1

Introduction

A Frightening Conclusion

I have come to a frightening conclusion.

I am the decisive element in the classroom.
It is my personal approach that creates the climate.
It is my daily mood that makes the weather.
As a teacher I possess tremendous power to make
a child’s life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture
or an instrument of inspiration.
I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal.
In all situations, it is my response that decides
whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated,
and a child humanized or de-humanized.

-Haim Ginot, Between Teacher and Child

Classroom management has received a great amount of attention in recent years and is

currently the number one problem for educators in America. When one attempt to define the

term classroom management, one immediately assumes it is the need to discipline negative

behavior in the classroom. What do I have to do to get students to apply themselves to their work

and stop fooling around and being disruptive? According to Capizza (2009) “establishing a well-

organized plan for classroom management at the outset of the year is essential for a peaceful and

calm classroom that is conducive to instruction and learning for students with a variety of

academic, social, and behavioral needs” (p. 1). Although, students’ negative behavior and

negative attitude is a major component, classroom management is the concern of how things are

done in the classroom, rather than the concern of how students behave. Classroom management
 2

has no penalties or rewards, where as discipline has penalties and rewards. From the student’s

perspective, effective classroom management involves clear communication of behavioral and

academic expectations, as well as a cooperative learning environment (Allen, 2010).

Many teachers devote a disproportionate amount of time and energy disciplining their

class rather than managing their class. According to Lemov (2010) great teaching is an art that

“relies on the mastery and application of foundational skills learned individually through diligent

study” (p. 1). An effective teacher has mastered the art of managing their classroom. Let us

consider a store owner. Store owners do not discipline a store; they manage a store. Let us

consider a coach. Coaches do not discipline a team; they manage a team. Teachers do not

discipline a classroom; they manage a classroom.

Effectively managing a classroom is possibly the most difficult aspect of the art of

teaching. Once a teacher loses control of their classroom, it becomes increasingly more difficult

for them to regain that control. Research shows that the time a teacher has to take to correct

misbehavior caused by poor classroom management skills results in a lower rate of academic

engagement in the classroom. In order for teachers to successfully teach and students to

academically succeed; an orderly classroom environment with minimum disruption to bring

behavior under control is needed. There must be a carefully planned technique system of

procedures, rules, and routines that creates an atmosphere to learn. The teacher is the key

variable in the classroom. This action research project will examine the progressive ideology that

students should be able to govern themselves, the conservative ideology of a structured

 3

classroom environment, and a hybrid of the two approaches, and their effects on students’

academic achievement.

Statement of Problem

Our public schools are failing our students, particularly, minority students from low-

income backgrounds. As prospective educators, in an urban environment, the educational

inequality our students are facing is our greatest challenge. We are prepared and dedicated to

working towards closing the achievement gap between low-income students and high-income

students and preparing all students to succeed in college.

There is a lack of classroom management being effectively enforced in elementary

schools, thus, making daily instruction more challenging for the teachers and learning more

challenging for the students. On a daily basis in-service and pre-service teachers are faced with

disruptive behavior in their classroom, which results in wasted instructional time. Public schools

do not spend a sufficient amount of time establishing routines, rules and practicing procedures.

Students should not be expected to learn and master classroom procedures within the first week

of school or be able to govern themselves. Well thought out and planned procedures must be

explicitly taught and practiced throughout the school year. Researchers believe, when there is a

clear set of classroom management techniques in line, teachers can establish an effective learning

environment. According to Freiberg, Huzinec, & Templeton (2009)

“When teachers have a rich management and discipline repertoire, students become more
self-disciplined, minimizing the need to refer students to the office and maximizing
instructional time with greater opportunities to teach and learn” (p. 77).
 4

Educators need to consider whether they have eliminated all instructional impediments

and distractions in the classroom. It has been argued that establishing classroom

procedures/routines and utilizing actionable techniques, such as non-verbal cues and positive

framing, is extremely vital to an efficient and academically successfully classroom. Having

control of the two will lead to the ultimate instructional time in the classroom. The action

research project investigates whether making use of every second in the classroom to instruct our

students, will lead our students one step closer to closing the achievement gap and one step

closer to going to college. The action research project will also investigate whether establishing

procedures and utilizing actionable techniques ensure academic success in the classroom.

Review of Related Literature

I. The need for Classroom Management

When discussing tools to effective teaching that leads to authentic learning, no longer can

the term classroom management go without significant acknowledgment. Classroom

management is defined as a “multi-faceted concept that includes the organization of the physical

environment, the establishment of rules and routines, the development of effective relationships,

and prevention of and response to misbehavior” (Garrett, 2008, p. 35). Managing behavioral

issues have been problematic in classrooms across America for decades, and although, this is a
 5

prevalent issue in schools, there remains a lack of intervention. According to Capizza (2009), if

you ask a group of teachers what they are most concerned about in their classrooms or schools, it

is likely that student behavior will come up as one of the greatest—if not the greatest—issue.

