See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305458505

TEACHER BEHAVIORAL PRACTICES: RELATIONS TO STUDENT

RISK BEHAVIORS, LEARNING BARRIERS, AND SCHOOL
CLIMATE: Teacher Behavioral Practices

Article  in  Psychology in the Schools · July 2016

DOI: 10.1002/pits.21946

CITATIONS READS
5 1,053

4 authors:

Andrew Martinez Susan D. Mcmahon

Center for Court Innovation DePaul University
16 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   2,922 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Crystal Coker Christopher B Keys

The College Board DePaul University
11 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   2,756 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

State Anti-Bullying Policies View project

The Gun Epidemic Reconsidered: Creating a Foundation to Reduce Firearm Violence among Urban Youth View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Martinez on 12 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 00(0), 2016 
C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21946

TEACHER BEHAVIORAL PRACTICES: RELATIONS TO STUDENT RISK BEHAVIORS,

LEARNING BARRIERS, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
ANDREW MARTINEZ, SUSAN D. MCMAHON, CRYSTAL COKER, AND CHRISTOPHER B. KEYS
DePaul University

Student behavioral problems pose a myriad of challenges for schools. In this study, we exam-
ine the relations among teacher and school-level constructs (i.e., teacher collaboration, supervi-
sion/discipline, instructional management), and student-related outcomes (i.e., high-risk behaviors,
barriers to learning, student social–behavioral climate). Teachers across 29 high schools, in a large
urban school district serving primarily low-income students, completed self-report surveys. Multi-
level regression was used to test both individual- and school-level predictors of student outcomes.
Findings suggest that teacher practices at the individual and school levels are linked to student high-
risk behaviors, barriers to student learning, and school climate. More specifically, findings indicate
that better supervision/discipline and instructional management are associated with fewer high-risk
behaviors and barriers to learning. More instructional management is also linked to positive social–
behavioral climate. Results from this study highlight the association between teacher practices and
a range of student-related problem behaviors, and suggest that system-level interventions in the
school may have positive effects.  C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Student misbehavior and lack of discipline are major concerns in public schools (Algozzine
& Algozzine, 2007; Bushaw & Lopez, 2012; Fish, Finn, & Finn, 2013), as they have far-reaching
effects on children’s education. Specifically, behavioral problems, such as fighting and illicit drugs,
have been identified as problems in schools that may undermine students’ education (Bushaw &
Lopez, 2012). Student misbehavior has been associated with negative educational outcomes, such
as failing grades, higher dropout rates, and delinquency (Downer, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta, 2007;
LeBlanc, Swisher, Vitaro, & Tremblay 2007; Tobin & Sugai, 1999).
Given teachers’ regular proximity to students in the classroom, a variety of teacher behav-
iors may be important for shaping student outcomes. Specifically, teacher collaboration (Goddard,
Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Rhodes, Camic, Milburn, & Lowe, 2009), supervision and dis-
cipline (Johnson-Gros, Lyons, & Griffin, 2008), and instructional management (Sälzer, Trautwein,
Ludtke, & Stamm, 2012) may have implications for students. Understanding the role of teacher
practices in relation to student high-risk behaviors, barriers to student learning, and student social–
behavioral school climate may help us to develop effective school interventions that reduce risk and
promote positive outcomes among youth.

Teacher Practices
Teacher Collaboration. Teacher collaboration has received significant attention by researchers
and policy makers as a resource to support teacher professional development and promote student
achievement (Moolenaar, 2012). Research has found that teachers working together to solve prob-
lems and achieve common goals can improve instructional efficacy and attitudes toward teaching
(Goddard et al., 2007) and promote school-wide change (Rhodes et al., 2009). However, much of the
research on teacher collaboration has emphasized teacher and school outcomes and has focused less
frequently on students (Goddard et al., 2007; Moolenaar, 2012). In one of the few studies, Goddard
et al. (2007) found that greater collaboration was associated with higher mathematics and reading
achievement among socioeconomically diverse African American and White fourth grade students.

Correspondence to: Andrew Martinez, Department of Social Work, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Avenue,
Fairfield, CT 06825. E-mail: martineza5@sacredheart.edu

1
2 Martinez et al.

