P1: PIT

Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 45(3), 2008

C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20293

Author Proof
PSYCHOLOGY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
STEVEN G. LITTLE AND ANGELEQUE AKIN-LITTLE
Walden University
Classroom management (CRM) has been associated with discipline, control, or other terms that
connote reducing unacceptable student behavior. However, CRM involves not merely responding
effectively when problems occur, but also preventing problems from occurring by creating environ-
ments that encourage learning and appropriate behavior. Teachers’ managerial abilities have been
found to positively relate to students’ behavior and achievement in every process-product study
to date. Researchers have consistently identified the components necessary for effective CRM.
However, no one has surveyed working teachers to ascertain the extent to which teachers use the
research findings in their classrooms. A survey was developed in order to attempt to answer this
question. The survey consisted of three sections asking questions on demographics, classroom
rules, and classroom child management. One hundred and forty-six teachers from U.S. school
districts in the Midwest, South, and Southwest were surveyed. Results indicated that, overall,
teachers reported the use of appropriate CRM procedures in relatively high frequencies. However,
the high percentage of districts reporting the use of corporal punishment was disturbing given
the research findings regarding its lack of effectiveness. Along with the presentation of the survey
results, this article also discusses how the data on CRM, collected by psychologists, has contributed
to improvements in teacher behavior and student achievement and the apparent gap between best
practice and actual practice.
C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Managing behavior in the classroom in order to increase student learning has always been of
concern to teachers and education personnel (Lewis, Romi, Qui, & Katz, 2005). In addition, recent
years have witnessed an increased focus on children’s behavior in school as a result of the tragic
events in locations such as Red Lake, Minnesota, and Littleton, Colorado. Despite the fact that
little reported violence involving children and youth are reported in schools (Heaviside, Rowand,
Williams, & Farris, 1998; Henry, 2000) and criminal activity in schools has decreased yearly for
more than a decade (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, & Baum, 2006), student classroom behavior is still
of great concern to teachers, parents, and the general public (Brown & Beckett, 2006). Behaviors
that are disruptive to the classroom such as inattention, overactivity, and noncompliance are the
most common complaint of teachers (Goldstein, 1995). With prevalence rates of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder estimated to be as high as 20% of the population (Coleman & Webber,
2002), rates of conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder both as high as 16% (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000), and the growing trend toward educating all children in the regular
classroom (Little & Akin-Little, 1999), the need for empirically validated approaches to classroom
management (CRM) is evident.
However, it is also important to gather information on current teacher practice in terms of CRM.
This article attempts to do that through a nationwide survey of teachers. Although there are data in
the psychological literature on best practice of CRM, there are little data that specifically examine
teacher’s reported practice. In a recent teacher needs survey (see Rollin, Subotnik, Bassford, &
Smulson, this issue), teachers reported one of their major concerns is and continues to be CRM. For
first-year teachers, this was their reported number one concern. So, it is important to collect survey
data from teachers to ascertain their classroom practice in order to examine whether it matches the
data on efficacious CRM procedures.
Little and Akin-Little (2003) reviewed CRM procedures and concluded that there is no one
specific technique that can be called CRM. Rather, there are a number of techniques and procedures
that can be followed to help teachers better manage the classroom. Furthermore, the exact techniques
that are implemented depend on the ecology of the classroom, the level of involvement of the
psychologist in the school and classroom, the type of disruptive behavior, and the severity of the
problem behaviors. Specifically, they defined CRM as a set of procedures that, if followed, should
help the teacher maintain order in the classroom and involve both proactive and reactive procedures

1
P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

2 Little and Akin-Little

Author Proof
that can be combined to provide a comprehensive approach to CRM. Other school psychologists
have expressed similar ideas (McKee & Witt, 1990; Witt, VanDerHaden, & Gilbertson, 2004). The
following areas were included in the survey based on the research in CRM.

