Annotation 1

Myhill, D. (2002). Bad Boys and Good Girls? Patterns of Interaction and Response in Whole Class Teaching. British Educational Research Journal,
28(3), 339-352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/stable/1501788

Purpose of Study “The article questions the extent to which whole class teaching is benefiting the learning experience of underachievers
and challenges the current tendency to construct underachievement in terms of gender,” (Myhill, p 339).

Research Question Looked to investigate the following:

A. “teachers' perceptions of the roots of underachievement; boys' and girls' achievements in the curriculum
(especially literacy); boys' and girls' preferred learning styles and attitudes to learning
B. children's perceptions of the curriculum, especially the literacy curriculum, their preferred teaching and learning
styles and their perceptions of the differences in achievement or behaviour of boys and girls;
C. the patterns of interaction and response in the classroom, looking specifically at participation, off-task
behaviour and the frequency and nature of interactions between teachers and children,” (Myhill, p 342)

Participants “The schools' pyramid involved in the project comprised 12 first schools, three middle schools and one high school.
The schools were both rural and urban, including some very small rural first schools. Although the socio-economic
profile of the area is predominantly white and middle class, the schools were diverse in the nature of intake they
attracted, with some schools largely middle class, whilst others drew from a less advantaged catchment. In all, 36
classes were sampled, six classes each in years 1,4,5,8,9 and 10. Years 4 and 5, and 8 and 9 were selected as they
represented the year groups either side of the transition from first to middle school or middle to high School. Year 10
was chosen because at the time of the fieldwork it was not possible to gain access to year 11 due to GCSE
examination preparation. In each class, four children were identified as the focus for classroom observation and for
interview. These four children comprised a high-achieving boy and girl, and an underachieving boy and girl. The class
teacher for each class observed was interviewed, with additional interviews with other relevant personnel such as the
literacy coordinator or the year head,” (342).

Method/Collection Brief observation of the classroom. Included interviews with students as well as teachers.
● “both teachers and children, to have a voice. The research design involved interviews with the focus children
and with their teacher, and classroom observation of the focus children,” (342)
● “Each observation episode lasted for 15 minutes. The structured observation schedules recorded the number
of times the four sample children were seen engaging in a variety of interactions, both verbal and non-verbal. A
distinction was made between whole class teaching episodes, which are characterised by a sequence of
teacher-child interactions, and teaching episodes in which children are engaged upon tasks or activities as
individuals, pairs or groups. The categories (see Table I) were initially drawn from similar schedules devised by
Myers (1992) but were adapted after trialling in classrooms in order to capture interactions more accurately.
For example, the category of 'joins in collective response' was added because both the Literacy and Numeracy
hours made considerable use of the strategy of inviting all the children to answer collectively,” (342).

Findings “In whole class teaching episodes, the three categories, 'joins in collective response', 'puts hand up'
 and 'answers question after invitation' are broadly positive interactions, showing children, at best,
engaged with the learning process, and at the least, aware of the conventions and protocols of this
kind of learning experience. In terms of the whole cross-phase sample, the first clear finding to
emerge was that in the high school there was very limited use of whole class teaching and
where it did occur, there were very low levels of interaction between teacher and children.
The number of occurrences of children putting their hands up or being invited to answer questions
is too low to draw conclusions on the basis of gender and achievement, although the broad patterns
mirror those of the first and middle schools. The field notes indicate that many whole class teaching
episodes in the high school were dominated by teacher talk which made relatively little attempt
to involve children in discussion or direct interaction. It should be noted, of course, that
children can be active listeners (as with listening to a story); however, the data for less positive
interactions during whole class teaching, described later, provide some indication that active
listening is not always occurring.

For the results of the observations of children in the first and middle Schools, see Table II. In terms
of willingness to participate in a collective response, it is clear that underachievers are the least
likely to join in. It is evident in underachieving boys right from year 1, where the use of a collective
response is itself a more frequent feature of the teaching repertoire. By year 4, the underachieving
girls are also less willing to join in and from then onwards the underachieving boys and girls present
very similar characteristics,” (343) [bolded emphasis mine]

Similar patterns when asked for students to raise hands. Underachievers less likely to participate.

Students when asked by teachers relies more on teacher strategies.

Students asking questions was too low to look at gender and achievement comparisons.

“This is a finding supported by Younger & Warrington's (1996) research, which suggested that 'the level, and quality
and tone of teacher-student interactions in the classroom was a major factor in the teaching-learning process, affecting
the achievement of both boys and girls',” (345) Find this study to read.

“The data do suggest that, in general, calling out is a characteristic of boys. Across all three phases boys call out
considerably more than girls although the underachieving boys are more likely to call out than their high-achieving
peers. Indeed, calling out unrelated to the task is predominantly the domain of the underachievers, though particularly
the boys,” (346).
Underachievers most likely to be off-task throughout the class.

Conclusions “There are four issues raised by this study: the first, and perhaps the most significant, is unrelated to gender; and the
subsequent three are gender-related. They are: 1. the low participation and interaction levels of underachievers in
whole class teaching episodes; 2. the very early emergence of the underachieving boy as a limited participant in
positive class interactions; 3. the changes in interaction patterns evident in the older high-achieving boy; and 4. the
 consistent interaction pattern of the high-achieving girl,” (348)

“The findings presented in this article point to significant relationships between underachievement and levels of
interaction and response in whole class teaching episodes. They do also highlight the value of looking at gender and
underachievement in a way which takes into account variables other than gender alone. It is important to avoid 'the
assumption that all boys have similar needs and the girls all have similar needs' as this assumption may 'conceal
deeper issues that are contributing to gender-based differences' (Scaife, 1998). Underachievers, boys and girls, are
not participating fully in the learning opportunities provided. If 'The act of learning can be regarded as a political act;
the learner has to grant his or her assent to learning' (Evans, 1999), then we need to re-examine how teaching and
classroom practices can be modified to encourage a climate of consensual learning,” (350).

My notes ● Findings in terms of the students most likely to call out in class reflects what I have noticed in my classroom.
Though, I have a few girls who break this finding. I wonder if it stems from a similar reason of if it is different
than the finding of boy underachievers calling out.
● I want to know how these researchers determined ‘underachievers’ and the full extent of their criteria and the
implications and biased lens used to represent their decisions. Mine aren’t ‘underachievers’ more so than those
who I struggle with getting engaged, motivated, who have severe learned helplessness, or have other struggles
that give the impression of underachievers. Though, it’s frustrating just the same.
● I really like that last line in the conclusion: finding practices that encourage and atmosphere consensual
learning in the classroom. Now, to see if I can actually find articles that have studied ways in which this has
been attempted. I need to find more strategies.
 Annotation 2

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2012). CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT FOR ACHIEVING READERS. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 308-312. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/stable/41331660

Purpose of Article Looks through years of classroom management practices working towards how to establish a classroom to support
readers.

