HULAC handout presentation (updated).ppt

Classroom Management
DAVID HULAC, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO
AMY BRIESCH, PH.D., NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
DAVID.HULAC@UNCO.EDU

Learner Objectives:
This session will help participants
1. learn methods for promoting desirable behaviors and discouraging problematic behaviors for
a diverse group of school-aged students in a classroom,
2. learn methods for consulting and collaborating with teachers who are looking to improve
their classroom management skills,
3. learn group contingency and self-management skills that can be used for large and small
group interventions, and
4. learn methods for evaluating the effectiveness of classroom management interventions.

Impact of First Grade Teacher Capacity
Baltimore Longitudinal Data on Top 25% Aggressive First-grade Boys: Risk of Being Highly
Aggressive in Middle School (Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Lalongo, 1998)
2.7
58.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Odds ratio
Well-managed
standard classroom
Chaotic standard
classroom
Do we prevent
some problems?
Students
randomly
assigned to
classrooms in
Baltimore
Slide thanks for Alan Coulter

But don’t teachers learn classroom
management in schools?
Report put out by the National Council for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) found:
Most teacher education programs are not deliberately teaching the
science of classroom management in class and clinical settings.
Most programs function under the belief that “instructional virtuosity”
will render the need for classroom management moot because all students
will be enthralled with the flawlessly executed lesson that they will be
unable to act out.
Teachers are encouraged to come up with a philosophy for classroom
management based upon their own beliefs about child development.

A crisis in education
Classroom management is the #1 problem for teachers (The New
Teacher Project, 2013).
Main contributor to teacher burnout (Aloe, Amo, & Shanahan, 2014;
O’neill & Stephenson, 2011).
Many teachers have even reported leaving the field due to
frustrations with student behavior problems (US Department of
Education, 2000-01).
Of course, some do happen to succeed…

Effective vs. evidence-based classroom
management
Observational, correlational studies conducted in the 1970s of
“effective teachers”
Kounin (1970) found that teachers used the same strategies to respond
to problem behavior, but “effective teachers” were much more likely to
use preventative strategies to head it off
Experimental studies since the 1980s have contributed to the
“evidence base”
OUR definition of evidence-based = shown to be effective across
multiple controlled research studies
HULAC & BRIESCH, 2018

The “Big 5”
Establish, teach, and practice positively-stated expectations
Develop and teach predictable routines
Use positive and specific praise to reinforce students for appropriate
behavior
Consistently respond to inappropriate behavior with an appropriate
level of consequence
Promote engagement through opportunities to respond and
interesting, meaningful content

Understand Behavioral Theories and Terminology

Functions of behavior
Students perform behaviors to:
◦ Get something tangible
◦ Get to do something they want
◦ Get attention
◦ Avoid something they don’t want
◦ Avoid attention
◦ Internal reinforcement
Positive
Reinforcement
Negative
Reinforcement
Automatic
Reinforcement

Concurrent Schedules
When similar reinforcement is scheduled for
each of the concurrent responses:
◦ the response receiving the higher frequency of
reinforcement will increase in rate
◦ the response requiring the least effort will increase in rate
◦ the response providing the most immediate reinforcement
will increase in rate
Slide source:
http://www.slideshare.net/ebisuganya/schedu
les-of-reinforcement

Concurrent schedules of reinforcement
Think about a cafeteria lunch. Which is going to get thrown away?

Structuring the Classroom for Success
Preventing Problems Before They Happen

Three strategies of prevention
Creating physical structures in the classroom that reduce the
likelihood of behavior problems
Teaching students expected behaviors
Engaging in effective teaching behaviors that elicit desired behaviors

Classroom density
As density increases:
◦ Attention decreases
◦ Social withdrawal increases
◦ Aggression, dissatisfaction & anxiousness increase
Performance is most pronounced in complex activities
McKee & Witt, 1990

Classroom
arrangement
Lower levels of off-task behavior
in rows than clusters, circles, etc.
 Held across elementary and
secondary settings
 Most pronounced when involving
students with behavior problems

Establish rules and expectations
Should be:
Realistic
Age appropriate
Understandable
Positively-worded
Limited in number (i.e. 4-6)

Clarify changing expectations
Color Wheel intervention (Skinner et al., 2007)
Rationale: Having multiple sets of rules can be confusing to students.
May need to use salient stimuli to help students transition from one
set of rules to another