Classroom Rules
An essential element of any CRM program is a set of firm, but fair, classroom rules (Malone &
Tietjens, 2000; McGinnis, Frederick, & Edwards, 1995; Rademacher, Callahan, & Pederson-Seelye,
1998). Although rules are necessary for effective CRM, they alone are not sufficient to reduce rates
of problem behavior in the classroom (Gettinger, 1988). Classroom rules must be integrated with
a comprehensive behavior management plan. However, rules are the first place to start in effective
CRM.
There are a number of characteristics that have been found associated with good rules (Little &
Akin-Little, 2003; Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1993). These include (a) keeping the number of rules
to a minimum, with five rules considered the maximum; (b) keeping the wording of rules as simple
as possible; (c) keeping the wording of the rules positive, if at all possible; (d) making the rules very
specific; (e) making sure the rules describe behavior that is observable; (f) focusing on behaviors
that are measurable; (g) posting the rules in a prominent place in the classroom; and (h) ensuring
that the rules are connected to consequences.

Enhancing Classroom Environment

Although consequent stimuli are frequently the focus of CRM techniques, antecedent stimuli
are equally important and need to be considered. Unstructured time in the classroom makes disruptive
behavior more likely. If possible, 70% of classroom time should be devoted to academic activities
(Little & Akin-Little, 2003; Wehby, Symons, Canale, & Go, 1998). If students are engaged in
interesting academic activities, disruptive behavior will be less likely. The utilization of strategies
such as peer tutoring and cooperative learning help make this a more realistic goal. More specifically,
Q1 in order to have sufficient time devoted to academic activities, Wehby and Lane (in press), recommend
an antecedent-based approach to CRM. Strategies they suggest include (a) proximity, (b) high rates
of opportunities to respond, (c) high-probability requests (behavioral momentum), and (d) choice
making. Physical proximity of the teacher to students helps curtail disruptive behavior and refocus a
student to instructional tasks. Sutherland and Wehby (2001) reported that incorporating higher levels
of active responding by students leads to fewer opportunities for inappropriate behavior and increases
appropriate behavior in the classroom. Another proactive technique is to increase the frequency of
high-probability request sequencing requests prior to the delivery of a low-probability request. This
has been found to be effective at increasing the frequency of the low probability behavior (Mace &
Q2 Belfiore, 1990). The final CRM strategy discussed by Wehby and Lane (in press) involves providing
students with choice in activities. Shogren, Faggella-Luby, Bae, and Wehmeyer (2004) conducted a
meta-analysis of choice-making interventions and found they were effective in reducing undesirable
Q3 behaviors (see Wehby & Lane, in press, for a complete discussion of these procedures).

Reinforcement Strategies
Appropriate classroom behavior is maintained for many students in the classroom by naturally
occurring reinforcers such as positive attention from the teacher, grades, or self-reinforcement that
results from task completion. However, these naturally occurring reinforcers may not be sufficient to
maintain all desirable behaviors in all students. It is frequently necessary to look for more powerful
reinforcers. Teachers should use caution in selecting and using positive reinforcers. Reinforcers
should be age appropriate, and the use of “natural” reinforcers is encouraged whenever possible.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

Classroom Management 3

Author Proof
The student’s level of functioning should also be considered when selecting reinforcers (e.g., don’t
send a student for unsupervised free time in the library when he or she usually gets into trouble
when unsupervised). It is important that the teacher does not use partial praise statements, such as
“I’m glad you finished your work—finally!”, because these statements may not be viewed as
reinforcing to the student, but, rather, punishing.
The use of touch (e.g., pat on the back or shoulder) as an adjunct to verbal praise may increase
the potency of the reinforcement. Despite possible hesitancy to use touch, it is potentially powerful
in its ability to comfort and quiet but may need to be used cautiously due to cultural considerations
(Halbrook & Duplechin, 1994). Token reinforcers are generalized conditioned reinforcers that are
exchangeable for a reinforcer of value to a student (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). They have been
used effectively in both regular and special education classes. Finally, school-home notes consist of
teachers evaluating student behavior daily and providing parents with feedback. Parents can then
implement consequences based on the evaluation (Jurbergs & Kelley, in press). Parents have an Q4
important role in their children’s education, and home-school communication has been shown to
lead to better educational outcomes (Christenson & Conoley, 1992). One way to facilitate such a
relationship is to involve both parent and teacher in home-based interventions for classroom problems
(Jurbergs & Kelley, in press). Q5

