chapter One as a potential alternative to create an environment aimed
at addressing student behavior and increasing student social-emotional awareness without the
harmful unintended consequences of traditional punitive practices. The purpose of this
qualitative study was to explore teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in their daily
work. The study’s findings suggest that RJS has a workforce with motivation as an asset and is
112

faced with knowledge and organizational support needs related to reaching stakeholder and
organizational goals for the use of restorative practices.
Many children face challenges that negatively impact their well-being and influences
their behavior in the school environment. Key school personnel, especially teachers, have the
opportunity to add value to a child’s experience to help them process through issues, build
community with them in school, and develop social-emotional and behavior skills critical for
success in school and life. Alternatively, key school personnel can choose the traditional punitive
process that potentially propels a child down a path to diminished academic success, criminal
justice system involvement, and ultimately harmful outcomes into their adult life. The use of
restorative practices potentially offers the opportunity for school staff to learn an alternative to
traditional exclusionary discipline practices that may strengthen relationships with all students,
reduce harm from disciplinary actions that disproportionately negatively impact marginalized
students, and positively influence children’s social-emotional learning and academic
achievement.

113

References
Abrell-V ogel, C., & Rowold, J. (2014). Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness in
change – a multilevel investigation. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
27(6), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-07-2012-0111
Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Phillips, A., & Wilks, A. (2019). Evaluation
of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial
of the restorative practices intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 876–
890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2
Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E., & Fend, H. A. (2014). Empathy development in adolescence
predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 229–241.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12098
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion [Policy
Statement]. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-3932
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Socioeconomic status. Retrieved February 12, 2021,
from https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status
Andreou, E., & Rapti, A. (2010). Teachers' causal attributions for behaviour problems and
perceived efficacy for class management in relation to selected interventions. Behaviour
Change, 27(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.27.1.53
Ang, R. P., Li, X., Huan, V . S., Liem, G. D., Kang, T., Wong, Q., & Yeo, J. P. (2020). Profiles of
antisocial behavior in school-based and at-risk adolescents in Singapore: A latent class
analysis. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51, 585–596.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00941-1
114

Anyon, Y ., Zhang, D., & Hazel, C. (2016). Race, exclusionary discipline, and connectedness to
adults in secondary schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(3-4), 342–
352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12061
Ashdown, D., & Bernard, M. E. (2012). Can explicit instruction in social and emotional learning
skills benefit the social-emotional development, well-being, and academic achievement
of young children? Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(6), 397–405.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0481-x
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6, Pt.1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Awais Bhatti, M., Mohamed Battour, M., Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, V ., & Aini Othman, A.
(2013). Transfer of training: Does it truly happen? European Journal of Training and
Development, 37(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591311312741
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-l
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V . S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (V ol. 4 ed., pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1994EHB.pdf
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
115

Barr, J. J., & Higgins-D'Allesandro, A. (2009). How adolescent empathy and prosocial behavior
change in the context of school culture: A two-year longitudinal study. Adolescence,
44(176), 751–772.
https://doi.org/http://search.proquest.com/central/docview/195947655/abstract/F6BE5883
C03D4F35PQ/1
Barrera, D., Gaga-a, B., & Pabayos, J. (2016). Negative life events and maladaptive behaviors
among Filipino adolescents: An empirical test of the general strain theory. Asian Journal
of Criminology, 11(4), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-016-9230-9
Belacchi, C., & Farina, E. (2012). Feeling and thinking of others: Affective and cognitive
empathy and emotion comprehension in prosocial/hostile preschoolers. Aggressive
Behavior, 38(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21415
Berger, C., & Palacios, D. (2014). Associations between prosocial behavior, Machiavellianism,
and social status: Effects of peer norms and classroom social contexts. Journal of
Latino/Latin American Studies, 6(1), 19–30.
https://doi.org/10.18085/llas.6.1.h0728270l7533862
Bettencourt, A. F., Gross, D., Ho, G., & Perrin, N. (2018). The costly consequences of not being
socially and behaviorally ready to learn by kindergarten in Baltimore city. Journal of
Urban Health, 95(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0214-6
Binfet, J.-T., & Passmore, H.-A. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of kindness at school. The
International Journal of Emotional Education, 9(1), 37–53. https://files-eric-ed-
gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/fulltext/EJ1137976.pdf
Blake, P. R., Piovesan, M., Montinari, N., Warneken, F., & Gino, F. (2015). Prosocial norms in
the classroom: The role of self-regulation in following norms of giving. Journal of
116

Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.004
Booth, A., O’Farrelly, C., Hennessy, E., & Doyle, O. (2019). ‘Be good, know the rules’:
Children’s perspectives on starting school and self-regulation. Childhood, 26(4), 509–
524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219840397
Boström, E., & Palm, T. (2020). Expectancy-value theory as an explanatory theory for the effect
of professional development programmes in formative assessment on teacher practice.
Teacher Development, 24(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1782975
Bouchard, K. L., Hollweck, T., & Smith, J. (2016). Fostering classroom communities through
circling with teacher candidates. Articles, 51(3), 1103–1120.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1039630ar
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027
Brown, J. E., & Jo White, B. (2009). Modeling desired behaviors: Do leaders need new
technology? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 126–138.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910935738
Brumley, L. D., Jaffee, S. R., & Brumley, B. P. (2017). Pathways from childhood adversity to
problem behaviors in young adulthood: The mediating role of adolescents’ future
expectations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0597-9
Burt, S. A., & Klump, K. L. (2014). Prosocial peer affiliation suppresses genetic influences on
non-aggressive antisocial behaviors during childhood. Psychological Medicine, 44, 821–
830. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291713000974
117

Busching, R., & Krahé, B. (2020). With a little help from their peers: The impact of classmates
on adolescents’ development of prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
49(9), 1849–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01260-8
Cambron, C., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Guttmannova, K., Herrenkohl, T. I., Hill, K. G., &
Hawkins, J. (2017). The role of self-regulation in academic and behavioral paths to a high
school diploma. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3(3), 304–325.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0066-5
Cameron, M., & Sheppard, S. M. (2006). School discipline and social work practice: Application
of research and theory to intervention. Children & Schools, 28(1), 15–22.
https://doi.org/libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1093/cs/28.1.15
Caridade, S., Sousa, H. E., & Pimenta Dinis, M. (2020). The mediating effect of parental
involvement on school climate and behavior problems: School personnel perceptions.
Behavioral Sciences, 10(8), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10080129
Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Wolff, J. M., & Beal, S. J. (2012). The role of emotional reactivity,
self-regulation, and puberty in adolescents' prosocial behaviors. Social Development,
21(4), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00660.x
Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., McGinley, M., & Hayes, R. (2011). The roles of parental inductions,
moral emotions, and moral cognitions in prosocial tendencies among Mexican American
and European American early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(6),
757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610373100
Chapple, C. L., & Vaske, J. (2010). Child neglect, social context, and educational outcomes:
Examining the moderating effects of school and neighborhood context. Violence and
Victims, 25(4), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.4.470
118

Cheung, J. H., Kulasegaram, K. M., Woods, N. N., & Brydges, R. (2019). Why content and
cognition matter: Integrating conceptual knowledge to support simulation-based
procedural skills transfer. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(6), 969–977.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04959-y
Childwelfare.gov. (n.d.). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Retrieved February 9, 2021,
from https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/preventing/preventionmonth/resources/ace/
Chiramba, E. N., & Harris, G. (2020). Restorative discipline practices: An action research project
in Zimbabwean primary schools. Educational Research for Social Change, 9(1), 118–
122. http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ersc/v9n2/10.pdf
Cholewa, B., Hull, M. F., Babcock, C. R., & Smith, A. D. (2018). Predictors and academic
outcomes associated with in-school suspension. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2),
191–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000213
Church, A. H., & Dawson, L. M. (2018). Agile feedback drives accountability and sustained
behavior change. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-07-
2018-0063
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions (na) (Revised ed.). Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly
complex learning environments. In Handling complexity in learning environments:
Research and theory (pp. 27–41). Elsevier Science Ltd. https://dataworks-ed.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/MotivationInComplexEnvironments.pdf
Connell, N. M., Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Predicting bullying: Exploring the
contributions of childhood negative life experiences in predicting adolescent bullying
119

behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
60(9), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15573760
Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk
behavior: A cross-sectional multi-level analysis of student self-reports. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 45(11), 2246–2259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3
Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2015). Peer victimization and authoritative school
climate: A multilevel approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1186–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000038
Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. R. (2016). Authoritative school climate and student
academic engagement, grades, and aspirations in middle and high schools. AERA Open,
2(2), 233285841663318. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416633184
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Holmgren, H. G., Davis, E. J., Collier, K. M., Memmott-
Elison, M. K., & Hawkins, A. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial media on prosocial
behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach.
Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000412
Crane, J., Harper, J. M., Bean, R. A., & Holmes, E. (2020). Family implicit rules, shame, and
adolescent prosocial and antisocial communication behaviors. The Family Journal, 28(1),
72–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480719896563
Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A review
of international research, 1983 to 2013. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 293–311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115607539
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
120

Crocetti, E., Moscatelli, S., Van der Graaff, J., Keijsers, L., van Lier, P., Koot, H. M., Rubini, M.,
Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2016). The dynamic interplay among maternal empathy, quality
of mother-adolescent relationship, and adolescent antisocial behaviors: New insights
from a six-wave longitudinal multi-informant study. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0150009.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150009
Cuellar, A., & Markowitz, S. (2015). School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline.
International Review of Law and Economics, 43, 98–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2015.06.001
Cunningham, A. T., Bernabeo, E. C., Wolfson, D. B., & Lesser, C. S. (2011). Organisational
strategies to cultivate professional values and behaviours. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(4),
351–358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048942
Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy
research: The read approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424–1431.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
de Leeuw, R. N., Kleemans, M., Rozendaal, E., Anschütz, D. J., & Buijzen, M. (2015). The
impact of prosocial television news on children’s prosocial behavior: An experimental
study in the Netherlands. Journal of Children and Media, 9(4), 419–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1089297
Department for Education. (2017a). A guide to exclusion statistics [Guide].
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/642577/Guide-to-exclusion-statistics-05092017.pdf
121

