A Grounded Theory of Behavior Management Strategy Selection, Implementation, and
Perceived Effectiveness Reported by First-Year Elementary Teachers
Author(s):
Julie B. Smart and
L. Brent Igo
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 110, No. 4 (June 2010), pp. 567-584
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/651196 .
Accessed: 28/01/2012 11:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Elementary School Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
A Grounded Theory
of Behavior
Management Strategy
Selection,
Implementation, and
Perceived
Effectiveness Reported
by First-Year
Elementary Teachers
Julie B. Smart
Presbyterian College
L. Brent Igo
Abstract
In this grounded theory study, 19 teachers were
interviewed and then, in constant comparative
fashion, the interview data were analyzed. The
theoretical model that emerged from the data
describes novice teachers’ tendencies to select
and implement differing strategies related to the
severity of student behavior. When confronting
mild student misbehaviors, teachers perceived
their behavior management strategies to be
more effective and reported implementing such
strategies with greater consistency. When facing
more severe misbehaviors, novice teachers perceived their management strategies to be largely
ineffective and reported implementing them inconsistently. Ultimately, this grounded theory
postulates that when novice teachers lack relevant college coursework their default behavior
management strategies may be effective for addressing mildly disruptive student behaviors.
Furthermore, the theory supports the prediction
that preservice teachers might benefit most from
specific training in dealing with more severe
misbehaviors. Implications for teacher education and professional development are discussed.
Clemson University
The Elementary School Journal
Volume 110, Number 4
© 2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-5984/2010/11004-0007$10.00
First-year teachers face many challenges
(Borko & Putnam, 1996). They must negotiate a plethora of tasks simultaneously,
even as they are acquiring the skills necessary to perform those tasks. For example,
first-year teachers must learn within the
classroom how to deliver instruction, monitor student progress, and select and implement classroom management strategies
(Woolfolk, 2004). Among these discreet
challenges, first-year teachers regularly cite
difficulties related to classroom management as the most trying aspect of teaching
(Hertzog, 2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003).
Some research has identified classroom
568
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
management as the most influential classroom factor contributing to student learning (Stronge, Ward, Tucker, & Hindman,
2007; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993).
Consequently, research addressing how to
improve preservice teacher training in
classroom management strategies may
have positive consequences for student
learning.
Although classroom management is
made up of such varying tasks as time
management and teacher-parent communication, behavior management seems to be a
paramount concern for beginning teachers
(Hertzog, 2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003).
Behavior management can be defined as
the process of shaping student behavior in
order to facilitate a classroom environment
in which effective learning can occur
(Walker & Shea, 1998). Teachers consistently report frustration with behavior
management issues as a primary reason for
leaving the teaching profession (Liu &
Meyer, 2005). This potential connection to
teacher attrition is a serious educational
problem. Research offering direction in
how to better prepare teachers to manage
classroom behavior could conceivably have
important implications for addressing
teacher retention (Ritter & Hancock, 2007;
Stoughton, 2007).
The purpose of the present study was to
explore novice teachers’ self-reported behavior management strategies and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of those
strategies. Because research literature suggests that few teacher education programs
offer training in classroom management
strategies (McCann, Johannessen, & Ricca,
2005), we were particularly interested in
the strategies of teachers who lacked formal
training in behavior management. For the
purposes of this study, formal training was
defined as a course specifically designed to
address aspects of behavior management
or a field experience focused on student
management. Specifically, we sought to answer the following research question: How
do first-year elementary teachers who lack
behavior management coursework report
dealing with classroom misbehavior and
how do they perceive the effectiveness of
these strategies?
This is an important topic for several
key reasons. First, previous research has
merely identified behavior management as
a problem for novice teachers (Hertzog,
2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003) without defining the root causes of the problem or
exploring its dimensions. Second, there is
no existing theoretical model that describes
first-year teachers’ reports of their behavior
management strategy selection and implementation. Such a model, grounded in
teachers’ perceptions and experiences,
could be used to explain and make predictions about first-year teachers’ struggles
and successes in the classroom, and thereby
offer direction for training preservice teachers. Finally, an in-depth exploration of firstyear teachers’ reports of their strategy selection and implementation may yield
positive directions for teacher preparation,
leading to increased student learning and
greater teacher retention.
Novice Teachers’ Challenges in
Behavior Management
Managing student behavior is a noted
source of stress for novice teachers (Blase,
1986; Friedman, 1995). In fact, teachers often cite behavior management issues as one
of the most daunting aspects of their jobs,
resulting in emotional stress and physical
symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, and
sleeplessness (Liu & Meyer, 2005; Manning
& Bucher, 2003). Recent studies indicate
that many novice teachers report low confidence in their abilities to effectively manage student behavior (Hertzog, 2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003; Woolfolk-Hoy &
Burke-Spero, 2005). Such negative evaluations of ability to manage classroom behavior have been consistent across different
studies addressing first-year teachers’
perceptions (e.g., McCann et al., 2005;
Onafowora, 2005). This type of belief,
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
known in social cognitive theory as low
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), ultimately can
undermine a teacher’s motivation and persistence when difficulties arise in the
classroom (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, Hoy, 2001).
Novice teachers’ struggles with behavior management may also have critical implications for rising teacher attrition rates.
Statistics indicate that 30%–50% of novice
teachers leave the teaching profession
within their first 5 years (Pullen, 2004). In
urban settings, this number is expected to
be even greater, with over 50% of teachers,
or greater, leaving during their first 5 years in
the classroom (Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, &
Hoke, 2002). In a nationwide study on
teacher attrition, Ingersoll (2001) found that
over 30% of teachers leaving the profession
cited behavior management issues as their
primary reason for leaving the classroom.
Considering current attrition rates and the
upcoming retirement of the baby-boom generation, the United States could face a teacher
shortage in the coming decade.
Preservice Training in Behavior
Management
With novice teachers experiencing significant struggles in behavior management, it
is critical to examine what teacher education programs are doing to prepare preservice teachers for these challenges. Recent
studies suggest that many teacher education programs may not offer sufficient college coursework in behavior management.
