The  TAMS  Journal   Spring  2016  

Editorial Board 2016 Editor:

Cherry Watts, Associate Professor, University of TN at Martin

Jo Ann Cady, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Becky Hasselle, Teacher, Dyersburg Middle School Nathaniel Holmes, Principal, Martin Middle School Laurie Miller, Shelby County Schools Deanna Owens, Assistant Professor, The University of Memphis Stephanie Richards, Associate Professor, Tennessee Tech University Clinton Smith, Assistant Professor, University of TN at Martin Crystal Whitlow, Associate Professor, University of TN at Martin If you would like to serve on the editorial board as a reviewer, please send a two page resume to: Dr. Cherry Watts [email protected]

 

Table of Contents Editorial Board 1. Discovering the Inner Strength of WW II POWS with NCSS Award-Winning Trade Books

Pages 1-16

Dr. Jeremiah Clabough The University of Alabama at Birmingham Dr. Deborah Wooten The University of Tennessee Knoxville Emily Shelley The University of Alabama at Birmingham 2. Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding on Quality of Middle School Students’ Written Arguments

17-48

Lydia Zeller Graduate Student in Science Education Mehmet Aydeniz The University of Tennessee 3. Four Strategies for Behavior Management in Middle Schools

49-68

Clinton Smith The University of Tennessee Martin Call for Manuscript

69

 

Discovering the Inner Strength of WW II POWS with NCSS Award-Winning Trade Books

Dr. Jeremiah Clabough (Contact Author) Assistant Professor of Social Science Education The University of Alabama at Birmingham

Dr. Deborah Wooten Associate Professor of Reading The University of Tennessee Knoxville

Emily Shelley Undergraduate Social Science Education Student The University of Alabama at Birmingham

1    

The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) stresses that the transition for children from elementary to middle school is fraught with changes (1991). One of these is the complexity and depth by which students are expected to read and explore content material (Russell, Waters, & Turner, 2014). The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) emphasizes that students must develop content-area literacy skills to critically explore and examine issues (AMLE, 2010). Many students feel unprepared for these more rigorous academic expectations especially in social studies. Social studies teachers need to consider what learning tools can be implemented to assist students in meeting these new literacy expectations. Social studies non-fiction and biographical trade books can be valuable tools to help students strengthen their content-area literacy skills. Social studies trade books tend to take one of two forms. First, they can be biographical in nature focusing on the accomplishments or shortcomings of a historical figure; second, they attempt to capture the essence and details of an historical event or topic (Broemmel, Rayman, & Hancock, 2015). Trade books are texts that are published and sold to the general public (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradebook). For the purpose of this article, we are referring exclusively nonfiction and biographical literature when we say trade books. NCSS releases a yearly list of recommended social studies trade books that can be found at the following link http://www.socialstudies.org/notable. Selection for this list is based on the accuracy of content material depicted, diversity of perspectives explored on a topic, and strong literary merit. This article focuses on how to integrate two trade books from the NCSS 2015 list, Pure Grit: How American World War II Nurses Survived Battle and Prison Camp in the Pacific (Farrell, 2014) and Unbroken:  An Olympian's Journey from Airman to Castaway to Captive

2    

(Hillenbrand, 2014), into a middle school social studies classroom. The authors of this article selected these two works because both center on World War II more specifically the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). We will provide an activity for each. The two activities are designed to give teachers different methods for implementing social studies trade books into their classrooms. An appendix is included that contains complementary trade books about a historical topic along with an activity idea for each pair. The Benefits for Using Nonfiction Trade Books in the Social Studies Classroom There are many reasons for teachers to implement nonfiction trade books into their classrooms (Sullivan, 2001). Perhaps, the most salient one is the depth in which events and individuals are accurately depicted. In nonfiction trade books, historical figures are framed in three-dimensional terms with hopes, dreams, fears, and biases past the shallow descriptions often found in textbooks (Schell & Fisher, 2007). This portrayal of historical figures allows students to empathize with individuals’ choices, actions, and inactions. The examination of historical figures’ perspectives is one of the central content-area literacy skills that students must master in social studies (Giles, Wang, Smith, & Johnson, 2013). Through examining historical figures’ perspectives, students are able to contextualize issues and values of people from a time period (Foster & Yeager, 2001). Historical trade books include multiple modes of learning that allow students to comprehend the material (Clabough, 2015). They often contain a wide variety of primary sources. These include photographs, quotes from individuals about an event, newspaper articles, and journal entries. All of these add layers of meaning to a trade book that students can draw on to construct meaning (Short, Lynch-Brown, & Tomlinson, 2014). Students are able to use the

3    

narrative of a trade book in conjunction with the primary sources included to gain a better understanding about an event or individual. Similarly, the backmatter of trade books often contains additional resources about a topic. For example, the backmatter in Pure Grit (Farrell, 2014) includes references to allow for further examination of the material, more information about the topic, an index, and a timeline that allow students to see the chronological history of individuals and events. All of these items in the backmatter of a nonfiction trade book afford students the opportunity to do further research on a topic. Pure Grit Introduction The Philippines were attacked by the Japanese nine hours after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. Pure Grit is the story about more than a hundred courageous American Army nurses who were stationed in the Philippines in 1945 and instantly thrust into the horrors of war (Farrell, 2014). Although these nurses were untrained for the onslaught of wounded and dying soldiers, they adapted quickly. Medical supplies and food became scarce as the number of casualties continued to rise. In 1942, more than 70,000 American and Philippine men were forced to surrender, and eventually, the nurses were captured and joined them as prisoners. The nurses continued to care for the sick  as  conditions severely deteriorated in the prison camps. Nurses and other victims suffered from starvation, tuberculosis, malaria, dengue fever, and beriberi. When rescued in 1945, some of the nurses weighed less than 100 pounds. Pure Grit is a well-researched nonfiction narrative that is supported with primary sources such as interviews, photographs, and diary entries. These sources are also supported with text features that include a bibliography, glossary, timeline, and index. All of these features make this trade book user-friendly and provide rich content about this event.

4    

Trade books allow middle school students to empathize with the human toll that events take on people. In Pure Grit (Farrell, 2014), students are able to see the physical and emotional impact that the nurses endured while serving in POW camps; however, their commitment and duty to service never faltered even under horrific conditions. The use of this book not only lets social studies teachers teach about U.S. POWs and nurses during World War II but also about more abstract concepts like duty, honor, and commitment. Evoking Empathy Questioning Activity The teacher should start by grouping students and assigning them one of the shorter chapters that focuses on these more abstract concepts of duty, service, commitment, and honor to read. The groups need to be given a graphic organizer with questions to answer about their readings. In addition to reading an assigned chapter and answering the questions, students must also provide evidence to support their answers. It is recommended that the teacher float around the classroom to help the students with this activity. The questions on the graphic organizer allow students to get at the toll of the war on nurses and their resilience despite harsh conditions in the POW camps. Some possible questions from different chapters of Pure Grit have been provided in the following section. Questions for Pure Grit Questions

Response

What does the nurses’ commitment to duty in the camps despite their circumstances say about their characters? (p. 73-79) Prior to their imprisonment, the nurses were focused on their own survival while caring for soldiers in the jungle in an abandoned WW I warehouse. As this was the first time American Army women were ordered into combat (p. 5    

Evidence

29), these nurses were making history. After reading chapters four “Nurses Under Fire” and five “Retreat to the Jungle,” list the conditions in each location. What does the fact that nurses had to sign an agreement of silence say about wartime conditions for U.S. POWs in Japanese camps? What does the physically weak state of nurses say about their level of service rendered? (pages 103-116)

After students have completed this graphic organizer, the teacher should provide whole class instruction. The students will share responses to the questions from their assigned chapter. They fill in the above graphic organizer with the comments from their peers’ responses. The goal of this debrief is for students to utilize evidence in their responses to the questions in the graphic organizer. This enables students to gain experience building their arguments with supporting evidence. The teacher should engage the class in a discussion about women’s rights (e.g., the suffrage movement in the early 1900’s) and record class input on the board. Then, the class is divided into small groups to read the final chapter, “Recognition at Last.” This chapter examines how the military currently honors women who serve in the armed forces with opportunities to serve that were not available to them in previous decades. It also addresses some of the postwar mental and physical problems that the nurses faced, which are described in Pure Grit. The groups then research the following questions: Why do you believe it has taken so long for these women’s voices to be heard and honored? How has the women’s rights movement changed over the years in America? 6    

After the groups discuss, the teacher will lead students in a conversation about their findings. Student comments are then added to their graphic organizers and class notes. The closing discussion should include more information from the teacher to enhance students’ comprehension of this topic. This helps students deepen their knowledge and understanding about the development of the women’s rights movement in America and what that means to us today. All of these processes help students gain experience working with evidence in a text. The ability to work with evidence enables students to form and support their arguments (Austin & Thompson, 2015). It is advisable that the teacher duplicate these processes multiple times with different trade books. This gives students practice and experience in formulating arguments with evidence to support their claims. These questions also bring in the human element as a topic. Students are not answering lower-order questions that leave them with a surface level understanding of an event. Instead, they are able to focus on how issues and events from a time period impacted people on a personal level. This lets students delve deeper into the material and see events, issues, and people from the past in three-dimensional terms (Endacott & Brooks, 2013). Unbroken Introduction World War II impacted lives all over the globe during the 1930’s and 1940’s perhaps none more so than Louie Zamperini, which is chronicled in Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken (2014). In her book, Hillenbrand explores Louie’s experiences during World War II as a castaway on a raft in the Pacific Ocean to his life as a POW in a Japanese internment camps (Hillenbrand, 2014). She starts with a discussion of Louie’s childhood and how running helped bring his life into focus. The focus of the book then shifts to his service in World War II and

7    

ends with how he found peace after returning to the United States. Hillenbrand emphasizes on how despite the obstacles that Louie encountered his spirit was never broken. Hillenbrand utilizes many primary sources in her biographical trade book. These primary sources include photographs, quotes, and letters. They allow students to better visualize and contextualize life during this time period. These sources work well in concert with her narrative. The content of this trade book along with its texts features supports inquiry-based learning especially when it is set into motion with compelling, open-ended questions (Lattimer, 2014). Teachers need to model for students how to respond to open-ended questions. By doing so, students are better prepared to draw conclusions which will in turn spawn more questions. Studying nonfiction trade books as inquiry is a way to see real people solve real problems, and it models problem solving in action (Aronson & Zarnowski, 2015). Inquiry-based learning with nonfiction historical texts provides opportunities for students to analyze, evaluate, and create conclusions in a more natural way because they are reading about real events and people (Ormrod, 2011). Six Word Message with Unbroken Unbroken allows students to do a thorough character study on Louie Zamperini. They can grasp Louie’s qualities and traits that enabled him to survive and retain his humanity despite the harsh treatment that he endured. The teacher needs to design several open-ended questions that allow students to examine his character qualities. The students will read chapters from the trade book in groups to answer each of these questions. Since the questions in our graphic organizer cover ideas from multiple chapters, they may only answer and discuss one question at a time. We have provided some open-ended questions in the graphic organizer contained in the next section that explore Louie’s essential characteristics and values.

8    

Graphic Organizer for Examination of Louie’s Character Traits How did becoming an athlete in high school change Louie Zamperini’s life? What role did Pete and the rest of the Zamperini family play in shaping the man Louie became?

What does the fact that Louie would not speak propaganda about the U.S. over the radio in Japan say about him? What role does dignity play in surviving against the odds?

After the students answer one or more of the questions on the graphic organizer in small groups, there should be a debriefing. The teacher guides this discussion and has students support their answers with evidence from the trade book. She needs to focus on getting students to defend their answers with evidence. This class discussion enables students to gain an understanding of Louie’s character. After this class discussion, the teacher will provide directions for a perspective-writing activity with the following prompt. Imagine that you are Louie Zamperini during the Japanese propaganda radio broadcast. You desperately want to relay important information of your safety and the treatment of the other prisoners to your family and the U.S. government but are forced to read from a script. As you are reading, there is a slight deviation that you make from the script, which is a six-word message. What would your message be? Using the graphic organizer and notes from the class discussion, have the students create a six-word message. The questions listed on the graphic organizer highlight several reoccurring themes of the book such as redemption, competition, resilience, and dignity. The authors have provided some example sixword messages in the next section. Example Six-Word Messages

9    

•   •   •   •   •  

“Suffering yields endurance, character, and hope.” “Strong souls bear the most scars.” “Suffering will take but grace restores.” “Trials prepare for the coming joy.” “Someday this pain will be useful.” In this activity, students examine the power of words as well as how they relate to a

person’s values and beliefs. Once students have completed their six-word message, have them share and explain their writing example. Students need to articulate verbally why this particular message connects to Louie’s situation, personality, values, and beliefs. The teacher should ask follow-up questions to get students to unpack their thinking. The six-word message strategy lets students assume the role of a historical figure and articulate Louie’s perspective. The ability to write from the perspective of a historical figure permits students to examine the content material in more depth and demonstrate their understanding of topics explored (Bickford, 2012). This strategy also gives students experience with using content from a biographical trade book as the basis for classroom writing activities. It is important that the teacher structure writing activities in conjunction with trade books to build and strengthen students’ writing skills. Conclusion Nonfiction and biographical trade books hold great potential for the middle school social studies classroom. They can actively engage students in the content material and enable an exploration of topics in more depth. For this to happen, the social studies teacher must demonstrate and model for students how to work with the content in a trade book. “Evoking empathy questioning activity” and “six word message” discussed in this article are designed to show two ways that this can be accomplished. In middle school, students are curious and want to understand all aspects of the world around them (Reck, 2013). Social studies trade books are

  10  

tools that can be used to allow students to explore the individuals and events that helped shaped the world around them in depth while at the same time strengthening their content-area literacy skills.