Reductive Procedures
There are times when even the most proactive teacher must follow through with a negative
consequence for an inappropriate behavior. However, the worst time to select a punisher is during an
episode of student misbehavior. Punishers should be selected and explained to the students a priori.
When selection of a punisher is made during an episode of student misbehavior, the teacher may
be tempted to use a punishment procedure that is too severe for the behavior. Punishers that are too
severe for the behavior are not likely to be effective.
If punishment procedures must be used, the easiest reductive techniques to use in the classroom
are response cost and overcorrection. Response cost is defined as the removal of a positive reinforcer
contingent on inappropriate behavior. An example would include the loss of an enjoyable activity
(e.g., computer time, recess) in response to an inappropriate behavior. In particular, response cost
can be used to increase the effectiveness of a token economy (Little & Akin-Little, 2003). There are
two basic types of overcorrection: restitutional (i.e., the individual must return the environment to a
state better than it was before the misbehavior) and positive practice (i.e., the individual must engage
in an overly correct form of the behavior). Restitutional overcorrection is the form most adaptable
for the classroom. An example would include having a student pick up all of the garbage in the
classroom after being caught throwing a paper on the floor (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).

M ETHOD

Participants
A total of 149 teachers from U.S. school districts in the Midwest, South, and Southwest attending
in-service training classes in science education participated in this survey of CRM practices. This
included 120 women (81%) and 29 men (19%), with the vast majority being Caucasian (83%).
Thirty-nine percent reported more than 20 years’ teaching experience, 17% had 11 to 20 years,
21% had 6 to 10 years, and 23% had 0 to 5 years. Forty-eight percent of the participants reported
a bachelor’s degree, and 46% reported a master’s degree. Fifty percent reported teaching in rural
school districts, 35% in urban schools, and 8% in suburban districts. The majority of participants were
regular education teachers (78%), and 37% reported having a teacher’s aide in the classroom. Total

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

4 Little and Akin-Little

Author Proof
school enrollment varied from 291 to 4,400 (M = 535, SD = 517) and the majority of participants
(72%) reported teaching grades K –6.

Materials and Procedure

The survey (available on request) asked questions regarding teachers’ use of important CRM
principles (e.g., rules, CRM practices), such as those described in Alberto and Troutman (2006) and
Goldstein (1995). The survey was reviewed by Ph.D. students in school psychology and piloted on
a group of 10 elementary school teachers in the northeastern United States to ensure its comprehen-
siveness, readability, and understandability. The survey was then distributed to teachers during an
in-service training class at locations throughout the United States.

R ESULTS

Rules
The range of rules was 1 to 25, with a mean of 4.75 (SD = 2.73) As can be seen in Table 1,
the majority of teachers work in a school with a schoolwide discipline plan, but the solid majority
of teachers maintain their own set of rules for their classroom. In addition, virtually every teacher
is involved in constructing the rules in her or his classroom, and students are involved in rule con-
struction in the majority of classrooms. Fewer teachers reported administrator or parent involvement
in rule development. Finally, a minority of teachers (43%) taught rules the same as they would an
academic lesson, and only 19% of teachers reported reading the rules to the class or having the
students copy them.

Reinforcement for Appropriate Behavior

As can be seen in Table 1, almost all teachers use verbal praise (e.g., “Good job” or “I like the
way you do. . . ”) and positive feedback (e.g., a smile or nod of recognition) to reinforce students
for appropriate behavior. A majority of teachers (73%) also reported using positive touching (e.g., a
pat on the back), a positive note home to parents (63%), using stickers or tokens (60%), and giving
students extra privileges such as additional computer time (53%).

Response to Class Disruptions

Teachers were asked the course of action in which they normally engage when ordinary
classroom infractions and disruptions occur. As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of teachers
reported using a verbal reprimand (83%), moving the student closer to the teacher (83%), a “long
stare” noting disapproval with behavior (80%), and ignoring improper behavior while recognizing
positive behavior in another student (55%). Fewer teachers reported ignoring improper behavior
(33%) or writing the student’s name on the blackboard or other list (25%). Teachers were also asked
to indicate which of the techniques listed here was the most effective. The rank order of procedures
indicated that the largest percentage of teachers identified moving the student closer to the teacher
as the most effective procedure. This was followed by verbally reprimanding student, the “long
stare,” ignoring improper behavior while recognizing positive behavior in another student, writing
the students name on the blackboard or other list, and ignoring improper behavior.