In a survey study of 111 universities, McCann and colleagues (2005) found that a
staggering number of teacher education
programs offer little or no formal training
in behavior management. Fewer than 30%
of the programs studied offered courses
that specifically addressed theories of behavior management strategies and their application. Furthermore, only 27% of university program listings included course titles
containing the terms discipline, control, behavior, or management.
569
Even when preservice behavior management training is provided in teacher education programs, the content of these courses
varies among institutions (McCann et al.,
2005). The abundant, often contradictory theories in managing student behavior can create dilemmas in designing curriculum to
address effective behavior management
strategies. Multiple philosophies exist regarding what proper behavior management
entails, resulting in the lack of general consensus about managing student behavior, especially in the general education classroom
(Woolfolk, 2004). For example, whereas some
researchers support the use of punishment in
the classroom (Brinker, Goldstein, & Tisak,
2003), others contend that punishment is ill
advised as it neglects to teach students to
replace misbehavior with appropriate behavior (Maag, 2001). In short, the wide array of
management philosophies, as well as the disagreements among experts about the validity
of these views, makes it difficult for teacher
education programs to design and implement effective preservice curriculum in behavior management.
Increasingly inclusive educational settings present further challenges to preservice
training in behavior management. Novice
teachers with preservice training and field
placements in general education classrooms
are increasingly teaching in inclusive educational settings during their first years in
the field (Mittler, 2002). In addition to the
subsequent varying academic needs that result, a diverse array of behavioral needs is
represented in inclusive classrooms (Curwin
& Mendler, 2001). The need to differentiate
discipline requires general education teachers to be aware of research-based behavior
management strategies for students with special needs ranging from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to emotional
and behavioral disorders (EBD; Fabiano &
Pelham, 2003; Grossman, 2005; Walker &
Shea, 1998). Considering that most regular
education teachers receive limited coursework in special education (Baker, 2005), it is
likely that they are ill-equipped to make such
570
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
sophisticated judgment calls and then implement appropriate strategies for managing a
wide range of behavioral needs.
Since many teacher education candidates
experience limited training in behavior management, one is left to wonder what particular strategies these teachers employ during
their first years in the classroom and the
sources of these strategies. The present study
focuses specifically on first-year teachers who
received no formal classroom management
training (i.e., a course or field experience focused specifically on behavior management)
and their reported strategies for dealing with
student behavior in the classroom. We also
sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions of
the effectiveness of their management strategies in a variety of behavioral scenarios.
TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants
(N ⫽ 19)
Characteristic
Gender:
Female
Male
Race:
Caucasian
African American
Asian American
Age (in years; M ⫽ 25):
20–30
30–40
40–50
Grade level:
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Related arts (K–5)
School district:
District A
District B
Participants
18
1
15
3
1
16
2
1
4
5
2
3
2
3
14
5
Method
Participants
Nineteen first-year elementary school
teachers from two public school districts in
the southeastern United States participated
in the present research. Participants were
identified with the assistance of district personnel and school principals and were selected using criterion sampling. The first
criterion for participation was first-year
teacher status. The second criterion was a
lack of formal behavior management training. For the purposes of this study, we defined formal, preservice behavior management training as a semester-long course
dealing with theories and applications of
behavior management principles. Other
types of training, such as field experiences,
seminars, or workshops, which we defined
as informal behavior management training,
were not disqualifiers for participation.
All of the teachers in the current study
had received training as general education
teachers, with none receiving specialized
training or certification in special education.
Selecting participants from a wide range of
grade levels (kindergarten through fifth
grade) allowed for this grounded theory to
reflect an elementary sample representing a
continuum of developmental levels. All participants were teaching at least one student
who had an individualized education plan
(IEP) in place. However, exact figures for the
numbers of students receiving special education services in each classroom were not collected. Please see Table 1 for additional participant demographics.
Participants in the current study reported various informal experiences in preservice behavior management training, including the following: taking a class in
which behavior management was mentioned in the context of other topics, learning behavior management strategies from
their cooperating teachers during student
teaching or from other field experiences,
and attending one-off workshops in behavior management.
The 19 teachers in the present study
were employed by either District A or District B, two neighboring school districts in
the southeast United States. Descriptive information about these school districts is
provided in Table 2. The inclusion of participants from these two school districts enabled the selection of teachers who were
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
571
TABLE 2. Descriptive Information on School Districts A and B
Descriptors
District A
District B
Number of district schools in present study
District student enrollment
Smallest school enrollment in present study
Largest school enrollment in present study
Average size of K through grade 2 classrooms
Average size of grade 3–5 classrooms
Title One schools in present study
District average free and reduced-lunch percentage
Lowest free and reduced-lunch percentage in schools in present study
Highest free and reduced-lunch percentage in schools in present study
11
69,000
448
967
20
27
2
40.89
14.71
79.53
4
9,000
409
648
18
25
1
31.81
23.94
62.19
working with a wide array of students from
diverse populations in both rural and suburban settings.
There was not a district-wide behavior
plan in place in either District A or District
B. Fourteen of the 15 schools in this study
did not have a school-wide behavior plan
in place at their elementary school. The exception was a fourth-grade teacher who
taught at a school that was piloting a system of positive behavioral supports.
Procedure and Data Collection
The current study follows a grounded
theory design (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The
goals of data collection in the present study
were to identify initial concepts related to
first-year teachers’ reports of their behavior
management strategies, conduct a comparative analysis of concepts to form and describe salient categories, define relationships among these categories, and develop
an explanatory paradigm model drawn directly from the data. In line with these
goals, a semistructured interview protocol
(see App. A) was developed to probe a
variety of dimensions related to the teachers’ behavior management experiences.
Numerous follow-up questions also were
included to expand on salient topics that
emerged during teacher interviews.
A total of 24 interviews were conducted; 19 were initial interviews and 5 were
follow-up interviews. Beginning in the
middle of the school year, initial interviews
were conducted with each of the 19 participants, with interviews ranging in length
from 45 to 60 minutes. These interviews
were recorded using a digital audio recorder and then transcribed for analysis. As
themes began to emerge from these interview data, certain important concepts appeared to need further elaboration.
