Not surprisingly the response in education research has been to expand our knowledge of what effective classroom managers do and how they do it. As a result of a broadened definition of classroom management. today' s research moves away from a focus on controlling students’ behavior and looks instead at teacher actions to create, implement. and maintain a classroom environment that supports learning (Johnson and Brooks 1979; see Brophy 1983. and Doyle 1986. for comprehensive reviews).

Our purpose is to review the evolution in research on classroom management, to investigate how this knowledge translates into real experiences for teachers, and to suggest directions for further exploration.

Reviews of Research

Studies about time. "The association of learning with time is among the most consistent that education research reveals" (Walberg 1988, p. 84). Past research (Karweit 1988) indicates that:

• The amount of time students spend learning the curriculum varies from school to school.

• Even under the best of circumstances, half or less of the school day is used for instruction.

• The amount of instructional time spent is often associated with student achievement.

Although policymakers use these findings to support extending the school day. Walberg (1988) suggests that increases in productive time must accornpany increases in allocated time.

While the amount of time available imposes outer limits on what can be accomplished, the key issue is really how time is used. Effective classroom management conserves instruction time by planning activities and tasks to fit the learning materials: by setting and conveying both procedural and academic expectations constructing and teaching lessons on going-to-school-skills"): and by appropriately sequencing, pacing, monitoring, and providing feedback for student work (Emmer. Evertson, and Anderson l98O; Evertson and Emmer 1982).

Research indicates however, that teachers must be aware of and make visible what students are actually learning because students may seem involved in tasks without engaging in the content.  Bloome, Puro, and Theodorou (1989) refer to this as "procedural display" and "mock participation" when students and teachers engage in activities without being involved in the content substance.

Group managemnent strategies.
Kounin (1970). reaffirmed by Gump (1982). identified several strategies that teachers use to elicit high levels of work involvement and low levels of misbehavior
 

• Withitness — communicating awareness of student behavior:

• Overlapping’ — doing more than one thing at once:

• Smoothness and momentum —moving in and out of activities smoothly with appropriately paced and sequenced instruction: and

• Group alerrting — keeping all students attentive in a whole-group focus.

Lessons that engage students. Certain class activities also elicit varying degrees of student engagement (Gump 1982). For example. Kounin (1970) found highest student engagement (85 percent during recitation and lowest (65 percent) during seatwork. Other studies emphasize these findings, adding that

• frequent seatwork results in lower on-task behavior (Anderson 1984):

• alternating cycles of two shorter segments each of content development and seatwork maintain higher student involvement than single longer sequences (Evertson 1982): and

• student engaged rates during seatwork differ among teachers. while engaged rates during recitation are similar (Edenhart-Pepe. Hudgins. and Miller 1981).

Recitation remains the dominant instruction method probably because it. is an easier way to keep students involved, looks orderly. and seems equivalent to learning. Also, transitions required in more complex formats can result in lost time (Arlin 1979).

Teachers must recognize both academic and social dimensions of classroom tasks. For example students have to interpret not only what they are to learn, but how they are to participate. Teachers need to make clear their expectations and procedures for student participation, for example how to answer questions or bid for a turn (Green and Smith 1983; Weade and Evertson 1988).

Assignments with varying cognitive and procedural complexity have consequences for classroom management. Generally, more intellectually demanding academic work and activities in which students create products or encounter novel problems require complex management decisions (Bossert 1979), which demonstrates the interrelated nature of classroom management and the curriculum (Doyle and Carter, 1984).

Classroom communication. Studies about classroom communication —verbal and nonverbal ways that norms, rules, and expectations are signaled —show how both students and teachers actively mediate and construct the learning environment. See Erickson (1986) and Green and Smith (1983) for rev iews. Studies identify’ what students need to understand and to participate in lessons and how teachers orchestrate that participation. Some ritualistic activities, such as passing out papers. require little understanding. However, nonritualistic activities require students to "read" the requirements correctly or risk negative evaluations of their behavior and abilities (Green and Harker 1982). A close look at how class activities evolve reveals the need for a classroom management system that is visible,established, monitored. modified. refined, and reestablished.