  11  

References AMLE. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Aronson, M. & Zarnowski, M. (2015). Teaching nonfiction with confidence: Learning to love inquiry. In D. Wooten & B. Cullinan (Eds.), Children’s literature in the reading program: Engaging young readers in the 21st century. (4th ed., pp. 20-34). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. Austin, H. & Thompson, K. (2015). Examining the evidence: Seven strategies for teaching with primary sources. North Mankato, MN: Maupin House Publishing. Bickford, J.H. (2012). Original political cartoon methodology and adaptations. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 91–101. Broemmel, A., Rayman, S., & Hancock, S. (2015).  Linking literacy and social studies through picture books in K–12 Settings. In T. Turner, J. Clabough, & W. Cole (Eds.), Getting at the core of the Common Core with social studies (115-139). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Clabough, J. (2015). Making historical figures three dimensional with biographical trade books. AMLE Magazine, 2(5), 38-39. Endacott, J. & Brooks, S. (2013). An update theoretical and practical model for promoting historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 41-57. Foster, S. J. & Yeager, E. A. (2001). The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. In O. L. Davis Jr., E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies (pp. 13-19). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Giles, C., Wang, Y., Smith, J., & D. Johnson. (2013). “I’m no longer just teaching history.” Professional development for teaching Common Core State Standards for literacy in social studies. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 34–42. Lattimer, H. (2014). Real-world literacies: Disciplinary teaching in the high school classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Merriam-Webster (2016). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade%20book. NCSS. (1991). Social studies in the middle school. Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/middleschool. Ormrod, J. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

  12  

Reck, B. (2013). From textbooks and tests to problems and projects. In K. Rooney & R. Lipka (Eds.), Middle grades curriculum: Voice and vision of the self-enhancing school (271291). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Russell, W., Waters, S., & Turner, T. (2014). Essentials of middle and secondary social studies. New York, NY: Routledge. Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching Social Studies: A literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Short, K., Lynch-Brown, C., & Tomlinson, C. (2014). Essentials of children’s literature (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Sullivan, E. (2001). Some teens prefer the real thing: The case for young adult nonfiction. The English Journal, 90(3), 43-47. Trade Books Cited Farrell, M. (2014). Pure grit: How American World War II nurses survived battle and prison camp in the Pacific. New York, NY: Abrams. Hillenbrand, L. (2014). Unbroken: An Olympian’s journey from airman to castaway to captive. New York, NY: Delacorte Press (Young Adult Version).

  13  

Appendix A: Additional Paired Social Studies Trade Books 1. Students should compare and contrast two accounts of George Washington Gale Ferris’ 1893 World’s Fair Ferris Wheel (Davis, 2014; Kraft, 2015). The Fantastic Ferris Wheel (Kraft, 2015) discusses the fact that this wheel continued to function even in 115 miles per hour gale force winds. Why would this event be important in conjunction with other obstacles and resistance that Ferris encountered before and during the construction of the Ferris Wheel? The students will use these two trade books to explore this question in pairs. They will then share their findings. The teacher needs to guide this discussion and have students use evidence from the books to support their answers. Davis, K. (2014). Mr. Ferris and his wheel. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kraft, B. (2015). The fantastic Ferris Wheel: The story of the inventor George Ferris. New York, NY: Henry Holt. 2. Noah Webster and His Words (Ferris, 2012) provides an informative and whimsical biographical account of Noah’s life. W is for Webster (Fern, 2015) gives not only his biography but also information about American resistance to him writing his American dictionary. After the teacher does a read aloud for both trade books, the students in pairs should be instructed to write their own short trade book that provides a biography about Noah Webster. Their trade books need to contain all elements of a trade book. These include a story, images, and backmatter. The length of this trade book assignment can vary based on the teacher’s judgment. The goal with their short biographical trade book should be to engage the reader by including Webster’s values, beliefs, perspectives, and personality. Fern, T. (2015). W is for Webster: Noah Webster and his American dictionary. New York, NY: Farrar Straus Giroux.

  14  

Ferris, J. (2012). Noah Webster and his words. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 3. From Electric Ben (Byrd, 2012), have the students examine Franklin’s overall life and compare it to a time when he employed the scientific method and proved Dr. Mesmer’s healing powers were a hoax. This can be studied in Mesmerized: How Ben Franklin Solved a Mystery that Baffled all of France (Rockliff, 2015). After reading both trade books, the teacher should focus the class discussion on Franklin exclusively as a scientist/inventor. The students will then write a journal entry where they assume the role of Franklin and discuss how he solved the hoax of Dr. Mesmer. With this writing piece, they are using evidence from these two trade books to think about this problem from the perspective of Ben Franklin. The length of this perspective piece may vary based on the students. Byrd, R. (2012). Electric Ben: The amazing life and times of Benjamin Franklin. New York, NY: Dial. Rockliff, M. (2015). Mesmerized: How Ben Franklin solved a mystery that baffled all of France. Somerville, MA: Candlewick. 4. The trade books listed below both focus on detective work during Abraham Lincoln’s life and shortly after his death. They can be used to allow students to become detectives. The teacher may read parts of these two works to set up the mystery, and then students in groups of three utilize the evidence from these two trade books to solve cases. This process is similar as to what is seen on Historical Scene Investigation, http://www.hsionline.org/. The teacher will then bring the class back together to discuss their conclusions to the mystery. After the class discussion, she will read the portions of the books revealing the answers to the mystery within these trade books. Seiple, S. (2015). Lincoln’s spymaster: Allan Pinkerton, America’s first private eye. New York, NY: Scholastic. Sheinkin, S. (2013). Lincoln’s grave robbers. New York, NY: Scholastic.

  15  

5. The biography, Joseph Stalin (McCollum, 2009), provides information about the millions of people Stalin destroyed during his reign. Breaking Stalin’s Nose (Yelchin, 2011) provides a visceral experience of Sasha. It chronicles this young boy’s transition from revering Stalin as a godlike figure to realizing his deadly dictatorship that instilled fear as a controlling device for all of Soviet society. After discussing these two compelling trade books, students can empathize with Sasha by using evidence from these texts to write a letter to the United Nations. In this letter, they should inform about Stalin’s dictatorship and send a plea for help. This perspectivewriting piece should be a page in length and contain evidence from these two trade books. McCollum, S. (2009). Joseph Stalin (Wicked History Series). New York, NY: Scholastic. Yelchin, E. (2011). Breaking Stalin’s nose. New York, NY: Henry Holt.    

  16  

Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding on Quality of Middle School Students’ Written Arguments

1 2

1

Lydia Zeller

Mehmet Aydeniz

Graduate Student in Science Education Knox County Schools

2

Associate Professor of Science Education

Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education College of Education, Health and Human Sciences The University of Tennessee Corresponding author: Mehmet Aydeniz Email: [email protected] Telephone: 865-974-0885    

  17  

Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding on Quality of Middle School Students’ Written Arguments

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of scaffolding on the quality of written arguments of middle school students. The participants included 105 seventh grade middle school students from an urban school in southeast United States. Students engaged in argument construction practices six times over 3 months. We report on the observed changes in the quality of students’ written arguments over the course of a semester and six argumentation tasks. The results show that while students made progress on claim, evidence and reasoning aspects of the argument, they did not make much progress on the rebuttal aspect of the argument. We highlight and discuss potential pitfalls and offer suggestions for improving classroom instruction. Keywords: middle school, science, argumentation.

Introduction Argumentation is a core scientific practice. Ethnographic studies of science suggest that scientists engage in argumentation throughout their work. They state a claim (mostly in the form of a hypothesis), search for evidence through controlled experimentation and other forms of inquiry (e.g., systematic review of literature) to collect relevant and sufficient evidence, and offer warrants in the form of justifications (Duschl, Schweingruber & Schouse, 2007; Erduran & Jimenez, 2008; McNeill & Pimentel, 2009). While constructing scientific explanations, scientists engage in critical thinking, often in the form of rebuttals, to identify deficiencies in their thinking or to solidify their theories (Duschl et al., 2007; Erduran & Jimenez, 2008). The product of scientists’ efforts are reviewed, discussed, accepted or rejected in the scientific community mostly through written arguments (Kuhn, 1993; Latour & Woolgar, 1979). If science educators’ goal is to engage their students in scientific practices as recent science education reform documents from the National Research Council (2012) suggest, they

  18  

need to teach them how to write quality written arguments as well (McNeill & Knight, 2013; McNeill & Krajcik, 2008; Ryu & Sandoval, 2011). In spite of the emphasis placed on students’ abilities to write quality scientific arguments, the majority of teachers are not trained in the pedagogy of argumentation (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; McNeill & Knight, 2013; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012). As a result, students in majority of science classrooms are not given the opportunity to learn this essential scientific practice (Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez & Duschl, 2000; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012). In this study, we (researchers) explored if and how middle school students’ argumentation skills changed over time. We engaged the participants in construction of written arguments six times periodically over one semester. We report the results of our intervention in this study. Literature Review A goal of many teachers is to increase their students’ conceptual understanding of core science concepts covered by school curriculum. Conceptual understanding is often deepened when conflict occurs and when learners are challenged to think critically (Osborne, Simon, Christodoulou, Howell-Richardson, & Richardson, 2013). When a student’s conceptual structure of a scientific idea and his/her frame of understanding is disturbed, they have to shift their belief about the scientific idea (Mason, 2003; Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, 2001). This shift causes a student to delve deeper into the material and consider restructuring their conceptual schema (Beeth, 1998; Oyehaug & Holt, 2013). Emerging research studies show that argumentation can result in both cognitive conflict and students’ deeper engagement with the material under study (von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, 2008). As a result, this develops conceptual understanding (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Argumentation has been proven to be effective in helping students to

  19  

become critical of claims they encounter, look for valid justification of claims, and thus develop deeper understanding of concepts under study (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008; Sampson, Enderle, Grooms & Witte, 2013). Argumentation literature shows that learning science through argumentation encourages students to search for credibility and validity when they encounter claims in the classroom or outside world to make informed decisions (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008). Researchers in science education state that argumentation helps students both with scientific literacy and critical thinking skills (Sampson et al., 2013; Zangori, Forbes & Biggers, 2012), as it helps students examine and compare evidence to make that informed decisions through reasoned discourse (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; McNeill & Krajcik, 2008). As important as argumentation is for students in their conceptual understanding and critical thinking skills (Venville & Dawson, 2010; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), it is not an easy skill for students to develop (Sampson et al., 2013). Argumentation skills are often difficult to master because they are new to students due to limited exposure to argumentation in the majority of elementary or middle school classrooms (McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012; Zangori et al, 2012). Students often encounter difficulty because it is not a skill that comes naturally to students but is developed over a long period of time and through sustained practice (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012). Argumentation skills do not develop easily, therefore, short-term interventions may not have a significantly positive effect on the quality of arguments students develop (Ryu & Sandoval, 2012; Venville & Dawson, 2010). Acquiring these skills are difficult for students to attain in short periods of time due to the history of students’ learning experiences in school (i.e. these are not skills they are used to utilizing) and the nature of argumentation; making a claim and using

  20  

appropriate and sufficient evidence with scientific justification is a skill set with which students often struggle. The biggest difficulties for students include knowing the difference between data and evidence, using appropriate and sufficient evidence, and justifying claims with scientific concepts as well as addressing counterarguments (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik & Marx, 2009; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012;). There is evidence that shows students learn both scientific concepts and argumentation skills better when taught together (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). Conceptual understanding of higher quality takes place when a concept is learned in social group settings through critical discourse (McNeill & Pimentel, 2009; Mercer, Wegerif, & Sams, 2003). Vygotsky (1978) is often quoted and cited in the literature that backs this social concept of learning Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). In order for teachers to promote this type of learning and for students to actively engage in argumentation, the norms of the classroom culture must be revisited (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012). If teachers are to expect the students to develop meaningful learning students must be taught how to create scientific arguments and provided scaffolding to improve the quality of their arguments (McNeill, et al., 2006; Driver et al., 2000). These responsibilities lie with the teacher. The instructor must teach the skills needed and provide the culture that will support students in learning to properly engage in scientific argumentation. Constructing scientific arguments includes stating a claim, providing appropriate and sufficient evidence, including justification of how the evidence supports the claim, and addressing any counterarguments for the claim (Erduran, & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2009; Zangori et al., 2012). Review of Studies Focusing on Middle School Students’ Argumentation Skills

