Classroom Management Actions of Beginning Urban Teachers

Abstract

This descriptive, mixed methods study of one interim certification program explores first year urban teachers’ classroom management actions. This study investigates what strategies teachers implement to manage the classroom from programmatic surveys of 87 first-year teachers and interviews, field visits, video recordings, and journals of five case participants. Results indicate that teachers used behavioral, academic, and relational strategies to manage the classroom and they tend to refine several of these actions over time. Findings suggest that teacher preparation should promote beginning teachers to implement a range of classroom management strategies and support teachers in how to refine their actions.

Keywords

teacher development urban education teacher education best practices classroom management

Introduction

Classroom management consistently ranks as one of the top struggles for beginning teachers (Headden, 2014; Langdon & Vesper, 2000). These teachers tend to have difficulty managing disruptive students, implementing effective actions, or positively asserting authority in the classroom (Sokal, Smith, & Mowat, 2003; Westling, 2010). The importance of classroom management is exemplified through national training programs like The New Teacher Project that list classroom management as a core skill that, if properly cultivated, promotes rapid pedagogical development (Mulhern & Wexler, 2013). As such, classroom management maintains as the second most reason for why teachers leave the profession (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).

Moreover, beginning teachers in urban schools may have to rely more on classroom management skills to succeed than teachers in nonurban settings (Milner, 2006; Milner & Tenore, 2010). Urban schools often have over double the proportion of inexperienced teachers as their suburban or low-poverty counterparts (Mayer, Mullens, Moore, & Ralph, 2001) and are commonly staffed by teachers from alternative certification programs (ACPs; Grossman & Loeb, 2008). But these programs tend to provide teachers with limited preparation prior to becoming teachers of record, making it difficult for teachers to develop the necessary classroom management skills (Schonfeld & Feinman, 2012).

To better support beginning urban teachers’ classroom management, descriptions, examples, and illustrations of their actions need to be identified (Bullough & Richardson, 2014) to establish a baseline. Then, teacher educators could help to develop areas of growth prior to or throughout the beginning years of teaching. Therefore, this study is guided by the following research questions:

Research Questions 1: What classroom management actions do first year, urban teachers use?

Research Questions 2:How do urban teachers’ classroom management actions change over the course of their first year?

Theoretical Framework

Classroom management strategies for this study are categorized according to how they impact the classroom (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2014; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). The three impacts most commonly reported are student behavior, academics, and relationships. For instance, Sun (2015) interviewed 12 secondary teachers in Hong Kong and found that teachers discussed using classroom management strategies for three primary reasons: (a) control student behavior, (b) engage the students in learning, and (c) forge a good relationship with the students. These categorizations also coincide with the widely used definition of classroom management as proposed by Evertson and Weinstein (2006): actions that seek “to establish and sustain an orderly environment so students can engage in meaningful academic learning . . . [and] enhance students’ social and moral growth” (p. 4). I propose a similar categorization to review the literature on classroom management strategies and to explore teachers’ actions: those that influence student behavior, student engagement in academic content, and building student relationships.¹ Each category of classroom management action is discussed below, followed by a review of the literature on how beginning urban teachers implement classroom management.

Managing Student Behavior

Behavioral classroom management actions are strategies that prevent misbehavior or promote positive behavior. Misbehavior generally refers to disruptive behavior that undermines the lesson plan and obstructs the learning of the misbehaving student or her or his peers while positive behavior typically includes actions that are on-task and follows classroom rules and procedures. Research investigating behavioral strategies often separates actions as either preventive or reactionary strategies.

Preventive strategies, used to prevent instances of potential misbehavior, have been associated with positive teacher and student outcomes such as increased student engagement and lower teacher stress (Bear, 2014; Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010). Examples of preventive strategies are rules (established guidelines for student conduct) and procedures (organized routines for consistent classroom activities), which can help class to run more efficiently by minimizing confusion among students (Balli, 2011; Kunter, Baumert, & Koller, 2007).

Reactive strategies, sometimes termed corrective strategies in the literature, are used to stop misbehavior in the moment. For instance, Reupert and Woodcock (2010) administered a survey to 336 preservice elementary teachers and found that teachers most frequently reported using reactive strategies, specifically the verbal actions of giving warnings, calling students’ names, and administering consequences to stop student disruptions. Interestingly, the authors added that teachers often used reactive strategies but did not consider them to be effective classroom management actions. Other existing literature suggest that teachers also use nonverbal reactive strategies, such as eye contact, monitoring, hand signals, physical proximity, and touch to manage student misbehavior (Atici, 2007; Kunter et al., 2007).

Managing Through Academic Content

Teachers also manage their classrooms by using content to engage students in academics, thus limiting opportunities for misbehavior (Atici, 2007). Using an observational protocol on teachers in four elementary schools over a 2-year span, Sticher and colleagues (2009) found that teachers who used “instructional talk” had better classroom management procedures and fewer instances of inappropriate student verbalizations, on average. Instructional talk included using verbal prompts, positive feedback, and wait time to promote academic conversations and student responses during lectures, demonstration, and discussion. That is, the more teachers engaged students in content, the better students behaved.