Response to Chronic Offenders

In recognition that some students engage in inappropriate or disruptive behavior on a regular
basis, teachers were asked their normal course of action for dealing with chronic offenders. As

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

Classroom Management 5

Table 1
Use of Classroom Rules Author Proof
Procedure Percent Reporting

Rules
Required schoolwide discipline plan 66
Separate rules for classroom 73
Student involvement in rule making 57
Teacher involvement in rule making 98
Parent involvement in rule making 8
Administrator involvement in rule making 32
Rules taught in lesson format 43
Rules read by teacher/students copy 19
Reinforcement for Appropriate Behavior
Verbal praise 97
Positive touching 73
Positive feedback (i.e., smile or head nod) 95
Stickers or token 60
Positive note home to parents 63
Extra privileges 53
Response to Class Disruption
Verbal reprimand 83
Long stare 80
Move child closer to teacher 83
Name on blackboard or list 25
Ignore improper behavior 33
Ignore improper behavior and recognize positive behavior in another student 55
Response to Chronic Offenders
Privileges revoked 63
Extra work 10
Loss of reward 32
Detention 38
Remove from class to hallway 39
Send to principal’s office 56
Note sent home to parents 62
Corporal punishment 10

can be seen in Table 1, the majority of teachers reported using the following procedures: revoking
privileges (63%), sending a note home to parents (62%), and sending the student to the principal’s
office (56%). Fewer teachers reported removing the student from the classroom to the hallway
(39%), using detention (38%), loss of reward (32%), assigning extra work (10%), or using corporal
punishment (10%). Teachers were also asked to indicate which of the techniques listed here was the
most effective. Revoking privileges was ranked first, and sending the student to the principal’s office
second. These were followed by detention, moving the student from the classroom to the hallway,
sending a note home to parents, loss of reward, extra work, and corporal punishment.
Additional questions were asked regarding the use of corporal punishment in the schools where
teachers taught. Forty-seven percent of teachers reported that corporal punishment was allowed in
their school district. When those who teach in districts where corporal punishment is allowed were
asked who administers the corporal punishment, 44% of the sample indicated it could be administered

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

6 Little and Akin-Little

Author Proof
by either the principal, other administrator, or a teacher. This was followed by the principal only
(34%), principal or other administrator only (18%), and teacher only (2%). Finally, when asked if
they had seen corporal punishment used in their school, 32% of the sample answered yes.