  21  

Several science educators have conducted research on middle school students’ argumentation skills. McNeill et al (2006) conducted a study with 331 seventh grade students where they explored the role of scaffolding in students’ argumentation skills. The treatment group received continuous scaffolding throughout the fifteen-lesson chemistry unit that included six prompts with identical scaffolds. The control group received faded scaffolds through the unit. Students completed lessons and investigations together, recorded their data, and were provided with secondary data. They were then asked to provide independent explanations of the data without their classmates’ or teachers’ contributions. The results of this study showed that there was an increase in student’s argumentation skills regardless of treatment between the pretest and beginning lesson on scientific explanation. Students in the faded treatment group showed higher reasoning skills on the posttest on the items pertaining to substance and properties (vs. chemical reaction) when no scaffold was provided. However, the group that received continuous treatment provided stronger explanations when they were provided with written scaffolds. The authors state that this suggests scaffolding had different effects based on the content. There was a correlation between correct answers on the posttest and better written explanations with the same items. The results also revealed that students’ performance on claim and evidence was stronger than reasoning regardless of treatment group. The results also point to the need for students to hold a better understanding of the content and of how to write an explanation for the quality of written explanation to improve their learning. This study’s results show that faded scaffolds produce students with a better ability to provide explanation when no scaffold is provided. Written scaffolds do not have as much influence on students during class because there are other supports present (other students and teachers). Students who received faded scaffolds scored higher on the posttest in claims,

  22  

evidence, and reasoning as students were forced to think on their own due to not always having a scaffold present. Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, and Sams (2004) conducted a study with 230 fifth year (ages 910) students in southeast England. A computer intervention program, called Science Explorer, was used to teach language skills for working individually and with a group in science class for all students in the study, control and experimental. Each teacher was provided with 12 detailed lessons (Mercer et.al p.363). The Science Explorer program offered a place where students simulated experiments and then had discussions (which were observed) using the Thinking Together program within Science Explorer. The study relied on the teacher’s ability to scaffold the language. The Thinking Together program was used for teachers in the experimental groups. The Science Explorer program was used for all involved in study. There was a qualitative analysis of children's discussions and a quantitative analysis using a computer based program searching for key words. The results showed that the experimental groups students performed better than the control group students. This suggests that students should learn to work collaboratively from a younger age to improve their reasoning and language skills in order to reach higher levels of achievement in science, inquiry, and written explanations. In combination with group work, students benefit from guidance from their teachers on how to work together and how to engage in scientific discourse. Teachers can scaffold group reasoning to help students with nonverbal reasoning. Research shows that group work encourages critical thinking (Hogan, Nastasi & Pressley, 1999; Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999), therefore it is important to engage students in collective reasoning.

  23  

Other science educators have also studied students’ argumentation skills in science. For instance, Sandoval and Millwood (2008) conducted a study with 33 seventh grade middle school students from an urban school in California. Students investigated a project titled "Why do plants look different?" through several lab activities and finished with an investigation of leaf size and environmental factors that affected it. The students completed the investigation using a software program. The researchers used a rubric to grade essays, interviewed each student, and had them answer a questionnaire. They looked to see if the way students approached the work and expressed their ideas were the same or similar to how scientists conducted investigations and explanations. The results of their study showed that most students failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims in their written explanations. This indicated "gaps" between how students talked and how they wrote. Students also used the teacher as their audience, which could have affected the quality of their written arguments (as opposed to assuming their audience knew nothing of the subject). This case study showed that middle school students failed to connect data and claims with justification or reasoned discourse. Because it is difficult to study and attempt to understand and generalize why students choose to write how they do through large-scale studies, scientists continue to explore factors affecting the quality of students’ written arguments and explanations. Ryu and Sandoval (2012) conducted a study with twenty-one third and fourth grade students in dual language classrooms in California. The teacher in the classroom set a classroom culture of persuasion as a means to teach argumentation throughout the year. She focused on the students convincing each other, not the teacher. As the year progressed, students learned what counted as a good argument and what made one argument better than another by focusing on the evidence and justification provided. The school used a program called Full Option Science

  24  

System (FOSS), which consisted of kits for teaching the science lessons. Students worked together, designed experiments, collected data, presented their results, and had class discussions. As the year continued, the lessons became more open ended as scaffolds were removed. Ryu and Sandoval (2012) had students complete argument construction and evaluation tasks to see if their knowledge of what makes a strong argument improved. This included their own arguments and dissecting the arguments of others. They also videotaped instruction to study what the teacher did to improve the quality of the students’ arguments. The authors found that over the course of the year students were able to construct better arguments and evaluate other arguments. Thus, choose a better argument based on the quality and appropriateness of evidence and justification provided. Ryu and Sandoval (2012) suggested that classroom culture and time had the largest effect on the progress that the students achieved. The authors were able to create a collaborative classroom environment in which students could negotiate ideas through critical discourse. The focus was on persuasion in creating and defending arguments. Creating such a classroom culture could take weeks to establish. Authors maintain that when such a classroom culture is established, enough time is provided, and sufficient scaffolding is provided, students can learn the importance of justification, and their use of justification can improve to develop stronger arguments. McNeill and Pimentel (2009) conducted a study with sixty-eight eleventh and twelfth graders in the same district in New England. The first lesson in the ecology unit was videotaped. This lesson consisted of classroom discussion and opportunity for scientific discourse. The videos were coded and studied for patterns in student and teacher interactions. The first pattern noted was whether or not the teacher dominated the classroom discussion. In two of the three

  25  

classrooms, discussion was dominated by the teacher. However, this could be due to framing and the majority of argumentation may have been completed by students. In the one out of the three classrooms studied, students responded directly to each other more. The other two classes were dominated by teacher questions and comments. Students in the classroom where students had more frequent interaction with each other, provided more justifications in support of their claims than those that had limited interaction with one another. The use of open-ended questions affected these results. In the classroom that used open-ended questions, students not only justified their reasoning but also accepted or refuted their classmates’ claims. In the other classrooms, students offered claims, evidence, and justification but did not interact with other students by accepting or refuting their claims. The results show that the prevalence of open-ended questions lead to more student discussions and increase the quality of student arguments. The authors maintain that questioning in general leads to argumentative discourse, but the type of question affects the style of argumentation. This study showed the essential role of the teacher in facilitating student interactions so they could develop quality arguments. Similarly, it suggests that curriculum can set context for argumentation to occur. Zangori, Forbes and Biggers (2012) conducted a study with forty-five in-service teachers among seventeen schools in a mid-western state. The researchers’ goal was to explore how elementary science teachers engaged their students in inquiry-based learning. More specifically, they were interested in how the teachers support their students’ abilities to construct scientific explanations. The results showed that curriculum materials tend to focus on evidence but not explanation. The teachers and curriculum limited opportunities for explanation beyond what was provided in the curriculum. For the most part, teachers followed the lesson plans and did not

  26  

change much to provide more opportunities for student explanation because of a focus on handson engagement and a focus on the “what” and not the “how” or “why” of learning. This study’s results are aligned with other argumentation studies in that they too conclude that it is not that elementary and middle school students cannot formulate scientific explanations but that the focus of curriculum materials is on evidence and data collection instead of building understanding through explanation. Zangori et al (2012) argue that while one part of the issue is the nature of inquiry-based curriculum materials that focuses primarily on data collection, the other part is that teachers do not adapt the curriculum to engage students in construction of explanations. This may be due to teachers’ misconceptions related to what it means to construct scientific explanations or teachers’ perceptions of what children are capable of doing. Zangori et al (2012) found that teachers hesitated to focus on students’ explanation construction, because they did not believe students could construct explanations of scientific phenomena. Similarly, they argue that in order to change the nature of student learning, curriculum should emphasize the type of explanation that focuses on the “how” and “why” of learning not just the “what” of learning. Students need to be given ample opportunities to develop explanations of such nature. Without such opportunities, the status quo will continue to prevail in science classrooms. Sampson, Enderle, Grooms, and Witte (2012) conducted a study with 294 students in grades seven through eleven over the course of one year in the southeast United States. The purpose of the study was to see how students’ argumentation skills and conceptual understanding changed as they participated in a program called Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI). ADI is a writing focused laboratory program that engages students in constructions of claims, data collection, written argument development, and argumentation. The results of this study showed that learning science through ADI improved both students’ conceptual understanding of concepts

  27  

emphasized in the curriculum and the quality of their written arguments. They found that students showed greatest improvements in science courses where the most writing activities occurred. The results indicated that in classes where teachers did not fully implement the writing aspect of the ADI program, students scores did not improve as much. This may suggest that writing is what helps students most to improve their conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Sampson et al (2012) suggest that writing more (answering questions, keeping journals) may help improve students’ content understanding but does not necessarily improve their argumentative writing. To improve students’ argumentative and scientific writing, writing should be embedded throughout the curriculum, and the assignments need to be authentic. Similarly, they argue that in order to observe improvements in students’ scientific writing skills, writing must be an integral part of science curriculum and needs to be implemented effectively. Otherwise, it is unlikely to result in reported improvements. Informed by the challenges reported in the literature about students’ argumentation skills and the promising affects of the role of scaffolding in improving students’ argumentation skills, this study was designed to explore the effects of scaffolding on the quality of students’ written arguments. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of scaffolding and practice on the quality of middle school students’ written arguments? Methodology This project is a mixed case study. Case study approach is typically used with a small group of students with the aim of developing an in-depth understanding of the problems related to teaching and learning. Therefore, case studies typically focus on descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory analysis of one person, group, or event (Merriam, 2009). The purpose of this project

  28  

was to improve the quality of students’ written arguments through scaffolding. We report on the observed changes in the quality of students’ written arguments over the course of a semester and six argumentation tasks. We do so through descriptive statistics that show the progress or lack thereof on different aspects of scientific arguments. However, in order to produce statistics we qualitatively analyzed students’ written arguments and scored them. Therefore, this is a mixed research study.

Context and Participants   The participants included 105 seventh grade middle school students from an urban school in southeast United States. The school consists of about 68% Caucasian, 28% African American, and 4% English Language Learners (ELL). The school qualifies as Title I with 87% of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. According the state report card for the 2013-2014 school year, this school scored an “F” in reading and “C”s in mathematics, science, and social studies on the standardized test administered in the entire state. This indicates that the students who participated in this study likely struggle with reading, writing, and mathematics. This is based on an assumption that the performance of these students on state tests mirrors those of the school. The majority of the students who participated in this study typically fail to complete homework or study outside of school. Intervention The intervention consisted of engaging the students in construction of written scientific arguments using the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning and Rebuttal (CERR) framework (McNeill & Krajcik, 2011) and providing the scaffolding needed to improve the quality of students’ written arguments. We chose this framework because it serves as an effective scaffold for students with limited experience with argument construction (McNeill & Krajcik, 2011). Providing such   29  

structure helps students to address different aspects of a scientific argument with limited frustration. Students completed six argumentation tasks, which were spread out over three months. Scaffolding was provided with the purpose of generating improvements to students’ arguments, specifically, their abilities to state an appropriate claim and provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to back their claims. The argument construction template included sections for a case to be described, a question to be answered, an area for students to record their claims, a section for listing evidence, a section for writing justification of evidence chosen, and a rebuttal section to address other possible claims (see Appendix A). Students were required to complete the claim section before completing the rest of the template. Then, they were required to identify the four best pieces of evidence to support their claims. Next, they addressed each piece of evidence with justification of why the evidence supported their claim. Finally, they were required to discuss two strong points for a rebuttal claim.

