CHAPTER II

Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, research drawn from classroom management literature, self efficacy and teacher
efficacy literature, and five factor model of personality in teaching context. In this chapter the related
literature on research variables is reviewed. Information organized around the following questions: (a)
what is classroom management and what influence does teachers’ beliefs on classroom management?
(b) What is self-efficacy and what do we know about teacher efficacy? And (c) What do we know about
five factor model of personality and how does it help to find out teachers’ personality profiles?
Information related to question (c) is not exhaustive, but rather is limited to findings that are relevant to
the objectives of this thesis. Specifically, information pertaining to classroom management (with an
emphasis on teacher characteristics), information pertaining to teacher efficacy as a predictor of
instructional outcomes (with an emphasis on its relation to classroom management style and teacher
characteristics), and information pertaining to five factor model of personality as a predictor of
classroom management style and teacher efficacy is reviewed.

A) What is classroom management and what influence does teachers’ beliefs on classroom
management?

2.2. Classroom Management

2.2.1. Classroom and Management

The dictionary meaning of class is member or body of persons with common characteristics, or in
like circumstances, or with a common purpose, etc. In education, a class is a group of students under
one teacher, or pursuing a study together. A classroom is a room in a school in which classes meet. It is a
meeting place of a group of students for instruction and learning. In the present time, management is
taken as a serious applied social science. In that light, it is defined as the process of working with and
through individuals and groups to accomplish organizational goals. Or it is the process of optimizing the
use of four or five resources namely, persons, money, material, information and time for achieving some
predetermined goals of an organization. Based on certain general consideration, all managers in their
stations of work perform the same main functions such as forecast, plan, organize,direct and control.
Thus, be it a factory chief, military general, housewife , school principal or a teacher , all are managing
.With some added specifics skills for educational management, a school principal does institutional
management and a teacher ,classroom management( Khetarpal,2005).

2.2.2. Classroom management: What it is about?

Translating instructional goals into learning experiences is what classroom management is all about.
In all classrooms the teacher is in charge of organizing the environment, managing the learning process
and student behavior as well as establishing the framework for a sprit of enquiry. In the ultimate
analysis, good classroom management is when ‘my students really want to come to my class and the
responsible parents are ager to send them there after watching their day to day progress on some hard
indicators’. Practicing the art or applied social science for achieving such results has always been a
challenge for those who deliver a curriculum in the classroom. Highly successful teachers may be finding
very different as persons and as professionals. They will be found utilizing different teaching strategies
and will express different ideas about maintaining student discipline. Contrast the classrooms of these
teaching superstars, and you will find major differences in how they structure learning environment for
their students and manage their classroom.

Seven indicators, although not exhaustive, of such structuring reveal much about the depth in the
concept of classroom management (Khetarpal, 2005). These are listed below and described thereafter.

1. Classroom climate; as a set of characteristics that describe a classroom, distinguish it from other
classrooms and influence the behavior of teachers and students in it, relatively enduring over a period of
time.

2. Classroom communication; the process by which someone who has a purpose to accomplish , say a
teacher, tries to convey something to get someone else, say a student, to act for the achievement of the
purpose. Communication involves both exchanging information and transmitting meaning.

3. Classroom management of student learning to belong; which is about focusing on culture which can
help shape attitudes , dispositions , and behaviors and a strong sense of belongingness of those in the
school , all of which work in pursuit of the technical part of school. The culture produces a strong sense
of community for the school and a feeling of belonging to that community on the part of teachers and
students and parents. Teachers creating learning experiences for their students by knowing about their
background knowledge of skills, interests outside school, cultural heritage and special needs through
various methods.

4. Management of student behavior in the classroom (Discipline); refers to approaches to managing

students’ behavior till learning occur in an effective environment. Managing discipline in the classroom
is an important component of classroom management. Learning will not meet in an environment where
student behavior is out of control.

5. Teaching strategies; means selecting best method for teaching once teacher become aware of what
the class needs in terms of learning experiences; teaching the whole class, teaching groups, or individual
work.

6. Managing the new generation classroom; is shifting classroom management to

computer lab management. Obviously, classroom management for the new generation will

need to be different, far different.

In some other point of views classroom management is the organization of a classroom

as a learning environment; the management of student discipline, order and care; the

grouping of student for different tasks and patterns of interaction; the individualization of

students learning (Stensimo, 1995, Emmer, Everston, Clements, &Worsham, 1994, Jones and

Jones, 1990 as cited in Martin & Shoho, 2000, and Smith, 1991). The task of classroom
management is also defined as follows (Truly et al 1992).

Drawing from the works of Martin and Baldwin (1998), although often used

interchangeably, the terms classroom management and discipline are not synonymous. The

term discipline typically refers to the structures and rules describing the expected behavior of

students and the effort to ensure that students comply with those rules. However, classroom

management is defined as a multi-faceted construct and umbrella term that includes three

broad dimensions describing teacher efforts to oversee the activities of the classroom:

Dimension one, instructional management, includes aspects such as monitoring seatwork,

structuring daily routines, and allocating materials; Dimension two people management

pertains to what teachers believe about students as persons and what teachers do to develop

the teacher – student relationship. A large body of literature indicates that academic

achievement and productive behavior are influenced by the quality of teacher- student

relationship (Burden, 1995; Weinstein, 1996, Martin & Baldwin, 1998); the third dimension,

behavior management, is similar to, but different than, discipline in that it focuses on pre

planed means of preventing misbehavior rather than the teacher’s reaction to it. Specifically,

this facet includes setting rules, establishing a reward structure, and providing opportunities

for student input.

Froyens and Iverson, (1999) have considered three major components for classroom

management:

(a) Content management – occurs when the teachers manage the space, materials,

equipments, movement of the people, and lessons that are part of a curriculum or program of

studies.

(b) Conduct management: is centered on one’s beliefs about the nature of people. By

integrating knowledge about human diversity (and individually at the same time) into a

27

particular instructional philosophy, teacher could manage their classroom in a better and

more effective way;

(c) Convenient management: stresses the classroom as a social system. Teacher and student
roles and expectations shape the classroom into an environment conducive to learning.

Definitions of classroom management vary, but usually include action taken by the

teacher to establish order, engage students, or elicit their cooperation (Emmer & Stought,

2001). Doyle (1986) summarized it as “The action and strategies teachers use to solve the

problem of order in classroom”. Jackson’s (as cited in Emmer & Stought, 2001) analysis of

classroom life noted that management’s complexity is a result of several properties of

classroom teaching, including:

• Multidimensionality- varied events and persons,

• Simultaneity- many thing happen at once,

• Immediacy – the rapid ace of events limits reflection,

• Unpredictability- of events and outcomes,

• Publicness- events are often witnessed by many or all students, and

• History – actions and events have pasts and futures.

Jones (1996) underlined the comprehensive nature of classroom management by

identifying five main features:

1. An understanding of current research and theory in classroom management and

students’ psychological and learning needs.

2. The certain of positive teacher-student and peer relationships.

3. The use of instructional methods that facilitates optimal learning by responding to the

academic needs of individual students and classroom groups.

28

4. The use of organizational and group management methods that maximize on-task

behavior.

5. The ability to use a range of counseling and behavioral methods to assist students

who demonstrate persistent or serious behavior problem.

This overview of classroom management includes: establishing and maintaining order,

designing effective instruction, dealing with students as a group, responding to individual

student needs, handling discipline problems, and helping students adjust to the school
environment.

2.2.3. Theories of Classroom Management

Levin, Nolan, Kerr, & Elliot (2005) describe three main theories of classroom

management as student- directed, collaborative, and teacher directed. The student – directed

theory believes that students have the primary responsibility for controlling their behavior.

Collaborative management is based on the belief that the control of student behavior is the

joint responsibility of student and teacher. In the teacher – directed method, the teacher

assumes primary responsibility of managing student behavior. Students become effective

decision – makers by internalizing rules and guidelines for behavior. Levin et al. (2005)

describe the models as three points on a continuum that move from student – directed toward

teacher- directed practices. The points may be thought of as the beliefs that teachers hold to

subscribe to a particular method, or a combination of methods. The theories outlined in the

following figure.

29

Figure 4: Classroom Management Models (Levin, et al. 2005).

Question Student-Directed Collaborative Teacher Directed Primary responsibility for management

Student Joint Teacher Goal of management Caring community focus and self-direction Respectful
relationships, academic focus Well-organized, efficient, academic focus Time spent on management
Valuable and productive Valuable for individual but not for group Wasted time Relationships within
management system Caring personal relationships Respect for each other Non- interference with each
other’s rights Teacher power bases Referent, expert Expert, legitimate Reward! coercive

There are two ways of viewing the issue of classroom management or classroom control.

One way is to consider the issue from the standpoint of reducing discipline problems or

dealing with misbehavior. The other is to examine the interaction pattern that exists in the

classroom and to note the extent and the means of teacher’s control and direction of all the

activity in the classroom.

Withall, (1951,as cited in Kasinath, 2001) developed one of the teacher instruments for

assessing the classroom interaction. Based on the seven categories in the Withall’s climate
index one is able to consider evidence of two types of classroom control (management),

learner- centeredness and teacher- centeredness. Withall found that different teachers

produced a different climate with the same group of students. The categories are: 1. Learner-

supportive statements, 2.Acceptant or clarifying statements (teacher’s intent to help pupil

gain insight into his problem), 3.Problem- structuring (teacher’s intent to elucidate the

problem and to facilitate the learner’s problem solving effort), 4.Neutral statements with no

30

supportive intent, 5. Directive statements (teacher’s intent to have the student adopts the

teacher’s point of view and pursues the course of action advocated), 6. Reproving,

disapproving or disparaging statements (teacher’s main intent to admonish the student for

unacceptable behavior or to emphasize that ha has not met standards of acceptable

achievement), and 7.Teacher- supportive statements (teacher’s intent to assert his position in

the classroom and to defend or justify his actions).

Another classic study on classroom management is that of Lippitt and White (1958, as

cited in Kasinath, 2001) who examined the leadership styles of youth leaders, highlighting a

threefold typology: Authoritarian, laissez- faired, and Democratic. The chief characteristics

of these three leadership styles are presented in figure (5).

Figure 5: Threefold Typology of Classroom Management (Lippitt &White, 1958)

Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-faire 1. All determination of policy by leader. 1. All policies a matter of
group discussion and decision encourage and assist by leader. 1. Complete freedom of group or
individual decision, with a minimum of leader participation. 2. Techniques and activity steps dictate by
the authority, one at a time, so that future steps are always uncertain to a large degree. 2. Activity
perspective gain during discussion period. General steps to group goal sketch, and, where technical
advice is needed, the leader suggests two or more alternative procedures from which choice could be
made. 2. Various material supplies by the leader, who make it clear that he could supply information
when asked. Leader takes no other part in work discussion.

3. The leader usually dictates the particular task and work companion of each member.

3. The members are free to work with whomever they chose, and the division of task is left up to the
group.

3. Complete non participation of4. The dominator tends to be personal in his praise and criticism of the
work of each member, remaining aloof from active group- participation except when demonstrating. 4.
The leader is objective or fact minded in his praise and criticism and try to be a regular group member in
sprit without dong too much of the work.

4. Infrequent spontaneous comments on member activities unless questioned and no attempt to

appraise or regulate the course of events.

Perhaps the best known literature on classroom management is McGregor’s (1960, as

cited in Tassall, 2004) distinction between Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X suggests that

managers assume that those with whom they work dislike it so that they have to be

controlled. Coerced and directed in order to achieve the desired outcomes, whereas Theory Y

concentrates on the way that managers focus on the human side of their employees and

endeavor to develop them as people.

Wolfgang and Glickman (1980) conceptualized a framework to explain teachers’ beliefs

toward discipline. Their continuum was based on a combination of psychological

interpretations to illustrate three approaches to classroom interactions:

1. Non- Interventionist

2. Interventionist

3. Interactionalist

The non-interventionists classroom management style is based on philosophical and

psychological belief system that is commonly referred to as humanistic or student-centered or

non directive teaching (Akbaba & Arif, 1998; Joyce &Weil, 1996). This theory is based on

the work of Carl Rogers and suggests that the child (student) develops from on inner

unfolding of potential. In other word, the non-interventionist presupposes the child (student)

has a inner drive that needs to find it expression in the red world. So, the teacher’s role is to

facilitator. In this role the teacher helps students explore new ideas about their lives, their

32

school work and their relation with others. The model creates an environment where students

and teachers are partners in learning share ideas openly and communicate honestly with one

another Rogers believed that:.

“The hard part of figuring out how to teach is learning when to keep your mouth closed,
which is most of the time (Joyce &Weil, 1996).

At the opposite end of the continuum are interventionists: those who emphasize what the

outer environment (or people and objects) does to the human organism to cause it to develop

in its particular way. This model base on behaviorist approach, suggests that children

(students) develop as result of external environmental conditions, such as reinforcement and

punishment. The teacher’s role in the classroom is to establish rules and procedures

communicate these clearly to student and implement appropriate rewards and punishments

for compliance of noncompliance. The major goal of the interventionist approach is to

maintain an orderly and productive classroom. According to this model the teacher is a

orchestrator, that is the classroom management or teaching style is teacher-centered. In this

model focus on short-term goals in teaching-learning process but in non-interventionist

model focus on long-term goals in teaching-learning process (Levin & Nolan, 1991).

Midway between these two extremes is interactionalist. Proponents of this model (Alfred

Adler, Rudolf Dreikurs, and William Glasser) views child’s developments as he interaction

of inner and outer forces. This approach is known to confronting- contracting model, also.

William Glasser, best known for his book schools without failure “emphasizes that “students

have a responsibility to learn at school, but with the teacher’s help. A classroom with non

interventionist managing is student-centered, with interventionist managing is teacher

centered, and classroom with interactionalist managing is teacher – student centered. The

33

assumption is that teachers believe and act according to all three models of classroom

management. But one usually predominates in beliefs and actions. (Martin,et al.,1995).

Following political pendulum shows a historical perspective toward classroom management

since 1900.

Figure 6: Historical Perspective Classroom Management Theory

School Traditional Pragmatic Progressive

Discipline/Classroom Management Control/Authoritarian Assertive/Teacher -Centered

Supportive/StudentCentered
 The political Pendulum, 1900’s

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

2000

2.2.4. Teacher Beliefs Teacher beliefs have been discussed here because it makes possible a rich and
robust

understanding of classroom management styles which are used by teachers.

Defining Teacher Beliefs

According to Richardson (1996), beliefs may be thought of as psychologically held

understanding, premises, or proposition about the world that are felt to be true. Richardson

explains that beliefs and attitudes are subsets of a group of constructs that name, define, and

34

describe the structure and content that derive a person’s actions. In the realm of education

teachers’ beliefs will ultimately affect what they teach and how they teach.

Origins of Teacher Beliefs

Teachers’ beliefs may come from a variety of sources. Three categories of experience

influence the development of beliefs about teaching – personal experience, experience with

schooling and instruction, and experience with formal knowledge (Richardson, 1996).

Studies have shown that the influence of the quality of pre-service classroom experience and

the opportunity for reflection on the pre- service experience has an effect on a teacher’s

beliefs(Brousseau,Book,&Byers,1998;Bean&Zulich,1992;Cherland,1989;Richardson,Grip,&

Tho-mpson,1987,as cited in Fang,1996).

Personal experience includes the aspects of life that go into the formation of the world

view- the intellectual and moral dispositions, beliefs about self in relation to others,

understanding the relationship of schooling to society, and other form of personal , familial,

and cultural understanding. Clandinin (1986) suggests that personal experience is encoded in

images that affect practice; these images have moral, emotional, personal, and private

dimensions.

Regarding schooling and instruction experience, research has shown students arrive in
their pre-service education year with inherent beliefs about the nature of teaching based on

their own experiences. When combined with the real world of teaching practice, students’

established beliefs create conditions that can make it difficult for pre-service teacher

education to have an impact (Richardson, 1996). For example, Knowel’s (1992) life history

study reported that family influences and previous teachers had influenced the pre-service teachers’
conceptions of teacher’s role. Personal experiences of learning in classroom and

observing teaching models, coupled with parental involvement, may contribute to the

perception of the teacher role. Examples of experience with formal knowledge of students

entering school are found in school subjects, outside readings, and television. When learning

to teach, examples of formal knowledge are exhibited in knowledge of subject matter, and

conceptions about the nature of subject matter and how students learn it (Richardson, 1996).

Studies of the origins of teachers’ beliefs show that a variety of life experiences will

contribute to the formation of strong and enduring beliefs about teaching and learning.

Furthermore, the studies suggests that teachers’ beliefs should be surfaced and acknowledged

during teacher education program to make a difference in the deep structure of knowledge

and beliefs held by pre-service teachers(Richardson,1996).

Uses and Functions of Beliefs in Teaching

While beliefs affect all areas of teaching, they are important to note in several ways.