Materials
When instructions
are given:
 In seat
 Desk clear
 No talking
 No handraising
 Hands ready to
work
 Eyes on teacher
During lesson:
 In seat
 Raise hand to
speak
 Hands and feet
to self
 Eyes on
teacher/speaker
 Raise hand to
leave seat
Independent work
time:
 Use inside voice
to share with
others
 Respect others
 Hands and feet
to self

Procedures
Red used when transitioning from one classroom activity to
another
◦ Teacher provides 2-min and 30-sec warning before moving CW to
red
◦ Once CW moved, provide directions for next activity
◦ After providing instructions, turn CW to yellow or green to elicit
questions regarding instructions

Effectiveness
of Color
Wheel
intervention

This should last no longer than 2 minutes
Conversation (C) – No Talking.
Help (H) – No asking for help. No handraising.
Activity (A) – Listening to the teacher talk.
Movement (M) – Everybody is in their seat looking at the teacher.
Participation (P) – Students look at the teacher and do not talk.

Conversation (C) – Students may talk when they are called on.
Help (H) – Students must raise their hands to be called on.
Activity (A) – Asking questions about what the teacher said.
Movement (M) – Everybody is in their seat looking at the teacher.
Participation (P) – Students look at the teacher and do not (unless
called on).

Conversation (C) – Students may talk to each other if the conversation
does not exceed 70mb
Help (H) – Students must raise their hands to be called on.
Activity (A) – Asking questions about what the teacher said.
Movement (M) – Students may stand, but must be able to touch their
desk.
Participation (P) – Students have only necessary materials on their desks
and are working on their materials.

Establish routines
Specific step-by-step responses that students should exhibit during
daily classroom activities in order to ensure that materials, furniture,
and bodies are in the right place for the activity
Entering the classroom
Finishing an assignment early
Turning in assignments
Preparing for bus departure
Use Tell  Show  Do  Generalize to teach routines

Use precision requests
Includes the student’s name
Includes a description of the observable behavior required
In as few words as possible
Not phrased as a question
Can you bring that book to me?
Delivered in a polite tone

Effective
communication
of requests

Increasing opportunities to respond

Opportunity to respond
When students can frequently give answers to questions, their
engagement increases (Tressel, 2008)
◦ Instructional talk
◦ Positive prompts
◦ Wait time
◦ Balance of positive to negative feedback

Instructional Talk
The teacher engages in short lessons, and then provides an
opportunity to practice.
Demonstrations, discussions etc.
Source: Tressel, 2008

Positive prompt
Directed requests for action or response
Recommend 3 to 4 opportunities per minute for a class
Ensure each student has a chance to respond
Prompt choral responses

Wait time
Allow > 3 s for students to think of the correct answers.

Response Cards
Students
◦ write-on boards to answer teacher questions,
◦ cover answer by drawing board to chest,
◦ simultaneously revealing when instructed by teacher
Shown to increase participation and response accuracy (Narayan et
al., 1990; Gardner et al., 1994), as well as student behavior

Active supervision
Move around the classroom
Scan the environment
Frequent those parts of the room where behavior problems
frequently occur
Ensure frequent interaction with students
Communicate “with-it-ness”

Providing Students with Behavioral Feedback

Effective reprimands
Delivered after a student exhibits a behavior that violates class rules
or norms
Most effective if:
Brief
Clearly communicates what the student is doing wrong
Tells the student what s/he should be doing instead
Delivered immediately using a calm, firm, and unemotional tone
Paired with eye contact
Provided in close proximity to the student

Positive verbal feedback (i.e. praise)
Positive attention directed toward a behavior demonstrated by an
individual
Most effective if:
Specific (tells the student what s/he was doing correctly)
Contingent (delivered only following the target behavior)
Sincere and believable
Takes into consideration the student’s skill level
Research has shown that teachers use general praise 3-4 times as
often as specific praise (Floress & Jenkins, 2015; Reinke et al., 2013)

Peer-delivered praise
Positive peer reporting
Students identify peers who did something nice for them
Identified students provided with stickers
Tootling
Students write down peers’ prosocial behaviors on cards
Teacher counts up cards at the end of the day
If number of Tootles exceeds a criterion, the class receives a prize

Increasing rates of praise
Explicit instruction in the appropriate delivery of praise
Verbal feedback regarding the frequency of praise delivery
Self-monitoring