Rivera, McMahon, and Keys (2014) noted that in schools in which teachers reported higher levels of
collaboration through co-teaching, the students reported higher levels of school belonging, school
satisfaction, and self-efficacy. These promising findings suggest an important relationship between
teacher collaboration and student psychosocial outcomes that merit further attention.
Supervision and Discipline. Teacher supervision and discipline strategies may be partic-
ularly important when considering student misbehavior. Teachers may play a particularly im-
portant role in addressing behavioral issues, reducing the barriers to learning and shaping
the behavioral climate of schools and classrooms, given their extensive interactions with stu-
dents. Studies of interventions, such as School-Wide Positive Behavioral Supports, that include
teacher supervision, correction, and shaping of student behavior have shown positive impacts
on student problem behaviors (Solomon, Klein, Hintze, Cressey, & Peller, 2012). For example,
Johnson-Gros et al. (2008) found that active teacher supervision was associated with decreased
student tardiness among high school students. In classrooms implementing a positive behavioral
support program, Algozzine and Algozzine (2007) found that students were more likely to engage
in on-task behaviors (e.g., reading, writing, asking questions, looking at materials) and spend less
time engaging in off-task behaviors (e.g., disrupting the classroom). Given the concern regarding
violent and antisocial behaviors in schools and their negative influence on student outcomes, it is
necessary to understand how teacher supervision and discipline relate to student outcomes such as
high-risk behavior, student learning barriers, and student behavioral climate.
Instructional Management. Instructional management can be defined as including a clear set
of rules, time learning in the classroom, ability to assign tasks, and minimal outside disruptions
(U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Effective instructional management practices, such as clear
rules and maximizing instructional time, are associated with positive student outcomes (Matsumura,
Slater, & Crosson, 2008; Stichter, Stormont, Lewis, & Schultz, 2009). Matsumura et al. (2008)
found that clear rules for behavior predicted student engagement in learning among middle school
students and suggest that student behavior may change as a function of classroom management style.
For example, in observing students across multiple classrooms, Matsumura et al. found that some
students who were well behaved and engaged in one classroom were disruptive in others. Stichter
et al. (2009) found that more engagement in noninstructional talk (i.e., discussion of topics unrelated
to the instructional content) by teachers was associated with more student disruptions. Thus, teachers’
instructional management practices can have important implications for student-related outcomes.

Student Outcomes
High-Risk Problem Behaviors. High-risk problem behaviors encompass a variety of behaviors,
such as delinquency and aggression (Willoughby, Chalmers, & Brusseri, 2004), and have been linked
with academic failure (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004). Most of these high-risk
behaviors do not occur independently, but tend to be inter-related (Willoughby et al., 2004, 2007).
For example, aggressive behaviors are likely to co-occur with other types of problem behaviors,
such as delinquency (e.g., weapons possession; Willoughby et al., 2007). In addition, these types of
infractions often lead to exclusionary discipline (e.g., suspensions, expulsions) that further interferes
with learning (Fenning & Rose, 2007). Johnson-Gros et al. (2008) found that teacher practices, such
as supervision, mitigated minor student problem behaviors, but it is unclear how teacher practices
such as supervision are linked with more severe student behaviors. Thus, there is a need to understand
how different types of teacher practices relate to various student problem behaviors.
Barriers to Student Learning. Barriers to student learning are significant problems in schools
and encompass a range of factors. For example, school absence and school tardiness may serve as

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 3

major barriers to learning and are associated with poor academic outcomes (Goldstein, Little, &
Akin-Little, 2003; Kearney, 2008; Spaulding et al., 2010). Lack of parental involvement in a child’s
education is another barrier to learning that has been linked with school attendance and academic
achievement (Kearney, 2008). In a national study of school dropouts, 59–65% of students reported
missing classes frequently and having little parental involvement in their education prior to dropping
out of school (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006). Further, these students indicated a general
apathy and disengagement from school before dropping out. Although research shows that external
school factors are linked with barriers (e.g., Kearney, 2008), understanding how teacher practices
are associated with barriers to student learning can provide useful insights into the development
of interventions that reduce educational barriers and support positive behavioral and academic
outcomes.
Student Social–Behavioral Climate. Finally, interpersonal relationships between peers be-
come increasingly important as students transition into adolescence, and the quality of these rela-
tionships is considered a dimension of students’ school climate (Kuperminc, Leadbeater, & Blatt,
2001; Loukas, Suzuki, & Horton, 2006). A growing number of studies have shown that positive
perceptions of school climate are both directly and indirectly related to fewer student behavioral prob-
lems (Wang, 2009) and greater school connectedness (Loukas et al., 2006). Negative school climate
has been linked to poor classroom environments, poor academic performance, and student suspen-
sion and dropout (Cohen, 2006; Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008; Murray, 2009). Teacher practices
may influence student interpersonal behaviors and contribute to students’ school climate (Hughes,
Cavell, & Willson, 2001; McGrath & Noble, 2010). For example, Hughes et al. (2001) found that
teachers’ perceptions and interactions with students influenced peer relations such as peers’ percep-
tions and acceptance of other students. Additionally, using multilevel structural equation modeling
(SEM), Mitchell and Bradshaw (2013) found that classroom-level exclusionary discipline practices,
such as office disciplinary referrals and suspensions, were associated with less favorable student
perceptions of school climate. This work highlights the importance of examining teacher practices
at different levels of the school ecology and how they relate to various student outcomes.