Nespor (1997) stated that they are useful in task definition in the cognitive realm because

they function as framing or defining the teaching task. Beliefs help in facilitating memory

processing by aiding recall, and the constructive and reconstructive processes. Nespor sums

up the uses of beliefs in the following quotation: “The Effect and emotional components of

beliefs can influence that ways events and elements in memory are indexed and retrieved and

how they are reconstructed during recall. Emotion and effect thus have important

implications for how teachers learn and use what they learn’’.

Considering teachers, this quotation refers to how the intricacies of belief system

influence emotions and how learning experiences are perceived. For example, a teacher may

find themselves in a particular situation which requires a specific action; recalling a similar

36
situation and their corresponding beliefs may connect them to how they felt and how they

acted in order to respond appropriately to the present situation. Nespor (1997) argues that the

contexts and environments within which teachers work, along with the problems they

encounter ,are ill-define and deeply entwined, and that they peculiarly suit beliefs for making

sense of those contexts. Implications for understanding beliefs suggests that, if the great

interest is in why teachers organize and manage classrooms as they do, then consequently,

more attention must be made to the goals they pursue and to their subjective interpretations

of classroom processes.

Studies have shown that teachers’ expectations can significantly influence student

behavior and academic performance (Good, 1987). Subsequently teachers may behave

differently towards students, and their actions may convey behavioral and performance

expectations (Good, 1987). Teachers’ implicit theory about the nature of knowledge

acquisition can also affect the behaviors they use in the classroom, and ultimately, how the

students learn from the behaviors. Teachers’ beliefs and philosophies about their teaching

style will ultimately affect teaching and learning (Good, 1987; Anders & Evans, 1994;

Stoddert, 1994, as cited in Fang, 1996). A teacher’s particular approach to an issue may have

an impact on what the student is learning based on the teacher’s beliefs and how they convey

them trough their actions.

Relationship between Beliefs and Actions

The need for a better understanding of teaching effectiveness is of concern in the

teaching realm; researchers acknowledge that teaching is complex, demanding, and uniquely

human (Clark& Peterson, 1986). Studies indicate that teacher beliefs can make or break the

learning process, and researchers are paying closer attention to teacher attitudes and beliefs

37

on students and on the quality of school life (Ange, Greenwood& Miller, 1994). Where

personal beliefs are concerned, if the purpose is to define what makes a good teacher, it is

necessary to investigate the beliefs of teachers (Ange, Greenwood& Miller, 1994).For

example, good teaching may include being a good classroom manager; being conscious of

beliefs may open up the possibility for a greater range of possible choices and responses to

classroom situations and individual student behavior.(Larrivee,2005).

Studies have been done to conduct research that leads to understanding the complexities

of teaching contexts and of teaching processes and actions within those contexts. Richardson

(1996) states that an understanding of a teacher’s practices is enhanced by research attention

to both beliefs and actions through interviews and observations. Moreover, this attention may

contribute to change in beliefs and practices if the research conducted is done collaboratively.

Richardson (1996) also asserts that beliefs are thought to drive actions, with experience and

reflection on action possibly leading to change in, or additions to, beliefs.

Levin et al. (2005) states that beliefs strongly affect one’s behavior; however, experience

and reflection on action may lead to changes or amendments to beliefs. Changes in beliefs

are beneficial because having a strong, positive belief system will benefit both the teacher

and his or her students. Being aware of the type of beliefs that are positive as opposed to

those that need work will help teachers become more effective educators. For example, in

terms of producing constructive results in the classroom, a belief in the importance reflection

on the success of a lesson many produce a more positive effect on teaching strategies than a

belief which does not include reflection practices. Researchers say that significant change in

teachers can occur if they are engaged in personal exploration, experimentation, and

reflection upon their thoughts and actions (Richardson, 1996). 2.2.5. Linking Teachers’ Beliefs and
Classroom Management

Several studies have been done that look into the beliefs regarding classroom

management style and comparing them with particular demographics; the next section further

describes findings.

Teacher Demographics and Classroom Management Styles

Several studies done by Martin, Baldwin, Sohoho, and Yin (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,

1997, and 2000) have investigated differences in classroom management perceptions and

beliefs in terms of the following demographics: teacher of different training and age, novice

and experienced teachers, teacher personality characteristics, grade level taught, gender, and
geography of teachers. For example, Martin and Baldwin (1992) found that novice teachers

differ from and are influenced by those more experienced, regarding their beliefs on

discipline. Beginning teachers appeared to be patient, share responsibility, and interact with

students(Martin and Baldwin,1992), while more experienced teachers tended to react in a

manner that [includes behaviors] insisting on appropriate behavior, using time-out

procedures,[and] punishing students (Martin and Baldwin ,1992). Thus this finding illustrates

how teachers’ attitudes become pessimistic and controlling overtime.

The researchers believed the reason for this difference is perhaps experienced teachers

are more interventionist because they perceive outside pressure from administrators, parents,

and faculty. This causes them to take an active and controlling approach to classroom

situations (Martin and Baldwin, 1992). Regarding locus of control, experienced teachers

were found to score more internally than pre-service teachers. It appears that years of

40

experience my influence teachers’ perceptions of classroom management style while the

locus of control may be secondary factor (Martin & Baldwin, 1993).

Martin and Baldwin (1994) suggest that their results may imply that novice teachers’

own experiences as students may influence their perceptions of classroom management more

than their experiences in pre-service training programs. More experienced teachers may have

modified their practices and beliefs to correspond to particular teaching realities and skill

learned on the job.

Beliefs regarding classroom management vary among teachers. When they studied

particular teacher personality characteristics in relation to classroom management style,

Martin, Baldwin, and Yin (1995) found that teachers scoring more interventionist or

controlling on classroom management-style inventory were often less venturesome and

inhibited, more practical, and more astute and aware of social conventions. Significant

relationships between personality characteristics and classroom management style were

positive and negative in direction on the scales used, and consistent with expected patterns

based on past research (Martin, Baldwin, &Yin, 1997). Sharma (1980) in his study showed
that each teacher differs from the other in respect of the development of type of leadership.

Some teachers influenced their pupils through democratic strategies while others did so by

giving freedom to their pupils to a degree that they act in any way they choose. She referred

to these two leadership style as personality differences.

In contrary with, Henson, Bennett, Sienty, & Chambers (2002) examined the personality

types of emergency certification teachers as predictors of classroom management and self-

efficacy beliefs. Data analysis indicated that there was a limited relationship between

personality and classroom management and efficacy beliefs.

41

Regarding gender, Martin, Yin, Baldwin (1997) reported that no significant differences

were found between male and female teachers regarding their attitudes and beliefs on

classroom control. The teaching setting (rural or urban) was evidently more of a factor than

gender in determining beliefs regarding classroom management style at the high school level

researched, yielding more of a difference (Martin, Yin, Baldwin, 1997).

When researching age, Martin and Sohoho (2000) hypothesized that age could account

for differences in beliefs concerning classroom management style. They found that

traditionally certified teachers and additional certification program participants scored more

interventionist than student teachers on both subscales used. Martin and Sohoho found that as

teachers age, their beliefs and attitudes toward classroom management become more

controlling; they assume that most of the older subjects were also likely to be parents. They

speculate whether or not it is teaching experience or life experience that causes this

difference in the teachers’ attitude. Martin and Sohoho also wonder if teachers who are

parents approach their classrooms differently from those who are not parents.

They conclude that over the past several years a change in people has occurred who enter

teacher preparation programs; they may be older and more diverse. Because the non

traditional student teacher is likely to have the benefit of richer experiences, teacher

preparation program should respond accordingly by tailoring their approach to their student

body and abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach (Martin &Sohoho, 2000). They found that
practical classroom experiences make a difference in teachers’ perceptions and beliefs. More

richly developed field training will be more beneficial to alleviate the beginning teachers’

idealism with realism, thus educating about the differences between what teachers believe

they know and what actually occurs in existing classrooms. This may include providing more

42

experiences in challenging classrooms so beginning teachers will have the opportunity to

manage diverse situations not often discussed in teacher preparation programs.

Martin and Baldwin (1996) extended their research to investigate the differences

between the classroom management style of elementary and secondary level educators and

their beliefs regarding the nature of appropriate and inappropriate student behaviors. The

findings indicated that elementary teachers scored significantly less interventionist than their

secondary level counterparts.

Laut (1999) conducted a study on beliefs of pre service teachers and classroom teacher

concerning classroom management styles. It was hypothesized that greater experience in

teaching would be associated with less interventionist management styles. Findings

suggested that there were no differences on the classroom management style. Pre service

teachers- those with the least teaching experience – were more non-interventionist than other

group. Interns with the middle level of teaching experience were more interventionist than

experienced teachers. The experienced teachers, also reacting in a non-interventionist

manner, same to the practicum pre service – students. According to results of this study, as

mentioned, for intern teachers (Middle level of teaching experience) is easier to interact with

the students from an interventionist position than create opportunities for students to

communication with the teacher. There is greater security for the teacher with specific rules

and procedures are stabilized and management restricted to use of; direction statement,

modeling behavior, reinforcement, intervention and isolation. There can be little doubt that

beliefs regarding experiences and the manner in that teachers approach them, to create a

unique and individual styles of classroom management. Of great importance is that efficient

43
lesson planning and effective classroom management are both necessary in order for learning

to take place.

Gholami (1999) at his study” the relationships between classroom management styles and

academic achievement of primary school students of Khoramabad city in Iran reported that:

1. There was a significant difference between teachers in terms of management styles.

2. The majority of teachers were student -oriented.

3. There was a significant relationship between classroom management styles and

academic achievement of the students.

4. The academic achievements of the students with student oriented teacher ( non –

directive / humanistic / non – interventionist) was more than students with task

oriented teachers ( directive / hard/ interventionist).

5. There was a significant relationship between gender and classroom management

styles, that is, women more use of student -oriented styles than men.

6. Experience of teaching had a role importance to select classroom management styles.

For example, the beginner teachers have shown less flexibility at the classroom. The

researcher has shown that they are very often task- oriented.

7. In this study that was used “PCL inventory” for the collection data, most of the teachers were
completely agreed with 22nd item inventory: The teaching must be

vivacious, and teacher must be lively also.

Akbaba (1998) in his study examined 14 sixth grade teachers’ opinions about

classroom management, gathering information from on online discussion group. It was found

that nine teachers (64, 21) were using the interventionist classroom management approach,

three teachers (21.4%) were using the interactionalist classroom management approach, and

44

only one teacher (7%) was using both the interactionalist and the interventionist. Based on

the data analysis, the interventionist classroom management approach is the most frequently

used one by the teachers. It seems that teachers still determine the rules (instructional
Behavioral) by themselves and like to run the classroom with these rules. They also support

or prevent behaviors with reinforcements. It is also found interesting that none of 14 teachers

was using the non-interventionist approach, although the importance of humanities approach

is mentioned in many educational environments there might be some reasons for teachers

such as that humanistic approach or non-interventionist approach takes time to apply

perfectly in the classroom. In addition, they do not find it appropriate situations. Classroom

management depends on many things such as class size, the place where school is located,

socio-economics status of students and their aspiration for education and students personal

characteristics. More over, to being awarded of all theories that they provide basis for

classroom management models, is necessary, too.

Stensmo (1995) conducted a study on classroom management styles in context- two

grades 5 Swedish teacher-in terms of five management tasks: planning, control, motivation,

grouping, and individualization. He in his study reported that Mrs. A reflected a production

oriented style, focusing on subject matter and tight management of classroom activities

towards teacher defined goals. Mr. B exhibited a more relation oriented style, focusing on

individual students, and a soft management of classroom activities according to expressed

students needs and feelings. Mrs. A. and Mr. B work in the same school context with parallel

classes. This means that they have common conditions; common goals and curricula. But the

school context also permits them to work differently in their classrooms. Mrs. A and Mr. B

have different kinds of philosophies of Education Mrs. A stands for a philosophy of

45

adjustment and Mr. B. stands for a philosophy of change. Mrs. A. class is a teacher- centered

(interventionist), following Mrs. A: agenda through the curriculum. Mr. B. class is a student

– centered (non-interventionist), following individuals (student) agenda.

 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: THE IMPACT ON STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT

By Hope Kathryn Sowell

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University, Lynchburg Virginia
November, 2013
APPROVED BY:
CONSTANCE PEARSON, Ed.D, Committee Chair
GEORGIA EVANS , Ed.D, Committee Member
MICHAEL SCLABRA, Ed.D. Committee Member
Scott B. Watson, PhD, Associate Dean of Advanced Programs

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: THE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this causal comparative study was to test the theoretical Classroom
Management Teacher Behavior Continuum of Wolfgang and Glickman (1980) that suggests that
interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist classrooms may differ in student outcomes. This
study explored whether student outcomes in statewide standardized tests reading, English language
arts, and math differ by interventionist, noninterventionist, or interactionalist teacher instruction
management (IM) and behavior management (BM) styles. Survey data from eighty-three 3rd, 4th, and
5th grade teachers regarding instructional and behavioral classroom management beliefs were
contrasted in the percentage students passing standardized tests of reading, ELA, and math using
MANOVA at a threshold of p < .05. Student performance did not significantly differ by IM style, while
interactionalist BM classrooms had a significantly higher percentage of student passing statewide tests
of math, reading, and ELA than interventionist classrooms. This line of investigation is important
towards fostering best practices for teachers and optimal outcomes for elementary school students.

Key Terms: Classroom Management, Proactive, Reactive, Interventionist, Noninterventionist,

Interactionalist.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Classroom management is a major concern in schools today. According to Martin and Sass
(2010), classroom management entails an “umbrella of definitions that include learning interactions,
learning, and the behavior of students” (p. 1125). Walker (2009) stated, “The best teachers don’t simply
teach content, they teach people” (p.122). According to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollack (2001), to
effectively teach their students, teachers need to employ effective behavior management strategies,
implement effective instructional strategies, and develop a strong curriculum. In addition to managing
the instruction in the classroom, a teacher’s most significant challenge is also managing the behavior of
students in the classroom because of how it can affect instruction, learning, and achievement. Since the
mandates associated with the federal law NCLB (No Child Left Behind), the CCRPI (College and Career
Ready Performance Index), and achievement based programs, such as Race to the Top; teachers are
concerned about punishing students in ways that will remove them from the regular classroom setting.
Nevertheless, when they decide to address the discipline issue, students are removed from their
instructional area of expertise to a possibly weaker and undertrained skill of classroom management,
like ISS (Etheridge, 2001). Teachers must continuously decide whether they should address disruptive
behavior through disciplinary actions or continue to attempt to teach those students (Etheridge, 2010).
Educators cannot meet the demands of these mandated plans without effective classroom management
strategies employed in their classrooms. According to Shupe (1998), student achievement has suffered
in schools where plaguing discipline and behavioral issues have not been adequately addressed.
“There’s not a teacher alive who hasn’t felt the frustration of trying to manage a classroom with at least
one student who repeatedly pulls other students off-task with annoying, disorderly behavior” (Daly,
2005, p. 9). When students with behavior issues are not handled properly, research has shown they can
negatively influence the learning environment by persuading other to join them, which cause teacher
effectiveness to be questioned, and causing an increased stress for the teacher (Braden & Smith, 2006;
Etheridge, 2010). The effect of classroom disruptions, especially the noncompliant behaviors, attributed
to 2% to 5% of students, is a concern. These noncompliant behaviors interfere with the teacher’s ability
to function effectively by consuming a disproportionate amount of the teacher’s time and energy.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that identifying effective and efficient strategies for improving
behavior must be included in educational reform before a profound impact on schools is noticed (Sailor,
Stowe, Turnbull III, and Kleinhammer-Trammill (2007, p.368).

Another issue linked to classroom management is recognizing which approach/method is the

most appropriate for elementary school students. Is there a one size fits all approach to classroom
management? Research shows the first years of a teacher’s career are considered to be the toughest
years of their profession, particularly in terms of classroom management and discipline strategies.
According to Etheridge (2010), these tough years are shown in estimation indicating roughly 30% of
teachers abandon the profession after three years and nearly 50% of teachers leave within the first five
years of entering a teaching career. Due to the changes in teaching and learning, schools 23 are
dealing with and seeing more discipline and classroom management issues. Bear (1998) argues school
discipline in the United States has changed dramatically within the last few years, Clegg (1984)
suggested unproductive discipline affects many aspects of education. Does a teacher’s BM or IM score
affect their students’ achievement?

Students have changed over the past 100 years; therefore, classroom management strategies
need to be readjusted to meet the demands of a new generation. It is important to distinguish between
instructional management (IM) and Behavioral management (BM). Instructional management is when
the educator maintains control within their classroom with the rigor of the lesson. According to Fowler
(n.d.), “discipline is a subcategory of classroom management, and classroom management is a
subcategory of instructional management” (p. 20). Instructional management is based on planning
effective lessons within the classroom where the students remain engaged and on task. Students are
very impressionable and require teachers who have the knowledge of how to create the best outcome
for everyone in the learning environment.

