Chapter II
Literature Review

It is a widely accepted fact that educational training and experience influence teachers’ practices and beliefs in the manners in which they individually approach classroom management (Martin and Sass, 2010). The very thought of classroom management brings to mind an array of opinions, ideas, and definitions. However, it cannot be easily defined since classroom management involves a very broad scope of definitions (Martin & Sass, 2010). According to Martin and Sass (2010), classroom management entails an “umbrella of definitions that include learning interactions, learning, and the behavior of students” (p. 1125). I include the self-efficacy, educational training and the experiences of teachers to the umbrella definition of classroom management.

This chapter will present a brief overview of the theories influencing classroom management, models of classroom management, empirical research in the field of classroom management, and the effects of variables associated to this research study. First, behavioral theorist such as John Dewey, B. F. Skinner, William Glasser, Jean Piaget, and Albert Bandura will be discussed since they have played a central role in teachers’ classroom management philosophies. Second, classroom management models by Lee Canter, Linda Albert, Harry Wong, and Kame'enui, Sugai, Colvin and Lewis will be discussed. Next, empirical research by Ladner (2009), Baker (2005), Little and Akin- Little (2008), and Martin and Sass (2010) will be presented. In the final section, research on the demographic variables of this study will be discussed.
The past century has brought about many changes in education. As theories have evolved, approaches to classroom management have changed. In the past, teachers focused on controlling students based on Skinnerian ideas. Presently, a broader research agenda to classroom management is on the rise to identify approaches utilized by teachers (Andreou & Rapti, 2010; Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008; Sunwoo & Koh, 2007). The two major components of classroom management are Instructional Management and Behavior Management. Both components of classroom management have been influenced by behavioral psychologists, models of classroom management, and federal and state mandates (Alderman, 2001; National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983; National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support, 2009). Thus, the present study cannot limit the discussion to a certain behavioral theory but includes other theories that shape the current understanding of classroom management. In this chapter, the author will present Theoretical Research, Models of Classroom Management, Empirical Research, and the Effects of Variables.

Theoretical Research
This study will use the theories of Glasser (1997) and Bandura (1986, 1997) to determine whether a relationship exists between the demographic factors and the behavior management and instructional management practices used the College of Education faculty teachers at Partido State University, Goa, Camarines Sur. These theories shape the understanding of what is known about behavior management and instructional management practices in relation to classroom management. According to the Glasser's (1997) reality and choice theories, the understanding and redirection of misbehavior through logical consequences conditioning would benefit classroom management techniques used in the classroom. Bandura (1986, 1997) also believed that the way children learn is based on their perceptions and imitations of behaviors displayed by parents, teachers, and other adults. The key idea of these theories is that the environmental factors conditions and the display of behavior that children imitate are key factors that can also be used in managing these behaviors. These theories will be used as a guiding principle of the study. In addition to these theories, the author will also discuss the theories of Piaget (1983), Dewey (1916), and Skinner (1954), which have played pivotal roles on how teachers manage classrooms. These theories only present early perspectives regarding classroom management.

William Glasser. William Glasser devised the reality and choice theories that involve an understanding and redirection of misbehavior through logical consequences conditioning. According to Glasser (1997), “Choice Theory teaches that we are all driven by four psychological needs embedded in our genes: the need to belong, the need for power, the need for freedom, and the need for fun” (p. 17). In essence, choice theory provides opportunities for students and teachers to understand the individual behavioral differences of others. Through these opportunities, changes occur in the classroom since teachers become more understanding of how students need to be treated while, at the same time, teachers and students place each other into their own personal worlds. Classroom management becomes much easier since both teachers’ and students’ take on more optimistic attitudes. As such, Choice theory has become a strategy used as an instructional management and behavior management technique in classrooms today. Glasser’s reality theory involves the redirection of misbehavior through logical consequences conditioning, which consists of several factors needed to meet the basic needs of students. Some of the factors include teachers demonstrating to students that they care and have a personal interest, teacher/student conferences, providing students with opportunities to evaluate their own behavior and accept responsibility, and developing and monitoring improvement plans for students (Glasser, 1986 & 1997).

Albert Bandura. Behaviorist Albert Bandura developed the social learning theory based on the theory of personality. One particular view he had in common with Glasser was the belief that people would learn appropriate and inappropriate behaviors from one another. Bandura offered a behavior management technique within his personal belief that an individual’s environment would determine their behavior. He believed that as behaviors were demonstrated, individuals would learn from one another (Bandura, 1993). According to Bandura's (1986, 1997) social learning theory, individuals possess a self-efficacy or self-belief system that enables them to apply self-control to their thoughts, motivations, actions, and feelings at various levels throughout life. He defined self-efficacy as the "beliefs in one's capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1997, p. 2). Self-efficacy is a central component in managing classrooms today. Bandura (1997) believed that self-efficacy influenced the choices people make and helped develop new knowledge since individual experiences become a building foundation through which each person exhibits his or her behavior. Essentially, in order for a person to achieve a particular goal, different behaviors are demonstrated. The display of behavior is a multidimensional paradigm with many variables to consider. Some of the variables may include surrounding environments, personal beliefs, particular situational tasks, and personal capabilities. Bandura (1997) evokes a “triadic reciprocal causation” (Bandura, 1997, p. 6) as the identifier in explaining how personal behavior and characteristics, as well as the surrounding environment, interact with one another in a way that makes people both products and producers in their environments. For example, individuals possess feelings that fluctuate in various situations. As these feelings fluctuate, particular behaviors are exhibited. These behaviors can be rationalized utilizing the triadic reciprocal causation. Therefore, the efficacy beliefs that an individual possesses is the knowledge of their skills, which determines their actions in the present and future. Efficacy beliefs are constantly changing as new skills, experiences, knowledge, and surroundings change (Bandura, 1997). Bandura’s theory presents a classroom management technique for teachers based on the idea that teachers are capable of shaping students’ behavior by persuading and helping them realize that they have the power to change.