Current Study
This study uses multilevel modeling to test the contribution of teacher practices (i.e., teacher col-
laboration, supervision/discipline, instructional management) to student high-risk behavior, barriers
to student learning, and students’ social–behavioral climate. Further, we examine school-level con-
tributions of teacher practices to these student outcomes. We hypothesize that higher levels of teacher
collaboration, instructional management, and supervision/discipline are associated with lower levels
of high-risk behaviors and barriers to student learning, and more favorable social–behavioral climate
among students.

M ETHOD
Participants
This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at DePaul University.
Participants include 171 teachers across 29 high schools in a large Midwestern city, who were
surveyed as part of a larger evaluation of a classroom management training program for teachers,
coaches, and administrators. Teachers averaged 38 years of age (SD = 12.4), 8.4 years (SD = 7.9)
of teaching experience, and 5 years (SD = 5.2) of teaching at their current school. The majority of
participating teachers were female (64.3%). In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of participants
self-identified as White/Caucasian (52.4%), followed by African American (23.5%), Hispanic/Latino

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

4 Martinez et al.

(10.3%), Asian (10.8%), and other (3.0%). On average, there were 5.9 teachers sampled from each
school, ranging from a minimum of two to a maximum of 16 teachers.
Participating Schools
On average, schools had 86% (SD = 9.2) of their student body classified as low income. In
addition, these schools consisted of a high concentration of students of color. The mean percent
of each ethnic/racial group is as follows: African American (54.8%; SD = 37.5), Hispanic/Latino
(35.7%; SD = 32.7), White (4.5%; SD = 6.6), Asian (2.7%; SD = 5.7), and Multiracial (2.3%;
SD = 1.8).
Measures
All scales in this study were drawn from previous studies; however, given the limited reliability
and validity data available on these scales, we conducted factor analyses prior to testing our study
hypotheses. First, we examined item correlations, multicollinearity, sphericity, and sampling ade-
quacy. Next, factor analyses were conducted using principal axis factoring and maximum-likelihood
estimation to determine the number of factor solutions for these scales. The predictor variables
in this study reflect various teacher practices (e.g., collaboration, discipline/supervision) and the
outcomes of interest reflect teacher perceptions of student behaviors and climate. All scales, their
corresponding items, and factor loadings are presented in Appendix (Table A1).
Teacher Collaboration. Items for the Teacher Collaboration Scale in this study were drawn
from the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP, 2004).1 Teachers rated items on a 5-point
Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Results from our factor
analysis confirmed the original three-item factor structure, which assesses teachers’ perceptions of
collaboration among teaching staff to effectively meet work-related goals. This scale demonstrated
good internal consistency (α = .82).
Teacher Discipline/Supervision. The Teacher Discipline/Supervision Scale was derived from
MVPP (2004). This three-item subscale assesses teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which
teacher/staff supervision is problematic and discipline is lacking. Teachers rated their responses
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (a very serious problem). This scale
showed good internal consistency (α = .81).
Teacher Instructional Management. The Teacher Instructional Management Scale is one of
the subscales on the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) School Climate
Instrument (Halderson, Keefe, Kelley, & Berge, 1989). This seven-item scale assesses teachers’
perceptions of various instructional management activities on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Results from our factor analysis supported the use of this scale, which
showed good internal consistency (α = .80).
School Problems. The School Problems Scale (MVPP, 2004) consists of two subscales: Bar-
riers to Learning and High-Risk Behaviors, each of which is measured using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (a very serious problem). These subscales were modified, based
on our factor analysis findings suggesting multicollinearity, loading similarly on multiple factors,
or loading onto a separate scale. The five-item Barriers to Learning subscale assesses teachers’
perceptions of the extent to which teachers perceive various factors as interfering with student learn-
ing (e.g., absenteeism, lack of parental involvement). This scale showed good internal consistency

1
Some of the items used in the MVPP were drawn from the U.S. Department of Education School and Staffing
Survey (SASS).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 5

Table 1
Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables at Individual and School
Levels

Collaboration Barriers to Student

Among Supervision/ Instructional Student High-Risk Behavioral
Mean (SD) Teachers Discipline Management Learning Behavior Climate

Collaboration among 4.10 1.09 – −.391** .455** −.318** −.190* .347**

teachers
Supervision/discipline 2.15 .97 −.524** – −.362** .449** .565** −.291**
Instructional 3.71 .62 .461* −.424* – .354** −.391*** .458**
management
Barriers to student 3.71 .85 −.532** .444* −.451* – .577** −.363**
learning
High-risk behavior 2.26 .92 −.421* .570** −.681** .706** – −.426**
Student behavioral 3.04 .66 .228 −.256 .408* −.666** −.660** –
climate
School-level mean 4.09 2.17 3.69 3.74 2.34 2.99
School-level SD .78 .48 .32 .47 .57 .39

Intercorrelations for the individual level are presented above the diagonal, and intercorrelations for the school level are
presented below the diagonal. Means and standard deviations for the individual level are presented in the vertical columns,
and means and standard deviations for the aggregated school-level variables are presented in the horizontal rows along the
bottom.
* <.05. ** <.01. *** <.001.