Urban schools are increasingly seeing more egregious student behavior, which, suggests the

urgent need for effective classroom management, specifically in urban schools in high-poverty

areas. It is believe that classroom management will be a greater challenge in for urban schools in

high-poverty neighborhoods because, “the schools themselves are under greater pressure to

maintain a safe and orderly academic environment, and teachers may not be supported by the

school’s administration in building this environment” (Weiner, 2010, p. 307). It is almost

impossible for cooperating and pre-service teachers to successfully complete a lesson because

too much time is spent on addressing disruptive behaviors. A study conducted by Weiner (2010)

to understand why classroom management is such a problem in the urban schools, found that “so

much in the school environment undercuts the social norm required for high academics

functioning in urban classrooms, successful urban teachers must deeply embed classroom

management in every aspect of classroom life, making the teaching of social skills a reflexive

part of instruction” (p. 309). The ideal classroom environment will have “fewer disruptions

during instructional time, better teacher planning, classroom organization, and student

engagement, (this will) allow for more learning time” (Weiner, 2010, p. 76).

Studies have also shown that in a quest to understand many classroom behaviors one

must consider classroom settings and qualities. Downer, La Paro, Pianta, and Rimm-Kaufman
 6

(2005) argue that, “teachers in these higher-quality classrooms use proactive approaches to

discipline: they establish stable routines, monitor their students carefully to keep them engaged,

and manage behavior problems proactively” (p. 380). In their study on classroom settings and

qualities to children’s behavior; three pertinent findings were discovered;

“First, classroom setting appears to be related to children’s engagement and behavior

toward peers. Second, as classroom quality is graded higher, the occurrence of the
problem behaviors (non compliance with teacher requests, off task behavior) is reduced
in structured teacher-directed classroom and whole class settings. Third, as classroom
quality is rated higher, the rate of children’s social conversation and cooperation with
peers is greater in small-group settings. These findings taken together, contribute to an
understanding of the ways in which teachers decisions regulate children’s classroom
behavior” (Downer, La Paro, Pianta & Rimm-Kaufman, 2005, p.389).

Freiberg, Huzinec, and Templeton’s (2009) discuss a study of a program, by the name of

Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline, that emphasizes preventing discipline

problems before they begin and improving classroom climate. The researchers concluded that

students who were in the classroom that implemented the instructional management program

performed better in reading and mathematics than the control group of students who were not in

classrooms that implemented the instructional management program (Freiberg, Huzinec, &

Templeton, 2009). In a comparative study, discussed by Higgins and Moule (2009), that

compared an educational program’s views on classroom management and views of pre-service

teachers in urban schools showed that the educational program believes that “strong emotions,

strict guidelines, and consistency (strategies, boundaries, routines, etc.) led to students feeling

both safe and comfortable in the classroom” (p. 135). The pre-service teachers acknowledge the
 7

teachers to be “assertive, aggressive, and harsh,” and yet those strategies yielded high academic

expectations (Higgins and Moule, 2009, p. 135). In another study conducted in an effort to gain

an understanding of the pre-service teacher’s perspective on classroom control, found that one of

the student teachers thought

“Providing them with fun lessons and unlimited choices, will allow for student growth
and a well-run classroom” (Johnson, 2001, p. 111).

II. The Three Approaches to Classroom Management

The following three approaches in classroom management, non-interventionist,

interventionist, and interactionist that are currently in use in classrooms around the United States

were closely examined in a study that compared beginning and experienced teacher’s perceptions

of the three classroom management approaches (Unal & Unal, 2009). The study revealed that

the non-interventionist approach is used in a student centered environment. The non-

interventionist approach encourages the “teacher to demonstrate empathy toward students, to

devise compromises in an effort to provide opportunities for students to self correct inappropriate

behaviors and learn to manage their own behaviors” (Unal & Unal, 2009, p. 257). According

to Johnson (2001) the non-interventionist approach is also described as the nurturance

conception of classroom control where “fun lessons and letting students decide, at the expense of

classroom order.” The interventionist approach is the exact opposite and typically is used in a

more traditional teacher-centered classroom environment. According to Unal & Unal (2009),
 8

“The interventionist tends to take control of the situation by implementing immediately a

disciplinary tactic to control behavior” (p. 257).

Unal & Unal (2009) continues to discuss that disciplinary tactics used by interventionist teachers

to control the environment may include isolation, physical restraints, modeling, and

reinforcement. Johnson (2001) describes this as a

“Dominance conception of classroom control where, the personal power and authority of
teachers is displayed by demanding students to listen, starting out strict and the use of
punishment to keep students behaving well” (p. 111).