Exercise One The first argumentation exercise was heavily scaffolded and so lasted the entire seventyfive minutes class period. The remaining five sessions required about half as much time. The first exercise was about experimental testing on chimpanzees. Each student received copies of the articles to use and the template. Students were first required to read two articles on the topic. During the first class that an argumentation exercise happened, the teacher helped scaffold by reading the articles out loud with the class and breaking down the template part by part. The first reading of the articles was focused on making sure that both the vocabulary words as well as the

  30  

points being made by the various authors were understood. In the claims section, students were given two options to choose from that were written on the board. Then, using highlighters, the teacher read the articles out loud again and students marked the text as to what they felt was evidence that would support their specific claim. After this practice, they were instructed to choose the top four strongest pieces of evidence. Then, the teacher took students’ chosen pieces of evidence and talked them through how to write justification for each point. Students then did this for the remaining pieces of evidence they wrote down with the teacher circling the room, reading student work, and providing individual feedback. After that, the teacher had students share what they felt was the best piece of evidence that supported their claim. Then students wrote down a classmate’s evidence who had an opposing position in their rebuttal section and wrote about that point. They were to write about how it was a legitimate or illegitimate point and why it did not outweigh their claim and evidence. Exercise Two In the second exercise that occurred during the Earth science unit, the instructions were reviewed in great detail, but this time the students read and chose evidence independently. The topic for the second exercise was about whether “man” has had a positive or negative impact on the environment. There were two options for their claim prewritten on the board to choose from. Then, the students proceeded to read the articles on their own and marked the text with a highlighter. After that, they could choose their evidence and write out their justification. For rebuttal, students were asked to think of points/claims another person in class could have made against their claims and address them. Exercise Three

  31  

The third exercise occurred during the physics unit and students were posed with the question, “Should machines be used in the work force?”. Students were provided with prewritten claims to choose from and the remaining instructions were the same as exercise two. Exercise Four For the remaining exercises, claims were not prewritten on the board for students to choose from but a class discussion of potential options was held prior to beginning of the exercises to prompt ideas of an appropriate claim. The remaining argumentation exercises also changed in style from needing no prior knowledge to pulling from class lectures. The first three exercises revolved heavily around the provided articles and could be completed with those alone. The last three exercises built on material covered in class. For the fourth exercise, the teacher brought in compound machines and laid them on the student tables. The question that was posed to the students was: Which simple machines make up the compound machine laying on your table? Students needed to have attended class and learned about the content to really be able to complete the task; however, to help remind students of material and give them evidence to cite, articles were placed on their tables with the information on the types of simple machines. Students were to create a claim, list evidence, and justify their claims with evidence. This was not a debatable topic, either the simple machine is present or not, so they were not required to complete a rebuttal. The teacher’s role was to move around and offer help and feedback to students as they requested or the teacher saw necessary. Exercise Five Exercise five was very similar in style and student instructions. The prompt was: When throwing a ball, which laws of motion are in use? A class discussion of possible claims took place and students were provided with articles that applied Newton’s Laws of Motion to football,

  32  

basketball, and baseball to provide citable evidence on their template. The teacher moved around the room to offer help as needed. Students were to complete all parts of the template, including the rebuttal section. Exercise Six For the final exercise, which occurred during the life science unit, students were posed with the question: Which cell organelle(s) are most important for keeping you healthy? Again, a class discussion was held on potential claims, and information about what each organelle does was provided. Students were to complete all sections of the argument template. The teacher walked around to provide help as requested by students. Data Analyses   Data analyses took place in four stages. First, the authors randomly chose 10 arguments for each task and read the arguments to become familiar with the patterns in the quality of the students’ arguments. Familiarity with patterns served as a context for the second stage of our analyses. Second, consistent with our scaffolding template, we used the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning and Rebuttal (CERR) framework to analyze the quality of students’ arguments for each task (McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2009). For each argument component students could receive a score between 0 to 3, with 0 indicating poorest quality, 3 indicating highest quality. Third, we calculated the frequency of each score for each component of the argument across all six argumentation tasks. Finally, we reported these frequencies in a time series format in MS Excel graphs for each argument component.

Results  

  33  

The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of scaffolding on the quality of middle school students’ argumentation skills. The results reveal that practice with developing written arguments had a positive yet, limited impact on the quality of arguments that the students produced. We present our findings related to students’ performance on different aspects of argumentation across six tasks in the following section. In our reporting, we first present our results on the quality of claims, then on the quality of evidence, followed by students’ reasoning skills and rebuttal skills. Students’ Progress on Construction of Claims   The results show that participants made progress in terms of constructing claims from task 1 to task 6 (see Figure 1). While only 49 students performed at level 2 on task 1, 68 students performed at level 2 on task 6. Similarly, the number of students performing at level 0 was reduced from 16 on task 1 and 21 on task 2 to 9 on task 5 and 10 on task 6. Similarly, the number of students performing at level 2 increased from 49 on task 1 and 51 on task 2 to 67 on task 5 and 68 on task 6. These results reveal the following two trends: 10% of the students made progress from level 0 to level 1 and 20% made progress from level 1 to level 2. This shows that through scaffolding and practice, teachers can help students in the middle-level to develop better arguments. What makes these results interesting is that while the students were provided with options to use as a claim in the first three tasks. Yet, they performed better on the last three tasks with only verbal instruction that guided them to construct their own claims. It is also important to note that few times a zero reflects how many students chose not to complete an assignment. Did this skew the results? If so, how? Occasionally, there would be a student who misunderstood that a

  34  

claim needed to be completed before evidence was collected and would have evidence listed but no claim. This was especially the case in first three tasks.

Frequency

Progress  on  Use  of  Claims 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0 1 Task1

Task2

Task3

Task4

Task5

Task6

0

16

21

8

9

9

10

1

29

22

28

24

18

16

2

49

51

58

61

67

68

2

Argumentation  Tasks

Figure 1. Students’ progress on use of claims across argumentation tasks.

Students’ Progress on Use of Evidence The results show that participants made progress on use of evidence across tasks as well (see Figure 2). While only 8 students performed at level 3 on task 1 and 18 on task 2, that number increased to 30 on tasks 5 and 6. Similarly, the number of students performing at level 0 decreased from 22 on task 1 and 28 on task 2 to 14 on task 5 and 16 on task 6. It is important to note the increase in “0’s” from the first to second task in students’ uses of evidence. That is possibly due to the fact that in comparison to the second task, the first task was heavily scaffolded. The students were instructed to read the articles on their own and then

  35  

construct their arguments. This trend seems to diminish as the students became familiar with the practice of writing arguments in tasks 4, 5, and 6. Students were guided to write arguments through prompts in the form of questions. The first three tasks were questions focused on controversial socio scientific issues, where students had to choose between two claims to defend. The last three tasks, on the other hand, focused on school science content. This could have led to a difference in evidence as well as students relying on previous experience to justify their claims. It is important to note that while the students were provided articles to assist in answering the first three questions, they were instructed to pull content from previous experience, articles, and their prior knowledge for the last three questions. This potentially contributed to observed trends in student performance.

Progress  on  Use  of  Evidence 40 35 30 25 20 15

0

10

1

5 0

2 Task1

Task2

Task3

Task4

Task5

Task6

0

22

28

24

19

14

16

1

33

22

23

18

22

21

2

31

26

25

23

28

27

3

8

18

22

34

30

30

Argumentation  Tasks

Figure 2. Students’ progress on use of evidence across argumentation tasks.

  36  

3

Students’ Progress on Reasoning Skills   The results show that participants made progress on use reasoning across tasks as well (see Figure 3). While only 8 students performed at level 2 on task 1 and 15 on task 2, that number increased to 24 on task 5 and 32 on task 6. Similarly, the number of students performing at level 0 decreased from 50 on task 1 and 52 on task 2 to 37 on task 5 and 32 on task 6. The number of those performing at level 3 also increased from task 1 to task 6 though not significantly. Students struggled with understanding the purpose of reasoning and what was required. They got better at understanding how to choose evidence that supported their claims but encountered more difficulty in explaining why it supported their claim or why that evidence was important. Again, the first three tasks were questions that had clear sides to choose between and the last three tasks were questions that were content related. Students may have increased their ability to reason when they could also apply content knowledge to answer the question instead of relying on previous experience and the articles provided. Nevertheless, starting from task 3, students appear to have made progress in their reasoning skills. The questions for the first three tasks had answers that asked the students to choose between one of two options, whereas the second set of three questions had more variety in the type of claim a student could develop, leading to more variety in evidence and reasoning as well. The students’ ability to develop their own answer increased. Instead of two types of claims, we observed that students constructed ten plus diverse claims, leading to more ownership of their answers and therefore, more investment in defending their answers with justifications.

  37  

Progress  on  Reasoning  Skills 60

Frequency

50 40 30 20

0

10

1

0

Task1

Task2

Task3

Task4

Task5

Task6

0

50

52

45

48

37

32

1

36

20

24

16

15

24

2

8

15

16

19

24

32

3

0

7

9

11

18

6

2 3

Argumentation  Tasks

Figure 3. Students’ progress on use of reasoning across argumentation tasks. Students’ Progress on Construction of Rebuttals   The results show that participants consistently performed poorly on forming rebuttals in their arguments (see Figure 4). This is expected, as these students are not familiar with critiquing their knowledge or that of their peers. On the challenges that the students experienced, the teacher said: “Often, I would observe that if a student did not understand the purpose of a task, they would prefer not to answer. I also saw attempts to answer but they did not actually address another side; they would provide more evidence for their claims. The template also asked for evidence and reasoning for the rebuttal and those who could list counter evidence would often not go into reasoning.” She further stated that “students were more focused on getting their answer right instead of considering that there are multiple right answers.”   38  

Progress  on  Construction  of  Rebuttals 80 70 Frequency

60 50 40 30

0

20

1

10 0

Task1

Task2

Task3

Task5

Task6

0

55

68

68

69

61

1

28

11

9

14

6

2

11

15

17

11

24

3

0

0

0

0

3

2 3

Argumentation  Tasks

Figure 4. Students’ progress on use of rebuttals across argumentation tasks.

Discussion   The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of scaffolding and practice on the quality of middle school students’ written arguments. To observe the effects of scaffolded practice on the quality of arguments developed by students over time, the teacher engaged them in construction of six written arguments over the course of a semester (four months). Then, we (researchers) analyzed students’ written arguments and tracked their progress over time. We developed four assertions based on the findings that we reported as well as our informal observations of how the students performed on six argumentation tasks. First, middle school students can make progress on the quality of their written arguments through practice. The results show that students made progress on all components of an argument except for the rebuttal aspect. Students learned the following over the course of the

  39  

experiment:, 1) to construct better claims, 2) to support their claims with more evidence, and 3) to more effectively reason with evidence to support their claims. For instance, while only 8 students performed at level 2 in reasoning with evidence on task 1 and 15 on task 2, that number increased to 24 on task 5 and 32 on task 6. This shows that students develop more effective reasoning skills over time and through practice with argumentation. Second, the nature of argumentation tasks influenced the quality of arguments that the students developed. For instance, while the quality of students’ evidence appears to steadily improve, this improvement stops at Tasks 5 and 6. This is possibly due to the task question; however, the teacher also witnessed more resistance from the students as the semester progressed. Students did not enjoy using the template, and many would complain when they would see the argument construction template being passed out. Additionally, while the initial argument tasks focused on controversial issues, the later tasks were based heavily on canonical content. It is possible that if students did not feel comfortable with their proficiency in content knowledge, they would not perform as well on argumentation tasks. Confidence in their knowledge might have affected the quality of their product, which was in the form of their arguments. The initial tasks (tasks 1, 2 &3) provided all information by having students to read the information from the text, and students were on level playing fields of only using information provided and any knowledge they brought with them to table through their prior experiences. The later tasks, on the other hand, asked students to apply the content knowledge they had acquired through class instruction. So, if the students were not confident in their content knowledge, the quality of their arguments might have suffered. Similarly, while students seem to make a steady progress on their reasoning at level 3, the number of level 3’s decreased and the number of level 1’s increased on task 6. This decrease in the quality of reasoning on task 6 has a

  40  

high probability of being task related due to the fact that the task asked students to argue which organelles were most important in keeping our cells healthy and functioning. Students may not have had sufficient knowledge of the specific functions of each organelle, and their contribution to overall cell functions. This may have negatively affected the quality of reasoning they provided. As students are just being introduced to the functions of different organelles in cells, they may not have had opportunities to solidify their knowledge of cell organelles. This is probably the most likely cause of this decline. Meaning, while students intentionally or unintentionally get exposure to controversial science topics through several means, they only get exposure to core biological ideas such as cell structure and function through textbook and classroom instruction. This impacts how much they can elaborate on their claims during argumentation. Third, students continue to struggle with writing rebuttals to discuss alternative arguments in written arguments. This may be an indication that students do not know what rebuttals are and thus do not know how to write rebuttals. This could also be attributed to how comfortable students are with the material, and how confident they are in their answers. Students are rarely given the opportunities to criticize others’ arguments or even their own in most traditional classroom settings (Ford, 2008; Henderson, MacPherson, Osborne & Wild, 2015). This new, unfamiliar form of writing and arguing seem to have affected the results. Now that this group of students is more comfortable with other aspects of argument, it may be useful to focus on rebuttal exercises to see if a more narrow focus could increase performance in this skill over time. Also, the template was set up with the rebuttal being the last component. Possibly, after creating a claim, supporting their claims with evidence and reasoning, developing and supporting/rejecting an alternative explanation could have added an extra cognitive load. The