(α = .87). The High-risk Behavior subscale assesses teacher’s perceptions of the extent to which
teachers perceive various student behaviors as problematic within the school setting. The origi-
nal five-item scale was reduced to a three-item scale that showed acceptable internal consistency
(α = .76).
Student Social–Behavioral Climate. This scale originally consisted of two subscales (i.e.,
Student Behavioral Values, Student Peer-relationships), which were drawn from the NASSP School
Climate Instrument (Halderson et al., 1989). However, in this investigation, these two scales were
combined into one scale based on our factor analytic results. Using this seven-item, 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), teachers rated the quality of various student social
relations. This scale showed good internal consistency (α = .83).

R ESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to conducting the primary analyses, zero-order correlations, means, and standard de-
viations for all variables were examined (see Table 1). Multicollinearity does not appear to be a
problem, as there are no large correlations between study variables. In addition, three separate linear
regression models were examined to determine whether the participant demographic variables (i.e.,
gender, race/ethnicity, years teaching at the current school) were associated with the student outcome
variables (i.e., high-risk behavior, barriers to learning, and students’ social–behavioral climate). No
statistically significant findings were revealed; thus neither gender, race/ethnicity, or years of teach-
ing experience predicted any of the student outcome variables, and these demographic variables
were, therefore, not included in subsequent analyses.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

6 Martinez et al.

Primary Analyses
Student High-Risk Behavior. First the null model was examined, which does not include
independent variables, but rather, is used to determine the amount of variance in the outcome variable
(i.e., student high-risk behavior) that could be explained at the school level. The intraclass correlation
was calculated, revealing that 12.8% of the variance in the outcome variable was accounted for by
differences in schools. Therefore, we used multilevel modeling to account for school-level variables
when examining student high-risk behavior (Snijder & Bosker, 1999). In examining student high-
risk behavior scores, the models were developed in the following order. First, a model was tested,
which consisted of individual-level variables (i.e., teacher collaboration, supervision/discipline, and
instructional management). Next, a model was tested consisting of the same individual-level variables
along with aggregated school-level predictors (i.e., school-level teacher collaboration, school-level
supervision/discipline, and school-level instructional management). These aggregated scores are
mean scores based on all the individual teacher scores for the respective schools. Developing
individual- and school-level scores in this fashion allows for the examination of teacher and school-
level contributions to student high-risk behaviors.
Results for the individual-level model revealed that higher levels of teacher collaboration
were significantly associated with more high-risk behavior (b = .13, SE = .06, p < .05), higher
supervision/discipline significantly predicted less student high-risk behavior (b = −.47, SE = .06,
p < .001), and higher levels of instructional management were associated with lower levels of
student high-risk behavior (b = −.26, SE = .10, p < .05). Finally, the combined model, consisting
of individual- and school-level variables revealed three statistically significant associations among
the individual-level variables when controlling for school-level predictors. That is, higher levels of
teacher collaboration were associated with more high-risk behavior (b = .15, SE = .07, p < .05).
Higher levels of supervision/discipline (b = −.49, SE = .06, p < .001) and instructional management
(b = −.20, SE = .11, p < .05) were associated with less student high-risk behavior. Further, school-
level instructional management was inversely associated with student high-risk behavior (b = −.64,
SE = .32, p = < .05; see Table 2).

Barriers to Student Learning. The intraclass correlation for this model revealed that only
1.4% of the variance in barriers to learning scores could be explained at the school level. This low
percent of variance accounted for by differences between schools suggests that a multilevel modeling
approach is not necessary to analyze the data, and alternatively, ordinary least squares regression is
justified in testing these hypotheses (Snijder & Bosker, 1999).
Next, a multiple regression model was tested with teacher collaboration, supervision/discipline,
and instructional management as independent variables predicting barriers to student learning.
Results suggest that higher levels of instructional management (b = −.25, SE = .12, p < .05) and
higher levels of supervision/discipline (b = −.33, SE = .07, p < .001) were associated with fewer
barriers to learning, while teacher collaboration was not significant in this model.

Student Social–Behavioral Climate. The intraclass correlation for the null model revealed
that 21% of the variance in student social–behavioral climate was accounted for by differences
between schools. Thus, multilevel modeling was used to account for this between-school variation.
When the combined model consisting of both individual- and school-level predictors was examined,
findings revealed that higher levels of instructional management at the individual level significantly
predicted higher levels of student social–behavioral climate (b = .35, SE = .08, p < .001; see
Table 2). However, none of the school-level variables revealed statistically significant associations
with student social–behavioral climate.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 7

