Abstract
Classroom management is about creating
inviting and appealing environments for student learning.
Classroom management strategies are tools that the teachers can use to help create such an environment,
ranging from activities to improve teacher-student
relationships to rules to regulate student behaviour. The findings of numerous
studies have shown that teachers play a key role in shaping effective education. Effective classroom
management is a requirement for effective
education. In this study, we provide an
overview of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs for (new) teachers
in primary education to help them develop ways to effectively manage their
classrooms and to identify interventions that have the potential to prevent
classroom management difficulties. three classroom management programs that are frequently
implemented by primary schools are
described in order to illustrate types of programs used in classrooms currently,and to make the differences
between existing programs more tangible. The three programs
are (1) School-Wide Positive Behavior Support, (2) Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies, (3) The Good Behavior Game, We describe each program’s
aims, theoretical underpinnings, intensity, format, and effectiveness.
Effective
education refers to the degree to which schools are successful in accomplishing
their educational objectives. The findings of numerous studies have shown that
teachers play a key role in
shaping effective education (Hattie, 2009). The differences in achievement
between students who spend a year in a class with a highly effective teacher as
opposed to a highly ineffective teacher are startling.
Effective
teaching and learning cannot take place in poorly managed classrooms (Jones
& Jones, 2012; Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003; Van de Grift, Van
der Wal, & Torenbeek, 2011). Effective classroom management strategies
(here after abbreviated to CMS) support and facilitate effective teaching and learning. Effective
classroom management is generally based on the principle of establishing a
positive classroom environment encompassing effective teacher-student
relationships (Wubbels, Brekelmans, Van Tartwijk, & Admiraal, 1999).
Evertson and Weinstein (2006) define classroom management as "the
actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both
academic and social-emotional learning
" (pp. 4-5). This definition
concentrates on the responsibility of the teacher and relates the use of
classroom management strategies to multiple learning goals for students.
Evertson and
Weinstein (2006) refer in their definition of classroom management to the
actions teachers take to create a supportive environment for the academic and
social-emotional learning of students. They describe five types of actions. In
order to attain a high quality of classroom management, teachers must (1) develop
caring, supportive relationships with and among students and (2) organize
and implement instruction in ways that optimize students’ access to learning.
The importance of developing favourable teacher-student relationships is also
expressed by Marzano et al. (2003). Additionally, Evertson and Weinstein (2006)
state that teachers should (3) encourage students’ engagement in academic
tasks, which can be done by using group management methods (e.g., by establishing rules and classroom procedures,
see Marzano et al., 2003). Teachers must (4) promote the development of students’ social skills
and self-regulation. Marzano et al. (2003) refer to this as making students responsible
for their behaviour. Finally, Evertson and Weinstein (2006) state that
teachers should be able to (5) use appropriate interventions to assist students
with behaviour problems. The last two actions proposed by Evertson and
Weinstein (2006) indicate that effective classroom management improves student behaviour.
Hence, classroom management is an ongoing interaction between teachers and
their students. Brophy (2006) presents a similar definition: “Classroom
management refers to actions taken to create and maintain a learning
environment conducive to successful instruction (arranging the physical
environment, establishing rules and procedures, maintaining students' attention
to lessons and engagement in activities)” (p. 17). Both definitions emphasize
the importance of actions taken by the teacher to facilitate learning among the
students.
Below, three classroom management programs that are frequently implemented by primary
schools are described in order to illustrate types of programs used in classrooms currently,and
to make the differences between existing programs more tangible. The three programs
are (1) School-Wide Positive Behavior Support, (2) Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies, (3) The Good Behavior Game, We describe each program’s
aims, theoretical underpinnings, intensity, format, and effectiveness.
1. School -Wide Positive Behavior Support School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) wasdeveloped in the USA,
where over 16,000 schools, now in various stages of implementation, have
adopted the program (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012; Horner et al.,
2009). It is a whole-school (and system-wide) approach, intended to create a
social culture and to provide intensive behavioural support, both of which are
needed for all students to achieve academic and social success. It is
preventive rather than reactive, and it combines primary, secondary, and tertiary
prevention measures regarding student behaviour. The primary tier involves
defining, teaching, monitoring, and rewarding a small set of behavioural
expectations for all students across classroom and non-classroom settings (Horner et
al., 2009) Schools continually measure students’ social behaviour, which permits early
intervention and supports further decisions. In this way, they work on a data-driven
basis. If more severe individual problems are identified or structural changes
are needed, a secondary tier is brought into action. This secondary tier
includes behavioural support for students ‘at risk’ and focuses on problem behaviour. The tertiary tier provides highly individualized
interventions to address higher intensity problem behaviours when necessary(Horner
et al., 2009). The program is based on the principles of behaviour analysis (Anderson
& Kincaid, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2002, 2006). Schools that adopt the
program are expected to set up a school-wide reward system for good behaviour,
rather than punishment systems for bad behaviour (Anderson & Kincaid,
2005). Implementation of SWPBS in the USA is often initiated at state level;
states also may provide personnel experienced in the training and support
practices associated with the approach (Horner et al., 2009). SWPBS is not a packaged approach, and thus schools and even departments or
settings within schools may vary in the sets of rules they use, given the
above-mentioned general features of the program (Anderson & Kincaid, 2005).