Department for Education. (2017b). Preventing and tackling bullying [Policy Brief]. Crown.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/623895/Preventing_and_tackling_bullying_advice.pdf
Department for Education. (2018). Bullying in England. Crown.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/919474/Bullying_in_England_2013-2018__1_.pd.pdf
Duong, M. T., Pullmann, M. D., Buntain-Ricklefs, J., Lee, K., Benjamin, K. S., Nguyen, L., &
Cook, C. R. (2019). Brief teacher training improves student behavior and student–teacher
relationships in middle school. School Psychology, 34(2), 212–221.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000296
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks III, M. P., & Booth, E. A.
(2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how discipline relates to students’
success and juvenile justice involvement. The Council of States Governments Justice
Center and the Public Policy Research Institute.
https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/Breaking_School_Rules.pdf
Farrant, B. M., Devine, T. J., Maybery, M. T., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Empathy, perspective taking
and prosocial behaviour: The importance of parenting practices. Infant and Child
Development, 21(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.740
Feldmann, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College
Teaching, 49(4), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2001.10844595
Felitti, V . J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V ., Koss, M.
P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to
122

many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8
Ferreira, T., Cadima, J., Matias, M., Vieira, J., Leal, T., & Matos, P. (2016). Preschool children’s
prosocial behavior: The role of mother–child, father–child and teacher–child
relationships. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(6), 1829–1839.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0369-x
Fine, S. M. (2018). Teaching in the restorative window: Authenticity, conviction, and critical-
restorative pedagogy in the work of one teacher-leader. Harvard Educational Review,
88(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-88.1.103
Fisher, B. W., Viano, S., Chris Curran, F., Alvin Pearman, F., & Gardella, J. H. (2018). Students’
feelings of safety, exposure to violence and victimization, and authoritative school
climate. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 6–25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9406-6
Fogel, P. A. (2020). Instilling a culture of collaboration and financial accountability. Journal of
Healthcare Management, 65(3), 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-20-00059
Foley, L. S. (2011). Exploring k–3 teachers' implementation of comprehension strategy
instruction (csi) using expectancy-value theory. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(3),
195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.505680
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3601_5
123

Gerlinger, J., & Wo, J. C. (2016). Preventing school bullying: Should schools prioritize an
authoritative school discipline approach over security measures? Journal of School
Violence, 15(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.956321
Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Murray, J. (2015). Strategies to encourage a sustainable
interorganizational collaborative culture. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development, 27(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20089
Glüer, M., & Gregoriadis, A. (2017). Quality of teacher–child relationship and preschoolers’ pro-
social behaviour in German kindergartens. Education 3-13, 45(5), 558–571.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1140802
Gordon, J., Downey, J., & Bangert, A. (2013). Effects of a school-based mentoring program on
school behavior and measures of adolescent connectedness. School Community Journal,
23(2), 227–249.
http://search.proquest.com/central/docview/1477881203/abstract/CD0296B06FE24FD7P
Q/14
Gov.UK. (2020). The national curriculum. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum
Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline.
The Future of Children, 27(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0006
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices
to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950
124

Gregory, A., Huang, F. L., Anyon, Y ., Greer, E., & Downing, B. (2018). An examination of
restorative interventions and racial equity in out-of-school suspensions. School
Psychology Review, 47(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0073.v47-2
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016997
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Gu, H., Lai, S.-L., & Ye, R. (2011). A cross-cultural study of student problem behaviors in
middle schools. School Psychology International, 32(1), 20–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310396830
Hanniball, K. B., Aknin, L. B., Douglas, K. S., & Viljoen, J. L. (2019). Does helping promote
well-being in at-risk youth and ex-offender samples? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 82, 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.11.001
Heilbrun, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2018). Authoritative school climate and suspension rates
in middle schools: Implications for reducing the racial disparity in school discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 17(3), 324–338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1368395
Hemez, P., Brent, J. J., & Mowen, T. J. (2020). Exploring the school-to-prison pipeline: How
school suspensions influence incarceration during young adulthood. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 18(3), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204019880945
125