Conclusion. Theories of Glasser (1997) and Bandura (1986, 1997) are crucial concepts in understanding the relationship of instructional and behavior management practices and demographical variables between middle school and high school teachers. The theory of Glasser (1997) tackles the need to consider the psychological needs inherit in the genes of an individual, which are critical in understanding the behavioral differences. The theory of Bandura (1997) emphasizes the importance of social influence to learning, which thus influences the behavior of an individual. The use of these theories is justified in the present study because these theories complement each weakness. For instance, while Glasser’s (1997) theory of choice explains that all individuals have behavioral differences as a result of varying levels of needs such as belongingness, power, freedom, and fun, Bandura’s (1997) theory emphasizes that social environment influences the behavior of an individual. The present study aims to capture information regarding the influence of individual’s psychological needs and the learning adopted within his or her environment in relation to instructional and behavioral management practices of teachers in middle schools and high schools. Therefore, these theories will be used in light of achieving the purpose of the study.

Early Theories of Classroom Management
The works of Glasser and Bandura have been influenced by the early work of John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, and Jean Piaget. These theorists are pioneers in providing theoretical understanding of classroom management in the light of the behaviorist perspective. The subsequent subsection details the differences of each theory.

John Dewey. In the early 1900’s, many educational systems were influenced by the philosophy of John Dewey. Dewey believed that classroom management should be guided by democratic practices with consequences and offered the theory of experience through social learning (Dewey, 1916). His theory prompted educators to begin thinking about how experiences transpire in the classroom in relation to social order. Overall, Dewey believed that children were capable of learning, behaving cooperatively, sharing with others, and caring for one another with the teacher as a facilitator. He believed that instructional management included a natural approach involving direction and guidance and that behavior management included the sequential behavior development of students. In Dewey’s opinion (1916), behavior management and instructional management involve the “reforming [of] the notion of mind and its training.” Many teachers practice this technique today as a central component of classroom management.

B. F. Skinner. The operant learning theory by B.F. Skinner was introduced in the mid-1950’s. As a behaviorist, Skinner emphasized various approaches designed to help individuals change their behavior. For the most part, he believed that good behavior should be rewarded in the classroom (Skinner, 1954, p. 91). Nevertheless, Skinner is most recognized for his experiments with positive, negative and no reinforcement as a selection process to help shape behaviors (Staddon, 2006, p. 555). His idea proposed that reoccurring behavior was dependent upon consequences that followed a particular behavior. Therefore, positive reinforcement was motivational to individuals and negative reinforcement created aversiveness. According to Skinner (1954), aversiveness had been a dominant feature in many classrooms for the first half of the 20th century (p. 90). Although he believed that internal events have no scientific significant and that individual behavioral transformation existed due to the reshaping of environmental influences, his theory began reshaping how teachers managed their classrooms. During the 1950’s, Skinner’s theory became a driving force in education. Teachers began analyzing and changing the types of control demanded of students in the classroom and individual behavior management techniques began to emerge.

Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget was best known for his cognitive development theory (Piaget, 1983). He believed that people constructed their own intelligence based on their environmental surroundings and experiences. To Piaget, cognitive development was a progressive reorganization of knowledge based on experience and maturity. He suggested that there were two main principles through which children should acquire knowledge: assimilation and accommodation (Feldman, 2004). Assimilation was defined as “the process by which people understand and experience in terms of their current stage of cognitive development and way of thinking” (Feldman, 2004, p. 165). Accommodation was defined as making changes in “our existing way of thinking, understanding, or behaving, in response to encounters with new stimuli or events” (Feldman, 2004, p. 165). Piaget asserted that in order for either of these to take place, students should be presented with a learning environment that allows them to make meaning. In order for either assimilation or accommodation to take place, Piaget (1983) advocated for students to be presented with a learning environment that allows them to make meaning by going through a process of disequilibrium, in which they are confused and usually uncomfortable with the knowledge they have discovered. Due to disequilibrium, students would seek to learn more or make meaning to reach a state of equilibrium once again. This process of learning requires teachers to manage classrooms using a similar technique – to learn by doing. Piaget’s cognitive development theory brought newly designed classroom management approaches including cooperative learning, conflict management, discipline with dignity, and several others. Nevertheless, Piaget’s theory lacked one important concept – that of socialization in the classroom. As teachers turned away from controlling their classes, behavior management and instructional management techniques began to develop into broader concepts.

