CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
1
Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs about the Effectiveness of Classroom Management Practices
Purpose
Effective instructional practices are a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for literacy
learning. Classroom management (CM) also serves an important supporting role (Pressley et al.,
2001; Roehrig et al., 2008; Roehrig et al., 2012). Although CM is an important component of
teaching, many novice and preservice teachers (PTs) view CM as one of the most problematic
areas of teaching (Giallo & Little, 2003; Hertzog, 2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003). Smart and
Igo (2010) found that teachers could effectively manage mild misbehaving but not more severe
behavior, and they suggested that this stems from a lack of CM training. Given that CM is a
common concern of beginning teachers (Fuller, 1969), it is important to explore what PTs
believe are effective CM practices. The purpose of this study was to develop a survey of
teachers’ beliefs about the effectiveness of CM practices and examine PTs’ beliefs about CM.
Initial steps were taken to establish the reliability and validity of the factor structure, as well as to
describe the beliefs of the PT sample. We also were interested in whether their beliefs aligned
with established effective CM practices.
Theoretical Framework/Perspectives
Effective CM is a multidimensional construct. Martin and Baldwin (1993) proposed that
effective CM involved three components. The person dimension included teacher beliefs about
students and the classroom climate. The instruction dimension included teacher behaviors such
as development of routines for students and physical arrangement of the classroom, and the
discipline dimension referred to establishing and enforcing rules for student behaviors. Effective
CM includes teacher behaviors that are both proactive and reactive. Proactive strategies involve
teacher forethought that Evertson and Poole (2008) categorized as a) “actions teachers take
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
2
before the students’ arrival”, b) “interactions teachers plan once students arrive”, and c)
“reactions teachers prepare for when students misbehave” (p.132). In this view, even reactive
behaviors may be considered proactive if the teacher planned for them in advance, for instance
by accounting for them in classroom rules.
Several models of teacher effectiveness include CM as a major component. For example,
Roehrig et al. (2012) situated CM within a model including instruction and positive atmosphere.
They defined dimensions of effective teaching in areas where the three components overlapped.
The dimension of planning and delivering instruction (i.e., CM and instruction) included
practices like individualizing student instruction based on assessment data, and building context
into activities to increase student engagement. Developing caring classroom communities (CM
and classroom atmosphere) included teacher management strategies emphasizing monitoring of
student behavior instead of punishing students.
There is a substantial body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of different
practices or programs for reducing problem behaviors in children (e.g., Bear, 1998; Doyle, 1992;
Evertson, Emmer, & Worsham 2006; Good & Brophy, 2003). The What Works Clearinghouse
published a practice guide--a research synthesis for a practitioner audience--about reducing
behavior problems in elementary schools (Epstein, Atkins, Cullinan, Kutash, & Weaver, 2008).
By their standards, strong evidence allows generalizable causal inferences about the
effectiveness of interventions for the reduction of negative behavioral outcomes, whereas
moderate evidence either supports causal inferences, but lacks generalizability, or vice versa.
Their recommendations and evidence ratings appear in Table 1.
Recommendations for individual teachers include clearly describing problem behaviors
and analyzing the environmental context in order to identify behavioral antecedents, actively
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
3
changing the learning environment, and teaching new skills to increase positive behaviors and
maintain a positive classroom climate (Epstein et al., 2008). Other recommendations required
collaboration between teachers and others, such as utilizing relationships with colleagues and
students' families to address behavior problems, or diagnosing schoolwide behavior problems in
order to enact strategies at the school level. For our survey we focused on practices teachers
might implement in their classrooms.
Previous research on teacher beliefs about CM focused on self-efficacy. According to
Bandura (1982), “perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of how well one can
execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (p. 122). For teachers, this
concept relates to how well they believe they can handle various situations within a school
context. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) found that PTs perceived themselves as equally
proficient in preventative and initial corrective strategies, but favored initial corrective strategies
over preventative, reward and later corrective strategies. PTs often have high self-efficacy beliefs
during training that decline after their first year of teaching (Hoy & Spero, 2005), suggesting that
self-efficacy beliefs are not always indicative of performance. Given that teachers are likely to
use strategies aligned with their self-reported beliefs (Clunies-Ross, Little & Kienhuis, 2008), we
chose to examine more general beliefs about CM practices rather than beliefs about participants’
own practices or self-efficacy.
Methods
The survey was developed to comprehensively represent various theoretical and cultural
perspectives on CM, regardless of empirical support for practices. The six management styles
conceptually represented in the full measure were reward, preventative,
punishment/consequence, threat/fear, do nothing, and revengeful. PTs were asked to rate the
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
4
effectiveness of 96 CM strategies on a five point Likert scale (1=very ineffective, 2=somewhat
ineffective, 3=neither ineffective nor effective, 4=somewhat effective, and 5=very effective).
The survey was designed with an awareness that self-reports of socially undesirable activities,
such as negative CM strategies, are prone to social desirability bias (SDB; Fisher & Dubé, 2005;
Miller, 2011; Silvera, Cronley & Neeley, 2007). SDB is defined as the tendency for respondents
to over-report positive beliefs or behaviors and under-report negative ones (Silvera et al., 2007).
Indirect questioning can reduce SDB by asking participants to think of situations in general,
rather than how they apply to the participant (Fisher, 1993; Myung-Soo, 2000; Silvera et al.,
2007). We aimed to discover PTs’ beliefs about CM practices by asking them to rate how
effective they think the practices are, thus removing the personal element that gives rise to SDB.
Open-ended demographic responses (e.g., intended teacher certification) were double
coded by independent raters and compared for accuracy; six cases of disagreement were
identified and subsequently resolved. Following the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) described
in the results, the remaining items were coded with respect to the IES/WWC recommendations
for effective management practices (see Table 1; Epstein et al., 2008).
Data Sources
Our participants included 356 PTs (49 males, 307 females; 93% ages 18-25), who
completed the anonymous survey online (through a subject pool) for course credit in teacher
education courses at a large southeastern university. The full U.S. PT data set was used to run an
EFA; however, our subsequent analyses and interpretations are from a subsample of 135
secondary English or elementary PTs (14 males, 121 females; M age=18 to 25 years; SD=.435).
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
5
Results
An EFA was conducted with 356 PT responses, and all assumptions were met (including
KMO=.943). When eigenvalue loadings were greater than 3.0, two factors emerged. We then
removed items with loadings less than .30 or that cross-loaded (see Tables 2 and 3 for remaining
items). Sixty items loaded onto Factor 1, which included items with both positive and negative
loadings. The 36 positive loading items contained negative wording and were reverse coded to
make scores interpretable. Factor 1 represents classroom climate strategies, whereas Factor 2
represents behavior management strategies (please see Table 4 for Cronbach results).
For the LRA conference we focused on the results of PTs focused on literacy instruction.
The results the full sample, and the sub-sample of PT secondary English and elementary teachers
(by gender and subject) are presented in Table 4. The PTs’ Factor 1 ratings suggest that they
believe classroom climate strategies are effective for managing student behavior. Their Factor 2
ratings suggest that they are uncertain whether the behavior management strategies are even
somewhat effective. For example they thought the reward items were somewhat effective, while
they were uncertain about the effectiveness of the punishment/consequences items.
It is important to note that punishment is not a universally negative technique and
sometimes must be used to remove negative behavior (Little & Atkin-Little, 2008). Little and
Atkin-Litle (2008) give general criteria for effective punishment: punishments should be selected
beforehand and punishment should not be too severe. The general uncertainty of PTs regarding
Punishment/Consequences items may reflect this nuanced nature of effective punishment.
When coding how items corresponded to IES/WWC recommendations, we did not code
items that represented ineffective practices, such as extreme punitive practices. There were 24
effective practices in Factor 1 and 17 effective practices in Factor 2. All of these practices
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
6
corresponded to recommendations from IES/WWC, with the majority of the practices
corresponding to the second and third recommendations.
Interest/Connection to Audience
As we continue to work toward enhancing the quality of the literacy instruction students
receive, we should consider various factors that may contribute to higher literacy rates, such as
CM. Our study gives voice to PTs regarding their beliefs about effective CM. Overall, PTs
perceived practices related to classroom climate as effective and were less certain about behavior
management strategies. Given their beliefs we think that these PTs may be in a strong position to
create environments conducive to literacy learning.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
7
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bear, G. G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction, and long-term
social development. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 14-32.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and
reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and
student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-710. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410802206700
Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
curriculum (pp. 486–516). New York: Macmillan.
Epstein, M., Atkins, M., Cullinan, D., Kutash, K., & Weaver, R. (2008). Reducing behavior
problems in the elementary school classroom: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-012).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
Evertson, C., Emmer, E., & Worsham, M. (2006). Classroom management for elementary
teachers (7th Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Evertson, C. M., & Poole, I. R. (2008, April). Proactive classroom management. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
8
Fisher, R. J., & Dubé, L. (2005). Gender differences in responses to emotional advertising: A
social desirability perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 850-858. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/426621
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental characterization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The relationship between
preparedness, classroom experiences, and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers.
Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-34.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th edition). Boston: Allyn
Hertzog, H.S. (2002). “When, how, and who do I ask for help?” Novices’ perceptions of
problems and assistance. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29 (3), 25-41.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343356.
Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehard,
and Winston, Inc.
Martin, N.K., & Baldwin, B. (1993, April). Validation of an inventory of classroom management
style: Differences between novice and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Meister, D. G., & Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher study: Beginning teachers'
concerns. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 87-94.
Miller, A. L. (2012). Investigating social desirability bias in student self-report surveys.
Educational Research Quarterly, 36(1), 30-47.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
9
Myung-Soo, J. (2000). Controlling social-desirability bias via method factors of indirect
questioning in structural equation models. Psychology & Marketing, 17 (2), 137-148.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., . . .
Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5(1), 35-58.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: Pre-service teachers' use,
confidence and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(6), 1261-1268. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.003
Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008). When teachers
work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(6), 364-382. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932507314021
Roehrig, A. D., Pressley, M., & Sloup, M. (2001). Reading strategy instruction in regular
primary-level classrooms by teachers trained in reading recovery. Reading & Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 17(4), 323-348. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105735601317095061
Roehrig, A. D., Turner, J. E., Arrastia, M., Christesen, E., McElhaney, S., & Jakiel, L. (2012).
Effective teachers and teaching: Characteristics and practices related to student outcomes.
In T. Urdan, S. Graham, M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Educational psychology
handbook, Volume 2: Individual differences, cultural variations, and contextual factors
in educational psychology (pp. 501-527). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Silvera, D.H., Cronley M.L., & Neeley, S.M. (2007). When describing others tells us about
ourselves: Indirect questioning as a method for identifying social desirability bias. Paper
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
10
presented at The La Londe Conference in Marketing Communications and Consumer
Behavior, La Londe les Maures, France.
Smart, J. B., & Igo, L. B. (2010). A grounded theory of behavior management strategy selection,
implementation, and perceived effectiveness reported by first-year elementary teachers.
The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 567-584. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651196
Wolfgang, C. H., & Glickman, C. D. (1986). Solving discipline problems: Strategies for
classroom teachers (Second edition). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
11
Table 1
What Works Clearinghouse Recommendations for Reducing Problem Behaviors and Accompanying Evidence
Recommendation
1. "Identify the specifics of the problem behavior and the
conditions that prompt and reinforce it."
2. "Modify the classroom learning environment to
decrease problem behavior."
Evidence
Moderate*
Strong
Selected Practices
 clearly describe the problem
behavior and possible antecedents
 record the frequency of the behavior
 investigate potential antecedents of
the behavior



3. "Teach and reinforce new skills to increase
appropriate behavior and preserve a positive classroom
climate."
Strong



4. "Draw on relationships with professional colleagues
and students’ families for continued guidance and
support."
Moderate



5. "Assess whether school wide behavior problems
warrant adopting school wide strategies or programs and,
if so, implement ones shown to reduce negative and
foster positive interactions."
Moderate

teach rules and classroom routines to
create a positive classroom
environment,
reinforce appropriate behaviors
introduce new instructional material
by modeling and giving students
opportunities to practice
identify individual student needs for
explicit instruction in desired
behavior
teach using examples, opportunities
for practice, and feedback
reinforce positive behavior with
consequences and avoid rewarding
consequences of negative behavior
(i.e., attention)
work with teacher peers in school
create partnerships with personnel
from different community levels:
school, district, behavior experts
(counselors)
elicit participation from parents or
other family members in order to
increase desired behaviors
use a school wide team to address
behavior problems at the school
level
 collect data on the frequency,
location and duration of major
problem behaviors
 once an intervention has been
implemented, continue using data
collection to monitor changes in
behavior
Note. Moderate evidence=high internal validity OR high external validity across studies; Strong evidence=high
internal validity AND high external validity across studies; *Evidence mostly comes from single-subject studies of
students diagnosed with emotional and behavioral disorders. (Adapted from Epstein et al., 2009, p. 6-7.)
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
12
Table 2
Factor 1(Classroom Climate) Items, Categories, and Loadings
Item Wording
Involving students in the development of classroom rules
Identifying unwanted behaviors
Having high expectations for students’ success
Explaining the logical consequences of misbehaving
Managing transitions between objectives/subjects
efficiently
Making decisions about the best seating arrangement in
the classroom
Explaining the rules to students
Managing lessons efficiently
Enforcing rules consistently
Monitoring students' behavior
Demonstrating desirable classroom behaviors
Displaying classroom rules
Establishing lines of communication with parents
Treating students fairly
Maintaining students’ motivation during the lesson
Making sure students understand the contents of each
lesson
Giving students clear instructions
Clearly communicating expectations
Being honest with students
Promoting positive attitudes about the school
Establishing caring relationships with students
Creating a warm classroom environment
Providing unexpected reinforcement (e.g., rewards,
praise) for positive behavior
Thanking students with other students present when they
behave well
Allowing misbehavior so students can deal with the
consequences
Using physical/corporal punishment to discipline
students
Expelling students from school
Mocking students who misbehave
Falsely accusing students to get back at them
Category
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Loading
-0.368
-0.392
-0.427
-0.472
-0.518
Preventive
-0.552
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
-0.564
-0.575
-0.579
-0.585
-0.62
-0.621
-0.624
-0.635
-0.638
-0.649
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Preventive
Reward
-0.659
-0.661
-0.669
-0.676
-0.677
-0.707
-0.328
Reward
-0.349
Punishment/Consequences
0.501
Punishment/Consequences
0.456
Punishment/Consequences
Revengeful
Revengeful
0.333
0.798
0.791
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
Bullying the student who misbehaves
Being emotionally unpredictable (e.g., moody)
Showing aggressive behaviors towards students
Allowing misbehaving students to be bullied
Humiliating a misbehaving student while other students
are present
Using anger to control misbehavior
Giving unwanted nicknames to students who misbehave
Nitpicking students’ behaviors
Implementing discipline rules in an unfair manner
Showing no empathy for the problems of misbehaving
students
Insisting on being right regardless
Telling students their misbehavior is related to their
character
Holding back affection from students who misbehave
Taking into account misbehaviors of students while
grading
Seating the misbehaving student next to someone he/she
does not like
Intimidating students by using emotional abuse in the
classroom
Intimidating students by using physical abuse in the
classroom
Threatening a student who misbehaves with violent
epithet (e.g.,“I will break your neck/head”)
Belittling a student who shows unwanted behaviors
Telling students they are lazy, sloppy, thoughtless, etc.
Threatening to use physical/corporal punishment when
students misbehave
Using sarcastic language toward students when they
misbehave
Shouting at students when they misbehave
Not having rules for students
Not discussing students’ disruptive behaviors with them
Discounting students’ feelings
Tolerating disorder in the classroom
Ignoring disagreements between students in the
classroom
Avoiding discussion with students about classroom
13
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
0.786
0.784
0.741
0.717
0.709
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
Revengeful
0.703
0.687
0.643
0.638
0.632
Revengeful
Revengeful
0.566
0.512
Revengeful
Revengeful
0.472
0.392
Revengeful
0.38
Threat/Fear
0.785
Threat/Fear
0.769
Threat/Fear
0.736
Threat/Fear
Threat/Fear
Threat/Fear
0.729
0.692
0.668
Threat/Fear
0.64
Threat/Fear
Do Nothing
Do Nothing
Do Nothing
Do Nothing
Do Nothing
0.617
0.725
0.673
0.633
0.604
0.588
Do Nothing
0.53
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
discipline
Not contacting the parents of repeatedly disruptive
Do Nothing
students
Ignoring students who misbehave
Do Nothing
Note. All (36) positive loading items were reverse coded.
14
0.454
0.302
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
15
Table 3
Factor 2 (Behavior Management) Items, Categories, and Loadings
Item Wording
Using an individual behavior modification system
involving rewards
Rewarding approximations of desired behaviors (i.e.,
each time a student gets closer to the desired
behavior)
Providing predictable reinforcement (e.g., rewards,
praise) for positive behavior
Category
Reward
Loading
0.446
Reward
0.407
Reward
0.399
Providing frequent reinforcement (e.g., rewards, praise)
for positive behavior
Reward
0.372
Using a reward system based on whole class behavior
Reward
0.361
Giving students rewards for ending bad behavior
Threatening to report misbehaving students to their
parents
Sending a misbehaving student to the principal’s office
Giving students busywork when they misbehave
Isolating a student when he/she disrupts instruction
Having students perform undesirable tasks as a form of
punishment
Taking away desirable things (e.g., tokens, rewards, class
privileges) from misbehaving students
Making students apologize for misbehaving
Calling parents when students misbehave
Giving students extra homework when they misbehave
Seating students in desks that are closer to the teacher
when they misbehave
Sending students who exhibit misbehavior to timeout
Reward
Threat/Fear
0.343
0.421
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
0.46
0.435
0.415
0.378
Punishment/Consequences
0.378
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
Punishment/Consequences
0.373
0.369
0.356
0.33
Punishment/Consequences
0.319
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BELIEFS
16
Table 4
Secondary English and Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Scores for Factors 1 and 2
Factor 1
Full Sample
n
M
SD
Cronbach α
356
4.56
0.47
.967
M
Factor 2
SD Cronbach
α
3.55
0.48
.77
2
.72
7
.956
Secondary
135 4.67 0.37
3.59
0.45
English/Elementary PTs
Male PTs
14
4.67 0.15
3.37
0.49
Female PTs
121 4.67 0.39
3.62
0.44
Elementary PTs
90
4.69 0.35
3.66
0.46
Secondary English PTs
42
4.62 0.41
3.47
0.38
Note. A score of 3 indicates PTs believed on average the items were neither ineffective nor
effective, a score of 4 indicates somewhat effective, and a score of 5 indicates strategies are very
effective.