Highlights of Review
“professional thought, experience, and research on classroom management yields trustworthy
practices in four categories that every teacher of reading needs to know and be able to use today
to support tomorrow's readers: (1) rules and procedures, (2) disciplinary interventions, (3) teacher-
student relationships, and (4) mental set (Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003). Several practical
strategies that represent these categories in the context of reading instruction follow, but before we
go there, it is important to highlight what's new in these times when student behavioral concerns
are on the rise.

One new direction gaining momentum is the application of a Positive Behavior Supports model in a
multitier system of intervention (Ihlo & Nantais, 2010). Promoting a prevention- oriented positive
environment involves universal supports found successful in the past (e.g., setting expectations)
plus secondary/targeted interventions for 10% to 15% of students whose behavioral needs are not
sufficiently addressed by primary supports plus tertiary/intensive interventions for the 1% to 5% of
students for whom primary and secondary supports are not working. This reflects a further
elaboration of the differentiation principle first proposed by Brophy and McCaslin (1992),” (309)

“More susceptible children are more dependent on quality learning environments (including well managed ones) than
less susceptible children - an hypothesis showing some traction in early literacy,” (310).

“there are two essentials: (1) organizing time for working with groups and (2) allowing time for sharing
accomplishment,” (310).

● “Whole-class instruction should focus on literacy activities that benefit all students and use
approximately one third of your instructional time. For younger children who find it hard to
sit still, split whole-group time into two sessions.
● On average, instruct two small groups of students per day and alternate them over four
days; reserve the fifth day for contingencies, such as reviews and refreshers with whole or
small groups. Keep a brisk but not a rushed pace when working with small groups.
● Use a management board or chart to organize independent work, either at centers or
provide one compulsory activity for all followed by free choice when the activity is
completed. Make the board or chart easy to read and attractive,” (310)
 Routine, schedule, procedures and rules, assess.

My Notes ● Hey! This is the one that Bri had for class during the summer!
● I love these, and I want to find a way to implement them, but I don’t know how to do it at a middle school level.
These seem geared to elementary classrooms. Especially when we have the book a quarter to get through, I’m
trying to figure out how I’d manage that and keep on track.
● I can easily break class up into about 25 minute segments for whole, group, and individual work. And I don’t
want to immediately shift now. Maybe with the next quarter or the next year, but I’m trying to figure out how to
structure the activities. Mainly just because of the rapid pace we have to go at. Becoming Naomi Leon has
gone pretty smoothly though: it’s smaller and the kids are very invested into it for the most part.
○ Individual work can easily incorporate bell work, spelling, and grammar practices. With the bell work
and comprehension practice I’ll be jumping in on with Kelly and Mia, that can easily be the first 20
minutes or so.
○ Next would benefit from whole group and then small group work.
○ Group work could probably be with the book. While whole group is the supportive work with summary,
vocab, and key ideas. This would lead to the packets I’ve been working on. They spend their small
group time reading through the chapter and answering the comprehension and check-in questions.
■ The week can have a goal of 3 chapters. When small groups finish, I can have extra work to
further the comprehension of the chapters.
■ If I can’t fully do this now for Percy Jackson, I could start planning for Dragonwings with this in
mind.
 Annotation 3

Kristin M. Funk MA, BCBA & Saul Axelrod PhD, BCBA-D (2013). Preventing Challenging Behavior in Your Classroom: Positive Behavior
Support and Effective Classroom Management, by M. Tincani. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 35(1), 89-94, DOI:
10.1080/07317107.2013.761047

Purpose of Study This is a review of the book, Preventing Challenging Behavior in Your Classroom: Positive Behavior Support and
Effective Classroom Management by Matt Tincani. *may search for book if review shows potential*

Highlights of Review “The primary purpose of this book is to aid general- and special-education teachers with implementing PBS strategies
in their classrooms,” (89).

“PBS has an increased emphasis, or differs from ABA, on the following dimensions: comprehensive lifestyle change
and quality of life, a lifespan perspective, flexibility with respect to scientific practices, and multiple theoretical
perspectives,” (90).

Ticani discusses the myths around classroom management, classroom strategies, active student responding.

“He clearly explains that in order to create lessons with brisk instructional pacing, teachers should be organized,
minimize wait-times, minimize inter-trial times, and provide immediate feedback,” (92).

“...of an FBA, he provides information on function-based BIP in Chapter 7. Tincani discusses and explores the
following topics: neutralizing routines for MOs, interventions for triggering antecedents, functional communication
training, guidelines for removing consequences for problem behaviors maintained by attention, escape, and access to
preferred items, differential reinforcement of other behavior and differential reinforcement of low rates of behavior. This
chapter also includes a BIP template,” (92).

My Notes: ● Definitely notice the benefit of pace and how it affects behavior in the classroom. Still working on mastering it.
Some days are definitely better. Also, realizing that for some students what’s preferred (or what’s needed)
tends to bridge more into busy work than I like, but it does document their work. So, it comes to more paper,
writing, and this first, second, third, fourth, etc. It can be harder to marinate in things I want to, and then random
things I expect to be brief will be the ones we end up marinating in. I’m hoping creating the packet-based work
that will be more cemented for The Lightning Thief will help out more in the third quarter. This quarter has gone
a bit better because of this aspect I had time to plan for. So, hopefully by the end of the year I’ll get more into
the grove. Of course, only to then have a new batch of kids.
● Definitely going to try and find this book to look through. It seems promising.

Russ Skiba, Heather Ormiston, Sylvia Martinez & Jack Cummings (2016). Teaching the Social Curriculum: Classroom Management as
Behavioral Instruction. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 120-128, DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148990
Purpose of Study Literature Review:
Highlights of Review
Annotation 4
“In this article, we review the literature that has identified effective strategies that build classroom
climates to maximize student learning and minimize disruption. In general, these strategies indicate a
shift away from reactive and punitive approaches towards an emphasis on instructional and preventive
approaches, including setting clear expectations, appropriate curriculum to increase student
engagement, positive acknowledgment, and building relationships between students and teachers.
Emerging research has also begun to identify features of culturally responsive classroom management
that can engage and build relationships for a diverse student population,” (120).
“A teacher’s ability or failure to develop a positive classroom climate, and find ways to de-escalate
rather than escalate student behavior, also has important consequences for students. When negative
interactions escalate beyond the ability of the teacher to handle them effectively in the classroom, the
risk for referral to the office and out-of-school suspension is greatly magnified,” (121).
● A big skill I’m still learning
“In particular, the most important areas for further training included ensuring that (a) students’ negative
behaviors did not distract from learning and teaching in the classroom; (b) all students, including those
who are high ability or students with disabilities, are socially and emotionally safe in the classroom;
and (c) all students participate in classroom interaction,” (121)
● It would be awesome if PD was 3/4ths collab with grade and content peers. 1/8th classroom
management strategies. 1/8th school wide collab and strategies. Anything that can be done in
email, can and SHOULD. It’s a waste of everyone else’s time otherwise. Like, thanks, I need this
info, but an email would have been perfect
“In a well run classroom, in hundreds of interactions a day, the correspondence between
expectations, rules, and consequences allows students to learn each classroom’s unique social
curriculum. In contrast, in less well-managed classrooms and schools, inconsistency among
expectations, rules, and consequences provides less opportunity for learning the social curriculum,
and may even give students conflicting messages about the appropriate way to behave in a given
classroom or school situation,” (122)
● Consistency is definitely one area I need the most growth on. I can be pretty good, but as things
go well I start loosening up and losing it. Or, with students who I know can handle things I
typically don’t allow, I might let it slide. I need to get better at nipping it in the bud. Granted,
students who typically act out to start to realize how serious I am when I hold those I tend to
favor accountable to not meeting the expectations as well. That definitely shows me that I need
 to work on it.