Teachers’ managerial decisions. Expert teachers are influenced by a rich store of information that allows them to judge what are typical and nontvpical classroom scenes (Carter 1990). They see classrooms as "moving systems" and make managerial decisions based on their perceptions of how well students are working within those systems. These teachers interpret and act on cues from students that signal students’ inv olvement — or lack of it — in academic tasks (Carter. Cushing, Sabers. Stein, and Berliner 1988L

Beginning the year.   Kounin (1970) suggested that it is not so much what teachers do to stop misbehavior that characterizes effective group management, but how they’ prevent problems in the first place. In response. several studies investigated how effective managers began their school year and discovered that in both elementary and secondary classrooms the start of school is crucial to effective manacement (Emmer et al. 1980: Evertson and Emmer 1982). Teachers whose students demonstrated high on-task rates and academic achievement implemented a systematic approach toward classroom management at the beginning of the school year. They began the year by:

• preparing and planning classroom rules and procedures in advance:

• communicating their expectations clearly;

• establishinc routines and procedures, and teaching them along with expectations for appropriate perfor

mance: -

• systematically monitoring student academic work and behavior; and

• providing feedback about academic performance and behavior.

In classrooms with this sort of system, there are improved student task engagement, less inappropriate behavior, smoother transitions between activities, and generally higher academic performance (Emmer et al. 1980; Evertson and Emmer 1982).

Handling misbehavior. Of course, a carefully planned management system will not, by itself, stop all misbehavior, but teachers can usually handle it unobtrusively with techniques such as physical proximity or eye contact. More serious misbehavior may require more direct intervention. Because punishment neither teaches desirable behavior nor instills a desire to behave, it is perhaps best used as part of a planned response to repeated misbehavior. However, the success of intervention depends on orderly structures being in place. Well-understood norms and expectations for behavior must have previously existed (Doyle, 1990).

The same holds true for discipline programs such as Teacher Effectiveness Training. Reality’ Therapy. and Assertive Discipline. These systems provide methods for dealing with threats to classroom order, but Emmer and Ausikker (1990) found that none adequately addresses the complex preventive and supportive functions necessary for effective management and discipline. They contend that these systems "[fail] to address the day-to-day classroom management skills needed to engage students in productive activities and to prevent minor problems from becoming major ones" (p. 146). Their analysis of 36 studies supports the need to establish a comprehensive system of management and organization early in the year.

The continuing exploration of behavior modification techniques, especially in special education, is shifting from teacher control to student self-monitoring and self- control. Teachers who apply Meichenbaum’s (1977) ideas by using a combination of modeling and self-verbalization help aggressive students control anger, deal with frustration, and respond to errors with problem-solving efforts. In addition, as Doug and Lynn Fuchs and their colleagues at Peabody College, Vanderbilt, have found, a combination of goal-setting and self-recording techniques help at-risk students improve their behavior and academics and reduce special service referrals (Fuchs et al., 1990).

Educating Teachers in Classroom Management

While early studies provided generic information about classroom characteristics and teacher actions that produce order and student involvement, conceptual frames were needed to help teachers orchestrate these
principles in the fast pace of a classroom.

Subsequent field studies supported the concept of establishing a classroom management system at the beginning of the school year. Teachers in the experimental groups not only used significantly more management strategies and procedures than comparison groups, but also their students exhibited higher task engagement, less inappropriate behavior, and higher academic success (Evertson. Emmer. Sanford. and Clements 1983: Emmer. Sanford. Clements. and Martin 1983: Evertson 1985:1989).

These findings provide, evidence that research findings can and do influence teacher decisions about management practices (Evertson et al.. 1983: Evertson 1985. 1989: Putnam and Barnes 1984).

However, this is not the whole story.  Learning to teach is a complex enterprise that requires practice in problem-solving more than acquisition of rote skills (Brophy, 1988: Evertson, 1987). To achieve that end. educators at Peabody College. Vanderbilt. are using videodisc technology’ to design problem-solving contexts requiring managerial decisions. See also Richardson (1990) for work on ways to use research as a base for teacher preparation.

Future Inquiry

As recent research indicates, three topics should be central to the future study of classroom management and discipline: school level discipline and classroom management; quality of academic tasks: and classroom management in different contexts.