Behavioral management (noninterventionist, interventionist, and interactionalist) is related to

the expectations a teachers holds for their students. Zimmerman (2011) wrote, “It's not enough to
expect students to keep their hands to themselves or to raise their hands to speak, though those are
great starts. Students also need to understand how you expect them to walk around the classroom, to
handle sharpening pencils and turning in papers and how you want them to sit at their desks. They need
to know how to get your attention appropriately and what voice levels to use at what times” (p. 1).
Slater (2002) mentions five areas an educator should make their focal point as they desire to maintain
people management: “communication, fairness, listen, empower, and change” (p. 1). The 24 present
study explores the possible association between student outcomes and approaches to instructional and
behavioral classroom management

Theoretical Framework: Classroom Management Approaches

The theoretical framework for this study is the teacher behavior continuum of Wolfgang and
Glickman (1980; Lanoue, 2009; Martin & Sass, 2010). According to the continuum of Wolfgang and
Glickman, instructional and behavioral classroom management can be conceptualized as interventionist,
noninterventionist, and interactionalist (Lanoue, 2009; Martin & Sass, 2010) (Figure 1).

Interventionist NonInterventionist Interactionalist

Historically, classroom management has focused on discipline as the foundation for behavioral
and instructional management. McArthur (2002) showed that educators have long understood that
behavior issues can affect the classroom environment. Rosas and West (2009) reported, “Classroom
management is an understandable concern for teachers, particularly given the fact that schools are
expected to provide a safe, orderly environment and that teachers are accountable for students’
academic achievement” (p. 55). To better understand classroom management, Wolfgang and Glickman
(1980) developed a classroom management model that is expressed as a continuum from
interventionist to and non-interventionists, with interactionalist in-between (Martin, 1995; Ritter &
Hancock, 2007; Wolfgang & Glickman, 1980).

Interventionist NonInterventionist Interactionalist

Figure 1. Classroom Management Teacher Behavior Continuum of Wolfgang and Glickman (1980) and of
Martin and Sass (2010).

In the context of this theoretical framework, interventionists react to student behavior with
consequences, while non-interventionists, rather than react to students, plan their environment to
proactively facilitate the classroom. Interactionalists seek to utilize the best aspects of interventionists
and non-interventionists classroom management (Lanoue, 2009; Martin & Sass, 2010; Wolfgang &
Glickman1980).

These three classroom management approaches are reviewed below, including the important
historical figures aligned with aspects of interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist
approaches to classroom management. Empirical evidence supporting or not supporting each classroom
management approach is then presented, followed by a chapter summary. This section begins with the
interventionist approach to classroom management.

Interventionist Classroom Management

Interventionist classroom managers seek to manage the classroom by intervening to shape

student behavior with consequences. Skinner, Bandura, Dreikurs, and Canter each provide a unique
contribution to our present understanding of interventionist classroom management. B.F. Skinner
Skinner’s Behavior Management beliefs focused on consequences for behavior. B.F Skinner believed
that behavior is shaped by the consequences that follow an individual’s actions. In 1974, his book About
Behaviorism, Skinner stated, “Behaviorism is not the science of human behavior; it is the philosophy of
that science” (p.3).

According to Skinner, reinforcements can increase desired behaviors and decrease unwanted
behaviors. Types of reinforcements could be social, graphic, tangible, or an activity (Andrius, 2012).
Skinner (1974) wrote, “Everything we know about operant conditioning is relevant to making behavior
more or less likely to occur upon a given occasion. This is the traditional field of rewards and
punishment, but much sharper distinctions can be made in taking advantage of what we know about
contingencies of reinforcement” (p.181). Operant conditioning of behavior is a process of behavior
modification in which the likelihood of a specific behavior is increased or decreased through positive or
negative reinforcement each time the behavior is exhibited, so that the subject comes to associate the
pleasure or displeasure of the reinforcement with the behavior (American Heritage Dictionary, 2009, p.
1). Skinner (1974) implied that a teacher can control the classroom environment through instantaneous
reinforcement. These reinforcements can come in positive (special opportunities, celebrations, candy)
and negative (loss of opportunities, office referrals, in school suspension, out of school suspension)
forms to create an environment where each student works productively. Skinner (1974) closed with a
concept, “…problems can be solved, even the big ones, if those who are familiar with the details will also
adopt a workable conception of human behavior” (p.251). From the behaviorist view of Skinner, the
student’s behavior can be shaped by consequences. However, a classroom has more than one student
at a time, and learning can occur vicariously. To extend the behaviorist concept of learning from
consequences to include learning by observing the consequences of the behaviors of others, a social
learning theory was needed.

Albert Bandura Albert Bandura developed the Social Learning Theory built around the view that
people learn appropriate and inappropriate behaviors from each other. Bandura (1986, 1997) thought
that students learn through their perceptions and imitations of certain behaviors demonstrated by
parents, teachers, or other students. Bandura believed that, as behaviors were exhibited, individuals
would emulate one another (Bandura, 1993). This theory has important implications for classroom
management. According to Bandura’s (1986, 1997) Social Learning Theory, people acquire a self-
efficacy or a self-belief system, which allows them to possess self-control of their thoughts, actions,
inspiration, drive, and feelings throughout various levels of life. Bandura characterized self-efficacy as
the “beliefs in one’s capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage
prospective situations” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2).

Social Learning Theory also emphasizes the importance of student perceptions in the learning
process with an emphasis on the idea that people frequently acquire knowledge, rules, skills, strategies,
beliefs, and attitudes by watching others (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, social learning is important in
classrooms. Bandura (1997) believed that self-efficacy persuaded the choices people make because a
person’s experiences and learning from others are the groundwork through a person reveals his or her
behavior. “Efficacy beliefs are the foundation of human agency. Unless people believe they can produce
desired results and forestall detrimental ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act or to
persevere in the face of difficulties” (Bandura, 2001, p. 10). Bandura (1997) offered “triadic reciprocal
causation” as an identifier for justifying how one’s personal behavior and uniqueness, along with the
surrounding environment, work together to make people both products and producers in their
environments (Bandura, 1997, p.6). This triadic reciprocal causation is the interaction between thought,
influence, and action (Bandura, 1997) in what people believe, think, and experience that determines
how they behave (Bandura, 1986; Bower, 1975; Neisser, 1976). Efficacy beliefs that a person possesses
regarding their skills, influence their actions in the present and future. Bandura’s theory is the
foundation for classroom management strategies that center on the idea that students learn from each
other and that teachers can shape a student behavior by influencing students to realize they have the
power to change. While Bandura’s Social Learning Theory showed how students can learn from the
consequences of others, which extended the views of behaviorists like Skinner, Dreikurs showed how
interventionalist classroom management can occur in the absence of rewards and punishments by
focusing on logical consequences of classroom behavior. Rudolf Dreikurs Rudolf Dreikurs developed a
social method of classroom discipline. “Dreikurs had four behavioral goals: attention, power, revenge,
avoidance of failure (McLain, 2008, p.1). “Dreikurs did not believe in the use of punishment,
reinforcement or praise. Instead, he believed that natural/logical consequences (directly tied to
misbehavior, involve moral judgments, etc.) and the process of encouragement are the most useful
techniques for preventing discipline problems” (Gurcan & Tekin, n.d., p.6). Dreikurs (1991) believed
students needed to be taught in democratic classroom. Teachers should be warm, friendly, and kind
while at the same time remaining firm. “As the teacher learns to talk less, act more [sic] and respect
students as individuals with enormous potential, she can then teach in a co-operative [sic] atmosphere
where students are willing to learn and discipline problems are minimal” (Dreikurs & Cassel, 1991, p.
96). According to this cognitive theory, if students understand the logical consequences of their
behavior, they are more likely to act in a manner that is compatible with the goals of the classroom.

Interventionists can be behaviorists like Skinner, or social learning theorists like Bandura, or
cognitivists like Dreikurs, in that they all foster methods to intervene with perceived consequences.
Canter contributes assertiveness to interventionist classroom management. Lee Canter Lee Canter
promoted the reactive interventionist discipline method. In 1976, Lee and Marlene Canter created and
published the Assertive Discipline plan for classroom management. When consulting for school systems,
they found that many teachers were unable to control undesirable behavior that occurred in the
classrooms (Canter & Canter, 1993). The assertive discipline method was more for teachers to execute a
discipline plan geared at eliminating behavioral problems. According to Canter and Canter (1993)
“Assertive teachers believe that a firm, teacher-in-charge classroom is in the best interests of students.
They believe that the students wish to have their behavior directed by the teacher” (p.1). The Canters’
viewpoints and practices have changed along with society and educational trends and demands pushed
down from the head leaders in the state and federal educational departments . Just as Skinner (1974)
recommended the usage of positive and negative reinforcement to alter the classroom environment and
instill purpose, Canter and Canter believed in the utilization of rewards and consequences to stimulate
students to make suitable choices.

Mostly, the Canters (2006) proposed methods to be used for improving academic success for all
students by establishing a positive learning environment. He believed that all of this could be
accomplished by developing and maintaining relationships between the students and the teachers
(Canter, 2006). He created quite a few characteristics of effective classroom managers. Some of these
characteristics include areas related to implementing rules, procedures, and student expectations. One
area of the Canter’s classroom management approach that is positive was idea of motivating students
far past their individual potential. Canter and Canter (2001) thought teachers should be proactive in
terms of creating a functional learning environment. Teachers who desire to create this type of learning
environment must donate the same consideration and planning as they devote to their teaching. Canter
and Canter (1976) discussed several benefits of executing an assertive management plan within their
classroom. Some of the benefits of implementing this type of management plan are consistency and
confidence of the teacher. Essentially, teachers usually lean towards using techniques that prevent any
type of behavioral issues or problems. Dr. Karen Walker quoted the following statement from Good and
Trophy (1984) “investigated teachers’ basic skills and efficacy and found that many teachers felt their
worth as a teacher was directly related to their success of implementation of management skills” (p.1).

Assertive/reactive discipline is geared more toward teachers developing a reward system comprised of
positive and negative consequences based on the student’s behavior. The original model stated that
teachers were to write students’ names on the board when a violation occurred and a punishment
would be given (Canter & Canter, 1976). Needless to say, that model has been discarded and replaced
with keeping names in a journal or record book. This eliminates embarrassment and protects teachers
from violating privacy acts. Using the Canter system created a real downside in that teachers were
expected to use a reward system for behaviors that were expected but never were these linked to
reallife experiences. According to No Child Left Behind, teachers are to develop strategies that are
genuine to real life experiences (U. S. Department of Education, 2008). Unfortunately, Canter and
Canter did not develop any other types of discipline methods or practices that were not assertive
discipline methods. Their primary belief was that if teachers use disciplinary action to control their
students, then that would equal a wellbehaved environment would occur in the classroom (Canter &
Canter, 1992). They believed that responsible behavior should be taught, but the educator’s
expectations must also be taught and retaught with the same rigor as an academic lesson (Canter and
Canter, 2001).

Summary of Interventionist Classroom Management

The interventionist classroom management approach is reactive in nature, providing

consequences for student actions (Skinner, 1974), which may help others learn by observation (Bandura,
1997). Further, logical consequences can be as powerful as rewards and punishments (Dreikurs, 1991)
and interventionists can be assertive (Canter & Canter, 1992). However, the interventionist classroom
management approach has limitations. For example, interventionists are, in general, reactive rather
than proactive. Student behavior drives the classroom and the teacher can become a full time
disciplinarian rather than a teacher. According to Churchward (2009), “Once a teacher gets caught in the
reactive mode, classroom problems seem to multiply” (p.1). Rather than react to student actions,
noninterventionist classroom managers take a proactive approach.

Noninterventionist Classroom Management

Noninterventionist (proactive) classroom management is geared towards planning ahead to

extinguish any behavioral issues before they occur in the classroom. The noninterventionist
management can be more constructive than the interventionist strategy and should lead to positive
behavior and the development of self-discipline, thus, the learners’ moral behavior (Erasmus, 2009, p.
8). The noninterventionist may post rules in the classroom, discuss correct ways to act in the classroom,
and praise good behavior. Some of the popular proponents of the proactive (noninterventionist) theory
are Rogers, Kounin, and Wong. A brief overview of the philosophy and unique contribution of each of
these noninterventionist (proactive) classroom management pioneers follows. Carl Rogers Research for
Teachers (2008) highlighted Carl Rogers’s beliefs on classroom management. The research stated, “He
believed that teachers should seek to create emotionally warm, supportive environments in which they
worked collaboratively with their students to achieve mutual goals” (Research for Teachers, 2008, p. 1).
According to Ganly (2010), another proponent of noninterventionist management, reinforcement is a
positive way to discipline students, and it is a helpful tool in the goal of classroom management (p.2).
Rogers believed in experiential learning, along with self-actualization (Research for Teachers, 2008).
Rogers thought if teachers were real, praised their students, showed empathy and understanding, then
classroom management issues would be obsolete.

Jacob Kounin Kounin contributed the “ripple effect of discipline” to noninterventionist

(proactive) management (1970; p. 1). Kounin (1970), with the assistance of Paul Gump and James Ryan,
performed research study over the course of five years to determine “how a teacher’s method of
handling the misbehavior of one child influences other children who are audiences to the event but not
themselves targets” ( p.2). After watching thousands of hours of videotapes, the researchers were able
to discover a teacher’s management style effected student behavior. The researchers identified various
techniques associated with effective teachers such as, demonstrating to the students the teacher is
aware of everything happening in the classroom, ability to deal with multiple situations at one time, and
dealing with small behaviors immediately. Kounin ended his book by concluding, “one might say that a
mastery of group management techniques enables a teacher to be free from concern about
management” (p. 145). Harry Wong In “How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Days of School”
(1998), Harry Wong and wife Rosemary Wong listed four characteristics a well-managed classroom
possess: “Students involved with their work, especially with academic, even teacher-led instruction;
students always know what is expected of them and they tend to be successful; there is very little time
off task such as wasted, disruption, etc.; The classroom environment is work oriented along with being
pleasant and relaxed” (p. 86) Kizlik (2009) commented on the importance of using appropriate effective
praise versus ineffective praise. One should monitor their praise to ensure wanted behaviors (Kizlik,
2009). For the most part, the Wongs recommend that teachers establish procedures and teach them to
students using a three-step approach (Wong & Wong, 1998). They believed that being effective means
the teacher has an assignment going the minute the students enter the classroom. According to White
(2006), Harry Wong’s beliefs about the classroom are more focused on curriculum (p.1). Wong’s
philosophy is definitely not one for play in the learning environment, instead more geared towards the
students working and producing at all times. As a matter of fact, the Wongs suggest for teachers to
explain all classroom rules, procedures, and consequences to students (Wong & Wong, 1998). Wong
believes in teacher readiness, meeting students, seating plan, and immediate feedback. His belief is led
by the three most important student behaviors: discipline, procedures, and routines (Yale, n.d.).
However, Wong and Wong (1998) recommend that all educators make the appropriate changes to their
classroom management method in order to meet the individual needs of each classroom. Their main
belief is efficient classroom management generates an environment that is a safe and productive
learning environment for all stakeholders (Wong & Wong, 1998).

Summary of Nonnterventionist Classroom Management

The noninterventionist approach to classroom management focuses on proactive rather than

the reactive strategies of the Interventionists. However, it is possible that optimal classroom
management may include both proactive and reactive approaches. This approach is called
Interactionalist classroom management,

Interactionalist Classroom Management

The interactionalist classroom management style is a combination of noninterventionist and

interventionist styles. William Glasser (1997) was the major proponent of this management technique.
Glasser’s beliefs were based on his two theories: Reality Theory and Choice Theory. Choice Theory
allows opportunities for students and teachers to understand one another’s individual behavioral
differences. Changes and accommodations are made in the classroom once the teacher recognizes how
the students would like to be treated. In Reality Theory, redirection of misbehavior is tackled by
employing logical consequences, such as individual improvement plans for students, teacher/student
conferences, and providing ways for students to evaluate their own behavior. Ritter and Hancock (2007)
define the interactionalist, like Glasser (1997), as believing students learn from interacting with peers in
their environments.

Interactionalists have a shared classroom management strategy versus interventionist and

noninterventionist. William Glasser Based on Glasser’s (1997) Reality and Choice Theories, insight in
changing of misbehavior by means of logical consequences and conditioning would assist classroom
management techniques used in the classroom setting. “Choice theory teaches that we are all driven by
four psychological needs embedded in our genes: the need to belong, the need for power, the need for
freedom, and the need for fun” (Glasser, 1997, p.17). Basically, Choice Theory presents opportunities for
teachers and students to recognize the individual behavioral differences of others. In the course of these
opportunities, modification and adjustments occur in the classroom due to teachers realizing and
understanding how their students desire to be treated in order for students to place teachers into their
personal worlds. When teachers and students display optimistic attitudes, classroom management
becomes easier. By itself, Choice Theory concept has grown into being used a strategy employed as a
BM and IM technique in classrooms today. Based on Glasser (1986, 1997), Reality Theory includes the
redirection of misbehavior using logical consequences, which includes an array of factors needed to
meet the basic needs of students: teachers indicating to students they care and possess a personal
interest, teacher/student conferences, offering students ways to evaluate their own behavior, along
with accepting responsibility, and creating improvement plans for individual students. In further support
of the interactionalist approach to classroom management, Lanoue (2009) showed that interactionalist
beliefs can be trained in teachers, with the belief that interactionalist classroom management is superior
to Interventionist or noninterventionist approaches to classroom management in fostering student
outcomes. Summary of Interactionalist Classroom Management In summary, interventionists are
generally proactive in providing consequences for student behavior, noninterventionists are generally
proactive in providing learning environments that bypass negative student behaviors, and
interactionalists manage their classroom with a combination of interventionist and noninterventionist
approaches. Each of these philosophies promises superior student outcomes, so the next section
provides a review of the empirical literature supporting or not supporting the interventionist,
noninterventionist, and interactionalist approaches to classroom management.