“Classrooms structured to minimize distraction and crowding have been associated with improved student behavior,
including increases in appropriate and engaged behaviors,” (122)
● Though, resources don’t always allow this. *side eyes big bulky desks and small room * *side eyes the
behavior problems that arise when in groups *

Good pacing, smooth transitions, organization

● Definitely a big thing. Always repeated. Organization is my strong suit. Transitions need work, so does
pacing.

“Positive acknowledgment.
Learning is facilitated when teachers provide a high rate of verbal Psychological Science at Work in
Schools and Education acknowledgement and praise for students engaging in behavioral expectations
that have been posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced (Simonsen et al., 2008). The most effective
classroom managers have been found to utilize a ratio of four praise statements for every one
corrective statement given (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Praise is most effective when it
specifically identifies the desired behavior (Simonsen et al., 2008).
Building relationships.
Classrooms with quality teacher– student relationships have fewer classroom behavior problems and
better academic performance (O’Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011). The My Teaching Partner program,
in which teachers effective in developing classroom relationships mentor other teachers, has shown
itself to be effective in enhancing academic and social skill development (Allen, Pianta, Gregory,
Mikami, & Lun, 2011),” (122-123).
● Need to look at these studies as they focus more on my specific question about increasing
positive feedback and positive interactions outside of academics. (The relationship thing is hard
when the ones you have a good relationship constantly demand you spend more and more with
them and it’s like, “Sweetie, I’d love to hear about this but 1) I have stuff to prep real quick during
break to minimize transitions and 2) I have other students I want to check in on.” How do you do
that well? Especially when they then go, “But it won’t take long...But I…”. Grrr. Kid. Chill. I’ve got
30 of you. Give me a break. I need to check in with the others.
● The 4:1 ratio is good for my logical sided mind to keep in mind.

“Caring Classrooms
An emerging and key principle in both classroom management and school discipline has been the
notion of coupling clear structure and expectations for students, with adequate instructional and
personal supports for students to meet those expectations (Gregory, Cornell & Fan, Psychological
Science at Work in Schools and Education 2011). Vasquez (1988) has characterized teachers who
exhibit these two traits as warm demanders—“strong yet compassionate, authoritative yet loving, firm
yet respectful” (Weinstein et al., 2004, p. 34). The notion of mutual interdependence, in which one
individual has to rely upon another individual to achieve a goal, has been found to have positive
academic and social benefits for all students, including reduced prejudice and stereotyping (Aronson,
2008), and increased opportunities for learning (Cartledge, Gardner, & Ford, 2009),” (123-124).
● It’s a balance to find that I’m still working on. Especially the “not taking it personal” and not
putting in too much of my emotional reaction into my words. It’s something that wasn’t in the
classroom for me growing up, so it’s hard to fall back on if I don’t have any memories of how it
was done.
 Annotation 5
(Older article)

Hass, Michael R; Passaro, Perry D & Smith, Amy N (1999). Reducing aversive interactions with troubled students. Reclaiming Children and
Youth; 8(2), 94-97. Retrieved from https://collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/docview/214196013?accountid=163019

Purpose “At an educational facility for at-risk youth...a shift from reactive management of disturbing behavior to positive
interactions between staff and students has occurred. Data on the use of punitive behavior-management techniques
was gathered before, during, and after staff training in the use of more positive approaches for responding to disruptive
behavior. The use of punitive techniques such as physical restraint and suspensions was greatly reduced following the
training,” (94).

PD Goal “Passaro and his colleagues proposed implementing programs that - in addition to reducing disruptive behaviors -
promote learning and help support the classroom success of students. Such programs would emphasize reducing the
number of negative interactions between teachers and students and increasing the number of positive interactions,”
(94).

Participants Post Lane Elementary School in Orange County California Dept. of Education in ACCESS Division
+ Students ages 6-12
+ 12 to 25 children divided in two separate classes
+ One to four adult to student ratio
+ Student in a group home and suffer from severe emotional and behavior disorders
+ 5 boys to every 3 girls
+ Primarily white

Strategies “Staff members met once a week for 15 weeks to review materials developed by one of the authors and to discuss
alternatives to punitive approaches previously used. The training goals were to decrease the number of negative
interactions, physical restraints, and suspensions and to increase the number of positive interactions between staff
members and students. The program focused on two strategies - differential reinforcement and positive correction, ”
(95).

Invert the ratio of negative to positive student and teacher interactions from 8:1 to 1:8 (95)
 (95)

Findings Data was collected over a period of 24 months. It was analyzed 6 months before training, the 6 months that included
the training, the 6 months following the training, and over the last months (95).

Dramatic decrease in the use of physical restraint in the 6 months after training - 167 in total to only 12 in the
compared six month periods (96).

Conclusions “The introduction of two relatively simple strategies, differential reinforcement and positive correction, reulted in a 99%
reduction in in the staff use of physical restraints and a 61% reduction in student suspensions over the course of the
24-month data-gathering period,” (96). Because these drops continued after the training and in the post-review, staff
skills persisted and continued to have an influence over classroom behavior (96).

My notes ● Two strategies that I try to work on. However, with several of the kids the positive correction is needed and in
order to keep class running smoothly, it’s hard to have to keep stopping in order to have this conversation with
them. I need to find the balance that allows me to still continue instruction while giving students their privacy on
behavior issues. When I address it quietly, correction goes better than if it occurs in front of the class. However,
finding a time to stop that doesn’t disrupt the class vs the disruption of the behavior is definitely difficult to find
balance in.
● It’s good to know that these two strategies alone can have such a tremendous impact. However, I wish the
article covered more of how much teacher time was devoted to each strategy, how that changed, if student
behavior changed in any significant way, or did teachers simply not escalate it to drastic measures as quickly.
It’d be interesting to have the data on that as well.
Annotation 6
 (Older article)

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral
Disorders, 18(2), 92-102. http://dx.doi.org.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/019874299301800207

Purpose of Study “The purpose of this investigation was to explore the Patterson and Reid (1970) reciprocal/coercive interaction
hypothesis as related to the classroom social interactions between teachers and students identified with severe
behavior disorders. Additionally, four classroom behavior management strategies are identified as potential setting
events for either coercive or positive reciprocal interactions between teachers and students- The literature reviewed
indicates that teachers are more likely to attend to student inappropriate behavior (an indicator of coercive interactions)
than they are to use positive verbal attention for appropriate behavior (an indicator of positive reciprocal interactions).
From this perspective, the authors speculate that the management strategies of posting classroom rules, classroom
arrangement, teacher movement in the classroom, and external reinforcement systems (e.9., token economies) may
more likely be used as setting events to enhance the effects of teacher coercion rather than potential setting events to
enhance positive reciprocal interactions. Recommendations are made for research concerning this hypothesis and for
teachers' use of these strategies as setting events for positive reciprocal interactions,” (92)

Highlights of Literature “Although the effect of the children's coercive behavior on teachers has not been thoroughly studied, some data are at
Review least suggestive that teachers tend to avoid students with high rates of coercive behavior. For example, Carr, Taylor,
and Robinson (199'l )found that teachers were less likely to engage children with severe behavior problems in
teaching activities than they were nonproblem children in the same group. ln addition, the teachers presented tasks to
the children with severe behavior disorders that were less difficult and less likely to have been previously associated
with the children's coercive behavior. The teachers seemed to have learned to engage in avoidance behavior.