Conclusion. The historical implications in classroom management have evolved from several theoretical perspectives within the past century. Although behaviorism and socialism play a vital role in classroom management, there is a common characteristic within the two perspectives. The reoccurring theme espoused by Bandura, Skinner, Glasser, Piaget, and Dewey involve learning from experience and this idea does influence the behavior management and instructional management techniques used by teachers in classrooms today (Wong & Wong, 2009; Sugai, 2007; Scarlett, Ponte, & Singh, 2008; Hopson, 2008; Canter, 2006).

Models of Classroom Management
Several models of classroom management have evolved over the past five decades. There are four relevant approaches to classroom management that will be explained as it pertains to this study. These approaches are Assertive Discipline, The First Days of School, Cooperative Discipline, and Positive and Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Many of the classroom management approaches used today involve a mixture of behavior management and instructional management techniques (Wong & Wong, 2009; Sugai, 2007; Scarlett, Ponte, & Singh, 2008; Hopson, 2008; Canter, 2006).

Assertive Discipline. In 1976, Lee and Marlene Canter developed and published the Assertive Discipline plan for classroom management. The Canters believe that the key to behavior management is through assertive discipline practice (Canter & Canter, 1976, 1992). The Assertive Discipline method requires teachers to implement a discipline plan in order to prevent behavioral problems by utilizing proactive techniques that foster responsible behavioral choices made by students (Canter & Canter, 1976, 1992). Later, in Classroom Management for Academic Success (2006), Lee Canter presents a new strategy for instructional management in order to create positive learning environments. The new strategy emphasizes the use of methodological approaches such as small group learning and class projects for instructional purposes. Some of the characteristics of this approach include behavior management strategies such as the implementation of rules, procedures, and student expectations. Although Canters classroom management approach promotes the idea of motivating students beyond their individual potential, he recommends the continued use of the Assertive Discipline approach in order to maintain a well-managed class for academic success (Canter, 2006). Overall, the Assertive Discipline model presents an interventionist approach to classroom management that is based on Skinnerian theory. It is very structured, renders a negative connotation since students are rewarded too frequently for expected behavior, and offers a more authoritative approach to behavior management.

The First Days of School. Another significant model to classroom management was presented by Harry and Rosemary Wong. In their book, How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Days of School (2009), the Wongs identify four characteristics of a well-managed classroom that includes both behavior management and instructional management perspectives:
1. Students are deeply involved with their work, especially with academic, teacherled instruction.
2. Students know what is expected of them and are generally successful.
3. There is relatively little wasted time, confusion, or disruption.
4. The climate of the classroom is work-oriented but relaxed and pleasant. (p. 86)
Imbedded within the four characteristics are behavior management components such as classroom rules, procedures, and a discipline plan with consequences for positive and negative behaviors. The Wongs believe that teachers should establish and teach procedures by using a three-step approach that involves explaining, practicing and writing classroom procedures, rules, and consequences (Wong & Wong, 2009). The Wong’s approach includes instructional management strategies that are a function of classroom procedures. The entire approach to classroom management is based on directives for procedures and classroom rules (Wong & Wong, 2009). In addition, the Wongs recommend for teachers to post all classroom management plans in the classroom for the entire school year. This non-interventionist approach to classroom management promotes use of visual cues to redirect behavior while providing students with the opportunities to self-correct unacceptable behavior (Wong & Wong, 2009). This component offers teachers and students a supportive vs. authoritative aspect to behavior management and instructional management. The theory that supports this model is based on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory since teachers take a direct role in helping students realize that they can change their behavior and learning environments (Wong & Wong, 2009).

Cooperative Discipline. Linda Albert (1989) developed the Cooperative Discipline approach to behavior management. The Cooperative Discipline approach entails interactionists’ ideology that brings together the teacher, parent, and student. In Albert’s model, everyone plays a role. Overall, Cooperative Discipline is based on a community belief that the needs of all individual students should be met. In order to accomplish this, teachers implement plans that address a code of conduct, conflict resolution, cooperative discipline, helping students connect with teachers and peers, and students and parents as partners. For example, teacher and students connect through acceptance, attention, appreciation, affirmation, and affection. In addition, contributions are encouraged in all aspects from in the class to helping one another. Although the model takes on a proactive approach, it also promotes a democratic atmosphere in the classroom since the teacher’s behavior changes toward a more positive approach to behavior management. The model functions with a socialization aspect since student and teacher collaborate in a democratic environment using logical consequences models. This type of approach to behavior management is a mixture of theories presented by Piaget, Dewey, and Glasser.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) approach is a school-wide behavior support system that was first developed in the 1980’s by Kame'enui, Sugai, Colvin and Lewis (Sugai & Homer, 2002 & 2006). In the classroom, the general goal of PBIS is focused on preventing problem behaviors by implementing prosocial and intensive interventions for students as problems occur. Some of the interventions include conferring with students, modeling, token systems, praise, and positive reinforcements (Sugai & Horner, 2008). PBIS functions as a behavior management model with the notion that instructional management is intertwined within the foundations of behavior management techniques. The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system incorporates a tier method in behavior management from a school-wide and classroom approach to individualized management plans (Sugai, 2007). A central component of the PBIS program is the teachers classroom management strategies. According to Sugai and Horner (2008), the strategies used by teachers should encompass three basic components that include making the most of instructional time, implementing activities that foster academic achievement, and initiating behavioral management routines by using a proactive approach. This type of approach entails a mixture of integrated theories based on work by Skinner, Glasser, Bandura, Piaget, and Dewey.

