Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wapp20

Download by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] Date: 20 September 2015, At: 19:00

Journal of Applied School Psychology

ISSN: 1537-7903 (Print) 1537-7911 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20

Assigning Student Leaders: DecreasingInterruptions During Teacher-Led Small-GroupInstruction

Jeremy T. Coles , Christopher H. Skinner , Tiffany L. Best , Allison Wood , ElisaLuna & Wes Adcock

To cite this article: Jeremy T. Coles , Christopher H. Skinner , Tiffany L. Best , Allison Wood ,Elisa Luna & Wes Adcock (2013) Assigning Student Leaders: Decreasing Interruptions DuringTeacher-Led Small-Group Instruction, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29:3, 231-245, DOI:10.1080/15377903.2013.806884

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.806884

Published online: 13 Aug 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 169

View related articles

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29:231–245, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1537-7903 print / 1537-7911 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15377903.2013.806884

Assigning Student Leaders: DecreasingInterruptions During Teacher-Led

Small-Group Instruction

JEREMY T. COLES, CHRISTOPHER H. SKINNER,and TIFFANY L. BEST

University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

ALLISON WOOD, ELISA LUNA, and WES ADCOCKKnox County Schools, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

The authors used a withdrawal design to evaluate an interventiondesigned to decrease interruptions during small-group instructionin a Kindergarten class. A new rule was put into place; duringteacher-led small-group instruction, those not in the small groupwere required to address questions to designated student leaders,as opposed to interrupting the teacher. Results showed an immedi-ate decrease in interruptions when the student-leader interventionwas applied and an immediate increase when the interventionwas withdrawn. Across-phase effect size analyses suggested largedecreases in interruptions when the intervention was applied anda large decrease when it was withdrawn. The authors focus theirdiscussion on identifying causal mechanisms responsible for in-tervention effectiveness and extending this research across gradeslevels, tasks, and target behaviors.

KEYWORDS Kindergarten, intervention, leader, decreasing inap-propriate behavior, consultation

Effective classroom management can reduce disruptive behaviors, while en-hancing academic engagement and achievement (Fudge et al., 2008; Kirket al., 2010; Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, & Curby, 2009). However, eventeachers with many years of experience report that classroom management

This work was completed with the support of the Korn Learning Assessment and SocialSkills Center at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

Address correspondence to Jeremy T. Coles, Educational Psychology and Counseling,The University of Tennessee, A535, Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville TN 37996. E-mail:jcoles1@utk.edu

231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

232 J. T. Coles et al.

is one of the most challenging aspects of teaching (Evertson & Weinstein,2006; Fudge, Reece, Skinner, & Cowden, 2007; Lewis, Romi, Qui, & Katz,2005). One of the most common and effective classroom management pro-cedures is to establish behavioral expectations by applying classroom rules(Malone, Bonitz, & Rickett, 1998; Malone & Tietjens, 2000).

Teachers have been encouraged to develop one set of three to fiveclassroom rules that are clear, fair, reasonable, and rationale (Buck, 1999;Malone & Tietjens, 2000). Although this single set of rules is supposed tobe applicable throughout the school day, teachers have different behavioralexpectations across activities (Skinner & Skinner, 2007). For example, duringtypical cooperative learning activities, teachers do not expect students toraise their hands and receive permission before speaking to one another.During art activities, students may be encouraged to move freely around theclassroom gathering needed materials. However, during independent seatwork, recitations, or exams, students may need permission to leave theirseats or speak. Thus, educators who attempt to establish a set of rules to beapplied across all classroom activities often develop vague rules that do littleto specify behavioral expectations. With these vague rules comes confusionbecause students and teachers are uncertain which rules are in place at anygiven moment (Blondin, Skinner, Parkhurst, Wood, & Snyder, 2012; Fudgeet al., 2007, 2008). Student uncertainty results in unintentional rule breaking.Teachers who are not sure what rules or expectations are in place may reactto behaviors inconsistently (e.g., responding to one child who called out,but punishing another), which can make children feel picked on and reducethe probability of them engaging in all behaviors, including active academicbehaviors that enhance learning (Fudge et al., 2007; Skinner, Skinner, &Burton, 2009).