In the following section the authors present a review of literature on teacher/student interactions and discuss this
literature to support the conceptualizations presented to this point,” (94).

“It is axiomatic that contingent teacher praise is an important behavior in developing positive interactions between
teachers and students in addition to the reinforcing value of teacher praise when used contingently. Unfortunately,
many studies have not found teacher praise to be a high-rate behavior in classroom,” (94).

“One of the indications of a coercive interaction is the use of verbal behavior by the teacher that expresses disapproval
of student behavior. White ('1975) found that the rate of disapproval statements in regular education classrooms far
exceeded the approval statements when teachers were attempting to control classroom social behavior. Walker and
Buckley (1973) found that teachers were more likely to interact with a student when s/he displayed inappropriate
behavior than when s/he engaged in appropriate behavior...Another type of teacher disapproval response, teacher
reprimands, has been investigated in several experimental studies... In fact, the results of at least one study indicated
that teacher reprimands actually served to increase student disruptive behavior (Madsen et al., 1968). The effects of
reprimands on social interactions have not been directly investigated...Redd, Morris, and Martin (1975) found that
children ranked teachers who used high rates of reprimands as the least preferred adults with whom they would want
to interact as compared to teachers who used high rates of praise or those who were neutral,” (95).
 “It may be that both teacher negative and positive responses to children are necessary to maintain behavioral control
in classrooms. Rosen, O'Leary Joyce, Conway, and Pfiffner (1984), for example, found that an all-positive approach
(using positive social teacher responses and no negative social teacher responses) to classroom management of
children identified as hyperactive was not effective. Pfiffner, Rosen, & O'Leary (1985) found similar results in that a
combination of teacher positive and negative consequences resulted in more student on-task behavior than did a
positive consequence only condition. lt should be noted, however, that the ratio of positive to negative consequences
in this study was approximately three to one. This is considerably higher than that reported in the naturalistic studies of
teacher praise. When an individual reward system was included in the all-positive approach, it was found to be as
effective in maintaining student rates of on-task behavior as the combined positive and negative approach,” (95)

“These external systems are essentially nonsocial procedures but do affect the behavior of students in classrooms and
most probably their interactions with teachers. These procedures include but are not limited to posting rules of the
classroom, organizing the classroom to increase the structure within the classroom, utilizing a traffic pattern for the
teacher in the classroom, and utilizing reinforcement systems such as token or point systems. The authors maintain
that these classroom management strategies increase the structure of the classroom which aids in control of students'
behavior. These specific procedures were chosen for discussion because they appear as recommendations in almost
all texts concerning classroom instruction of children with severe behavior disorders and have extensive empirical
support,” (96).

“...guidelines for designing classroom rules. The characteristics include:

1. The establishment of as few rules as possible, generally four or five;
2, Rules that are stated positively, that is, in terms of To Do rather than Don't Do;
3. Rules that are defined as observable behavior:
4. Clear statements of the positive consequences for following the rules and consequences for rule violation;
5. Rules that are developed with student input;
6. Rules that are posted so that all can see; and
7. Periodic review of the rules and consequences (that include examples and nonexamples) with the students,” (96).

Teacher movement around classroom increases positive student-teacher interaction and decreases inappropriate
behaviors (97).

My notes ● Ties to recent observation note to be more generous with my positive praise and ticket reinforcement later on in
the class instead of just at the beginning. It gets the beginning a good tone, but losing that throughout the
period decreases the desired behavior and desired atmosphere. One struggle with this I’ve found is when I
don’t have pockets, I’m apt to not pass out as many tickets simply because I don’t have any easy way to carry
them around. Trying to find a way to remedy that and making more of an effort to be quicker and more
generous in positive praises and quicker on consequences on inappropriate behavior. Also working on keeping
it quiet and positive redirecting with the student instead of a negative comment heard by the entire class.
● Going over the rules - at least a select few - is always needed every couple of days. “Thank you to those who
are [insert expectation]. Thank you, [student name].” It’s amazing how fast students jump on track for them to
hear me thank them.
 Annotation 7

Frances Julia Riemer & Maryjane Blasi. (2008). Rethinking Relationships, Reconfiguring Teacher Research: Teachers as Ethnographers of Culture,
Childhood, and Classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 53-65, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2008.10463469

Purpose of Study “In this article, we employ multiple lenses to examine a state-funded teacher research institute designed to meld
ethnographic and teacher research with anthropological and sociological studies of childhood. Planned as support for
the work of teachers in reservation schools, the institute’s classes, book talks, methods exercises, and subsequent
classroom based research were intended to help teachers understand learning as a constructive meaning-making
activity carried out by their students. However, we anticipated neither the difficulties that we would encounter in
recruiting Native American teachers nor those that teachers would meet in carving out time to conduct ethnographic
research in their classrooms. This article is an attempt to let go of our preconceptions about the way that the institute
should have unfolded and to privilege the richness of the teachers’ unexpected discoveries,” (53).

Research Question “We needed to make sense of our precipitous drop from initial excitement to ensuing disheartenment, and we spent a
good deal of the past year in conversation, reflection, and text consultation. Yet, over time, we found ourselves
juxtaposing our disappointment with teachers’ statements about moments of profound self-realization. This article is an
attempt to make sense of our experiences, to let go of our preconceptions about the way that the institute should have
unfolded, and to honor the richness of the teachers’ discoveries,” (54).