Five participants were selected for
follow-up interviews in order to focus on
the development of these emerging themes.
Participants were selected for follow-up interviews based on the content of their original interview. For example, one teacher
had briefly mentioned her use of a differential reinforcement system for managing
students’ calling-out behavior. Because
consistency of implementation began to
emerge as a theme after this initial interview, a follow-up interview was conducted
to further explore the dimensions of this
teacher’s implementation of the reinforcement system. Follow-up interviews were
also conducted with teachers who had been
interviewed early in the study. As additional themes and categories emerged
with participants interviewed later in the
study, there was a need to ask additional
questions of early interviewees. In this
grounded theory study, theoretical saturation was achieved when no new categories or themes were emerging from interviews and follow-up interviews had
addressed critical constructs with each
participant.
572
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
TABLE 3. Initial Categories, Subcategories, and Codes from Open Coding Phase
Category
Student behaviors
Subcategory
Code
1. Mild behaviors
2. Severe behaviors
Behavior management
strategies
1. Positive reinforcement
2. Punishment
3. Seeking outside help
4. Redirect student behavior
5. Conferencing
6. Ignore behavior
Strategy
implementation
1. Consistency of response
2. Conditional responses to behavior
Strategy source
1. Preservice field experience
2. In-service training
Data Analysis
Data-analytic procedures were performed in accordance with Strauss and
Corbin (1998). Interview data were analyzed using the constant comparative
method. The data were analyzed as they
were collected before subsequent data
were collected, compared to the emergent
themes, and used to refine the themes. The
four steps of this constant comparative
analysis were open coding, axial coding,
selective coding, and the development of a
conditional matrix.
Open Coding
In the first step of data analysis, a preliminary read-through of each transcription was conducted to gain a holistic
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Breaking preestablished rules
Off-task behavior
Attention-getting behavior
Defiance
Aggression
Deviant behaviors
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Using rewards/shaping
Token economy
Using praise/verbal feedback
Using negative punishment
Using positive punishment
Seek assistance from teacher/guidance
Seek administrative assistance
Seek parental assistance
Give verbal/visual cues
Conference with student one-on-one
Conference with student and parent
Ignore student behavior
No response
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Change behavior management system
Change classroom procedures
Change teacher expectations
Time-specific responses
Student-specific responses
Activity-specific responses
Student teaching
Other field placement
Workshop
Mentoring
Classroom experience
District induction-year training
sense of the data. Next, the raw data from
each interview were examined and
coded, revealing initial concepts relating
to teachers’ behavior management strategies. Categories and subcategories, also
called phenomena (Strauss & Corbin,
1998), were formed from the initial open
codes; these became the building blocks
of the ultimate theory as data were further analyzed and relationships developed. Table 3 provides a complete list of
all open codes, categories, and subcategories that emerged during this phase of
data analysis.
Axial Coding
In the next phase of data analysis, relationships between the categories and subJUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
573
FIG. 1.—Conditional matrix: first-year teachers’ behavior management strategy selection and implementation
categories (see Table 3) were identified and
properties and dimensions of the categories
were elaborated. Visual representations of
relationships between categories were developed in order to analyze the interactions
between aspects of the emerging theory.
These representations allowed relationships between categories to be analyzed on
a dimensional level, thereby relating the
structures of behavior management strategies with the processes of classroom implementation. Axial coding resulted in a
framework for examining the contexts
in which students’ behaviors influenced
teacher responses.
Selective Coding
During the third phase of data analysis,
the central phenomenon was defined and
the emerging theory was refined. Selective
coding is typified by the integration and
refinement of categories as phenomena
emerge as a set of interrelated concepts
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This phase of data
analysis represents the formation of a cohesive explanatory model of the central phenomena, which was then spatially depicted
in the last phase of analysis, the creation of
a conditional matrix.
Conditional Matrix
As shown in the middle three columns
of Figure 1, the central phenomenon was
composed of strategy selection, specific
strategy, and strategy implementation. The
strategy that a teacher selected to manage
student behavior was attributable to a
source and had a dimension of implementation. Contexts were included in the theoretical model to describe antecedents to
teacher responses (see the first column in
Fig. 1). As implied by the arrows at the top
of the conditional matrix, the severity of
student behavior was related to teachers’
strategy selection and implementation. Finally, outcomes were included to describe
the perceived effectiveness of teacher responses to student behaviors (see the last
column in Fig. 1).
Establishing Validity
In the present study, we utilized systematic member checks throughout data
analysis in order to establish validity (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Because qualitative
inquiry is based on the assumption that
reality is socially constructed, researchers’
interpretations were cross-checked with
participants in order to ensure alignment.
574
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
Member checking occurred at two key
points in the analysis: follow-up interviews
and conditional matrix development. As
follow-up interviews were conducted, we
read back portions of initial interviews and
asked participants to clarify and comment
on their original statements. During development of the conditional matrix, we sent
all participants a copy of the emerging theoretical framework and asked for feedback
about our interpretations and conjectures.
Six participants responded, and all feedback was confirmatory of the components
in the conditional matrix. The following
quote is an example of a teacher response
received via e-mail: “This makes sense to
me, especially the differences between mild
and severe behaviors. I’m definitely more
effective in dealing with those mild behaviors.” The low response rate is attributed to
the fact that feedback was requested at the
end of the school year when teachers were
involved in standardized testing, end-ofyear procedures, and special programming.
veloped to represent the theoretical model
in the current study. This response rate represented less than 30% of the participants in
the study and thereby provided a limited
voice as to the perceived validity of the
theoretical model among the teacher participants. As mentioned above, we infer that
the low response rate was due to the other
coinciding demands for these teachers,
such as end-of-year procedures and standardized testing, rather than a lack of
agreement with the theoretical model.
However, an alternative explanation of the
low response rate is that teachers disagreed
with the theoretical model, and such an
alternative cannot be disconfirmed.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the current study’s method. First, the data collected in this study are limited to selfreported, interview data from teacher
participants. As such, it is not possible to
reliably detail the actual strategies implemented by the teachers in the classroom,
but rather only their reports of these strategies. Likewise, conclusions about the effectiveness of the strategies are stated in
terms of the teachers’ perceptions of this
effectiveness. While it is acceptable to conduct a grounded theory study solely on
participant interview data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the lack of observational data
from these teachers’ classrooms limits the
conclusions that can be drawn from the
present data sources.