Empirical Research on Classroom Management

Empirical research has demonstrated the importance of classroom management. Little and Akin-
Little (2008) gave a self-assessment survey addressing classroom management practices to 149
teachers, encompassing four major components of classroom management: classroom rules, enhanced
classroom environment, reinforcement strategies, and reductive procedures (Little & Akin-Little, 2008).
The survey revealed 83% employed verbal reprimands in response to class disruptions, 97% showed
verbal praise used as reinforcement for appropriate behavior, and 63% showed frequent behavioral
problem students freedoms were revoked, while 10% showed the utilization of corporal punishment in
response to chronic offenders. Further, Taila (2009) found that high school student outcomes were
better when students perceived the teacher management approach as being well prepared and well
organized. Together, the findings of Little and Akin-Little (2008) and of Taila (2009) demonstrate the
wide range of teacher utilization of rules, procedures, and consequences in managing the classroom.

In a study of 22 teachers of grades 3-6, Gilpatrick (2010) found that “100% of the teachers felt
that they could become discouraged with the ineffectiveness of their classroom management strategies.
Yet, 64% of the teachers claimed that their current strategies are effective in minimizing the disruptions
made by noncompliant students.” (p. 59-60). The findings of Gilpatrick (2010) demonstrate the
importance of determining the optimal classroom management strategies for promoting positive
student outcomes. Empirical research comparing the interventionist, noninterventionist, and
interactionalist approaches to classroom management began with the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory of
Wolfgang & Glickman in 1980. The development of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control
(ABCC) by Martin, Yin, and Baldwin in 1998 allowed researchers to directly focus on classroom control
from interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist perspectives. However, the ABCC and the
revised ABCC-R (Martin, Yin, Z., & Mayall, 2007) had unacceptable overlap in inter-item correlation and
therefore lacked discriminant validity. For these reasons the Behavior and Instructional Management
Scale (BIMS, Martin & Sass, 2010) was designed to provide a psychometrically sound measuring
instrument for determining interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist approaches to
instructional and behavioral classroom management. Crucial to appreciating the background of the
proposed study, interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist management styles can now be
reliably measured using the Behavioral and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS) (Brannon, 2010;
Martin & Sass, 2010). “The most essential findings that are behind this study are from Martin and Sass
(2010).

Classroom management is “multi-faceted contracts that includes two independent constructs:

Behavior Management and Instructional Management” (Martin and Sass, 2010, p. 1126). Martin and
Sass (2010) performed three studies on the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS). These
studies included 550 K-12 certified teachers from the southwestern United States. In the initial study,
Martin and Sass (2010) assessed a shortened form of the 24-item BIMS using an exploratory factor
analysis. The factor analysis showed a reliability of .85, respectively. As for the second study, the validity
and reliability was investigated through using a confirmatory factor analysis in another shortened
version of the survey. Both factors, behavioral and instructional management revealed a good internal
consistency (alpha = .77). After the previous studies, Martin & Sass (2010) felt discriminate and
convergent validity should be tackled on the BIMS. This prompted the last study conducted. Martin and
Sass (2010) did a comparison between the BIMS and a short version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy
Scale (p.1126). The study revealed a good overall model fit. The findings of these studies verified the
Behavior and Instructional Management Scale successfully measures teachers’ beliefs of their practices
in the areas of behavior and instructional management. In addition to the verification of the BIMS,
Martin and Sass suggest the 24-item BIMS for use in future studies to incorporate a relationship across
gender, grade levels, and content areas. Additional research studies have conferred similar results to
Martin and Sass’s (1998, 2010) findings. Baker’s (2005) research study was seeking to discover the
selfefficacy beliefs of Ohio’s 345 public school teachers. The teachers utilizing the survey came from an
array of academic areas. The survey was designed by the author, which consisted of two components: a
mixture of Brouwers and Tomic’s (2001) Teacher

Interpersonal Self-Efficacy and Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson’s (1994) survey instrument. Both
components used a Likert scale to investigate the classroom management techniques of teachers.
Overall, the authors reported a correlation between teachers’ perceptions of classroom management
and willingness to control unpleasant classroom behaviors displayed by students. Santiago (2012) found
that, in high school teachers, BIMS scores varied across a wide range in both instructional classroom
management and in behavioral classroom management. Brannon (2010) explored the relationship
between student academic success and classroom management beliefs on fifth grade English language
arts and math scores. Brannon used the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control (ABCC) Inventory-R
to identify teachers as interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist, so that “the lower survey
score results in a less controlling (noninterventionist) ideology, and the higher survey score results in a
more controlling (interventionist) ideology” (p. 48). ELA and math achievement were assessed using the
California Standards Test (CST) database. For the forty-one fifth grade teachers who participated,
rannon found that ELA and math scores were did significantly differ by group for 4th grade students, but
cautioned, “It is important to note that the means are higher for ELA for noninterventionist, teachers
with a less controlling ideology, while for Math, there was a higher mean for Interactionalist teachers
that mix both controlling and noncontrolling ideologies.” While the lack of significant differences
between interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist teachers in student achievement
suggests that classroom management styles may not be important in student achievement, Brannon’s
(2010) study suffered from weaknesses that must be addressed before concluding that classroom
management and student achievement are independent of each other. First, Brannon (2010) only
included four (4) noninterventionist teachers. That is, because statistical power is a function of sample
size (Creswell, 2003), Brannon’s (2010) study may have lacked the statistical power to show significant
differences. Further, Brannon used the ABCC-R, which has questionable psychometric properties (Martin
a& Sass, 2010) compared to the more modern BIMS scale. Furthermore, Brannon combined ABCC-R
people management with instructional management into one overall categorization that may not be
reflective of behavioral and instructional classroom management. Additionally, while Brannon (2010)
measured standardized scores on statewide tests (which can be useful), compliance with AYP guidelines
are based on percent students passing core studies. Lastly, Brannon (2010) measured the relationship
between demographic variables and teacher instructional style, but failed to include the covariates in
determining the relationship between instructional style and student outcomes. This is important,
because demographic variables can have effects on relationships (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Additional
empirical evidence from other scholarly works conflict with the conclusions of Brannon (2010). Bennett
(2001) found that classroom climate is correlated with mathematics achievement. Khatib and Ghannadi
(2011) studied English Language Learners and found significantly higher scores for the interventionist
groups over the noninterventionist in the recognition and production of phrasal verbs. Moore (2008)
assessed 270 students and 19 grammar school classroom teachers and concluded that “the findings of
this research study suggest that relationships exist between some classroom management strategies
and higher student achievement scores in diverse elementary settings.”

The published literature includes reflections on the impact of experience and demographic
variables on classroom management. Some studies evaluated here indicate a relationship between a
teacher’s classroom management style (noninterventionist, interventionist, and interactionalist) and the
teacher’s demographic variables (Baker 2005; Cerit, 2011; Little & Akin-Little, 2008). Santiago (2012)
found that gender, number of years of teaching, and highest education degree can affect BIMS
instructional management scores in high school teachers. Experience may matter, as Hicks (2012)
suggests that classroom management skills may be learned ‘on the job’ (p. 87), while Green (2006)
cautioned that “years of experience in the classroom do not guarantee exemplary results with regards
to classroom management” (P. 88) while Lanoue (2009) showed that classroom management can be
trained in teachers. Further supporting the differential efficacy of classroom strategies, Green (2006)
measured four elementary school “master classroom managers” and found that all four were in the
interactionalist range of the ABCC. Green concluded, “While the number of participants was small, it can
be theorized that other teachers identified as “master” classroom managers, using the same criteria for
identification, would have beliefs and practices similar to those identified in this study” (p. 99-100).
Clearly, no study to date has definitively determined the relationship between instructional and
behavioral classroom management strategies applied in the classroom and grammar school student
outcomes in percent passing standardized tests of math and ELA. To determine the effect of teacher
classroom management approach on student outcomes above any possible effects of teacher
demographics, what is needed is a study that incorporates teacher ideology derived from the BIMS
(interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist) in both instruction management and behavior
management dimensions along with teacher demographics towards identifying differences in the
percent of students passing statewide exams in reading, ELA and math.

Summary of Reviewed Literature

 Successful classroom management may be critical for student achievement. The teacher is
responsible for creating a positive community and maintaining control within his/her classroom. Tassell
(2004) stated, “(Wheatley, 1994) Bennis (1985) suggests that leaders (a) have a vision of where they
want to go, (b) must communicate this vision to those around them, (c) position themselves where they
can be effective, and (d) have the courage to leave their comfort zones and walk a tightrope to where
they want to go” (p.1). A teacher must begin from day one and establish their management system and
continue throughout the school term. Teachers must be prepared for the students on a daily basis.
Enerson, Johnson, Milner, & Plank (1997) stated, “The most effective plans are built around the
objectives that you wish to achieve, which means that the first step in any kind of planning is clarifying
and articulating those objectives” (p.16). While this review of literature revealed the importance of
classroom management, theories of classroom management, and the distinction between
interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist classroom management approaches, no studies
to date have measured the differences between teacher instruction management and behavior
management ideology (interventionist, noninterventionist, and interactionalist) on the percent of third,
fourth, and fifth grade students passing statewide exams in reading, ELA and math. This gap in the
literature presented an open empirical question and the purpose of this study

Evidence-based Classroom Behaviour Management Strategies

dr barry s. parsonson Ministry of Education: Special Education, Hawkes Bay Region

AbstrAct

This paper reviews a range of evidence-based strategies for application by teachers to reduce
disruptive and challenging behaviours in their classrooms. These include a number of antecedent
strategies intended to help minimise the emergence of problematic behaviours and a range of those
which provide positive consequences for appropriate student behaviours. Also included is information
on teacher feedback and a review of strategies for enhancing teacher-student relationships. The
approaches covered by the paper are consistent with those of the Ministry of Education’s Positive
Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) initiatives.

practice paper

Keywords: Behaviour management, evidencebased, interventions

introduction
Behaviour problems in a classroom increase the stress levels for both the teacher and pupils,
disrupt the flow of lessons and conflict with both learning objectives and the processes of learning. They
also change the classroom dynamic as the focus of attention shifts from the academic tasks at hand to
the distractions provided by disruptive behaviours. Typically, one or two pupils are identifiable as
‘problems’, sometimes they act in ways that compound management difficulties by inciting each other
and, possibly, others in the class into disruptive activities. The usual response to problematic behaviour
is to identify the child(ren) involved as ‘the problem’, to focus on them as a source of ‘trouble’ and to
devise strategies specifically to deal with their inappropriate behaviour.

However, a classroom is an environment with its own ecology, including teacher, pupils and
their interrelationships, the equipment, books and a range of activities which all interact to influence the
behaviour of the room’s inhabitants. To complicate things further, both teacher and pupils bring into
class experiences and issues from the wider ecological systems in which they live and function e.g. the
rest of the school community, home, family/whanau, community and the wider world. Simply targeting
interventions at individual children in the classroom may not actually solve a classroom behaviour
problem. Indeed, focusing on individuals may lead one to ignore examination of systemic problems in
teacher-pupil relations, the management and teaching styles of the teacher, the curriculum and the
skills required by students to access it, the order in which activities are scheduled, and a whole host of
other aspects of the classroom and wider school ecology. It also has to be remembered that children
bring to school all sorts of concerns, distresses, reactions and patterns of behaviour established,
permitted and supported outside of the classroom itself. Thus, targeting a child as ‘the problem’ may
divert one’s attention from a careful examination of the classroom ecology or that of the wider school
and the family and community environments within which the school is embedded. Equally, children
learn to discriminate the behaviours required in a variety of settings and thus can learn to behave
differently if appropriate and desired behaviours are signalled, encouraged and supported in any given
setting: it also needs to be assessed against the background of the environment in which it occurs. To
place problem behaviour in context, 88 percent of a sample of 42 New Zealand teachers responding to a
questionnaire rated classroom mismanagement as ‘sometimes’ or ‘very often’ a cause of problematic
classroom behaviour (Johansen, Little & Akin-Little, 2011). Of concern was the fact that many of these
teachers had had minimal preservice training in behaviour management and inservice professional
development was considered by some to be of little benefit or not commonly offered.

behAviour mAnAgement strAtegies

Strategies to manage or change behaviour in schools can involve school-wide, classroombased
or individual child-focused interventions: the focus of this paper is on classroom-based interventions
derived from Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), which involves the application of the principles of
operant conditioning (Skinner, 1953) to socially relevant human behaviours (Baer, Wolf & Risley, 1968).
Over the past 44 years the application of ABA to classroom behavior management has demonstrated the
efficacy of a wide variety of interventions which involve the use of both antecedent and contingency
management strategies which can be used by classroom teachers to create positive and functional
learning environments which minimise disruptive behaviours and reward engagement and achievement.
Several of these effective strategies are outlined below.

classroom strategies

If the study by Johansen, Little and Akin-Little (2011) cited above accurately represents teacher
awareness that poor classroom management is an important factor associated with disruptive
behaviour, then it would follow that interventions which target teaching skills and classroom behaviour
management have the potential to produce significant impacts on disruptive behaviour. According to
the Elton Report (1989, cited in the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2005,
section 65, p.15), it was estimated that in the United Kingdom 80 percent of disruptive behaviour was
attributable “to poor classroom organization, planning and teaching”. According to the report, British
teachers stated behaviours such as talking out-of-turn, and other forms of persistent low-level
disruption as the most frequent and stress-inducing because of their constantly disruptive effect on both
classroom activities and the teaching-learning process. Important factors identified related to teacher
confidence and competence, their ability to engage children in the curriculum and for teachers to have
good group management skills so that the class focus was on appropriate behaviour.

Effective teaching and positively functioning classrooms with low levels of disruptive behaviour
require planning and consistency. Factors which have been found to contribute to these outcomes
identified in a literature review by Kern and Clemens (2007) are:

• Clear, simple rules and expectations which are consistently and fairly applied.

• Predictability of events and activities through establishing routines, information, cues

and signals about forthcoming transitions and changes, as well as for content, duration,
and consequences for activities.

• Frequent use of praise, both verbal and non-verbal. Teacher praise has demonstrated
effects on both those earning it and those nearby. Verbal praise should be specific and
descriptive. Teachers should try to provide a child with at least four praise statements
for every reprimand.

• Because disruptive behaviour is often associated with learning deficits, task difficulty
needs to be monitored. All students need to have the required entry skills and ability to
successfully engage in assigned activities. Participation and learning can only follow
successful access to the curriculum and encouragement to sustain activity.

• Opportunities to respond and participate in the classroom activities, to use the

materials and to respond to requests must be inclusive of all children in the class.
Strategies to increase the engagement of all students include having everyone write
answers to some teacher questions rather than just seeking one correct response.

• Seating arrangements: For older students (10 years and above) seating in rows works
better than group seating.

• Effective instructions and commands need to be preceded by getting the pupils’

attention, and then presented clearly one at a time as “do’s”, in a firm (not angry) voice,
with time to comply and praise for compliance. Precise, specific, direct and paced (one-
at-atime) instructions delivered in a calm and quiet voice, followed by praise for
compliance have been found most effective.

• Sequencing of activities, so that easy and brief tasks are interspersed with longer and
more demanding ones, enhances engagement and learning as well as reducing
disruption. Preceding difficult activities with a few simple ones has been found to
enhance transition to a new activity as has scheduling active learning after breaks
before moving on to more passive activities so that children have time to adapt to
quieter routines.
 • Pace of instruction is best if it is brisk. This can be achieved by increasing the rate of
instruction or decreasing the pauses between student response and the presentation of
the next task. Increased pace needs to be managed so that students do not lose
opportunities to respond and access reinforcement.

• Choice and access to preferred activities increases engagement and reduces problem
behaviour. Using children’s own special interests as the basis for activities can
significantly increase engagement While these elements may each present as common
knowledge to teachers, the consistent and skilled application of them as a systematically
used package of effective teaching strategies is what increases the probability of
enhanced learning and reduced problematic behaviour. To assist teachers with
particular management problems it is sometimes necessary to implement specific
interventions.

The relationship among teacher classroom management behavior,

student engagement, and student achievement of middle and high
school science students of varying aptitude
John R. McGarity Jr.
Elbert County Comprehensive High School, Elberton, Georgia 30602
Search for more papers by this author
David P. Butts
Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
Search for more papers by this author
John R. McGarity Jr.
Elbert County Comprehensive High School, Elberton, Georgia 30602
Search for more papers by this author
David P. Butts
Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
Search for more papers by this author
First published: January 1984
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210107
Cited by: 25
About

 Related
 Information
 PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF
Tools

 Request permission
 Export citation
 Add to favorites
 Track citation
Share
Give access
Share full text access
Share full text access
Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.
I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of Use.

