Self-Contained Classrooms

Abstract

This article presents information on self-contained classrooms, the most typical and commonly used organizational arrangement at the elementary-school level. In a self-contained classroom, a class of students remains together with a single teacher, who is responsible for teaching all subject areas of the curriculum, throughout the school day. Among the educational practices which are widely used in self-contained classrooms are direct instruction, individualized instruction, differentiated instruction and curriculum integration. The self-contained classroom teacher has considerable control over the curricular and instructional environment. Students in a self-contained classroom experience relatively constant and cohesive class membership which provides them with increased structure, stability and self-confidence. Research studies of academic achievement, affect and social outcomes in self-contained classrooms have varied in their findings based on the grade levels, specific settings and related contextual variables where conducted.

Overview

Self-contained classrooms are the most typical and commonly used organization at the elementary-school level. In fact, most elementary teachers teach in, and the majority of teaching at the elementary level takes place in, self-contained classrooms. Self-contained classrooms are teacher-oriented; teaching in self-contained classrooms is a one-teacher approach. Teachers teach individually and independently as contrasted with teachers who teach in team-teaching arrangements. Most elementary students are placed, grouped and taught in a single self-contained classroom from one teacher throughout the school day. Students are instructed as a single group of 20 to 30 or more learners, who remain together and spend all or most of the school day in one classroom (Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986; Chan & Jarman, 2004; Schubert, 1986).

Many traditional public schools buildings in the U.S., especially at the elementary level, are subdivided into separate units called self-contained classrooms. Self-contained classrooms are also termed traditional or conventional classrooms, regular classrooms, general-purpose classrooms or resource classrooms. They are also sometimes referred to as whole-class settings, whole-day models or full-day programs. Self-contained schools, classrooms and classes are typically organized according to grade level and are thus age-graded. The general environments of self-contained classrooms are among the simplest of school-classroom situations.

History. Self-contained classrooms have a long history in the U.S. public schools. The traditional curriculum of the many one-room schoolhouses prior to the 1950s was implemented in "self-contained classrooms." The one-teacher-to-a-classroom approach of self-contained classrooms was the predominant pattern of organization for elementary schools in 1960, and it continues to be the predominant model and the norm in elementary-school grades today (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Chan& Jarman, 2004; Tillman, 1960).

Prior to the advent of team-teaching, elementary schools were organized either in self-contained classrooms or in a departmentalized arrangement. Bahner (1965) contended that the team-teaching approach in elementary schools combined the advantages of self-contained classrooms with the specialization of the departmentalized school organization.

In the early 1970s, some educators began to call for new organizational arrangements to replace self-contained classrooms. Dawson and Lindstrom (1974) argued for radical, innovative and strategic changes in self-contained classrooms. They questioned the continued educational relevance and meaningfulness of self-contained classrooms in elementary schools but believed there were important factors-continuity and equilibrium-that needed to be considered with regard to the innovation of self-contained classrooms. Barnes (1973) concluded that there also needed to be something different from self-contained classrooms implemented in middle and junior-high schools.

Educators who analyzed and compared team-teaching situations with the traditional teaching methods of self-contained classrooms began to find many benefits and advantages to students of teaching teams versus single teachers (Rouse, 1978). Of the three approaches-self-contained classrooms, departmentalized arrangements, and interdisciplinary-team approaches-that were being widely used in middle schools through the 1970s and 1980s, there were both advocates and critics across the board. Rothman (1988) contended that none of the three approaches dealt with the physical development or sense of identity of students. Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, some educators called for the elimination of self-contained classrooms (Callahan, 2003).

Applications

Physical Organization & Structure. Physical facilities constitute an important domain of school structure (Dawson & Lindstrom, 1974). Physical facilities, settings and environments of schools and classrooms, especially self-contained classrooms, remain the most prevalent form of environmental organization at the elementary-school level (Schubert, 1986). Specifications need to be developed for planning, structuring and setting up the learning environment of self-contained classrooms for instruction. There is a direct relationship of organizational structure of classrooms to the instruction and learning that takes place in them.

The environmental and ecological characteristics of schools and classrooms include the contextual-setting variables and factors and the organizational structures-arrangements, patterns, designs and layouts. The classroom arrangement that is preferred by most educators is any organizational plan other than the typical straight rows of student desks and chairs. Flexible seating arrangements, for example, have been found to foster cooperation, community and friendship among students (Novelli & Edgar, 1997).

Self-contained classrooms can be designed, organized and laid out in many different ways (Vincent, 1999). In fact, they can and should be arranged and re-arranged to develop designs that are most appropriate for instruction. As a center of learning, the efficient self-contained classroom should be in a state of constant flux (Berg, 1977).