Empirical Research
Ongoing research in the field of classroom management has produced several theories and evaluated several classroom management approaches. The empirical research that guides this study is based on findings by several authors (Baker, 2005; Little & Akin-Little, 2008; Ladner, 2009; Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008; Martin & Sass, 2010). The most pivotal findings that are a driving force behind this study are from Martin and Sass (2010). According to Martin and Sass (2010), classroom management is a “multi-faceted construct that includes two independent constructs: Behavior Management and Instructional Management” (p. 1126). Martin and Sass (2010) developed the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS), which is based on the belief that behavior management and instructional management styles are related to teacher efficacy, the environment, and the individuals present in the classroom (p. 1132). The BIMS was developed in five stages to identify teacher – student interactions such as noninterventionist, interactionalist, and interventionist as a function of behavior management and instructional management. The psychometric properties of the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale were analyzed in five stages. First, operational definitions were developed. Second, items for the questionnaire were developed based on classroom observations, operational definitions, and research. Third, a field test consisting of 94 graduate students completed the survey and provided feedback. Fourth, items were revised or removed based on feedback and factor analysis. The final stage included retesting the instrument on approximately twenty-three K-12 classroom teachers (Martin & Sass, 2010). Martin and Sass (2010) conducted three studies on the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS), which involved 550 certified teachers from the southwestern United States. In the first study, Martin and Sass evaluated a shortened version of the 24- item BIMS through exploratory factor analysis. The correlation factor analysis revealed a reliability factor of .85, respectively. The second study examined the validity and reliability using confirmatory factor analysis in the shortened 12-item version of the BIMS. Both behavior management and instructional management factors showed good internal consistency (α¼ .774) and (α ¼.770). Each indicator correlated to appropriate corresponding factors. However, Martin and Sass believed that discriminate and convergent validity was needed to address between items on the BIMS. This led to the third study involving a comparison between the BIMS and the short version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (p. 1126). The results showed an inverse relationship between the two scales and presented a good overall model fit with a significance level of .004. The results of all three studies proved that the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale effectively measures teachers' views of their practices in both behavior management and instructional management. Martin and Sass recommend the 24 item BIMS for future studies to include correlations across gender, age, content areas, and grade levels. Other research presents similar findings. Baker’s (2005) study sought to uncover the self-efficacy beliefs of 345 Ohio public school teachers from an array of schools on varying academic levels by utilizing a survey. For the most part, the survey was designed by the author and was a combination of Brouwers and Tomic’s (2001) Teacher Interpersonal Self-Efficacy and a survey instrument designed by Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson (1994). Using a Likert scale to determine the self-perceptions of classroom management skills and the use of behavior management techniques used in the classroom, results of the study showed a correlation between teacher’s readiness for controlling disruptive behaviors and perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom management. Research also investigated classroom management practices and identified four major components involved in these practices. These components include classroom rules, enhanced classroom environment, reinforcement strategies, and reductive procedures (Little & Akin-Little, 2008). Little and Akin-Little administered a self-assessment survey on classroom management practices to 149 teachers that incorporated the four major components of classroom management. Results of the survey showed that 19% of the teachers required students to copy the class rules that were read by the teacher, 97% reported verbal praise as a reinforcement for appropriate behavior, 83% reported using verbal reprimands in response to class disruptions, and 63% reported that repeated behavioral problem students privileges were revoked while 10% reported the use of corporal punishment as a response to chronic offenders. The study offered a primary investigation of teacher’s use of rules, procedures, and consequences. Research has also focused on the variables associated to classroom management. Ladner (2009) examined teacher training, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, Response to Intervention, curriculum-based measurements methods, behavioral interventions, and school-wide positive behavior support models of 216 teachers from three public school districts (K-3rd grade). While these variables play a vital role in the way classrooms are managed today, results showed that a low percentage of teachers demonstrate an interventionist attitude when building relationships with students. In addition, the study found that several teachers believe that establishing rules for students is an essential component of classroom management.
Classroom management practices of approximately 55 teachers were also evaluated by administering the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES). Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, and Quek (2008) identified the relationships between teachers’ efficacy beliefs and demographic variables, such as age, years of experience, gender, and the number of levels taught. According to Yeo et al., “The TSES yields scores on three dimensions of teacher efficacy, namely, instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement” (2008, p. 198). The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is comprised of 24 questions using a Likert scale. Reliability and validity were established in previous studies (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). Results of the study showed no significant differences in teacher gender and the number of levels taught. While teacher efficacy of classroom management in relation to the teacher’s age yielded significant differences, the study indicated that older teachers scored higher than younger teachers in classroom management. Significant differences in classroom management and years of teaching experience were higher for teachers with more than five years experience. As such, the years of experience and age are highly correlated to teacher’s efficacy beliefs. While the studies reviewed had provided the relationship between the efficacy of teachers in classroom management and the demographic variables (Baker, 2005; Little & Akin-Little, 2008; Ladner, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008; Martin & Sass, 2010), these studies have failed to evaluate the differences of teachers in middle schools and high schools. As implicated in the early work of Glasser and Bandura, psychological needs and the social environment of an individual influence the present and future behavior of both teachers and students within and outside the classroom (Bandura, 1986; Glasser, 1986). The environment and teaching preparations of both middle school and high school teachers are different, which are appropriate for the type of students they will be teaching. Thus, there is a reason to believe that a significant difference may exist regarding the behavior management and instructional management practices between teachers of middle school and high school. However, no empirical evidence is available to support the claim of the author.