Planned ignoring
When behavior is being reinforced by attention, need to remove the
attention
If behavior is not dangerous, consider not responding to it
Most effective if paired with praise of alternative, appropriate
behavior (Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior)
Have to anticipate a spike in behavior before improvement

Noncontingent attention
When data suggest that attention is reinforcing, provide student
with noncontingent attention throughout the day
Reduces the need to misbehave to receive attention

Token Economy
Teacher identifies 1-3 disruptive behaviors to be reduced (or
appropriate behaviors to be increased)
Teacher provides positive tangible reinforcement
(tokens/tickets) when students perform appropriate
behaviors
Students may exchange tokens for rewards/prizes (candy,
dolls, comics, comics, etc)
48
O’Leary, Becker, Evans, & Saudargas (1969)

Token economy
Decision rules clearly communicate what students need to do in
order to earn a token
Makes feedback more concrete and tangible

Step 1:
Establish behavioral expectations
Create list of all specific target behaviors you wish to see and
reinforce each behavior
Face forward
Sit quietly
Frame expectations globally and reinforce any behaviors falling
under the umbrella
Work hard
Be nice to others

Step 2:
Determine how tokens will be delivered
Tokens, points, stars, tickets, etc.
If tangible, may give to student to store
If recorded, need to determine where (e.g., point card, notebook)
Important that:
Able to administer tokens effortlessly
Able to administer tokens quickly and contingently
Students understand token’s value
Token delivery is paired with verbal feedback

Step 3:
Determine how rewards will be incorporated
Consider incorporating multiple rewards, reinforcer survey so that
everyone finds something reinforcing
Consider having students use their points toward a lottery

Modifications
Add response cost
◦ Whenever student
performs
undesirable
(disruptive)
behavior, teacher
removes a token
54

Modifications
Level system
◦ Behavioral
expectations
intensify as
students move up
levels
55

Fading
Reduce frequency with which tokens are delivered
Increase number of tokens needed to purchase rewards
Increase length of time that students have to wait to exchange their
points

Group contingencies
“…a class of interventions in which reinforcers are implemented to
individuals or groups based on the performance of individual
members or of all members of the group.”
More efficient with regard to time
Utilize peer influence to support student behavior.
Meet the WWC standards of evidenced based intervention (Maggin,
Johnson, Chafouleas, Ruberto, & Berggren, 2012)

Contingency parts
Criteria (If) Result (Then)
The target individual.
The target task.
The target time.
Who gets the reward.
What the reward is.

/2/ Making contingencies more
interesting

Group Contingencies
(Litow and Pumroy, 1975)
Three types:
◦ “One for all” (Dependent Group Contingency)
◦ “To each his/her own” (Independent Group
Contingency)
◦ “All for one” (Interdependent Group-Oriented
Contingency)

Types of Group contingencies
Who must
follow the
expectations?
Whose behavior do
we use for
criterion?
Who
receives
reinforcer?
Example
Independent Entire group One or two
individuals
One or two
individuals
The entire class is expected to
complete a math assignment. Each
student earns one homework pass if
they finish the assignment
Hulac & Benson, 2010
Token
economy!

Who must
follow the
expectations?
Whose behavior do
we use for criterion?
Who receives
reinforcer?
Example
individuals
One or two
individuals
The entire class is expected to complete a
math assignment. Each student earns
one homework pass if they finish the
assignment
Interdependent Entire group Entire group Entire group The entire class is expected to complete a
math assignment. If each and every
member of the class completes the
assignment, the entire class receives 1
free question on a test.

Interdependent: Good Behavior Game
Procedures (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969)
◦ Students divided into teams
◦ Compete for rewards/privileges (daily and weekly)
◦ Identify what periods will play game
◦ Clearly define rules (inappropriate/appropriate behaviors)
◦ If break rule, receive a mark on the board
◦ Team with fewest marks or if both teams < 5 marks wins
(decrease marks as weeks go on)
◦ If maintain <20 marks/week, extra privilege
64

Good Behavior Game w/ a positive spin
Give points for following rules-rather than a mark for
breaking a rule (Tanol et al., 2010)
◦ Resulted in lower levels of rule violations
◦ Preferred by teachers
Caught Being Good Game (Wright & McCurdy, 2012)
◦ Assign points if all team members on-task
65

Who must follow
the
expectations?
Whose behavior do
we use for criterion?
Who receives
reinforcer?
Example
individuals
One or two
individuals
The entire class is expected to complete a
math assignment. Each student earns
one homework pass if they finish the
assignment
Interdependent Entire group Entire group Entire group The entire class is expected to complete a
math assignment. If each and every
member of the class completes the
assignment, the entire class receives 1
free question on a test.
Dependent One or two
individuals
One or two
individuals
Entire group George is expected to complete his math
assignment. If he does so, the entire class
receives additional 5-minutes of
computer time.