Hong, J., Kral, M. J., & Sterzing, P. R. (2015). Pathways from bullying perpetration,
victimization, and bully victimization to suicidality among school-aged youth. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 16(4), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014537904
Huang, F. L., Eklund, K., & Cornell, D. G. (2017). Authoritative school climate, number of
parents at home, and academic achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(4), 480–
496. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000182
Hwang, N. (2018). Suspensions and achievement: Varying links by type, frequency, and
subgroup. Educational Researcher, 47(6), 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x18779579
Hye-Young, Y ., & Graham, S. (2018). Defending victims of bullying in early adolescence: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1926–1937.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0869-7
Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults can do to promote young
children’s prosocial skills. YC Young Children, 66(4), 74–83.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731285
Ibabe, I., & Bentler, P. M. (2015). The contribution of family relationships to child-to-parent
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
015-9764-0
Ibrahim, H., & Johnson, O. (2019). School discipline, race–gender and stem readiness: A
hierarchical analysis of the impact of school discipline on math achievement in high
school. The Urban Review, 52(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00513-6
Inoue, S., Yorifuji, T., Kato, T., Sanada, S., Doi, H., & Kawachi, I. (2016). Children’s media use
and self-regulation behavior: Longitudinal associations in a nationwide Japanese study.
126

Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(10), 2084–2099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-
016-2031-z
International Institute of Restorative Practices. (n.d.). SaferSanerSchools™ program overview.
(n. d.) https://www.iirp.edu/images/IIRP_SaferSanerSchools_Program_Overview_19-08-
09.pdf
Jain, S., Bassey, H., Brown, M. A., & Karla, P. (2014). Restorative justice in Oakland schools:
Implementation and impacts [Report]. Prepared for the Office of Civil Rights - U. S.
Department of Education.
https://www.ousd.org/cms/lib07/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/OUSD-
RJ%20Report%20revised%20Final.pdf
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Johnston, C. B., Herzog, T. K., Hill-Chapman, C. R., Siney, C., & Fergusson, A. (2019). Creating
positive learning environments in early childhood using teacher-generated prosocial
lessons. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.5590/jerap.2019.09.1.10
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and
public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future
wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290.
https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302630
127

Kim, E., You, S., & Knox, J. (2020). The mediating effect of empathy on the relation between
child self-expressiveness in family and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 29(6), 1572–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01676-2
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’ s four levels of training evaluation
(1st ed.). Association For Talent Development. Retrieved from Ares
Kosse, F., Deckers, T., Pinger, P., Schildberg-Hörisch, H., & Falk, A. (2020). The formation of
prosociality: Causal evidence on the role of social environment. Journal of Political
Economy, 128(2), 434–467. https://doi.org/10.1086/704386
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lai, W., Yang, Z., Mao, Y ., Zhang, Q., Chen, H., & Ma, J. (2020). When do good deeds lead to
good feelings? Eudaimonic orientation moderates the happiness benefits of prosocial
behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11),
4053. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114053
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J., Veenstra, R., & V ollebergh, W. (2018). Aggressive
and prosocial peer norms: Change, stability, and associations with adolescent aggressive
and prosocial behavior development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(2), 178–203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616665211
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J., Veenstra, R., & V ollebergh, W. (2020a). Who sets
the aggressive popularity norm in classrooms? it’s the number and strength of aggressive,
prosocial, and bi-strategic adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(1),
13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00571-0
128

Laninga-Wijnen, L., Steglich, C., Harakeh, Z., V ollebergh, W., Veenstra, R., & Dijkstra, J.
(2020b). The role of prosocial and aggressive popularity norm combinations in prosocial
and aggressive friendship processes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(3), 645–663.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01088-x
Lee, D., Watson, S., & Watson, W. R. (2020). The relationships between self-efficacy, task value,
and self-regulated learning strategies in massive open online courses. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4389
Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). High suspension schools and dropout rates
for black and white students. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 167–192.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0014
Lew, M. N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Self-reflection and academic performance: Is there a
relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 529–545.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9298-z
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(foundations of communication theory series) (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Collins, L. M. (2013). Parental knowledge and youth risky
behavior: A person oriented approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1732–1744.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9893-1
Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis
[Report]. Southern Poverty Law Center. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8fh0s5dv
Losen, D. J. (2013). Discipline policies, successful schools, racial justice, and the law. Family
Court Review, 51(3), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12035
129

Mahindrakar, M. (2019). The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the
frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: An evaluation study
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California]. USC Digital Library.
digitallibrary.usc.edu
Mahler, D., Großschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2018). Does motivation matter? – the relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students’ performance. PLOS ONE,
13(11), e0207252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207252
Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: From school punishment to rehabilitative
inclusion. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
60(4), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2016.1144554
Mansfield, K., Fowler, B., & Rainbolt, S. (2018). The potential of restorative practices to
ameliorate discipline gaps: The story of one high school’s leadership team. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x17751178
Manzano-Sánchez, D., & Valero-Valenzuela, A. (2019). Implementation of a model-based
programme to promote personal and social responsibility and its effects on motivation,
prosocial behaviours, violence and classroom climate in primary and secondary
education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(21),
4259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214259
Martin, H. J. (2010). Improving training impact through effective follow-up: Techniques and
their application. Journal of Management Development, 29(6), 520–534.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011046495
McMorris, B. J., Beckman, K. J., Shea, G., Baumgartner, J., & Eggbert, R. C. (2013). Applying
restorative practices to Minneapolis public schools students recommended for possible
130