A second limitation involves the low
response rate to member checks, or the process of gathering participants’ feedback regarding the conditional matrix that was de-
Results and Interpretation
The paradigm model is displayed in the
conditional matrix (see Fig. 1). This model
serves two functions. First, it organizes the
components of the theory by distinguishing
context, the central phenomenon (strategy
source, strategy, and strategy implementation), and outcomes. Second, it depicts the
relationships between these components.
We now describe each component and then
emphasize the relationships among them.
Context
Participants described encountering a
wide array of behaviors during their first
year of teaching. Two primary categories of
behavior emerged from the interview data:
mild behaviors and severe behaviors. Frequencies for teachers’ reports of these behaviors are reported in Table 4. As discussed by Levin and Nolan (2007), we
defined mild behaviors as those instances
in which a student briefly interrupts instruction, her own learning, or the learning
of others. Subcategories of mild behavior
included (1) breaking preestablished rules,
(2) off-task behavior, and (3) attentiongetting behavior. Severe behaviors were
defined as more difficult behavior issues
that prevent the teacher from teaching or
other students from learning. Subcategories
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
TABLE 4. Frequencies of Categories and
Subcategories Represented in Conditional Matrix
(Total Number of Times Each Subcategory Was
Coded across All Interviews)
Category
Subcategory
Student behaviors Mild behaviors
Severe behaviors
Strategy source
Preservice field
experience
Classroom experience
Mentor
Unidentified
Strategy selection Positive
reinforcement
Praise/verbal
feedback
Conferencing
Negative punishment
Positive punishment
Help-seeking
Ignoring
Strategy
Consistent
implementation Unconditional
Inconsistent
Conditional
Perceived
Effective
effectiveness
Somewhat effective
Ineffective
Frequency
83
37
29
12
16
14
52
15
17
54
12
35
17
32
12
23
28
51
17
34
of severe behaviors include (1) aggression
(physical and verbal), (2) defiance, and (3)
deviant behavior.
Teachers consistently described the
prevalence of mild behaviors. For instance,
one teacher described occasions in which
students would break classroom rules, stating that “some students will just walk
across the room to talk to someone while
they’re working on an assignment that’s
supposed to be independent. Some will be
talking when you’re not supposed to be
talking, like during a lesson.” Similarly, a
first-grade teacher described typical offtask behavior in her classroom during instruction, observing that “two or three students had scissors out and they were
cutting something instead of paying attention to the lesson.” Several teachers mentioned attention-getting behaviors, such as
calling out answers to questions and class
clown behaviors, or, as one teacher put it, “I
have a student who pretends to fall out of
575
his chair almost every day during our math
lesson just to get laughs from his friends.”
Severe behaviors occurred less often,
but did occur nonetheless. For example, a
second-grade teacher described how a student picked up a chair and threw it at her
when she took away part of the student’s
recess. Offering another example of student
aggression, a fourth-grade teacher said,
“If someone gets in front of him in line, he’ll
just push them and throw them down. . . . He
doesn’t have any self-control.” In a particularly disturbing interview response, a teacher
described a student who would repeatedly
hit his head against the wall when he became
frustrated. In short, several teachers experienced students acting in a physically aggressive manner.
Severe behaviors took other forms as
well. Teachers described instances of verbal
aggression in which students would yell
and scream in class. One teacher noted, “I
never dreamed that a third grader or anyone else would call me some of the names I
have been called this year by students.”
Teachers further relayed examples of defiant student behavior ranging from perpetual refusals to complete classwork to
persistent noncompliance with classroom
rules. For instance, a teacher described her
fifth-grade student who “just sort of shuts
down and won’t do a thing I say. She won’t
even budge from her seat when it’s time to
go to lunch if she’s mad.”
Finally, teachers gave examples of their
students’ deviant behaviors. A first-grade
teacher described a student with a clinically
diagnosed food obsession: “I have to watch
her constantly because she will find any
food there is in the room and will steal it
and eat it immediately. She will even try to
get in the trashcan after we have snack and
get food that has been thrown away. I literally have to hold her hand most of the
day to make sure she is not getting into
anything.” Other examples of deviant student behaviors included stealing and compulsive lying.
576
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
Central Phenomenon
Strategy source. In Figure 1, strategy
source refers to the origin of the strategy
that a teacher chose to address a given behavior. In other words, where, or from
whom, did the teacher learn the behavior
management strategy? Four primary strategy sources were identified from interview
data: preservice field experience, classroom
experience, mentoring, and unidentified.
Frequencies for these strategy sources are
presented in Table 4.
When responding to mild behaviors,
teachers selected strategies from preservice
field experiences, classroom experiences, or
mentoring. In fact, the most common strategy source for confronting mild behaviors
was preservice field experiences, with student teaching experiences being the primary source. One teacher stated, “I picked
up a lot of things about managing student
behavior in my student teaching experience,” while another teacher echoed this
statement, stating, “student teaching was
great for learning how to manage my students.”
Participants also mentioned their mentors as models of behavior management
strategies. In fact, sometimes mentoring
and student teaching interacted. As one
teacher said, “I had a great cooperating
teacher. I learned about ways of setting up
a behavior system from her.” Mentor models also were available near their own classrooms. One teacher stated that her mentor
is “right next door and is really close so I’ve
used her a lot for examples of how to handle behaviors that come up in my room.” In
addition, teachers met with their mentors
to discuss student behavior: “We meet a lot
and talk. Once a week we meet informally
when we see each other and she asks how
things are going. She gives me some good
advice about handling my most difficult
students.”
Many teachers also cited their own
classroom experiences as a source of behavior management strategies. Several teachers
referred to “a lot of trial and error” and
“using past experiences to make a better
decision about how to handle the same behaviors in the future.” In sum, teachers reported addressing mild behaviors using
strategies that they identified from three
primary sources: preservice field experience, mentoring, and classroom experience.