Demographic Variables
Numerous studies have investigated the effects of the variables associated with this study on several topics in the education field. Each study presents mixed results in regards to the many themes associated to classroom management. In this section, the effects of gender, years teaching experience, academic level, and highest obtained educational degrees will be evaluated.

Gender. The issue of gender difference has been studied by several researchers on array of topics. Stes, Gijbels, and Petegem (2008) surveyed 50 teachers using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) to determine if a relationship existed between various teacher demographics and student achievement levels, the number of students in the classroom, and teaching discipline (p. 255). Data analysis revealed no statistical difference (F[1, 45] <.01, p=0.99) between teacher gender and the conceptual/studentfocused component of the ATI (p. 262). The lack of statistical difference may be attributed to the small sample size. Chudgar and Sankar (2008) had similar results from their study that investigated gender differences in the area of classroom management practices of teachers. The study involved 1319 teachers in India that were presented with a set of four open-ended questions to respond to in the area of classroom management practices (Chudgar & Sankar, 2008, p. 631). The study found that male teachers focused more on maintaining authority in the classroom. In addition to the gender variable, several other variables were analyzed such as experience, qualifications, and learning outcomes by using secondary data (Chudgar & Sankar, 2008, p. 635). Overall, no statistical significance was found between gender and classroom management. The major finding of the study as it pertains to classroom management was that 10% of the female teachers in this study reported that they were less likely to view the need for strict discipline in the classroom as compared to their male counterparts (Chudgar & Sankar, 2008, p. 635). Savran and Cakiroglu (2003) used the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control inventory to evaluate 646 preservice teachers and had similar findings. Data analysis revealed no gender differences in the area of instructional management (Savran & Cakiroglu, 2003, p. 18). In a cross-cultural study, Akin-Little, Little, and Laniti (2007), analyzed survey results from 246 American and Greek teachers. They discovered that teachers had similar responses from the two countries. Although the author did not indicate the type or name of the survey administered, the data analysis revealed that male and female teachers used rules and positive reinforcement as the two major components of classroom management (Akin-Little, Little, & Laniti, 2007, p. 59). In a current study by Unal and Unal (2012), no differences between male and female teachers were found. Unal and Unal (2012) administered the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale to 268 primary school teachers in Turkey. Overall, the analysis indicated that both female and male teachers favored behavior management techniques with fewer male and female teachers selecting instructional management techniques as a guide in classroom management (p. 53). Other factors associated to classroom management present noteworthy findings. Bulach’s and Berry’s (2001) research revealed that females were more positive than males on climate factors. Further research (Evans, Harkins, & Young, 2008; Lacey & Saleh, 1998; Nevgi, Postareff, & Lindblom- Ylänne, 2004) suggests that more males than females were apt to use teacher-focused approaches to learning that were structured and controlling. Research has investigated other aspects of gender differences including classroom management efficacy, job burnout, and job satisfaction (Ozdemir, 2007;
Landers, Alter, & Servilio, 2008). Ozedmir’s (2007) study revealed that gender was not a predictor of classroom management efficacy and emotional exhaustion (p. 5). For the purpose of the study, 523 teachers completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Teacher Efficacy in Classroom Management and Discipline Inventory (Ozedmir, 2007, p. 3). Further investigation of the data collected showed a significant linear combination between classroom management efficacy, gender, martial status, and experience (Ozedmir, 2007, p. 5). In opposition, Landers, Alter, and Servilio (2008) analyzed the data collected from 540 teachers that were administered the Teacher Job Satisfaction Survey and discovered that no gender differences were present (p. 29). Contradictorily, Martin, Yin, and Mayall (2007) discovered gender differences in their study. In their study, the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control-Revised inventory was administered to 489 teachers from several school districts in the southwest. The results indicated that female teachers scored higher in instructional management than their male counter parts (F (1,487= 8.02, p < .005) (Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2007, p. 18). In a cross-cultural study, Shin and Koh (2007) administered the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control (ABBC) inventory to 116 American teachers and 167 Korean teachers. The data analysis revealed that gender make-up in the two countries are quite different. In the United States, 70% female and 30% male teachers completed the inventory whereas, 70% male and 30% female teachers completed the inventory in Korea (Shin & Koh, 2007, p. 291). For the most part, Shin and Koh (2007) discovered that male teachers in both countries intervened in student conversations regarding behavior as a means to control situations that arise in the classroom (p. 301). Several other variables and factors were analyzed in the study. According to Shin and Koh (2007), “mean scores of the ABCC inventory regarding teachers’ instructional and student management indicated that American teachers were more control oriented and actively involved in their instruction and student management than were Korean teachers” (p. 302). Similarly, a study by Khan, Khan, and Majoka (2011) examined gender differences of rural and urban teacher’s use of classroom management strategies. Khan et al. identified the components of classroom management as behavior and instructional management (p. 581). The behavior management component included strategies associated to content management and conduct management (Khan, Khan, & Majoka, 2011, p. 581). The instructional management component included strategies such as covenant management and time management (Khan, Khan, & Majoka, 2011, p. 582). Overall, male teachers outscored females teachers in total classroom management with reported means scores of 186.72 and 173.13 respectively (Khan, Khan, & Majoka, 2011, p. 585). Khan et al. (2011) reported that urban male teachers scored higher than rural teachers in classroom management however, they do not provide the statistical analysis to support this claim. Overall, no other research has been conducted that centers on gender differences for both behavior management and instructional management as variables.