expulsion: A pilot program evaluation of the family and youth restorative conference
program. [Executive Summary].
https://www.legalrightscenter.org/uploads/2/5/7/3/25735760/lrc_exec_summ-final.pdf
Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M. (2017). Strategies for improving learner
metacognition in health professional education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 81(4), 78. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe81478
Meredith, C., Moolenaar, N. M., Struyve, C., Vandecandelaere, M., Gielen, S., & Kyndt, E.
(2017). The measurement of collaborative culture in secondary schools: An informal
subgroup approach. Front Learning Research, 5(2), 24–35.
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v5i2.283
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Josey-Bass.
Mestre, M., Carlo, G., Samper, P., Malonda, E., & Mestre, A. (2019). Bidirectional relations
among empathy-related traits, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. Social
Development, 28(3), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12366
Mesurado, B., & Richaud, M. (2017). The relationship between parental variables, empathy and
prosocial-flow with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 18(3), 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9748-7
Mirsky, L. (2011). Creating positive relationships with youth. The Prevention Researcher, 18, 1–
6. https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Mirsky-Prevention-Researcher-2011.pdf
Mirsky, L. (2007). SaferSanerSchools: Transforming school cultures with restorative practices.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 16(2), 5–12.
131

http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/214192657?accountid=14749
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students’
motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3).
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491
Monahan, K. C., VanDerhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the school yard to
the squad car: School discipline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43(7), 1110–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0103-1
Mori, A., & Cigala, A. (2018). ‘Putting oneself in someone else's shoes during childhood: How
to learn it’ training for preschool age children. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(4), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12255
Morris, E. W., & Perry, B. L. (2016). The punishment gap: School suspension and racial
disparities in achievement. Social Problems, 63(1), 68–86.
https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv026
Motlagh, S. E., Amrai, K., Yazdani, M. J., Abderahim, H. A., & Souri, H. (2011). The
relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement in high school students.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 765–768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.180
Mowrey, R. (2012). After the hazing. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(9),
8–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2012.10598838
Muwonge, C., Schiefele, U., Ssenyonga, J., & Kibedi, H. (2017). Self-regulated learning among
teacher education students: Motivational beliefs influence on the use of metacognition.
132

Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27(6), 515–521.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2017.1399973
NCES. (2017). Bullying. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=719
Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension
and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224–240.
https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0008.1
Nugroho, M. (2018). The effects of collaborative cultures and knowledge sharing on
organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(5), 1138–
1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-10-2017-0385
Odgers, C. L., & Jaffee, S. R. (2013). Routine versus catastrophic influences on the developing
child. Annual Review of Public Health, 34(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
publhealth-031912-114447
Ofsted. (2014). Below the radar: Low-level disruption in the country’ s classroom (140157)
[Report]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/below-the-radar-low-level-
disruption-in-the-countrys-classrooms
Ofsted. (2020). About us. Ofsted raising standards improving lives.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted/about
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at School: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective
school-based intervention program. In Bullying at school. Springer.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_5#citeas
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Collier, K. M., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Longitudinal
relations between prosocial television content and adolescents’ prosocial and aggressive
133

behavior: The mediating role of empathic concern and self-regulation. Developmental
Psychology, 51(9), 1317–1328. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039488
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Coyne, S. M. (2018). Associations between
prosocial and problem behavior from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 47(5), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0736-y
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Millett, M. A., & Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2020). Can helping others
strengthen teens? character strengths as mediators between prosocial behavior and
adolescents’ internalizing symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 70–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.001
Pai, K. (2019). Bridging the empathy gap: A mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher
support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California]. USC Digital Library.
digitallibrary.usc.edu
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods
(3rd ed., pp. 339–415). Sage.
Pears, K. C., Kim, H. K., Healey, C. V ., Yoerger, K., & Fisher, P. A. (2015). Improving child self-
regulation and parenting in families of pre-kindergarten children with developmental
disabilities and behavioral difficulties. Prevention Science, 16(2), 222–232.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0482-2
Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of
exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1067–
1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414556308
134

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement:
Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
Portilla, X. A., Ballard, P. J., Adler, N. E., Boyce, W., & Obradović, J. (2014). An integrative
view of school functioning: Transactions between self-regulation, school engagement,
and teacher-child relationship quality. Child Development, n/a–n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12259
Price, C. L., & Steed, E. A. (2016). Culturally responsive strategies to support young children
with challenging behavior. Young Children, 71(5), 36–43.
https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/nov2016/culturally-responsive-strategies
Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Child wellness and social inclusion: Values for action. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9318-9
Prot, S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Swing, E., Lim, K., Horiuchi, Y ., Jelic, M.,
Krahé, B., Liuqing, W., Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., Petrescu, P., Sakamoto, A., Tajima, S.,
Toma, R., Warburton, W., Zhang, X., & Lam, B. (2014). Long-term relations among
prosocial-media use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 25(2),
358–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613503854
Public Health England. (2015). Improving school readiness creating a better start for London
[Report].
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/459828/School_readiness_10_Sep_15.pdf
135