Table 2
Multilevel Models for Outcome Variables

Random Effects

Fixed Effects Between Within Fit Statistics

−2log-
B SE τ SE σ SE Likelihood AICa

Student High-Risk
Behaviors
Null model .11* .07 .66*** .08 425 431.0
Intercept .03 .09
Individual-level model .12* .06 .40*** .05 329.8 341.8
Intercept .08 .09
Teacher collaboration .13* .06
Supervision/discipline −.47*** .06
Instructional management −.26* .10
Individual/school-level model .09* .05 .40*** .05 323.5 341.5
Intercept 2.11 1.06
Teacher collaboration .15* .07
Supervision/discipline −.49*** .06
Instructional management −.20* .11
School-level teacher −.14 .15
collaboration
School-level .23 .22
supervision/discipline
School-level instructional −.64* .32
management
Student Behavioral Climate
Null model .09* .04 .32 .04*** 300.6 306.6
Intercept −.03 .07
Individual-level model .08* .03 .24*** .03 248.7 260.7
Intercept −.03 .07
Teacher collaboration .06 .05
Supervision/discipline .08 .05
Instructional management .36*** .08
Individual/school-level model .07* .03 .24*** .03 248.0 266.0
Intercept −.06 .89
Teacher collaboration .07 .05
Supervision/discipline .08 .05
Instructional management .35*** .08
School-level teacher −.07 .13
collaboration
School-level teacher/staff −.05 .18
supervision
School-level instructional .15 .27
management
a AIC = Akaike Information Criteria.
* <.05. ** <.01. *** <.001.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

8 Martinez et al.

D ISCUSSION
This study elucidates how school teacher/staff behaviors and practices are associated with
student outcomes, namely high-risk behavior, barriers to learning, and social–behavioral climate.
This study extends the research literature by examining individual- and school-level effects of teacher
practices using multilevel modeling. These findings have implications for school interventions and
suggest some of the ways that schools can address these outcomes.

Student High-Risk Behavior

We found that higher levels of teacher supervision/discipline and instructional management
were both associated with fewer student high-risk behaviors, such as physical conflict and carrying
weapons. Previous work has examined supervision in relation to minor student problem behaviors
(e.g., not following teacher directions; De Pry & Sugai, 2002). However, our findings extend to
more severe behaviors, such as physical conflict and weapons possession. Thus, student high-
risk behaviors are less likely to emerge when school teachers/staff are able to monitor student
misbehavior, possibly by preventing minor problem behaviors from escalating. Future work is
warranted that examines whether teacher supervision directly mitigates severe student problem
behaviors, and/or indirectly addresses them by preventing minor problem behaviors from becoming
more severe. Student behavioral problems are a major concern, as nationally, 32% of 12–18 year
old students report having been bullied and 8% report being threatened or injured with a weapon on
school property (Robers, Zhang, & Truman, 2010). Our findings shed light on the mitigating role
that teacher supervision/discipline and instructional management can play in addressing violence
and aggression in our schools.
Our findings also reveal a school-level contribution; higher school-level instructional manage-
ment was associated with less high-risk behavior, while accounting for individual-level instructional
management. Thus, with higher school-wide levels of teacher instructional management, students
are less likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as carrying weapons and engaging in physi-
cal conflicts. This study extends the work that has demonstrated the positive benefits of effective
classroom management for students at the individual level (e.g., Burke, Oats, Ringle, Fichtner, &
DelGaudio, 2011) by demonstrating both individual- and school-level findings.
Finally, contrary to our expectation, teacher collaboration was associated with higher levels
of student high-risk behavior. Previous work has linked teacher collaboration to positive student
outcomes (Rivera et al., 2014; Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997). One possibility regarding this finding
is that when students engage in high-risk behavior, teacher concerns promote collaboration among
school staff members to address these challenges; indeed, these data are cross-sectional, and the
temporal relationship between these variables cannot be determined. It is also possible that more
teacher collaboration does not lead to more effective practices regarding student high-risk behavior.
Relatedly, previous work has documented the positive association between enforcement of school
rules and school problem behaviors, such as enforcing rules through the use of zero-tolerance policies
(e.g., suspensions; Nickerson & Martens, 2008; Tobin & Sugai, 1999). The teacher collaboration
scale in this study does include an item that focuses on teachers’ enforcement of rules. This finding
requires further exploration using methodological designs that can elucidate directionality, assess
dimensions of collaboration, and examine collaboration in the context of school policies.