Years Teaching Experience. Teaching experience, as a variable, has been evaluated in several research studies. Many of the studies focus on self-efficacy, instructional management, people management, and classroom management. For example, some research studies reveal that teachers with 10 plus years of experience have high levels of efficacy and are more confident in employing various classroom management practices (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Wolters & Daughtery, 2007). Cheung (2006) evaluated 725 primary school teacher’s utilizing the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale and found significant differences on the teaching experience variable analyzed (p. 441). Effect sizes on the independent t-tests showed t(715)=2.976, p<0.01, d=0.22 however, further analysis revealed a low correlation of r=0.12 and p=0.001 (Cheung, 2006, p. 444). A similar study by Karaca (2008) evaluated 225 teachers from primary schools and high schools to determine their perceived efficacy in regards to measurement and evaluation in education by using the Teachers’ Perception of Efficacy Scale about Measurement and Evaluation in Education (TPESMEE) and discovered no differences in the number of years of teaching experience. The TPESMEE evaluated teacher’s perceptions on instructional planning and evaluation courses (Karaca, 2008, p. 1119). A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference among the groups (df = 224, F = 1.064, p > .381) (Karaca, 2008, p. 1118-1119). These findings were reiterated by Brown (2009) that analyzed the efficacy beliefs of 183 high school special education teachers in Alabama using the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). The majority of the respondents were from rural areas throughout the state. The results indicated that teachers with 20 or more years of experience had the highest levels of efficacy in classroom management whereas, teachers with less than four years had the lowest level of efficacy in all subscales (Brown, 2009, p. 116). The TSES components include teacher perceptions on student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management (Brown, 2009, p. 116). Research studies on instructional management has yielded similar results (Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008; Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2007). Yeo et al. (2008) utilized the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale scale to evaluate the classroom management practices of teachers. The results indicated that teachers with more than 15 years experience had greater efficacy in instructional management (M=23.38, SD = 3.46) and teachers with more than 5 years experience had a greater sense of classroom management efficacy (Yeo, et al., 2008). This finding was contradicted by Martin et al. (2007) that discovered that teachers with more than 20 years experience scored higher on the instructional management component of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control-Revised. The results between these two studies present a five-year difference in the effects of teaching experience and classroom management. Frustrating these findings, Ritter’s and Hancock’s (2007) study revealed that overall experience levels do not influence classroom management as observed from the Attitudes and Beliefs on
Classroom Control inventory. Most recently, Unal and Unal (2012) investigated the classroom management approaches used by teachers based on a theoretical framework that espouses three approaches to classroom interaction – Interventionist, Non-Interventionist, and
Interactionalist “ranging from low teacher control to high teacher control” (p. 43). The authors used the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS) and found a significant difference between behavior management and instructional management in years of teaching experience (Unal & Unal, 2012, p. 47). The results indicated that teachers with 0-5 years experience and teachers with 21 or more years teaching experience had higher scores on both behavior management and instructional management on the BIMS. The authors believe that teachers in both experience groups utilize interventionist (controlling) approaches to teaching and learning (Unal & Unal, 2012, p. 48). Other factors have been studied in relation to years of teaching experience. Klecker (2008) analyzed the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to determine the effects of teacher’s years of experience on eighth grade students NAEP mathematics test results and discovered that students with the highest scale score were taught by teachers with 20 or more years of teaching experience. Data analysis showed an effect size of d=0.37 of students scale score that correlated to teachers with 20+ years of teaching experience (Klecker, 2008, p. 11). Hobson’s (2008) research study investigated the effects of years teaching to differentiated instruction and found no positive effect (p. 37). Stes, Gijbels, and Petegem (2008) found very little relationship (n² = .06 to .04) between years of experience and the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Further research by El-Hajji (2010) revealed that experience had no significant correlation to teaching strategies; however, Chudgar’s and Sankar’s (2008) study suggests that male teachers with more than 10 years experience showed greater student achievement gains than female teachers on the same experience levels. In another study, Martinussen, Tannock, and Chaban (2011) investigated the differences between teachers use of behavior management and instructional management in relation to training received for teaching students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors reported a correlation between years of teaching experience and the instructional approaches total score on the Instructional and Behavior Management Approaches Survey (r = .27, n = 56, p = .04) however, they did not indicate the total years (0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 20 +, etc.) of teaching experience in the study (p. 202). Ozdemir’s (2007) study on teacher burn out showed that an increase in classroom management efficacy and years of teaching experience were accredited to teacher’s personal accomplishments while no clear statistical information on years of teaching experience or personal accomplishments were reported (p. 261). Ozedmir’s (2007) study concluded that the years of teaching experience contributed to emotional exhaustion of perceived classroom management efficacy (p. 261). Cross-cultural studies indicate similar mixed results. Andreou and Rapti (2010) studied a group of 249 primary teachers in Greece on the “causal attributions for behavior problems and perceived efficacy for class management” (p. 53). The study included a mixture of three shortened surveys to analyze the causes of student behavioral problems, teacher’s reaction to behavioral problems, and the self efficacy of classroom management. Overall, the study revealed that teachers with 10-15 years experience used rewards in order to gain student trust; however, no other significant differences were found between classroom management efficacy and years of teaching experience (Andreou & Rapti, 2010, p. 57). These findings correlate to a similar cross-cultural study that revealed no differences between American and Korean teachers’ years of experience and instructional management (Shin & Koh, 2007, p. 62). Further research reveals mixed results in the area of years of teaching experience. Most recently, Chingos and Peterson (2011) extracted data from Florida’s Education Data Warehouse from 1999 to 2009 to evaluate teacher effectiveness by linking students test results from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) and the Stanford Achievement Test to corresponding teachers based on courses that students had taken over the years (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 452). The observation of data included approximately 1,800,000 students and 36,000 teachers from the state of Florida (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 457). Chingos and Peterson (2011) matched teachers to students in order to determine whether or not years of teaching experience played a pivotal role on students test results. The results indicated little or no difference. For example, the relationship between teachers with 1-2 years experience and student FCAT math scores in grades 4-5 was SD=0.034 and for grades sixth through eight SD=0.023, whereas, teachers with 6 to 12 years experience resulted in SD=0.048 (grades 4-5) and 0.012 (grades 6-8) respectively (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 457). According to Chingos and Peterson, “on-the-job training that teachers receive with each year of experience…may even turn downward at some point later in their careers” (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 464). Limitations of the study include the absence of data in regards to the effects of job training and the amount of teaching experience years.