  41  

students might have not been mentally ready for dealing with this increased cognitive load. This cognitive fatigue might have impacted results. This is very likely because these students are rarely given opportunities in school to create extended responses or to evaluate alternative explanations. Many students who were unfamiliar with writing arguments or did not have enough content knowledge were only providing short answers. They would start writing the first sentence but then give up, as the cognitive load demanded by the argumentation task increased. Fourth, teachers’ epistemological beliefs related to the nature of science and pedagogical knowledge of argumentation may have played a crucial role in the progress and lack thereof that the students made. For instance, teachers’ beliefs about science as argument and their pedagogical knowledge of argumentation might have limited the ways in which students engaged in argument construction. For instance, teacher beliefs can influence how they frame the task at hand, and framing may have a greater effect on the quality of arguments students produce (Berland & Hammer, 2012). Limitations to the Study The teacher who implemented this research had limited experience and knowledge of argumentation at the beginning but became increasingly knowledgeable as the semester progressed. This teacher took a nature of science course in which the link between nature of science and argumentation has been made explicit. Possibly repeating the same study with the same teacher and a different group of students could result in different learning outcomes. Should this study be repeated, some argumentation task questions could be changed or the text provided could change based on where students experienced difficulty. This particular teacher felt the need to modify her argumentation tasks after teaching science through argumentation and reflecting on her students’ experiences with argumentation. The teacher in this study focused

  42  

solely on written arguments. If she was to teach science through argumentation again, she would implement argumentation in the following order. First, introduce the content through a hands-on learning experience so that students acquire the language and become familiar with concepts. Then, create opportunities and tasks for students to engage in verbal argumentation. This is likely to enrich students’ knowledge of relevant concepts and exposure to alternative explanations. Finally, have students construct written arguments. Following this sequence is likely to improve the quality of students’ learning experiences and increase students’ achievement (Sampson et al., 2013). One observation that the teachers who implemented argumentation made was that students did not like constructing written arguments at the end of each unit. Writing arguments required too much cognitive effort from the students; therefore, students resented writing them at the end of each unit. Having students to complete more or less frequent activities could potentially affect the quality of arguments as well. For example, keeping the same number of arguments using the template but switching between oral and written arguments may affect the magnitude of growth. We plan to pursue the answer to the question of whether switching between written and verbal arguments will result in better learning outcomes than engaging students in written arguments only in future studies.

Conclusions   Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings of this study. First, middle school students need more exposure to and opportunities to develop evidence-based scientific arguments. Second, in order for students to develop evidence-based explanations, teachers themselves need to be given professional development opportunities (McNeill &Knight, 2013). The professional development need to focus on teachers’ understanding of the theoretical   43  

underpinnings of argumentation-based learning as well as development if pedagogical knowledge needed to design, implement and assess argumentation-based learning experiences (McNeill & Knight, 2013; Simon et al., 2006). Such professional development activities should be situated in the context of real classrooms and focus on challenges experienced by teachers attempting to implement argumentation and by students who are asked to develop evidencebased scientific arguments. Unless teachers are provided with quality professional development opportunities, implementation of argumentation in middle science classrooms are unlikely to be effective and make significant contributions to student learning. (McNeill & Knight, 2013; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012). References Beeth, M.E. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343-356. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(?), 68–94. doi: 10.1002/tea.20446 Dauer, J. M., Doherty, J. H., Freed, A. L., & Anderson, C. W. (2014). Connections between student explanations and arguments from evidence about plant growth. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 397–409. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-02-0028 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 5-12 Duschl, R. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

  44  

Henderson, J.B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J. and Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668-1697. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379– 432. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R.,&Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283- 315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319 – 337. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810824. Kuhn, L., Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J., (2006). Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each others’ claims and evidence. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mason, L. (2003). Personal epistemologies and intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 199-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon   45  

McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In Luft, J., Bell, R. & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. McNeill, K. L. & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R.,& Dawes, L.(1999).Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 493–516. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education. Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, Washington, D.C: Achieve. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C. and Richardson, K. (2013), Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315- 347. doi: 10.1002/tea.21073 Oy Haug, A. B., & Holt, A. (2013). Students’ understanding of the nature of matter and chemical reactions – a longitudinal study of conceptual restructuring. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 450-467. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.

  46  

Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high schools students develop argumentative writing skills as the learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037. Sandoval, W. A., Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68-85). Dordrecht:Springer. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), Elsevier handbook of educational psychology: New perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 137–176). Dordrecht: Elsevier Press Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2– 3), 235–260. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 381–419.

  47  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: Elementary teachers’ use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989-1017. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.  

 

  48  

 

Four  Strategies  for  Behavior  Management  in  Middle  Schools   Clinton  Smith,  BCBA-­‐‑D,  University  of  Tennessee  at  Martin     Abstract  

One  issue  that  middle  school  teachers  and  administrators  deal  with  on  a  daily  basis  is   discipline.       This  article  presents  five  strategies  for  improving  the  behavior  of  middle  school  students.     First,  teachers  should  take  a  proactive  approach  towards  behavioral  issues  in  their   classroom.    Second,  teachers  should  be  consistent  with  their  rules  and  transitions  in  their   classroom.  Third,  teachers  should  conduct  functional  behavior  assessments  to  create   interventions  based  on  the  “why”  or  function  of  the  behavior.    Finally,  good  classroom   management  comes  from  incorporating  effective  teaching  strategies,  engaging  students,   and  providing  feedback.  

 

  Keywords:    behavior  interventions,  classroom  management,  functional  behavior   assessment,  classroom  rules  and  transitions                     49  

    Introduction   Middle  school  students  are  unique  animals.    Developmentally,  they  are  dealing  with   multiple  social,  emotional,  and  physical  changes  that  can  impact  their  learning  (Armstrong,   2006).  It  is  important  for  middle  school  students  to  be  engaged,  develop  personal   relationships,  and  have  positive  role  models  (Armstrong,  2006).    Middle  school  teachers   and  administrators  should  focus  on  the  preparation  of  these  students  for  high  school  and   life  after  high  school.       These  changes  can  also  affect  their  behavior  in  the  classroom.      One  issue  that   middle  school  teachers  and  administrators  deal  with  on  a  daily  basis  is  student   misbehavior  and  discipline.    It  has  been  reported  that  the  top  5%  of  middle  school  students   with  the  most  disciplinary  referrals  account  for  49%  of  all  of  these  referrals  (Sprague,   Sugai,  Horner,  &  Walker,  1999).  Students  can  spend  up  to  twenty  minutes  or  more  by   missing  academic  instruction  time  which  can  impact  their  academic  achievement  while   administrators  can  spend  up  to  forty-­‐‑five  minutes  handling  each  discipline  referral  (Scott  &   Barrett,  2004).  Many  times  this  disruptive  behavior  can  impact  both  teachers  and  students   and  eventually  lead  to  teacher  burnout  (Evers,  Tomic,  &  Brouwers,  2004;  Psunder,  2005).     Too  many  times  teachers  and  administrators  use  reactive  punishment-­‐‑based   interventions  (e.g.,  in-­‐‑school  suspension,  out  of  school  suspension,  exclusion,  expulsion)  to   try  to  reduce  student  problem  behaviors  instead  of  trying  to  prevent  these  behaviors.     Punishment  alone  does  not  lead  to  change  in  behaviors  and  are  not  effective  in  reducing   behaviors  (Costenbader  &  Markson,  1998).    Unfortunately,  these  behaviors  tend  to  

  50  

increase  as  a  result  of  using  these  punishment  based  interventions  (Mayer  &  Sulzer-­‐‑ Azaroff,  1990;  March  &  Horner,  2002;  Skiba  &  Peterson,  1999).    Some  punishment-­‐‑based   intervention,  such  as  in-­‐‑school  suspension  or  time-­‐‑out,  may  reward  or  help  maintain   problem  behaviors  (March  &  Horner,  2002).       The  purpose  of  this  article  is  to  present  five  strategies  for  improving  the  behavior  of   middle  school  students.    First,  teachers  should  take  a  proactive  approach  towards   behavioral  issues  in  their  classroom.    Second,  teachers  should  be  consistent  with  their  rules   and  transitions  in  their  classroom.    Third,  teachers  should  focus  on  the  “why”  or  function   behind  the  behavior.    Fourth,  teachers  should  create  interventions  based  on  the  “why”  of   the  behavior.    Finally,  good  classroom  management  comes  from  incorporating  effective   teaching  strategies  and  engaging  students.   Strategy  #1:  Be  Proactive   Being  proactive  can  help  prevent  problem  behavior  before  it  occurs  and  escalates.     Using  a  proactive  approach  assists  in  teaching  socially  appropriate  behaviors  and  allows   teachers  to  be  efficient  and  reduce  the  amount  of  misbehavior  in  the  classroom  (Barbetta,   Norona,  and  Bicard,  2005;  Smith,  Bicard,  Bicard,  and  Casey,  2012).    Teachers  can  spend   more  time  teaching  and  less  time  dealing  with  inappropriate  behaviors.       Incorporating  a  school-­‐‑wide  positive  behavior  program  can  help  schools  be  more   proactive  as  it  relates  to  problematic  behaviors  in  the  classroom.    A  school-­‐‑wide  positive   behavior  support  (SWPBS)  framework  is  a  systematic  three-­‐‑tier  problem-­‐‑solving  approach   that  helps  schools  provide  a  safe  environment  for  all  students.    SWPBS  is  also  aligned  with   the  This  We  Believe  document  (AMLE,  2013)  that  relates  to  school  safety.    This  framework   has  been  successful  in  students  with  and  without  disabilities  in  elementary,  middle,  and  

  51  

high  schools  (Bohanon  et  al.,  2006;  Bradshaw,  Waasdorp,  &  Leaf,  2012).  Colvin  &   Fernandez,  2000;  Flannery  &  Sugai,  2010;  Hawken,  MacLeod,  &  Rawlings,  2007;  Landers,   Courtade,  &  Ryndak,  2012;  Putnam,  Luiselli,  &  Sunderland,  2000;  Simsonsen,  Britton,  &   Young,  2010;  Smith  &  Sugai,  2000).    Emphasis  is  placed  on  teaching  and  reinforcing  socially   appropriate  behaviors  and  providing  a  problem-­‐‑solving  approach  to  address  behavioral   issues.  The  SWPBS  framework  also  allows  for  collection  of  data  across  all  three  tiers  to  use   for  decision-­‐‑making  as  it  relates  to  behavioral  issues  at  the  school-­‐‑wide,  classroom,  and   individual  levels.    SWPBS  also  depends  on  fidelity  data  to  ensure  proper  implementation  of   interventions  (Sugai  &  Horner,  2006).     Using  systematic  school  wide  screeners  can  be  a  proactive  process  that  can  help   teachers  identify  students  with  problem  behaviors.    According  to  Lane,  Parks,  Kalbert,  and   Carter  (2007)  these  screeners  must  be  valid,  reliable,  and  be  feasible  for  use  by  teachers,   administrators,  and  schools.      There  are  three  systematic  school  wide  screeners  that  may  be   used  by  schools:  the  Systematic  Screening  for  Behavior  Disorders  (SSBD)  (Walker  &   Severson,  1992),  Student  Risk  Screening  Scale  (SSRS)  (Drummond,  1994),  and  the   Strengths  and  Difficulties  Questionnaire  (SDQ)  (Goodman,  2001).       The  SSBD  is  a  screener  used  to  identify  students  with  behavior  disorders.    It   measures  two  avenues  of  behavior:    internalizing  and  externalizing.    The  SSBD  is  a  three-­‐‑ stage  process  beginning  with  teacher  ranking  of  behaviors,  followed  by  completion  of   rating  scales  and  then,  independent  observations  in  various  settings  by  a  school   psychologist  or  other  qualified  individual.  This  tool  is  cost  efficient  (not  free)  and  is  a   popular  choice  for  behavior  screeners.    This  screener  takes  approximately  an  hour  to   administer.    Lane,  Walker,  Cheney,  Stage,  Blum,  and  Horner  (2005)  found  that  by  using  the  

  52  

SSBD  that  schools  could  monitor  the  problematic  behavior  of  students  and  track  their  office   disciplinary  referrals.    This  allows  schools  to  be  more  proactive  in  identifying  students  with   behavioral  issues.       Drummond’s  (1994)  SSRS  is  a  free,  psychometrically  sound  universal  screener  that   can  be  found  online.    The  SSRS  allows  schools  to  classify  students  into  three  categories:  low   risk,  moderate  risk,  and  high  risk.    Teachers  rate  students  on  seven  items  (i.e.,  stealing,   lying,  peer  rejection,  behavioral  problems,  low  achievement,  negative  attitude,  and   aggressive  behavior)  using  a  four  point  Likert  scale.    Lane  et  al  (2007)  found  the  SSRS  to   have  high  internal  consistency,  internal  and  external  validity,  reliability,  and  high  test-­‐‑ retest  stability.    