Barriers to Student Learning

Teacher supervision/discipline was associated with fewer barriers to learning, such as stu-
dent absenteeism, apathy, and coming to school unprepared to learn. Our findings are consistent
with previous research that demonstrates teacher supervision mitigates student tardiness and other

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 9

problem behaviors (De Pry & Sugai, 2002; Johnson-Gros et al., 2008). Previous studies have relied
on observational measures of teacher supervision in relation to student outcomes. This study builds
upon these findings based on teacher reports across a large number of schools and by using statistical
methods that account for the nested structure of the data (i.e., multilevel modeling). In addition, in
contrast to previous research that has directly examined student problem behaviors in the classroom
(e.g., student being out of seat, not following teacher directions), this study examines a wider array
of problematic behaviors that are classroom and nonclassroom specific (De Pry & Sugai, 2002;
Johnson-Gros et al., 2008).
Higher levels of instructional management were also associated with fewer barriers to student
learning. It may be that better teacher instruction leads to more engaged students, which in turn leads
to fewer barriers to learning and better academic outcomes (Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002).
Our findings shed light on the associations between teacher strategies (e.g., supervision/discipline
and instructional management) and a broad set of factors that impede student learning, including
absenteeism and tardiness. Further investigation may benefit from the use of SEM to examine
mediators of the relations between various teacher strategies and student behavioral outcomes
across time.
Student Social–Behavioral Climate
Individual-level instructional management was also positively associated with student social–
behavioral climate. This association suggests that teachers’ ability to effectively manage classroom
instruction is linked with positive student interactions and behaviors, such as caring and respect.
This finding resonates with Roland and Galloway (2002) in which less classroom management was
associated with greater prevalence of bullying. Despite the positive association between instructional
management and student social–behavioral climate in our study, the temporal link between these
two variables remains unclear. For example, it is possible that instructional management may
be more likely to occur in settings in which students are respectful and caring. This association
warrants future research that can help determine directionality and causal mechanisms. Moreover,
it is worth mentioning that although higher levels of teacher supervision/discipline were associated
with lower levels of barriers to learning and high-risk behavior, we did not find a significant
relationship between teacher supervision/discipline and student social–behavioral climate. Thus,
although teacher supervision and discipline are associated with fewer student problems, additional
strategies may be necessary to foster a positive social–behavioral climate among students. The
mechanisms for promoting school safety and positive school climate are noteworthy and should be
further explored.
Related to student social–behavioral climate, it is also of interest that a considerable amount
of between-school variation was found in our sample (21%), which was higher than other outcome
variables in this study. Although this variation between schools suggests that school-level factors
contribute to student behavioral climate, none of the school-level variables in our model were
statistically associated with this outcome variable. One explanation is that the school-level predictor
variables in our model may be more linked to overt student behavior, such as physical conflict
and weapon possession. In contrast, the predictor variables in our model may not explain affective
variables such as sense of belonging, caring, and respect, which are aspects of student social–
behavioral climate. These data were derived from teacher reports, and it is also conceivable that
student reports may be more likely to be linked with student-reported social–behavioral climate.
Implications for Research and Practice
This study has several implications for research. Foremost, future research can make a contribu-
tion by examining an array of school-, classroom-, and teacher-level influences in relation to student

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

10 Martinez et al.

behavioral outcomes to better understand specific linkages. For example, in this study, instructional
management and supervision/discipline were more consistently associated with student behavioral
outcomes, whereas this was not as often the case with teacher collaboration. Studies are needed that
consist of larger sample sizes and stronger research designs that clarify processes and directionality.
Second, when examining the link between teacher practices in relation to student high-risk
behaviors, barriers to student learning, and student social–behavioral climate, future research may
benefit from examining school-level processes using multilevel modeling strategies and SEM. Al-
though teacher-based interventions that target teacher practices, such as classroom management
interventions, can directly impact student behavior (Roland & Galloway, 2002), school-level impli-
cations of these practices are not often considered. Teacher experience, school culture, and com-
munity context may also play a role, and these broader school and community influences should be
taken into account. In addition, SEM may be used to contribute to theory development and help us to
better identify how teacher practices relate to academic and behavioral student outcomes. Identifying
both direct and indirect pathways of influence across levels of analysis (e.g., individual, classroom,
school) may facilitate the development of theory and effective interventions at multiple levels.
This study has several implications for practice. Overall, these findings point to ways in which
school interventions can target teacher practices to reduce barriers to student learning and high-
risk behaviors and promote a positive social–behavioral school climate. This is not to suggest
that teacher approaches should replace other school interventions that directly target students, but
rather, that the integration of comprehensive teacher and student approaches may help advance these
efforts (Martinez et al., 2015). For example, whole-school interventions targeting different aspects
of the school setting have been found to be more effective in reducing student victimization than
less comprehensive approaches (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). From this standpoint, the inclusion of
teacher-focused interventions (e.g., instructional management training) may serve as a necessary
component within these comprehensive interventions.
Additionally, instructional management and supervision/discipline were linked to student be-
havioral outcomes. Therefore, school interventions can more formally focus on teacher training to
improve teachers’ abilities to manage instruction and effectively supervise and discipline student
behavior. As one example, training teachers in the antecedent-behavior consequence (ABC) model
may enhance teachers’ supervision abilities. Helping teachers to identify environmental triggers that
precede student high-risk behaviors, such as engaging in physical conflicts, can help to mitigate
these challenges (Espelage et al., 2013; LaVan & Martin, 2008).