The interactionist approach to classroom management strives to find solutions that are

satisfactory to both the teacher and student, employing some of the same techniques as non-

interventionists and interventionists (Unal and Unal, 2009, p. 258). Johnson (2001) refers to

this approach as the rule based conception to classroom control where,

“Emphasis is placed on the importance of establishing and consistently enforcing class

rules; well-planned, well-paced lessons; and monitor students to prevent misbehavior
from occurring (p. 111).”

The interactionist approach still allowed teachers to be nurturing while applying forms of

discipline. Unal and Unal (2009) found

“That neither beginner nor experienced teachers were found to be non-interventionist on

any of the subscales of classroom management (p. 264).”

The beginner teacher favored the interactionist approach, while the experienced teacher favored

the interventionist,
 9

“None of the groups were in favor of allowing students to have full control or to have the
primary responsibility of developing their own rules” (Unal & Unal, 2009 p. 264).

III. Supporters of Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

The need for classroom management skills has not diminished during a time when school

reform has put the spotlight on academic testing and student achievement. There are many

theorists and practitioners who are in favor of implementing strong classroom management

practices. It is argued that an educator cannot be considered a highly-qualified teacher without a

mastery of sound best-practice strategies for managing classroom time, space, and student

behavior (Allen, 2010; Clement, 2010; Lemov, 2010). Classroom management is essential for

academic success, therefore “creating the best learning environment possible is the primary focus

of the classroom teacher’s responsibility” (Martin, Mayall, & Yin, 2006). According to Lewis-

Palmer, Merrell, Reinke (2008), classroom management is directly tied to levels of student

involvement and academic achievement, making it an important component of teaching. When

Clement (2010) was immersed in her undergraduate teacher program 30 years ago professors

told their students that “if you write a good enough lesson plan, you won’t have discipline

problems.” Today, 30 years later, Clement (2010) tells teacher education candidates that,

“You will not even get to teach your perfectly written lesson plan if you don’t have a
classroom management plan in place.”
 10

A lack of effective classroom management practices leaves a breeding ground for

negative adverse behaviors in the classroom such as bullying, which results in less instructional

time, poor student performance. Classrooms that are managed in ways other than with an

authoritative style, a bullying culture can develop. There is a connection between how teachers

treat their students, which is expressed through their classroom management approaches, and the

presence or absence of bullying in a classroom. Classroom management practices contribute to a

context or culture that either promotes or discourages bullying (Allen, 2010). Not only are

teachers accountable for students’ academic achievement, but, they are also expected to provide

a safe and orderly learning environment; given these facts classroom management is an

understandable concern for novice teachers as well as experienced teachers (Rosas & West,

2009). Studies that investigated the impact of classroom management and bullying discovered

that not only did classroom management correlate with whether bullying took place among

students, but they also discovered that there was a mediating variable related to whether bullying

occurred at all. The mediating variable was the social structure of the class. The social structure

included the informal relationships that developed in the class. When teachers care about

students, when they organize classrooms such that positive student relationships develop, and

when they manage learning and behavioral issues in positive, educative ways, students are far

less likely to engage or experience bullying (Allen, 2010).

Having strong authoritative classroom management practices will allow teachers to

achieve teaching excellence along both academic and social dimensions and may be the antidote

to two pressing educational problems (Walker, 2009). According to Walker (2009) the number
 11

of students who consistently experienced a classroom with high-quality instruction and a healthy

emotional climate was astonishingly low: 7%. Effective classroom management may be able to

reduce the nation’s depressing student dropout rates. It has been proven that academics are not

the only reason students drop out. Feelings of isolation and frustration also contribute to

disengagement (Roeser, Midgley, & Urfan, 1996). Effective classroom management, according

to Walker (2009), may also stem the alarming rates of teacher attrition and burnout as well.

Student misbehavior is a factor in teacher burnout and the decision of novice teachers to leave

the profession (Allen, 2010). As many as 50% of new teachers leave the field within five years,

and 20% of those who stay say they would choose another profession if they could (NEA,

2003).

IV. Supporters of Student-Centered Classroom Management

Although, there are many supporters of an authoritative, teacher-centered, approach to

classroom management, there are also those who favor a more progressive, student-centered

approach to classroom management. The argument against the traditional classroom

management practices is that teachers are not effectively managing their class or teaching their

students discipline. Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Montessori are amongst the theorists who believe

children learn discipline by taking responsibility of their own learning. Maria Montessori (1912)

is a firm believer that “discipline must come through liberty” (p. 53). “We call an individual

disciplined when he is a master of himself, and can, therefore, regulate his own conduct when it
 12

shall be necessary to follow some rule of life” (Montessori, 1912, p. 45). She states this is

something “difficult for followers of common-school methods to understand” (p. 45).