Shareable Link

Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.
Copy URL
Share a link

 Email to a friend
 Facebook
 Twitter
 Linkedin
 Google+
 Reddit
 CiteULike

Abstract
This study was designed to determine the relationship among teacher classroom management behavior, student
engagement, and student achievement of middle and high school science students. These variables were
investigated across varying levels of academic aptitude. Two week long units were taught by 30 experienced
science teachers. During this period of time teacher classroom management behavior, student achievement (n =
570), student engagement (n = 269), and student academic aptitude (n = 649) were measured. Twelve selected
management indicators from Georgia Teachers Performance Assessment Indicators (TPAI) were used to
measure teacher classroom management behaviors. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship
between the variables, and appropriate post hoc procedures were used. Analyses showed that there was a
significant relationship among all variables. Post hoc analysis showed that these results were consistent across
levels of aptitude. Other relationships found were between student engagement and achievement, student
aptitude and achievement, and student aptitude and engagement. Correlation coefficients were obtained for
each individual management indicators. Those particular management behaviors which were correlated with
achievement and engagement are: identifies students who do not understand directions and helps them
individually, maintains learner involvement in lessons, reinforces and encourages the efforts of learners to
maintain involvement, attends to routine tasks, uses instructional time efficiently, provides feedback to learners
about their behavior, manages disruptive behavior among learners.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: RESEARCH FOR BEGINNING TEACHERS

by

Darci Borden

A Project Submitted to the Faculty of

The Evergreen State College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree

Master in Teaching

2013

ABSTRACT

This study explores classroom management tactics to help improve the

academic achievement of elementary school students. Classroom management

has been a primary concern for teachers since there have been teachers in the

classroom. A lack of classroom management affects both the teacher and the

students. Studies show that some form of intervention makes a positive impact

on teachers, students, and the whole school climate. Teachers need to

personally connect with each student in the classroom in order to make students

feel comfortable and welcome.

CHAPTER 2: CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction Chapter one discussed the implications a teacher might face if there is a lack

of classroom management. Where most researchers find their divide is between

a behaviorist or constructivist world view. Early studies show that if a beginning

teacher can develop good classroom management skills he/she will be able to

reduce much of the anxieties that go along with being an inexperienced teacher.

Early studies, such as the one done by Kounin (1970), show that a teacher who
possesses with-it-ness will be more prepared for classroom management issues

The following chapter reviews 30 studies about classroom management and

is divided into three sections. The first section, preservice and beginning

teachers, surveys the challenges that all new teachers face and makes

suggestions about how to be proactive in taking care of these issues. The

second section, challenging student behavior, examines the influence of

intervention strategies for students who are displaying disruptive behavior, and

found that some form of intervention had a positive impact on disruptive students.

The third section, urban environments, discusses the implications of teaching in

an urban environment and the importance of getting to know all students on a

personal level.

Preservice and Beginning Teachers The following eight studies analyzed the influence and
impact that first year

teachers and teachers in their first couple years had on students, and the impact that students
and the stress of classroom management had on these new

teachers. Desiderio (2005) did a dual study to determine whether or not students

could adapt to two different teachers’ behavior management styles and found

that the students had no trouble adapting to both styles. Kalis (2007) studied the

effectiveness of self management for increasing the rate of teacher praise for

preservice teachers and found that extending the use of self reflection to

increase classroom management was effective. Sempowicz (2011) investigated

mentoring practices used to guide preservice teachers’ classroom management

and found that the supportive, reflective, constructive mentor teacher prepared

the preservice teacher with confidence going into the first year of teaching.

Martin (1996) studies how beginning teachers are different from experienced

teachers as far as preconceptions about classroom management was concerned

and found that beginning teachers have unrealistic expectations about what

classroom management will be like. Stewart (1997) analyzed the factors of an

instructional environment that have the biggest impact on student success and

found that a sense of humor and confidence increased the first year teacher’s

positive responses to students and parents. McCann (2004) studied the reasons

that new teachers cry and found that there was a huge discrepancy between the

teacher’s expectations of the teaching experience and the actual experience.

Sandholtz (2011) researched the degree to which preservice teachers focused

on instruction or classroom management and found that 78% focused on their

classroom instruction rather than classroom management. Tal (2010) analyzed

the usefulness of case studies in teacher training and the insights that are related

16

to improved teacher training and found that the classroom course proved to be a

helpful learning tool. Overall, these studies found that there were many diverse

factors that caused extreme stress for new teachers; and some of these stress

factors caused new teachers to leave the teaching profession altogether. The

main factors that drove new teachers away from the profession were related to a

lack in classroom management skills.

Desiderio (2005) did an ethnographic study to determine whether or not

young students would be able to adapt to two different teachers with different

behavior management styles by observing student behavior while a preservice

teacher and her mentor teacher taught class on five different occasions and

found that students were able to adjust to each teacher’s management style.

Katherine, a preservice teacher in a first grade elementary school classroom,

implemented assertive discipline in the classroom throughout her student

teaching period. Katherine documented her assertive discipline plan through self

reflection and also received evaluations from her mentor teaching four times over

the total of 12 weeks in student teaching. A researcher, who was trained in

teacher evaluation, observed student behaviors while Katherine and her mentor

teacher taught class on five different occasions.

Desiderio (2005) found that preservice teachers, when trained in assertive

discipline, reported being better prepared and more confident in dealing with

students that had inappropriate behavior. Desiderio (2005) also mentioned that a

generalized claim can not be made from the research that was gathered.

Instead, the individual must read the data and decide for themselves whether or not their own
style resembles that of what Katherine used while teaching.

Transferability will depend on the specific teacher and the students in the

classroom. The study did not include an outside third party to review any of the

data and material collected by the initial researcher.

Kalis (2007) studied the effectiveness of self management for increasing the

rates of teacher praise and the acceptability of using the technique with

preservice teachers, conducted through an informal blind observation, and found

extending the use of self reflection to increase classroom management was

effective. Grace, a 24 year old married woman who is in her first year of

teaching, was selected after being observed. The researcher chose her because

of her low levels of the use of praise in the classroom.

The study occurred in a self contained adaptive behavior classroom for

students who were labeled EBD (emotional behavior disorder) in a large urban

public school in the southern United States. An average of five students and one

paraprofessional were in the room with the teacher. Observations were done in

a basic math class, four boys and one girl, of these students there were three

African American students and two Caucasian students.

Timed, controlled, and scripted direct instruction (DI) lessons were used to

ensure consistency in instructional time. Fixed opportunities were also provided

for student responses and the students were encouraged to actively participate in

the lesson. The main variable in the study was praise. Praise was defined as

verbal or physical behaviors indicating the positive quality of a behavior over and

above the evaluation of accuracy. Statements such as “right” and “ok” were not

18

considered praise statements. Behavior specific praise was defined by the study
as verbal praise for a desired student behavior specified in the praise statement

such as “I like the way Michael is sitting quietly in his chair.” The independent

variable in the study was recognized as self monitoring. Self monitoring was

done when a participant identified the target behavior that occurred, and then

recorded the praise statement on the hand held counter.

Kalis (2007) found that the use of self-monitoring increased the effectiveness

of teacher practice, namely praise. Results concluded an overall effect size of

.923, which indicated a strong impact on rates of praise. This study showed

promise for using self monitoring in other areas of teaching and learning. Self

monitoring was shown to be useful as a non-intrusive intervention, easy to

implement, allows for immediate feedback, and changed teacher behavior.

Kalis’ (2007) research used environmental control which led to reliability in the

study; however, there was no third party observer to see over the research data

and materials. To establish social validity on the use of praise and the use of

self-monitoring to increase praise statements, the observer conducted

postintervention interviews with the subject. Informal assessments of student

grades from both before and after the intervention were also collected.

Sempowicz (2011) investigated mentoring practices used to guide the

preservice teacher’s classroom management by directly observing interactions

between the mentor and preservice teacher and audio-recorded teaching

episodes, and found that the supportive, reflective, constructive mentor teacher

prepared the preservice teacher with the confidence to teach in her first year.

19

Anna, a 19 year old college student in her 2nd year, was in her first field

experience at a practicum site with her mentor teacher. Anna’s mentor teacher,

Grace, had 20 years of teaching experience, had mentored eight preservice

teachers in the past, and taught at seven different primary schools. A meeting a

week prior to Anna’s start date in the classroom with Grace was conducted. A

single researcher was in the classroom to observe using multiple sources of

evidence and analysis on the attributes and practices associated with the mentor

teacher’s model of teaching. Sources of evidence included: five direct

observations of video recorded dialogues, eight informal audio recorded

sessions, seven audio recorded teaching sessions, six formal mentee-written

lesson plans and fifteen written reflections, three “Feedback on Teaching”

evaluations completed by the mentor, four formal written lesson observations by

the researcher, a formal interview with the mentee and then the mentor, and the

mentee’s interim and final field studies reports.

The findings for this research indicated that the mentor teacher was

supportive of the mentee by providing quality time to talk and listen to the mentee

on developing classroom management practices. This support instilled the

mentee with confidence in her teaching and indicated that the mentor teacher

was prepared to cater to the development of the mentees classroom

management practices in positive and constructive ways. Some of the strengths

of this research were the questioning strategies used for providing feedback and

self assessment for the mentee. Questions such as “What worked well?, What

didn’t work well?, What would you change for future lessons?,” were used to

20

provide the feedback. The study did not include an outside third party to review

any of the data and material collected by the initial researcher. Further research

can include using this model for exploring other specific pedagogical knowledge

practices such as planning, teaching strategies, preparation, questioning skills,

and assessment. Further research is also needed to understand how an

effective mentor can facilitate the development of the mentee’s teacher-student

relationships and what practices are most effective in instilling confidence and

positive attitudes towards teaching.

Martin (1996) analyzed how beginning teachers are different from

experienced teachers in their preconceptions of classroom management by

providing both the beginning teacher and experienced teacher with

questionnaires, and found that beginning teachers have unrealistic expectations

regarding how to effectively manage their classrooms. College students were

drawn from education courses in a midsized, regional university in the southern

United States. There were 107 participants, 40% which were inexperienced

teachers and 60% which were experienced. About 92% of these teachers were

female, 85% were Caucasian and the remaining 15% were African American.

The teachers ranged in age from 19-61. The average age of inexperienced

teachers was 27 years old, and the average age of an experienced teacher was

37 years old. An inexperienced teacher was defined as someone with no

teaching experience. Previous research has shown that teachers need at least 3

years of experience before they become expert problem solvers and managers.

21

Information regarding teacher classroom management beliefs was collected

using items from the Inventory of Classroom Management Style (ICMS). The

questionnaire represented three approaches to classroom interaction: non

interventionist, interventionist, and interactionalist. The non-interventionist

proposes that the child has an inner drive that needs to find its expression in the

real world. At the opposite end of the spectrum are interventionists who

emphasize what the outer environment does to shape development in the child.

Half way between these are interactionalists who focus on what the individual

does to modify the environment, as well as what the environment does to shape

the individual.

Analysis of variance was used to determine differences on classroom

management style between inexperienced and experienced teachers. Significant

differences were determined for three scales measured in the questionnaire.

Inexperienced teachers scored significantly less interventionist than experienced

teachers on the psychosocial environment dimension, F(1,104)= 5.61; p=.0197,

and significantly more interventionist on both the instructional management,

F(1,1103) =4.18; p=.0433, and communication dimensions, F(1.104)= 4.20;

p=.043. No significant difference was determined regarding the Setting a

Classroom Structure dimension, F(1,104)=.1095; p=.7414. These results

indicate that inexperienced teachers may have unrealistic expectations of how to

effectively manage their classrooms. The fact that inexperienced teachers

scored more interventionist in dimensions reflects that they may overly rely on

teacher control and survival skills to manage children. Regardless of experience

22

level, elementary school teachers seem to have a consistent approach to setting

a classroom structure, which includes seating arrangements, rules, and

allocating materials.

Stewart (1997) studied the factors of an instructional environment that have

the biggest impact on student success by directly observing a first year teacher in

the first couple weeks of the school year and found that a sense of humor and

confidence increased the first year teacher’s positive responses to students and

parents. A single researcher sat in on the classroom and observed the teacher

and her interactions with students for the first two weeks of the school year. Ms. Darling, the
first year teacher that was observed, had a class of thirty 4th grade

students. She became a yeller after only 10 days in her first year of teaching and

went home each night after school feeling tired and upset. She did self

reflections for 30 days straight and all she was able to come up with were

negative events. She was asked to make some general goals of what she

wanted to accomplish be the end of the year and then sat down to write up a

classroom management plan. With help from a veteran teacher, Ms. Darling

recorded reflections for the next week that included both positive and negative

events in the classroom.

Stewart (1997) found that there was an improved awareness of positive

classroom events and steps towards adjusting teacher behavior in order to

increase positive responses to students and parents. Effective educational

environments are the result of careful planning and constant refinement. Stewart
(1997) also found that the use of humor and having confidence in a student’s abilities improved
positive responses towards students and their parents. This

study and the findings made extremely general assertions and there was a lack

of qualitative academic language used in the study as a whole.

McCann (2004) researched the reasons that new teachers cry by interviewing

and having phone conversations with eleven first year teachers, at the high

school and elementary school level, over a two year period, and found that there

was a huge discrepancy between the teacher’s expectations of the teaching

experience and the actual experience.

During the interviews, McCann (2004) asked two central questions to the first

year teachers. Teachers were asked, (1) what are the significant frustrations that

could influence beginning teacher to leave the profession, and (2) what supports,

resources, and preparations influence beginning teachers to remain in the

profession? Researchers under McCann’s guidance interviewed, had audio

taped conversations, and talked over the phone. After these interviews,

researchers asked three outside readers to view the transcribed interviews to

check for any causes of stress, any methods for coping with the stress, and any

preparation or support that the beginning teachers received. Getting outside

readers to view the transcribed interviews added a third party perspective, which

helped strengthen the study. One particular case of a first year 5th grade teacher, Clara,
possessed

qualities that researchers suspected may cause a teacher to leave the

profession. Clara entered the classroom in her first year and thought she was

prepared to meet classroom management challenges. She had taken education

24

classes where she learned different classroom management strategies, and also

got ideas from her mentor teacher. These strategies failed her in the classroom.

Clara was confused and expected these strategic interventions to solve the

problems. Clara got frustrated because she knew, as a teacher, that she should
expect to encounter challenging groups of students in the classroom at some

point; however, she felt as if she was entering a classroom every day where

students were unmanageable and nothing she did was effective in governing

them.

McCann (2004) and his researchers found that there was a discrepancy

between what beginning teachers expected in their teaching experience and

what the actually experience was like. Three stressful incidents that come highly

unexpected by beginning teachers are an unruly class, a phone call from an

angry parent, and a supervisor’s critical assessment of a lesson. Clara

expressed her frustration and said, “I knew what I was supposed to be doing. I

thought I knew how to do it, but their behavior was so poor. I had a real hard

time dealing with it, especially that week and weeks after, because I had no

experiences, no nothing. It was like, ok, figure it out. Get some control and

figure out how to do this, but it was a shocker” (McCann, 2004). Clara’s

frustration resulted from the contrast between her initial beliefs of how to manage

a class and the subsequent discovery that none of her classroom management

strategies worked.

Sandholtz (2011) researched the degree to which preservice teachers focus

on instruction or classroom management by observing 290 preservice teachers

25

in a masters degree program and their interactions with students in the

classroom, and found that 78% focused on their classroom instruction rather than

classroom management. In this study, a researcher observed the key

interactions between the teacher and students in the classroom. There were 290

students enrolled over a five year period in a combined teacher credential and

masters degree program at a public university in southern California. Of these

290 students, 87% were females, 13% were males, 59% were Caucasian, 23%

Latino, 15% Asian Pacific Islander, 2% African American, and 1% other. Sixty

seven percent of the students were preparing to teach at the elementary level
and 24% were preparing to teach at the secondary level. The program was

designed to be completed over a 12 month period for candidates to link theory

and practice. Candidates began field experiences early in the program and had

to complete 70 hours in a practicum classroom before moving on to student

teaching in the next school year. Students completed as assignment that asked

them to “describe a teaching experience that you would handle the same way

again” and to “describe a teaching experience that you would handle differently if

you could.” The assignment also asked students to explain their reasoning.

Sandholtz (2011) found that when describing a teaching experience that

students would handle the same way again, the preservice teachers

overwhelmingly focused on instruction. Only 12% of the total group focused on

experiences that included classroom management. When describing an

experience that they would handle differently, close to 75%, again, focused on

26

instruction. Over the 5 year period, only 21 out of 290 prospective teachers

focused on classroom management for both prompts.

A strength of this study is how the academic language is defined. Classroom

management is defined as the process of establishing and maintaining an

environment in which instruction and learning can occur. Classroom

management focuses on the actions and strategies teachers use to solve the

problem of order in classrooms. The study defines effective teachers as the

ability to think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.