The  SDQ  allows  teachers  and  parents  to  report  on  student  behavior  as  well  as  

student  self-­‐‑reporting.    This  screener  is  also  found  at  no  cost  via  the  internet.  Teachers   complete  this  form  for  every  student  in  their  class  and  with  a  three  point  Likert  scale   evaluate  factors  that  include  twenty  five  items  dealing  with  emotional  symptoms,  conduct   problems,  hyperactivity,  peer  problems,  and  prosocial  behavior.    Although,  this  screener   has  very  strong  psychometric  properties,  it  does  take  longer  to  complete  than  the  SSRS   (Goodman,  2001;  Lane  et  al,  2007).       Using  the  SWPBS  framework,  the  primary  tier  preventative  methods  are  for  all   students  in  an  entire  school  or  classroom.    In  this  tier,  behavioral  expectations  are  taught,   modeled,  and  reinforced  while  providing  a  continuum  of  consequences  for  problematic   behaviors.    Examples  of  primary  interventions  can  include  such  activities  as  bullying   prevention.    At  the  primary  tier  level,  all  adults  participate  in  the  delivery  of  behavior  

  53  

supports  (teachers,  administrators,  custodial  staff,  etc.).    At  the  secondary  tier,  students   who  are  considered  at-­‐‑risk  receive  more  targeted  behavior  supports  and  interventions   (e.g.,  Check-­‐‑in/Check-­‐‑Out,  Check  and  Connect,  social  skill  groups)  that  provide  more   structure,  reinforcement,  and  feedback  from  adults.    Data  is  collected  more  frequently  at   this  tier  and  progress  is  monitored  during  the  interventions.    At  the  third  tier,  students  who   have  not  responded  to  primary  and  secondary  interventions  are  provided  with  more   intensive,  individual  supports  (Horner,  Sugai,  &  Anderson,  2010).      A  functional  behavior   assessment  (FBA)  is  usually  conducted  to  determine  the  function  of  a  student’s  behavior   and  then  a  function-­‐‑based  intervention  is  developed  based  on  the  information  obtained   from  the  FBA.    This  intervention  attempts  to  teach  and  reinforce  appropriate  replacement   behaviors  to  replace  inappropriate  behaviors.    This  level  also  requires  more  progress   monitoring  to  ensure  that  the  student  is  making  progress.         Strategy  #2:  Consistency  with  Expectations,  Rules  and  Transitions    

Many  times,  behavior  issues  in  the  classroom  are  created  due  to  vague  or  negative  

classroom  rules,  a  lack  of  enforcement  of  consequences  for  classroom  rules,  inconsistent   expectations,  and/or  a  lack  of  planning  for  transitions.    These  problems  often  lead  to   student  confusion  and  frustration.    On  top  of  this,  inconsistent  administration  of   consequences  often  leads  to  the  behaviors  occurring  more  frequently  (Barbetta  et  al.,   2005).    

Students  need  to  know  specific  and  clear  expectations  as  well.  Teachers  should  not  

expect  students  to  “get  it”  just  by  going  over  the  rules  on  the  first  day  of  school.    These  rules   should  be  explained,  taught,  modeled,  and  reinforced  throughout  the  school  year.    Rules   without  reinforcement  are  not  effective  and  do  not  influence  student  behavior  (Madsen,     54  

Becker,  &  Thomas,  1968;  Thomas,  Becker,  &  Armstrong,  1968).    Teachers  should  focus  on   catching  students  doing  something  good  instead  of  focusing  on  inappropriate  behaviors.     Teachers  should  always  remind  students  of  the  rules  and  expectations.    Students  tend  to   forget  classroom  procedures  and  rules  after  scheduled  breaks  (fall  or  spring  break).    They   need  to  be  reminded  of  the  rules  constantly.        

Students  should  also  have  a  hand  in  creating  classroom  rules.    When  this  occurs,  

students  can  claim  ownership  of  the  classroom  rules.    The  teacher  can  provide  guidelines   for  rule  making  to  guide  students  through  the  process  (Paine,  Radicchi,  Rosellini,   Deuthcman,  &  Darch,  1983).    Students,  like  some  teachers,  can  get  on  a  roll  and  create  too   many  rules  that  are  negative  or  vague.    Students  can  also  assist  in  helping  their  peers   practice  and  role  play  the  rules.       Teachers  should  have  approximately  four  to  six  positively  stated  classroom  rules.   These  rules  should  also  be  specific,  clear,  and  measureable.    Negative  or  vague  rules  only   tell  the  student  what  not  to  do.    Positively  stated  rules  are  specific,  clear,  and  measurable  so   the  student  knows  exactly  what  is  expected  (Barbetta  et  al.,  2005;  Paine  et  al.,  1983).     Instead  of  a  vague  rule,  “be  responsible”,  the  rule  should  state  what  being  responsible   means.    If  there  are  thirty-­‐‑five  teachers  in  a  school  –  there  are  thirty-­‐‑five  definitions  of   responsible.    Students  need  rules  to  be  specific  and  clear.    A  positively  stated  rule  would  be   “Be  responsible  by  being  prepared  by  bringing  your  pencil,  paper,  and  textbook  with  you  to   class.”    With  this  rule,  students  now  know  what  responsible  means  because  the  teacher  has   told  them  what  it  means.    Another  example  of  a  negative  rule  would  be  “Do  not  talk  in   class.”    This  could  be  positively  stated  by  the  rule  saying,  “Raise  your  hand  for  permission   to  speak.”    

  55  

 

 Teachers  should  also  prepare  for  transitions  throughout  the  school  day.    Too  many  

times,  teachers  waste  an  abundance  of  instructional  time  due  to  lost  transitional  time.     Transitions  should  be  planned  out  quickly  and  quietly.    Students  should  know  what  is   expected  of  them  during  the  transition  time.    Transitions  should  have  clear  expectations   and  be  consistent.      Again,  like  classroom  rules,  the  procedures  for  transition  times  should   be  explained,  taught,  modeled,  and  reinforced  with  the  students  (Paine  et  al.,  1983).         Strategy  #3:    Create  Function-­‐‑Based  Interventions  using  Functional  Behavior   Assessments   Most  of  these  middle  school  referrals  are  related  to  interactions  between  the   student  and  an  adult,  usually  the  classroom  teacher  (Spaulding,  Irvin,  Horner,  May,  Emeldi,   Tobin  &  Sugai,  2010).    In  addition  to  behavioral  issues,  middle  school  students  are  also   dealing  with  a  myriad  of  other  physical,  social,  and  emotional  changes  related  to  their   development  as  adolescents  (National  Middle  School  Association,  &  National  Association  of   Elementary  School  Principals,  2002).    While  it  is  important  to  know  the  triggers  and  setting   events  of  student  behavior,  it  is  also  crucial  to  focus  on  the  “why”  or  function  of  the   behavior.    The  function  of  behavior  refers  to  the  purpose  that  the  behavior  serves  for  the   individual.  Functions  of  behavior  are  identified  as  attention,  escape,  access  to  tangibles  or   preferred  activities,  and  automatic  or  sensory  stimulation  (Cooper,  Heron,  &  Heward,   2007).         A  functional  behavior  assessment  (FBA)  can  assist  in  the  development  of  a  behavior   intervention  plan  that  provides  the  teaching  of  replacement  behaviors  and  a  consistent   means  of  assigning  consequences  for  inappropriate  behaviors  (Skiba,  Waldron,   Bahamonde,  &  Michalek,  1998).    An  FBA  is  a  variety  of  techniques  and  strategies  to     56  

diagnose  the  causes,  or  function  of  behavior,  and  to  identify  likely  interventions  intended  to   address  problem  behaviors,  including  consideration  of  biological,  social,  affective,  and   environmental  factors  as  possible  functions  of  behavior  that  can  be  used  to  maximize  the   effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  behavioral  support  (McIntosh  &  Av-­‐‑Gay,  2007;  O’Neill  et  al.,   1997;  Quinn,  1991;  Tobin  et  al.,  1996).     An  FBA  can  begin  with  a  review  of  the  student’s  records  (e.g.,  individualized   education  program,  discipline  records,  cumulative  academic  records,  etc.).    Typically  a   combination  of  indirect  assessment  (checklists,  rating  scales,  interviews),  direct   assessments  (direct  observations,  scatterplots),  and  descriptive  assessments  (ABC   narrative  recording)  are  used  to  gather  data  and  analyze  the  function  of  the  student’s   disruptive  behavior  and  to  identify  intervention  components  that  will  help  the  student   reduce  problem  behaviors.    Once  the  results  from  an  FBA  have  been  reviewed,  a  function-­‐‑ based  intervention  can  be  developed  (Dunlap  et  al.,  1993).       Interventions  based  on  the  function  of  the  behavior  can  be  more  effective  than  those   not  based  on  the  behavior’s  function  (Aikmann,  Garbutt,  &  Furniss,  2003;  Filter  &  Horner,   2009;  Iwata  et  al.,  1994;  Lane,  Smither,  Huseman,  Guffey,  &  Fox,  2007;  Wood,  Umbreit,   Liaupsin,  &  Gresham,  2007).    When  creating  a  function-­‐‑based  intervention,  teachers  should   emphasize  teaching  pro-­‐‑social  behaviors  rather  than  attempting  to  punish  inappropriate   behaviors  while  providing  a  consistent  means  of  assigning  consequences  for  inappropriate   behaviors  (Knoff,  2000;  Skiba  &  Peterson,  2000;  Tobin,  Sugai,  &  Colvin,  1996).    In  order  to   properly  reduce  behaviors,  teachers  should  provide  a  clear  definition  of  the  target  behavior   that  is  accurate,  complete,  concise,  and  measureable  terms  (Cooper,  Heron,  &  Heward,   2007).    This  definition  should  provide  examples  and  non-­‐‑examples  of  the  target  behavior.    

  57  

After  the  definition  of  the  target  behavior  has  been  identified,  teachers  can  examine  the   antecedents  (including  triggers  or  setting  events)  to  the  student  behavior  (what  happens   before)  and  the  consequences  of  the  behavior  (what  does  the  student  get  as  a  result  of  the   behavior).       The  pivot  tool  is  an  example  of  one  function-­‐‑based  intervention.    If  the  function  of   the  behavior  is  attention,  the  pivot  tool  can  be  used  to  provide  the  reinforcement  of   appropriate  behavior  by  providing  attention  to  a  student  who  is  exhibiting  appropriate   behavior  while  ignoring  a  student  who  is  exhibiting  harmless  inappropriate  behavior.    The   teacher  interacts  with  a  student  who  exhibits  the  inappropriate  behavior,  then  pivots   attention  away  from  the  student  towards  a  student  for  a  student  who  is  “on  task”  as   evidenced  by  completing  an  assignment  or  participating  in  class.    When  the  student  who   was  exhibiting  the  inappropriate  behavior  begins  to  perform  the  appropriate  behavior,   attention  is  then  pivoted  back  to  that  student  by  providing  teacher  praise  and   acknowledging  the  appropriate  behavior  (Whitman  &  Jackson,  2006).       Another  function-­‐‑based  intervention  is  a  token  economy  system.    “Token  economy   systems  provide  students  with  immediate  reinforcers  (e.g.,  tokens  or  points)  contingent  on   a  desired  behavior  in  order  to  increase  the  probability  that  the  behavior  will  increase  in   frequency”  (DuPaul,  Rutherford,  &  Hosterman,  2008,  p.  39).  Reinforcers  (tokens  or  points)   may  be  traded  in  for  desirable  items  that  the  students  have  chosen  to  be  the  most   reinforcing  by  completing  a  preference  assessment.    A  preference  assessment  is  an   assessment  used  to  determine  a  student’s  preferred  items  from  a  checklist  that  he  or  she   considers  the  most  desirable  (Hagopian,  Long,  &  Rush,  2004).    This  intervention,  based  on   the  function  of  gaining  access  to  tangibles,  has  shown  to  be  successful  in  all  levels  with  a  