Montessori (1912) worked to alter the hierarchy in a traditional classroom and move away from

the traditional authoritarian role of the instructor. Her method requires educators to be passive

observers who simply guide the students to knowledge as to not “suffocate the activity of (their)

pupils” (p. 45).

Montessori’s pedagogy, as those of Dewey (1937) and Kilpatrick (1918), follows a belief

of constructivism rather than behaviorism. Montessori (1912) strongly encourages educators to

be observers of student’s activities and not restrict the student’s mobility with unnecessary

discipline. A student will learn when that student is actively engaged in an assignment, problem-

solving and constructing their own understanding. Learning does not take place as a form of

animal training or in hopes of receiving meaningless rewards. Choi and Lee (2009) mentions that

the techniques-oriented discourse and approach to classroom management oversimplifies the

issue by assuming that everything about classroom management is a well-structured problem (p.

103). The traditional, behaviorist, classroom management techniques have not caused significant

changes in student behavior. Rather, it has limited the ability of the learner to become self-

directed and self-disciplined, a necessary condition for the use of more complex instruction in

teaching and learning (Freiberg & Lamb, 2009). Kilpatrick (1918) argues that if students are

involved in social aims and their own purposeful learning, they will naturally develop moral

responsibility and character education, (p. 47). According to Dewey (1916), much work in
 13

school consist of setting up rules “by which pupils are to act of such a sort that even after the

pupils have acted, they are not led to see the connection between the result.” (Dewey, 1 916, p.

41)

According to Freiberg & Lamb (2009), a person-centered classroom creates a balance

between the wants of the teacher (the W) and the efforts and needs of the students (the E),

forming a collective classroom WE, including all persons in a classroom. A teacher-centered

approach to classroom management fails to create that balance. Teachers and students are urged

to jointly construct a context that is, an “ongoing dynamic accomplishment of people acting

together with shared tools” (Doyle, 2009; Russell, 1997). To achieve the goal of order (i.e.,

student cooperation), a teacher must organize classroom life and recruit, invite, persuade, or

convince the students to join forces with her or him in participating in events for specific periods

(Doyle, 2009, p. 158). A person-centered classroom management approach is argued to

facilitate higher achievement, have more positive learning environments with stronger teacher-

student relationships than teacher-centered or traditional classrooms (Doyle, 2009; Freiberg &

Lamb, 2009). According to Doyle (2009) the classroom is not simply a background or a

container for teaching and learning, a neutral and synthetic space in which teachers and students

happen to be. Classrooms, rather, are systems of interrelated activity segments that are tangible

and powerful partners in construction of what happens in these environments (Doyle, 2009, p.

157).
 14

It is also argued that there is a need to establish “culturally responsive classroom

management practices.” Literature on classroom management has paid very little attention to the

issue of cultural diversity. Researchers, such as Milner & Tenore (2010), have argued that

classroom management and diversity are inseparable.

“Consequently, teacher concerns about classroom management are sometimes

exacerbated in urban settings, where student’s languages, experiences, ethnicities,
religions, and abilities may be highly diverse and may or may not be shared by the
teacher” (p. 561).

According to Milner & Tenore (2010), Teachers are sometimes pressured and closely monitored

by their administrators to follow a set frame of referral, discipline, and management, which can

make it difficult for teachers to employ culturally responsive classroom management. Teachers

can experience less than ideal support from administrator; consequently, their students may

believe that the teachers “forget to care” about them. In a highly structured classroom

environment we run the risk of teachers giving information and students having little (if any)

voice and perspective in the learning environment. A study conducted by Poulou (2009)

revealed that skills which facilitate interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships such as ones

related to mutual respect, inclusion, influence or attentive listening are more frequently exercised

than skills that promote a sense of community, according to teachers and students’ perceptions.

This approach can result in a vicious cycle that is tantamount to Freire’s (1998) notion that

students are often passive participants in their own learning, with teachers constantly attempting

to pour knowledge or information into “empty vessels.”

“The systemic and institutionalized nature of teachers’ work in urban and diverse schools
seems to follow several layers. The administration taking their cues from the
 15

superintendent who is interpreting national and state guidelines, for instance, has set of
policies and expectations about how teachers’ classes out to run (e.g., quietly, orderly),
which creates a dilemma for teachers. Optimal learning can occur without student seated
in silence. Teachers, in turn, in their attempts to meet institutional expectations develop
and implement management strategies that reify systems of oppression and voicelessness
among students. Students, in turn, resist these systemic parameters, and chaos,
disconnections, and (mis)management result. The desire for order and control (Noguera,
2003) on the classroom level can be connected to teachers’ goal to improve test scores.
Teachers prepare students to follow directions and to “obey” orders for the world of work
(Anyon, 1980), and these decisions can be motivated and shaped by institutional and
systemic pressures far beyond teachers’ control, (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 569-570).”