Tal (2010) analyzed the usefulness of case studies in teacher training and the

insights that are related to improved teacher training by observing 34 second

year preservice teachers, enrolled in a classroom management course, in their

placements and found that the classroom management course proved to be a

helpful learning tool.

In the study there were 34 cases documented by students in their second

year of college, in a four year program, in a classroom management course

taught by Tal (2010) in the spring of 2008 in Israel. Students had to keep a

journal throughout the semester that documented classroom management

events in their field placement. Students were asked to write down their overall

effectiveness of their coping strategies to these classroom management issues.

After documenting one episode of classroom management struggles, they were

required to document a second episode that demonstrated improved coping with

the issue in similar circumstances. Finally, they were asked to compare the two

events and draw conclusions. Tal (2010) found that later reflection upon analyzed materials by
teachers, or

preservice teachers, proved to be a helpful tool in learning how everyday

situations are perceived and dealt with by preservice teachers. The study

defined classroom management as a meta-skill that integrates cognitive

perceptions, self regulation skills, and interpersonal relationships with students

and colleagues. Another strength of the study included a third party analyzer that

observed in the classroom, observed teachers in the program, and also observed

the preservice teachers.

Overall, these studies found that there is a huge discrepancy between what

preservice teachers think teaching is, and how it end up being. It has also been

found that providing a course on classroom management for preservice teachers

was a helpful tool. Because beginning teachers are so focused on their

instruction in the classroom, they are not taking as much time to concentrate on

classroom management which can cause many of these beginning teachers to

be under large amounts of stress. In order to lessen these stresses in the first

few years, it is important for teachers to be self reflective.

Challenging Student Behavior The previous section analyzed the influence and impact that first
year

teachers and teachers in the first couple years had on students, and the impact

that students and the stress of classroom management had on these new
teachers. The following thirteen studies looked at challenging student behavior in

the classroom, intervention methods to deal with these disruptive behaviors, and

a lack of classroom management strategies to lessen these behaviors. Fowler

28

(2011) examined the effects of different discipline strategies on the academic

achievement of elementary students and found that through zero tolerance

schools, youth who were disciplined or court involved were at an increased risk

of dropping out and becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. Wilkinson

(2003) analyzed how support personnel integrated research and practice in

school based behavioral consultation and found that establishing a school based

behavioral consultation was an effective method for providing intervention

services to teachers and students. Reinke (2008) explored the implementation of

a classroom Check-Up, plus visual performance feedback and found that all the

classrooms observed had higher rates of classroom disruptions than praise and

therefore, had increased the level in which they felt the intervention was effective.

Ornelles (2007) researched the effects of a structured intervention on the

engagement and initiations of three children identified as “at-risk” and found an

increased engagement and increased initiations during the intervention

conditions. Nowacek (2007) analyzed the understanding of elementary school

teachers about the characteristics of students with Attention Hyper Deficit

Disorder and found that middle school teachers knew key characteristics

associated with ADHD and were able to implement classroom management

strategies based on the characteristics. Tidwell (2003) explored how schools

provided support to students with behavior problems who required special

education services and found that teachers were more willing to deal with

problem behaviors in their own classrooms when students were younger; but, as

they get older, teachers may be more likely to send students to the office

29

because they feel students should know behavioral expectations. Erdogan

(2010) studied classroom management and discipline problems in an Information

Technology classroom and found that the primary classroom management

issues were a lack of motivation, rule breaking, ineffective time management,

and a lack of classroom interaction. Scott (2000) researched the effect of

intervention, monitoring and assessment for students in the classroom and found

that each student responded differently to intervention. Evertson (1989) explored

the effectiveness of a research based classroom management program

implemented at the beginning of the year and found that the treatment group had

significantly better results in the assessment areas. Sutherland (2005) analyzed

the teacher-reported professional development needs and differences in reported

needs between fully licensed and emergency-licensed teachers of students with

emotional and behavioral disorders and found that teachers of students with EBD

perceive limitations in their ability to provide academic instruction to their

students, and this perception was greatly multiplied for the less experienced

emergency-licensed teachers. Baker (2002) studied how inquiry based

classroom management could be implemented into an elementary school

classroom based on differing student needs and found that the inquiry based

classroom presents the teacher with added challenges and required them to

modify activities to meet all student needs. Durmuscelebi (2010) researched the

differences in state primary schools and private primary schools according to

determined misbehavior and found there is no significant relationship. Arbuckle

(2004) analyzed middle year teacher’s perceptions and management of disruptive classroom
behavior and found that there was a significant negative

correlation between teacher’s confidence in classroom management strategies

and the use of referral strategies for male students. Overall, these studies found

that some form of intervention is necessary to implement with students who

express disruptive behavior and in these studies there is a lack of classroom

management strategies to combat the disruptive behavior of students.

Fowler (2011) researched the effects of different discipline strategies on the

academic achievement of elementary students by directly observing schools in

Texas and retrieving data from administration and juvenile detention centers, and

found that through zero tolerance schools, youth who were disciplined or court

involved were at increased risk of dropping out and becoming involved in the

juvenile justice system.

Fowler (2011) found that holding all other risk factors statistically constant,

students involved in one or more disciplinary incidents were 23.4 times more

likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system. Each additional disciplinary

infraction increased that likelihood by 1.5%, and each day a student was

suspended from school increased the probability of referral to the justice system

by 0.1%. Out of the 412 Texas school districts in the study, pipeline research

identified 211 Texas school districts disproportionately referring African American

students. In Texas and nationally, high school dropouts constitute a large

percentage of inmates in juvenile and adult prisons. Wide variation in disciplinary

referral rates between school districts suggests that where a student attends

31

school, and not the nature of the offense, determines the likelihood of disciplinary

action.

Wilkinson (2003) analyzed how support personnel integrate research and

practice in school based behavioral consultation by conducting three consultation

interviews with an elementary school teacher to find out what behaviors were

most troublesome, which happened most often, and to what level the behaviors

were happening, and found that establishing a school based behavioral

consultation was an effective method for providing intervention services to

teachers and students.

In Wilkinson’s (2003) study, the subject was a seven year old girl, Ana, who

was in the first grade and who demonstrated a consistent pattern of disruptive

behavior that interfered with her classroom performance. Some of the problems

that came about were frequent off task behavior, arguing and fighting with peers,
temper tantrums, and refusal to follow the classroom rules. Ana’s teacher

decided to meet with a child study team to assist with the development,

implementation, and monitoring of classroom interventions with Ana. The

teacher had eight years of experience teaching in the first grade. Three

interviews were held with Ana’s teacher that ranged from 45-10 minutes each. A

Problem Identification Interview (PII) was conducted in the initial consultation to

specify the target problem and discuss data collection procedures. Interview

questions included: (a) Which behaviors are most problematic? (b) How often

does the behavior occur, how long does it last, and in what settings does it

occur? (c) What are Ana's strengths and adaptive behavior? (d) What would be an acceptable
level of the behavior? and (e) What would be the best way to keep

track of Ana's problem behavior? Ana's teacher collected direct behavioral

observations. Inappropriate actions such as making noise, hitting, fighting,

inattention, out-of-seat without permission, and disturbing others were included

under the global category of "disruptive behavior." A paraprofessional was in the

room to assist with instruction and facilitate observation and recording. Data was

collected in 10 second intervals for 15 minutes per observation session.

Wilkinson (2003) found that Ana's T-scores on the Social Problems syndrome

scale decreased from 79 to 66; Attention Problems T-scores fell from 75 to 62;

and Aggressive Behavior syndrome scale T-scores decreased from 85 to 65, all

declining one or more standard deviations to the normal range of functioning.

According to Wilkinson (2003) the findings of this study were consistent with

previous studies that established school-based behavioral consultation as an

effective method of providing intervention to teachers and students. The study

used a third party observer, the para-professional, which was a strength of the

study, and also referenced previous studies that aligned with the findings of this

one. A weakness in the study was the lack of definitions. Academic language

was used such as disruptive behavior, aggressive behavior, and social problems,

in which none of them were specifically defined in the study. Limitations of the
study include the possibility that events other than the treatment plan may have

influenced Ana’s behavior, the downward trend in Ana’s disruptive behavior

during baseline and treatment implementation. In the research, it is not known

whether the positive changes in behavior would have occurred even without

33

treatment. Replication is required to generalize these findings to other students

with behavioral challenges.

Reinke (2008) explored whether or not the implementation of a classroom

Check-Up, plus visual performance feedback would increase teacher

implementation of classroom management strategies, by conducting a ten

minute direct observation frequency count of teacher and student dependent

variables that involved four white elementary school teachers in the Pacific

Northwest. He found that all the classrooms observed had higher rates of

classroom disruptions than praise; therefore, had increased the level in which

they felt the intervention was effective.

Participants in Reinke’s (2008) study, one first grade, two second grade, and

one third grade teacher, were selected for participation based on their request for

support with classroom management skills and procedures. Teacher experience

ranged from 5-25 years. A single subject, multiple baseline design was used

across the classrooms to determine the functional relationship between

variables. The study was conducted in the Northwest Region of the United

States in two different elementary schools. The dependent variables for this

investigation included two teacher variables: occurrences of teacher praise (both

behavior specific and general praise) and occurrences of teacher reprimands.

One student variable was the occurrence of student disruptive behavior. A ten

minute direct observation frequency count of teacher and student dependent

variables was done on a daily basis in each classroom. Data collection always

occurred during the same time period and classroom topic. All behaviors were

34
counted simultaneously throughout the observation using the real time Multi

Option Observation System for Experimental Studies.

Reinke (2008) found that all classrooms had higher rates of classroom

disruptions than praise. The mean rate of praise delivered to classroom students

during the follow-up period for the first teacher was 1.17, with a range of 0.08

1.80. The mean rate of praise delivered to classroom students during the follow

up period for the second teacher was 2.53, with a range of 1.60-3.30. Classroom

teacher three delivered praise to classroom students at a mean rate of 3.53, with

a range of 2.00-5.70. Classroom teacher four had a mean rate of praise of 2.40,

with a range of 1.90-2.90. Prior to intervention teachers varied in their response

to how effective they believed the intervention should be in their classroom.

Upon completion, all teachers, except the teacher who had reported the highest

level at baseline, had increased the level in which they felt the intervention to be

effective.

When collecting follow up data on the maintenance of behavioral changes,

Reinke visited the classrooms one month after the interventions. This was the

only time data was collected after the intervention. There were no other

instances of data collection later on in the school year. Researchers spent

unequal amounts of time in each classroom while collecting the follow-up data.

Three days of data collection were spent in three participating classrooms, and

only two days were spent in one participating classroom.

Several steps were taken to monitor procedural integrity during the study.

First, consultants completed a fidelity checklist during teacher interviews and

35

feedback sessions to ensure the intervention occurred as intended. Another

step, taken to ensure procedural integrity, was to have every teacher interview

and feedback session audiotaped. Finally, interobserver reliability was

conducted and calculated for the evaluation of procedural integrity by

independent researchers.
Ornelles (2007) researched the effects of a structured intervention on the

engagement and initiations of three children identified as “at-risk” for school

difficulty by the use of a questionnaire given to teachers with “at-risk” students

and found an increased engagement and increased initiations during the

intervention conditions. Three first grade students were chosen for the study from

an urban public school. The majority of the school’s population was African

American (75%), Hispanic (9.4%), and Asian (6.8%). A multiple baseline design

across students was used to test the effectiveness of the intervention in bringing

about student behavior changes. Participant selection was based on two

criteria: a low score on the school district's kindergarten checklist, and teacher

reported concerns. Their scores on the kindergarten checklist ranged from

52 to 71 (average scores range from 80 to 90). The teacher reported that the

three participants had difficulties engaging in classroom activities, contributing to

classroom discussions, and completing assigned projects. The teacher also

noted that the three were frequently absent. The target behaviors for these

students were engagement and initiations. Engagement was defined as on-task

behavior. Examples of engagement are participating in small and large group

discussions, working independently, with a peer, or with the teacher on

36

an academic task, and contributing or attempting to contribute to group

discussions.

Data was collected on 6 children, the three participants and their three

typical peers, over 21 weeks for the aspects of engagement, initiations, and

initiations resulting in interactions. The three participants were observed once a

week during a 1-hr science period. There were four 10-min time sampling

segments in the hour: Three of these segments were committed to collecting

data on a participant and one segment to collecting data on one of the

typical peers. Thus there were three 10-min time samples for each of the

participants and one 10-min time sample for a typical peer. Each 10-minute time
sample consisted of 20 observation intervals. Each interval was 30 seconds in

duration with 15 seconds of observation and 15 seconds of recording. Data was

averaged for peers to generate a representative mean level of performance.

Ornelles (2007) found that all three students demonstrated increases in

engagement during the intervention conditions. These increases remained for the

duration of the study. Student #1’s engagement increased from a mean of 13.2%

during baseline to 54.4% during intervention and to 82.5% during the

maintenance phase. Student #2 increased from a mean of 5.2% during baseline

to 52.4% during intervention to 87.5% during the maintenance phase. Student

#3’s engagement increased from a mean of 8.8% during baseline to 76.5%

during intervention and to 72.6% during the maintenance phase. The mean

percentage for comparison peers on this variable was 81.7%. The data showed

increased engagement and increased initiations to peers for all three students. In

37

addition, participants experienced a higher percentage of peer response after

implementation of the intervention.

Although data for this study reflected a correlation between initiations and

peer responding, repeated attempts alone may be insufficient to solicit peer

responses. In addition to increasing the number of attempts made by

participants, future researchers could explore the nature and quality of the

attempts that are made. By addressing these kinds of questions, researchers will

be enabled to gain insights on students’ effectiveness in their sustaining

reciprocal interactions. Did students adjust their style or mode of initiation to their

peers? Exploring questions like this may reveal whether students can develop

the ability to draw from a repertoire of approaches to increase the probability of

positive peer responses. Increases in peer responding can have other effects on

a student. Positive peer responding can be reinforcing and support future

student initiations and positive perceptions about oneself and about school

(Ornelles, 2007).
Nowacek (2007) analyzed the understanding of elementary school

teachers about the characteristics of students with Attention Deficit Hyper

Disorder (ADHD) and what academic and behavioral modifications they

implemented for these learners by administering interviews to two elementary

school teachers and two middle school teachers with a combined 39 years of

teaching experience and found that middle school teachers knew key

characteristics associated with ADHD and were able to implement classroom

management strategies. Teachers were selected based on the following criteria: they were
identified

by their principal as being effective, had at least five years teaching experience,

and were currently teaching students with ADHD. Ms. Bradley, an educator for

over 11 years, taught second grade. With five out of 21 students in her class

identified as having ADHD and only one special education teacher in the school,

she reported that she experienced little external support. Mr. Campbell was a

sixth grade teacher who had been teaching for 28 years. He and one other sixth

grade teacher shared responsibility for the 50 sixth-grade students to whom Mr.

Campbell taught science, social studies, math, and physical education. At the

time of the study, he had four students identified with ADHD. Patricia Rossford, a

third grade educator, spent most of her 20 years as a teacher working in an

elementary school. During the study, five out of 24 students were identified with

ADHD. Sandy Wilson, a fourth-grade teacher, had completed 25 years as an

elementary school teacher. At the time of the study, one out of 17 of her

students were identified to have ADHD. After the interviews were conducted,

observations were done. The following questions made up the interview with

teachers: (1) What does the term ADHD mean to you? (2) What characteristics

do you associate with students identified as having ADHD? (3) What

modifications other than academic modifications do you make in your classroom

for students identified as having ADHD? (4) What academic modifications do you

make in your classroom for students identified as having ADHD? (5) (asked of
middle grades teachers only): What resources are available to you here to

work with students with ADHD? (6) (asked of middle

39

grades teachers only): What types of decisions do you make as a team? (7) How

do you promote acceptance of all students? Give specific examples (Nowacek,

2007).

Researchers found that middle grade educators knew key characteristics

associated with ADHD. Specifically, they indicated that students with ADHD

experienced difficulty in three areas: attention, hyperactivity, and distractibility.

They identified difficulty coming to attention and difficulty paying attention as

characteristics and commented on the unproductive movement often associated

with students with ADHD (Nowecek, 2007).

Findings among elementary school teachers were not vocalized in this study.

The study never mentioned how many researchers were involved with the

interviews and observations. There was a plural pronoun used, “we,” to describe

who was observing and conducting the interviews. The researchers conducted

one long-depth interview with each teacher that may have limited reliability. All

participants taught in a rural or small community; therefore, these findings may

not be generalized to other settings, including larger of more urban communities

Even though all of the participants in the study had attended some recent in

service activities regarding students with special needs, only three of the eight

teachers has more in-depth instruction in special education.

Tidwell (2003) explored how schools provide support to students with

behavioral problems who require special education services by comparing

reported discipline referrals from 16 elementary schools from Oregon and Hawaii

and found that teachers are more willing to deal with problem behaviors in their

40

own classrooms when students are younger; but, as students get older, teachers

may be more likely to send students to the office because they feel students
should know behavioral expectations.