When responding to severe behaviors,
teachers often struggled to identify the
source of their behavior management strategies. When asked about how they selected
a given strategy for confronting discipline
problems, some typical responses were, “I
just sort of thought up a system,” and “I
kind of made it up on my own.” Other
teachers admitted to “trying anything in
desperation” and “thinking up something
new that might work” when facing some of
their most severe behavior problems. Perhaps the most succinct answer regarding
sources for severe behavior problem strategies was simply, “I don’t know.”
Strategy selection. Teachers reported
using four primary strategies to confront
mild classroom behaviors: positive reinforcement, praise/verbal feedback, conferencing, and negative punishment. Frequencies for these strategies are presented in
Table 4. Positive reinforcement strategies
took the form of differential reinforcement
of alternative behaviors. For example, a
third-grade teacher responded to a talkative class by implementing a system that
reinforced students for working quietly.
Another teacher gave tokens to students
who raised their hands before answering a
question during a lesson in order to manage a class-wide problem of calling out answers.
Similarly, teachers reported using praise
and verbal feedback as differential reinforcement. For example, a second-grade teacher
described how she responded to misbehavior in the hall, saying, “I would find a student who was walking just right in the hall
and then I would say, ‘Oh I like the way
Tim is walking quietly with his hands by
his side.’ I always tried to be really specific
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
about what that student was doing right.”
Other teachers reported verbally praising
students for following morning and dismissal procedures in an effort to influence
student behavior during those specific
times of the day.
Teachers also reported addressing mild
misbehavior by holding conferences with
both parents and students. One teacher described how she “arranged a conference between me, the student, her dad, the assistant principal, and the guidance counselor
and tried to work out a plan and encourage
her.” Another teacher held one-on-one student conferences to discuss misbehavior
from the past week and to develop an action plan and set behavior goals for the
following week.
Finally, teachers reported using negative punishment to confront mild behavior
issues, especially in instances where students broke preestablished classroom rules.
For instance, many teachers used systems
similar to the card system described by a
fourth-grade teacher: “We use a card color
system. My students lose a card if they
break a rule. If they flip one card, they lose
5 minutes off recess and have to walk laps.
If they flip two, they will miss 10 minutes of
recess and have silent lunch. If they lose
three, they have to call their parents. Losing
four cards results in a referral.” Other examples of negative punishment were described by teachers who took away class
privileges, free time, and class responsibilities when students broke class rules.
As displayed in Figure 1, when confronted with severe behaviors, teachers reported implementing a largely different set
of strategies: negative and positive punishment, help-seeking, and ignoring. Frequencies for these strategies are reported in Table 4. First, teachers reported attempting to
use both negative and positive punishment. Teachers described “taking away a
lot of things” when students were aggressive and defiant, and using verbal reprimands (positive punishment) such as saying things to a student in front of the class
577
“to try to embarrass him in front of his
peers,” as one teacher stated. In fact, the
most common punishment reported for severe behaviors was taking away recess, free
time, or student privileges (such as sitting
with friends at lunch).
Teachers also reported help-seeking as a
strategy to deal with the most severe behavior problems. They often would reach
out to the administration, guidance counselors, and other teachers for help when
facing challenging classroom behaviors.
One teacher, for example, sought help in
dealing with a student with an emotional
disability, stating, “As a first year teacher,
I’m thinking, ‘I’ve tried everything I know
how to do’ and I’m going to the other
teachers and asking them and they have
helped me a lot.” Other teachers described
repeatedly calling the principal’s office for
assistance and going to the school guidance
counselor for advice.
Finally, teachers reported dealing with
severe behaviors by ignoring such student
behaviors. A teacher noted, “If I address
the situation with him, it makes it a lot
worse. It almost makes me just let him do
what he wants to do. I know it’s not right,
but it’s just really hard.” Similarly, others
described ignoring some severe behaviors
because “confronting the problem would
often cause the situation to escalate.” In one
particularly salient description, a thirdgrade teacher commented: “I can ignore his
temper tantrum and have a bad situation
for a few minutes or I can try to punish him
and have an even worse reaction. It’s usually easier to just ignore it and deal with the
noise for a few minutes.”
Strategy implementation. Strategy implementation refers to the way in which a
teacher puts a strategy into practice to confront student behavior. In the present
study, strategy implementation was exemplified by two factors: (1) the consistency of
the teacher’s reported implementation and
(2) whether the strategy was conditional
versus unconditional. Consistency was defined as using the strategy in a regular,
578
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
predictable, and constant fashion. For example, several teachers reported implementing a reward system in which a student would receive a sticker every
afternoon if they had not lost any behavior
cards that day. Each day, the teacher would
distribute stickers to students meeting
those criteria.
A strategy was considered inconsistent
if implementation was erratic and unpredictable. For example, one teacher described her system of flipping behavior
cards for misbehavior, exclaiming, “I don’t
like to flip their card, so sometimes I just
give extra warnings. A lot of times I’ll just
give them a warning and if it happens
again I might have them move their card.
I’m not really on a schedule as far as enforcing the card system.” Another teacher
similarly stated that she took “away cards
once in a while, but not on a regular basis.”
Teachers also reported implementing
strategies either conditionally or unconditionally. An unconditional response would
be one that is not contingent on factors such
as the student, time of day, or activity. For
example, one teacher described her system
of giving tokens to students who quietly
complete their morning work: “It doesn’t
matter if it’s Monday or Friday or the day
before Christmas break, I’m going to be
giving tokens and expecting the same thing
from my students each time.”
A conditional response, on the other
hand, would be one in which factors such
as the student, time of day, or activity affect
the teachers’ implementation of a given
strategy. Several teachers reported altering
their behavior management plans to accommodate holidays because “students
just can’t be expected to behave when it’s
that close to a break.” In addition, some
teachers modified their implementation of
behavior management strategies based on
the student. “It depends on if it’s somebody
who normally does that or how often they
do it. If it’s a student who doesn’t usually
misbehave, I’m not going to react in the
same way as I would to a student who is
always in trouble,” was a typical response
indicating the conditional implementation
of a strategy.