V. Supporters of a hybrid of Teacher-centered and Student-centered classroom management

There are theorists and practitioners who seek to marry the two schools of thought.

Effective classroom management according to Trussell (2008), is implementing positive

behavior support (PBS). Positive behavior support is a general term that refers to the application

of positive behavioral interventions and systems to achieve socially important behavior changes

in our classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Lemov (2010), provides educators

with 49 techniques that will assist a teacher in setting his/her classroom for success. According to

Lemov (2010), there’s one suitable percentage of students following a direction given in your

classroom: 100 percent. If you don’t achieve this, you make your authority subject to

“interpretation, situation, and motivation.” A teacher’s goal is to get 100 percent compliance so

that you can teach. This is one of the popular techniques in Lemov’s book that takes into

consideration the teacher’s authority as well as the student’s emotions. Lemov provides teachers

with six levels of the least invasive forms of intervention to achieve 100% compliance without
 16

out the constant, time-consuming disruptions. The first least invasive form of intervention is the

nonverbal intervention, which can be a gesture or eye contact with off-task students while doing

something else. Positive group correction is the second least invasive intervention. This is a

quick verbal reminder to the group about what students should be doing and not what they

shouldn’t be doing (e.g., We’re following along in our books rather than You shouldn’t be

writing now). Anonymous individual correction is a quick verbal reminder to the group that

makes it explicit that not everyone is where they need to be: “We need two people to track the

speaker.” Private individual correction is when and if you have to name names seek to correct

privately and quietly. Lightning-quick public correction when you are forced to make individual

student corrections during public moments limit the amount of time a student is onstage:”

Jennifer I need your eyes,” is quick, confident and effective. The ideal situation in a class,

according to Lemov, is to solve a case of noncompliance quickly successfully and with the least

possible disruption to the whole class. The sixth and final form of intervention is the most

invasive form, consequences. If a situation cannot be addressed quickly and successfully

without a consequence, the consequence must be given so that instruction is not interrupted

(Lemov, 2010, p. 174).

Although, endless studies have been done on all three approaches to classroom

management it is still our responsibility as action researchers to evaluate if our proposed

approach is the most effective approach to classroom management and if it will lead to the

academic success of our students.

 17

Statement of Hypothesis

HR1: The intervention will take place over a period of 6 weeks. The action researchers

will plan and deliver a series of guided reading lessons to a first grade class in two different

settings (Charter School X and Public School X). The teachers will implement a hybrid of

teacher-centered and student-centered classroom management; where the students have

procedures to follow and the teachers utilize actionable techniques to manage the students’

behavior. Using a hybrid of classroom management procedures and techniques during 30-45

minute daily reading lessons, for a 6 week period, will increase 1st grade students’ reading level

in class X₁ at Charter School X in Brooklyn, and in class X₂ at PS X in Manhattan. The two

teachers will assess their students in the form of running records to ascertain whether the

intervention yielded an increase in reading levels. The two teachers will also do a comparative

study to determine if their findings were similar.

 18

Method

Participants

The intervention will take place in two first grade classrooms, in schools located in New

York City. The demographics for classroom X₁ located in Charter School X in Brooklyn are 12

boys and 13 girls, 9 of which are Hispanics and 16 are African American. The students’ age rang

from 6-years-old to 7-years-old. The demographics for classroom X₂ located in Public School X

in Manhattan is 11 boys and 11 girls; 13 Hispanics, 4 African-Americans, 3 Middle-Easterners, 1

Asian and 1 White. The students’ age rang from 5-years-old to 7-years-old.

Class X1
 19

Class X2

Instruments

The first instruments to be distributed were the principal and teacher consent forms,

(Appendix A). The consent forms were distributed at both schools in December of 2010. A

survey, (Appendix B), was administered in the beginning of January 2011, to get students

feedback on their attitudes towards different classroom management styles and reading. The

researchers used Fountas and Pinnell running records and Accelerated Reader, to conduct the

pre-test and post-test, to analyze and get students reading levels. Due to confidential nature of the

pre-test and post-test it was unable to be duplicated. Both classrooms received identical consent

forms, surveys, pre-test, post-test, classroom management approach, reading lessons, and guided

reading instruction.
 20

Experimental Design

The research design that was used for the action research is the pre-experimental design

using the static – group comparison model. Two experimental groups (X₁ and X₂) are pre-tested

(O), exposed to a treatment (X) and post-tested (O). The groups were not randomly selected. The

symbolic design for the action research will be: OX₁O and OX₂O.