Limitations and Strengths

This study has several limitations. First, as noted above, this study consists of cross-sectional
survey data, and directionality of the associations cannot be confirmed. Thus, future research can
benefit from the use of experimental and longitudinal designs. Second, while this study uses mul-
tilevel modeling to account for the nested nature of these data (e.g., teachers within schools), the
school-level sample size was limited, which could have limited generalizability and contributed to
type-2 errors. For example, with an average of about six participants per school, a minimum of
approximately 100 to 125 schools would have been needed to detect smaller effect sizes (i.e., .30 or
below) at the recommended .80 level for high-risk behavior and positive social behavioral climate,
respectively. Despite this limitation, school problems such as student physical conflict and weapons
are higher in urban high-poverty school settings (McMahon et al., 2013; Robers et al., 2010), and
from a practical standpoint, generalizing cautiously to these settings is justified. Finally, this study
examined school-level influences, but did not account for other units of analysis, such as classroom-
or neighborhood-level contributions, which may also play a role in student outcomes.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 11

Despite these limitations, this study is strengthened by the use of multilevel modeling that
accounts for individual- and school-level contributions to a range of student-related outcomes.
Second, this study examines the unique contribution of various teacher practices to key student
problems, barriers, and relations that affect learning. Finally, teachers were drawn from multiple
school settings, suggesting that these findings are not school specific, but may be generalizable to
school districts with similar demographic characteristics.

C ONCLUSION
Students in high-poverty urban school settings experience a myriad of behavioral and academic
risks, and understanding teacher practices that mitigate these risks and promote positive outcomes
is warranted. Findings in this study elucidate some of the teacher behaviors and practices associated
with student high-risk behaviors, barriers to student learning, and student social–behavioral climate.
Specifically, supervision and attentiveness to student behavior, and the ability to effectively manage
instruction are consistently associated with favorable student outcomes. Teachers serve as important
figures in the development of children and youth and in shaping students’ formal learning experiences
(Eccles & Roeser, 1999). A better understanding of how teacher practices and behaviors are linked
with student outcomes can help ensure positive social, behavioral, and academic outcomes for
students.

A PPENDIX

Table A1
Scale Items and Factor Loadings

Teacher Collaboration Factor

Loadinga

1. Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for .61
students who are not in their classes.
2. Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central mission of the .89
school should be.
3. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members. .75

Supervision/Discipline
1. Teachers ignore it when students threaten other students. .44
2. Teachers not knowing what students are up to. .98
3. Lack of adequate supervision of students. .59

Instructional Management
1. There is a clear set of rules for students to follow in this school. .59
2. Taking attendance and other tasks do not interfere with classroom teaching. .70
3. Teachers spend almost all classroom time in learning activities. .86
4. Students in this school usually have assigned schoolwork to do. .40
5. Most classroom time is spent talking about classwork or assignments. .32
6. Teachers use class time to help students learn assigned work. .45
7. Outside interruptions of the classroom are few. .58

(Continued)

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

12 Martinez et al.

Table A1
Continued

Teacher Collaboration Factor

Loadinga

Barriers to Student Learning

1. Student tardiness. .64
2. Student absenteeism. .79
3. Student apathy. .49
4. Students coming to school unprepared to learn. .86
5. Lack of parental involvement. .63

Student High-Risk Behavior

1. Physical conflict among students. .70
2. Student disrespect for teachers. .40
3. Student possession of weapons. .69

Student Social/Behavioral Climate

1. Students care about each other. .71
2. Students respect each other. .86
3. Students want to be friends with one another. .56
4. Students have a sense of belonging in this school. .42
5. Whether one student makes fun of someone, other students do not join in. .43
6. Students in this school are well behaved even when the teachers are not watching them. .59
7. Most students would do their work even if the teacher stepped out of the classroom. .53

a Factor loadings reflect partial correlations.

R EFERENCES
Algozzine, K., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Classroom instructional ecology and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 24, 29–47.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts.
Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Burke, R. V., Oats, R. G., Ringle, J. L., Fichtner, L., & DelGaudio, M. (2011). Implementation of a classroom management
program with urban elementary schools in low-income neighborhoods: Does program fidelity affect student behavior and
academic outcomes? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 201–218. doi:10.1080/10824669.2011.585944
Bushaw, W. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2012). Public education in the United States: A nation divided. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 9–25.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in
democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 201–237.
De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor behavioral incidents in a
sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255–267.
Downer, J., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Pianta, R. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems
contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 36, 413–432.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. (1999). School and community influences on human development. In M. H. Bornstein & M.
E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (4th ed.) (pp. 503–554). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D.,... & Rickoff, R. (2013). Understanding
and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda.
American Psychologist, 68, 75–87. doi:10.1037/a0031307
Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline the role of school
policy. Urban Education, 42, 536–559. doi:10.1177/0042085907305039
Fish, R. M., Finn, K. V., & Finn, J. D. (2011). The problems public schools face: High school misbehaviour in 1990 and
2002. Education Research and Perspectives, 38, 59–80.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Teacher Behavioral Practices 13