Seven of the 16 schools' enrollments ranged from 400-600 students. The

number of teachers at each school ranged from 8.3 to 66.5. The average number

of teachers in a school was 21.9. The range of the student population eligible for

free and reduced lunch was 19.7% to 95.5%, with a mean of 48.4%. The

percentage of students provided special education services ranged from 7.3% to

30.9%, with the mean of 13.2%. The average daily student attendance ranged

from 91.0% to 96.6%, with a mean of 94.4%. The total number of suspensions

and expulsions ranged from zero to 39, with a mean of 8.9, and the number of

classroom discipline referrals per hundred students ranged from 2.7 to 51.1,

with a mean of 20.9.

Classroom discipline referrals from the 16 schools were compared across

type of behavior, administrative decision, month, and grade level.

Defiance/disrespect and fighting were the two most frequent behaviors resulting

in an office discipline referral. Office discipline referrals for defiance/disrespect

occurred an average of 9.08 (range = 1.01 to 30.94) and was the highest

occurring behavior per hundred students in 15/16 schools. For fighting, the mean

was 3.67 referrals (range = .22 to 8.97). Means and ranges for additional

behaviors referred included disruption, with an average of 2.23 (range = .00 to

9.76), inappropriate language, with an average of 1.64 referrals (range = .00 to

3.42), harassment, with an average of 1.36 (range = .00 to 5.13), forgery/theft,

41

with an average of 1.18 (range = .00 to 4.48), vandalism, with an average of.22

(range = .00 to 1.35), and property damage, with an average of.18 (range = .00

to .66) (Tidwell, 2003).

Fourteen of the 16 schools reported the use of a conference with students,

and for 10 schools this administrative decision was in their top three most used

decision. Loss of privileges occurred in 14 schools and had the highest

average of office discipline referrals associated with it (4.25 per 100 students;
range = .00 to 19.92). Parent contact was used by 15 schools, and averaged

4.17 (range = 0.0 to 15.7) as an administrative decision per 100 students. Having

a conference with the student had an average occurrence per 100 students of

3.70 (range = .00 to 12.56). The use of in-school suspension averaged 1.16

(range = .00 to 3.49) whereas out of school suspension occurred as an

administrative decision for office discipline referrals from the classroom with an

average of 1.21 (range = .00 to 4.88). Both detention and time in office occurred

in 10 schools, and averaged 2.04 (range = .00 to 7.27) and 1.38 (range = .00 to

8.20), respectively. Individualized instruction occurred in 9 of the 16 schools, and

averaged .28 (range = .00 to 1.80). Other Administrative Decisions occurred an

average of 1.68 per 100students (range = 0 to 13.30) (Tidwell, 2003).

The data from the 16 schools showed that fourth and fifth grade students had

higher numbers of referrals. It is possible that teachers are more willing to deal

with problem behaviors in their own classrooms when students are younger, but,

as students get older, teachers may be more likely to send students to the office

42

because they feel students should know behavioral expectations and the

consequences for unacceptable behaviors.

One limitation of the study was the sample size and composition of the

students. Because classroom behaviors resulting in office discipline referral data

were taken from only 16 schools from two states, to generalize the results to

other schools and states is limited. During the time of the study, the number of

students per grade was not available, so the datawere not adjusted across the

schools. Further research is necessary to determine if the pattern of office

discipline referrals is different at the higher grade levels. Also, the schools

represented only three districts that were participating in an ongoing school-wide

PBS project. Finally, all schools were elementary schools, so the findings can

not be generalized to middle or high school settings.

Erdogan (2010) studied classroom management and discipline problems in

an Information Technology (IT) classroom by administering interviews to 17

family members whose children or sibling took an IT course, 14 IT teachers, and

14 schools principals and vice principals and found that the primary classroom

management issues were a lack of motivation, rule breaking, ineffective time

management, and lack of classroom interaction.

Three different, semi-structured interviews were set up with family members,

teachers, and principals, which were developed for the study, based on informal

interviews with two faculty members who were in the process of teaching a

classroom management course in the IT department. The interviews were also

based on the analysis of the theoretical and empirical literature on classroom

43

management. During the individual interviews, the participants were asked to

indicate the discipline problems in the IT classes, and the possible reasons of

and solutions to these problems (Erdogan, 2010). The specific interview

questions were not available for viewing through the online research.

Based on the information gathered from interviews, Erdogan (2010) found

that the possible problems of IT teachers associated with classroom

management were a lack of motivation, rule and routines breaking, lack of

infrastructure, ineffective time management, classroom environment, and lack of

classroom interaction. The discipline problems and misbehaviors that teachers

encountered in IT classes were mainly related to off-task behavior, noisy talking,

walking aimlessly, and inappropriate use of classroom materials. The possible

reasons behind classroom management problems and students' discipline

problems were the nature and status of the course in the curriculum, classroom

environment, crowded classrooms and lack of software, lack of rules, home

environment and parents' attitudes, teachers' inefficiency in classroom

management and students' attitude. The possible solutions to these problems

proposed by the participants were increasing teachers' pedagogical and subject

area knowledge, re-framing the nature of IT course in the curriculum, using

activities that facilitate motivation, using software programs that help control the

wrong computer usage, effective managing the IT classes, giving punishment,

ignoring, investigating the reasons of the problem, establishing rules, contacting

the parent and cooperating with other groups of teachers in the school.

44

One of the limitations of this study was the sample size. With only 14 schools

represented from the study, the findings can not be generalized. The study did

not use a third party perspective to look over the process.

Scott (2000) researched the effect of intervention, monitoring and assessment

for the target students as well as other students in the classroom by observing

the reinforcement of specific replacement behaviors for three elementary

students and found that each student responded differently to intervention.

Scott’s (2000) research involved three student interventions. In each case,

the interventions involved teaching and reinforcing specific

replacement behaviors that were identified through a functional behavior

assessment. In each of the case studies presented, a student teacher was

responsible for all assessment, intervention, and monitoring for the target student

as well as all other students in the classroom during that time. In the first case

study, Lou was a 4th-grade student who was identified as having a specific

learning disability in written language. He went to the resource room daily for

language arts and was monitored for writing in his regular classroom. During

independent work times he avoided work on writing assignments, preferring

instead to play with his papers, tearing, drawing on, and often losing

assignments. When pushed, Lou rushed through an assignment, forgetting his

name, writing sloppily, and producing poor work. In the second case study, Andy

was a 6th-grade student identified as learning disabled in several areas who also

received services for speech and was noted to have slow motor skills and

awkward movements. With a full-scale IQ of 83, Andy attended a special Short periods of time
during which maintenance and generalization were
assessed create limitations in the ability to make strong statements about the

applicability of these results to children who remain in classrooms throughout the

school year. Because student teachers have a brief amount of time in their

student-teaching setting, it creates limitations in validity of results. One strength

of the study is that each intervention was directly tied to functional behavior

assessment outcomes. Rather than selecting interventions based on their

convenience or familiarity, they were selected and tailored to reinforce and teach

desired behaviors.

Evertson (1989) explored the effectiveness of a research based classroom

management program implemented at the beginning of the year by observing 29

elementary school teachers from two Arkansas school districts, (14 teachers in

the treatment group and 15 in the control group), and found that the treatment

group had significantly better results in the assessment areas.

All 29 teachers in the experiment were observed six times. They were observed

four times after the first workshop, and two times after the second workshop. All

observations lasted 30-50 minutes and started on the first or second day of the

school year. The same number of lessons were recorded for the control group

and treatment group. Observers were not told which teachers were involved in

the workshop, and the observers saw the same number of control group teachers

as they did for the treatment group (Evertson, 1989).

Evertson (1989) found that all of the variables observers used to assess the

teachers’ behavior management strategies with were significantly in favor of the

47

treatment teachers. The teachers rewarded appropriate performance by

frequently using praise and encouragement, displaying student work, and

allowing privileges more frequently in the classroom. They also used signals to

cue correct behavior, such as a bell to begin an activity, and alerted students as

to what was expected before they began an activity. There was also more

consistency and predictability among the treatment teachers compared to the

control group.

The process and product of the data collection and analysis were audible by

an outside party. This study claims to have transferability to the high school level

as well as other elementary schools. However, before the observations

occurred, teachers reported telling their students to be on their best behavior

while being observed, which lessons the credibility of the study.

Sutherland (2005) analyzed the teacher-reported professional development

needs and differences in reported needs between fully licensed and emergency

licensed teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and

developed a survey that was administered to four schools districts in a

moderately sized, middle eastern U.S. metropolitan area and found that teachers

of students with EBD perceive limitations in their ability to provide academic

instruction to their students, and this perception was greatly multiplied for the less

experienced emergency-licensed teachers.

Of the 367 distributed surveys, 109 were returned. Ninety of the teachers

(82.6%) indicated that they were licensed to teach students with EBD, and 19

were not fully licensed. Licensed teachers were significantly more experienced

48

than those with emergency licenses, t(1, 106) = 5.34, ρ = .000. Sutherland

(2005) developed a survey to collect standard information on professional

development needs from teachers of students with EBD in the four participating

school districts. First, respondents were asked for demographic information, and

then completed a 33-item questionnaire. The questionnaire asked respondents to

rate their ability at performing skills relevant to teaching students with EBD such

as writing individualized education plans, teaching reading, and managing

transitions in the classroom. The answers were recorded on a Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 4 (very comfortable), with the other

numbers representing points in between the two extremes. A major strength of

the study occurred when four individuals with expertise in conducting research
and training teachers of students with EBD were asked to review the survey.

Sutherland (2005) found that teachers of students with EBD perceive limitations

in their own ability to provide academic instruction to their students, and this

perception is even more marked for less experienced, emergency-licensed

teachers. Fully licensed teachers had a mean of 3.15 and SD of .51 in concern

for planning instruction, whereas emergency licensed teachers had a mean of

2.86 and SD of .53. When asked about behavior and social skills, licensed

teachers had a mean score of 2.93 and a SD of .54, whereas emergency

licensed teachers had a mean of 2.68 and a SD of .61.

Due to the small sample size and homogeneity of the sample, these findings

are not transferable. This study lacks confirmability due to the absence of

accessibility of information for an outside party. Baker (2002) studied how inquiry based
classroom management could be

implemented into an elementary school classroom based on differing student

needs, by administering surveys to elementary teachers experiencing behavioral

problems in their class and found that the inquiry based classroom presents the

teacher with added challenges and required them to modify activities to meet all

student needs.

A group of upper elementary school teachers generated a list of common

classroom management problems they experienced while implementing inquiry

lessons. They then ranked each problem in terms of its severity (not a problem,

slight problem, moderate problem, serious problem, or very serious problem).

Researchers then asked the teachers to consider each one and suggest ways to

overcome them. The research indicated that the inquiry classroom presented the

teachers with unique challenges that often required them to modify activities in

order to meet individual student needs. Hands-on inquiry activities proved to be

effective to assist students in understanding content and acquiring process

skills. Classrooms are more successful when teachers are able to differentiate

instruction. The correct use of inquiry-based activities allowed such differentiation

(Baker, 2002).

Specifics of the study were far and few between. The teachers in the study

weren’t specifically described and there was no indication of the location where

the study took place. No outside observers or reviewers came in to act as a third

party. The study made general statements in the findings.

50

Durmuscelebi researched the differences in state primary schools and private

primary schools according to determined misbehavior by administering a three

part questionnaire to 79 private school teachers and 166 state school teachers,

and found, with 95% confidence, there is no significant relationship.

The research done by Durmscelebi (2010) asked two main questions, (1)

what are the differences in state primary schools and private primary schools

according to determined misbehaviors, and (2) which misbehaviors are the most

encountered or which ones are the least encountered in both types of schools?

Answers in the questionnaire were set up using a Likert Scale and split up into

three sections: personal information, general information, and expressions about

student misbehaviors. The questionnaire analyzed the data by calculating

frequency, percentage, and arithmetic mean by using SPSS (Statistical

Packages for the Social Sciences). The first part of the questionnaire, personal

information, asked questions about gender, seniority, graduation and what

classroom management courses were taken. The second part, general

information, asked questions about the number of students in the classroom,

physical conditions of the classroom, and the level of guidance students are

receiving. The third part of the questionnaire, expressions about student

misbehaviors, listed 28 expressions which were used for measuring student

misbehavior. Misbehavior was defined as behavior that is considered

inappropriate for the specific setting or situation in which it occurs. There were

five categories of misbehavior in this study: aggression, immorality, defiance of

authority, class disruptions, and behaving mischievously.

51

Teachers selected the behaviors, from the list of 28, and ranked how often

the particular misbehaviors happened in their classroom using the likert scale

1-5 (1 being never and 5 being on a daily basis). A four out of five elicited an

80% when the interval coefficient was calculated.

At a .05 confidence interval, the study found that in general there was no

significant difference between state primary and private primary schools.

“Complaints about friends” came up most frequently in state primary schools and

second most for private primary schools (Durmuscelebi, 2010). The most

common misbehaviors that were identified were talking without permission,

studying without a plan, not listening to the teacher, doing other things during the

lesson, and fighting with friends. The most unwanted misbehaviors that teachers

were faced with was cheating, eating in the classroom, coming late to school,

disrespecting the teacher, excluding friends from activities, and using other

student’s equipment without permission.

Although researchers found that there was no overall significance

between the state and private primary schools, they did find that with a .05

confidence interval there was meaningful data among teachers who have taken a

classroom management course and teachers that have not. Researchers

discovered that teachers who have taken a classroom management course

reported relatively lower levels of the following misbehaviors: not obeying

cleanness rules, not attending to class activities, and walking around the room

without permission (Durmuscelebi, 2010).

52

Teachers from private and state schools rated 28 attributes in the classroom.

The number one and two rated disruptions in the classroom were, “complaint

about friends” (state mean: 2.99, private mean: 2.75) and “talking without

permission (state mean: 2.93, private mean: 2.87).” The disruption occurring the

least amount of time for both private and state schools was “cheating”
(Durmuscelebi, 2010).

The mean of state school teachers that took the classroom management

course, when it comes to “complaints about friends,” scored 3.08 compared to

private school teachers with a mean of .84. The mean of state school teachers

that did not take the classroom management course was 2.86 compared to

private school teachers who did not take the course with a mean of .72

(Durmuscelebi, 2010).

This study makes some very general statements when reasoning why a state

school may have higher rates of discipline issues such as, “This may be the

result of the home environment that students come from. The students who are

coming from families which have higher incomes have an advantage because

their families take pains to their education. Also, physical conditions of private

schools are better than the ones of state schools” (Durmuscelebi, 2010). This

was stated immediately after the findings that revealed there was no significant

difference between the two schools according to the importance level. Another

finding that Durmuscelebi (2010) discusses is that teachers working in the state

schools come face to face with more misbehavior than teachers in private

schools. His discussion of this finding is that this may be the result of the home
It is important when writing about research to get clear about the difference between
research that is inadequate and research that is partial.

There are two concepts that are helpful in deciding which of these is the case. They are:

(1) Blind spots – these are the things the method, definitions or theoretical approach
does not allow to be seen/said. For example, surveys are very good for answering
questions such as how many, and how often. They are not very good at probing the
reasons why this may be the case. Conversely, a small number of case studies may allow
you to build really rich descriptions but does not allow you to generalise to scale.

(2) Blank spots – these are the things that are not yet covered by this study. All studies
have a particular scope, location, are conducted at a particular time, in a particular
context and with particular people and things… there are therefore plenty of other
circumstances which the research doesn’t cover. These things-not-covered constitute
blank spots.

Having blank and blind spots in a piece of research is not necessarily a problem. In
reality, all studies have these. All research is partial. It can’t do everything, cover all
possibilities. It is therefore not a sign of inadequate research that some things are left
unprobed since no research can do this.

The problem comes when there is an ambit claim made for coverage. In reality, most
researchers do acknowledge the limitations of their particular studies and make their
claims for contribution fit these. In other words, they do not claim things that they
evidentially can’t because of the blank and blind spots in the research design.

Research that is inadequate is very often where the method, findings and claims do not
match. The researcher has asked a question and then they have claimed that they have
found things that they haven’t – and indeed couldn’t because the method wouldn’t allow
it. They claim that the findings can apply to situations where there is insufficient
evidence to suggest they will, in other words they claim coverage far greater than the
particular study will allow.
There is also of course sloppy research where methods have been applied badly – texts
under-analysed or statistics misapplied or carried out inadequately.

New researchers often get inadequacies and blank and blind spots muddled up. While
research which has blank and blind spots might be disappointing, it is not actually
sloppy – it’s either under-ambitious or, in reality, more likely simply partial. It’s
important in literature reviews not to suggest something is sloppy research when it is
simply limited by its methods or scope/location/sample etc and doesn’t make claims to
be more than it is. It is important always in literature reviewing to look for the ‘fit’
between the blank and blind spots and the claims made in any piece of empirical
research.

It is also particularly important – no, it’s crucial – to be clear about the blank and blind
spots in your own research and getting this crystal clear before beginning to write the
last chapter of the dissertation when the claims about contribution to knowledge are
made. It is often when bigger claims are made than can actually be justified – for
example policy recommendations are made on the back of small studies with limited
scope and particular samples- that examiners get punitive.