Public Health England. (2020a). School readiness: Percentage of children achieving a good level
of development at the end of reception (90631) [Data Set].
https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/search/readiness#page/0/gid/1/pat/6/par/E12000004/ati/102/a
re/E06000015/iid/90631/age/34/sex/4/cid/4/tbm/1/page-options/car-ao-1_car-do-1_ovw-
do-0
Public Health England. (2020b). School readiness: Percentage of children with free school meal
status achieving a good level of development at the end of reception (90632) [Data Set].
https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/search/free%20school%20meals#page/0/gid/1/pat/15/par/E9
2000001/ati/6/are/E12000004/iid/90632/age/34/sex/4/cid/4/tbm/1/page-options/car-do-
0_ovw-do-0
Rideout, V . (2016). Measuring time spent with media: The common sense census of media use
by us 8- to 18-year-olds. Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 138–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1129808
Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (3rd ed.). Puddle
Dancer Press.
Saldamarco, C. N., & Pettijohn, T. F. (2019). Evaluating time delay and exposure to songs with
prosocial lyrics and their effects on prosocial behavior. North American Journal of
Psychology; Winter Garden, 21(4), 843–851.
http://search.proquest.com/central/docview/2339903323/abstract/9F7D118890D4791PQ/
21
Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications,
Ltd. (United Kingdom).
136

Siu, A. H., Shek, D. L., & Law, B. (2012). Prosocial norms as a positive youth development
construct: A conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/832026
Smith, D., Ortiz, N. A., Blake, J. J., Marchbanks, M., Unni, A., & Peguero, A. A. (2020). Tipping
point: Effect of the number of in-school suspensions on academic failure. Contemporary
School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00289-7
Smith, L. C., Garnett, B. R., Herbert, A., Grudev, N., V ogel, J., Keefner, W., Barnett, A., &
Baker, T. (2018). The hand of professional school counseling meets the glove of
restorative practices. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759x18761899
Spivak, A. L., & Farran, D. C. (2012). First-grade teacher behaviors and children's prosocial
actions in classrooms. Early Education and Development, 23(5), 623–639.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.566164
Srivastava, A., & Sushil. (2017). Alignment: The foundation of effective strategy execution.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(8), 1043–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-11-2015-0172
Standing, V ., Fearon, C., & Dee, T. (2012). Investigating the value of restorative practice.
International Journal of Educational Management, 26(4), 354–369.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211227764
Sullivan, A. L., Klingbeil, D. A., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Beyond behavior: Multilevel
analysis of the influence of sociodemographics and school characteristics on students'
risk of suspension. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 99–114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087493
137

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them?
teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 39(6). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6
Tallman, T. O. (2019). How middle grades teachers experience a collaborative culture: An
interpretative phenomenological analysis. RMLE Online, 42(8), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1668103
Tamnes, C. K., Overbye, K., Ferschmann, L., Fjell, A. M., Walhovd, K. B., Blakemore, S.-J., &
Dumontheil, I. (2018). Social perspective taking is associated with self-reported prosocial
behavior and regional cortical thickness across adolescence. Developmental Psychology,
54(9), 1745–1757. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000541
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–161.
https://www.spnj.gr/articlefiles/volume7_issue3/pn_sep_73_155_162b.pdf
Thompson, L. A., Filipp, S. L., Mack, J. A., Mercado, R. E., Barnes, A., Bright, M., Shenkman,
E. A., & Gurka, M. J. (2020). Specific adverse childhood experiences and their
association with other adverse childhood experiences, asthma and emotional,
developmental and behavioral problems in childhood. Pediatric Research, 88(1), 100–
109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-0784-y
Tieskens, J. M., Buil, J., Koot, S., Krabbendam, L., & van Lier, P. A. (2018). Elementary school
children's associations of antisocial behaviour with risk-taking across 7-11 years. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(10), 1052–1060.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12943
138

Timpson, E. (2019). Timpson review of school exclusion (CP 92) [Report]. APS Group with
Crown Copyright. http://www.gov.uk/government/publications
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. (2007). Social
exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
United Kingdom Government. (2020). Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England: 2018
to 2019 [Data set]. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-
statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england
United Kingdom Parliament. (2010). Memorandum submitted by Teacher Support Network.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/writev/behaviour/we54
.htm
van Alphen, M. (2015). Restorative practices: A systemic approach to support social
responsibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(2), 190–196.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2259
Van der Graaff, J., Carlo, G., Crocetti, E., Koot, H. M., & Branje, S. (2018). Prosocial behavior
in adolescence: Gender differences in development and links with empathy. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 1086–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1
Van Lissa, C. J., Hawk, S. T., Branje, S. T., Koot, H. M., Van Lier, P. C., & Meeus, W. J. (2015).
Divergence between adolescent and parental perceptions of conflict in relationship to
adolescent empathy development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(1), 48–61.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0152-5
139