A comprehensive plan can be developed based on the specific learning activities that will take place in the self-contained classroom (Vincent, 1999). Among the different factors to consider in planning learning activities in a self-contained classroom are:

• The use of visual barriers to define activity centers
• Traffic patterns
• The ages and physical-size differences of students
• The likely levels of activity and noise
• The placement of teacher and student resources
• Storage areas for students' belongings (Vincent, 1999).

The various major and minor organizational elements associated with four different design criteria for self-contained classrooms are summarized in Table 1. The respective designs considered are: a layout based on areas of activity, a cooperative-learning layout, a comprehensive layout and a flexible layout. These design criteria and organizational elements are based on schematic maps of self-contained classroom arrangements developed by Vincent (1999).

With an activity-centers approach to self-contained classroom design, different areas are designated for specific purposes (Vincent, 1999). The activity-centers approach is an efficient method for organizing resources in self-contained classrooms (Berg, 1977). The cooperative-learning layout includes an area set aside for whole-class work groups. The comprehensive layout includes areas for activity centers and computer stations in addition to a general work area. The flexible layout is less cluttered and has more open and uncommitted space which can be adapted and changed for improvised classwork as needed.

The self-contained classroom can be more efficiently arranged if there is access and support to one or more storage rooms that is provided. Materials can be neatly stored that are not being actively used in current learning activities in the self-contained classroom (Berg, 1977).

Practice. Elementary-school educators typically define a self-contained classroom as one in which a student is under the guidance of a single teacher for most of his or her school-sponsored activities and school day (Tillman, 1960). In most cases, a self-contained classroom teacher works full-time with one class and has the responsibility of teaching all subject-matter areas-language arts, social studies, math and science (Chan & Jarman, 2004; Tillman, 1960). The elementary teacher is presumed to possess sufficient knowledge and required skill to teach and work with learners in these diverse curricular areas (Beane et al., 1986). In one modification of this system, a teacher may have responsibility for a limited number of subject-matter areas and work with several different classes (Tillman, 1960).

In a second modified version of the self-contained classroom, students are "in classroom" for much of the school day but may take art, music and physical education from specialists in out-of-classroom settings (Beane et al., 1986; Schubert, 1986). The latter are termed pull-out programs in which students are pulled out of their regular classroom for certain subjects.

The teacher in a non-teamed self-contained classroom emphasizes direct instruction and individualized instruction. The self-contained classroom is also compatible with ability grouping and group cooperative-learning activities, and classrooms that are cooperatively structured are generally more successful learning environments than competitively structured ones (Kramer, 1987). Activity centers can be used in the self-contained classroom to enhance inquiry skills and self-discovery. Teaching can be individualized to provide one-on-one instruction. Students can take on independent studies that are of interest to them. Teachers in self-contained classrooms can also differentiate curriculum, instruction and teaching methods (Durrell, 1960; Feldhusen & Sayler, 1990). With differentiated instruction, teachers make sure that what a student learns is a match for that student's readiness level, needs and interests, and preferred learning style or mode of instruction (Tomlinson, 2004). There is also on-going assessment with differentiated instruction to demonstrate what the student has learned (Tomlinson, 2004). In addition to cooperative-learning group activities, individualized and differentiated instruction, teachers can make curriculum integration and flexibility important elements of self-contained classes (Dawson & Lindstrom, 1974). Self-contained classroom settings provide numerous opportunities to emphasize the integration of subject matter (Ediger, 2002).

The daily curriculum of self-contained classrooms can be organized into units in a variety of ways:

• Around various subjects
• In specific skill development
• Involving the needs or interest of students (Beane et al., 1986).

As long as the amount of time devoted to each subject over a longer period of time (e.g., a semester) meets state and district requirements, then the self-contained classroom teacher can configure daily instruction in many different ways (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000).

Although self-contained classrooms are sometimes used in middle and high schools, two other organizational plans-departmentalized and semi-departmentalized-predominate (Beane et al., 1986). In a departmentalized arrangement, students move from class to class and receive instruction in different subject areas from specialist teachers. There is a dramatic increase in the prevalence of departmentalized arrangements with instructional specialization at intermediate-grade and middle-school grade levels. Instruction in self-contained classrooms is essentially opposite that of departmentalized instruction with the rotation of students from room to room. Some elementary schools are, or at least historically have been, organized in a semi-departmentalized arrangement, or a quasi-departmentalized arrangement, in which self-contained classrooms are departmentalized for some subject-matter areas (Broadhead, 1960).