Outcomes
In the paradigm model in Figure 1, an
outcome refers to the perceived effectiveness of a strategy in decreasing undesired
classroom behaviors. These outcomes are
described in terms of the teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the strategy,
since results are reported from selfreported interview data. The three outcomes that emerged from the data were
effective, somewhat effective, and ineffective. Effective strategies are defined as
those that the teacher perceived as producing a definitive, sustained behavior change.
A kindergarten teacher gave an example of
a strategy she perceived to be effective
when describing a system of positive reinforcement: “They do respond really well to
the rewards with the team points and also
with praise. I think it is the most effective
thing I have used this year, especially in
controlling the chattiness.”
Strategies were categorized as somewhat effective if the teacher perceived that
the strategy produced behavior change for
some, but not all, students or if the effectiveness of the strategy was not consistent
over time. For example, one teacher perceived her color-coded card system to be
somewhat effective: “Most of the time it
works really well, but here lately they have
been a lot chattier. There are days when it
doesn’t seem to be as useful, but most days
it still serves the purpose.”
An ineffective strategy is one that the
teacher perceived as resulting in no sustained behavior change. Teachers gave
many examples of situations in which they
perceived their behavior management
strategies to be ineffective in decreasing undesired classroom behaviors. One teacher
described her current system by saying,
“When you’re already using all the consequences you can for a student and you
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
maximize those, and it still doesn’t make a
difference, well that’s where I’m struggling.” Another teacher discussed an ineffective punishment system: “She has not
been able to talk to her friends at lunch for
two solid weeks, but it doesn’t seem to faze
her.” Teachers also described students who
“don’t seem to care about losing recess”
and others who “can’t seem to behave no
matter how many cards I flip.”
Relationships among Components
The conditional matrix (Fig. 1) details
the relationships between the three components of the resulting theoretical model:
context, the central phenomenon, and outcomes. Within context and conditions, the
dimensions of student behavior relate to
the central phenomenon of teachers’ strategy selection and implementation for managing these behaviors. In turn, the central
phenomenon is associated with the resulting perceived behavioral outcomes, as defined by the degree and sustainability of
student behavior change as perceived by
the teacher. These relationships are discussed in relation to the context of student
behavior (mild behaviors vs. severe behaviors).
Mild behaviors. Overall, teachers perceived their strategies to be more effective
for managing mild behavior issues than severe behaviors. Teachers who reported
consistently and unconditionally implementing systems of positive reinforcement
and praise/verbal feedback perceived these
strategies to be effective in managing mild
behavior issues such as talking, off-task behavior, and calling out during lessons. One
teacher stated, “Be consistent, because it’s really hard to do that, especially when you’re
just starting. My students know what to expect and they know that I’m not changing
my expectations for any reason.” Teachers
reported selecting these effective strategies
from preservice field experience and from
personal classroom experience during their
579
first year of teaching. Mentors also modeled
effective strategies for first-year teachers.
Teachers reported using strategies they
perceived as somewhat effective in managing mild behavior issues when they relied
on conferencing and negative punishment.
The primary characteristic that differentiates these strategies from the strategies perceived to be most effective lies in the implementation. Teachers who reported being
inconsistent in holding conferences and implementing systems of negative punishment such as color-coded card systems also
perceived these strategies as less effective
than teachers who implemented similar
strategies consistently. An interesting point
is that most teachers seemed aware of this
connection between consistency and perceived effectiveness of a strategy. For example, one teacher stated that “the way the
system is set up, kids will lose 5 minutes of
recess time if they lose a card, but I sometimes just forget by the time we get to recess. I know that I’m not nearly consistent
enough in enforcing the consequences.”
Another teacher noted that “the card system worked a lot better back when I pulled
cards on a regular basis, but if I did that, I
would be pulling cards all over the place.”
In addition, teachers were more likely to
make conditional responses when using
punishment. Several teachers reported being much more lenient in the afternoon
with mild behaviors, such as talking during
a lesson, than they were in the morning
hours. These somewhat effective strategies
were also selected primarily from preservice field experience, personal classroom
experience, and mentoring.
Severe behaviors. While many first-year
teachers perceived that they used effective or
at least somewhat effective strategies in managing mild behavior problems, most perceived themselves as ineffective in dealing
with more severe behavior problems such as
aggression, defiance, and deviant behaviors.
Teachers consistently communicated frustration at their inability to control these problems in their classroom. One teacher stated,
580
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
“Whatever I do, it doesn’t seem to make a
difference with her behavior. Nothing works.
This is so discouraging.” Another teacher expressed her frustration with several severe
behavior situations by stating, “This is not
what I signed up to do. They don’t care about
school and I can’t control them.”
Overall, first-year teachers reported that
they primarily relied on negative and positive punishment to confront severe behaviors. However, teachers also reported implementing these strategies inconsistently
and conditionally based on the student or
other variables. In some cases, teachers reported selecting punishment based on advice from the administration, but most
teachers admitted to “making a lot of it up
as I went along” and “trying to find a punishment that would get their attention.”
Teachers also attempted to reach out for
help in many of the most severe student behavior issues. The perceived effectiveness of
this help-seeking strategy was highly contingent on the response of administration, guidance staff, and other teachers. One teacher
reported, “The administration has been
highly absent in my classroom when I
needed them and that has surprised me. I’ve
just felt at times like I’m going it alone.”
However, active administrative support was
perceived as helpful for several teachers dealing with severe behaviors. One teacher reported that “my principal has been a lifesaver. I’m not sure how I would have made it
if she had not been so supportive with some
of the behavior problems I am dealing with
this year.”
Many teachers also tried to handle severe behaviors by ignoring them. This
strategy was perceived as ineffective and
resulted in no behavior change. For most
teachers, ignoring severe behaviors seemed
to be more of coping strategy than a behavior management strategy. One teacher reported, “I just couldn’t take the constant
battle anymore, so it came down to me just
ignoring the temper tantrums because I
had run out of steam. It’s all I could do after
battling the issue for so many months.”
A notable aspect of first-year teachers’
behavior management strategies for severe
behaviors was that most teachers could not
identify how they chose that particular
strategy. While most teachers could readily
identify the source of their mild behavior
strategies (preservice experiences, personal
experiences, mentoring), they were not able
to pinpoint their source of strategies for
dealing with severe behavior issues. Typical responses were, “I just sort of made it
up” or “It’s just something I came up with.”
One teacher responded bluntly, “No one
ever taught me what to do with the kids
that don’t fit the mold. Why didn’t they
offer a class on dealing with those students?”
Discussion
This study explored the question: How do
first-year elementary teachers who lack behavior management coursework report
dealing with classroom misbehavior and
how do they perceive the effectiveness of
these strategies? The resulting theoretical
model reveals a distinct stratification between the strategies that teachers reported
for addressing mild versus more severe behavior issues. In general, first-year teachers
perceived their strategies for dealing with
mild behaviors in their classrooms to be
effective. Experiences from student teaching seem to play a major role in this success. However, the quality of student teaching experiences, and therefore the quality
of behavior management training, can vary
widely. In the present study, preservice
teachers who had a cooperating teacher
who served as an effective model for managing mild classroom misbehavior experienced success in managing mild student
misbehavior by drawing from these experiences during their first year of teaching.
However, when student teaching is the
only identifiable source of behavior management strategies from preservice training, there is a concern that not all teachers
will receive adequate preparation in this
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
area. Situational factors relating to the cooperating teacher and student teaching environment might greatly influence the
amount and quality of behavior management training preservice teachers receive.
These variations may result in a disparity
of preparation for teacher candidates
within the same teacher education program.
Since teacher preparation in classroom
management skills can vary widely among
teacher education programs (McCann et al.,
2005), there is often no way to ensure that
first-year teachers will have received adequate training in this area. The current
study illustrates this point in the teachers’
reliance on field experiences as the only
source they could identify for their behavior management practices drawn directly
from their preservice training. In order to
ensure that all student teachers have equal
access to training in behavior management
strategies, this training cannot be relegated
to student teaching in the hopes that student teachers will pick these strategies up
from their mentor teachers.
First-year teachers also benefited from
mentoring relationships with veteran teachers in learning to manage mild behaviors.
Teachers admitted to a learning curve in
managing mild student behaviors; many felt
they were gradually improving as they
gained classroom experience throughout
their first year. However, student teaching
experiences, mentoring, and classroom experiences do not seem to support teachers in
developing skills for managing more severe
discipline problems in their classrooms.
While most teachers perceived their
strategies as at least somewhat effective in
managing mild behavior issues, this was
not the case for more severe behaviors. The
resulting theoretical model indicates that
first-year teachers struggle considerably
with managing severe student behaviors
and have few effective strategies for addressing such student behaviors. Subcategories of severe behaviors included aggression (physical and verbal), defiance, and
581
deviant behavior. In confronting these behavioral issues, first-year teachers faced
difficult and frustrating battles stemming
from a lack of available strategies for managing these behaviors. Previous research
suggests that behavior management is a
significant source of stress for first-year
teachers, who often report low efficacy for
managing student behavior (Ingersoll,
2001; Woolfolk-Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005).
The current study suggests that difficulty in
managing more severe student behaviors
may account for novice teachers’ low efficacy for behavior management overall.
Though teachers in this study were experiencing some levels of success in managing
mild behaviors, they tended to focus
heavily on areas of behavior management
in which they felt unsuccessful.
Literature from special education supports the idea that many teachers are unprepared to address the unique behavioral
needs of students with EBD or related behavioral issues who are mainstreamed into
the regular education classroom (Fabiano &
Pelham, 2003; Grossman, 2005; Shernoff &
Kratochwill, 2007). Findings from the current study extend this idea; though teachers
were attempting to confront severe behavioral issues in their classroom, they could
not identify the source of these strategies,
many of which were more indicative of survival tactics. When dealing with severe behaviors in their classrooms, teachers admitted to “making it up as I went along” and
“thinking up something new that might
work.” These comments indicate that the
teachers lacked a relevant strategy base for
addressing severe behavior problems. In
addition, teachers described punishments
that tended to be more punitive and inconsistent when addressing severe classroom
behaviors. Research suggests that students
exhibiting severe behaviors respond most
successfully to consistent, proactive systems
of discipline grounded in positive reinforcement and behavioral shaping (Mayer, Lochman, & Van Acker, 2005). However, novice
teachers cannot be expected to know this in-
582
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
tuitively, but rather they must be taught this.
These first-year teachers had received no formal training in confronting severe behavior
issues and had no effective strategy sources
to draw from when these behaviors surfaced
in their classrooms. Considering these factors, it should come as no surprise that these
teachers were not experiencing success in
managing severe behaviors in their classrooms.
In relation to the teachers’ management
of severe behavior problems, inclusion of
students with special needs in the regular
classroom surfaced as a theme throughout
the study. Many of the teachers in this
study were teaching students with documented emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), yet these teachers had received
no training in effective discipline techniques for children with special behavioral
needs. As mainstreaming students with
EBD and related disorders becomes increasingly normative in schools, regular
education teachers need to receive training
that has traditionally been relegated to special education majors. Even when behavior
intervention plans (BIPs) are provided for
regular education teachers, these teachers
seldom receive specific training or the necessary supports in implementing these provisions (Blood & Neel, 2007). Teacher education program directors should take a
serious look at the realities of the modernday classroom and ensure that they are preparing preservice teachers to manage the
wide array of behavior issues they will confront during their first critical years.
The findings from this study build on
the current knowledge base concerning behavior management and first-year teachers.
Previous research has concluded that there
is a problem for novice educators in the area
of behavior management, but has stopped
short of describing the nature of the problem
(Hertzog, 2002; Meister & Melnick, 2003).
This study identifies specific areas of behavior management that are particularly challenging for first-year teachers and details the
process of strategy selection and strategy im-
plementation in relation to strategy effectiveness. The resulting paradigm model presents
a framework for understanding novice teachers’ strategies for managing student behavior, which can be tested and refined in future
research.