Participants “The teacher research institute was composed of two three-credit graduate-level classes Social and Cultural
Constructions of Childhood and the Ethnography of Childhood offered concurrently during a 3-week summer session.
Like all of the university’s summer classes, the time frame was compressed and so the work was intensive. Each class
met for 3 hours a day over the 3 weeks to meet the required 45 hours of meeting time. The combined time
commitment for the two classes translated to a total of 6 hours of classes each day, followed by several hours of
reading and writing each night. Institute participants were also given the option of earning three independent study
credits for conducting classroom-based research anytime in the subsequent school year,” 55)

Method/Collection “Specifically, data on the teachers’ experiences were collected during the teacher research institute and the following
school year. Data collection was clustered into three tiers: baseline data, data collected during the summer institute,
and data in the form of interviews with teacher researchers after the following school year. In fact, the teachers
themselves gathered baseline data. Before the formal commencement of the teacher research institute, teachers used
a self-interview format to audio-tape their responses to a series of written questions concerning their experiences with
and beliefs about children. The teachers’ reactions, along with the written employment histories that they provided,
provided background information on their professional experiences and existing beliefs about children. During the
institute, we as the two faculty members acted as facilitators and researchers, observing and documenting activities in
two sets of field notes. With the teachers, we also used journal writing to react and respond to institute-related
activities. Institute sessions were videotaped, and written assignments, including mini-ethnographies conducted by
pairs of teachers, were collected and archived. At the close of the institute, teachers reviewed the audiotapes of their
baseline self-interviews, reflecting in writing on their initial reactions and noting in writing the changes in their
orientation and beliefs about children. At the end of the following school year, we conducted and audiotaped face-to-
 face semi-structured interviews with each teacher researcher, listening to stories of the school year as we shared
coffee in a local coffee shop or during lunch on campus,” (56-57).

Findings Teachers found it difficult to both fulfill the demands of being a teacher and researcher as well. Many became
disillusioned with the school they worked at and took to question presumptions in the school system. Authors found
that for some, the research they did was not later integrated into their practice because of the restrictive timeframe,
which confirmed one of their fears (59-62). Tiffany found that in her class when she relinquished control of center times
her students met the challenge of independence and gave themselves organization and delegation tasks (57-58).

Conclusions “Low teacher morale, a lack of the most basic of teaching materials, and an unresponsive administration created an
environment that overwhelmed best efforts. Justin’s story suggests that teacher research will be energized or
debilitated by the way that time is allocated, supplies are distributed, schools are managed, and pedagogy is controlled
on the local level. In hindsight, our equating the study of “children and childhood as cultural inventions” (Hatch, 1995,
p. 130) with improved teacher practice seems overly simplistic. We realize that the question we should pose is “How
does this work create possibilities for new understandings for children’s lives, and further, how does it promote action
to that end?“ (Grau & Walsh, 1998, p. 248),” (63).

My notes ● This article didn’t turn out how I expected it to in terms of what it covered. It focused more on professor-student
teacher relationships and how to help build competent teachers. However, a few lines came through with things
that I’ve seen in my district. I appreciated Tiffany’s testimony as it demonstrated that half the battle with
engagement and behavior in the classroom is getting students to feel in charge of their learning. When they
have that freedom to learn and create, their abilities can astound and their investment in the classroom will help
diminish problematic behaviors stemming from boredom and frustration.
● “The studies “assume that childhood is not timeless, but rather subject to the same historical shifts and
institutional factors that shape all human experience” (Jenkins, 1998, p. 4). This anthropologically driven
perspective caused us to consider our own beliefs about teachers and teaching. We found ourselves
questioning whether school curricula are tailored to or actually shape our pedagogical beliefs about children.
We also wondered if making classrooms more relevant would require teachers to contextualize their views of
children and if ethnographic research could provide that modified lens,” (54).
○ I just really liked this quote, and felt that it is something all educators should continue to remember in
their yearly progresses as they work with new students, new generations, and new sets of history that
have shaped those they are working with.
 Annotation 8

Gerda Hagenauer & Tina Hascher & Simone E. Volet. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom: Associations with students’ engagement,
classroom discipline and the interpersonal student-teacher relationship. Eur J Psychol Educ, 30, 385-403. DOI 10.1007/s10212-015-0250-0

Purpose of Study “The purpose of this study was to explore the predictors of teacher emotions in the classroom. Particular attention was
given to the role of student behaviour and to the question of whether, and how, the interpersonal TSR—assessed as
teachers’ perception of “closeness” with their students—was related to teacher emotions during instruction. Teacher
self-efficacy beliefs and their relationship with the students’ classroom behaviour and the interpersonal TSR were also
considered,” (395).

Research Question How is the teacher’s perception of “closeness” with their students related to teacher emotions during instruction?

Participants “One hundred thirty-two teachers participated in the study (65.6 % female, n=86; 34.4 % male, n=45). They all taught
in high-track secondary schools in Austria. Stemming from 11 different schools, a range between 2 and 31 teachers
from each school participated voluntarily in this study. The mean age was 47.12 years (min=25, max=62 years). The
majority of the teachers were experienced teachers with a mean of 20.56 years of experience in the job (min=0.5
years to max=43 years); 69 % of the participating teachers were full-time employed. On average, the classroom size in
high-track schools was about 25 students per class,” (389).

Method/Collection “Based on the findings of Kunter et al. (2011) that teacher enthusiasm can vary significantly between classrooms,
teachers in the present study were asked to focus on one classroom when answering the items concerning the
classroom conditions. This was deemed necessary in order to capture the possibility of high variation of the quality of
teacher-student interactions and, thus, teacher emotions between classrooms (student populations). Accordingly,
teachers were invited to nominate a classroom that was of high relevance to them (“goal relevance” of the situation as
a key appraisal evoking positive or negative emotions; Frenzel 2014; Lazarus 1999). “Relevance” was operationalized
in terms of the frequency of interactions with and responsibility for this particular group of students,” (390).

Nothing explained the selection process of teachers or based on who responded and how. The only information
provided was that teachers were given a questionnaire to fill out on their own.

“In order to empirically test the factor structure of the model of Frenzel (2014), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was conducted with the software Mplus (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012). A three-factor model was compared to a
one-factor and a two-factor model. The one-factor model tested the one-dimensional way of assessing student
behaviour (= one general factor), whilst the two-factor model explored whether it would be sensible to combine the
indicators of student engagement and lack of discipline into one single dimension, whilst keeping closeness as a
distinct indicator,” (392).

Findings “As expected, joy correlated negatively with anger and anxiety, whilst it correlated positively with student engagement
and closeness and negatively with lack of discipline in the classroom. An independent t test showed no significant
 difference between male and female teachers in their emotional experiences (joy: t(129)=−0.42, p=0.67; anxiety:
t(129)=0.34, p=0.73; anger: t(129)=−0.29, p=0.76). Correlations between teachers’ years of teaching experience and
emotions also resulted in non-significant results (p>0.05). We also tested for mean differences between the three
groups (homeroom teacher, teacher of a major subject area and teacher of a minor subject area) of teachers’
perspective, in terms of teacher emotions and student behaviour that were assessed as classroom specific. Significant
differences were found for experience of joy, closeness and student engagement. Homeroom teachers (group 1)
experienced significantly more joy (F 2, 131=6.70, p=0.002; η2 =0.09; M1=3.46, SD1=0.53; M3=2.96, SD3=0.83), as
well as a greater extent of closeness to their students (F 2, 131=7.91, p=0.001; η2 =0.11; M1=3.80, SD1=0.28;
M3=3.44, SD3=0.60) and also reported more student engagement (F 2, 131=5.96, p=0.003; η2 =0.08; M1=3.18,
SD1=0.57; M3=2.78, SD3=0.64) in comparison to teachers who taught minor subject areas (group 3). On a descriptive
level, homeroom teachers also scored lowest on anger, anxiety and lack of discipline in class; however, the three
groups were not significantly different in regard to these experiences (p>0.05),” (393-394).