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher
collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record,
109, 877–896.
Goldstein, J. S., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, K. A. (2003). Absenteeism: A review of the literature and school psychology’s
role. California School Psychologist, 8, 127–139.
Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and
practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 328–349.
Halderson, C., Keefe, J., Kelley, E., & Berge, P. (1989). Technical manual: School climate survey, student satisfaction survey,
teacher satisfaction survey, parent satisfaction survey. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principles.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the
teacher–student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 289–301. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7
Irvin, L., Tobin, T., Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices
of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6, 131–147.
Johnson-Gros, K. N., Lyons, E. A., & Griffin, J. R. (2008). Active supervision: An intervention to reduce high school
tardiness. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 39–53.
Kearney, C. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A contemporary review. Clinical Psychology
Review, 28, 451–471.
Koth, C., Bradshaw, C., & Leaf, P. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The
effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96–104.
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and individual differences in vulnerability
to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 141–159. doi:10.1016/s0022-
4405(01)00059-0
LaVan, H., & Martin, M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal
of Business Ethics, 83, 147–165. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9608-9
LeBlanc, L., Swisher, R., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). School social climate and teachers’ perceptions of classroom
behavior problems: A 10 year longitudinal and multilevel study. Social Psychological Education, 10, 429–442.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a mediator of school climate effects.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 491–502.
Martinez, A., McMahon, S. D., Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Reddy, L. A., & Sanchez, B. (2015). Teachers’ experiences
with multiple victimization: Identifying demographic, cognitive, and contextual correlates. Journal of School Violence,
15(4), 1–19.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and curriculum, and students’
interactions in urban middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 108, 293–312.
McGrath, H., & Noble, T. (2010). Supporting positive pupil relationships: Research to practice. Educational & Child
Psychology, 27, 79–90.
McMahon, S. D., Todd, N. R., Martinez, A., Coker, C., Sheu, C.-F., Washburn, J., & Shah, S. (2013). Aggressive and prosocial
behavior: Community violence, cognitive, and behavioral predictors among urban African American youth. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 407–421. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9560-4
Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate:
The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 599–610.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.005
Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and
applications. American Journal of Education, 119, 7–39.
Murray, C. (2009). Parent and teacher relationships as predictors of school engagement and functioning among low-income
urban youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 376–404.
Nickerson, A. B., & Martens, M. P. (2008). School violence: Associations with control, security/enforcement, educa-
tional/therapeutic approaches, and demographic factors. School Psychology Review, 37, 228.
Rhodes, J., Camic, P., Miburn, M., & Lowe, S. (2009). Improving middle school climate through teacher-centered change.
Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 711–724.
Rivera, E., McMahon, S., & Keys, C. (2014). Collaborative teaching: School implementation and connections with outcomes
among students with disabilities. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 42, 72–85.
Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2010 (NCES 2011- 002/NCJ 230812).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research, 44, 299–312.
doi:10.1080/0013188022000031597

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

14 Martinez et al.

Sälzer, C., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Stamm, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent truancy: The importance
of distinguishing between different aspects of instructional quality. Learning and Instruction, 22, 311–319.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.12.001
Shachar, H., & Shmuelevitz, H. (1997). Implementing cooperative learning, teacher collaboration and teachers’ sense of
efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 53–72.
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel modeling: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London:
Sage.
Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., Hintze, J. M., Cressey, J. M., & Peller, S. L. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-wide positive
behavior support: An exploratory study using single-case synthesis. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 105–121.
Spaulding, S. A., Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., May, S. L., Emeldi, M., Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (2010). Schoolwide
social-behavior climate, student problem behavior, and related administrative decisions. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 12, 60–85.
Stichter, J. P., Stormont, M., Lewis, T. J., & Schultz, T. (2009). Rates of specific antecedent instructional practices and
differences between Title I and non-Title I schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 331–344. doi:10.1007/s10864-
009-9094-5
The Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP). (2004). Description of measures: Teacher survey. In P. Orpinas (Ed.),
Great schools and families project descriptions of measures. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Using sixth-grade school records to predict school violence, chronic discipline problems, and
high school outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 40–53.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Public School Teacher Questionnaire. School and Staffing Survey (1999-2000).
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.
Wang, M. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjustment: Testing the mediating effect of social
competence. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 240–251.
Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Busseri, M. A. (2004). Where is the syndrome? Examining co-occurrence among multiple
problem behaviors in adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1022–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-
006x.72.6.1022
Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., Busseri, M. A., Bosacki, S., Dupont, D., Marini, Z., & Woloshyn, V. (2007). Adolescent
non-involvement in multiple risk behaviors: An indicator of successful development? Applied Developmental Science,
11, 89–103. doi:10.1080/10888690701384954

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

View publication stats