D ISCUSSION
These results indicate that, overall, teachers are reporting the use of evidence-based CRM
procedures (e.g., rules, positive reinforcement, antecedent procedures) in relatively high frequen-
cies. Still, teachers report responding to infractions with a large amount of attention (e.g., verbal
reprimands, moving student closer) that may act as a positive reinforcer for misbehavior (i.e.,
attention). Furthermore, the high percentage of schools using corporal punishment is disturbing
given the amount of research findings regarding the lack of effectiveness of such a technique
(Hyman & Snook, 1999; Paolucci & Violato, 2004).
Teachers in this survey reported practicing evidenced-based CRM procedures for the most
part; however, teacher opinion polls in the United States continue to list safe schools and effective
CRM as primary concerns (Lowell & Gallup, 2002; Witt et al., 2004). In addition, researchers have
consistently found that a lack of classroom discipline leads to higher levels of teacher stress and
burnout (Blase, 1996; Borg, Riding, & Falzon, 1991; Friedman, 1995; Keiper & Busselle, 1996).
More recently, Ingersoll (2001) found that 30% of those leaving the teaching profession reported
doing so because of stress, at least partly, from poor CRM skills. Future researchers in this area
would be well advised to gather data that lead to the development of programs that teach CRM skills
at the undergraduate and graduate level prior to teachers entering their own classrooms. Furthermore,
teachers should be given individualized classroom support by school psychologists as they begin
using appropriate CRM techniques.
It must be noted that participants in this study provided a self-report of their CRM practices.
It is entirely possible that some teachers may state one thing and actually practice another. Therein
lies the biggest threat in the interpretation of these results, the threat to internal validity in using
survey data with no confirmatory observations. It is hoped that future studies will continue to survey
teachers, while also observing the actual practices in the classrooms.
One area that was not included in this survey, but which is becoming a more acceptable,
efficacious CRM technique is interdependent group contingencies. When interdependent group
contingencies are used, reinforcers are distributed to every member of the group contingent on the
group meeting some criteria (Litow & Pumroy, 1975). Using this procedure has several advantages.
Teachers can implement one program for the entire class rather than an individual program for each
member of the class. Furthermore, the entire group either earns or does not earn the reinforcement;
therefore, teachers do not have to monitor each student’s performance and give reinforcers to certain
students. This not only makes the program easier to manage (Gresham & Gresham, 1982), but also
should reduce backlash because classmates are not separated into reinforcer “haves” and “have nots”
(Cashwell, Skinner, Dunn, & Lewis, 1998). Because students are attempting to earn reinforcers as
opposed to avoid punishment, these programs can also be fun (Skinner & Watson, 2000). Future
CRM surveys and training programs would be wise to include information on this type of CRM
program.
CRM and its implementation by teachers has been an important topic of inquiry for psycholo-
gists, particularly school psychologists. This is especially true as the school psychology profession
attempts to broaden practice from a reactive special education model to a proactive regular educa-
tion model. This study provides an initial examination of teacher’s use of CRM procedures. The
importance of studying effective and ineffective practices and their parameters cannot be overstated.
Psychology, particularly school psychology, has contributed greatly to best practice in CRM and
improving student behavior and achievement. This should only increase as methods such as response

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

Classroom Management 7

Author Proof
to intervention are expanded from academic areas to student behavior (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino,
& Lathrop, 2007) and with the increased emphasis on positive behavior supports (Safran & Oswald,
2003). In particular, attention needs to be focused on implementing CRM procedures in the context
of behavioral consultation and factors that may increase treatment integrity (Wilkenson, 2006). Q6
As reported previously, however, although psychology has greatly contributed to education in
terms of data on effective CRM procedures, it is not at all clear that these results are improving
teacher behavior, lowering teacher stress, and enhancing student outcomes. Psychologists provide
data on effective CRM and teachers in this survey overall report the use of these techniques, yet the
Teacher Needs survey (Rollin et al., this issue) reports that teachers continue to voice a huge need
for training in effective CRM procedures. Furthermore, teachers still leave the profession in record
numbers, citing stress over ineffective CRM (Ingersoll, 2001). It behooves future researchers and
teacher trainers to ameliorate this gap between what we know works and actual practice.

R EFERENCES
Akin-Little, K. A., Little, S. G., & Laniti, M. (2007). Teachers’ use of classroom management procedures in the United States
and Greece: A cross-cultural comparison. School Psychology International, 28, 53 – 62. Q7
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text revision).
Washington, DC: Author.
Blase, J. J. (1996). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences for performance. American Education
Research Journal, 23, 23 – 40.
Borg, M. G., Riding, R. J., & Falzon, J. M. (1991). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and its determinants,
job satisfaction, and career commitment among primary school teachers. Educational Psychology, 11, 59 – 75.
Brown, L. H., & Beckett, K. S. (2006). The role of the school district in student discipline: Building consensus in Cincinnati.
Urban Review, 38, 235 – 256.
Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M. S., & Lewis, J. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. Humanistic
Education and Development, 37, 47 – 53.
Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (1992). Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social compe-
tence. Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Coleman, M. C., & Webber, J. (2002). Emotional and behavioral disorders: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Kena, G., & Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006 (NCES 2007 – 003/NCJ
214262). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior
support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288 – 310.
Friedman, I. A. (1995). Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 88,
281 – 289.
Gettinger, M. (1988). Methods of proactive classroom management. School Psychology Review, 17, 227 – 242.
Goldstein, S. (1995). Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior. New York: Wiley.
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling
disruptive behaviors. Journal of Special Education, 16, 101 – 110.
Halbrook, B., & Duplechin, R. (1994). Rethinking touch in psychotherapy: Guidelines for practitioners. Psychotherapy in
Private Practice, 13, 43 – 53.
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U. S. public schools:
1996 – 1997 (NCES 98-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence? An integrated definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 567, 16 – 29.
Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (1999). Dangerous schools: What we can do about the physical and emotional abuse of our
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 499 – 534.
Jurbergs, N., & Kelley, M. L. (in press). Daily report cards. In K. A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. Bray, & T. Kehle (Eds.), Q8
Handbook of behavioral interventions in schools. Washington, DC: APA Press. Q9