Dependent and
interdependent
group
contingencies

Potential concerns
Children differ in their preferences for reinforcer dimensions
◦ Quality: time coloring vs. stickers
◦ Rate: how often tokens are delivered
◦ Delay of reinforcement: how often tokens can be exchanged
◦ Necessary response effort: how difficult it is to earn rewards
Temporal discounting (Ainslie, 1974): rewards lose value as latency to receipt increases
Concerns regarding use of edible reinforcement

Modifications:
Randomize components
Can randomize target behaviors, behavioral criteria,
rewards
Mystery Motivator
Certain days marked with an M in invisible marker on the
calendar using a variable ratio reinforcement schedule
If goal for the day is met, the calendar square is revealed
If there is an M, a reward is randomly selected
69

Modifications:
Exclude students from team points
◦ Modified that if one team member was responsible for a certain
number of points, they would not be counted as part of the team
that day (Hegerle et al., 1979)
◦ If one person got >4 marks/day, team could vote to exclude that
person; person missed opportunity to participate if team won that
week-worked in isolation (timeout) for next day to study alone
(Medland & Stachnik, 1972)
70

Dependent Group Contingencies
What if we weren’t satisfied with the quality of work that students
were doing?
We could say, “If everybody in the class turns in an assignment with
80% accuracy, the whole group gets a frisbee.”

We could say, “If everybody in the class turns in an assignment with 80% accuracy, the
whole group gets a Frisbee.”
Problem! What if some people can’t do the assignment?
Problem! What if a student fails to complete the assignment with 80% accuracy and
ends up causing everybody to lose their frisbee?
Problem! What if students don’t care about Frisbees?
Problem! What if the teacher does not want to track the behavior of all students?
Problem! What if students work hard on their math, but slough off on their other
assignments?
Problem! What if students stop working after they get 80% correct?

Solution?
A teacher has the following procedure at the end of the day:
I am going to pull three names from a hat?
Them, I am going to pull a subject out of the hat (math, reading, science
etc.)
Then I am going to pull a criterion out of the hat (60%, 70%, 80%, 90% etc.)
Then I am going to pull a prize out the hat if everybody meets that goal.
I will only announce student names if they met the criterion.

Does that solve our problems?
I am going to pull three names from a
hat?
Them, I am going to pull a subject out
of the hat (math, reading, science etc.)
Then I am going to pull a criterion out
of the hat (60%, 70%, 80%, 90% etc.)
Then I am going to pull a prize out the
hat if everybody meets that goal.
I will only announce student names if
they met the criterion.
What if some people can’t do the assignment?
What if a student fails to complete the
assignment with 80% accuracy and ends up
causing everybody to lose their frisbee?
What if students don’t care about Frisbees?
What if the teacher does not want to track the
behavior of all students?
What if students work hard on their math, but
slough off on their other assignments?
What if students stop working after they get
80% correct?

Fading
Provide reinforcement less frequently
Raise criterion for reinforcement
Raise behavioral expectations (e.g., number of target behaviors or
settings)

Limitations of teacher-directed
interventions
◦Costly and logistically difficult (Thomas, 1980)
◦May miss behavior (leading to inconsistent reinforcement)
◦Teacher becomes discriminative stimulus
◦Keeps control out of student’s hands

Self-Management Interventions
Selection & definition
of target behavior
Determination of
performance goals,
comparing actual
performance to goals,
monitoring performance
over time
Delivering instructional
prompt(s), observing /
recording behavior
Selection and administration
of primary reinforcers,
administration of secondary
reinforcers (e.g., tokens)
Most often
combined in a
package

Step 1: Identify and define target
behavior(s)
Increase a desirable behavior?
On-task/engagement
Social initiations
Class participation
Decrease an undesirable behavior?
Out of seat
Inappropriate verbalizations
Breaking rules
Create operational definition

Step 2: Determine time period for
implementation
Throughout the day?
During a particular time block?