  58  

variety  of  students  (Barrish,  Sanders,  &  Wolf,  1969;  Hicks  &  Munger,  1990;  Pellham,   Wheeler,  &  Chronis,  1998).    In  a  token  economy  system,  teachers  must  set  clear   expectations  and  provide  immediate  reinforcement  for  this  strategy  to  be  successful.         Strategy  #4:    Effective  Teaching   Obenchain  and  Taylor  (2005)  state  that  one  indicator  of  successful  teachers  in   middle  and  high  school  is  the  quality  of  behavior  management.  (p.  7).    Good  classroom   management  is  a  result  of  good  teaching  and  incorporating  multiple  learning  and  teaching   approaches  (AMLE,  2013).    The  classroom  of  an  effective  teacher  is  marked  by  fast  paced   instruction,  modeling  and  reinforcing  new  behaviors  and  skills,  use  of  teacher  praise,  and   providing  positive  and  corrective  feedback  through  formative  assessment.    One  of  the   characteristics  from  the  This  We  Believe  document  (AMLE,  2013)  states  that  students  and   teachers  should  be  engaged  in  active  and  purposeful  learning.  Teachers  can  actively  engage   their  students  by  providing  multiple  opportunities  to  respond  by  implementing  active   student  responding  techniques  and  instructional  strategies  that  can  include  choral   responding,  clickers,  response  cards  or  boards,  and  guided  notes  (Barbetta,  Norona,  and   Bicard,  2005;  Haydon,  Richmond,  Van  Loan,  2009;  Heward,  Gardner,  Cavanaugh,  Courson,   Grossi,  &  Barbetta,  1996;  Partin,  Robertson,  Maggin,  Oliver,  &  Wehby,  2009).       Active  student  responding  (ASR)  is  defined  as  an  observable,  measurable  student   response  to  an  instructional  antecedent  (Cooper,  Heron,  &  Heward,  2007).    There  is  a   positive  correlation  between  ASR  and  student  achievement  (Barbetta,  Heron,  &  Heward,   1993).    Teachers  can  actively  engage  their  students  by  providing  multiple  opportunities  to   respond  by  incorporating  active  student  responding  techniques  and  instructional     59  

strategies  that  can  include  choral  responding,  clickers,  response  cards  or  boards,  and   guided  notes  (Barbetta,  Norona,  and  Bicard,  2005;  Haydon,  Richmond,  Van  Loan,  2009;   Heward,  Gardner,  Cavanaugh,  Courson,  Grossi,  &  Barbetta,  1996;  Partin,  Robertson,   Maggin,  Oliver,  &  Wehby,  2009).    An  opportunity  to  respond  (OTR)  is  basically  any   interaction  between  an  academic  prompt  of  a  teacher  and  the  student  response  (Haydon,   Mancil,  &  Van  Loan,  2009).    When  students  are  provided  with  multiple  opportunities  to   respond  it  can  decrease  the  occasion  for  disruptive  behaviors  while  increasing  the   opportunities  for  active  student  engagement  which  in  turn  provides  more  effective   instructional  time  where  students  have  an  opportunity  to  spend  more  time  learning  and   less  time  off  task  (Marzano,  2007;  Smith  &  Miller,  2014).        

Another  instructional  behavior  that  is  an  essential  element  of  instruction  is  teacher  

praise  (Emmer,  1988;  Heward,  2003,  Sutherland,  Wehby,  and  Yoder,  2002).    Teacher  praise   has  been  shown  to  have  a  positive  effect  on  student  behavior  in  a  variety  of  situations  and   can  decrease  anti-­‐‑social  behaviors  (e.g.,  Lannie  &  McCurdy,  2007;  Madsen,  Becker,  &   Thomas,  1968;  Smith,  Bicard,  Bicard,  and  Casey,  2013;  Sutherland  et  al.,  2002;  Sutherland,   Wehby,  and  Copeland,  2000).  Teacher  praise  has  several  characteristics:  1)  describe  the   behavior;  2)  the  student’s  name  should  be  used;  3)  be  varied;  4)  be  given  contingently;  5)   be  given  convincingly;  6)  be  non-­‐‑disruptive;  and  7)  be  given  immediately  (Brophy,  1981;   Kohn,  1993;  O’Leary  &  O’Leary,  1977;  Paine  et  al.,  1983;  Thomas,  1991;  Ward,  1976).     Formative  assessment  strategies  are  another  way  to  provide  multiple  opportunities   to  respond.    Formative  assessment  can  be  defined  as  any  type  of  assessment  that  provides   information  to  be  used  as  feedback  to  modify  teaching  and  learning  (Black  &  Williams,   1998;  Rushton,  2005).    Unfortunately,  many  teachers  do  not  utilize  formative  assessment  

  60  

strategies  in  their  classrooms  (Tomanek,  Talanquer,  and  Novodvorsky,  2008).    By   providing  feedback  to  their  students,  teachers  can  determine  what  students  know  as  well   as  what  students  are  able  to  do  (Hattie  &  Jaeger,  1998;  Rushton,  2005;  Smith  &  Miller,   2014).    Teachers  can  increase  the  opportunities  for  improved  communication  with  their   students  and  thereby  impacting  the  effectiveness  of  their  teaching  strategies  (Sutherland,   Alder,  &  Gunter,  2003).    By  providing  more  active  student  engagement,  teachers  can  expect   to  use  their  instructional  time  more  wisely  (Skinner,  Ford,  &  Yunker,  1991).         Conclusion    

Middle  school  teachers  deal  with  a  variety  of  behavioral  issues  every  day  in  the  

classroom.  Teachers  can  reduce  the  amount  of  disruptive  behaviors  in  their  classroom  by   being  more  proactive  towards  classroom  discipline  instead  of  using  reactive  punishment   strategies  and  by  incorporating  principles  from  an  evidence-­‐‑based  framework  such  as   School-­‐‑Wide  Positive  Behavior  Support  (Crone,  Hawken,  &  Horner,  2015;  Horner  et  al.,   2010).    Teachers  can  also  focus  on  being  consistent  with  classroom  rules,  expectations,  and   transitions  by  consistently  and  immediately  reinforcing  appropriate  behaviors  (Barbetta  et   al.,  2005;  Paine  et  al.,  1983).    They  can  conduct  functional  behavior  assessments  to  gather   information  on  the  “why”  behind  the  behavior  to  create  function-­‐‑based  interventions   (Smith  et  al.,  2012).    Finally,  teachers  can  simply  incorporate  and  implement  effective   teaching  strategies,  such  as  providing  effective  feedback  for  their  students  through   formative  assessments,  providing  multiple  opportunities  to  respond  with  active  student   responding  techniques,  praising  their  students  (Brophy,  1981;  Heward  et  al,  1996;  Heward,   1994;  Smith  &  Miller,  2014).    In  order  to  prevent  losing  academic  instruction  time,  avoid  

  61  

burnout,  and  simply  losing  their  minds,  teachers  should  employ  these  simple  to  implement   strategies  in  their  classroom  to  avoid  dealing  with  disruptive  behavior  in  their  classrooms.                                                

  62  

  References   Aikman, G. Garbutt, V., & Furniss, F. (2003). Brief probes: A method for analyzing the function of disruptive behaviour in the natural environment. Behavioral & Cognitive Psychology, 31, 215-220.   Armstrong,  T.  (2006).  The  best  schools:  How  human  development  research  should  inform   educational  practice.  ASCD.     Barbetta,  P.M.,  Heron,  T.E.,  &  Heward,  W.L.  (1993).    Effects  of  active  student  response   during  error  correction  on  the  acquisition,  maintenance,  and  generalization  of  sight   words  by  students  with  developmental  disabilities.  Journal  of  Applied  Behavior   Analysis,  26(1),  111-­‐‑119.         Barbetta,  P.  M.,  Norona,  K.  L.,  &  Bicard,  D.  F.  (2005).  Classroom  behavior  management:  A   dozen  common  mistakes  and  what  to  do  instead.  Preventing  School  Failure:   Alternative  Education  for  Children  and  Youth,  49(3),  11-­‐‑19.     Barrish,  H.  H.,  Saunders,  M.,  &  Wolf,  M.  M.  (1969).  Good  behavior  game:  Effects  of  individual   contingencies  for  group  consequences  on  disruptive  behavior  in  a  classroom1.   Journal  of  Applied  Behavior  Analysis,  2(2),  119-­‐‑124.     Black,  P.  &  William,  D.  (1998).    Assessment  and  classroom  learning.    Assessment  in   Education,  5,  7-­‐‑75.     Bohanon,  H.,  Fenning,  P.,  Carney,  K.  L.,  Minnis-­‐‑Kim,  M.  J.,  Anderson-­‐‑Harriss,  S.,  Moroz,  K.  B.,   ...  &  Pigott,  T.  D.  (2006).  Schoolwide  application  of  positive  behavior  support  in  an   urban  high  school:  A  case  study.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior  Interventions,  8(3),  131-­‐‑ 145.     Bradshaw,  C.  P.,  Waasdorp,  T.  E.,  &  Leaf,  P.  J.  (2012).  Effects  of  school-­‐‑wide  positive   behavioral  interventions  and  supports  on  child  behavior  problems.  Pediatrics,   130(5),  e1136-­‐‑e1145.     Brophy,  J.E.  (1981).  Teacher  praise:  A  functional  analysis.  Review  of  Educational  Research,   51(1),  5-­‐‑32.     Colvin,  G.,  &  Fernandez,  E.  (2000).  Sustaining  effective  behavior  support  systems  in  an   elementary  school.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior  Interventions,  2(4),  251.     Cooper,  J.  O.,  Heron,  T.  E.,  &  Heward,  W.  L.  (2007).  Applied  behavior  analysis.    Upper  Saddle   River,  NJ:  Pearson.         63  

Costenbader,  V.,  &  Markson,  S.  (1998).  School  suspension:  A  study  with  secondary  school   students.  Journal  of  School  Psychology,  36(1),  59-­‐‑82.       Crone,  D.  A.,  Hawken,  L.  S.,  &  Horner,  R.  H.  (2015).  Building  positive  behavior  support   systems  in  schools:  Functional  behavioral  assessment.  Guilford  Publications.     DuPaul,  G.J.,  Rutherford,  L.E.,  &  Hosterman,  S.J.  (2008).    Attention-­‐‑Deficit/Hyperactivity   Disorder.  In  R.J.  Morris  &  N.  Mather  (Eds.),  Evidence-­‐‑based  interventions  for   students  with  learning  and  behavioral  challenges  (pp.  33-­‐‑58).  New  York:  Routledge.       Evers,  W.J.,  Tomic,  W.,  &  Brouwers,  A.  (2004).  Burnout  among  teachers:  Students  and   teachers  perceptions  compared.  School  Psychology  International,  25(2),  131-­‐‑148.   Filter, K.J., & Horner, R.H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 1-19.   Flannery,  K.  B.,  &  Sugai,  G.  (2010).  Implementing  School-­‐‑wide  Positive  Behavioral   Interventions  and  Supports  in  High  School.  Eugene,  OR:  OSEP  TA-­‐‑Center  on  Positive   Behavioral  Interventions  and  Supports.     Goodman,  R.  (2001).  Psychometric  properties  of  the  strengths  and  difficulties   questionnaire.  Journal  of  the  American  Academy  of  Child  &  Adolescent  Psychiatry,   40(11),  1337-­‐‑1345.     Hagopian,  L.  P.,  Long,  E.  S.,  &  Rush,  K.  S.  (2004).  Preference  assessment  procedures  for   individuals  with  developmental  disabilities.  Behavior  Modification,  28(5),  668-­‐‑677.     Hawken,  L.  S.,  MacLeod,  K.  S.,  &  Rawlings,  L.  (2007).  Effects  of  the  behavior  education   program  (BEP)  on  office  discipline  referrals  of  elementary  school  students.    Journal   of  Positive  Behavior  Interventions,  9(2),  94–101.     Haydon,  T.,  Mancil,  G.  R.,  &  Van  Loan,  C.  (2009).  Using  opportunities  to  respond  in  a  general   education  classroom:  A  case  study.  Education  and  Treatment  of  Children,  32(2),  267-­‐‑ 278.     Heward,  W.  L.,  Gardner,  R.,  Cavanaugh,  R.  A.,  Courson,  F.  H.,  Grossi,  T.  A.,  &  Barbetta,  P.  M.   (1996).  Everyone  participates  in  this  class:  Using  response  cards  to  increase  active   student  response.  Teaching  Exceptional  Children,  28(2),  4.     Heward,  W.  L.  (1994).  Three  “low-­‐‑tech”  strategies  for  increasing  the  frequency  of  active   student  response  during  group  instruction.  Behavior  Analysis  in  Education:  Focus  on   Measurably  Superior  Instruction,  283-­‐‑320.     Hicks,  T.,  &  Munger,  R.  (1990).  A  school  day  treatment  program  using  an  adaptation  of  the   teaching-­‐‑family  model.  Education  and  Treatment  of  Children,  63-­‐‑83.       64  