Rather than applying one set of vague classroom rules, researchers havefound that developing several sets of rules, each designed for different class-room activities, can reduce disruptive behaviors and enhance engagement(Blondin et al., 2012; Choate, Skinner, Fearrington, Kohler, & Skolits, 2007;Fudge et al., 2007, 2008; Kirk et al., 2010; Saecker et al., 2008). For example,rules for taking exams would include no speaking, while rules for free timewould include speaking softly (Skinner & Skinner, 2007). Although somemay be concerned that having numerous sets of rules would be confusing,researchers have found the opposite; both students and teachers appear tounderstand and respond to behavioral expectations better when rules spec-ify behaviors (as opposed to vague behavioral expectations) that are reason-able for the specific activity (Blondin et al., 2012; Fudge et al., 2007, 2008).A second concern was that young students would have difficulty learningmultiple sets of rules. Again, researchers found that this was not the case aseven Kindergarten students quickly learned three sets of rules, each includ-ing three to five behavioral expectations (Below, Skinner, Skinner, Sorrell, &Irwin, 2008; Hautau, Skinner, Pfaffman, Foster, & Clark, 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 233

PURPOSE

Less than 10% of the articles published in school psychology journals de-scribe studies designed to empirically validate interventions (Bliss, Skinner,Hautau, & Carroll, 2008; Floyd et al., 2011). Although many variables maycontribute to the dearth of these type of articles (Strein, Cramer, & Lawser,2003), it is difficult to blame practitioners because more than 90% of theschool psychology journal authors are affiliated with universities (Carroll,Skinner, McCleary, Hautau von Mizner, & Bliss, 2009). These data suggestthe need for more university—school collaboration designed to evaluateinterventions targeting school-based problems (Bliss et al., 2008).

The present study was initiated by a principal who referred the consul-tant, a school psychology graduate student completing a consultation andintervention practicum, to a Kindergarten teacher who was concerned thatthe quality of her small-group instruction was being degraded by high lev-els of interruptions from students outside the small group. To address thisconcern, the teacher and consultant developed and applied a different setof rules during teacher-led small-group instruction. Specifically, rather thaninterrupting the teacher during small-group instruction, students outside thesmall group were required to address their questions to one of two availableand identified classmates. Interruptions were recorded using director obser-vation procedures, and the intervention was evaluated using an A-B-A-Bwithdrawal design. Thus, there were at least four purposes associated withthe present study: (a) to address a presenting problem in vivo by reducinginterruptions during small-group instruction, (b) to use scientific proceduresto evaluate intervention effectiveness, (c) to engage practicing educators inthe process of developing, validating, and disseminating research of effec-tive evidence-based practice, and (d) to provide an educational experiencefor graduate school psychology students that allowed them to develop andapply their consultation, research, and writing skills.

METHOD

Setting, Participants, and Materials

We conducted the study in an urban elementary school in the Southeast-ern United States. The Kindergarten class included 17 students: 9 boys and8 girls. The teacher, a woman with 7 years of public school experience,had previously taught fourth grade. The primary researcher, a male schoolpsychology doctoral student, completed this project during his consultationpracticum. Classwide instruction took place at the front of the room nearthe entrance, with a large rug for students to sit on during instruction. Stu-dents’ desks began near the front edge of the rug used for instruction andextended to the back of the room. During small-group instruction, students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

234 J. T. Coles et al.

either completed independent work at their desks or worked on learningcenter activities on the rug while the teacher met with groups at a table nearthe rug in a corner directly across from the entrance. Specific materials forthe intervention included a large poster on the door that identified studentswho served various roles in the classroom for that week (e.g., line leader),and three identifier necklaces comprised of poster paper and yarn.

Preintervention Assessment and Intervention Development

During a problem identification interview (Bergan, 1977), the teacher ex-plained that during mathematics and reading, the class split into three groupsthat rotated between three activities: teacher-led small-group instruction (atthe back table), assigned independent seat work (at their desks), and centeractivities completed independently at specific spaces on the rug. The teacherreported that the students not in teacher-led instruction were often talking,out of their seats and rug areas, and approaching the teacher to ask ques-tions or show her their work. The teacher was not very concerned with thetalking and students being out of their seats (to encourage work-related peerinteraction, she allowed students to move freely about the rug helping eachother as they worked on learning center activities); however, when studentsapproached the teacher, they would interrupt small-group instruction. Theteacher estimated that at least one student interrupted small-group instruc-tion each minute and indicated that these interruptions hindered her abilityto teach and students’ ability to learn.