Van Ryzin, M. J., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Family and peer predictors of substance
use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive
Behaviors, 37(12), 1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020
Véronneau, M.-H., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Predicting change in early adolescent problem
behavior in the middle school years: A mesosystemic perspective on parenting and peer
experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8), 1125–1137.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9431-0
Viglas, M., & Perlman, M. (2018). Effects of a mindfulness-based program on young children’s
self-regulation, prosocial behavior and hyperactivity. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 27(4), 1150–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0971-6
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic review
and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008
Wachtel, T. (2015). Restorative practices and the life-world implications of a new social science.
Revista de Asistenta Sociala, 14(4), 7–18.
http://search.proquest.com/central/docview/1750208665/abstract/6251BD90E2B7402EP
Q/27
Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining Restorative. https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-
Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf
Walsh, D., McCartney, G., Smith, M., & Armour, G. (2019). Relationship between childhood
socioeconomic position and adverse childhood experiences (aces): A systematic review.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(12), 1087–1093.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-212738
140

Wang, E. L., & Lee, E. (2019). The use of responsive circles in schools: An exploratory study.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(3), 181–194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718793428
Weinberg, B. A. (2009). A model of overconfidence. Pacific Economic Review, 14(4), 502–515.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0106.2009.00466.x
Weiner, B. (2010). Attribution theory. In International encyclopedia of education (pp. 558–563).
Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00600-x
Whitted, K. S. (2011). Understanding how social and emotional skill deficits contribute to school
failure. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1),
10–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903286755
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. (2015). Development of achievement
motivation and engagement. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science
(pp. 657–701). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316
Williams, K. E., & Berthelsen, D. (2017). The development of prosocial behaviour in early
childhood: Contributions of early parenting and self-regulation. International Journal of
Early Childhood, 49(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0185-5
Wissink, I. B., Deković, M., Stams, G.-J., Asscher, J. J., Rutten, E., & Zijlstra, B. H. (2014).
Moral orientation and relationships in school and adolescent pro- and antisocial
behaviors: A multi-level study. The Journal of School Nursing, 30(3), 216–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840513497402
141

Wolf, K. C., & Kupchik, A. (2017). School suspensions and adverse experiences in adulthood.
Justice Quarterly, 34(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2016.1168475
Yasseen, B. M. (2010). The effect of teachers’ behavior on students’ behavior in the classroom.
International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 6(1), 48–67.
http://search.proquest.com/central/docview/208904490/abstract/B8EBEF039A4445C5PQ
/2
Yoo, H., Feng, X., & Day, R. D. (2013). Adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behavior in the
family context: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(12), 1858–
1872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9900-6
Zakszeski, B., & Rutherford, L. (2021). Mind the gap: A systematic review of research on
restorative practices in schools. School Psychology Review, 50(2–3), 371–387.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2020.1852056
142

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
I would like to express my immense gratitude to you for volunteering your time and energy to
share your experiences with me for my study. I anticipate this interview taking roughly an hour.

I am enrolled in a doctor of education program at the University of Southern California and this
study aims to explore several areas of influence on the use of restorative practices by teaching
staff.

My goal today is to understand your perspective and experiences without judgment of your
skills, behaviors, or opinions. I want to hear your honest answers to my questions, without
concern for how they may be received, because that offers the best chance to accurately capture
the data for this study. I would like to remind you that this interview is confidential. No names or
identifying information will be disclosed outside the scope of this study and this information will
be known only by me for data collection. If at any time I directly quote information you share, it
will be made anonymous to the best of my ability to remove any potential information linked to
your identity. A copy of the final product will be available to you upon request. All data will be
password protected and destroyed when no longer required for the study.

Do you have any questions before we begin? Do I have your permission to begin the interview?
Do I have your permission to record our conversation?

Background

1. How long have you been a teacher (or teaching assistant)?
2. Why did you become a teacher (or teaching assistant)?
3. How would you describe a normal day of work for you as a teacher (or teaching
assistant)?
a. How would you describe some of the behavior issues you have encountered?

Knowledge

1. How would you describe your role in building relationships with your students? (RQ1;
K-Conceptual)
2. How would you describe your relationship with your students? (RQ1; K-Conceptual)
3. In your own words, how would you explain what restorative practices are? (RQ1; K-
Conceptual)
a. What restorative practices do you use, if any? (RQ1; K-Conceptual)
b. To what degree do you use them? (RQ1; M- Seeing how often they actually use
restorative practices)
4. Think back to the last time you used restorative practices since receiving training, if at
all. Please tell me about the experience. (RQ1; K-Metacognitive)
5. Speaking of this experience you’ve just described, what would you have liked to have
done differently, if anything? (RQ1; K-Metacognitive)
a. What did you learn from the experience that may influence your approach in
future situations, if anything? (RQ1; K-Metacognitive)
143

6. If a new teacher joined the school today without any knowledge of restorative practices,
how would you recommend they learn about the concept? (RQ1; K, RQ3;
Recommendations)
a. Would you recommend the training you received?