Educational Degree. The relationship between classroom management and the type of educational degree obtained by a teacher has mixed results. Brown’s (2009) research on teacher perceptions of student engagement, instructional practices, and 40 classroom management revealed high efficacy scores for teachers with a master's degree (n=5, 2.7%) and a bachelor's (n=1, 0.5%) degree (Brown, 2009, p. 90). Further analysis revealed that the lowest mean score (M=6.06, SD=1.12) in student engagement was from teachers with a bachelors degree. Teachers with a master’s degree demonstrated the highest mean in classroom management (M=7.43, SD=1. 07) (Brown, 2009, p. 98). Overall, teachers with higher levels of educational degree had the highest mean in all areas of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Brown, 2009, p. 98). Teachers with a specialist’s degree out performed teachers with a master’s degree in the areas of instructional practices and classroom management (Brown, 2009, p. 111-112). In contrary to Brown’s (2009) findings, Cheung’s (2006) study revealed no relationship between classroom management and teachers education degrees. Cheung (2006) evaluated 578 Hong Kong primary school teacher’s utilizing the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. Approximately 502 teachers held undergraduate degrees and 68 teachers held master’s degrees. No data was reported in the research to justify the author’s findings that there was no significant relationship between teacher educational degree and teacher efficacy (Cheung, 2006, p. 448). According to Cheung, “teacher efficacy tends to be similar whether teachers have a bachelor’s or master’s degree as their highest education level” (Cheung, 2006, p. 448). Other researchers have revealed similar, but mixed results. El-Hajji (2010) studied the academic achievement of students in primary grades and discovered that teachers’ educational qualifications were not related to Approaches to Teaching. Bulach and Berry (2001) investigated school culture and climate and discovered that teacher degree status was not a factor in determining the levels of school climate; however, the study did reveal that teachers with a master’s degree had the highest score on instructional management. Johnson’s and Fullwood’s (2006) study of classroom management revealed that the highest degree obtained by teachers correlate to teacher perceptions of disturbing classroom behaviors. The study sought to uncover student behaviors that were least tolerable in the classroom and data analysis revealed that teachers with “bachelors degrees rated scores as more disturbing” than those with a master’s degree (m= -.288) in social defiance only (p. 28). Similar results were confirmed by Stormont, Reinke, and Herman (2011) in the area of teachers educational degree and classroom management strategies. Stormont, Reinke and Herman (2011) examined teachers’ agreement ratings for non evidence-based and evidence based behavior management approaches to teaching children with behavior and emotional needs. The study included 292 special and general education teachers from Missouri. The teachers completed a survey designed by the authors that included Likert, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Content validity was established by administering the survey to graduate students. After revisions, five research experts agreed that the survey assessed non evidence-based and evidence based behavior management approaches to teaching children with behavior and emotional needs (Stormont, Reinke, & Herman, 2011, p. 21). Stormont et al. (2011) used Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Degree as the two levels of degrees held by teachers involved in the study. The data analysis of non evidence-based practices and teachers with graduate degrees presented significant findings F (1, 325 ) = 11.93, p = 0.15 (Stormont, Reinke, & Herman, 2011, p. 24). No differences were discovered on the evidence-based practices component of the survey and teachers educational degree (Stormont, Reinke, & Herman, 2011, p. 24). Further analysis revealed that the effect sizes for both non-evidence-based and evidence- based behavior management approaches to teaching and the educational degree of the teacher was small (d = .28) (Stormont, Reinke, & Herman, 2011, p. 24). In a meta-analysis of data, Chingos and Peterson (2011) evaluated teacher effectiveness by linking students test results from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) and the Stanford Achievement Test to corresponding teachers based on courses that students had taken over the years (p. 452). The sample included approximately 1,800,000 students and 36,000 teachers from the state of Florida (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 457). The study showed a significant, but small (0.003 standard deviations) statistical relationship between middle school reading achievement gains on the FCAT and teachers with a master’s degree. Overall, a higher educational degree did not indicate a relationship between teacher effectiveness and student performance. The results indicated that teachers with a master’s degree and students FCAT math scores in grades 4-5 had a SD=0.002 and in grades 6-8 a SD=0.004. Teachers with a doctorate degree showed a SD= -0.013 for grades 4-5 and a SD= -0.003 for grades 6-8 (Chingos & Peterson, 2011, p. 457). These small findings correlate to research by Klecker (2008). In Klecker’s (2008) analysis of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 8th grade math test showed small effect sizes (d=0.14) between student scores and teachers with a Master's Degree or an Specialist Degree (p. 10). Although the relationship between classroom management and teachers educational degree presents conflicting results, other variables have been studied that have produced positive effects of higher degrees. Greene, Huerta, and Richards (2007) investigated the impact of a teacher’s education degree to student educational goals beyond high school. The sample consisted of over 300 public schools in New Jersey (p. 54). The authors analyzed scores from the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment and the High School Proficiency Assessment in both language arts and mathematics (Greene, Huerta, & Richards, 2007, p. 55). The results indicated a half point rise in student’s college aspiration rate for every percentage point increase in a teacher’s advanced degree (Greene, Huerta, & Richards, 2007, p. 62). Overall, “a l0% increase in both advanced degree rates is associated with almost a 19% increase in the percentage of students aspiring to a four-year college for the average public comprehensive high school in New Jersey” (Greene, Huerta, & Richards, 2007, p. 62). The study revealed that teachers who realize the significance of a higher degree in education and pursue it are inclined to convey the importance of higher education to their students (Greene, Huerta, & Richards, 2007, p. 62).

Academic Level. The academic grade level (middle school or high school) of teachers and their classroom management efficacy beliefs present conflicting results, too. Some research has indicated that there are no significant differences in the classroom management beliefs of teachers between any grade levels (Soodak and Podell, 1993; Chester and Beaudin, 1996; Savran & Cakiroglu, 2003). Further research reveals higher classroom management efficacy for elementary grade levels as opposed to middle school and high school levels (Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2007; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). Wolters and Daughtery’s (2007) research showed that elementary teachers had higher levels of efficacy in classroom management; however further analysis revealed that middle school and high school teachers were similar in levels of self-efficacy. Most recently, Fives and Buehl (2010) utilized the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale to evaluate the classroom management practices of teachers and discovered that high school teachers scored higher in classroom management (m= 7.62) than middle school teachers (m= 7.35).

Summary
The chapter discussed the relevant theories of Glasser (1986) and Bandura (1986) in the light of understanding the behavior management and instructional management practices in relation to the classroom management practices of middle school and high school teachers. The chapter justified the use of these theories and highlighted the evolution of these theories from the early works of Dewey (1916), Skinner (1954), and Piaget. While the studies reviewed clearly articulated the relationship of behavior management and instructional management practices and demographic variables to classroom management, no empirical research has been found to date that seeks to determine the relationship of behavior management and instructional management to the classroom management strategies between middle school and high school teachers. Most of the primary research focuses on elementary and high school teachers. The chapter presented social and behavioral perspectives to associate the beliefs that environment and demographical variables of the teachers in middle schools and high schools may be so different as to affect classroom management efficacy. Furthermore, the review of the literature found recent development regarding classroom management. The previous instruments that measure classroom management have focused on efficacy, attitudes, beliefs, and classroom control. Martin and Sass (2010) offer a new instrument to measure behavior management and instructional management as major components to classroom management. However, current research fails to uncover the effects of the variables associated to this research study and the behavior management and instructional management practices of teachers in middle school and high school classrooms today.