Viewpoints

Advantages. Self-contained classrooms have a number of advantages and strengths, not the least of which is that using one teacher is a cost-effective approach. The self-contained teacher is also comparatively autonomous and exercises considerable control of the curricular and instructional milieu of his or her individual classroom. For example, the amounts of time allotted for various tasks can be adjusted on a flexible basis depending on need. The self-contained classroom teacher can combine and more fully integrate subject areas (Beane et al., 1986; Schubert, 1986).

Traditional self-contained classrooms place greater emphasis on classwork and personal relationships between students and teachers than team-teaching or nongraded situations (Larkin, 1973). Student-teacher relations are more positive with self-contained classroom instruction than with departmentalized instruction (McPartland, 1987).

Teachers of self-contained classes are able to spend the entire day with the same group of students (Schubert, 1986). They are able to get to know students better and are therefore more sensitive to and knowledgeable of their interests, needs, problems and characteristics (Beane et al., 1986). This expectation allows teachers to be in a position to better guide and assist the student and relate content to their individual interests and needs (Schubert, 1986; Tillman, 1960).

Self-contained classrooms are compatible with the individualization of instruction. Teachers of elementary self-contained classrooms are able to effectively implement individualized instruction based on both their flexibility of time and their familiarity with students. In departmentalized settings, teachers have neither the time flexibility nor student familiarity to implement effective individualized instruction (Thornell, 1980).

The self-contained classroom is an environment that is consistent and safe for students. It provides increased structure and improved stability compared to the team-teaching approach (Ramey, 1992). Students gain a greater sense of belonging and feel more secure working with a single teacher and a small group of classmates that they can get to know well (Beane et al., 1986). In a self-contained classroom, students experience constant and cohesive class membership, whereas in departmentalized, semi-or quasi- departmentalized arrangements of middle schools, students experience continuously changing class membership (Mitchell, 1994). By participating in cooperative-learning activities in the comfortable setting of the self-contained classroom, students gain increased confidence to work with groups, accomplish difficult tasks and reach creative solutions to problems (Field, Bernal, & Goertz, 2001).

Disadvantages. There are a corresponding number of disadvantages and weaknesses to the use of self-contained classrooms. Graded self-contained classrooms can negatively influence student and teacher developmental relations (Anderson, 1977). Teachers and students may not have good rapport and are still required to remain together for the entire school year (Schubert, 1986). In the self-contained classroom, students remain physically together throughout the school day. They are subsequently less active than students in open-space classrooms (Lueders-Salmon, 1972). Students prefer to be taught by a team of teachers than by one teacher because they have more time and opportunity to interact with others and it reduces boredom (Ramey, 1992).

A single teacher in a self-contained classroom is responsible for teaching a variety of subject areas, must have a range of knowledge and skills, and must be equally strong in all areas of the elementary curriculum (Beane et al., 1986; Chan & Jarman, 2004; Schubert, 1986). Although most elementary teachers are not multi-talented, they must teach in areas where they have no fundamental interest (Chan & Jarman, 2004). It is difficult for a single teacher to have a sufficiently high level of expertise in all subject areas (Schubert, 1986). The self-contained classroom teacher cannot be a 'Jack (or Jill)-of-all-trades' (Chan & Jarman, 2004). Team teaching can better integrate subjects than a single teacher teaching in a self-contained classroom and thus can ultimately deliver a higher quality of subject-matter instruction (Ramey, 1992).

The "pitfalls" of the self-contained classroom organization can be addressed through the departmentalization model in which teachers teach in their area of specialization and students move from one classroom to another for instruction (Chan & Jarman, 2004). Departmentalization is in many ways more compatible with a separate-subjects curriculum than the self-contained classroom approach. High-quality specialized subject-matter instruction is improved by departmentalization (McPartland, 1987). The self-contained classroom has become less and less acceptable as an organizational arrangement at higher grade levels (middle school and above) because of the higher level of academic and subject-matter specialization required. Curriculum areas can also be departmentalized at each elementary grade. Specialized teachers can provide instruction in areas where greater knowledge or unique skills are required (Beane et al., 1986).

Research. Compared to elementary students in departmentalized settings, students in self-contained classrooms typically do as well or better on measures of academic achievement (Beane et al., 1986). Sixth-grade students receiving reading instruction in self-contained classrooms showed a higher and more consistent growth pattern than students in a departmentalized program (Harris, 1996). Grade 4-6 self-contained classroom students scored higher than departmentalized students in language arts and social studies achievement and grade 5-6 self-contained classroom students scored higher than departmentalized students in mathematics achievement (Grooms, 1967). Field, Bernal and Goertz (2001) found that gifted and talented students in full-day self-contained classes were able to improve their understanding of scientific concepts based on learning activities of the Full Option Science System or FOSS. It was also found that, in general, self-contained gifted classrooms met the needs of gifted and talented students better than regular self-contained classrooms (Vidergor & Azar Gordon, 2015). However, studies showed that students in self-contained special education classrooms did not advance as much academically or behaviorally compared to when educated in integrated regular self-contained classrooms (Cipriano et al, 2016).

Students in innovatively-designed elementary schools do better in overall reading achievement than students in traditionally-designed, -organized and -patterned elementary schools (Ricciotti & Soares, 1983). Students in the experimental settings did as well as or better than students in the traditional settings on standardized reading test measures (Ricciotti & Soares, 1983). The longer students are in the experimental settings (nongraded and open-space), the greater the benefit they receive. Experimental settings are more conducive to reading achievement and these organizational concepts are viable for elementary schools (Ricciotti & Soares, 1983).

Butzin, Carroll and Lutz (2006) found that elementary students of certain designated grade levels taught core academic subjects, sometimes in multiage groupings, by the same teacher for three years outperformed students in self-contained classrooms. Munoz (2001) found that class-size reductions in self-contained classrooms with fewer students and the use of collaborative models and small-group activities did not increase student learning on standardized test measures in mathematics and reading.

Measures of affect and social outcomes have been somewhat conflicting. Some educators have found that self-contained classroom students do consistently better on measures of affect (Beane et al., 1986). Mitchell (1994) found that male students in the constant-membership format of self-contained classrooms show consistent gains in self-esteem; girls' results were mixed. Heimgartner (1972) found that students in open-space classrooms, compared to students from self-contained classrooms, showed greater group affiliation and increased self-esteem; students in self-contained classrooms demonstrated a loss in self-esteem.

When students transition from self-contained to departmentalized classes, as they must always do eventually, achievement has been found to decline during the transition year. Although transitioning students exhibit consistent losses in achievement during the transition year for all grade levels, they show a rebound and recovery in the years that follow the transition year (Alspaugh & Harting, 1995). Thus, the question of which is the better arrangement-self-contained classrooms or departmentalization-and for which students and which grades must ultimately await more clarifying and elucidating research.

Terms & Concepts

Activity Centers: Designated, distinct areas of a classroom in which students work together individually or in small groups on learning experiences or performance tasks to achieve certain curricular objectives.

Class Membership: The group or groups of classmates to which a given individual student affiliates, belongs and experiences during a school day; it can be constant and cohesive, as in a self-contained classroom, or it can be continuously changing, as in departmentalized arrangements.

Cooperative Learning: Instructional practice in which students study, work together and carry out activities in a supportive rather than a competitive relationship.

Curriculum Integration: An interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary approach to studies which involves coordinating, combining and mixing different subject areas.

Departmentalization: Structural arrangement in which students rotate from classroom to classroom to take classes from subject-matter specialists.

Differentiated Instruction: Educational practice which matches what a student learns to his or her readiness level, needs and interests, and preferred learning style.

Direct Instruction: Educational practice or set of practices in which a teacher maintains a fairly regimented, disciplined and controlled approach to teaching and the curriculum by presenting the material to be learned, tying it to pre-planned objectives, seeking and reacting to input from students.

Experimental Settings: Classroom environments other than traditional settings like self-contained classrooms; examples include nongraded and open-space classrooms.

Individualized Instruction: Educational practice in which teachers work with students in a one-on-one basis and plan learning activities and teaching strategies for each student.

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of teachers from different subject-matter areas who work collaboratively in planning curricula and implementing instruction.

Pull-Out Programs: Programs in which students are pulled out of their regular self-contained classroom for certain subjects such as art, music, and physical education, which are taught by specialist teachers.

Self-Contained Classroom: A structural arrangement primarily at the elementary-school level in which a class of students and a single teacher, who is responsible for teaching all subject areas, remain together throughout the school day.

Semi-Departmentalized Arrangement: Also quasi-departmentalized arrangement; a structural approach in which students rotate to classes and take some subjects from specialists and spend the remainder of their day in a regular self-contained classroom.

Team-Teaching: Educational practice in which a group of teachers work collaboratively to implement instruction.

Bibliography

Alspaugh, J. W., & Harting, J. D. (1995). Transition effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 28 , 144-149.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000) Designs for science literacy . Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R. H. (1987). Shaping up the shop: How school organization influences teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 44 , 45.