Teacher reports and direction observations (e.g., Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence Recording) suggested that students interrupted small-groupinstruction frequently to have questions answered or to solicit teacher praises.Also, direct observation supported the teacher’s report that she generallyresponded to these interruptions by ignoring (which often caused studentsto persist before walking away) or redirecting the students. Regardless, whenstudents had questions that were not answered, they would often approachand disrupt other students and/or roam around the room getting involved inother activities.

The teacher indicated that when teaching fourth grade, she often askedstudents to “ask three before me” during cooperative learning activities, (i.e.,students who had a question were required to ask three other students beforethey asked the teacher). The consultant and teacher developed, applied,and evaluated a similar strategy designed to reduce interruptions duringsmall-group instruction. Specifically, they developed an activity-specific rule,during teacher-led small-group instruction, students outside the small groupwere required to take their questions to one of two available designatedstudent leaders (identifiable by necklace and their names posted in the frontof the room), before approaching the teacher.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 235

Design and Procedures

We used an A-B-A-B withdrawal design to evaluate the effects of the stu-dent leaders intervention on interruptions during small-group instruction.Although small-group instruction and the student leaders intervention wereapplied during mathematics and reading, as a result of scheduling con-flicts, direct observation data was only collected during mathematics from11:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M. Over the course of the study, data were collectedthree of four days per week, dependent upon the consultant’s schedule andschool activities that disrupted regularly scheduled mathematics time.

During ma mathematics, students were placed into three separategroups. One group met with the teacher for small-group instruction at theback table, another group worked on independent seat work, and a thirdgroup worked at specific learning centers. To signify transitions, the teacherwould turn on an electronic bell that played a song. No data were collectedduring these transitions. Once the song began, no data were recorded untilthe song ended and the teacher initiated instruction with the new group atthe back table.

Across all phases, data were collected during one 40 to 60 min sessionper day using partial-interval recording with 20-s intervals. After the firstgroup had taken their seats at the small-group table and the teacher deliveredher first academic direction, the observer, who was seated about 15 feet fromthe table, started a recording that marked intervals. The observer scored aninterval as an interruption if any student not in the small group approachedthe back tables (i.e., came within approximately 2 feet). If a student remainedat the table into subsequent intervals, those intervals were also scored ashaving an interruption. If a student approached the table but was stopped bythe teacher before reaching this radius, the observer recorded an interruptionin that interval. No judgment was made about the reason for approaching,and all intervals were scored as an interruption unless the teacher specificallycalled a student to the small-group instruction table or a student entered theclassroom that had not previously been in the room during the lesson (e.g.coming in late, meeting with the principal).

Percent intervals with an interruption were calculated by dividing thenumber of intervals scored by the number of intervals observed and mul-tiplying by 100. Again, no data were collected during group transitions,which began when the teacher played an electronic recording of a song,and ceased when the teacher delivered the first academic direction to thenew small group.

Intervention Procedures

Before implementation, the teacher created three necklaces used to identifystudent leaders. Each necklace had a shape representing one of the three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

236 J. T. Coles et al.

groups in which the students worked in during mathematics and reading(i.e., star, sun, and moon) which were worn by the student leaders. Theteacher chose a leader from each of the three groups and placed the leaders’names on a poster on the door at the front of the room. The poster was in theshape of a hand, with each finger representing a classroom role. The studentsassigned to a specific role had their names placed on a separate finger foreach role. During the transition from large-group instruction to independentwork, the teacher indicated which students were the leaders for that day,gave them their identifying necklace, and explained the procedures for thatday’s independent work. By choosing a leader from each of the three groups,the teacher ensured that the students would have two leaders to approachwith questions while the third leader was working with the teacher in small-group instruction. To maintain consistency with the other classroom rolesassigned by the teacher (e.g., emptying garbage cans), leaders were rotatedweekly. If a leader was absent, the teacher designated another student in thesame small group to serve as the leader during that day.

During small-group instruction, if students approached the teacher, shewould re-direct the students to one of the two available student leaders.Although the students were never told this, the teacher would answer ques-tions when students had already asked both leaders and could not get help.When this did occur, an interruption was recorded. These procedures wereimplemented for reading and mathematics, but data were only collectedduring mathematics.