Motivation

1. Please describe the types of situations where you have found restorative practices useful,
if any? (RQ1; M-Value)
2. How would you describe your level of confidence, if any, in using restorative practices in
your work? (RQ1; M-Self-Efficacy)
3. How has using restorative practices impacted your job as a teacher or teaching assistant?
(RQ1; M-Value)
4. Tell me what you believe to be the contributing factors that influence desirable behavior
in the classroom among your students. (RQ1; M-Attribution; RQ2-O)
5. Other than RP, what methods have you found to be more successful to address conflict, if
any? (RQ1; M-Value)

Organizational Influence

1. Please describe what supports or hinders your ability to use restorative practices in the
classroom? (RQ2; O)
2. In what ways has a collaborative culture within the school influenced your use of
restorative practices, if at all? (RQ2; O-Collaborative Culture)
3. In what ways have work demands influenced your use of restorative practices, if at all?
(RQ2/RQ1; M-Value/O-Settings)
4. How would you describe interactions with the leadership team as it relates to their use of
restorative practices? (RQ2; O-Role Model)
5. To what degree do you see school leadership modeling the use of RP, if at all? (RQ2; O-
Role Model)
6. How has the level of RP use by school leadership influenced your use of RP, if at all?
(RQ2; O-Role Model)
7. What training, beyond the initial sessions, have you received on RP, if any? (RQ2; O-
Ongoing training and support)
8. What resources have been provided to you by the school that support your use of
restorative practices, if any? (RQ2; O-Ongoing training and support)
9. What resources would have helped you use restorative practices in your work, if any?
(RQ3; Recommendations)

Request for Documents and Artifacts

1. In what ways do you incorporate restorative practices into your lesson plans, daily diary,
or other planning materials, if at all?
a. Are you willing to share examples of the materials you use?
2. What objects related to restorative practices do you use within your class, if any?

144

Demographics

I have a few questions related to demographics I would like to conclude with. If you prefer that
demographic information is not captured, you can choose not to answer any of the following
questions.

1. What is your age?
2. What is your ethnicity?
3. What gender do you identify with?

145

Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
Research Questions:

1. What are the teaching staff’s knowledge and motivation for using restorative
practices in their daily work?
2. In what ways do organizational influences impact the teaching staff’s capacity to use
restorative practices in their daily work?
3. What are the recommendations to support teaching staff use of restorative practices in
their daily work?

The documents that will be analyzed for this study include the following:
1. School records: Analyzed for presence of assumed organizational influences
2. School policy documents: Analyzed for presence of assumed organizational
influences
3. School and classroom visuals (posters, etc.): Analyzed for presence of assumed
organizational influences and assumed stakeholder knowledge influences (when
produced by teaching staff).
4. Teacher instruction plans: Analyzed for presence of assumed stakeholder knowledge
influences.

146

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Influences on the Use of Restorative Practices in a United Kingdom Junior
School: An Evaluation Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Joshua W. Branthoover
FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer L. Phillips

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You are encouraged to ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore teaching staff’s capacity to use restorative practices in
their daily work. We hope to learn about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that have an impact on this capacity. You are invited as a possible participant because
you are a teacher or teacher assistant with familiarization of restorative practices.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will be asked to participate in a one-on-one interview with the principal investigator.
The interviews will initially be limited to one-hour sessions and follow-up sessions may be
requested if you are willing to participate. The interviews will be conducted through Zoom, or by
telephone if Zoom is unavailable to you, and audio/video recording will be used to aid in the
research process. If audio/video recording is an impediment to your participation you may
decline to be recorded.

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to answer interview questions designed to uncover
valuable research related to the study’s purpose. Your choice to participate, and to continue the
interview once started, is completely voluntary. You also have the choice to skip any questions
and to end the interview at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will be offered a £10 gift card for participating in an interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

147

Your confidentially is paramount and will be preserved throughout the study. The principal
investigator will maintain all research materials and will keep them password protected in a safe
manner. The audio/video recordings may be reviewed by you after recording, will have limited
access by any party except for research purposes, and will be deleted within a calendar year or at
the conclusion of the study. The audio/video interview will be transcribed by a third party and
after transcription all identifiable information will be removed from the transcribed data. The
transcribed data will be used to discover common themes in the data and the data will not be
linked to a single party.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Joshua W. Branthoover at 07888-433-
234 or branthoo@usc.edu. The faculty advisor, Jennifer L. Phillips, may be reached at
jlp62386@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

Practice ready curriculum in law school education: an exploratory study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

PDF

Management practices of social wealth funds: an exploratory study

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Stress and burnout: a qualitative study of the influences on female leaders' decision to leave

PDF

An exploratory study of women's advancement in the construction industry

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Branthoover, Joshua Wayne (author)

Core Title Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 11/15/2021

Defense Date 11/03/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,restorative practices

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email branthoo@usc.edu,joshua.branthoover@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC17138265

Unique identifier UC17138265

Legacy Identifier etd-Branthoove-10225

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Branthoover, Joshua Wayne

Type texts

Source 20211117-wayne-usctheses-batch-897-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu