research paper on classroom management

Advertisement

Teachers’ views on effective classroom management: a mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 30 June 2020
• Volume 20 , pages 107–124, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Helen Egeberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9907-8593 1 ,
• Andrew McConney 2 &
• Anne Price 2  

43k Accesses

20 Citations

15 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Teachers’ views about teaching, learning and school experiences are important considerations in education. As the central participants in classroom interactions, students and teachers naturally have strong views about what it takes to manage learning and surrounding behaviours effectively. With this in mind and because we believe that ignoring the thinking of either of these stakeholders would be to the detriment of teaching and teacher education, we focused on hearing and understanding teachers’ voices about teaching, learning and classroom management. Our aim was to further clarify teachers’ perspectives on how educators create quality learning environments as well as gathering their views of various disciplinary interventions, their perceptions of challenging students and their sense of efficacy for classroom management in order to inform both policy and practice in teacher education. A survey was conducted with 50 secondary school teachers to capture their views on their classroom experiences. Follow up interviews with teachers identified by students as effective in their classroom management provided consistent reports that effective classroom managers build positive relationships with their students, manage their classrooms by establishing clear boundaries and high expectations, and engage students in their learning.

Similar content being viewed by others

What do students believe about effective classroom management a mixed-methods investigation in western australian high schools.

Classroom management practices commonly used by secondary school teachers: results from a Queensland survey

First-Year Teacher Needs in the Urban Classroom: Creating a Sustainable Framework for Classroom Management Coaching

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Classroom management is universally seen as a key dimension of teachers’ work as reflected in research that places it among the most required teaching skills (Huntly 2008 ; Jones 2006 ; McKenzie et al. 2011 ). Teachers’ skill in classroom management is often cited as the dimension of teachers’ work that is the most challenging and the area of training that many beginning and pre-service teachers feel is lacking (Australian Education Union 2009 ; Evertson and Weinstein 2006 ; Kafman and Moss 2010 ; Peters 2012 ; Putman 2009 ; Ritter and Hancock 2007 ; Romano 2008 ). In order to enhance or transform these skills, as well as inform policy and practice with regard to classroom management it is important to investigate and understand teachers’ views and beliefs, as their “philosophy about the nature of teaching, learning and students determines the type of instruction and discipline we have in schools and classrooms” (Freiberg 1999 , p. 14).

As the central participants in classroom interactions, students and teachers naturally have strong views about what it takes to manage learning and surrounding behaviours effectively (Lewis 2001 ; Lewis et al. 2008 ; Roache and Lewis 2011 ; Sullivan et al. 2014 ; Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein 2006 ) With this in mind and because we believe that ignoring the thinking of either of these stakeholders would be to the detriment of teaching and teacher education, we focused on hearing and understanding teachers’ voices about teaching, learning and classroom management. Our aim is to further clarify teachers’ perspectives on how educators create quality learning environments as well as gathering their views of various disciplinary interventions, their perceptions of challenging students and their sense of efficacy for classroom management, in order to inform both policy and practice in teacher education.

Students’ perceptions of teachers who create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments, and their classroom experiences, have been previously examined (Egeberg and McConney 2017 ). Despite varying school contexts, students identified effective classroom managers as teachers who meet students’ needs by developing caring relationships and controlling the classroom environment while fostering student responsibility and engaging students in their learning (Egeberg and McConney 2017 ). Few researchers, however, have investigated the views of both students and teachers in the same study, ensuring that setting and context are similar (Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein 2006 ; Roache and Lewis 2011 ). In the current research, teachers at the same schools as the student participants in our 2017 study were surveyed about their views on classroom management, including those identified by their students as being effective managers. Teachers in this smaller group were also subsequently interviewed. Previous studies have reported teachers’ perceptions about education and teaching practices; the significance of this research, however, is that it examines the views and beliefs of teachers who previously had been identified by their students as effective in creating and maintaining quality learning environments.

2 Literature review

The term classroom management is a conceptual umbrella, one that is often used interchangeably with discipline , but is also seen as distinct from classroom instruction (Egeberg et al. 2016 ). Research in the 1980s, however, argued that teachers’ management and instruction are not separate, but are inextricably interwoven and complex. “Classroom management is certainly concerned with behaviour, but it can also be defined more broadly as involving the planning, organization and control of learners, the learning process and the classroom environment to create and maintain an effective learning experience” (Doyle 1986 , p. 396). It is this definition, as well as the view provided in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers that we subscribe to here (AITSL 2011 ). Using Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein’s ( 2006 ) three interwoven aspects of teacher practice: classroom management (actions to create a productive, orderly learning environment); discipline (actions to elicit change in students’ behaviour); and, socialization (actions to help students fulfil their responsibilities) we aimed to examine high school teachers’ views and beliefs to better understand what teachers do to create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments.

Historically, teacher education has relied on scales focused on a narrower concept of discipline (Glickman and Tamashiro 1980 ; Wolfgang and Glickman 1986 ), rather than the broader concept of classroom management that encompasses both behaviour management (BM) and instructional management (IM). “Examination of the literature on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions indicates that we have potentially valuable scales and inventories that have rarely been used in research” (Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein 2006 , p. 211). One of the scales that these authors refer to is Martin, Yin and Baldwin’s Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control, which was later revised as the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (BIMS) (Martin et al. 1998 ; Martin and Sass 2010 ). The BIMS is important in the study of differences that may exist between teachers’ beliefs and their capacity to implement them within the classroom (Martin et al. 1998 , 2007 ; Martin and Sass 2010 ). This, we believe, provides an appropriate starting point from which to examine teachers’ beliefs and perspectives of the more encompassing construct of “classroom management”. Although the BIMS is based on the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory developed by Wolfgang and Glickman ( 1986 ), it nevertheless reflects a broader concept encompassing teachers’ perceptions of their classroom management, in terms of both BM and IM around which Martin and her colleagues developed and validated the BIMS (Martin and Sass 2010 ). Teachers’ efforts aimed at preventing misbehaviour, along with how a teacher responds to misconduct, are related to BM, whereas IM includes the plans, goals, and tactics teachers use to deliver instruction in a classroom.

Research shows that teachers’ interactions with students are often linked to their beliefs about young people and how they develop (Erden and Wolfang 2004 ). Glickman and Tamashiro ( 1980 ) and Wolfgang ( 1995 ) conceptualized a framework to explain teacher beliefs and approaches along a control continuum, with relationship-listening beliefs and non-interventionist approaches at the least controlling end, rules/rewards-punishment beliefs and interventionist approaches at the most controlling end, and confronting-contracting beliefs and interactionalist approaches in the middle. A more recent conceptual framework clusters discipline theories across a similar continuum from autocratic through authoritative and mixed to egalitarian. This continuum also varies according to distribution of power in classrooms, from teacher-centred, to shared, to student-centred, and from a focus on student behaviour only, to a compound focus on behaviour, cognition, emotion and relationships (Porter 2007 ).

In the past, various studies had shown that many teachers and even some policies, reflected very traditional views about discipline (Adey et al. 1991 ; Oswald et al. 1991 , 1994 ). These studies identified four orientations to classroom discipline: traditional, liberal progressive, socially critical, and laissez-faire. Teachers who hold a traditional orientation have many beliefs in common with an interventionist rules-rewards philosophy as depicted in Wolfgang’s ( 1995 ) framework. Teachers with a liberal progressive orientation believe in a democratic approach in which students share power, are part of decision-making, and cooperation and social skills are essential for participation. Teachers who hold a socially critical stance see student misbehaviour as resistance against an unfair system with repressive and at times inappropriate practices. The laissez faire stance is essentially congruent with the non-interventionist, described in Wolfgang’s framework. Although few teachers adhered completely to one type of view, nearly 70% of secondary teachers identified as traditionalist, with the remainder mainly liberal progressive.

In a 2001 study, over 3500 students from years 6, 7, 9 and 11 in Australian schools were asked to complete a questionnaire that documented the extent to which their teachers used various discipline strategies. The students’ responses were used to conceptualise teachers’ classroom discipline behaviour in terms of three styles: influence which includes the use of listening and clarifying techniques to negotiate solutions; group management which includes class meetings, agreed management of behaviour and non-punitive teacher responses to enable students to make better choices; and, control which involves rules, rewards and a clear hierarchy of increasingly severe punishments for misbehaviour (Lewis 2001 ). Secondary students reported that even though some teachers used techniques such as hints and discussion, (aligned with an influence, relationship-based approach), many teachers tended toward the use of punishment. This suggested that most teachers held a controlling or coercive style of management. The study also showed that “students who receive more relationship-based discipline are less disrupted when teachers deal with misbehaviour and generally act more responsibly in that teacher’s class. In contrast, the impact of coercive discipline appears to be more student distraction from work and less responsibility” (Lewis 2001 , p. 315).

In a 2014 study, Sullivan, Johnson, Owens and Conway, asked 1380 Year 12 teachers in South Australia to identify the range and frequency of student behaviours requiring disciplinary response and to explain how they responded. Analysis of responses to the web-based survey showed that low-level disruptive behaviours occurred most frequently with very little aggressive or antisocial behaviour. The study showed that disengaged behaviours were the most prevalent suggesting that these “have more to do with factors within a teacher’s control than with those located within the student” (Sullivan et al. 2014 , p. 53). Instead of using responses that may address the underlying cause of the misbehavior, such as ways to engage students positively in their learning, the study found that teachers tended to implement a “stepped approach” involving increasingly severe coercive techniques. As Maguire et al. ( 2010 ) argued, moving the focus from controlling discipline approaches to ways of engaging students offers opportunities for teachers to preclude or divert unproductive student behaviour and reduce their reliance on punitive intervention strategies.

Thus, it is clear that determining what (typically) is and what is not effective classroom management is a complex issue (De Jong 2005 ). Many researchers have attempted to conceptualise guiding principles and practices that could be used to support the development of appropriate approaches to managing student behaviour (McLeod et al. 2003 ). In essence, “teachers who approach classroom management as a process of establishing and maintaining effective learning environments tend to be more successful than teachers who place more emphasis on their roles as authority figures or disciplinarians” (Brophy 1988 , p. 1). It is the ability of a teacher to know not only what they want to teach, but also how they will organise and structure it for their students and their circumstances that makes all the difference, creating a healthy, caring classroom culture where all students, and teachers, can thrive (Bennett and Smilanich 2012 ).

The current study investigates this broader view of classroom management. It encompasses both behaviour management (BM) which includes pre-planned efforts to prevent misbehavior as well as teachers’ response to it, specifically establishing expectations, monitoring and teaching behaviour and providing opportunities for student input and, instructional management (IM), which addresses teachers’ pedagogical aims and methodologies and includes aspects such as planning and structuring routines as well as the use of various instructional techniques to enable active participation and engagement. Consequently, this research gives voice to the views and experiences of not just teachers, but teachers who have been nominated by their students as being effective in creating and maintaining quality learning environments, centered on effective classroom management. The overarching question that frames the study is, “What are effective teachers’ views of classroom management?” Component research questions include:

What are secondary teachers’ orientations toward classroom management?

To what extent do teachers’ classroom management views differ according to school sector, school socioeconomic status (SES) or gender? and

How do teachers, who have been identified by their students as being effective, manage their classrooms?

3.1 Research design

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of secondary school teachers about their classroom management, at a variety of high schools in Western Australia. For educational researchers holding a pragmatic worldview, the choice of research design is guided by the research question(s) asked, rather than epistemology, with a view to further understanding the phenomenon being studied and to add value, in a practical sense. In this study, our key aim is to advance our collective understanding of effective classroom management and to broaden the perspective with which it is viewed, thereby facilitating translation into practice. In achieving this, both description and explanation are important. Descriptions involve drawing a picture of what is happening, and “attempting to make complicated things understandable” (Punch 2000 , p. 15). Explanation involves examining the ‘how’, as well as describing the ‘what’ because this has the potential to influence our future practice. An increasingly used research approach to achieving both description and explanation is to employ both quantitative and qualitative perspectives on the phenomenon of interest—in this case teachers’ classroom management. For this reason, a mixed methods research design was chosen—with one type of data collection (e.g., qualitative) offsetting potential limitations or lack of depth in the other, and vice versa. Specifically, this study used a sequential explanatory design, with two distinct phases, quantitative followed by qualitative (Creswell 2014 ). As Greene et al. ( 1989 ) have explained, a mixed methods approach provides depth and detail to a study and potentially uncovers new insights into participant experiences. While a quantitative method allows stronger generalisability and comparability, and better accommodates investigating the ‘what’, a qualitative approach allows deeper examination to build a more complete picture of effective classroom management, and better accommodates answering ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions. In addition to its mixed methods design, the study was also interpretive in that high school teachers described their views through surveys (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative); we summarized, analyzed and interpreted these views to advance our understanding of effective classroom management.

Previously, in an earlier phase of this research, 360 students from a variety of public and private secondary schools had participated in a study that catalogued and examined students’ views of effective classroom management. Students were recruited from metropolitan high schools in Perth, Western Australia (WA), and comprised Year 9 and 10 students (255 males and 105 females) ranging in age between 14 and 16 years. The overarching intention of that study was to better understand, from the perspective of their students, what teachers do to create and sustain safe and supportive learning environments. In this earlier phase, we used the Students Perceptions Survey (SPS) from Cambridge Education and Tripod Survey Assessments that allowed students to characterise what it is that teachers do in effectively managing their classrooms, and to nominate some teachers they believed did this well (Egeberg and McConney 2017 ).

3.2 Participants

In the current study, we invited teacher-participants via email asking them to take part in a survey and follow up interview. Participants comprised 50 secondary school teachers, (23 males and 27 females), working in six schools representing the three school sectors in Western Australia (WA)—the Association of Independent Schools of WA (AISWA), the WA Department of Education (DOE) and Catholic Education (CEWA). Of the 50 teachers who completed the first phase (survey), their students had nominated 25 (10 male and 15 female) as effective classroom managers. Twenty-two of these teachers (9 male and 13 female) were subsequently available for individual interviews. Across the six schools involved, between 3 and 5 teachers were interviewed from each school, ranging in age from 26 to 62 years. Table  1 provides a breakdown of this study’s teacher participants by school characteristics and gender. For the purpose of this study we combined AISWA and CEWA schools into one group and classified these as “Private”. School socioeconomic status (SES) was determined via the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) which uses two data sources: student enrolment records including information relating to parent occupation, school education, non-school education and language background (direct data) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data (indirect data). ICSEA values range from around 500 (extremely socio-educationally disadvantaged) to about 1300 (very advantaged) (ACARA 2012 ). Any particular school’s ICSEA is the averaged value representing all students in the school. For this study, schools with an average ICSEA above 1100 were considered higher SES , and those with ICSEA values less than 1100 were considered lower SES .

3.3 Instruments

Two instruments were used for data collection: the first was a survey that allowed teachers to describe how frequently they use particular classroom management strategies or techniques. The Behaviour and Instructional Management Survey (BIMS) is a relatively brief, psychometrically validated instrument that measures how frequently teachers report using particular techniques, both behavioural and instructional. Martin and Sass ( 2010 ) used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in validating the BIMS. Analysis of the Behavior Management subscale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α  = 0.8), with an average inter-item correlation of 0.377 (SD .091). The average corrected item-total correlation for this subscale was 0.5 (SD .071), suggesting good item discrimination. Results for the Instructional Management subscale also showed good internal consistency ( α  = 0.8), with an average inter-item correlation of 0.365 (SD .092). The average corrected item-total correlation for this subscale was also 0.5 (SD .086), again suggesting good item discrimination (Martin and Sass 2010 ). Overall, Martin and Sass’s ( 2010 ) EFA results provided solid evidence of discriminant and convergent validity, good internal consistency and strong item discrimination. Using the BIMS as an inventory, we sought to determine the frequency with which 50 teachers-participants reported engaging in various classroom management behaviours. We emphasize that using the BIMS as a definitive assessment of teachers’ approach to classroom management was not the main purpose; rather, our intention was to “warm up” teacher-participants in articulating or focusing their views about classroom management during individual interviews.

Item 25, the last item on the teacher survey, was an open-ended question that asked teachers what they do that helps to create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments. This aspect of our data collection and analysis, and that of the ensuing teacher-participant interviews, centered on a qualitative approach, enabling further exploration of these teachers’ perspectives. We employed an inductive process of gathering detailed information from participants, in this case teachers, and then formed this into themes (Creswell 2014 ). The data were first coded thematically using NVivo, a qualitative analysis software that provides word frequencies and key words in the context of concepts like classroom management, caring relationships, behaviour and instruction. Using text search and word frequency queries we added annotations to record our insights and this in turn assisted with identifying patterns across the responses to identify connections and themes that informed our development of answers to the research questions posed.

The second phase of data collection comprised individual interviews with 22 selected teacher participants. These participants were chosen from those who had volunteered via the survey and who also had been selected by their students as effective in creating and maintaining safe and supportive learning environments. The interview topics were developed from research into effective classroom management (Ferguson 2010 ; Garza et al. 2010 ; Lewis 2001 ; Lewis et al. 2008 ; Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein 2006 ). The topics were also used as the basis for further clarifying teachers’ perspectives about effective classroom management as well as their perceptions of the frequency, efficacy and acceptability of various disciplinary interventions. The interviews were semi-structured, audio taped with consent for future transcription, and about 30 min in duration.

4.1 Phase 1: survey

This study posed the following questions:

The BIMS provides a framework that allows characterisation and summarization of the strategies or techniques teachers use in managing their classrooms. On the BIMS, teachers report the frequency with which they use each of 24 briefly described strategies, as shown in Table  2 for the 50 teacher-participants in this study.

In answering research question 1, of the classroom management techniques used by teachers, the four that showed the highest frequency of use, across all teachers, were: I use whole class instruction to ensure a structured classroom (IM #2); I redirect students back to the topic when they get off task (BM #15); I direct the students’ transition from one learning activity to another (IM #16 ) ; and, I use a teaching approach that encourages interaction among students (IM #24). As shown in Table  2 , for these four items, all teachers (100%) reported using the strategy sometimes, often or always. Only one of the 24 strategies suggested a low proportion of teachers using the technique frequently. Specifically, 44% of teachers indicated that when a student talks to a neighbour, they would move the student away from other students (BM #7), sometimes (36%) or often (8%). This type of control or compliance strategy would seem not to be a major aspect of these teachers’ approaches to classroom management. In another example, only a small majority (56%) indicated that if a student’s behaviour is defiant, I demand that they comply with my rules (BM #23) sometimes (20%), often (26%) or always (10%).

Using the scoring system that Martin and Sass designed for the BIMS, with Always allocated a “5” to Never receiving a “1”, and scoring for some items being reversed, we examined responses for items aligned with three key approaches to classroom management: a controlling, interventionist approach; an interactionalist, needs-based approach, and; a less controlling non-interventionist approach. It is important to note that there are no specific cut scores for identifying teachers as interventionist, interactionalist, or non-interventionist, and this was certainly not our intention. It was also the case, however, that we viewed higher scores on the combined scales of the BIMS as indicative of a tendency toward a more controlling approach, lower scores suggestive of a less controlling approach and those centrally located indicative of an interactionalist approach, as had been the case in Martin and Sass’ classroom management research ( 2010 ). In this, we found that all of the 25 teachers identified by students as creating and maintaining effective learning environments most frequently used an interactionalist approach, whereas a more modest 74% of teachers not nominated by students indicated that they most frequently use this approach.

In answering research question 2 (To what extent do teachers’ classroom management views differ according to school sector, school socioeconomic status (SES) or gender?) we compared BIMS response distributions from teachers across school sectors (public and private), school SES (higher and lower ICSEA) and teacher gender. Very little difference was evident between groups of teachers in terms of what techniques they would use frequently in their classrooms. Female teachers comprised 52% of the teachers surveyed and 60% of the teacher cohort identified as effective by students. The largest group-based difference noted was for item BM#3: I limit student chatter in the classroom with 96% of female teachers suggesting they would use this strategy frequently in comparison to 75% of male teachers. Two other items showed a notably higher proportion of female teachers indicating frequent use as compared to males: 96% of female teachers indicated they establish a teaching daily routine in their classroom and stick to it (IM #8) compared to 79% of male teachers; and, 81% of female teachers indicated that they use input from students to create classroom rules (BM #9) compared to 63% of males. In contrast 71% of male teachers said they allow students to get out of their seat without permission (BM #11 ) in comparison to 58% of female teachers.

Similarly, to examine potential differences between teachers nominated by their students as effective classroom managers, and those not, and to answer research question 3 “How do teachers, who have been identified by their students as being effective, manage their classrooms?” we also conducted two statistical tests, the results of which are given in Table  3 . We conservatively used non - parametric statistical tests as the data provided via the BIMS are ordinal data. We used Pearson’s Chi Squared test to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between expected and observed frequencies between teachers “nominated as effective” and those “not nominated”. On the other hand, Mann–Whitney U is a nonparametric test of the null hypothesis that it is equally likely that a randomly selected value from one population will be statistically different than a value from a second population. Mann–Whitney U can be used to investigate whether two samples were selected from populations having the same distribution. As detailed in Table  3 , we found that in no case were teacher-participants nominated as effective classroom managers by their students statistically different from teachers not nominated, in terms of the frequencies with which they used the management strategies reflected in the 24 items of the BIMS.

In further examining BIMS responses from the 25 teachers nominated by students as effective classroom managers, compared against the responses of 25 teachers not nominated however, it was the areas of control and interaction that showed some differences in approach between the two groups. Differences in the frequency with which the teachers frequently use a strategy between those nominated and those not are graphically depicted in Fig.  1 .

Differences in percentages of nominated and non-nominated groups of teachers who use BIMS strategies frequently in classroom management. Note : Positive differences (bars to the right) indicate that nominated teachers use a BIMS strategy more frequently; negative differences (bars to the left) mean that non-nominated teachers use the strategy more frequently

As shown in Fig.  1 , for example, 28% of nominated teachers indicated that they would frequently move a child for talking to their neighbor (BM #7), compared to 60% of teachers who were not nominated by their students. (Hence, 28% minus 60% results in a negative difference of 32% suggesting that teachers nominated by their students as effective managers, less frequently use punitive strategies. Nominated teachers more frequently took, it would seem, a flexible approach and less frequently demanded compliance (IM #22 & BM #23). Nominated teachers also more frequently used group work (IM #10), inquiry - based learning (IM #14) and student input when creating projects (IM#12) and also more frequently limited chatter in the classroom (BM #3).

In reviewing the comments made by teachers in response to Question 25 (an open-ended question that asked teachers what they do that helps to create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments), a third construct of classroom management other than the two already determined emerged, that of care . We therefore categorised teachers’ responses into one of three emergent themes—instructional management, behaviour management and care—with some comments appearing in more than one category as shown in Table  4 .

Teachers’ building of positive relationships with their students received the greatest proportion of responses, with nearly 43% of 50 teachers surveyed suggesting this a key strategy. Teachers specified that building positive relationships by showing genuine care and listening to student voices is important in being an effective manager. For example:

Taking the time to get to know your students and build that relationship on a daily basis is, in my opinion, the most important thing a teacher can do.

Coupled with this, the teacher’s ability to listen to students and to confer with them on various elements of their learning and school experience was also seen as important:

Positive accountability; the students knowing that they are valued, that they have a voice that is heard.

4.1.2 Behaviour management

For many of the teachers nominated as effective by students, care and concern were also manifested in the way they managed the class, and in high expectations. Thirty-nine percent of teachers’ responses could be categorized as focused on behaviour management , their ability to establish clear boundaries and high expectations without being rigid, threatening or punitive. For example:

Have high expectations of students in all aspects of their classroom conduct and effort. Treat all students with respect when dealing with them individually or in a group/class situation.

For those teachers not nominated by students a consistent comment was the need for consistency, consequences for all actions and follow - through, seeming to suggest a somewhat more authoritarian view of how student behaviours should be managed.

4.1.3 Instructional management

Thirty two percent of the responses could be categorized as related to the theme of instructional management; that is, teachers’ ability to engage their students by creating interest, clarifying students’ understandings of various concepts and consolidating this understanding especially through the use of formative assessment with useful and appropriate feedback. Those teachers nominated by students considered engaging teaching and clear explanation as paramount in their management of the class:

Show a willingness to be flexible in interpreting and delivering the curriculum in a way that students will find engaging. Make the learning intentions clear. Encourage questions and make mistakes part of learning.

In contrast, those not nominated by students seemed more focused on detailed subject knowledge as opposed to how that subject knowledge was delivered. Teachers also used words like clear, effective, humour, relationship, understanding, interesting, and respect to describe what they do to create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments.

4.2 Phase 2: interviews

In further answering research question 3, and indeed the overarching question of this study, the teachers who participated in the interviews were 22 of the 25 nominated by their students as being effective classroom managers. The interviewer posed a series of questions aimed at creating a mental set for participants around student behaviour and effective classroom management. All of the teachers agreed that students choose to behave well in some classes and not so well in others with one surmising what most had suggested: ‘how much of that is a conscious choice or a learned response to the context could be different’. A variety of reasons for students’ misbehaviour in school were suggested. Many were seen as ‘factors outside the teacher’s control. It can be the temperature, it can be what they’re doing at night, it can be the relationship with their family and it can be problems with their friends.’ Two key factors were dominant in the responses given by these teachers:

I think relationship is the main thing. I think kids find it really hard to misbehave when they have a really good relationship with the teacher but I also think that lack of engagement plays a key factor. Some kids will misbehave if they’re bored or something’s too difficult for them and they’re frustrated and they can’t do it.

Discipline was not so much about punishing students for infractions as it was teaching them how to behave appropriately and therefore disciplinary interventions needed to be both preventative and corrective.

Discipline is really all about getting the kids to control themselves and to make better choices. Discipline, I suppose, is about teaching discipline.

In discussion of key techniques used or required to manage classrooms a number of concepts were mentioned, all of which fell into the three key themes developed through analysis of the survey data, and well-articulated by one teacher who said, “look after me, manage my room, and do stuff that’s interesting. I think if we’ve got those three happening, we’re in a pretty good situation.” The use of various reminders and redirects such as eye contact, minimal use of verbal responses, use of students’ names and proximity were considered the “best way to go. Give them chances, keep it low key, scan the class, proximity, body language, all of that is crucial.”

The teachers interviewed had mixed opinions on involving students in classroom discipline decisions including creating rules with the students or talking with students to discuss the impact of their behaviours. One teacher explained, “we’re not a democracy, we’re a benevolent dictatorship.” But, others were quick to advocate otherwise:

At the beginning of the year that’s what we should all do. I do it by asking kids what they expect in the classroom, if we’re going to be productive, what do they expect from me as a teacher, what do they expect from other kids in the room, what do they expect from themselves. Then, based on that, if you had to put some guidelines in place what would they be for this to be a place of work?

When it came to the use of punishment all of the teachers interviewed agreed:

It’s such a negative thing to do. There’s no relationship-building aspect to it either. You’ve sort of lost what you’ve built. Obviously, there has to be consequences if you did something wrong. But punishing and being aggressive, handing out detentions and “scab” duty, it’s ineffective because you separate the consequence, not only from the behavior but separate it from yourself. It doesn’t do anything, it makes them angry and it doesn’t change their behavior. It doesn’t teach them, it doesn’t encourage them to a better way of behaving.

Encouraging students to a better way of behaving was important amongst all participants.

I don’t bribe them with anything. Sometimes it’s just a comment or bit of encouragement, or even a call home to say doing well. I often will say things like “It’s been a really great lesson today, we’ve had some really great input, everyone’s been focused, I thought the group work was fantastic” that kind of lay it on a bit thick and so it’s been really good, and try to mention a few names of, that comment that Susie said, you know that really generated some interesting discussion… rewarding them for their learning.

All teachers interviewed agreed that, “90% of it [effective classroom management] is building a rapport. Once I’ve built a rapport then I can train them, both academically and socially. I think if you are engaging and interactive and actually show that you care about them and about their progress. That goes a long way into establishing a successful classroom.”

5 Discussion

Effective classroom management is a key dimension of teacher preparation and practice, and an important factor in early-career teacher retention or attrition (Buchanan et al. 2013 ). In an effort to improve teachers’ classroom management and its development within Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs, it seems important to take strong consideration of teachers’ views of the practices that comprise positive learning environments. Recognizing the equal importance and value of students’ views about what happens in the classrooms (OECD 2014 ), this study investigates the beliefs and self-reported actions of teachers that students nominated as effective in creating and maintaining quality learning environments.

The aim of this study was to examine the views of teachers that students suggest manage their classes well to ascertain what their approaches are and how they manage the behaviours of the students in their classrooms. Our analysis of teachers’ survey responses showed that the two constructs of effective classroom management, instructional and behavioural management, were certainly evident in all teachers’ classrooms with most indicating their preference for techniques that are more consistent with an interactionalist approach. However, 16% of teacher-participants also suggested a preference for a more corrective and controlling approach in their classroom management. In comparing the views of those nominated by students with those not, teachers’ use of compliance and coercion strategies showed the largest differences between the two groups, despite not being statistically different . However, all teachers nominated by students as effective reflected a largely interactionalist rather than interventionist approach to classroom management. This would seem to be consistent with research that suggests that most success comes from those teachers who exhibit interactionalist traits (Brophy 1988 ; Lewis 2001 ; Maguire et al. 2010 ).

In analysing the open-ended question that asked teachers what they do that helps to create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments, the differences between those nominated by students and those not became wider and clearer. Responses from those teachers not nominated by students show a much greater reliance on imposing and maintaining control, with 20% of their comments referring to the need to regulate and enforce rules through the use of consequences such as detentions or time out. Interestingly, over 20% of those nominated by students referred instead to building caring relationships as a key element in effective classroom management. This led us to suggest a third key construct of classroom management needing attention, that of care for students .

Interviews with teachers nominated by students further consolidated the three constructs of effective classroom management: caring relationships, behaviour management and instructional management. Participant-teachers believe building rapport through caring for their students’ well-being, as the key to building positive relationships. They indicated that trust and encouragement were fundamental aspects of their relationships with students in addition to high expectations and appropriate challenges. These teachers held students accountable but also fostered student responsibility with support and structure. They firmly believed in creating learning experiences for their students that were varied and engaging.

A limitation of this study was not being able to verify the views of these teachers in observed practice. An obvious extension of this research would be to observe some of these teachers in the classroom, to further develop and highlight key practices that effectively manage students and their learning environment. Core findings from this study, however, re-affirm that effective classroom management is multidimensional including caring relationships, high expectations and opportunities for engagement, participation and contribution. This has important implications for how we prepare new teachers, for supporting early career teachers and for teachers’ ongoing professional learning. Do we attend sufficiently to the multidimensionality of classroom management in our initial teacher education programs? Are we providing impactful, research based professional learning for teachers, that offers support and mentoring as well as skills-based training?

Furthermore, at the macro policy level, these findings should be used to inform standards–setting authorities such as the Australian Institute for Teaching and Leadership (AITSL) as part of ongoing reviews of policy instruments, including the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011 ) and Initial Teacher Education mandated program accreditation standards (AITSL 2018 ). Any such reviews would greatly benefit from considering the views of teachers identified by students as effective classroom managers. As many of the teachers in this study suggested that students themselves had been a great influence on their knowledge and understanding of how to effectively manage their classrooms, perhaps greater value could be placed on the views of those we seek to most influence—the students themselves. It seems important to also note that while building positive relationships and having high expectations may be more difficult to regulate, measure and quantify than some other pedagogical practices, they were nevertheless considered by both students and teachers in this study to be of central and critical importance.

Adey, K., Oswald, M., & Johnson, B. (1991). Discipline in South Australian schools: A survey of teachers—Survey no 1: Teachers in metropolitan schools (Education Department of South Australia) . Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Google Scholar  

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). Guide to understanding ICSEA (Index of Community Socio - educational Advantage) values. Retrieved October 5, 2017 from http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_icsea_values.pdf .

Australian Education Union (AEU). (2009). New educators survey 2008. Retrieved November 15, 2014 from http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/Nesurvey08res.pdf .

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Retrieved March 22, 2016 from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf .

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia — Standards and procedures. Retrieved December 17, 2018 from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia.pdf .

Bennett, B., & Smilanich, P. (2012). Power plays: Moving from coping to cooperation in your classroom . Saskatoon: Pearson Education.

Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 1–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burke, P., & Louviere, J. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (3), 8.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

De Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student behaviour in the Australian education context. School Psychology International, 26, 353–370.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1989). Discipline in schools (England and Wales) . London: DES.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York: McMillian.

Egeberg, H., & McConney, A. (2017). What do students believe about effective classroom management? A mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools. The Australian Educational Researcher . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0250-y .

Egeberg, H. M., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and national professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (7), 1–18.

Erden, F., & Wolfang, C. H. (2004). An exploration of the differences in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade teachers’ beliefs related to discipline when dealing with male and female students. Early Child Development and Care, 174 (1), 3–11.

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferguson, R. F. (2010). Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness: Discussion brief . Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness and the Achievement Gap.

Freiberg, J. H. (1999). Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Garza, R., Ryser, G., & Lee, K. (2010). Illuminating adolescent voices: Identifying high school students’ perceptions of teacher caring. Empirical Research, 7 (4), 1–16.

Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1980). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about discipline. Educational Leadership, 37, 459–464.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255–274.

Huntly, H. (2008). Teachers’ work: Beginning teachers’ conceptions of competence. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35 (1), 125–145.

Jones, V. (2006). How do teachers learn to be effective classroom managers? In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 887–908). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kafman, D., & Moss, D. M. (2010). A new look at pre-service teachers’ conceptions of classroom management and organisation: Uncovering complexity and dissonance. The Teacher Educator, 45 (2), 118–136.

Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (3), 307–319.

Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. (2008). Students’ reaction to classroom discipline in Australia, Israel, and China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 715–724.

Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student control: Enacting policy in the English secondary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20 (2), 153–170.

Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the behavior and instructional management scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (5), 1124–1135.

Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998). Construct validation of the attitudes and beliefs on classroom control inventory. Journal of Classroom Interaction , 33 (2), 6–15.

Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Mayall, H. (2007). The attitudes & beliefs on classroom control inventory-revised and revisited: A continuation of construct validation. Journal of Classroom Interaction , 42 (2), 11–20.

McKenzie, P., Rowley, G., Weldon, P., & Murphy, M. (2011). Staff in Australia’s schools 2010 . Report prepared for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

McLeod, J., Fisher, J., & Hoover, G. (2003). The key elements of classroom management: Managing time and space, student behavior, and instructional strategies . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). Education policy outlook: Making reforms happen. Retrieved from March 22, 2016 https://www.oecd.org/edu/EPO%202015_Highlights.pdf .

Oswald, M., Johnson, B., & Adey, K. (1991). Discipline in schools: A Survey of teachers in country schools . Research Report No. 2, School Discipline Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Oswald, M., Whitington, V., Dunn, R., & Johnson, B. (1994). Discipline in schools: A survey of teachers in independent schools . Research Report No. 3, School Discipline Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Peters, J. H. (2012). Are they ready? Final year pre-service teachers’ learning about managing student behaviour. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (9), 18–42.

Porter, L. (2007). Student behaviour. Theory and practice for teachers (3rd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Punch, K. (2000). Developing effective research proposals . London: SAGE.

Putman, S. M. (2009). Grappling with classroom management: The orientations of pre-service teachers and impact of student teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44 (4), 232–247.

Ritter, J. T., & Hancock, D. R. (2007). Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (7), 1206–1216.

Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55 (2), 132–146.

Romano, M. (2008). Successes and struggles of the beginning teacher: Widening the sample. The Educational Forum, 72 (1), 63–78.

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (6), 43–56.

Wolfgang, C. H. (1995). Solving discipline problems: Strategies for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wolfgang, C. H., & Glickman, C. D. (1986). Solving discipline problems: Strategies for classroom teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 181–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford Drive, Mt Lawley, WA, 6050, Australia

Helen Egeberg

Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

Andrew McConney & Anne Price

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Egeberg .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Egeberg, H., McConney, A. & Price, A. Teachers’ views on effective classroom management: a mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools. Educ Res Policy Prac 20 , 107–124 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09270-w

Download citation

Received : 29 October 2019

Accepted : 11 June 2020

Published : 30 June 2020

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09270-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Classroom management
• Teacher–student relationship
• Teacher perceptions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Research Alliance Author Manuscripts

Salient Classroom Management Skills: Finding the Most Effective Skills to Increase Student Engagement and Decrease Disruptions

Nicholas a. gage.

Assistant professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida, in Gainesville

Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage

Clinical assistant professor of special education at the University of Florida and serves as the Special Education Program Area leader for the college’s School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies

Classroom Management and Student Achievement

Effective teaching requires a complex skill set. Teachers must deftly deliver academic instruction while maintaining efficiently managed classrooms to ensure student engagement and few disruptions. The bottom line is that students cannot learn if they are not engaged and paying attention to instruction. Therefore, successful classroom instruction is contingent upon effective classroom management to maintain appropriate student behavior, engagement, and, subsequently, academic achievement ( Evertson & Weinstein, 2006 ). In a recent study of elementary teacher effectiveness based on value-added models, classroom management was the only significant predictor of difference between the top-quartile and bottom-quartile teachers ( Stronge et al., 2011 ), supporting the contention that effective teachers are effective classroom managers.

A growing empirical research base supports the direct relationship between classroom management and reduction of disruptive behavior. Oliver, Wehby, and Reschly (2011) completed a meta-analysis on the impact of classroom management on disruptive and aggressive behavior for the Campbell Collaborative ( http://www.campbellcollaboration.org ). Their findings indicate that high-quality classroom management has an average effect of 0.80 ( p < 0.05), almost a full standard deviation reduction of classroom disruptive and aggressive behavior. An earlier meta-analysis by Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering (2003) also found a large average effect size for classroom management on the reduction of disruptive and aggressive behavior ( d = 0.90, p < 0.05) but also found a significant and positive effect size of 0.52 ( p < 0.05) for academic achievement. Taken together, it is clear that classroom management is a critical component of effective instruction ( Scott, 2017 ).

Although the evidence supports the impact of classroom management on student outcomes, research also indicates that many teachers struggle to implement successful classroom management. For example, teachers indicate that they consider classroom management to be the most challenging aspect of their job ( Barrett & Davis, 1993 ; Reinke et al., 2011 ), that they receive very little training in classroom management ( Freeman et al., 2014 ; Oliver & Reschly, 2010 ), and that many exiting the teaching profession within their first five years indicate that classroom management is their primary reason for leaving ( Wei et al., 2010 ). In addition, direct observation research has found, based on more than 3,000 teacher observations, that most teachers do not demonstrate the skills necessary to effectively manage their classrooms ( Scott et al., 2011 ).

Limited training and demonstration of evidence-based skills in classroom management is germane for all students, but particularly for students with, or at-risk for, emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBDs). Research has established that students exhibiting elevated levels of behavioral problems in the classroom are regularly excluded from classroom instruction, either by being sent to the office ( Sugai et al., 2000 ) or being placed in restrictive settings ( McLeskey et al., 2012 ), and that they continue to fall further behind their peers academically. This issue has been noted as a major concern by the U.S. government. In July of 2015, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice hosted superintendents, principals, and teachers from across the country to a day-long “Rethink Discipline” conference focusing on the reduction of the well-documented overuse of school suspension and expulsion ( http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/educators-gather-white-house-rethink-school-discipline ). Research suggests that the first step to reducing suspensions and increasing access to classroom instruction for students with EBDs is universal implementation of high-quality, evidence-based classroom management (Evans et al., 2013). Further, high-quality, effective classroom management has been noted as a core component for establishing a multitiered Interconnected Systems Framework (ISF; Barrett et al., 2013 ), a model for integrating positive behavior supports and mental health interventions to significantly improve outcomes for students with EBDs.

A handful of systematic reviews of the literature has identified a number of classroom management skills (CMS) that have sufficient evidence to support their effectiveness. These skills include antecedent-based, instruction-based, and consequence-based skills ( Conroy et al., 2013 ; Oliver et al., 2011 ; Scott & Anderson, 2011 ; Simonsen et al., 2008 ). Simonsen and colleagues (2008) identified 20 classroom management skills that have evidence of effectiveness and aggregated them into five domains that: (1) maximize structure and predictability; (2) post, teach, review, monitor, and reinforce expectations; (3) actively engage students in observable ways; (4) use a continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior; and (5) use a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior. Lewis and colleagues (2004) identified evidence-based classroom management skills that directly affect students with, or at-risk for, EBDs, including (1) teacher praise, (2) high rates of teacher-directed opportunities to respond during instruction, and (3) clear instructional strategies (i.e., direct instruction). Across all of these (see Conroy et al., 2013 for a review), three classroom management skills were consistently noted:

• Individual and group teacher-directed opportunities to respond (TD-OTR);
• Praise and behavior-specific praise (BSP); and
• Prompting for expectations, including pre-corrections.

Although these three skills do not encompass all classroom management skills, they have an ever-growing evidence base. It is also worth noting that these skills are typically incorporated into most evidence-based classroom management interventions and programs, including the Good Behavior Game ( Barrish et al., 1969 ), the Responsive Classroom ( https://www.responsiveclassroom.org ), BEST in CLASS ( Vo et al., 2012 ), and the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management ( Reinke et al., 2014 ).

Study Purpose

Although evidence-based classroom management skills have been delineated in the literature, the most salient among them have not been identified. Certainly all three should be in place to effectively manage classroom behavior, but identification of the most effective classroom management skills can inform professional development efforts targeting single classroom management skills to increase the likelihood that they are implemented at a priori determined levels with fidelity ( Gage et al., 2016 ). This study therefore examines direct observation data of teachers’ implementation of classroom management skills across 25 consecutive school days. Specific research questions asked were:

• What classroom management skills significantly predict student engagement during large group instruction?
• What classroom management skills significantly predict student disruptive behavior during large group instruction?

Study Setting and Sample

We recruited 12 elementary school teachers from two elementary schools in the southeastern United States. One school was a university laboratory school serving students in grades K-12 in which approximately 80% of those students performed at or above state benchmarks in reading and math. The second school was a Title I elementary school (K-5), in which 84% of the students received free or reduced lunch, 70% of the students were black, and fewer than 40% of the students were at or above state benchmarks for reading and math. The teachers at the university lab school requested classroom management assistance from the second author of this article, and the assistant principal at the Title I elementary school reached out to the first author for classroom management professional development.

Eight of the 12 teachers taught kindergarten or first grade; two taught third grade; one taught second grade; and one teacher taught fifth grade. All but one teacher was Caucasian and the average years of experience were 5.5 years (range 1:17 years). Eight of the 12 teachers had a master’s degree in education; one teacher was dual certified to teach special and general education. Most (54%) reported receiving classroom management training during their preservice coursework.

We randomly observed three different students during each observation to capture an estimate of overall class-wide performance. Data collectors were instructed to choose three students at random at the beginning of each observation and to exclude students who had been observed during the previous observation. The data collectors would observe the teacher and the first student for the first five minutes of the observation, followed by the second student and the third. No student-level characteristics were collected. Overall, we collected 195 observations of teachers and students.

Study Measures

Teacher behaviors.

We collected frequency data on teachers’ use of the three classroom management skills identified across the classroom management literature reviews. The operational definitions for individual and group TD-OTR, BSP, and prompting for expectations are provided in Table 1 . Operational definitions were congruent with those used in two large-scale direct observation studies of teachers’ class management behavior ( Kern et al., 2015 ; Scott et al., 2011 ).

Operational Definitions of Classroom Management Skills

Student Behaviors

In addition to collecting teacher data, we noted the duration of time that students were academically engaged and the frequency of disruptions during each observation. Academic engagement was defined as follows:

Target student is engaged with instructional content via choral response, raising hand, responding to teacher instruction, writing, reading, or otherwise actively completing an assigned task (e.g., typing on computer, manipulating assigned materials) or the student is passively attending to instruction by orientation to teacher, peer, or materials if appropriate but is not required to do anything other than listening or observing.

Disruptions were defined as follows:

Student displays behavior that does or potentially could interrupt the lesson in such a way that it distracts the teacher and/or other students (e.g., out of seat, makes noises, talks to peer, makes loud comments, and makes derogatory comments). Behaviors can range from low intensity (distracting another student by whispering something to him/her) to high intensity (making threatening statements or destroying property).

Study Procedures

Following institutional review board approval, we invited all kindergarten and first-grade teachers at the university lab school and five teachers requesting classroom management professional development at the Title I school to participate in the research study during a faculty meeting. All teachers invited consented to participate by completing and returning a written consent form after the meeting. The teachers were informed that a trained data collector would observe their instruction daily for up to three months in order to validate the direct observation system and that, based on their data and need, professional development would be provided in the fall.

Direct Observation Procedures

We collected 15-minute direct observations of each teacher during large group instruction, defined as the teacher leading direct instruction for all students in a class at the same time. Each teacher was asked to identify a 20-minute time period when she consistently provided large group instruction in either reading or mathematics. A trained graduate research assistant or hired hourly data collector (undergraduate or graduate student) would stand near the rear of the classroom and quietly observe the teacher without distracting from instruction. Data collectors used Dragon Touch I8 8” Quad Core Windows Tablet PCs loaded with the Lily data collection application, part of the Multi-Option Observation System for Experimental Studies (MOOSES; Tapp et al., 1995). MOOSES is a direct observation system for collecting real-time event recordings of teacher and student behaviors on either a frequency or duration scale. All data collectors received a two-hour group didactic training and conducted periodic observer drift checks to ensure the accuracy of the observations.

Inter-Observer Agreement Procedures

We collected inter-observer agreement (IOA) data for 52% of all observations. The two observers stood near each other but did not talk or interact during the observation except to start the observation at the exact same time. Inter-observer agreement was calculated in MOOSES using the point-by-point method with a three-second window. Across all classroom management skills and student behaviors, the average IOA was 90.1% (range from 82% to 97%).

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, we first summed the individual and group TD-OTR frequencies together for each observation so that we had a total number of TD-OTRs per observation. Next, we divided all four classroom management skill values by the number of minutes the teacher was observed (i.e., 15 minutes) so that the scale of each variable was rate per minute. We followed the same procedure to calculate the rate of disruptive behavior per minute. To address the two research questions, we estimated a series of three-level random-effects models—also known as hierarchical linear models (HLMs; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002)—to evaluate the relationship between teachers’ rates of classroom management skills and student behavior. We used three-level models to estimate student behavior nested in time (repeated observations) nested in teacher. First, we estimated a fully unconditional (null) model to calculate the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for time and teacher. The ICC is the percentage of variance in student behavior attributable to time and to teacher. Next, we modeled full models with teachers’ classroom management skills predicting students’ percentage of time academically engaged and their rate of disruptive behavior. All analyses were conducted in the lmer4 package ( Bates et al., 2015 ) in R ( R Core Team, 2013 ) and estimated using restricted maximum likelihood (REML).

Study Results

Descriptive statistics.

Prior to modeling, we examined the descriptive statistics for the full sample and for each teacher across all classroom management skills and student behaviors (see Table 1 ). The average rate of TD-OTR was approximately 2 per minute during large group instruction. Although the full sample average was close to recommended TD-OTR rates (i.e., about 3 per minute during large group direct instruction; MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015 ), there was considerable variability among teachers, with a range of average rates between 0.76 per minute and 5.12 per minute. The average rate of BSP per minute was 0.44, whereby teachers delivered approximately 6 BSP statements per 15-minute observation. Again, there was significant variability among teachers, evidenced by the standard deviation value greater than the sample average. Lastly, the average rate of prompting for expectations, including pre-corrections, was 0.22, or about 3 per 15-minute observation.

Across all observations and teachers, students were academically engaged 80% of the time. Similar to the teacher classroom management skills, there were large differences between teachers in the average percentage of time students were academically engaged. Two teachers’ students were academically engaged, on average, 68% of the time, while one teacher’s students were academically engaged only 48% of the time. Disruptive behavior was not frequent, with an average of just under two disruptions per observation per teacher. A few teachers had almost no disruptions, although one teacher had an average of almost six disruptions per observation.

Three-Level Random-Effects Models

We estimated four three-level random-effects models, two for each student behavior, to identify the most salient classroom management skills. The ICC results for the academic engagement model suggest that only 2% of the variance was attributable to time, indicating that there was very little variability across time. However, 30% of the variability was within teacher within time, suggesting that there was some variability by time and teacher, supporting the use of the three-level model. The ICC results for rates of disruptive behavior were the same for time, but much smaller for teacher (ICC = 0.13), indicating that the rate of disruptive behavior was consistent within time and within time by teacher.

Next, we estimated fully conditional models to identify the most salient of the three evidence-based classroom management skills. The average percentage of time a student was academically engaged, assuming the three classroom management skills were zero, was 76%. Of the three classroom management skills included in the models, only BSP was statistically significant and positive, suggesting that increased use of BSP had a corresponding positive impact on student engagement. Results for students’ rates of disruptive behavior were similar, with an average rate of 0.13 disruptions, assuming the three classroom management skills were at zero. Again, BSP was the only significant predictor, with a negative coefficient indicating that more BSP was predictive of fewer student disruptions.

Study Findings

Classroom management is a critical component of effective instruction and a prerequisite for classrooms hoping to successfully include students with, or at-risk for, EBDs. Classroom management is also a foundational and critical component of effective multitiered school behavior models, including school-wide positive behavior support and the ISF ( Barrett et al., 2013 ). Without classroom management, implementation of evidence-based behavioral and mental health interventions for students with EBDs is less likely to be successful or to generalize to their general education classrooms. Although myriad classroom management skills and practices have been developed, researched, and reviewed, three skills have been identified as evidence-based and are typically included in most classroom management interventions and programs: (1) teacher-directed opportunities to respond (TD-OTR); (2) behavior-specific praise (BSP); and (3) prompting for behavioral expectations, including pre-corrections. This study has sought to identify which of these three classroom management skills was most salient so as to inform both practice and professional development models about which skill to focus on first. Essentially, our goal was to determine which of the three is the most effective at increasing appropriate classroom behavior during large group instruction. Results from both the academic engagement and rate of disruptive behavior models suggest that BSP was the only classroom management skill that significantly predicted positive student behavior.

Based on the descriptive statistics, the sample of teachers in this study appeared to implement the three classroom management skills at rates greater than those in other studies. For example, Scott, Alter, and Hirn (2011) found that teachers delivered less than one TD-OTR per minute and that their rates of positive feedback were less than 0.1 per minute. In fact, the teachers in this study implemented both TD-OTR and BSP at rates near those recommended in the literature, i.e., 3 TD-OTR per minute during direct instruction ( MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015 ) and approximately 6 BSP statements per 15-minute observation ( Simonsen et al., 2016 ). However, there was significant variability across the teachers, particularly between the two schools. Teachers in the university lab school had an average TD-OTR rate of 2.4 per minute, and the teachers at the Title I schools had an average TD-OTR rate of 1.2 per minute. Results were similar for BSP, with an average of 7.5 BSP statements per 15-minute observation at the university lab school compared with 4.7 BSP statements per 15-minute observation at the Title I school. Yet, the average rates of classroom management skills in the Title I school were still much larger than those found by Scott and colleagues (2011) .

Results of this study indicate that BSP was the only significant predictor of student performance after controlling for the other classroom management skills. This finding does not indicate that increased TD-OTR and prompting for expectations, including pre-corrections, are not important. Other research has confirmed that each classroom management skill has a positive effect on student classroom behavior (see MacSuga-Gage & Gage, 2015 ). However, the results do suggest that, for the students in this study, BSP appeared to have a positive and statistically significant effect that was greater than that of the other classroom management skills. Therefore, when teachers are considering which classroom management skills they should focus on increasing, BSP is an ideal choice.

Similarly, a recent professional development model using a multitiered system of professional development (MTS-PD) has been developed, which focuses on teaching teachers to implement a single classroom management skill to an a priori level before teaching another classroom management skill. Prior research using the MTS-PD has focused on both TD-OTR ( MacSuga-Gage, 2013 ) and BSP ( Gage et al., 2016 ; Simonsen et al., 2016 ). The findings of this study suggest that starting with BSP may be the best approach to increase teacher buy-in because teachers may see greater increases in engagement and decreases in disruptive behavior as a result of increased BSP.

Study Limitations

Although all efforts were made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of study results, a number of limitations should be mentioned. First, the study does not include all potential classroom management skills identified in the literature. Based on prior reviews, we included TD-OTR, BSP, and prompting for expectations, because they appeared to be the most common and widely researched. However, other relevant skills include error correction, general praise, decreases in negative feedback, high structure, and posting behavioral expectations, as well as behavior intervention systems, including token economies and self-management systems. Therefore, future research should evaluate the relative influence of BSP when other classroom management skills and programs are present.

Second, the authors did not follow individual students across the observations or target students with EBDs. The measured student behaviors represent the classroom average using three five-minute observations of random students per observation. Future research should examine the influence of evidence-based classroom management skills on students with EBDs. We believe implementation of high-quality classroom management is a prerequisite to increase the likelihood that students with EBDs can remain in the general education classroom, but we also know that classroom management alone may not be enough and that additional function-based interventions will be necessary for those students to remain in the classroom. We believe that a continuum of classroom management, function-based interventions, and mental health services leveraging the ISF framework ( Barrett et al., 2013 ) may be the most effective approach to ensure that students with EBDs remain in the general education classrooms.

Last, our statistical models were limited by sample size and inclusion of student and teacher characteristics. Future research should leverage larger samples and include both teacher and student characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, years of experience, and other related variables to increase the precision and accuracy of the model parameters.

Implementation of high-quality, evidence-based classroom management is critical for the success of all students, but particularly for students with EBDs. We sought to identify the most salient single classroom management skill in order to inform practice and professional development models as to which classroom management skill to target first. Our results suggest that BSP may be the most effective classroom management skill to increase engagement and decrease disruptive behavior. That being said, there is no doubt that BSP alone cannot and will not change all students’ behavior in the classroom. Instead, BSP can be used as a first target for improving classroom management and for, ideally, increasing the likelihood that all students, and particularly students with EBDs, will be engaged with instruction.

Descriptive Statistics for the Full Sample and for Each Teacher

Three-Level Random Effects Model of Teacher Classroom Management Skills Predicting Student Behavior

Notes: Significant estimates are in boldface, with p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**, and p < 0.001***; 195 observations, 25 time points, 12 teachers.

Contributor Information

Nicholas A. Gage, Assistant professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida, in Gainesville.

Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage, Clinical assistant professor of special education at the University of Florida and serves as the Special Education Program Area leader for the college’s School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies.

• Barrett ER, Davis S. Perceptions of beginning teachers’ needs in classroom management. Teacher Education & Practice. 1993; 11 :22–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett S, Eber L, Weist MD. Advancing Education Effectiveness: Interconnecting School Mental Health and School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Eugene, OR: Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education). University of Oregon Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrish H, Saunders M, Wolf M. Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1969; 2 :119–124. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. 2015; 67 :1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy MA, Alter PJ, Sutherland KS. Classroom-based research in the field of EBD: Future research directions. In: Garner P, editor. Handbook of Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. London: Sage; 2013. pp. 465–477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evertson CM, Weinstein CS. Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman J, Simonson B, Briere DE, MacSuga-Gage AS. Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2014; 37 :106–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gage NA, MacSuga-Gage AS, Crews E. Increasing teachers’ use of behavior-specific praise using a multi-tiered system for professional development. 2016 Manuscript submitted for publication. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kern L, Evans SW, Lewis TJ, State TM, Weist MD, Wills H. CARS comprehensive intervention for secondary students with emotional and behavioral problems: Conceptualization and development. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2015; 23 (4):195–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacSuga-Gage AS. PhD diss. University of Connecticut; 2013. Supporting teachers’ professional development: Investigating the impact of a targeted intervention on teachers’ presentation of opportunities to respond. Available at http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6267&context=dissertations . [ Google Scholar ]
• MacSuga-Gage AS, Gage NA. Student-level effects of increased teacher-directed opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2015; 24 :273–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacSuga-Gage AS, Simonsen B. Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children. 2015; 38 :211–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzano RJ, Marzano JS, Pickering DJ. Classroom Management That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Every Teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeskey J, Landers E, Williamson P, Hoppey D. Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive environments. Journal of Special Education. 2012; 46 :131–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver RM, Reschly DJ. Teacher preparation in classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders. 2010; 35 :188–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver RM, Wehby J, Reschly DJ. Teacher Classroom Management Practices: Effects on Disruptive or Aggressive Student Behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2011; 2011 :4. [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available at http://www.R-project.org/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinke WM, Stormont M, Herman KC, Puri R, Goel N. Supporting children’s mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly. 2011; 26 :1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinke WM, Stormont M, Herman KC, Wang Z, Newcomer L, King K. Use of coaching and behavior support planning for students with disruptive behavior within a universal classroom management program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2014; 22 :74–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott TM. Teaching Behavior: Managing Classrooms through Effective Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott TM, Alter PJ, Hirn R. An examination of typical classroom context and instruction for students with and without behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children. 2011; 34 :619–642. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott TM, Anderson CM. Managing Classroom Behavior Using Positive Behavior Supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonsen B, Fairbanks S, Briesch A, Myers D, Sugai G. Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children. 2008; 31 :351–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonsen B, Freeman J, Dooley K, Maddock E, Kern L, Meyers D. Effects of targeted professional development on teachers’ specific praise rates. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Published online March. 2016; 14 :2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stronge JH, Ward TJ, Grant LW. What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education. 2011; 62 :339–355. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugai G, Sprague JR, Horner RH, Walker HM. Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000; 8 :94–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vo AK, Sutherland KS, Conroy MA. Best in class: A classroom-based model for ameliorating problem behavior in early childhood settings. Psychology in the Schools. 2012; 49 :402–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wei RC, Darling-Hammond L, Adamson F. Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Classroom management and teacher effectiveness.

• Konstantina Koutrouba Konstantina Koutrouba Harokopio University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.692
• Published online: 29 May 2020

Given the fact that the concept of “classroom management” and its connotations as well as its relation to effective teaching, despite decades of world-wide research, remain rather undefined, or, at least, not fully described, different educational systems and teachers around the world try hard to develop a wide variety of classroom management theories and strategies, since they obviously consider it as being significantly related to effective teaching. Effective classroom management reflects teachers’ multifaceted high-ranked ability to, inter alia, establish and maintain within their classrooms acceptable rules of productive teacher-to-student and student-to-student communication, to motivate students to work cooperatively, and to fruitfully implement best teaching strategies according to their students’ individualized learning needs. Moreover, it presupposes teachers’ ability to create a learning context where students’ disruptive attitudes are prevented or addressed and misbehavior is reduced while positive expected learning outcomes are achieved, and the students’ cognitive, social and affective development is continuously facilitated and sustained. Finally, it is based on teachers’ ability to set clearly defined and agreed—between teacher and students—codes of communication, to produce measurable learning outcomes that fulfill students’ and their parents’ expectations, and to take full advantage of their students’ features, classroom features, and local space features in order to develop their own professional features. It is, thus, evident why successful classroom management is considered by teachers, parents, students, and researchers to be tightly linked to teachers’ professional competence and effectiveness.

Moreover, teachers who successfully implement classroom management are reported to create in time a regulatory framework for communication within the classroom through the establishment and adoption of rules and consequences. They also tend to safeguard the quality of communication with their students, and to develop their professional authority profile. They succeed in that by strengthening their willingness to meet students’ learning requirements, needs, and interests, by using effectively verbal and non-verbal communication to encourage learning and, above all, by controlling and managing their institutionalized power.

International research over the past years has shown that the implementation of learner-centered innovative teaching strategies on the basis of flexible differentiated teaching focused on students’ personal values, abilities and potential, the establishment of student-to-student shared responsibility and of a student-to-teacher commitment contract, the development of a dynamic interplay between students during group work, the respect for diversity, and the reinforcing of students’ self-regulation all highly contribute to the creation of a fruitful in-class learning environment. In such an environment students feel secure and accepted, teachers manage the classroom successfully and are considered to be competent and effective professionals.

• classroom management
• teacher effectiveness
• divergent behaviors
• teacher–student communication

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

Effective Classroom Management

• International Education Studies 5(Vol. 5, No. 5):35-42
• 5(Vol. 5, No. 5):35-42

• Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Siti Safura
• Cut Mawar Helmanda
• Annabelle T Villeza
• Maria Pura C Rayton

• Novie John B. Palarisan
• Concepcion M. Domag
• Warih Handayaningrum
• Trisakti Trisakti
• Jajuk Dwi Sasanadjati
• Twin Dyah Martiana

• Bashir ELbashir

• Chalermpon Kongjit

• Halszka Jarodszka
• Hadi Harianto

• Int J Educ Res

• Henry Adams
• Sharan B. Merriam
• THEOR PRACT

• TEACH TEACH EDUC
• Levi McNeil
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up