Interobserver Agreement

A second independent observer, who was trained by the primary researcher,collected data during one session for each of the first three phases. Duringobservations, this observer sat near the primary experimenter, listened tothe same recording that marked 20-s intervals, and recorded the occurrenceof interruptions on identical data collection sheets. Both observers shieldedtheir recording sheets from each other. For each session, the two recordingsheets were analyzed and the number of intervals where the two observersagreed was divided by the total number of intervals observed and multipliedby 100. The percentage of agreement was 94.7% for the initial baseline,94.1% for the intervention phase, and 98.2% for the withdrawal phase.

Treatment Integrity

During the intervention days, treatment integrity was assessed by the ob-server using a checklist (see Appendix A) that included two items that couldbe observed in the classroom (poster and necklace) and six items that re-flected teacher/students behaviors. Integrity was at 100% for all but the firstday of the second intervention phase when integrity was at 75%. During this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 237

day, one of the necklaces was broken, so the leader could not wear it. Also,on one occasion the teacher did not redirect a student to the leaders.

Treatment Acceptability

The teacher and students completed forms to assess their perceptions ofthe treatment and its validity. Of the 17 students in the class, the 15 whoattended the day acceptability data were collected answered four questionsthat required them to circle one of three faces that indicated the extentto which they agreed with the statement (see Appendix B). Specifically, asmiling face represented a response of “very much,” a face that was neithersmiling nor frowning represented a response of “don’t care,” and a frowningface represented a response of “not at all.” The teacher read the survey item,one at a time, to the students during small-group instruction and answeredany questions before moving on to the next item. To assess the teacher’sperception of the intervention, an intervention rating scale was developed.Using a 10-item, 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to6 (Strongly Agree), the checklist (see Appendix C) assessed the perceivedeffectiveness of the evaluation, future implementation, and generalizabilityto other classrooms and teachers.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the percent intervals with at least one interruption acrosssessions and phases. Visual analysis of baseline-phase data shows an ini-tially decreasing but eventually leveling trend in the percentage of intervalsscored with an interruption. Immediately after the application of the student-leader intervention, there was a decrease in intervals with interruptions.When the intervention was withdrawn, interruptions immediately increasedand trended higher during this phase. When the intervention was reapplied,interruptions immediately decreased. These immediate changes in interrup-tions across adjacent phases along with 100% nonoverlapping data pointsacross intervention and non-intervention phases combine to provide threedemonstrations of experimental control. Specifically, adjacent-phase com-parisons provide two demonstrations of a treatment effect (from baseline tointervention and from withdrawal to intervention) and one demonstrationof experimental control, when interruption increased after the withdrawal ofthe student-leader intervention.

We calculated effect size estimates for adjacent phases using Hedges’ g,which is calculated by dividing phase mean differences by pooled standarddeviations (Hedges, 1981). From the baseline phase to the first interventionphase, we obtained a large positive effect size, g = 1.33. When the inter-vention was withdrawn, we obtained large a negative effect size, g = –1.55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

238 J. T. Coles et al.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Perc

enta

ge o

f Int

erva

l App

roac

hing

Tea

cher

Baseline Intervention Withdrawal Intervention

Observed Math Classes

FIGURE 1 Percent of intervals approaching teacher.

Upon reimplementation of the intervention, we again obtained another largepositive effect size estimate, g = 1.16. Thus, we obtained strong positive ef-fects when the intervention was implemented and a strong negative effectwhen it was withdrawn.

Acceptability

Student responses (n = 15) to the acceptability items are depicted in Ap-pendix B. When asked how much they liked asking the leaders for help,14 students (93%) responded very much while one student responded witha not at all. When asked how much they liked being the leaders 93% circledvery much and one student circled both very much and don’t care. Whenasked how much the leaders helped them, 13 students chose very much, one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 239

student chose not at all, and one student chose all three options. When askedhow much they would like to continue to have the leaders, 93% studentschose very much and one student chose not at all.

The teacher’s response to the acceptability items are highlighted in boldin Appendix C. Out of a possible 60 points, the teacher’s responses totaled 52.The teacher indicated an agreement with eight items and a strong agreementwith two items.

DISCUSSION

Visual and statistical analyses (effect size) provide evidence that the student-leader intervention reduced interruptions during small-group instruction.Data collected suggest that the teacher implemented the intervention con-sistently and with strong integrity. In addition, 14 of the 15 students ratedthe intervention positively as did the teacher, who strongly agreed that itreduced interruptions and strongly agreed that she would continue usingthe procedure during small-group instruction.