Bahner, J. M. (1965). Team teaching in the elementary school. Education, 85 , 337-341

Barnes, D. E. (1973). Your middle school must have a revised program! Educational Leadership, 31 , 230-232.

Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Berg, P. (1977). Increasing the efficiency of the one room school. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 270 250), 7 pp.

Broadhead, F. C. (1960). Pupil adjustment in the semi-departmental elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 60 , 385-390.

Butzin, S. M., Carroll, R., & Lutz, B. (2006). Letting teachers specialize. Educational Leadership, 63 , 73-75.

Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20809985&site=ehost-live

Callahan, C. M. (2003). Searching for answers or creating more questions?: A response to Robinson. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26 , 274-282.

Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal, 84 , 70-72.

Cipriano, C., et al. (2016). There's no "I" in team: building a framework for teacher-paraeducator interactions in self-contained special education classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 51(2). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118921477&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Dawson, D. T., & Lindstrom, R. J. (1974). The expanded self-contained classroom. Elementary School Journal, 74 , 203-209.

Durrell, D. D. (1960). Adapting instruction to learning needs in the intermediate grades. Education Digest, 25 , 28-31.

Ediger, M. (2002). Grouping and organizing for instruction in reading. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 471 842). 13 pp.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Sayler, M. F. (1990). Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 12 , 244-249. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9608146825&site=ehost-live

Field, T., Bernal, E. M., & Goertz, J. (2001). How gifted/ talented students perceive FOSS science program. Understanding Our Gifted, 13 , 3-5. Grooms, H. H. (1967). Pupil achievement and social development in intermediate grade departmental and self-contained classrooms. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 021 748), 140 pp.

Harris, M. B. (1996). The effect of departmentalization on the reading achievement of sixth-grade students. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395 298).

Heimgartner, N. L. (1972). A comparative study of self-concept: Open space versus self-contained classroom. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 069 389).

Kramer, L. R. (1987). Differences in learning and achieving in self-contained and resource room programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 185).

Larkin, R. W. (1973). Research notes: Contextual influences on teacher leadership styles. Sociology of Education, 46 , 471-479. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13008349&site=ehost-live

Lueders-Salmon, E. (1972). The active classroom: A comparison of team-teaching and self-contained classroom schools. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 074 069), 106 pp.

McPartland, J. M. (1987). Balancing high quality subject-matter instruction with positive teacher-student relations in the middle grades: Effects of departmentalization, tracking and block scheduling on learning environments. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 704).

Mitchell, M. (1994). Keeping students together: The benefits of constant membership. Schools in the Middle, 4 , 35-37.

Munoz, M. A. (2001). Class size reduction in a large urban school district: A mixed methodology evaluation research study. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 837), 36 pp.

Novelli, J., & Edgar, S. (1997). Classroom management:

Seating solutions [and] hooray for volunteers. Instructor, 107 , 78-82, 84, 103.

Ramey, C. A. (1992). Sixth grade students' opinions and perceptions of team teaching: Addressing the criticisms. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (document number ED 350 089), 48 pp.

Ricciotti, J. A., & Soares, L. M. (1983). School organizational patterns and reading achievement. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 474), 16 pp.

Rothman, R. (1988). Sixth grade's organizational structure criticized. Education Week, 7 , 5.

Rouse, R. E. (1978). Elementary teaming: Learning improvement or administrative ploy. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 55 , 265-269.

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility . New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Tillman, R. (1960). Self-contained classroom: Where do we stand? Educational Leadership, 18 , 82-84.

Thornell, J. G. (1980). Individualizing in traditional classroom settings. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 17 , 46-47.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing the responsibility for differentiating instruction.

Roeper Review, 26, 188.

Vidergor, H. E., & Azar Gordon, L. (2015). The case of a self-contained elementary classroom for the gifted: student, teacher, and parent perception of existing versus desired teaching-learning aspects. Roeper Review, 37(3). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=108304142&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Suggested Reading

Butzin, S. M., Carroll, R., & Lutz, B. (2006). Letting teachers specialize. Educational Leadership, 63 , 73-75. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20809985&site=ehost-live

Feldhusen, J. F., & Sayler, M. F. (1990). Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 12 , 244-249. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9608146825&site=ehost-live

Kurth, J. A., Born, K., & Love, H. (2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119429374&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Larkin, R. W. (1973). Research notes: Contextual influences on teacher leadership styles. Sociology of Education, 46 , 471-479. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13008349&site=ehost-live