School discipline and classroom management. Although not included in this review abundant literature documents how school-level discipline influences classroom management (Moles 1990). The view presented is that the school and community cultures affect the values and decisions teachers make in their management systems. In other words teachers’ management decisions that are not supported at the school and community levels lose credibility’ with students.

Quality of academic tasks. Good management and organization must focus more on the content and substance of what is being managed and less on the look of engagement. Whereas good classroom management is necessary for learning it does not stand alone. Recent research has identified classrooms with high levels of student engagement but meager academic content, resulting in low levels of learning (Weade and Evertson 1988).

Classroom management in different contexts.The current climate of school reform clearly calls for teaching problem-solving and higher order thinking skills, integrating learning experiences within and across subject areas, and implementing multiple tasks (Resnick 1987). Enacting these changes requires new methods of organization and management (Cohen and Lotan 1990; Marshall in press). Most classroom management studies have looked at classrooms with routinized, predictable academic tasks and activities. Little research has examined different instructional contexts, for example, whole language settings or process writing, and the managerial decisions required (Edelsky, Draper, and Smith 1983).

All in all, future research needsto address these questions: How can classroom management and organization support students’ substantive learning? And what is the nature and quality of the learning that is supported?

References

Anderson. L. W. (1984). Time and School Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. London: Croom Helm.

Arlin. M. (1979). "Teacher Transitions Can- Disrupt Time Flow in Classrooms."
American Educational Research Journal 16. 1: 42-56.

Bloome. D., P. Puro. and E. Theodorou. (1989). "Procedural Display’ and Classroom Lessons." Curriculum Inquiry 19. 3: 265-291.

Bossert. S. T. (1979). Tasks and Social Relationships in CIassrooms.  Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Brophy. .1. E. (1983). "Classroom Organization and Management." The Elementary School Journal 83. 4: 265-285.

Brophy. J. E. (1988). "Educating Teachers About Managing Classrooms and Students." Teaching and Teacher Education 4. 1:1-18.

Carter. K. (1990). "Teachers’ Knowledge and Learning to Teach." In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, edited by R. Houston. New York: Macmillan.

Caner. K. K. Cushing. D. Sabers. P. Stein. and D. Berliner. (1988). "Expert-Novice Differences in Perceiving and Processing Visual Classroom Information." Journal of Teacher Education 39. 3: 25-31.

Cohen. E. G. and R. A. Lotan. (1990). "Teacher as Supervisor of Complex Technology •~‘ Theory into Practice 29. 2: 78-84.

Doyle. W. (1986). "Classroom Ortzanization and Management. In Haandbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed). edited by M. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.

Doyle. W. (1990). "Classroom Management Techniques." In Su,deutt Disci~tliiwStratet’ic.%. edited by O.C. Moles.  Albany. N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Doyle. W. and K. Caner. (1984).  "Academic Tasks in Classrooms." Curricuhon hcc~uirv 14. 2:129—149.

Edelsky. C.. K. Draper. and K. Smith. (1983). "Hookin’ ‘Em In at the Stan of School in a ‘Whole Language’ Classroom." Anthro~,ologv and Education Quarter/v 14.4: 257-28 I.

Edenhart-Pepe. M. M.. B. B. Hudgins. and D. M. Miller. (April1981). "Who is Engaged More — Teacher or Students?  An Analysis of How Activity Structures Affect Student Learning Engagement." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Los Angeles.

Emmer. E. T., and A. Aussiker. (1990). "School and Classroom Discipline Programs: How Well Do They Work?" In Student Discipline Strateg es edited by 0. C. Moles, Albany, N.i: State
University of New York Press.

Emmer. E. T., C. M. Evertson. and L. M. Anderson. (1980). "Effective Classroom Management at the Beginning of the School Year." The Elementary School Journal 80,5: 219-231.

Emmer, E. T., I. P. Sanford. B. S Clements. and I. Martin. (March 1983). "Improving Junior High Classroom Management." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 234 021).

Erickson. F. (1986). "Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching." In Handbook of Re.’,earch on Teaching (3rd ed). edited by NI. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.