The threats to the internal validity were history, maturation, instrumentation, mortality

and selection-maturation interaction. History was definitely a threat to the internal validity for

reasons beyond the control of the researchers. Since reading is usually the first block in

classrooms, some participants were occasionally late and there were participants who were often

absent from school.

Maturation was also a threat since participants maturity levels developed during the

course of the research. Instrumentation was a threat since researchers noticed that although they

tried to make the survey as kid friendly as possible, some of the participants had difficulties

completing the survey.

Mortality was a threat to the internal validity in class X₂, as one participant was in and

out of class X₂ due to behavioral issues. This participant was not consistently receiving treatment

during the intervention, which could have an effect on the data. Selection – Maturation

Interaction was a threat to the internal validity because of the range in age in both classrooms. In
 21

class X₁, the age range is from 6-years-old to 7-years-old, some participants responded better to

the survey and treatment than others. Although the majority of the students in class X₂ were

within the same age range as students in class X₁, there were a number of 5-years-old students

who could have caused major threats to the validity of class X₂’s data. Class X₁ does not have

5-years-old students, who usually mature at a slower rate than the 6-years old and 7-years-old

year old students, that could be and indicator as to why class X₁ saw a greater increase on their

post-test reading scores.

The potential threats to the external validity are ecological validity, generalizable

conditions and specificity of variables. The participants are in two considerably different

environments; this can be a major threat. Although there are some Charter Schools and Public

Schools who share the same building location, their classroom environments can be drastically

different which can affect the way participants responded to treatment. The conditions of one

class and school environment may have an affect on the students’ performance.

Generalizable conditions may or may not affect the results if this research is replicated.

This will depend on whether the teaching and classroom management method of the researchers

are being done effectively replicated. Teachers, however, do have differing pedagogies. It is

unrealistic to believe that every single minute detail, in terms of classroom management

techniques, can be replicated. The subtly of the inflection in a teacher’s voice can be a threat to

external validity.
 22

Specificity of variables can also be a threat if techniques and procedures are not properly

thought out during the course of intervention.

Procedure

The action researcher project investigated whether there is a correlation between

classroom management approaches and academic achievement by measuring the reading levels

of the participants. The intervention took place in two first grade classes in two different settings.

Class X₁ was familiar with a hybrid approach to classroom management, while Class X₂ had no

set approach to classroom management. Using the pre-experimental design the researchers were

able to do a static - group comparison study between the two classes.

In December 2010 the researchers handed consents at both locations to principal and

teacher to ensure it was okay to do the action research. In early January 2011, the same surveys

(Appendix B) were administered at both locations to get participant’s attitude on classroom

management approaches and reading. Pre-test data was also collected in January prior to starting

the intervention. The pre-test was the Fountas and Pinnell running record which determines the

current reading level of all the participants.

The intervention took place in both classes from the end of January-March 2011 for a

period of 6 weeks covering a series of reading and guided reading lessons four to five times a

week for 30-45 minutes. During the 6 week period teacher’s implemented a hybrid approach
 23

using the Lemov techniques. Running records were analyzed from both schools to determine the

results. After each approach the teachers will assess the students’ academic achievement.

Finally at the end of March and early April the post-test data were analyzed and

compared amongst the researchers.

Results

The intervention, which took place over a period of six weeks, was significantly

successful in terms of increasing students’ reading level by at least one reading level, some

students saw gains of two to three reading levels.

The pre-test mean, as indicated in figure 1., for X₁ class in Charter School X was 163 on

the Lexile grading scale, which is an equivalent of an F reading level according to Fountas &

Pinnell (2001), which is a 1.4 grade level. The post-test mean for X₁ class in Charter School X

was 222 on the Lexile grading scale, which is an equivalent of an H reading level, which is a 1.6

grade level. The average reading score of students’ in X₁ class in Charter School X increased by

59 points on the Lexile grading scale. This is an increase of two reading levels on the Fountas &

Pinnell scale, which is an equivalent of 2 months in the 1st grade level.

The pre-test mean, as indicated in figure 1., for X₂ class in P.S. X was 142.05 on the

Lexile grading scale, which is an equivalent of an E reading level according to Fountas & Pinnell

(2001), which is a 1.3 grade level. The post-test mean for X₂ class in P.S. X was 185.23 on the

Lexile grading scale, which is an equivalent of a G reading level, which is a 1.5 grade level. The
 24

average reading score of students’ in X₂ class in Charter School X increased by 43.18 points on

the Lexile grading scale. This is also an increase of two reading levels on the Fountas & Pinnell

scale, which is an equivalent of 2 months in the 1st grade level.