It is not a weakness to note the blank and blind spots, and there is no need to go on
about them at length, or to be apologetic. All research has blank and blind spots and we
just need to know what they are, so that we know what we are legitimately able to say.

Note
The notion of blank and blind spots used here is based on: Wagner, J. 1993, ‘Ignorance
in educational research: Or, how can you not know that?’, Educational Researcher, vol.
22, no. 5, pp. 15-23. Barbara Kamler and I have worked with/on it as a pedagogical
strategy
Effective Classroom Management in StudentCentered Classrooms Deena VanHousen St. John
Fisher College

Effective Classroom Management in Student-Centered Classrooms

Abstract Classroom management is an essential component to the classroom learning

environment. Research has focused on a variety of classroom management approaches;
specifically teacher-centered versus studentcentered classroom management
techniques. After reviewing the research, the question, how can teachers effectively
manage a classroom with a wide range of learning abilities and styles, in a student-
centered way, was proposed. To answer this question, a study involving a variety of
teachers in a suburban school district in upstate New York was conducted. Each teacher
participated in an anonymous electronic survey to collect data about the teacher’s
classroom management approach and how it affects student behavior.

Document Type Thesis

Degree Name MS in Special Education

Department Education

Subject Categories Education

Effective Classroom Management in Student-Centered Classrooms

Recent changes in educational laws have created new classroom management

opportunities. According to Wong, Wont, Rogers, and Brooks (2012), “classroom management

refers to all the things that a teacher does to organize students, space, time, and materials so
that

student learning can take place” (p. 61). Effective teachers, who establish an efficient

management system from the beginning of the school year, will have more time to devote to

student learning, than teachers who are constantly trying to use an inefficient management

system. The two federal laws, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 made it a necessity to improve

student achievement for students of all learning abilities. Due to these changes, classrooms are

now shifting from teacher-centered to student-centered learning communities. Garrett (2008)

defines student-centered learning communities as having "shared leadership, community

building, and a balance between the needs of the teachers and students” (p. 34).

Students of all learning abilities and cultural backgrounds are learning together in the

same classrooms with teachers being held accountable for each individual student's
achievement.

This study will review recent literature regarding classroom management and specific student

centered classroom management programs. Although every teacher's personality is reflected in

his/her management style, research has found commonalities within the most effective student

centered management techniques. According to Pereira and Smith-Adcock (2011):

Although a child-led approach is often seen as a direct contrast to teacher directed (i.e

traditional methods) classroom management, the main philosophical differences between

the two approaches lies in the emphasis placed on a child’s freedom in completing

learning tasks and the amount of teacher control deemed necessary for proper learning to

take place. (p. 255)

In classrooms today, students of all learning abilities and cultural backgrounds are

becoming active participants in all classroom decision-making processes. Students’ opinions

and

ideas are valued and enrich the learning environment. McCombs, Daniel, and Perry (2008)

explain, “for the past two decades, there (also) has been strong recognition of the needs for

interventions to target student motivation and social-emotional growth" (p. 254). This study
will

determine how classroom teachers, and other school professionals working in a classroom,
work

together with students to manage a successful learning community.

Literature Review

Schools and classrooms need to be a safe and welcoming place that provides the

necessary academic, as well as social and emotional supports, all students need. Kohn’s

Progressive Education Theory supports student-centered classroom management. According to

Kohn (2008), progressive education cannot be defined in one sentence because certain
elements

of the theory can be interpreted differently. There are, however, elements of the theory that
support student-centered classroom management. For example, educators who apply
progressive

education theory believe in collaboration among the teacher and students. Progressive
educators

value not only academic growth, but also the social and emotional growth of all students. Kohn

(2008) explains, “in progressive schools, students play a vital role in helping to design the

curriculum, formulate the questions, seek out (and create) answers, think through possibilities,

and evaluate how successful they - and their teachers - have been” (p. 2). Kohn’s progressive

education theory values students’ ideas and opinions. In student-centered classrooms, the

curriculum is no longer dictated by the next chapter in a scripted teacher’s manual, but is
dictated

MANAGING STUDENT CENTERED CLASSROOMS 5

by student interests. Schools and teachers, who want to use a student-centered approach,
should

reference Kohn’s progressive education theory.

Research Question

It is becoming uncommon today to see a classroom set up with desks in perfect rows and

a teacher standing in the front of the room for a majority of the day. Classrooms are becoming

diverse, student-centered learning environments, which require a unique management

technique.

Although there are numerous classroom management theories, how can teachers effectively

manage a classroom with a wide range of learning abilities and styles, in a student-centered
way?

Models of Management Systems

There is not one single formula to successfully manage a student-centered classroom.

Each individual classroom is made up of a diverse population of learners, and student-centered

classrooms focus on the needs of each individual student. There are, however, different
management programs, which suggest specific strategies for teachers and students to
implement.

Specifically, the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered classroom management is

possible only if there are strong positive relationships between the teacher and students as well

as, students and their peers. In student-centered classrooms, teachers share responsibilities
with

students, so having mutual respect for each other is essential. Also, in order for a student

centered classroom to be successful, classroom expectations must be established. As

previously

stated, student-centered classrooms rely on both ideas and opinions from teachers and
students.

Therefore, especially in the beginning of the year, it is important for teachers and students to

establish and practice classroom expectations and routines. Student-centered classrooms can
be

successful when each individual teacher and student knows his/her contributions are needed in

order for the whole classroom community to succeed.

Consistency management and cooperative discipline (CMCD)

Teachers and students begin establishing a classroom management system on the first day

of school. An effective management system must be followed consistently throughout the

school

year. Consistency Management and Cooperative Discipline (CMCD) “is an instructional and

classroom management program that provides teachers, administrators, students, and school
staff

with the tools needed to build community and organizational capacity within their schools”

(Jerome-Freiberg, Huzinec, & Templeton, 2009, p. 64). This management program creates a

student-centered classroom and school by giving students responsibility for their actions, which

promotes active learning. According to Jerome-Freiberg et al. (2009), often times management

programs focus on discipline after the issue, instead of prevention. Schools and classrooms
who

apply CMCD, "create fair, consistent, and engaging instruction with predictable daily classroom

routines in which students are active participants" (Jerome-Freiberg et al.,, 2009, p. 65). A
predictable school and classroom environment, where students are given responsibilities and
held

accountable for their actions, will decrease the amount of time teachers and students have to

spend on classroom management and discipline (Jerome-Freiberg et al., 2009). When teachers

and students spend less time on classroom management and discipline, they are able to devote

more time to learning. Jerome-Freiberg et al.Huzinec, and Templeton (2009) completed a

study, which followed

14 elementary schools that implemented CMCD. The study revealed that schools who applied

CMCD had “changes in the learning environment and particularly within the component of the

environment that focuses on classroom and instructional management… (also a) positive effect

on the improvement of student learning outcomes” (Jerome-Freiberg et al., p. 78). The CMCD

management program suggests teachers and students find success through cooperation,
prevention, organization and caring (Jerome-Freiberg et al., 2009). Teachers from this
study

were surveyed and asked to estimate how much time, on average, they saved and were able to

devote to instructional time once they began the CMCD management program. Jerome-
Freiberg

et al. (2009) report that "teachers saved, on average, 26 minutes per day, equaling 13 school

days (2.6 school weeks) per year of instructional time" (p. 77). CMCD is a cooperative

management program, which maximizes efficiency and instructional time.

Cooperative Discipline.

Albert’s Cooperative Discipline (2005), also states students need to be given

responsibilities and held accountable for their actions. According to Charles (2005), Albert's

believes all students need to feel capable while connecting with others, and making
contributions

in the classroom, school and community. Charles (2005) states, "Albert's main focus is on

helping teachers meet student’s needs, thereby prompting students to cooperate with the
teacher

and each other" (p. 200). When students are active participants in their learning and feel their

contributions are valued in the classroom, it is more likely the students will have a positive

attitude about school.

Albert's Cooperative Discipline management program, suggests similar strategies as the

CMCD management program. For example, both management programs rely on teachers and

students to cooperate and work together in the classroom and school (Jerome-Freiberg et al.,

(2009), Huzinec, & Templeton, 2009; Charles, 2005). One specific characteristic of Cooperative

Discipline is ensuring students feel connected in the classroom (Charles, 2005). Jerome-
Freiberg

et al. (2009) would agree that helping students connect with their teacher and peers is an

essential component of a successful management system. A teacher who applied the CMCD

management program in her classroom states, "students want to know how much you care
before

MANAGING STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 8

they consider how much you know" (Jerome-Freiberg et al.,, 2009, p. 66). Pereira and Smith

Adcock (2011), agree by stating, “when students feel connected to their teacher and peers, as a

valued member of the classroom community, they are more prepared to actively engage in the

curriculum” (p. 257). Students who feel comfortable in the classroom will be more willing to

take risks and share personal ideas and opinions.

Both the Cooperative Discipline management program and CMCD management program

encourage students to contribute their individual ideas and opinions to improve the classroom

environment (Jerome-Freiberg, et al., Huzinec, & Templeton, 2009; Charles, 2005). Charles

(2005) indicates that with Cooperative Discipline it is important to, “ask students to state their

opinions and preferences about class requirements, routines, and other matters" (p. 207).

Similarly, Jerome-Freiberg et al. (2009), state with CMCD, "student opinions and perspectives

are heard. Students learn how to solve disputes, prevent problems, and work and learn in
groups,

all within a supportive, caring environment" (p. 66). When students and teachers are working

together to cooperatively manage the classroom, there is shared leadership and responsibility.

This type of cooperative management will minimize disruptions and create a more productive

learning environment.
Culturally Responsive Teaching

A third classroom management theoryprogram is Culturally Responsive Teaching. It is

crucial that teachers develop the knowledge, skills, and predispositions to teach children from

diverse racial, ethnic, language, and social class backgrounds because classrooms today are

continuing to become increasingly diverse. Weinstein, Curran, and Tomlinson-Clarke (2003)

explain:

In order to be culturally responsive, we must acquire "cultural content knowledge." We

must learn, for example, about our students' family backgrounds, their previous

educational experiences, their cultural norms for interpersonal relationships, their parents'

expectations for discipline, and the ways their culture treat time and space. (p. 270)

Teachers set the tone for their classroom on the very first day with their welcome and continue
to

be role models for their students throughout the school year. The physical environment of a

classroom reflects the teacher’s respect for diversity. For example, while displaying pictures,

teachers need to make sure they avoid any stereotypical representations. Examples of a

stereotypical representation are images of Mexicans wearing wide brimmed sombreros

(Weinstein, Curran, & Tomlinson-Clarke, 2003). Teachers need to educate themselves, or have

students educate them, about different cultural values and traditions. Albert's Cooperative

Discipline includes similar management strategies as Culturally Responsive Teaching by stating

that teachers need to communicate, “that it is all right for each student to be as he or she is,

regardless of culture, abilities, disabilities, and personal style" (Charles, 2005, p. 206). Sobel and

Taylor (2006) write about Ms. Linda Hillmera, a third grade Caucasian teacher who comes from

a middle-class European American family, but engages her students each day in a Culturally

Responsive classroom. For example, all signs, cabinets and classroom materials are labeled in

English, Spanish, Russian, and American Sign Language. Even in a classroom that is made up

of the mainstream culture, it is important for teachers to educate themselves and their
students

about cultural values and traditions. Teachers must remember to encourage a positive,
culturally
responsive learning environment because students of all cultural backgrounds need to feel

comfortable in the classroom in order to maximize their learning opportunities.

Allowing time to share stories about life outside of school also helps build a classroom

community. Jerome-Freiberg, Huzinec, and Templeton (2009) explain with CMCD, students are

able to share personal stories and opinions comfortably during classroom meetings. Learning

about students’ families and working with families in and out of the classroom is essential, but

can cause conflicts when the home and school cultures collide. Teachers need to be aware of
the

cultural differences and accommodate the student and family needs (Bondy & Ross, 2006).

Bondy and Ross (2006) explain that, “gaining insight into cultural values and habits helps

teachers monitor their reactions to student behaviors that they might deem bad, but that are

considered normal or even valued in the student’s home culture” (p. 56). Teachers should be

educated about different cultures so they do not misinterpret certain behaviors. Being
accepting

and willing to learn from students is key for teachers in a culturally responsive classroom.

According to Sobel and Taylor (2006), “Responsive teaching encompasses much more than the

items displayed on a classroom wall… [it] calls for teachers to create respectful, inclusive,

supportive environments that foster authentic learning communities” (p.34). Culturally

responsive teachers respect cultural differences and communicate with all students and their

families to meet everyone's needs. Culturally Responsive Teaching requires constant

communication, patience, and education from all teachers and students, but is a necessity in a

student-centered classroom.

Student and Teacher Relationships

In order to build a classroom and school community, teachers must develop a strong

positive relationship with each student. Also, teachers must encourage strong student-peer

relationships. Dollard, Christensen, and Colucci (1996) state, “the positive connection formed
within a relationship between student and teacher becomes the foundation for all interaction in

the classroom” (p. 5). Students must feel safe and feel they are able to express their feelings in
a

classroom in order to excel academically. According to Bondy and Ross (2008), “what is

missing is not skill in lesson planning, but a teacher stance that communicates both warmth and
a

nonnegotiable demand for student effort and mutual respect” (p. 54). Teachers must make
time

to show students they care about them. When students know their teacher cares and respects

them, the students will be more likely to work to their full potential. Teachers need to be

consistent in communicating expectations for respect between teachers and students as well as

students and their peers. Dollard, Christensen, and Colucci (1996) would agree with Bondy and

Ross (2008) when stating there needs to be mutual respect amongst everyone in the classroom.

In student-centered classrooms, teachers need to give up some control and trust their students
to

manage and be teachers as well. For example, Soter and Rudge (2005), describe the most

productive classroom discussions are when the teacher has control, but there is room for

flexibility and elaboration from the students. Teachers are not the only teachers in a classroom.

Students can learn a lot from each other and student-centered classrooms have valuable

discussions throughout the day. Teachers need to facilitate, not control, conversations.

According to Nystrand (2006), “dialogically organized instruction involves fewer teacher

questions and more conversational turns than recitation, as teachers and students alike
contribute

their ideas to a discussion and the exchange of ideas are at the core” (p. 400). It is difficult for

teachers to give up control; however, the most productive conversations in classrooms are

facilitated by students.

Classroom Expectations

Although student-centered classrooms are collaborative learning environments with input

from all students, the teacher is the main facilitator who sets the tone. As Nystrand (2006)
states,
“what counts as knowledge and understanding in any given classroom is largely shaped by the

questions teachers ask, how they respond to their students, and how they structure small-
group

and other pedagogical activities” (p.400). In student-centered classrooms, teachers value all

students and view all students’ opinions and contributions as a chance to learn. Smith and

Lambert (2008) agree with Nystrand (2006) by stating in productive learning communities,

teachers must assume all students want to be in school each day, participate, and learn good

behavior, Lane, Wehby, and Cooley (2006), conducted a study during the 2001-2002 school year

in a large school district in Tennessee and asked teachers which social skills they believe are

necessary for success. A questionnaire was given to teachers in the district at the elementary,

middle, and high school levels. The questionnaire gathered information about the teachers

demographics and also asked them what social skills they think are essential for learning to be

successful. The researchers found:

General and special education teachers at the elementary and middle school levels shared

similar views regarding the importance of self-control skills, whereas high school special

education teachers viewed self-control skills as significantly more important than did

high school general education teachers. (Lane, Wehby & Cooley, 2006, p. 163)

In student-centered classrooms, it is especially important for students to have self-control

because students will be responsible for engaging in individual, or group work assignments with

minimal teacher interaction and supervision. Smith and Lambert (2008) agree with Lane,

Wehby, and Cooley (2006) and suggest a few strategies for teachers to implement while

managing student-centered classrooms. According to Smith and Lambert (2008), “many

teachers believe they are showing students they care when they continually give one more

chance. Unfortunately, giving one more chance demonstrates that a teacher does not mean
what

MANAGING STUDENT CENTERED CLASSROOMS 13

he or she says” (p. 18). It is important for teachers to clearly explain directions and routines,

especially in a student-centered classroom because often times students will be required to use

self-control to complete tasks with minimal teacher interaction once it is expected all students
can complete tasks independently.

In student-centered classrooms, teachers must expect that each student in their classroom

will succeed. Bondy and Ross (2008) believe that day-to-day interactions with students are

essential. Each individual student in a classroom needs to feel appreciated. It is not enough for

teachers to give students a “get to know you” survey at the beginning of the year. Similarly to

Bondy and Ross (2008), Smith and Lambert (2008) suggest that teachers take time every day to

have a personal conversation with students about anything the student is interested in. For

example, “the use of a student’s name, or a question that shows you remember something the

student has mentioned- these small gestures build and nurture teacher-student relationships”

(Smith & Lambert, 2008, p. 56). In student-centered classrooms, it is significant to establish

clear expectations from the beginning of the year. Teachers will need to be a role model for
how

certain routines should be completed; however, accepting new ideas from students is the key
to

success.