“The strongest predictor of teachers’ joy and anxiety was found to be closeness, whilst anger was best predicted by a
lack of discipline in class. Lack of discipline in class also emerged as a significant negative predictor of teachers’ joy
and as a significant positive predictor for anxiety. Joy was further predicted by students’ engagement in class, as was
anger (negative association). Contrary to expectations, self-efficacy beliefs were not significantly related to anger and
anxiety when simultaneously considering the relationship variables in the model, but self-efficacy beliefs in teaching
content contributed to teachers’ accounts of joy in class,” (395).

Conclusions “These results lead to the conclusion that teachers’ ability to connect well with students can be regarded as an
important skill to target in professional development. Whilst strategies that affect the professional aspects of the TSR
(e.g. classroom management; motivating students which affects student engagement) are already explicitly addressed
in teacher competence models, such as the one introduced by the COACTIV study of Baumert and Kunter (2013),
instructional strategies that aim at fostering the interpersonal TSR have been largely overlooked in teacher education
curricula. As Jennings and Greenberg (2009, p. 495) have observed, “the current educational system appears to
assume that teachers have the requisite SEC [socio-emotional competence] to create a warm and nurturing learning
environment, be emotionally responsive to students, form supportive and collaborative relationships with difficult and
demanding parents […].” In fact, (socio)-emotional competence can be regarded as a competence cluster that requires
training just like other teacher competencies. There is emerging evidence that TSR issues tend to evoke tensions and
dilemmas accompanied by various emotions, particularly in beginning teachers, which reflects insecurity in regard to
relationship issues (Pillen et al. 2013).
Thus, reflecting on social interaction in the classroom and its accompanied emotions should be an important
component of teacher pre- and in-service education programmes, with a view to develop and enhance teachers’
(socio)-emotional competence (Garner 2010; Jennings and Greenberg 2009),” (398).

My notes ● Though I like the focus on first seeing the relationship between teacher emotions and relationships with
students as well as class behavior, this article simple stated the findings. I wish it had more in terms of
strategies or next measures in how to act and work with this information instead of simply presenting it and the
fact that it should be addressed early in teacher training.
 Annotation 9

Luce C. A. Claessens, Jan van Tartwijk, Anna C. van der Want, Helena J. M. Pennings, Nico Verloop, Perry J. den Brok & Theo Wubbels.
(2017). Positive teacher–student relationships go beyond the classroom, problematic ones stay inside. The Journal of Educational
Research, 110(5), 478-493. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2015.1129595

Purpose of Study “The authors voice teachers’ perceptions of their interpersonal experiences with students in both positive and
problematic relationships. Interview data from 28 teachers were examined by coding utterances on teacher and
student interactions. Results indicate that teachers defined the quality of the relationship mostly by the level of
communion (friendly vs. hostile), instead of by the level of agency (in control vs. powerless). Analyses of mentioned
teacher and student behavior show a friendly interactional pattern for positive relationships and a hostile pattern for
problematic ones. In teachers’ perceptions, positive and problematic relationships also differed in context where
encounters take place and topic of talk. Contrary to interactions in problematic relationships, encounters in positive
relationships were mostly situated outside the classroom context and conversations during these encounters covered
a wide range of topics. Implications for teacher education programs are discussed,” (478).

Research Question “Our main research questions were: How do teachers perceive their own and students’ interpersonal behavior in
positive and problematic teacher–student relationships? Where does this behavior take place? What topics are
covered when this behavior involves talk? Additionally we studied sequences of behavior (action reaction), so-called
interactions. By answering these questions we aimed to add to theory on teachers’ perceptions of teacher–student
relationships,” (480).

Participants ● Netherlands, 2011

● interviewed 28 high school teachers
○ “stratified random sample out of a sample of 180 teachers voluntarily participating in a bigger study on
classroom social climate,” (480)
○ Selected based on years of experience diversity
● “To assess the teacher–class relationship we asked the teachers to administer the Questionnaire on Teacher
Interaction (QTI; Wubbels et al., 2006) to the students in the class they considered most challenging form the
point of view of the relationship they had with the class...The QTI consisted of 24 Likert-type items, each
pertaining to one of the eight sectors of the MITB, thus loading on both the agency and communion dimension,”
(480)
● “To gather data on teachers’ perceptions of teacher–student interactions, we used a semistructured interview
wherein we asked the teachers to describe one or two positive relationships they had with individual students
(current or in the recent past) and one or two problematic ones. Teachers were encouraged to choose these
relationships according to their own standards of positive and problematic relationships...Overall the interview
took between 1 and 1.5 hr. The interviews resulted in the descriptions of 52 positive relationships and 40
problematic ones,” (480-481).

Method/Collection To investigate teachers’ perceptions of teacher and student interpersonal behavior in positive and problematic
relationships, we conducted an exploratory interview study. We studied single units of teacher and student behavior
 mentioned in these interviews focusing on three aspects: (a) context in which the behavior took place, (b) content of
the behavior or topic of talk, and (c) interpersonal aspect of the behavior. Subsequently, we studied sequences of
teacher and student behavior, or so-called interactions, to form an impression of possible interactional patterns in
positive and problematic relationships. This study applied a mixed method design in which a quantitative approach to
select participants and qualitative approach for data collection complemented each other. Our goal was to present
data from a diverse yet representative group of participants. Furthermore, our analyses show a mixed method design
in which differences between behaviors in positive and problematic relationships are expressed both quantitatively,
using figures, and qualitatively, using quotes from the interviews. (480)

Findings Positive relationships

“Overall, most behavior described in positive relationships took place outside the class context (53%). Although mainly
situated before or after the lesson in the classroom or in the hallway, teachers also recognized field trips as important
opportunities to build and maintain relationships and some even mentioned contact with students outside school life,
such as on occasions when they met up to go to a concert or coincidental meetings that occurred due to their living in
the same areas.” (483).

“In class, the topic of talk mainly revolved around the subject taught and coursework or classroom management,
although informal talk (e.g., joking around with the student) was also mentioned (see Table 3). In the out-of-class
context, the topics of conversation were more diverse,” (483).

“Interpersonal teacher and student behavior in positive relationships Teachers’ talk revealed that they experienced
students with whom they had a positive relationship to be mostly supporting and collaborating in class (see Figure 3).
They described these students as being highly engaged during the lesson. They share their thoughts on a subject and
volunteer on questions,” (483).

“When observing student misbehavior in positive relationships, it became clear that it is not the mere behavior of the
student but the interpersonal valence attributed to this behavior that is of importance for how teachers experience this
behavior. As Loraine explained, similar student behavior can be interpreted differently for different students, depending
on the interpersonal valence the teacher infers from this behavior,” (483).

“In class, teachers described their own behavior as mainly directing and supporting when in a positive relationship with
a student (see Figure 3). They mentioned instructing students, challenging them, asking them about their progress and
commenting on it, and treating their students as equals. However, teachers also mentioned behaving in a
confrontational manner, thus confronting the student with his or her disturbing behavior or sending the student to
another seat or even out of class,” (484).

“Although students were very often mentioned to initiate contact, once an interaction had begun, teacher and student
would alternate positions on the agency dimension. In class, teachers also mentioned a complementary interactional
pattern high on communion. They also mentioned, however, student behavior that measured low on communion. In
order to understand how this behavior could coexist with the friendly pattern as described above, we investigated
teachers’ descriptions of their reactions to student hostile behavior (objecting and confronting). Although teachers
 sometimes mentioned showing friendly behavior by allowing the misbehavior (acquiescing), they mostly mentioned
responding to this complementary on the communion dimension, thus confronting and imposing...These reactions
were highly complementary on the agency dimension. Students mostly reacted submissive in response to the
teacher’s confronting or imposing behavior. Thus, in positive relationships teachers mentioned both themselves and
their students trying to pull the relationship back to more friendly interactions after confronting behavior of the other
party,” (486).

Problematic relationships:
“In problematic relationships, in contrast with positive relationships, we found that the behavior teachers described of
both teachers and students, mostly took place in class (67%). Examples that took place out of class mostly involved
the student returning or staying after class on the teacher’s initiative to talk about student misbehavior,” (486).

“When asked about behavior in class in problematic relationships, teachers mainly mentioned classroom management
as a topic (see Table 6). Examples were a teacher telling the student what to do, telling a student to pay attention, or
telling a student to leave the classroom. Besides this, teachers also mentioned subject matter as a topic of talk, with
the teacher helping the student with difficulties, or explaining why certain choices were made during lessons,” (486).
These topics show minimal variety, unlike the topics during positive interactions.

“Student behavior in problematic relationships was regarded as highly variable, with the student being compliant 1
minute and very angry the next. Teachers described their own behavior as mainly confronting, trying to get the student
to behave correctly (see Figure 4). However the intensity and occurrence of this type of behavior by teachers in
problematic relationships could differ greatly, varying from recounting an instance in which a phone was taken away by
the teacher, to a student not being allowed in class for several weeks. Besides confronting the student, teachers also
mentioned being directing or supporting. In these instances teachers talked about persisting and trying to start on a
positive note each time. Finally, when in a problematic relationship some teachers mentioned hesitating in class
toward a student. They talked of giving in and allowing for the misbehavior as long as the class was not disrupted too
much. They described this in reaction to a feeling of having tried everything and not finding “a way in”,” (487).

“Teachers mentioned interactional patterns in which the student would misbehave, to which the teacher would react in
an objecting or confronting fashion, to which the student would react equally objecting or confronting and so forth. In
the classroom this would, for instance, result in discussions with students on the fairness of a teacher’s reprimand.”
(488).

Conclusions “Our study showed differences in teachers’ perceptions of teacher–student interactions in positive and problematic
relationships. These differences mainly concerned the communion or affiliation dimension. As was to be expected, in
positive relationships teachers mostly mentioned interactions rating high on communion (e.g., friendly), whereas in
problematic relationships, they mostly mentioned interactions rating low on communion (e.g., hostile). On the agency
or control dimension perceived behaviors of teacher and student were very similar for both types of relationships, with
both the teacher and the student taking turns steering and following. Regarding these differences concerning the
interpersonal dimensions it seems that, according to the teachers, relationship quality is determined more by the level
of communion, or friendliness, than by the level of agency, or control,” (489).
 “Our findings suggest that in teachers’ perceptions, in positive relationships an attractor exists at the high end of the
communion dimension. Both teacher and student show behavior high on communion and around the center of the
agency dimension. Considering our findings it seems that teachers’ perceptions of student moment-to-moment
behavior may be influenced by the location of the attractor in the relationship. This way, in positive relationships,
student misbehavior may be unproblematic in the eyes of the teacher due to the student’s willingness to comply to the
teacher’s demands after a reprimand, thus creating the possibility to return to a more friendly interactional pattern,”
(490).

My notes ● I relate to the struggle of confrontation during problematic interactions. For me as well, they tend to happen in
the classroom, be limited in topic, and easily transfer into an argument. Those who I struggle with this more are
ones I do not interact with outside the classroom as often.
● Student who I know better outside the classroom - though not lacking in problematic interactions - are quicker
and easier to redirect with a short, quiet reprimand. I trust them more to get back on task, and they trust me to
continue being friendly with them afterwards.
● I wonder how much of this comes down to if I am unable/have not put in effort to talk about topics outside of
class in a high communion way, they doubt I will ever go and talk to them as such if I redirect them. Thinking of
some comments from students about how I “always pick on them” instead of others I think this might ring true.
There is a difference in treating certain behaviors in students who know well and those you don’t. Also, that
trust is a large part. They don’t trust me to still be friendly with them even if I have to pause to correct their
behavior in the classroom.
 Annotation 10

Lilia D. Monzó and Robert S. Rueda (2001). Professional Roles, Caring, and Scaffolds: Latino Teachers' and Paraeducators' Interactions
with Latino Students. American Journal of Education, 109(4), 438-471. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1209266

Purpose of Study “ This article reports on the relationships and interactions between Latina/o students and Latina/o paraeducators,
including some who have moved through the pipeline and are now teachers.1 Given that paraeducators are generally
members of the same or similar communities in which they teach and share many of the experiences and cultural
practices of their students, including their primary language, cultural practices, and their experiences as working-class,
ethnic, and linguistic minorities, our assumption was that this knowledge might influence the ways paraeducators
interact with students. Although we do not suggest that minority students must always be taught by minority teachers,
we sought to understand how having knowledge about and understanding students' experiences, interests, and
concerns impact teachers' interactions with students. We were also keenly aware of the differences in professional
roles of paraeducators and teachers and sought to document how these roles facilitated or constrained relationships
with students,” (439-440).

Research Question How do paraeducators draw on their shared sociocultural experiences and knowledge in interacting with students,
whether confianza was established, whether they were able to use their knowledge of the community to scaffold
instruction, and what factors mediated this? (444).

Participants “The two-year study took place in two large public elementary schools located in Southern California, both serving low-
income, predominantly Spanish-speaking, Latino community,” (445)

“Participants were twenty-four Latino paraeducators and eight new Latino teachers (with no more than three years'
teaching experience) who had previously worked as paraeducators. All but two of the participants were female. All
were of Latino heritage, either immigrants (19) or children of immigrants (13). Most came from Mexico (24), and the
others came from other countries of Latin America (Guatemala [2], Nicaragua [1], El Salvador [1], Cuba [2], and
Ecuador [2] ). All had grown up with Spanish as their primary language and had learned English in U.S. schools as
either youngsters or adults. All claimed to have been socialized into and through many of the cultural norms and
values of their countries of origin, and all indicated living or having lived in low-income Latino communities either the
same as or very similar to those of their students,” (445-446).

“The study from which this article draws sought to document differences among groups of paraeducators at
different stages in their professional development (career paraeducators with no intention of becoming teachers,
paraeducators with interest in becoming teachers, paraeducators enrolled in teacher education programs, and
paraeducators who had completed their teaching credentials and were then teachers). Thus, four groups were
originally formed, each with eight participants. Little differentiation in the school roles of the various paraeducators
groups were detected, and thus, for the purposes of this article, we have combined the various paraeducator groups
into one group of paraeducators and compare this group with the group of teachers.
We specifically chose to include teachers with less than three years of teaching experience in the teacher group
because we were interested in seeing changes across groups and documenting their own reactions to these changes.
 We believed that experienced teachers might be too far removed from their experience as paraeducators and perhaps
too embedded in their teacher roles to have good recall of the differences they had experienced. In addition, low-
income urban schools staff large numbers of beginning teachers, many of whom have not met minimum credential
requirements. We believe that focusing on this group of teachers captures the reality of the urban experience, where
students are often taught year after year by teachers with little training or experience,” (446-447).

Method/Collection Observation
● Each observed working with students on 8 to 10 separate occasions for approx. 45 minutes while paraeducator
and teacher worked on a language arts activity (447-448).
○ Research assistants sat closely to hear conversations and student interactions (448).
○ Notes taken during observation and “immediately afterward typed up and contextualized” (448).
○ Also included notes on informal discussions during non-instructional activities due to uncontrollable
scheduling and teacher routines (448)
Interviews
● “Each participant was interviewed individually either at home or at school, where privacy could be maintained.
A semistructured interview was used to explore paraeducators' and teachers' beliefs regarding teaching and
learning and the role of language and culture in these processes...The main focus was on maintaining rapport
in the form of a conversation rather than strict adherence to the questions, and participants were encouraged to
deviate to other topics. Each interview averaged around two hours. They were recorded and later transcribed,”
(448).

Findings “ All participants believed that sharing the culture, language, and experiences of their students enhanced their ability to
meet their needs and to connect with them in meaningful ways. Yet how paraeducators and August 2001 449 This
content downloaded from teachers utilized this shared experience in their interactions with students was mediated by
the professional roles they played and by the beliefs and values embedded within these roles. These different roles,
then, had an important impact on the relationships that these Latino educators built with their Latino students. We
present our findings in two sections, one on the interactions of paraeducators and one on the interactions of teachers.
Their use of shared cultural experiences is woven in throughout each of the sections,” (449-450).

Paraeducators:
“Among almost all paraeducators (21), confianza was discussed as an important factor that enabled students to ask
for assistance in academic tasks, share concerns that may affect their learning, and feel more comfortable within
school contexts. They believed establishing confianza was fostered by their shared language and culture and by
getting to know students and interacting with them informally. Our discussions with the paraeducators suggest that,
from their perspective, the role of the teacher is multiple and fluid. While all paraeducators pointed out that the
teacher's role includes teaching academic content, they also believed teachers need to be responsive to all aspects of
the child, including the child's physical well-being and social and emotional needs. Almost all (19) suggested that the
school or classroom ought to be an extension of the home. Comments included the importance of reinforcing home
values at school, making the classroom "like a second home," or having teachers take on a more familial role, such as
that of "mother," "older brother," "older sister," "uncle," or "aunt." Many (14) also discussed or described their
relationships with students as that of "friend," indicating a more informal relationship,” (450).
 “Paraeducators were generally responsible for offering extended support to students in need of extra help. During
independent work, para educators often monitored, offered assistance, and answered students' questions. When
leading a small group it was common for paraeducators to introduce the activity and then proceed to assist each
student in the group individually,” (451).

“Indeed, most (20) paraeducators stated outright that students had greater confianza with paraeducators than with
teachers. Factors they discussed as mediating confianza included their shared language and culture, the more
personal and informal nature of their interactions, particularly during recess, and their perception that students tended
to see the teacher as a distant authority figure,” (456-457).

“Sometimes they are doing their work and they come to me and say, "Have you seen this movie? Oh, it's very good.
You should see it." To the teacher they don't do that. I haven't seen it. Sometimes I get to thinking because soon I will
move from being an assistant to being a teacher and I wouldn't like to lose that connection. I would like to preserve
and cultivate the same confianza. But I don't think it is that the teacher doesn't offer confianza but that the children
think, "It's the teacher, and with him you can't do that,”” (457).

Teachers:

“The eight Latina teachers in our study had been paraeducators and had recently completed their teaching credentials
and obtained positions as bilingual teachers. Like the paraeducators, they felt that their shared language, culture, and
life experiences were important assets to teaching their students, and they discussed the importance of connecting
and having a good relationship with their students. However, there was a marked difference in the ways teachers
interacted with students, as well as in the focus of their discussions in interviews. As teachers, their responsibilities
had grown and also changed, and this seemed to mediate their interactions with students. Unlike the paraeducators,
for whom the notion of confianza dominated discussions of relationships with students, only half of the teachers (4)
discussed the importance of creating trusting relationships with students so that students would feel comfortable
asking questions or talking about themselves. Although teachers also saw the multiple roles they needed to play in the
classroom, only two teachers aligned the teacher role to that of a parent, mother, or sister, and only two discussed or
described their relationship with students as that of a friend or confidant. The other five teachers discussed these other
roles of the teacher in more professional, formal terms, such as "nurse," "counselor," and "disciplinarian”,” (457-458).

“Thus, unlike paraeducators who generally were seen devoting all of their attention to the small group of students with
whom they worked at any given time, teachers had to share their attention with the rest of the class as well as with
other pressing organizational issues,” (458).

Conclusions “ Our study showed that knowledge of the culture and language of students allowed Latina/o teachers and
paraeducators to interact with students in ways that were likely familiar to them, such as using culturally appropriate
interactional styles. This affords students the use of their own resources in negotiating within a linguistically and
culturally different context, making sense of the tacit messages that behaviors carry. Students are more likely to
accurately interpret teachers' values and behaviors, including corrections, encouragement, and shows of concern,
when these come packed in familiar ways. Yet it was clear that the opportunities to interact in culturally appropriate
 ways were often mediated by the contexts in which these interactions occurred. Teachers did not have similar
opportunities to interact in culturally appropriate ways due to the many demands placed upon them in the classroom,”
(465).

My notes ● I see this struggle even outside of the shared cultural relationship. When I would observe in classrooms during
student teaching or acted as a tutor in a high school class, I felt the students were closer to me than to the
teacher. I think part of it definitely comes down to the amount of responsibility on a teacher’s shoulders in
addition to the view of who has the position of authority. Paraeducators have the ability to give their full
attention to students and foster deep connections that teachers are not always able to reach because of other
obligations. I see this as a reason to ensure at least one aide in every class to help fill the social and emotional
need of students when the teacher is unable to. Helping to fill those needs and connecting with students helps
to create a functioning and respectful classroom, but finding the time to do so as the teacher with so many
other demands gets difficult. There are always the ideas of “I’ll do this” and “I can do this” until the reality of
time constraints and duties gets in the way and those plans fall through.