In terms of a comparative study of the test scores in the two classes, the finding indicates

that the students in Charter School X performed slightly better than the students in P.S. X. The

students’ average reading scores in Charter School X saw an increase of 59 points, while the

students’ average reading scores in P.S. X saw an increase of 43.18 points on the Lexile grading

scale. Both classes’ reading levels jumped two reading levels, which is the equivalent of 2

months work in the 1st grade.

Figure 1.
X₁ Class in Charter School X X₂ Class in P.S. X
Lexile Scores/Fountas & Pinnell/Grade level Lexile Scores/Fountas & Pinnell/Grade level

Pre-test Mean 163 / F / 1.4 142.05 / E / 1.3

Post-test Mean 222 / H / 1.6 185.23 / G / 1.5

Increase 59 points / 2 reading levels 43.18 points / 2 reading levels

The following attachments are graphs, scatter plots and measures of dispersions that

further analyze the action research project’s findings. There is a numerical spreadsheet of each

class’ pre-test and post-test scores and a mathematical congruent graph of a comparison of the

scores. A statistical analysis of the data, which discusses the mean, median, mode, minimum

maximum and range if also provided for each class.

 25

The action researchers utilized a scatter plots to find whether there is a correlation

between students’ reading scores and a survey question that asked each student whether they

enjoy reading. The findings indicate that for X₁ class in Charter School X there is a positive

correlation between reading scores and students reading enjoyment. The scatter plot showed

a .74 rxy. The scatter plot suggests that students who enjoy reading also scores well on their

reading assessment. For X₂ class in P.S. X, the findings indicate that there is also a positive

correlation between reading scores and students reading enjoyment. The scatter plot showed

a .64 rxy coefficient. The scatter plot suggests that students who enjoy reading also scores well

on their reading assessment. The action researchers utilized a second scatter plots to find whether

there is a correlation between whether students believe that their teacher cares about them a lot, a

survey question and whether the student enjoyed reading, also a survey question. The findings

indicate that for X₁ class in Charter School X there is a positive correlation between reading

scores and students reading enjoyment. The scatter plot showed a .74 rxy. The scatter plot

suggests that students who enjoy reading also scores well on their reading assessment. For X₂

class in P.S. X, the findings indicate that there is a .54 rxy coefficient. There is no correlation.

This suggests that students who believe their teacher cares about them a lot do not necessarily

enjoy reading. For X₂ class in P.S. X, the findings indicate that there is a .64 rxy coefficient.

This is a positive correlation. This suggests that students who believe their teacher cares about

them a lot also enjoy reading.

 26

To get a more significant understanding of the dispersion of post-test scores and how they

are spread out, the action researchers used the standard deviation formula and the variance

formula to measure the dispersion and variability of post-test scores. The action researcher then

plotted the post-test scores on a bell curve. The bell curve measures the dispersion of post-test

scores for class X₁ in Charter School X. The curve shows that 60% (15/25) of the scores are

dispersed with in 1 standard deviation of the mean. 100% of the post test scores are dispersed

with in 1 to 2 standard deviations from the mean. The bell curve measures the dispersion of

post-test scores for class X₂ in Public School X. The curve shows that 68% (15/22) of the scores

are dispersed with in 1 standard deviation of the mean. 100% of the post test scores are also

dispersed with in 1 to 2 standard deviations from the mean

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
 35

Discussion

The Action Research Project set out to investigate the affects of utilizing a hybrid of

student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management approaches in the classroom on 1 st

grade students’ reading levels. The researchers established classroom procedures/routines and

utilized actionable techniques, such as non-verbal cues and positive framing from Lemov (2010)

Teach Like a Champion. The intervention, which took place over a period of six-weeks was

significantly successful in terms of increasing students’ reading level by at least one reading

level, some students saw gains of two to three reading levels. The average reading score of

students’ in X₁ class in Charter School X increased by 59 points on the Lexile grading scale. This

is an increase of two reading levels on the Fountas & Pinnell scale, which is an equivalent of 2

months in the 1st grade level. The average reading score of students’ in X₂ class in Charter

School X increased by 43.18 points on the Lexile grading scale. This is also an increase of two

reading levels on the Fountas & Pinnell scale, which is an equivalent of 2 months in the 1st grade

level.

In terms of a comparative study of the test scores in the two classes, the finding indicates

that the students in Charter School X performed slightly better than the students in P.S. X. The

students’ average reading scores in Charter School X saw an increase of 59 points, while the

students’ average reading scores in P.S. X saw an increase of 43.18 points on the Lexile grading

scale. Both classes’ reading levels jumped two reading levels, which is the equivalent of 2

months work in the 1st grade.