Horner,  R.  H.,  Sugai,  G.,  &  Anderson,  C.  M.  (2010).  Examining  the  evidence  base  for  school-­‐‑ wide  positive  behavior  support.  Focus  on  Exceptional  Children,  42(8),  1-­‐‑14.   Iwata, B.A., Pace, G.M., Dorsey, M.F., Zarcone, J.R., Vollmer, T.R., Smith, R.G., Rodgers, T.A., Dorothea, C.L., Shore, B.A., Mazaleski, J.L., Goh, H., Cowdery, G.E., Kalsher, M.J., McCosh, K.C., & Willis, K.D. (1994). The functions of self-injurious behavior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 215240.   Kohn,  A.  (1993).  Punished  by  rewards:  The  trouble  with  gold  stars,  incentive  plans,  A’s,  praise,   and  other  bribes.  Houghton  Mifflin  Company:  New  York.     Knoff,  H.  M.   (2000). Organizational  development  and  strategic  planning  for  the   millennium:   A  blueprint  toward  effective  school  discipline,  school  safety,  and  crisis   prevention.  Psychology  in  the  Schools,  37,  17-­‐‑32.     Landers,  E.,  Courtade,  G.,  &  Ryndak,  D.  (2012).  Including  students  with  severe  disabilities  in   school-­‐‑wide  positive  behavioral  interventions  and  supports:  Perceptions  of  state   coordinators.  Research  and  Practice  for  Persons  with  Severe  Disabilities,  37(1),  1-­‐‑8.     Lane,  K.L.,  Kalbert,  J.R.,  Lambert,  E.W.,  Crnobori,  M.,  &  Bruhn,  A.L.  (2010).  A  comparison  of   systematic  screening  tools  for  emotional  and  behavioral  disorders.    Journal  of   Emotional  and  Behavioral  Disorders,  18(2),  100-­‐‑112.       Lane,  K.  L.,  Parks,  R.  J.,  Kalberg,  J.  R.,  &  Carter,  E.  W.  (2007).  Systematic  screening  at  the   middle  school  level  score  reliability  and  validity  of  the  Student  Risk  Screening  Scale.   Journal  of  Emotional  and  Behavioral  Disorders,  15(4),  209-­‐‑222.     Lane,  K.L.,  Smither,  R.,  Huseman,  R.,  Guffey,  J.,  &  Fox,  J.  (2007).    A  function  based   intervention  to  decrease  disruptive  behavior  and  increase  academic   engagement.  Journal  of  Early  and  Intensive  Behavior  Intervention,  3(4),  348-­‐‑364.     Luiselli,  J.  K.,  Putnam,  R.  F.,  &  Sunderland,  M.  (2002).  Longitudinal  evaluation  of  behavior   support  intervention  in  a  public  middle  school.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior   Interventions,  4(3),  184-­‐‑190.   McIntosh, K., & Av-Gay, H. (2007). Implications of current research on the use of functional behavior assessment and behavior support planning in school systems. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(1), 38-52.   Madsen  Jr,  C.  H.,  Becker,  W.  C.,  &  Thomas,  D.  R.  (1968).  Rules,  praise,  and  ignoring:  Elements   of  elementary  classroom  control.  Journal  of  Applied  Behavior  Analysis,  1(2),  139.     Mayer,  G.  R.,  &  Sulzer-­‐‑Azaroff,  B.  (1991).  Interventions  for  vandalism.  Interventions  for   Achievement  and  Behavior  Problems,  559-­‐‑580.       65  

March,  R.  E.,  &  Horner,  R.  H.  (2002).  Feasibility  and  contributions  of  functional  behavioral   assessment  in  schools.  Journal  of  Emotional  and  Behavioral  Disorders,  10(3),  158-­‐‑ 170.   National Middle School Association, & National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2002). Supporting students in their transition to middle school. Westerville, OH.

  National  Middle  School  Association.  (2013).  This  we  believe:  Keys  to  educating  young   adolescents.  Westerville,  Ohio:  Association  for  Middle  Level  Education.     Obenchain,  K.  M.,  &  Taylor,  S.  S.  (2005).  Behavior  management:  Making  it  work  in  middle   and  secondary  schools.  The  Clearing  House,  79(1),  7-­‐‑11.     O’Leary,  K.,  &  O’Leary,  S.  (Eds.)  (1977).  Classroom  management:  The  successful  use  of   behavior  modification.  2nd  ed.  Pergamon:  New  York.   O’Neill, R.E., Horner, R.J., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.   Paine,  S.C.,  Radicchi,  J.,  Rosellini,  L.C.,  Deutchman,  L.,  &  Darch,  C.B.  (1983).    Structuring  your   classroom  for  academic  success.    Champaign,  IL:  Research  Press.     Partin,  T.  C.  M.,  Robertson,  R.  E.,  Maggin,  D.  M.,  Oliver,  R.  M.,  &  Wehby,  J.  H.  (2009).  Using   teacher  praise  and  opportunities  to  respond  to  promote  appropriate  student   behavior.  Preventing  School  Failure:  Alternative  Education  for  Children  and  Youth,   54(3),  172-­‐‑178.     Pelham  Jr,  W.  E.,  Wheeler,  T.,  &  Chronis,  A.  (1998).  Empirically  supported  psychosocial   treatments  for  attention  deficit  hyperactivity  disorder.  Journal  of  Clinical  Child   Psychology,  27(2),  190-­‐‑205.     Psunder,  M.  (2005).  Identification  of  discipline  violations  and  its  role  in  planning  corrective   and  preventive  discipline  in  school.  Educational  Studies,  31(3),  335-­‐‑345.     Quinn,  T.  (1991).  The  influence  of  school  policies  and  practices  on  dropout  rates.  NASSP   Bulletin,  75,  73-­‐‑83.       Rushton,  A.  (2005).  Formative  assessment:  a  key  to  deep  learning?  Medical  Teacher,  27(6),   509-­‐‑513.     Scott,  T.  M.,  &  Barrett,  S.  B.  (2004).  Using  staff  and  student  time  engaged  in  disciplinary   procedures  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  school-­‐‑wide  PBS.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior   Interventions,  6(1),  21-­‐‑27.    

  66  

Simonsen,  B.,  Britton,  L.,  &  Young,  D.  (2010).  School-­‐‑wide  positive  behavior  support  in  an   alternative  school  setting:  A  case  study.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior  Interventions,   12(3),  180-­‐‑191.     Skiba,  R.J.  &  Peterson,  R.L.  (1999).  The  dark  side  of  zero  tolerance:  Can  punishment  lead  to   safe  schools?  Phi  Delta  Kappan,  80(5),  381-­‐‑82.     Skiba,  R.  J.,  Waldron,  N.,  Bahamonde,  C.,  &  Michalek,  D.  (1998).   A  four-­‐‑step  model   for  functional  behavior  assessment.   NASP  Communique,  26,  24-­‐‑25.     Skinner,  C.  H.,  Ford,  J.  M.,  &  Yunker,  B.  D.  (1991).  A  comparison  of  instructional  response   requirements  on  the  multiplication  performance  of  behaviorally  disordered   students.  Behavioral  Disorders,  56-­‐‑65.     Smith,  B.  W.,  &  Sugai,  G.  (2000).  A  self-­‐‑management  functional  assessment-­‐‑based  behavior   support  plan  for  a  middle  school  student  with  EBD.  Journal  of  Positive  Behavior   Interventions,  2(4),  208-­‐‑217.     Smith,  C.  &  Miller,  L.  (2014).  Five  successful  strategies  for  the  inclusive  classroom.     Tennessee  Association  of  Middle  Schools  Journal,  14-­‐‑31.       Smith,  C.,  Bicard,  D.  F.,  Casey,  L.  B.,  &  Bicard,  S.  C.  (2013).  The  effects  of  an  interdependent   group  oriented  contingency  and  performance  feedback  on  the  praise  statements  of   pre-­‐‑service  teachers  during  a  summer  day-­‐‑camp  for  children  with  disabilities.   International  Journal  of  Behavioral  Consultation  and  Therapy,  8(2),  14.      Smith,  C.,  Bicard,  S.  C.,  Bicard,  D.  F.,  &  Casey,  L.  B.  (2012).  Decreasing  in-­‐‑school  suspensions   with  function-­‐‑based  interventions.  Kappa  Delta  Pi  Record,  48(4),  174-­‐‑177.     Spaulding,  S.  A.,  Irvin,  L.  K.,  Horner,  R.  H.,  May,  S.  L.,  Emeldi,  M.,  Tobin,  T.  J.,  &  Sugai,  G.   (2010).  Schoolwide  social-­‐‑behavioral  climate,  student  problem  behavior,  and   related  administrative  decisions  empirical  patterns  from  1,510  schools  nationwide.   Journal  of  Positive  Behavior  Interventions,  12(2),  69-­‐‑85.     Sprague,  J.  R.,  Sugai,  G.,  Horner,  R.,  &  Walker,  H.  M.  (1999).  Using  office  discipline  referral   data  to  evaluate  school-­‐‑wide  discipline  and  violence  prevention  interventions.  OSSC   Bulletin,  42(2),  2.     Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining the implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.    

  Sutherland,  K.S.,  Alder,  N.,  &  Gunter,  P.L.  (2003).    The  effects  of  varying  rates  of   opportunities  to  respond  to  academic  requests  on  the  behavior  of  students  with   EBD.  Journal  of  Emotional  and  Behavioral  Disorders,  11,  239-­‐‑248.         67  

Thomas,  J.D.,  Presland,  I.E.,  Grant,  M.D.,  &  Glynn,  T.L.  (1978).  Natural  rates  of  teacher   approval  and  disapproval  in  grade-­‐‑7  classrooms.  Journal  of  Applied  Behavior   Analysis,  11,  91-­‐‑94.     Thomas,  D.  R.,  Becker,  W.  C.,  &  Armstrong,  M.  (1968).  Production  and  elimination  of   disruptive  classroom  behavior  by  systematically  varying  teacher’s  behavior.  Journal   of  Applied  Behavior  Analysis,  1(1),  35-­‐‑45.     Tobin,  T.,  Sugai,  G.,  &  Colvin,  G.  (1996).  Patterns  in  middle  school  discipline  records.  Journal   of  Emotional  and  Behavioral  Disorders,  4,  82–95.   Tomanek,  D.,  Talanquer,  V.,  &  Novodvorsky,  I.  (2008).  What  do  science  teachers  consider   when  selecting  formative  assessment  tasks?  Journal  of  Research  in  Science  Teaching,   45(10),  1113-­‐‑1130.     Ward,  J.  (1976)  Behavior  modification  in  education:  An  overview  and  a  model  for   programme  implementation.  Bulletin  of  the  British  Psychological  Society,  29(8),  257-­‐‑ 268.     Whitman,  B.  Y.,  &  Jackson,  K.  (2006).  Tools  for  psychological  and  behavioral  management.   Management  of  Prader-­‐‑Willi  Syndrome.  3rd  edition.  New  York:  Springer,  317-­‐‑43.   Wood, B.K., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C.J., Gresham, F.M. (2007). A treatment integrity analysis of function-based intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 105-120.      

 

  68  

Guidelines for Articles submitted to TAMS Journal The Tennessee Association of Middle School Journal is the journal of the Tennessee Association of Middle Schools. It is published twice in an academic year, November and April. If you are interested in submitting a paper about middle school concepts, students, or practices, please adhere to the following guidelines: 1. A variety of materials for publication is accepted for the TAMS Journal. Papers can assume (but are not limited to) the following types: articles about enhancing learning and teaching for the middle school (research investigations, position papers, policy issues, and critical review of literature), curriculum materials for learning and teaching middle school students, federal and state legislation on the education of the middle school students, and assessments and evaluation of content learning and teaching in the middle school. 2. Publication materials should be prepared according to the style prescribed by the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Please follow the manual precisely with regard to (A) content and organization of the manuscript, (B) writing style, grammar, and use of non-biased language, and (c) capitalization, punctuation, spelling, use of abbreviations, headings, quotations, tables, figures, and references cited in the text, and the references list. Papers should be typed or computer-generated on standard 8 1/2 by 11 paper, with one-inch margins. Typical page length for articles is between 13-16 pages doubled spaced. The author’s name, title, and affiliation should appear on the cover page only of the manuscript. 3. Send the manuscript electronically to [email protected]. The editor and two other reviewers will review the manuscripts. 4. The TAMS Journal is published two times per academic year, November and April. To guarantee your paper consideration for publication in the next issue, please submit your paper at least 45 days in advance of the publication date. 5. Papers accepted for publication will appear in the next edition of the journal. If we begin to have a backlog of papers, we will publish them according to the date of acceptance. Authors will receive one copy of the journal if they are not a member of TAMS; authors who are members of TAMS will receive two copies (one through regular mailing and an additional one through special mailing). Once your paper is published in the TAMS Journal, it becomes the property of the Tennessee Association of Middle School. If you wish to publish your paper after it has been published in the TAMS Journal, you must cite TAMS as the source of the article. 6. All correspondences should be addressed to TAMS Journal, Cherry Watts Ph.D., Associate Professor of Education, University of TN Martin, 205 H Gooch Hall, Martin, TN 38238 or [email protected].  

  69