Step 3: Determine what self-monitoring
method to use
Is the behavior a state or
event?
Event = clear beginning
and end; behaviors of
similar duration
State = semi-continuous;
difficult to count; varies in
length

method to use (state behaviors)
Can the behavior be counted?
Calling out
Raising hand
Social initiation

method to use (state behaviors)
Are you more interested in whether the behavior occurred or not?
Arriving at class on time
Bringing necessary materials
Writing down assignments

Step 3: Determine what
self-monitoring method to
use (event behaviors)
When behaviors are semi-
continuous or not easily counted,
consider use of interval recording
 How frequently will recording
occur?
 What will be used to prompt
rating?

method to use (event behaviors)
When behaviors are semi-continuous or not easily counted,
consider use of interval recording
How frequently will recording occur?
What will be used to prompt rating?
Or rating scale

Step 4: Determine how behavior will be
recorded
Paper-and-pencil recording form
Hand signals
Thumbs up/down/sideways w/ MS students (Briesch et al., 2013)
Raising hand with preschool students (Connell et al., 1993)
Place foam disk into container with students with ASD (Strain et al.,
1994)

Step 5: Determine whether a group
contingency will be used
Dependent group contingency
◦ Students individually self-monitor how well they are paying
attention
◦ The classroom teacher rates the behavior of the students sitting at
one randomly-selected table
◦ The class receives a point for every match between the students’
and the teacher’s ratings, which are exchanged for a class reward

Step 5: Determine whether a group
contingency will be used
Interdependent Group Contingency
◦ Students individually self-monitor how well they are paying
attention
◦ One point awarded to each student based on ratings
◦ If the average number of points for the class exceeds a certain
criterion, all students in the class receive a reward
89

Step 6: Determine whether/how
feedback will be delivered
Qualitative feedback
Goal-based evaluation
 Comparing performance to a goal to assess absolute performance
 Ex: Low levels of attention, teacher works with student to set goal
for attention and compares student’s rating to standard
Accuracy-based evaluation
 Comparing performance to an external standard to determine
accuracy of rating
 Ex: Both the student and teacher conduct ratings simultaneously
during class and then compare them

Step 6: Determine whether/how
feedback will be delivered
Will feedback be delivered by the teacher or other
classmates?
Classwide Peer-Assisted Self-Management (CWPASM;
Mitchem et al., 2001)
Students rate own behavior and the behavior of a peer
Receive points corresponding to peer’s rating
If self-rating corresponds with peer’s rating  earn bonus point
Will rewards be used?

Fading the Intervention
Reduce frequency of self-monitoring
Reduce the number of behaviors monitored
Move to student-determined rating periods
Fade matching to spot checks

Identifying the Problem
Traits
Can be preceded by
“is”
 -Overactive
 -Lazy
 -Shy
Behaviors
Observable &
measurable
-Out of seat
-Incomplete work
-Does not interact
with peers

Strong operational definitions
Include both examples (i.e., what the behavior is) and non-examples
(i.e., what the behavior is not)
Pass the “stranger test”
Complete stranger could read the definition and know what to observe
Pass the “dead-man test”
Behavior could not be demonstrated by a dead man
 Sits on the rug without bothering others

Determining the dimension of interest
Event
• Asking questions
• Calling out
• Hitting
• Raising hand
State
• Academically engaged
• Talking to classmates
• Tantrumming
• Tapping pencil

Event recording methods:
Frequency count/Rate
Used if interested in HOW OFTEN a behavior is occurring
Paper-and-pencil methods
Rubber bands, golf counter
If overall time period is inconsistent, need to calculate rate
(frequency/time)

Percentage of opportunities
Some behaviors are “opportunity-dependent”
In such cases, best to calculate percentage of opportunities (number
of times behavior occurred / number of possible times it could have
occurred)

Event recording
methods:
Scatterplot
Examine how behavior looks
across time to identify potential
patterns
Time periods determined by
considering how frequently the
behavior is believed to occur

Duration and latency recording
Duration recording
Recording when the behavior begins and when it ends
Latency recording
Recording how long it takes for the behavior to begin

State recording methods:
Interval recording
Partial-interval recording
Behavior occurs AT ANY TIME during the interval
Whole-interval recording
Behavior occurs FOR ENTIRE DURATION of the interval
Momentary-time sampling
Behavior occurs at PARTICULAR TIME during the interval

State recording
methods:
Interval
recording
CONSIDER ROTATING BETWEEN
STUDENTS OR SMALL GROUPS OF
STUDENTS

State recording methods:
Planned Activity Check (PLA)
Scan the room at pre-determined intervals and record the number
of students engaging in a target behavior