At class level, teacher practice may, for example, typically consist of
teaching expectations and target behaviours to students in classroom settings
as well as in other target school environments, on the one hand,
and systematically providing acknowledgment for successfully meeting those
behavioural expectations, on the other hand (Solomon, Klein, Hintze, Cressey, & Peller,
2012, referring to McCurdy, Mannella, & Eldridge, 2003). Although evaluation reports concerning SWPBS thus far are positive and show
the approach to be implementable, real experimental evidence regarding its
effects is just coming on stage (Chitiyo, May, & Chitiyo,
2012; Horner et al., 2009; see also Bradshaw et al., 2012; Solomon et al.,
2012; Sørlie & Ogden, 2007).
2. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies The Fast Track (PATHS) intervention was developed in the USA as a universal
service froman initial Fast Track selective prevention model for children at risk for behavioural
problems. In this
program, small-group social skills interventions are combined with academic tutoring
in which
parenting support classes are provided and home visits are conducted. The PATHS
intervention is aimed at preventing the (further) development of violent and aggressive behaviourin children, lowering the risk of later juvenile and adult violence as well
as other social and academic maladaptive outcomes. It is mainly school-based,
as schools are the only setting with almost universal access to children (Crean &
Johnson, 2013). The central component in the PATHS universal intervention is
the school-based PATHS curriculum,
which is a scripted curriculum in social and emotional skills taught on a regular basis throughout
the school year. The PATHS curriculum contains 131 lessons in which the focus is on skills related tounderstanding
and communicating emotions. The program aimsto increase positive social
behaviour, and to enable children to achieve self-control and other steps in
social problem solving. The PATHS lessons may be flexibly implemented over the primary school
years. In these lessons, skill concepts are presented by various means, such as
direct instruction, discussion, modelling stories, andvideo presentations.
Subsequently, the skills are practiced by pupils in discussions and role-playing activities.
(For more information on the curriculum we refer to Greenberg andKusché(2002) and Bierman,
Greenberg, and the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1996)). In
addition to this lesson-based curriculum, the PATHS intervention emphasizes
the need to implement the PATHS principles during the rest of the school day. As part of the
program, school-based support for teachers as well as consultation activities with school principals are provided by the PATHS
project staff (Crean &
Johnson, 2013; Greenberg et al., 2010). PATHS is based on the
Affective-Behavioral -Cognitive-Dynamic (ABCD) model of development (Greenberg & Kusché,
1993). In this model, early emotional development is identified as a precursor
to other ways of thinking. Moreover, the curriculum places special emphasis on
neurocognitive models of development, by promoting the development of
children’s inhibitory control and having them verbally identify and label feelings and emotions in order to manage
these (Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006). In the USA, a considerable
amount of research has been done on the effectiveness of the program since the
nineties. In general, positive effects on students’ social and emotional
competence and behaviour have been founds’ social-emotional development focused’
3. The Good Behavior Game The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom-ased program targeting
the prevention of and early intervention in aggressive and disruptive behaviour. The basic principle of the game was stated by
Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969); they defined the game as a “classroom behavior management technique,
based on reinforcers natural to the classroom, other than teacher attention”
(p. 119). The game involves competition for privileges available in almost
every classroom (see Dolan, Turkkan, Werthamer-Larsson, & Kellam, 1989). In
GBG, first, appropriate behaviour is explicitly defined, and when students
demonstrate such behaviour it is systematically rewarded. Appropriate
behaviours are formulated as rules students have to comply with. They may be
stated by way of bans, e.g., “No one is to be out of his seat without
permission” (Barrish et al., 1969) or as positively formulated classroom
rules,e.g., “In the classroom, we work quietly and stay in our seats” (Leflot, Van Lier, Onghena,
& Colpin, 2013). The rules may differ according to the specific tasks
children have to complete or the lessons being taught. Second, GBG
facilitates positive interaction between (disruptive and non-disruptive)
children through a team-based approach (Van Lier, Vuijk, & Crijnen, 2005;
Witvliet, Van Lier, Cuijpers, & Koot, 2009), using group contingencies.
This approach divides students in each class Into two or more teams, each containing students both with and
without behaviour problems. The teams compete for privileges, and each team as
a whole may be punished for the inadequate behaviour of its members(e.g.,
losing points earned by the team in the weekly contest) (Dion et
al., 2011) or rewarded for helping members to comply with classroom rules (Witvliet et al.,
2009). In this way, the GBG directly intervenes in the children’s social
context (Van Lier et al., 2005) and is supposed to bring about the positive
peer interactions that underlie the effect of the program on student behaviour (Witvliet et al.,
2009). Research on GBG has demonstrated positive effects of the program on various outcome
measures, varying from diminishing aggressive and disruptive behaviour,
attention deficit/hyperactivity problems, oppositional defiant problems, and conduct problems,
to preventing the development of antisocial personality disorders and
postponing (or preventing) tobacco use
in early adolescence (Van Lier et al., 2005). A Dutch version of GBG has been introduced in the Netherlands, the
so-called ‘Taakspel’, developed by CED group/PI Rotterdam. Research on the effects of the program showed
results comparable to those found internationally (Van der Sar, 2004). The
program effectively reduces the disruptive behaviour of students. It is the only
intervention program that has been recognized by the ‘Nederlands Jeugdinstituut’ (2014) as “proven effective by strong
evidence”, the highest category out of four (Spilt, Koot, & Van Lier,
2013a; Spilt,Koot, & Van Lier, 2013b; Nederlands Jeugdinstituut, 2014). For
a description of the program in Dutch,see Witvliet, Van Lier, Cuijpers, and Koot (2010) and the publication of the Nederlands Jeugdinstituut (2013).
