CLASSROOM DYNAMICS AND CHILDREN AT RISK: A FOLLOWUP.

Abstract. The two studies reported in this article followed up on an initial investigation of classroom dynamics and young children identified as at risk (AR) for developing learning, emotional, and behavioral disorders (LD/EBD) (Lago-Dellelo, 1998). In the present studies, measures were taken of teacher-student interactions, peer interactions, students' perceptions of their teachers' expectations, student self-perceptions, and academic engaged time. In our first study, when the children were in grades 2 and 3, results replicated those of Lago-Dellelo (1998) conducted the previous year when the children were in grades 1 and 2. That is, significant differences between students at risk for LD/EBD and not-at-risk (NAR) peers were found for type of teacher responses and academic engaged time. Teachers made significantly more negative and nonacademic responses to the AR students, who spent significantly less time on task than NAR peers. In our second followup study, when the children were in grades 3 and 4, significant differences between groups were found for academic engaged time, self-perceptions, and perceptions of teachers' expectations. At-risk students spent less time on task, perceived themselves more negatively, and perceived their teachers as having more negative expectations of them than did NAR students. These findings suggest that as children at risk for LD/EBD get older, they begin to realize that their teachers view them negatively, and in turn begin to view themselves negatively. The effects of this realization on the these students' achievement and self-esteem as well as adult and peer relationships in later years need to be further explored.

Classroom dynamics is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon having to do with classroom climate and the behavior of teachers and students. Investigating classroom dynamics is particularly challenging due to the multivariate nature of human behavior and the contextual conditions in which it occurs. Generally, classroom dynamics research has focused on the study of teacher and student behavior in the classroom by measuring quantity and quality of teacher-student interactions, peer interactions and relationships, teacher and student perceptions and attitudes, and a variety of instructional and student performance factors. The research in these areas relevant to our studies is reviewed briefly.

Teacher-Student Interactions

It is well acknowledged that school outcomes are influenced by teacher-student interactions and teacher attitudes (Brophy, 1986; Denham & Holt, 1993; Irvine, 1986; Jussim, 1991). Substantial evidence suggests that teachers' perceptions of and attitudes toward students affect their own behavior as well as their students' behavior in the classroom and their judgment-of student ability and may lead to differential treatment of students (e.g., Good & Brophy, 1972; Itskowitz, Navon, & Strauss, 1988; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Weinstein, Madison, & Kuklinski, 1995). In Nelson and Roberts' (2000) investigation of over 300 students, teachers tended to respond more negatively to the disruptive behaviors of students whom they identified as having behavioral problems than to similar disruptive behaviors of other children. Thus, teachers' negative attitudes and behavior towards children may have far-reaching consequences by setting the stage for continuing behavior and academic problems. To illustrate, Pianta, Steinberg, and Rollins (1995) found that kindergarten teachers' negative ratings of children's behavior were the best predictor of these children's behavioral problems in first grade.

It appears that early behavioral dispositions and patterns of young children predict school relationships with teachers and are related to later school adjustment and academic success (Birch & Ladd, 1998). Just as students' behavioral problems may worsen as a consequence of negative attitudes and teacher-student interactions, they may improve over time if students have consistent and close relationships with accepting teachers (e.g., Greene, 1995; Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Pianta et al., 1995). Children who have poor relationships with teachers have less contact with teachers, have fewer positive interactions with teachers and peers, and are less academically engaged in school (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Howes et al., 1994). The amount of time children are engaged in school activities has a direct impact on their achievement (Greenwood, 1991; McKinney & Speece, 1983). To be successful in school, students must feel good about their experiences and be actively involved in the learning process.

Peer Interactions and Relationships

Teachers' interactions with students seem to influence students' perceptions of one another and their relationships. For example, Birch and Ladd (1997) found that students make decisions about liking or disliking their classmates based on teachers' interactions with them. They concluded that the nature, content, and tone of teacher interactions with students contribute to peer acceptance or rejection. Behavioral problems and negative teacher responses to children who display them predict peer rejection and later peer relationship difficulties (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Ladd, Price, & Hart, 1988; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993). Peer rejection, in turn, seems to adversely affect behavioral and school adjustment outcomes (DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994).

In a study of how teacher feedback influences perceptions of children in first and second grade, White, Jones, and Sherman (1998) used videotapes of teachers talking about and interacting with children. First- and second-grade children who viewed the tapes and rated a target child were given information by teacher actors regarding the reputational status of the child (liked, neutral, or disliked). This was followed by a tape showing the teacher interacting with the child in a neutral, positive, or negative manner. Findings indicated that, regardless of reputational status, negative teacher feedback caused the target child to be rated as less likable, less deserving of reward, and more likely to misbehave by children in the same grade. Therefore, how a teacher behaves toward a student in the classroom affects not only the perceptions of the other children in the class but also the target student's self-perception.

Student Perceptions

Students' perceptions of their teachers' expectations are related to student achievement and other school outcomes (Ames, 1992; Brattensani, Weinstein, & Marshall, 1984; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Specifically, positive perceptions of teacher expectations are associated with greater engagement in academics, better grades in school, and better behavior. The point at which children accurately perceive differential teacher treatment in the classroom and peer rejection to the extent that they begin to perceive themselves negatively is not well understood. Some evidence suggests a developmental course whereby children begin to internalize the negativity directed toward them. That is, young children tend to be less accurate than older students in predicting teacher expectations and tend to report high perceptions of competence whereas older students are more likely to perceive themselves in concordance with their perceptions of teacher expectations (Simonson & Strein, 1997; Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp, & Botkin, 1987). Lago-Dellelo (1998) found that first-and second-grade students at high risk for LD/EBD were unaware of teachers' negative treatment of them -- they thought they were doing well and that their teachers thought so, too.

Even though young children may not be consciously aware of teacher or peer rejection, they may behave or respond in a manner that seems to reflect these negative classroom experiences. Results of a study by Kennedy (1997) found that students, as early as the third grade, who perceived their teachers as treating them negatively and their peers as being hostile feared asking for help more than classmates who had positive perceptions of teachers and peers. Another study of at-risk African-American children in third through fifth grade suggested a relationship between student perceptions of a caring, positive relationship with a-teacher and a positive classroom atmosphere and school satisfaction (Baker, 1999).

In sum, the research on classroom dynamics suggests a strong interrelationship among student behavior; teacher and peer perceptions and interactions; and student perceptions of teachers, peers, and themselves. Students with behavioral and/or learning problems are at greater risk than other students for rejection by teachers and peers, which places them at considerable risk for poor school outcomes.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

The purpose of the two studies reported in this article was to follow up on an initial investigation of classroom dynamics and young children identified as at risk (AR) for developing LD/EBD (Lago-Dellelo, 1998). Lago-Dellelo's study was conducted with first- and second-grade AR students. She found that these children, compared with matched not-at-risk (NAR) classmates, were significantly more rejected by their teachers, spent significantly less time academically engaged, and received significantly more negative or neutral and nonacademic teacher feedback statements. No significant differences were found between groups on measures of students' perceptions of teacher expectations, student self-perception, and peer interactions.

The present studies drew from the same sample of high-risk students when they were in second and third grade (Study 1) and the following year when they were in third and fourth grade (Study 2). Measures were taken of teacher-student interactions, peer interactions, students' perceptions of their teachers' expectations, student self-perceptions, and academic engaged time. Teacher-student interactions were not measured in Study 2 due to logistical problems. That is, the children changed classes for content area instruction, and often two or three target children were scheduled for the same class, whereas their matched peers were often scheduled for other classes. However, as discussed later, results of the analyses of the student perception measures support the assumption that teachers continued to behave negatively toward the AR students in the third and fourth grade. Of particular interest to us was the developmental nature of teacher rejection, peer rejection, and students' realization of the rejection. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that by grades 3 and 4, these students would begin to recognize that their teachers view them negatively. Thus, all of the following questions were addressed in Study 1. For Study 2, only Questions 2 through 4 were addressed.

1. Are there significant differences in the number and type of teacher-student interactions between students at risk for developing LD/EBD and NAR students?

2. Are there significant differences in the number and type of peer interactions between students at risk for developing LD/EBD and NAR students?

3. Are there significant differences in self-perceptions and students' perceptions of teacher expectations between students at risk for developing LD/EBD and NAR students?

4. Are there significant differences in the amount of time spent academically engaged between students at risk for LD/EBD and NAR students?

METHOD

Sample

Students were drawn from the original sample of students who were identified as at high risk for developing LD/EBD when they were in kindergarten and first grade. Using the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992), 628 students at two elementary schools in South Florida were screened for a longitudinal study to investigate the prevention of serious emotional disturbance in young children (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1998). At the beginning of the next year, teachers referred new students for screening. As a result, 81 students met moderate-risk criteria and 28 met high-risk criteria for developing learning, emotional, and behavior disorders. These students were followed for three years. However, due to sample attrition (leaving the school or placement in special education) during Years 2 through 4 of the longitudinal study, only 44 students at moderate and high risk remained at the conclusion of the project. Of the 14 children who had been referred, evaluated, and placed in special education, 13 were placed in learning disabilities programs and one student was placed in an emotionally handicapped program.

For Study 1, 20 second- and third-grade classroom teachers at the two schools had at least one student at high risk for LD/EBD in their classes. From this pool, 16 teachers were randomly selected to participate in the study. For Study 2, 14 teachers had at least one student at high risk in their classes. All 14 teachers participated in Study 2. If there were more than one student at high risk in the class, the high-risk student was randomly selected.

NAR students were operationally defined as average achievers who did not display disruptive behavior in class and were not considered by the teacher to be a discipline problem. Teachers were asked to identify the NAR students in their classes. Then the NAR students in each class who matched the AR student in the class on gender, ethnicity, and language dominance were identified. The matching NAR student was randomly selected from this classroom group when possible.

For Study 1, students were matched on all variables. In Study 2, however, a match for gender for one student and a match for ethnicity for another were not possible. Also, in Study 2, subject attrition due to student transfers and special education placements reduced the sample from 28 to 20 (10 AR, 10 NAR). Table 1 displays the student demographic data.

Table 1
Student Demographics

                                        Group
                                 Study 1    Study 2
                                 (n = 32)   (n = 20)
Gender
             Male                  14          9
             Female                18         11
Ethnicity
             African-American      22         11
             Hispanic              10          9
Grade
                                   16
                                   16          8
                                              12

Instruments

The following instruments and measures were used for classroom observation of the targeted interactions.

Brophy-Good Dyadic Interactions System (Irvine's modified version, 1986). The purpose of this observation system is to collect quantitative data about the nature of student-teacher interactions in the classroom including (a) student-initiating behaviors, (b) teachers' verbal responses to students, and (c) student response opportunities. Inter-observer agreement for this instrument was obtained through extensive training of coders on observing and coding student and teacher behaviors and conducting inter-observer agreement checks. Two trained observers observed each student on two separate occasions for a period of 15 minutes during academic activities by two trained observers. Inter-observer agreement (ranging from .90 to .97) was determined by comparing the coded observations immediately following each session. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Gresham's (1982) observation categories for classroom peer interactions focus on both positive and negative social interactions between students. Both initiating and receiving interactions were coded for each student during two separate 15-minute sessions. Four scores were obtained by summing the total number recorded for each of the four categories: positive initiations, positive receptions, negative initiations, and negative receptions. Inter-observer agreement (ranging from .93 to 1.00) was obtained in the same way as for the student-teacher interaction measure.

Academic engaged time (AET) was measured using the classroom observation format in Walker and Severson's (1992) Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Defined as the amount of time "the student is-appropriately engaged in working on assigned academic material" (p. 65), AET was obtained by observing each student for 15 minutes on each of two separate occasions during academic activities and calculating the percentage of time the student was continuously on task. Inter-observer reliability (ranging from .92 to 1.00) was determined by comparing observation results for pairs of raters for 20% of the observations.

Shapiro's (1993) "My teacher thinks I think" activity with Lago-Dellelo's (1998) modifications was used to measure students' perceptions of teacher expectations and self-perceptions. The modifications included adding happy, neutral, and sad faces as responses; using crayons to color in the response; and rewarding students with stickers at the end of each of the two administration sessions.

Procedures

The principal investigator for the longitudinal study conducted the training for observations of academic engaged time and peer interactions, which were components of the SSBD (Walker & Severson, 1992). As part of the initial classroom dynamics study, two graduate assistants and the principal investigator were trained by Lago-Dellelo (1998) in observation procedures for the student-teacher interactions and administration procedures for the student perception measures. Data on students' perceptions of teacher expectations and self-perceptions were collected by the two graduate assistants for Study 1 using the scripted modified version of Shapiro's (1993) activity in a single 15-minute session between January and March. Two individuals conducted 15-minute observations of peer interactions on two separate occasions and 15-minute observations of AET for 20% of the observations. The remaining 80% of the AET observations were completed by only one graduate assistant.

Analyses

Data from instruments measuring the number and type of teacher-student and peer interactions, students' perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-perceptions, and percent of academic engaged time were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between-groups design. All univariate analyses of student data, except for academic engaged time for Study 1, were conducted on equal sample sizes.

RESULTS

Study 1

A one-way ANOVA between-groups design conducted on the student-teacher interaction data revealed no significant effects for group on student-initiated positive behavior, F(1,30) = .17, p = .681, Eta Square = .006; student-initiated negative behavior, F(1,30) = 2.14, p =. 154, Eta Square = .067; student-initiated nonacademic behavior, F(1,30) = 1.29, p = .266, Eta Square = .041; and student-initiated academic behavior, F(1,30) = .273, p = .605, Eta Square = .009. Additionally, no significant effect for group was found for teacher positive feedback, F(1,30) = .000, p = 1.000, Eta Square = .000; and teacher neutral feedback, F(1,30) = .048, p = .828, Eta Square = .002. However, significant differences between groups were found for teacher negative feedback, F(1,30) = 4.92, p = .034, Eta Square = .141; teacher academic feedback, F(1,30) = 7.35, p = .011, Eta Square = .197; and teacher nonacademic feedback, F(1, 30) = 5.28, p = .029, Eta Square = .150. AR students received significantly more negative and nonacademic feedback from teachers than NAR students, who, in turn, received significantly more academic feedback than AR students. No significant effect was found for group on the measure of student response opportunities, F(1, 30) = .078, p = .781, Eta Square = .003. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the student-teacher interactions.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Student-Teacher Interactions for
At-Risk and Not-At Risk Students in Study 1

                                                           Group
                                                       AR        NAR
                                                    (n = 16)  (n = 16)
Interaction
          Student-Initiated
                         Positive Behavior      M       2.56     3.00
                                                SD      2.71     3.22
                         Negative Behavior      M       0.13     0.00
                                                SD      0.34     0.00
                         Nonacademic Behavior   M       0.44     0.88
                         Responses
                                                SD      0.73     1.36
                         Academic Behavior      M       1.25     1.00
                                                SD      1.00     1.63
          Teacher Response
                         Positive               M       2.38     3.19
                                                SD      2.00     2.56
                         Negative               M       1.06     0.81
                                                SD      1.29     1.05
                         Neutral                M       2.00     1.63
                                                SD      3.41     1.90
                         Academic               M       1.50     2.31
                                                SD      2.31     2.09
                         Nonacademic            M       1.62     0.94
                                                SD      1.31     1.00
          Student Response Opportunity          M       3.13     3.19
                                                SD      2.28     2.34

A one-way ANOVA between-groups design conducted on the peer interaction data revealed no significant effects for group on student-initiated positive interactions, F(1,30) =.23, p =.633, Eta Square = .008; student-initiated negative interactions, F(1,30) =. 73, p =. 789, Eta Square = .002; peer-initiated positive interactions, F(1,30) = 3.40, p = .564, Eta Square = .011; and peer-initiated negative interaction, F(1,30) = .09, p = .766, Eta Square = .003. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the peer interactions.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Interactions for At-Risk and
Not-At Risk Students in Study 1

                                           Group
                                      AR         NAR
                                   (n = 16)    (n = 16)
Interaction
    Student-Initiated
              Positive     M         6.13       7.06
                           SD        4.28       6.49
              Negative     M         0.94       1.19
                           SD        2.77       2.46
    Peer-Initiated
              Positive     M         5.94       4.69
                           SD        5.01       6.95
              Negative     M         0.25       0.31
                           SD        0.58       0.60

A one-way ANOVA between-groups design revealed a significant effect on the AET measure for group, F(1, 25) = 4.85, p = .037, Eta Square = .162 (AR, M = 63.64, SD = 18.19; NAR, MN = 76.06, SD = 11.20). AR students spent significantly less time academically engaged than NAR students. A one-way ANOVA between-groups design failed to reveal a significant effect for group on the measure of students' perception of teacher expectations, F(1, 30) = 1.81, p = .189, Eta Square = .057 (AR, M = 21.06, SD = 3.32; NAR, M = 22.44, SD = 2.39) or on the self-perception measure, F(1, 30) = .034, p = .855, Eta Square = .001 (AR, M = 20.38, SD = 3.46; NAR, M = 20.06, SD = 5.81).

Study 2

A one-way ANOVA between-groups design conducted on the peer interaction data revealed no significant effects for group on student-initiated positive interactions, F(1, 18) = 3.13, p = .094, Eta Square = .148; student-initiated negative interactions, F(1,18) = .00, p = 1.000, Eta Square = .000; peer-initiated positive interactions, F(1,18) = .76, p = .394, Eta Square = .041; and peer-initiated negative interaction, F(1,18) = .36, p = .556, Eta Square = .020. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for the peer interactions.

Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Interactions for At-Risk and
Not-At Risk Students in Study 2

                                       Group
                                   AR         NAR
                                (n = 10)    (n = 10)
Interaction
   Student-Initiated
              Positive    M         3.60       4.30
                          SD        6.80       3.77
              Negative    M         0.20       0.20
                          SD        0.42       0.42
   Peer-Initiated
              Positive    M         2.90       4.30
                          SD        3.21       3.92
              Negative    M         1.00       0.32
                          SD        0.58       0.42

A one-way ANOVA between-groups design confirmed a significant effect for group on the AET measure, F(1,18) = 11.42, p = .003, Eta Square = .39 (AR, M = 70.50, SD = 10.93; NAR, M = 85.50, SD = 8.81). AR students spent significantly less time academically engaged than their peers. A one-way ANOVA between-groups design yielded a significant effect for group on students' perceptions of teacher expectations, F(1,18) = 9.51, p = .006, Eta Square = .346 (AR, M = 17.70, SD = 2.91; NAR, M = 21.50, SD = 2.59) and for students' expectations of themselves, F(1,18) = 8.02, p = .011, Eta Square = .308 (AR, M = 18.50, SD = 2.17; NAR, M = 21.50, SD = 2.55). AR students had significantly fewer positive perceptions of their teacher's expectations than NAR students and saw themselves significantly less positively than did NAR students.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to conduct two follow-up studies to Lago-Dellelo's (1998) initial investigation of classroom dynamics with students at high risk for LD/EBD in grades 1 and 2. Teacher-student and peer interactions, students' perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-perceptions, and academic engaged time were measured. Study 1 findings replicated Lago-Dellelo's. That is, compared with NAR peers, students at high risk for LD/EBD in second and third grade were treated significantly more negatively by their teachers, received significantly more neutral and nonacademic teacher responses, and spent significantly less time academically engaged. Also, NAR students received significantly more academic teacher responses than their AR peers. Like the year before, no differences between groups were found on the peer interaction and student perception measures. Students behaved similarly toward one another, thought their teachers held similarly positive expectations of them, and had similar positive views of themselves.

In the second followup study when the children were in grades 3 and 4, as mentioned, scheduling problems at the schools prevented us from conducting the observations of teacher-student interactions. However, we do not consider this a drawback because we would expect the results of the analyses to be consistent with those from the two previous studies. There is no reason to believe that teachers behaved any more positively toward AR children in third and fourth grade than they did when the children were younger, particularly since they still spent significantly less time academically engaged than the NAR students. Additionally, results from the analyses of the student perception measures lend support to the assumption that AR students were treated more negatively than NAR students in Study 2. The students perceived their teachers as having significantly lower expectations of them than did NAR peers. Also, they perceived themselves significantly more negatively than did NAR peers. In essence, their perceptions of how teachers viewed them and their self-perceptions were more in line with the negative school experiences they were having.

There were no differences between groups in number and quality of peer interactions. It is important to note, however, that the results of the analyses of the peer interaction observations may have been spurious given that so few interactions actually occurred. Classroom rather than playground observations were conducted because the district did not permit recess for children from second grade on. The children's classrooms were traditional in organization and structure to the extent that students had little opportunity for interaction. They typically were seated in separate, individual desks. Talking was not usually permitted during lessons; and whole-class, didactic instruction was the norm. In other words, although our results suggest that the at-risk and not-at-risk students behaved in a similar, amiable manner toward one another, this may not have been the case. We might have obtained different results if we had observed the students in contexts conducive to more natural interaction.

Nonetheless, the findings support a developmental progression for students at risk for LD/EBD with respect to perception of academic competence and self-concept as a function of classroom dynamics. It seems that until about eight years of age, students at risk for LD/EBD are generally unaware of their classroom teachers' negative behavior toward them and the preferential treatment of their classmates. Some time between 8 and 10 years of age, however, they seem to become conscious of their teachers' negativity and low expectations and, consequently, begin to view themselves more negatively, hold lower self-expectations, and see themselves as less competent academically. We did not measure peer rejection directly, but the results of the peer interaction data suggest that the students behaved positively toward one another (see the caveat regarding peer interaction observations in the previous paragraph). Although there may be peer rejection at this stage of development, it is possible that it is manifested later, perhaps during the upper-elementary and middle school years. Research suggests that teacher rejection is a precursor of peer rejection for students with behavioral problems and adversely affects students' behavioral and academic outcomes as well as development of self-esteem and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Safran & Safran, 1985). The developmental nature of peer rejection needs further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Teacher behavior is a serious concern that needs to be addressed directly if at-risk students are to develop healthy perspectives about school, their classmates, and, most importantly, themselves. Most likely, teachers are not cognizant of their differential treatment of students and are unaware of the enormous impact negative treatment has on students' future school and life experiences. Understanding how negative behavior exacerbates rather than ameliorates students' academic, social, and emotional problems is critical if we expect teachers to change their behavior. Opportunities for self-reflection and self-analysis must be provided. However, even with these opportunities, subsequent change is not likely without professional development and the necessary support from colleagues and administrators (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Kraker, 2000). Preservice preparation programs and inservice training should focus on effective research-based practice (e.g., positive behavioral supports) if we expect teachers to interact more appropriately with at-risk students. Teachers who use effective instructional and classroom management strategies have more positive interactions with students (Brady, Swank, Taylor, & Freiberg, 1992; Jack, Shores, Denny, & Gunter, 1996). Future research should focus on understanding the complexity of classroom dynamics, the impact of teacher behavior on students across the developmental stages, and strategies for increasing teacher awareness and effect positive change in the classroom for students at risk for learning, emotional, and behavioral disorders.

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1992). Classroooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 377-384.

Baker, J.A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School Journal, 100, 57-70.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-80.

Brady, M. P., Swank, P. R., Taylor, R. D., & Freiberg, J. (1992). Teacher interactions in mainstream social studies and science classes. Exceptional Children, 58, 530-540.

Brattensani, K., Weinstein, R., & Marshall, H. (1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment as a moderator of teacher expectation efforts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 236-247.

Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences of student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069-1077.

Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.

Denham, S. A., & Holt, R. W. (1993). Preschoolers' likability as a cause or consequence of their social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 271-275.

DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children's academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813.

Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 617-624.

Greene, R. W. (1995). Students with ADHD in school classrooms: Teacher factors related to compatibility, assessment, and intervention. School Psychology Review, 24, 81-93. Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 45, 521-535.

Gresham, F. (1982). Social interactions as predictors of children's likability and friendship patterns: A multiple regression analysis. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4, 39-53.

Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Children's relationships with peers: Differential associations with aspects of the teacher-child relationship. Child Development, 65, 264-273.

Irvine, J. (1986). Teacher-student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 14-21.

Itskowitz, R., Navon, R., & Strauss, M. (1988). Teachers' accuracy in evaluating students' self-image: Effect of perceived closeness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 337-341.

Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., Denny, R. K., & Gunter, P. L. (1996). An analysis of the relationship of teachers' reported use of classroom management strategies on types of classroom interactions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 67-87.

Jussim, L. (1991). Grades may affect more than performance: Comment on Wentzel (1989). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 153-155.

Kennedy, E. (1997). A study of students' fears of seeking academic help from teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 11-17.

Kraker, M. J. (2000). Classroom discourse: Teaching, learning, and learning disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 295-313.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children's social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence. Child Development, 70, 1373-1400.

Ladd, G. W., Price. J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1988). Predicting preschoolers' peer status from their playground behaviors. Child Development, 59, 986-992.

Lago-Dellelo, E. (1998). Classroom dynamics and the development of serious emotional disturbance. Exceptional Children, 64, 479-492.

McKinney, J. D., Montague, M., & Hocutt, A. M. (1998). Systematic screening children at risk for developing SED: Initial results from a prevention project, 10th Annual Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 271-276). Tampa, FL: The Research and Training Center for Children's Mental Health.

McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. (1983). Classroom behavior and the academic progress of learning disabled students. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 149-161.

Nelson, J. R., & Roberts, M. L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal: Teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 27-37.

Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295-312.

Rubin, K. H., & Asendorph, J. B. (Eds.). (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Safran, S., & Safran, J. (1985). Classroom context and teachers' perceptions of problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 20-28.

Shapiro, S. (1993). Strategies that create a positive classroom climate. The Clearing House, 67, 91-97.

Simonson, T. A., & Strein, W. (1997). The effects of teachers' verbal behaviors on kindergartners' perceptions of competence. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 363-371.

Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders: Technical manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Weinstein, R. S., Madison, S., & Kuklinski, M. (1995). Raising expectations in schooling: Obstacles and opportunities for change. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 121-159.

Weinstein, R. S., Marshall, H. H., Sharp, L., & Botkin, M. (1987). Pygmalion and the student: Age and classroom differences in children's awareness of teacher expectations. Child Development, 58, 1079-1093.

White, K. J., Jones, K., & Sherman, M. D. (1998). Reputation information and teacher feedback: Their influences on children's perceptions of behavior problem peers. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 11-37.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Marjorie Montague, University of Miami, School of Education, Coral Gables, FL 33146.

Marjorie Montague, Ph.D., is professor, University of Miami. Claudia Rinaldi, Ph.D., is assistant professor, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.