Rating-based tools:
Direct Behavior Rating (DBR)
Rating of a predetermined, operationally defined behavior at the
end of a predetermined block of time
Typically conducted using a Likert-type scale
Used when interested in frequency

Rating-based
tools:
Performance-
based behavioral
recordings
LIKERT-TYPE RATINGS OF
DURATION OR INTENSITY

Permanent product data
Extant data that are naturally occurring in the classroom/school
environment
Consider what lasting records of behavior result from
implementation of the intervention
Self-management recording forms
Log of tokens earned through token economy
Number of points each team earned within group contingency
intervention

Assessing Intervention Integrity

Methods of treatment integrity
measurement
Direct observation
Permanent
product recording
Self-report

Permanent product recording
Each step of the intervention should result in a tangible outcome

Assessing integrity
Adherence
Percentage of total steps completed within one day
Percentage of days on which each step was completed
Quality of delivery
Qualitative rating of how well the intervention was implemented
Participant responsiveness
Qualitative rating of how engaged and responsive participants were

How much is enough?
The magical 80% criterion may not always make sense
All components not equally important (which are most critical?)
Different students may require different levels of integrity
Different levels of integrity may be needed at different stages of
implementation

Boosting integrity
Include cueing procedure
Digital reminders
Integrity checklist
Solicit performance feedback
Verbal feedback
Visual feedback
Employ self-monitoring
Integrity checklist

Individualizing Classwide Interventions

Intensification strategy #1:
Increase dosage
Number of minutes per day
Number of days per week

Alter intervention delivery
Enhance explicit instruction
Additional modeling and/or practice
Increase frequency and explicitness of feedback
Increase power of reinforcement
Change role of interventionist

Change aspects of the environment
Alter task difficulty
Identify competing sources of reinforcement

Adding intervention components
Add self-monitoring component
Classwide expectations (plus individualized?)
Introduce external interventionist
Akin to Check-In Check-Out
Incorporate home-based component
Akin to Daily Report Card
Increase communication
Support generalization

References
Aloe, A., Amo, L., & Shanahan, M. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101–126.
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contingencies for group
consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.
Floress, M. T., & Jenkins, L. N. (2015). A preliminary investigation of kindergarten teachers’ use of praise in general
education classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 59, 253–262.
Gardner, R., III, Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic
achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 63–71.
Hegerle, D. R.. Kesecker, M. P., & Couch, J. V. (1979).. A behavior game for the reduction of inappropriate classroom
behaviors. School Psychology Digest, 8, 339–343.
Hulac, D. M., & Benson, N. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behaviors.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(4), 257–262.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first
grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and
Psychopathology, 10(2), 165-185.

References (continued)
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–
347.
Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based
group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625–654.
McKee, W. T., & Witt, J. C. (1990). Effective teaching: A review of instructional and environmental variables.
Medland, M. B., & Stachnik, T. J. (1972). Good Behavior Game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
5, 45–51.
Mitchem, K. J., & Young, K. R. (2001). Adapting self-management programs for classwide use: Acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness.
Remedial and Special Education, 22, 75–88.
Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., III, Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation
in an elementary school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483–490.
Greenberg, J., Putnam, H., & Walsh, K. (2014). Training our future teachers: Classroom management. Retrieved from
www.nctq.org/dmsView/Future_Teachers_Classroom_Management_NCTQ_Report.
O’Leary, K. D., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B., & Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school: A replication and
systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 3–13.

References (continued)
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom management self-efficacy: A review of
measurement instrument development and influences. Educational Psychology, 31(3), 261–299.
Skinner, C. H., Scala, G., Dendas, D., & Lentz, F. E. (2007). The Color Wheel: Implementation guidelines. Journal of
Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8, 134–140.
Tanol, G., Johnson, L., McComas, J., & Cote, E. (2010). Responding to rule violations or rule following: A
comparison of two versions of the Good Behavior Game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology,
48, 337–355.
The New Teacher Project (2013). Perspectives of irreplaceable teachers. Retrieved may 28, 2014 from tntp.org.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000–2001). Teacher follow-up survey
(“Questionnaire for current teachers” and “Questionnaire for former teachers”). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a
positive variation of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 173–180.

HULAC handout presentation (updated).ppt

More Related Content

Similar to HULAC handout presentation (updated).ppt

Recently uploaded

HULAC handout presentation (updated).ppt