When we followed up with our teachers
during the completion of this manuscript,
we learned that four of the first-year
teacher participants did not return for their
second year in the classroom. Sadly, these
examples of early-career teacher attrition
are just a cross-section of a much larger
problem in retaining novice educators (Liu
& Meyer, 2005; McCann et al., 2005). In
follow-up conversations with these four
teachers, three cited concerns about behavior management as a central factor in their
decision to leave the classroom after their
first year. One such teacher explained her
decision to leave the teaching profession by
stating that “it’s just been really difficult. I
looked forward to coming in and impacting
the lives of children who really needed to
be impacted. I can’t help those kids who
want to know more because I’m dealing
with the kids who could care less. That is so
discouraging. You can’t live on that. That’s
how you burn out. You just can’t do that
every day.”
Future Research Directions
These poignant examples of early-career
teacher attrition, taken together with the
results of the present study, suggest the
need for future studies to address the issues relating to first-year teachers’ experiences with behavior management and the
training and supports they need in order to
be successful. The resulting paradigm
model from the present study represents a
starting point for better understanding the
strategies that first-year teachers implement in managing their classrooms and areas in which they perceive these strategies
to be effective or ineffective.
Since this study was conducted in two
school districts in the southeast, another
JUNE 2010
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
study in a different geographical location
might allow for a broader look at first-year
teachers’ behavior management strategies
and provide support for the potential to generalize this theoretical model to a wider population. In addition, future studies should include a classroom observational component,
possibly utilizing a behavioral checklist or
related observational protocol. Teachers’ selfreported interview data could then be triangulated with classroom observational data,
yielding richer descriptions of teachers’ behavior management practices.
Furthermore, a survey instrument could
also be created from the model developed
in the present study or subsequent studies
in order to examine the general agreement
among first-year teachers across different
regions with a larger sample size. Additional research in novice teachers’ behavior
management strategies is necessary to inform preservice training and in-service professional development with the goal of educating, supporting, and retaining highly
qualified teachers.
Appendix A
Semistructured Interview Protocol
1. Describe the training you received in
classroom management as an undergraduate.
2. Describe the behavior management plan
you currently use in your classroom. How did
you develop this plan?
3. Have you made any changes in your behavior management plan throughout the year?
If so, why did you make these changes?
4. Have you received in-service training in
behavior management? If so, was it helpful?
5. What are some typical behaviors that you
address in your classroom on a daily basis?
How do you respond to these behaviors? Was
this effective?
6. Describe a few of the most challenging
behaviors you have encountered during your
first year. How did you respond to these behaviors? Was that strategy effective?
7. In which areas do you feel you have been
most successful in managing behavior?
8. What changes, if any, are you planning to
make in your behavior management plan for
next year?
583
References
Baker, P. (2005). Managing student behavior:
How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33, 51–
64.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M.
(2002). Assessing and supporting new teachers:
Lessons from the southeast. Chapel Hill, NC:
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality.
Blase, J. J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of
sources of teacher stress: Consequences for
performance. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 23– 40.
Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to
implementation: A look at what is actually
being delivered. Education and Treatment of
Children, 30(4), 67– 80.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to
teach. In R. C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–
708). New York: Macmillan.
Brinker, S., Goldstein, S., & Tisak, M. (2003).
Children’s judgments about common classroom punishments. Educational Research,
45(2), 189 –198.
Brophy, J. (1996). Teaching problem students. New
York: Guilford.
Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining
validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 124 –130.
Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (2001). Discipline with dignity. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Fabiano, G. A., & Pelham, W. E., Jr. (2003). Improving the effectiveness of behavioral classroom interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A case study. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(2), 122–
128.
Friedman, I. A. (1995). Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 281–289.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and affect on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 479 –507.
Grossman, H. (2005). The case for individualizing behavior management approaches in inclusive classrooms. Emotional and Behavioral
Difficulties, 10(1), 17–32.
Hertzog, H. S. (2002). “When, how, and who do
I ask for help?” Novices’ perceptions of
problems and assistance. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 29, 25– 41.
584
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and
teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38,
499 –534.
Levin, J., & Nolan, J. (2007). Principles of classroom management: A professional decisionmaking model (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Liu, X. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: A multilevel analysis
of the teacher follow-up survey for 1994 –95.
Teachers College Record, 107(5), 985–1003.
Maag, J. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcements in education. Exceptional Children,
67(2), 173–186.
Manning, M. L., & Bucher, K. T. (2003). Classroom management: Models, applications, and
cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
Prentice-Hall.
Mayer, M., Lochman, J., & Van Acker, R. (2005).
Introduction to the special issue: Cognitivebehavioral interventions with students with
EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 30(3), 197–212.
McCann, T. M., Johannessen, L. R., & Ricca, B.
(2005). Responding to new teachers’ concerns. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 30 –34.
Meister, D. G., & Melnick, S. A. (2003). National
new teacher study: Beginning teachers’ concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4),
87–94.
Mittler, P. (2002, July). Moving towards inclusion:
The role of the United Nations. Paper presented at the Third International Conference
on Developmental Disabilities Challenges
and Opportunities: Policy and Research, TelAviv, Israel.
Onafowora, L. L. (2005). Teacher efficacy issues
in the practice of novice teachers. Educational
Research Quarterly, 28(4), 34 – 43.
Pullen, P. (2004). Brighter beginnings for teachers.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rittler, J. T., & Hancock, D. R. (2007). Exploring the
relationship between certification sources, ex-
perience levels, and classroom management
orientations of classroom teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education: An International Journal
of Research and Studies, 23(7), 1206 –1216.
Shernoff, E., & Kratochwill, T. (2007). Transporting an evidence-based classroom management program for preschoolers with disruptive behavior problems to a school: An
analysis of implementation, outcomes, and
contextual variables. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 449 – 472.
Stoughton, E. H. (2007). “How will I get them to
behave?”: Preservice teachers reflect on
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research
and Studies, 23(7), 1024 –1037.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165–184.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.
(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783– 805.
Walker, J. E., & Shea, T. M. (1998). Behavior management: A practical approach for educators (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.
(1993). Toward a knowledge base for school
learning. Review of Educational Research, 63,
249 –294.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology. New
York: Allyn & Bacon.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005).
Changes in teacher efficacy during the early
years of teaching: A comparison of four
measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
343–356.
JUNE 2010