Evertson. C. NI. (1982). "Differences in Instructional Activities in Higher- and Lower-Achieving Junior High Enelish and Math Classes." The Elementary Sc/zoo! Journal 82. 4: 329-350.

Esertson. C. NI. (1985). "Training Teachers in Classroom Management: An Experimental Study in Secondary School Classrooms." Jour,,c,/ of Echtzc~ttio,,ci/ Re.%earch 79. I: 51-57.

E~ertson. C. NI. (1987). "Creating Conditions for Learning: From. Research to Practice." Theory Iwo Practice ‘6 ‘.~-50.

Evertson. C. NI. (1989). "lmprosin~ Classroom Management: A School-Based Program for Beginning the Year." J.’ntr,,al of Edctcat,onal Research 83. 2: 82-90.

Evertson. C. M.. E. T. Emmer. I. P. Sanford. and B. S. Clements.( 983). "Improving Classroom Management: An Experiment in Elementary School Classrooms." The Elementary Sc’hzo~lJournal 84.2:173-188.

Evertson. C. M.. and E. T. Emmer. (1982). "Effective Management at the Beginning of the School Year in Junior HighClasses."Journal of Educational Psychology 74.4: 485-498.

Fuchs, D., L. Fuchs. S. Gilman. P. Reeder.M. Bahr, P. Fernstrom. and H. Roberts.(1990). "Preferral Intervention Through Teacher Consultation: Mainstream Assistance Teams." Academic’ Therapym,25, 3: 263-276.

Green,J. L., and D. Smith. (1983). "Teaching and Learning: A Linguistic Perspective." The Ele;nentar~’ School Journal 83,4: 353-391.

Green, .1. L., andi. Harker (I982)."Gaining Access to Learning: Conversational, Social, and Cognitive Demands of Group Participation." In Comnwnicating in the Classroom, edited by L. C.
Wilkinson. New York: Academic Press.

Gump, P. V. (1982). "School Settings and Their Keeping." In Helping Teachers Manage Classrooms, edited by D. Duke. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Cumculum Development.

Johnson. M.. and H. Brooks. (1979). "Conceptualizing Classroom Management." In Classroom Mana~enzent (78th Yearbook of the National Society’ for the Study of Education. Part II). edited by 0. Duke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karweit. N. (1988. Fehruarv. "Time-on-Task: The Second Time Around." .\ASSP Bulletin 72. 505: 31-39.

Kounin. J. 5. d970). Discipline amid Group .‘.4anage,nent in Claxsroomn.y New York: Halt. Rinehart and Winston.

Marshall. H. H. (Ed.) in press). Supporting Stiiclemti Lecir,uiu t.’: Rune, of Eclitccitwncjl
Clu;,,t,’c’. Norwood. N.J.: Ab(exPublishing Corp.

Meichenbaum. D. (1977). Co’,’,iitit’eBehtci imp .Woc/i/jc cai ‘n - Nes\ York:Plenum.

Moles. 0. C. I 99(1). Sun/en, Disciplin Strcttc’t,’ic.i: Rc’ sectrc It amid Practice. Albany. N.Y.: State l.inis crsits of New York Press.

Putnam. J. and H. Barnes. (1984). "Applications of Classroom Manage-mciii Research Findings." Research Series 154. Institute for Research on Teaching. East Lansing. Mich.:Michigan State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 256 752).

Resnick. L. B. (1987). Education and Learning to Think. Washington. D.C.: National Academy Press.

Richardson. V. (1990). "Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice." Educ’ational Researcher 19. 7: 10-18.

Veenman, S. (1984). "Perceived Needs of Beginning Teachers." Review of Educatio,zal Research 54. 2:143-178.

Walberg, H. (1988). "Synthesis of Research on Time and Learning."  Educational Leadership 45.6: 76-85.

Weade, R., and C. M. Evertson (1988) "The Construction of Lessons in Effective and Less Effective Classrooms." Teaching and Teacher Education 4. 3: 189-2 13.

Carolyn M. Evertson is Professor of Education  Alene H. Harris is Research
Assistant Professor of Education. They can be contacted at Box 541, Peabody
College. Vanderbilt University. Nashville.