 36

The action researchers found there is a positive correlation between the use of a hybrid

classroom management style and students’ reading levels. The findings in the action research

project indicates that when teachers utilize classroom management techniques that take into

consideration the teacher’s authority as well as the student’s emotions, a hybrid, there is an

increase in the academic success of the students. The action researchers argument that the use of

Lemov’s six least invasive forms of intervention, discussed in Teach Like a Champion (2010),

are effective in ensuring an efficiently run class room that leads to the least possible disruptions,

and eliminates instructional impediments which results in academic success in the classroom.

Implications

Although the findings of the action research project were significantly successful and

showed an increase in students’ reading level, there remains more to be done to classify the

research as a complete success. The action researchers found a need for more research to be

conducted utilizing the same intervention, with more participants in the similar demographics

and for a longer period of time. It is necessary for public schools, especially in urban areas, to

devote a sufficient amount of time in establishing routines, rules and practicing procedures.

Students should not be expected to learn and master classroom procedures within the first week

of school or be able to govern themselves without significant guidance from the teacher. Well

thought out and planned procedures must be explicitly taught and practiced in the classroom

throughout the school year to ensure the maximum use of classroom time is spent on instruction
 37

and not on correcting behavior. There is a dire need for educators to establish procedures and

utilize actionable techniques, to not only increase students’ reading levels but to also ensure

academic success in the classroom throughout all subjects. Educators need to make use of every

second in the classroom as instructional time in order to lead our students one step closer to

closing the achievement gap and one step closer to going to college.
 38

References

Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying and teacher practices. The Professional

Educator, 34(1). 1-15.

Clement, M. C. (2010). Preparing teachers for classroom management: The teacher educator’s

role. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(1), 41-44.

Choi, I. , & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for

enhancing ill-structured problem solving: classroom management problems for

prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 1-31.

Capizza, A. M. (2009). Start the year off right: Designing and Evaluating a supportive

classroom management plan. Journal of Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(3), 1-12.

Dewey, J (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. In

F. Shultz, S.O.U.R.C.E.S: Notable selections in Education, 39-44.

Downer, J. T., La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2005). The

Contribution of Classroom Setting and Quality of Instruction to Children’s Behavior in

Kindergarten Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377-394.

 39

Doyle, W. (2009). Situated practice: A reflection on person-centered classroom management.

Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 156-159.

Garrett, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study

of three elementary teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(1), 34-47.

Freiberg, H. J., Huzinee, C. A., & Templeton S. M. (2009). Classroom Management—a

Pathway to Student Achievement: A Study of Fourteen Inner-City Elementary Schools.

The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 63-80.

Freiberg, H. J. , & Lamb, S. M. (2009). Dimensions of person-centered classroom management.

Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 99-105.

Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first

grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530-564.

Higgins, K., & Moule, J. (2009). “No More Mr. Nice Guy”: Preservice Teachers' Conflict

With Classroom Management in a Predominantly African-American Urban Elementary

School. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(3), 132-138.

Johnson, V. (1994). Student Teachers' Conceptions of Classroom Control. Journal of

 40

Educational Research, 88(2), 109-117.

Kilpatrick, W. H (1918). The Project Method. Teachers College Record

Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 Techniques that put students on the path to

college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis-Palmer, T. , Merrell, K. , & Reinke, W. M. (2008). The classroom check-up: A

class wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive

behavior. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 315-332.

Martin, N. K. , Mayall, H. & Yin, Z. (2006). Classroom management training, teaching

experience and gender: Do these variables impact teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward

classroom management style? Paper presented at: The Annual Conference of Southwest

Educational Research Association, (Austin, TX, February 2006).

Milner, H. R. , & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban

Education, 45(5), 560-603.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. Schocken Books, Inc.

Poulou, M. S. , (2009 ). Classroom interactions: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Research

in Education, 8(3), 103-106.

 41

Rosas, C. , West. M. (2009). Teachers beliefs about classroom management: Pre-service and

in-service teachers’ beliefs about classroom management. International Journal of

Applied Educational Studies, 5(1), 54-61.

Trussell, R. P. (2008). Classroom Universals to prevent problem behaviors. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 43(3), 179-185.

Unal, Z. , & Unal, A. (2009). Comparing Beginning and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of

Classroom Management Beliefs and Practices in Elementary Schools in Turkey. The

Educational Forum, 73(3), 256-270.

Walker, J. M. T. (2009). Authoritative classroom management: how control and nurturance

work together. Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 122-129.

Weiner, Lois. Why Is Classroom Management So Vexing to Urban Teachers?

Classroom Management in a Diverse Society. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 305-312.