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

8 Little and Akin-Little

Author Proof
Keiper, R. W., & Busselle, K. (1996). The rural educator and stress. Rural Educator, 17, 18 – 21.
Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers’ classroom discipline and student misbehavior in Australia,
China, and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 729 – 741.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 8, 431 – 447.
Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, K. A. (1999). Legal and ethical issues of inclusion. Special Services in the Schools, 15, 125 – 143.
Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, K. A. (2003). Classroom management. In W. O’Donohue, J. Fisher, & S. Hayes (Eds.), Cognitive
behavior therapy: Applying empirically supported techniques in your practice (pp. 65 – 70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lowell, C., & Gallup, A. M. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitude towards the public
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 41 – 56.
Mace, F. C., & Belfiore, P. (1990). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of escape-motivated stereotypy. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 23, 507 – 514.
Malone, B. G., & Tietjens, C. L. (2000). Re-examination of classroom rules: The need for clarity and specified behavior.
Special Services in the Schools, 16, 159 – 170.
McGinnis, J. C., Frederick, B. P., & Edwards, R. (1995). Enhancing classroom management through proactive rules and
procedures. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 220 – 224.
McKee, W. T., & Witt, J. C. (1990). Effective teaching: A review of instructional and environmental variables. In T. B. Gutkin
& C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 823 – 847). New York: Wiley.
Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral
effects of corporal punishment. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138, 197 – 221.
Rademacher, J. A., Callahan, K., & Pederson-Seelye, V. A. (1998). How do your classroom rules measure up? Guidelines
for developing an effective rule management routine. Interventions in School and Clinic, 33, 284 – 289.
Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1993). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional
Children, 69, 361 – 373.
Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention
for problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 228 – 237.
Skinner, C. S., & Watson, T. S. (2000). Randomized group contingencies: Lotteries in the classroom. The School Psychologist,
54, 21, 24, 32, 36 – 38.
Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relation between increased opportunities to respond to academic
requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review.
Remedial and Special Education, 35, 161 – 171.
Q10 Wehby, J. H., & Lane, K. L. (in press). Classroom management. In K. A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. Bray, & T. Kehle (Eds.),
Q11 Handbook of behavioral interventions in schools. Washington, DC: APA Press.
Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., Canale, J. A., & Go, F. J. (1998). Teaching practices in classrooms for students with emotional
and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations and observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 51 – 56.
Q12 Wilkinson, L. A. (2006). Monitoring treatment integrity: An alternative to the “consult and hope” strategy in school-based
behavioural consultation. School Psychology International, 27, 426 – 438.
Witt, J. C., VanDerHaden, A. M., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Instruction and classroom management: Prevention and intervention
research. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral
disorders (pp. 426 – 445). New York: Guilford Press.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P1: PIT
Psychology in the Schools JWUS310A-05/20293 December 19, 2007 21:59

Q1: Author: Please update, if possible.

Author Proof
Q UERIES

Q2: Author: Please update, if possible.

Q3: Author: Please update, if possible.
Q4: Author: Please update, if possible.
Q5: Author: Please update, if possible.
Q6: Author: Spelling is “Wilkinson” per References – which is correct?
Q7: Author: Cite in text or delete here.
Q8: Author: Please update, if possible.
Q9: Author: Please provide chapter page nos.
Q10: Author: Please update, if possible.
Q11: Author: Please provide chapter page nos.
Q12: Author: Spelling is “Wilkenson” per in text cites. Which is correct?