Researchers should investigate several reasons why this procedure mayhave been effective, implemented with integrity, and rated acceptable bystudents and their teacher. Both integrity and teacher acceptability may havebeen a product of both the intervention and the process of interventiondevelopment and evaluation. The intervention was developed within a col-laborative consultation model (Idol, Nevin, & Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1994).Thus, the interview data supplied by the teacher were used to help make alldecisions. In addition, the consultant focused on applying a strategy similarto a procedure the teacher used the previous year (i.e., “ask three beforeme”) in her fourth-grade classroom. Both of these factors may have enhancedthe teacher’s enthusiasm for the intervention, which in turn may have influ-enced teacher acceptability and treatment integrity (Conoley, Conoley, Ivey,& Scheel, 1991). Additional applications of the present intervention that oc-cur outside the consultation process and with teachers who have not usedsimilar strategies are needed to validate acceptability and integrity data andsupport the generalizability of the student leader intervention.

We conducted the present study in a single Kindergarten classroom with17 students and data were only collected during mathematics class. Similarstudies should be conducted with older students and across different subjectareas. For example, similar procedures could be applied with secondarystudents during science labs. Another limitation is that we did not conductany assessments to determine if these procedures had any generalized results.Thus, future researchers may want to determine if applying such proceduresincreases peer interactions and makes it more likely that students would askclassmates for help in other settings (e.g., art class).

Although our results support a cause-and-effect relationship, they donot specify the mechanisms that may explain why this intervention reduced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

240 J. T. Coles et al.

interruptions. One of the major purposes of the student-leader interventionwas to use visual (necklace, poster) and verbal prompts to increase thesalience of the new rules that were designed to be clear, easily understood,and rational. Thus, when the teacher passed out necklaces to leaders andverbally reminded students of the new small-group instruction rules (i.e., askthe student leaders before me), this daily process may have served to remindstudents of the rules, which made it less likely that they would interrupt. Also,this process may have served to remind the teacher of the rules, making itless likely that she would accidentally answer questions (only one instancewas observed), as opposed to redirect the students to a student leader (Fudgeet al., 2007). Future researchers may want to determine the degree to whichthe visual and verbal prompts influenced students’ rule-following behaviorand teachers’ consistent and correct application of the treatment (McGinnis,Frederick, & Edwards, 1995).

A second major component of this intervention was to allow studentsan increased opportunity to receive help from peers. As previous researchershave found evidence that such immediate, peer-delivered help may de-crease inappropriate student behaviors (Price, Martella, Marchand-Martella, &Cleanthous, 2002; Scheeler, Macluckie, & Albright, 2010), researchers maywant to conduct additional studies investigating this dependent factor. Forexample, it is possible that asking questions of peer leaders may have re-sulted in more immediate help (they often had to wait for the teacher), whichmay have reduced student frustration and time spent waiting for the teacher.As both time with nothing to do and frustration are associated with higherrates of inappropriate behavior, research may want to measure the effect ofthe student-leader program on other undesired behaviors.

One of our concerns was that the leaders from the lower groups wouldnot be able to help those in the higher groups. However, informal obser-vations suggested that most of the questions were rather simple proceduralquestions, as opposed to question that require teaching (e.g., “Are we sup-posed to draw circles or squares?” as opposed to “How do you draw asquare?”). If during the student leaders intervention, students received thistype of help quicker than when they had to wait for the teacher, they mayhave completed more independent seat work or learning center work. Thus,researchers may want to determine if the student-leader program enhancesacademic productivity and learning. Alternatively, researchers may want todetermine whether there are instances when peers provide inaccurate infor-mation or poor instruction that may reduce productivity and hinder learning.

A second concern was related to teacher attention and student devel-opment. Specifically, if interruptions were being reinforced with teacher at-tention, then approaching students might not serve the same function. Also,especially with young children, teacher attention may be a more powerfulreinforce than peer attention. Thus, future researchers may find that thisprocedure is primarily effective when teacher attention is not the function

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 241

of the interrupting behavior and/or when student attention serves the samefunction as teacher attention (e.g., provide information needed to completework).

Conclusion

In the present study, the consultant and teacher were also the interventiondevelopers and researchers. We have already discussed how that limits con-clusions that can be drawn regarding teacher acceptability and treatment in-tegrity. Although concerns regarding the quality of the data collected by theconsultant-researcher are mitigated by the strong interobserver agreementdata, because teacher expectations may have influenced student behaviorchange, additional studies of the student-leader intervention are needed.

The current practice-to-research model has strengths that may be worthemulating. In some instances, researchers (e.g., University professors) haveattempted to assist local schools by applying their expertise in a manner thatsuggests “I know what your problems are and will tell you how to fix them.”The present study demonstrates how applying a collaborative consultationprocess that allow practitioners to identify problems and solutions can causeresearchers to focus on authentic problems while simultaneously encour-aging and assisting practitioners to contribute to the intervention researchbase that they are encouraged to use (Detrich, Keyworth, & States, 2007;Ringeisen, Henderson, & Hoagwood, 2003). Although the student-leaderintervention is not complex, teachers do not need complex interventions;they need effective and contextually valid (e.g., efficient, sustainable) proce-dures that they can apply in their school context (Foster & Skinner, 2011).In addition to conducting additional studies on the student-leader interven-tion, we hope this study encourages other school psychologists to workcollaboratively with practicing educators to apply, empirically validate, anddisseminate other simple and effective procedures (Shriver, 2007).

REFERENCES

Below, J. L., Skinner, A. L., Skinner, C. H., Sorrell, C. A., & Irwin, A. (2008). Decreas-ing out-of-seat behavior in a Kindergarten classroom: Supplementing the ColorWheel with interdependent group-oriented rewards. Journal of Evidence-BasedPractices for Schools, 9, 33–36.

Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Bliss, S. L., Skinner, C. H., Hautau, B., & Carroll, E. E. (2008). Articles published

in four school psychology journals from 2000–2005: An analysis of exper-imental/intervention research. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 483–498. doi:10.1002/pits.20318

Blondin, C., Skinner, C., Parkhurst, J., Wood, A., & Snyder, J. (2012). Enhanc-ing on-task behavior in fourth-grade students using a modified Color Wheel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

242 J. T. Coles et al.

System. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 37–58. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2012.643756

Buck, G. H. (1999). Smoothing the rough edges of classroom transitions. Interventionin School and Clinic, 34, 224–235.

Carroll, E., Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., Hautau von Mizner, B., & Bliss, S.L. (2009). Analysis of author affiliation across four school psychology journalsfrom 2000–2008: Where is the practitioner–researcher? Psychology in the Schools,46, 627–635. doi: 10.1002/pits.20403

Choate, S. M., Skinner, C. H., Fearrington, J., Kohler, B., & Skolits, J. (2007). Extendingthe external validity of the Color Wheel procedures: Decreasing out-of-seatbehavior in an intact, rural, 1st grade classroom. Journal of Evidence-BasedPractices for Schools, 8, 120–133.

Conoley, C. W., Conoley, J. C., Ivey, D. C., & Scheel, M. J. (1991). Enhancingconsultation by matching the consultee’s perspectives. Journal of Counseling &Development, 69, 546–549. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb02639.x

Detrich, R., Keyworth, R., & States, J. (2007). A roadmap to evidence-based educa-tion: Building an evidence-based culture. Journal of Evidence-Based Practicesfor Schools, 8, 26–44.

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S., (2006). Classroom management as a field ofinquiry. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), The handbook of classroom man-agement: Research, practice, & contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Floyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle,C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publicationpatterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 49, 617–647. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.11.008

Foster, L. N., & Skinner, C. H. (2011). Evidence supporting the internal, external,and contextual validity of a writing program targeting middle school studentswith disabilities. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention,5, 37–43. doi: 10.1080/17489539.2011.593848

Fudge, D. L., Reece, L., Skinner, C. H., & Cowden, D. (2007). Using multiple class-room rules, public cues, and consistent transition strategies to reduce inappro-priate transitions: An investigation of the Color Wheel. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8, 102–119.

Fudge, D. L., Skinner, C. H., Williams, J. L., Cowden, D., Clark, J., & Bliss, S. L. (2008).Increasing on-task behavior in every student in a second-grade classroom duringtransitions: Validating the Color Wheel system. Journal of School Psychology, 46,575–592. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.003

Hautau, B. L., Skinner, C. H., Pfaffman, J., Foster, S., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Extendingthe external validity of the Color Wheel: Increasing on-task behavior in anurban, Kindergarten classroom. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools,9, 3–17.

Hedges, G. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and re-lated estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6, 107–128.

Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1994). Collaborative consultation (2nded.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 243

Kirk, E. R., Becker, J. A., Skinner, C. H., Fearrington, J. Y., McCane-Bowling, S.J., Amburn, C., & Greear, C. (2010). Decreasing inappropriate vocalizationsusing classwide group contingencies and color wheel procedures: A componentanalysis. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 931–943. doi: 10.1002/pits.20515

Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers’ classroom disciplineand student misbehaviour in Australia, China, and Israel. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21, 729–741.

Malone, B. G., Bonitz, D. A., & Rickett, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions of dis-ruptive behavior: Maintaining instructional focus. Educational Horizons, 76,189–194.

Malone, B. G., & Tietjens, C. L. (2000). Re-examination of classroom rules. SpecialServices in the Schools, 16, 159–170. doi: 10.1300/J008v16n01_11

McGinnis, J. C., Frederick, B. P., & Edwards, R. (1995). Enhancing classroommanagement through proactive rules and procedures. Psychology in theSchools, 32, 220–224. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(199507)32:3<220::aid-pits2310320309>3.0.co;2-4

Ponitz, C. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Grimm, K. J., & Curby, T. W. (2009). Kindergartenclassroom quality, behavioral engagement, and reading achievement. SchoolPsychology Review, 38, 102–120.

Price, A. T., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Cleanthous, C. C. (2002). Acomparison of immediate feedback delivered via an FM headset versus delayedfeedback on the inappropriate verbalization of a student with ADHD. Education& Treatment of Children, 25, 159–171.

Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: Schools andthe “research to practice gap” in children’s mental health. School PsychologyReview, 32, 153–168.

Saecker, L., Sager, K., Williams, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Spurgeon, S., & Luna, E. (2008).Decreasing teacher’s repeated directions and students’ inappropriate talking inan urban, fifth-grade classroom using the Color Wheel procedures. Journal ofEvidence-Based Practices for Schools, 9, 18–32.

Scheeler, M. C., Macluckie, M., & Albright, K. (2010). Effects of immediate feedbackdelivered by peer tutors on the oral presentation skills of adolescents withlearning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 31, 77–86.

Shriver, M. D. (2007). Roles and responsibilities of researchers and practitioners fortranslating research to practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools,8, 4–25.

Skinner, C. H., & Skinner, A. L. (2007). Establishing an evidence base for a classroommanagement procedure with a series of studies: Evaluating the Color Wheel.Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8, 88–101.

Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. H., & Burton, B. (2009). Applying group-oriented con-tingencies in classrooms. In K. A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. Bray, & T. Kehle(Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies(pp. 157–170). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Strein, W., Cramer, K., & Lawser, M. (2003). School psychology research and schol-arship. School Psychology International, 24, 421–436.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

244 J. T. Coles et al.

APPENDIX A Integrity checklist

Implementation: Classroom Arrangement� Place leaders’ names in their designated place on the front door.� Have necklaces ready for leaders to wear.

Implementation: Procedures� Give leaders their necklace.� Explain to students the procedures for the day prior to beginning independent

work.� Ensure students have complete understanding of procedures.� Remind students who and where the leaders are for that day.� Remind students to ask leaders if they have any questions.� Redirect approaching students to leaders.

APPENDIX B Student acceptability form

Very much Don’t care Not at all

How much did you like asking the leaderfor help?

How much did you like being the leader?

How much did asking the leader help you?

How much would you like to continue tohave the leaders?

Note. Students with multiple responses for a question are represented in all responses that were indicated.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Assigning Student Leaders 245

APPENDIX C Leadership intervention teacher acceptability form

Strongly Slightly Slightly Stronglydisagree Disagree disagree agree Agree agree

1. This was a good intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 62. Most teachers would find this

intervention appropriate to dealwith student questioning.

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I was able to spend more timeworking with small groupswithout interruption.

1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I noticed less student interruptionwhen this intervention was inplace.

1 2 3 4 5 6

5. I was interrupted less by studentswho were workingindependently.

1 2 3 4 5 6

6. This intervention was easy toimplement.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7. I will use this intervention for theremainder of the year.

1 2 3 4 5 6

8. I will use this intervention withfuture classes.

1 2 3 4 5 6

9. I would recommend thisintervention to other teachers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. The procedures of thisintervention are simple forstudents and teachers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Note. The teacher’s response to each item appears in boldface.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

00 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015