Finally, we would like to present
some recommendations for the
scientific community on the basis
of our experiences in reporting
pretest-posttest control group designs used to evaluate the effectiveness of
classroom management interventions. We found that numerous studies lacked
detailed descriptions of the intervention that was implemented in the schools
(e.g., specific focus of the teacher sessions and/or student sessions, type of
training teachers and/or students received, duration of the intervention).
Moreover, very few studies reported the classroom setting (e.g., group or
frontal placement) in which the intervention was implemented, whereas such
contextual factors may strongly influence student behaviour in the classroom.
Similarly, it was often unclear within what type of school or educational
context (e.g., during instruction, collaborative assignments, independent
seatwork, or throughout the school day) the intervention was implemented. And
when the intervention was implemented throughout the school day, it was unclear
how the school days were normally organized (e.g.,the amount of instruction
time, independent seatwork, how often students worked collaboratively in
groups, whether some students followed an individual learning trajectory,
whether computers were used throughout the day, and whether teaching assistants
were present). Information on these aspects makes the interpretation of the
effectiveness of classroom management interventions much more insightful and,
moreover, makes the findings much easier to replicate. We therefore strongly
recommend including detailed descriptions of these aspects in scientific papers
evaluating the effectiveness of CMS/CMP. Another recommendation is to provide
detailed information on the research design and sampling procedures. On several
occasions, it was unclear whether a control group was used, how the randomization
or matching across intervention and control groups was performed,and whether
the students were representative of the student population (e.g., many studies
lacked details on gender, socioeconomic status, or ethnicity of the students
included). In reporting the results, mean scores, standard deviations, and
sample sizes among intervention and control
groups should be reported for both pretest and posttest measures. Only then can effect sizes
be properly calculated. Moreover, for these measures, reliable and validated
research instruments should be used (and information about this should be
reported).
REFERENCES :
Anderson, C. M., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Applying
behavior analysis to school violence and discipline problems: Schoolwide
positive behavior support.The Behavior Analyst, 28, 49-64.
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M.
(1969). Good behavior game: effects of individual contingencies for group
consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
Bradshaw, C. P. Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S. G., &
Lalongo, N. S. (2009). Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive
interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 926-937.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of Research on Classroom
Management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management. Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp.17-43).
Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chitiyo, M., May, M. E., & Chitiyo, G. (2012). An
assessment of the evidence-base for school-wide positive behavior support.
Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 1-24.
Crean, H. F., & Johnson, D. B. (2013). Promoting
alternative thinking strategies (PATHS) and elementary school aged children’s
aggression: Results from a cluster randomized trial. American Journal of Community Psychology,52, 56-72
Dolan, L., Turkkan, J., Werthamer-Larsson, L., &
Kellam, S. G. (1989). The good behavior game training manual. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Prevention Research Center.
Evertson, C. M. & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.) (2006).
Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice, and contemporary issues.
Mahwah, NJ: Larence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Greenberg, M. T., & Kusché, C. A. (2002). Promoting
alternative thinking strategies: Blueprint for violence prevention (2nd ed.).
Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of
over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London; New
York: Routledge.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L.,
Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list
controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support
in elementary schools.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,11, 133-144.
Jones, V.F. & Jones, L. S. (2012). Comprehensive
classroom management, creating communities of support and solving problems (10thed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Leflot, G., Van Lier, P. A. C., Onghena, P., &
Colpin, H. (2013). The role of children's on-task behavior in the prevention of
aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: A randomized controlled
study of the good behavior game in Belgian elementary classrooms.Journal of
School Psychology, 51, 187-199.
Marzano, R. J.,Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J.
(2003). Classroom management that works. esearch-based strategies for every
teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD).
Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., Hintze, J. M., Cressey,
J. M., & Peller, S. L. (2012). A meta-analysis of schoolwide positive
behavior support: An exploratory study using single case synthesis. Psychology
in the Schools, 49, 105-122.
Van Lier, P. A. C., Vuijk, P., & Crijnen, A. A. M.
(2005). Understanding mechanisms of change in the development of antisocial
behavior: The impact of a universal intervention. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33, 521-535
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Van Tartwijk, J., &
Admiraal, W. (1999). Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students
in the classroom. In H.C. Waxman & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for
teaching practice and research (pp. 151-170). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar