The Classroom Infrastructure and the Early Learner: Reducing Aggression During Transition Times

Abstract

High levels of aggressive behaviors were observed during the transition times in two self-contained special education classrooms: a kindergarten and pre-kindergarten. The present case studies examine how modifying the classroom infrastructure impacts students' aggressive behavior. Teachers were assisted on the usage of select modifications (visual cues and carrels). Data were collected during pre-experimental, baseline, intervention 1, and intervention 2. Results indicate that modifying the classroom environment decreased aggressive behaviors during transition times by as much as 12% from the beginning of the study. The change in aggressive behavior was moderate and teachers perceived the intervention as having a positive impact on students' learning and their ability to teach. Implications for practitioners are discussed.

Full text

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 100
The Classroom Infrastructure and the Early Learner: Reducing Aggression During
Transition Times
Caroline Guardino, Ph.D.
University of North Florida
Elizabeth Kirby Fullerton, Ph.D.
University of North Florida
Abstract
High levels of aggressive behaviors were observed during the transition times in two self-
contained special education classrooms: a kindergarten and pre-kindergarten. The
present case studies examine how modifying the classroom infrastructure impacts
students’ aggressive behavior. Teachers were assisted on the usage of select
modifications (visual cues and carrels). Data were collected during pre-experimental,
baseline, intervention 1, and intervention 2. Results indicate that modifying the classroom
environment decreased aggressive behaviors during transition times by as much as 12%
from the beginning of the study. The change in aggressive behavior was moderate and
teachers perceived the intervention as having a positive impact on students’ learning and
their ability to teach. Implications for practitioners are discussed.
The Classroom Infrastructure and the Early Learner: Reducing
Aggression During Transition Times
Today’s classrooms are complex; teachers not only teach, but simultaneously manage the
behavior of their students, supervise paraprofessionals, strive to incorporate the mandated
curriculum, participate in high-stake testing, and negotiate advanced technology (e.g.,
Smart Boards, document cameras, laptops, iPads). Although not often considered
complex, the classroom infrastructure contributes to the daily challenges teachers attempt
to balance.
Infrastructure is defined as “the underlying foundation or basic framework” (Merriam-
Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2010). Thus, the classroom infrastructure consists of many
foundational components, including the furniture and structural layout of the classroom
(e.g., desks, tables, materials, partitions). Depending on how the classroom infrastructure
is designed, the system will either function efficiently or not. A poorly designed
classroom infrastructure impacts students’ and teachers’ behaviors. Lawry, Danko, and
Strain (1999) affirm, “Often, teachers are unaware that the more subtle aspects of the
classroom’s physical and instructional environment are operating to maintain, if not
exacerbate, these challenging behaviors” (p. 49). Teachers who have students with high
levels of challenging behaviors must examine their classrooms to determine if the
infrastructure is negatively impacting behavior. If so, modifying the infrastructure may
provide students with the information they need to meet behavioral expectations, during

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 101
more unstructured and possibly demanding parts of the school day such as transition
time.
Young children transition (move from activity to activity) twelve to fourteen times a day
(Rogers, 1988). Challenging behaviors (i.e., disruption, aggression, non-compliance)
often occur during these transitions (Buck, 1999). Transitions involve following teacher
directions (standing in line), putting away materials before they are finished (clean-up),
or readying themselves to move from a preferred (recess) to a less preferred activity
(literacy circle) (Sainato, 1990). Designing the infrastructure with transitions in mind
provides teachers with a behavior management tool and allows children to successfully
navigate the classroom (Bullard, 2010; Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006). Whereas, a
poorly designed infrastructure may negatively affect children’s ability to transition. A
strategically designed infrastructure can provide children with informational cues that
give expectations for appropriate behavior during these times and throughout the day
(Kemple, 2004). For example, footprints placed in a line leading to the door clue
children on where to stand while lining up to transition out of the classroom. A well-
designed classroom infrastructure is critical; however, it may not be sufficient to sustain
appropriate student behaviors. Additional support such as coaching the classroom
teachers can strengthen their knowledge base and aid in a more effective learning
environment (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010).
A coach develops or reinforces a skill or skill set with teachers. Coaches are able to
increase teachers awareness of strategies used in conjunction with the modifications. For
example, a teacher might need a strategy to ensure students check their individual chair
bags at the end of the day in preparation for the following morning. Coaching is an
effective professional development tool providing collaborative training that does not
impinge on teaching time (Guskey, 2009). Collaborative coaching allows the teacher and
the coach (e.g. peer teacher, veteran teacher, mentor, or consultant) to analyze the
problem, work together towards a solution and then decide the type of coaching needed:
“live” or “virtual”. For purposes of our study the researchers took on the role of the
coach. Live coaching involves modeling the strategies, providing visual or verbal cues,
and guiding the teacher to use the modification as intended. Virtual coaching takes place
via email or handwritten notes left for the teacher to read and then implement the
suggested strategies. Due to the varying years of experience and education of teachers,
coaching differs depending upon their existing skills.
Teachers are often provided with evidence-based strategies through workshops, in-
service seminars, and conferences, yet they may not implement these strategies without
additional support. Coaching is a direct form of teaching educators to use new strategies
effectively. Unlike a workshop or conference this is a dynamic intervention with the
teacher actively increasing their skill set. When teachers are coached to implement
specific evidence-based practices, effects of the intervention increase; thus having a
greater impact on student outcomes (Yerkes, 2001). Matheson and Shriver (2005) found
that students’ compliance and academic behaviors improve significantly after teachers
receive coaching in the form of training and modeling.

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 102
Purpose of the Case Studies
The purpose of the case studies was to investigate the effectiveness of modifying the
classroom infrastructure on the aggressive behavior of young children in two early
childhood classrooms. The participating teachers were provided with instruction in
creating a safe infrastructure that sets the occasion for appropriate behavior. Two
research questions were addressed: (1) Does a strategically arranged classroom
infrastructure influence the aggressive behavior of young children during transition time?
(2) Does coaching teachers increase the effectiveness of the modifications on students’
aggressive behavior?
Methods
Case Study Participants and Setting
The participants were two early childhood teachers and students with varying disabilities
enrolled in a kindergarten (Teacher 1, Classroom 1) and prekindergarten for children
(Teacher 2, Classroom 2). The school serves children from pre-kindergarten through
grade five and is located in an urban setting in Northeast Florida. The children were in
school 6.5 hours per day. The participating teachers were selected based on a request by
the principal of the school who expressed concern about the aggressive behavior
displayed by children in these classrooms.
Teacher 1’s kindergarten (age range five-six years) had nine students, eight boys and one
girl. All the children had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) with a diagnosis of
developmental delay. All the children were in kindergarten for a second year. Due to the
high levels of challenging behavior the children were not, as is typical in kindergarten,
allowed to participate in center-based learning. Rather the children spent the school day
in teacher or paraeducator directed activities. The children demonstrated a variety of
verbal and non-verbal aggressive behavior including hitting, kicking, biting, spitting,
stabbing with writing utensils, and cursing.
Teacher 1 had a bachelor’s degree in education and a master’s degree in counseling. This
was her first experience teaching young children as well as children with developmental
delays. Teacher 1’s kindergarten classroom was arranged with tables, as well as desks in
dyads and various curriculum materials scattered throughout the room.
Classroom 2’s pre-kindergarten (age range three-four) had eight students, seven boys and
one girl at the start of the study. By the end of the study, she had 12 students, ten boys
and two girls. As with the first class, all children had a diagnosis of developmental delay,
each having an IEP. The children demonstrated three aggressive behaviors: hitting,
snatching toys, and pushing.
Teacher 2 had a master’s degree in children and family counseling with a concentration
in art therapy. She had six and a half years experience teaching art in the general
education setting K-12. This was her first year teaching young children with
developmental delays. As is expected in the preschool setting the children were taught in

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 103
large and small groups with center-based learning accounting for portions of the day.
Classroom 2’s pre-kindergarten classroom had a few centers (family life, library, blocks
and puzzles), but they were not clearly defined and the children were observed staying
near the teacher/paraprofessional or wandering from area to area.
While aggressive behavior occurred throughout the day, transitions (a time when one
activity is finished and another begins) were a time when the highest levels of aggressive
behaviors occurred and therefore, were chosen as the time for data collection.
Defining and Measuring Aggressive Behavior
Aggressive behavior was defined as acts of violence towards, self, others and property
(Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). The following behaviors were recorded as aggression:
hitting, kicking, biting, pushing, snatching materials, stabbing with writing utensils, and
cursing. Aggressive behavior was measured using a partial interval recording system.
Partial interval recording was chosen as it allows for recording of the percentage of
aggressive behaviors occurring during transition times. Data collection consisted of 10
minute sessions divided into forty 15-second intervals. If any child in the classroom
exhibited aggressive behavior within the 15-second interval, an X was recorded. If
aggressive behavior did not occur during the 15-second interval, an O recorded.
Aggressive behavior was calculated by adding the number of intervals when aggression
occurred and dividing it by the total number of intervals for the observation period. This
average was multiplied by 100 to provide the percentage of aggressive behavior
occurring during the observation period. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics:
mean, median, and mode. Observations were conducted a minimum of three times a week
by a trained data collector.
The data collector was a 4th year special education undergraduate researcher, from a state
university teacher preparation program trained by the researchers (first and second
authors) of this study. Data training took place over the course of two weeks prior to
beginning baseline data collection. The researchers met individually and together with the
undergraduate researcher to first observe the behaviors occurring in the classroom,
second discuss behaviors that were observed, and third practice collecting data. Once the
researchers and the undergraduate researcher reached over 85% agreement on three
consecutive data collection periods, the undergraduate researcher began collecting
baseline data.
Inter-rater Reliability
The researchers served as the inter-raters for this study. Inter-rater data were collected on
25% of the total sessions. The researchers individually met the undergraduate researcher
to collect data during transition times. The overall inter-rater reliability was high,
averaging 93% (ranging from 77-100%).
Procedures and Design

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 104
The case studies were conducted across four phases: pre-experimental, baseline,
intervention 1 (modifications), and intervention 2 (coaching). Data were collected in all
phases with the exception of pre-experimental.
Pre-experimental. Prior to beginning data collection, the researchers met with the
teachers to obtain their consent and discuss the overall purpose of the study. Following
this meeting, the researchers spent ten days in each classroom observing behaviors. This
phase also served as a habituation period prior to direct observations of teacher and child
behaviors. Habituation is necessary to decrease the likelihood that the teachers or
children will change their behaviors in the presence of the researchers.
During this phase, the researchers identified transition activities as a time when
aggressive behaviors were most often observed. The teachers confirmed this was their
most challenging time. Due to the afternoon routine of lunch, recess, and special classes,
morning transitions were chosen.
Baseline. During the baseline phase the children’s behaviors were observed at the
identified transition times. Children and teachers participated in their regular routines
(“business as usual”). Data were gathered on the children’s behaviors (as described
previously). Baseline data began on the same day in both classrooms. Data were collected
until a stable baseline was established in classroom 1. However, in classroom 2, baseline
data was unstable, yet the teacher and principal requested that the intervention take place.
Intervention 1 (Modifications). Following baseline, the two researchers met with the
teacher individually for approximately 30 minutes. During the meeting a list of research-
based modifications was shared with the teacher. In collaboration with the researchers,
the teacher chose the modifications that best fit her classroom as shown in Table 3. The
modifications included making unused material inaccessible, providing small group and
individual work space, rearranging quiet/noisy centers and providing visual cues for
lining up to exit the classroom. Given the dynamic nature of the intervention each teacher
chose the modifications based on their individual and students’ needs.
Following the meeting, the classroom infrastructures were modified by the teacher and
the researchers when no children were present. Modifications took an average of five
hours per classroom. During this time teachers were encouraged to clarify their needs,
make additional modifications, or reject suggested modifications. For example, Teacher 1
noted that large group time resulted in high levels of aggression. She wanted small group
and individual workspace for her kindergarten children. The researchers suggested carrels
at dyad workspaces. This allowed for the tables to be quickly changed from dyad to
individual workspace thus eliminating confusion when transitioning from group time to
work time. Teacher 2 wanted a larger block area as this was a favorite area for her
children. It became very crowded during center time making the transition clean-up very
difficult for the children. The researchers walked her through the classroom discussing
each learning center and together decided to remove two unused centers to increase the
space for block play.

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 105
Following the implementation of the modifications, data were immediately collected the
next school day when children returned to the classroom. Children’s behaviors were
observed and recorded to measure the influence of the modifications on aggressive
behavior.
Intervention 2 (Coaching). Based on a previous study by Guardino and Fullerton
(2010), the researchers anticipated the need to provide assistance to the teachers on
implementing the modifications if aggressive behaviors increased following intervention.
During the intervention 2 (coaching), the researchers met with the teachers coach them on
how to effectively use the modifications. To maintain treatment fidelity one of the
researchers served as the coach. Data collection was ongoing during the intervention 2
(coaching). In keeping with the needs of each teacher, they chose the type of coaching
they preferred, live or virtual. Teacher 1 preferred “live” coaching. The researchers
modeled a mini-lesson, transitioning (moving from activity to activity) the children from
a newly created large group area (with assigned seating) to newly created small group,
and individual work spaces. Assistance for Teacher 1 involved the researcher teaching
one fifteen-minute session and cueing the teacher with a whisper or a non-verbal prompt
during three separate fifteen-minute sessions. The total assistance time was
approximately one hour. Teacher 2 preferred written guidance (virtual) following
researcher observation of transition from center activities to clean-up and hand washing.
For example, the researcher wrote a note to Teacher 2 that suggested she provide a five
minute warning, use her transition bell to initiate the transition, and remind the children
to stand on paw prints in front of the sink while waiting. Following three observations of
transitions a note was written. Each observation/note session took 10 minutes for a total
of 30 minutes.
Social Validity. After the study was completed, the researchers interviewed and surveyed
the teachers regarding which modifications they thought were most helpful in reducing
aggressive behaviors. The interview consisted of ten questions, two pertaining to
aggressive behaviors, and the remaining focusing on the acceptability of the
modifications. The interview data were analyzed by reporting the qualitative trends in the
interviews.
The survey lists the modifications made in each classroom, the teachers to rate the
modifications from “1= most effective” to “5=least effective”. The survey data were
analyzed by comparing the rankings of the modifications between the two classrooms.
Results
Intervention 1 and 2. The transition activity for Classroom 1 was moving from large
group morning carpet time to small group reading instruction and individual literacy
work. The modifications included an expansion of the circle area and adding tape to
designate seating areas for each child. Figure 1 photographs illustrate the modification
described above. Additional modifications were completed such as the curriculum centers
were removed as the children had dumped, broken, or taken the materials.

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 106
Figure 1. Before and After Pictures of Classroom 1.
In Classroom 1 during baseline, aggressive behavior averaged 27% (25-28%). After
intervention 1 (modifications) occurred, aggressive behaviors decreased to 0% and
quickly escalated to 20% by session 5 (see Table 1). After session 6, intervention 2
(coaching), began and aggressive behavior decreased to an average of 15% (10-18%) for
the remainder of the study, a notable 12% decrease from baseline.
In Classroom 2, the children transitioned from a group activity to an individual activity
(washing hands and lining up for lunch). Infrastructure changes included defining the
center areas and creating designated line up “paws” for each child when exiting out of the
classroom. Figure 2 illustrates the changes described above.

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 107
Figure 2. Before and After Pictures of Classroom 2. (center and line-up areas)

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 108

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 109
Interview. Teacher 1 reported the classroom felt “more spacious, more welcoming”.
After the modifications were made, during transition time the children did not wander
around the classroom taking or dumping supplies because the unused curriculum
materials were organized on shelves that were covered by solid fabric. They went directly
from the carpet to the assigned work space. She perceived the children to be “on-task
more”. For example, she explained now that the children had a defined place to sit during
circle time they were more attentive at the start of transition. In addition, the individual
desk carrels allowed the children to quickly transition to their own space, work in their
own space and work “longer” and “better”.
Teacher 2 stated the intervention made a “big improvement” that specifically helped the
“reduction of off task behavior” and reduced “the number (of) non-functional materials
which would “create aggressive ways to use them.” Once the materials were eliminated,
aggression decreased. She reiterated at the end of her interview that she was “seeing more
positive behaviors, less aggression, more follow through, more ability to take turns,
independence, and more success in transition from one activity to a completely new one.”
Table 2 is a summary of the interview responses.
Survey. Teacher 1 reported the intervention was minimally intrusive, she would
recommend it to other teachers, and she would continue to use the modifications. She
was uncertain as to the academic gains her children made as she felt she needed more
time to determine these effects. However, she was certain that the modifications reduced
individual and total classroom aggressive behaviors.
Teacher 2 reported similar findings to that of Classroom 1. She scored the intervention as
minimally intrusive. She agreed that should would both recommend it to other teachers
and continue to use the modifications after the study had concluded. Teacher 2 reported
that the modifications reduced individual and total classroom aggressive behaviors.
However, she was unable to report individual academic gains as the survey was
conducted too soon after the completion of the intervention, approximately 6 weeks.
Discussion
Transitions are an especially difficult time for young children as they must finish an
activity, follow teacher directions, and ready themselves for a new activity (Sainato,
1990). Additionally, teachers are not always focused on the children as they are finishing
an activity and readying themselves for the next. In Classroom 1 there was a significant
decrease in aggressive behavior following the implementation of the intervention.
Although the effect of the modifications was not as robust in Classroom 2, decreases in
children's aggressive behavior occurred when transitioning from center activities to clean-
up and hand washing.
Findings from Classroom 1 suggest that the coaching impacted the teacher's ability to use
the intervention strategy more effectively. Furthermore, during the interview she
indicated that the intervention was neither invasive nor comprised of false promises.
Rather, the intervention provided her with the support and information needed to

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 110
implement effective research-based classroom modifications.
Interestingly, in Classroom 2 the data do not show an immediate and great decrease in
aggressive behavior. Yet, the teacher indicated that she believed the intervention was
effective. There may be several reasons for the difference in outcomes across the two
classrooms. First, the populations differed. The children in classroom 2 were younger
with more severe and varied disabilities in comparison to classroom 1. Additionally, the
number of adults in classroom 2 fluctuated from one to four throughout the study.
Additional adults included volunteer parents and service providers. The number of
children also fluctuated.
Five sessions were eliminated from the data analysis because of the fluctuating adult
presence. For example, when more adults where present other than the teacher and the
paraprofessional aggression dramatically reduced because of 1:1 support for children
(sessions 8 &10). Sessions where the paraprofessional was absent leaving the teacher
alone caused atypically high aggressive behavior across the classroom because of an
increased ratio of children to teacher (sessions 15, 16, & 19). After the teacher received
coaching, aggressive behavior decreased an additional 5% from the beginning of
intervention 1 (modifications).
Limitations
Originally, we had planned to have three classrooms participate in this study to meet the
quality indicators of single subject research specified by Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee,
Odom, and Wolery (2005). However, one of the teachers withdrew from the study
leaving the design as data based case studies. Due to the small sample size the results
cannot be generalized to other classrooms.
Implications for Classroom Practice
The classroom environment is a complex infrastructure compromised of the physical
layout of furniture and belongings. The infrastructure impacts important facets of the day,
such as routines, transitions, and learning opportunities. The findings of both case studies
support that teachers and children benefited from modifying their classroom
infrastructure. Infrastructure changes in two early childhood classrooms decreased the
aggressive behavior of young children during targeted transition times. Although
decreased aggressive behavior was recorded without coaching, the intervention was most
effective when the teachers received coaching, an average of 45 minutes. This is
consistent with previous research showing that teachers of young children need training
on how to work with young children who have challenging behavior (Hemmeter, Santos
& Ostrosky, 2008).
Aggression in young children can be an indication of a serious problem and is recognized
as a predicator of violent behavior and other long-term risk factors such as familial abuse,
depression, and violent crimes (Tremblay et al., 2004). Many young children display
normative misbehavior due to an inability to regulate emotions and undeveloped

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 111
language skills (Kostelnik, Whiren, Soderman & Gregory, 2009). However, as
expressive language and social-emotional skills develop, most young children are able to
use other strategies to resolve conflicts, and physical aggression typically decreases upon
entry into school (Levin, 2003). When prekindergarten and kindergarten students do not
“outgrow” aggressive behavior additional support is often needed to deal with daily
frustrations, especially during transition times.
Modifying the classroom infrastructure is an effective strategy that allows children to
manage their own behavior and provides teachers with additional behavioral support.
There are several modifications to the classroom infrastructure that can be made to help
reduce aggressive behaviors. One modification will not eliminate aggressive behavior;
however, implementation of multiple modifications may help to discourage the behaviors
instead of responding to them after they occur. Structuring the classroom to support
positive behavior is an unobtrusive, preventative intervention, and supports student and
teachers equally.
References
Bullard, J. (2010). Creating Environments for Learning. Chapter 3 (48-71). Pearson,
Upper Saddle, NJ.
Buck, G. H. (1999). Smoothing the rough edges of classroom transitions. Interventions in
School and Clinic, 34(4), 224-227. doi: 10.1177/105345129903400406
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in
youth. In W.Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.
719-788). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dye, M.W.G., Baril, D. E., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Which aspects of visual attention are
changed by deafness? The case of the attentional network test. Neuropschologia,
45, 1801-1811. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.019
Evans, G.W. & Lovell, B. (1979). Design modification in an open-plan school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(1), 41-49. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.41
Fullerton, E.K., & Guardino, C (2010). Teacher and students' perceptions of a modified
inclusion classroom environment. International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Guardino, C., & Fullerton, E.K. (2010) Changing behaviors by changing the
environment: A case study of an inclusion classroom. Teaching Exception
Children, 42(6), 8-13. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gump, P.V. (1974). Operating environments in schools of open and traditional design.
School Review,82(4), 575-593. Retreived from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F443151
Guskey, T. (2009). Closing the Knowledge Gap on Effective Professional Development.
Educational Horizons, 87(4), 224-33. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and Emotional Foundations for
Early Learning: A Conceptual Model for Intervention. The School Psychology
Review, 35(4), 583-601.
Hemmeter, M.L., Santos, R.M., & Ostrosky, M.M. (2008). Preparing early childhood

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 112
educators to address young children’s social-emotional development and
challenging behavior: A survey of higher education programs in nine states.
Journal of Early Intervention, 30(4), 321-340. doi:10.1177/1053815108320900
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied
settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kemple, K.M., (2004). Let’s Be Friends: Peer Competence and Social Inclusion in Early
Childhood Programs. New York, N.Y.: Teacher College Press.
Kostelnik, M.J., Whiren, A.P., Soderman, A.K., Gregory, K. M. (2009). Guiding
Children’s Social Development and Learning (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-Case Design for Educational Research. Boston: MA:
Pearson.
Lawry, J., Danko, C.D., & Strain, P.S., (1999) Examining the Role of the Classroom
Environment in the Prevention of Problem Behaviors. In Susan Sandall and
Michaelene Ostrosky (Eds.), Young Exceptional Children (p.49). Longmont, CO:
Sopris West.
Levin, D., (2003). Teaching young children in violent times (2nd ed.).
Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Matheson, A. S., & Shriver, M. D. (2005). Training Teachers to Give Effective
Commands: Effects on Student Compliance and Academic Behaviors. School
Psychology Review, 34(2), 202-219. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/infrastructurehttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure
Neville, H. J. & Lawson, D.S. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in
a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. II.
Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research, 405, 268-283. doi:10.1016/0006-
8993(87)90297-6
Ostrov, J., & Crick, N. (2007). Forms and Functions of Aggression During Early
Childhood: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study. The School Psychology Review,
36(1), 22-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Perie, M., Baker, D. P., Bobbitt, S. (1997). Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects
in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across Community, School, Teacher, and
Student Characteristics, 1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Proshansky, E. & Wolfe, M. (1974). The physical setting and open education. School
Review, 82, 557-574. doi:10.1086/443150
Richards, S., Taylor, R., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. (1999). Single subject research:
Applications in educational and clinical settings. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Rogers, L. (1988). Classroom management: Transitions and preschoolers. Dimensions, 7-
8. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sainato, D. (1990). Classroom transitions: organizing environments to promote
independent performance in preschool children with disabilities. Education and
Treatment of Children, 13, 288-97. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Education Full
Text database.
Strain, P., & Hemmeter, M. L. (1999). Keys to being successful. In S. Sandall & M.
Ostrosky (Eds.), Young exceptional children: Practical ideas for addressing

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 113
challenging behaviors (pp. 17-28.). Longmong, CO: Sopris West: Denver, CO:
Division for Early Childhood (DEC).
Tawney, J. W. & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Seguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P.D., Boivin, M.,
Perusse, D., & Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood:
Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114(1), 43-50. doi:
10.1542/peds.114.1.e43
Weinstein, C.S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of research.
Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610. doi:
10.3102/00346543049004577
Werle, G. (2006). Taking Steps to Promote Safer Schools. The Journal of School Health,
76(4), 156-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00087.x
White, O. (2005) Trend Lines. In G. Sugai & R. Horner (Eds.) Encyclopedia of
Behavior Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Volume 3:
Educational Applications. Sage Publications.
Yerkes, D. (2001). Coaches as staff developers. Leadership, 30(5), 24-6. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the teachers and administrator who participated in this research
project. We would also like to acknowledge that this project was partially funded through
a faculty development grant from the College of Education and Human Services. Thank
you all for supporting our research.

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 114
Tables
Table 1
Mean, Media, and Range of Challenging Behavior
Table 2
Interview Responses
Classroom Baseline Intervention 1
(Modifications) Intervention 2
(Coaching)
Classroom 1
Mean
27%
17.5%
15%
Median
28%
15%
15%
Range
25-28%
0-20%
10-18%
Classroom 2
Mean
16%
15%
10%
Median
16.5%
18%
11%
Range
3-29%
4-21%
0-22%
Questions Teacher Responses
What did you like most about the
intervention?
T1-“I have more time to teach…Love the carrels,
everyone has a place to go after transition”
T2-“provided more on task behavior and start and
complete tasks as in easy cleanup of a material a
student chose to work with.”

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 115
Table 3
Modifications, Rationale, and Perceptions of Impact of the Modifications
Do you think your students have
benefitted from having their
classroom modified?
T1-“More spacious and welcoming…children
stopped wandering around the room…Children had
their own space and could focus on learning-they
weren’t hitting each other”.
T2-“Increased positive behavior in the
classroom…the modification changed behavior
from off task to more on task, the ability to start and
complete something, and to follow directions which
many of these areas was a real struggle for students
in the classroom before the modification….Helped
with making transitions more graceful and
decreased time it took to transition from one activity
to the next.”
In what ways do you think other
teachers can benefit from this
intervention?
T1-“It is good having people to do research
with…having support made me open to change.”
T2-“The intervention could improve their classroom
management skills...it supported students to be more
independent in the room because they knew what
expected of them.”
Modification Rationale Teacher’s Perception
Likert Scale from 1 to 5
(1= strongest effect)
Classroom 1 Classroom 2
Shelves with materials were
covered with curtains to reduce
visual stimuli and access to
materials (Dye, Baril &
Bavelier, 2007; Guardino &
Fullerton, 2010; Neville &
Lawson, 1987; Proksch and
Bavelier, 2002)
Children were
going to shelves,
mixing and
throwing
materials
1
1

JAASEP WINTER, 2012 116
Reduced Furniture (Evans &
Lovell, 1979; Weinstein, 1979)
Caused
congestion.
Children used
extra furniture
inappropriately.
1 1
Individual work area defined
(Evans & Lovell, 1979;
Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974)
Children would
fight over
materials and
interfere with
others workspace
1 1
Created barriers from pre-
existing furniture (Evans &
Lovell, 1979; Gump, 1974;
Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974)
Children did not
have clearly
defined
boundaries and
roamed from
place to place
2 1
Sufficient space for group &
large group activities (Fullerton
& Guardino, in press)
Children were
hitting one
another because
the work spaces
were too small
1 1