Managing Through Student Relationships

Several other studies identified the importance of managing students through positive interactions within the classroom (Banks, 2014; de Jong et al., 2014). This literature consistently highlights the importance of building relationships as a classroom management strategy and the positive impact it can have on teacher and student outcomes (Kwok, 2017; Wubbels et al., 2014). Though there is no consensus about the best methods for building positive relationships in classrooms (van Tartwijk, den Brok, Veldman, & Wubbels, 2009), several promising strategies have been identified. One strategy is to care for students, which Nie and Lau (2009) defined as teachers showing warmth, concern, and acceptance of students. Ennis and McCauley (2002) suggest additional strategies such as creating opportunities for students to build self-esteem and to bolster themselves in front of their peers, providing genuine positive enforcement of effort, encouraging student ownership of content, and creating classroom communities based on trust.

Beginning, Urban Teachers

There is some evidence that indicates beginning teachers are not utilizing these research-based strategies in the classroom (Headden, 2014). Most literature suggests that beginning teachers—preservice teachers and teachers in their first few years of in-service teaching—are ineffective classroom managers who tend to focus narrowly on behavioral issues. These teachers tend to be more disorganized in enacting routines, provide more rigid teacher-centered lesson plans, and rely more on reactive strategies (Emmer & Stough, 2001). For example, Reupert and Woodcock (2010) surveyed 336 preservice teachers to investigate the type of actions that they used to manage classrooms and how frequently they used them. The authors found that novice teachers primarily relied on reactive strategies—such as physical proximity—because they felt more confident employing those strategies than preventive strategies, even though teachers reported preventive strategies were more effective.

There are a handful of other studies that indicate beginning teachers could more effectively manage classrooms and may not be narrowly focused on controlling student behavior. Atici (2007) interviewed nine preservice teachers and found that student teachers reported successfully using preventive, nonverbal actions to positively reinforce students toward instructional activities to manage their classrooms. In another study, Bondy, Ross, Gallingane, and Hambacher (2007) used video and interview data to identify how novice teachers created learning environments for African American students. The authors selectively recruited three urban novice teachers who were previously observed as having classrooms characterized by “respectful interactions, a calm tone, and a clear focus on academics” (p. 332) and found that they all insisted on respectful behavior, established an academic-centered community, and used culturally responsive modes of communication. This study demonstrated that beginning teachers can effectively use behavioral, academic, and relational classroom management strategies.

There are several limitations to this literature on beginning teachers’ classroom management actions that prompt the need for additional research. Beginning teachers’ actions were often measured using surveys (e.g., Reupert & Woodcock, 2010), which is more indicative of what teachers report doing in the classroom instead of the actions they actually implement. Relatedly, observational evidence of beginning teachers’ classroom management actions is limited. Only one study (i.e., Bondy et al., 2007) observed beginning in-service teachers’ classroom management actions, but the study sample was researcher selected and may not be representative of a typical beginning teacher. Therefore, more needs to be learned about the range of actions that beginning teachers, on average, implement to manage classrooms.

Context can also play a role in how new teachers manage the classroom (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). Challenges specific to urban schools² can include staffing higher proportions of beginning teachers, offering less administrative support, and having higher rates of misbehavior (Jacob, 2007; Mayer et al., 2001). These challenges tend to result in teachers having a more behavioral and discipline-oriented perspective of classroom management (Martin & Yin, 1999), though it should instead prompt the use of culturally relevant classroom management (CRCM). Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, and Curran (2004) discuss how there is a need to adapt classroom management to the classroom context, particularly when there are differences between the culture of the teacher and students. The number of minority students in many major metropolitan cities has steadily increased over the past decade to represent just under half of all students in the United States, yet over 80% of the teaching workforce is White (Musu-Gillette, Robinson, McFarland, KewalRamani, Zhang, & Wilkinson-Flicker, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This racial discrepancy impacts how a classroom is managed, particularly when there are cultural differences in what is considered appropriate behavior. Therefore, Weinstein and associates (2004) recommend the use of five CRCM strategies for teachers to be more responsive to their students including recognizing the teachers’ own ethnocentrism and knowing their students’ cultures, each which would best be categorized a relational strategy.

Unfortunately, the literature on how beginning urban teachers manage their classrooms, let alone whether they incorporate strategies that are culturally relevant, is limited. Delpit (2006) ethnographically interviewed 12 teachers of color and found that they tend to be less authoritative than their White counterparts, not wanting to demand obedience but allow students the opportunity to discuss how they learn. However, this finding was almost an aside, as interviews focused on diversity in teacher education instead of student behavior and classroom management. In Germany, Glock (2016) found that preservice teachers often would recommend harsher interventions for male, ethnic minority students, while Dunkake and Schuchart (2015) found that about 40% of preservice teachers would provide a harsher discipline style toward low-class students. However, these studies do not represent teachers in the United States or provide insight on what actions are being implemented.

Sample

First-year teachers were recruited in the 2013-2014 academic year from CERT, which represents a 2-year teacher preparation program within a large public University in the Midwest. CERT required teachers to attend bimonthly content-specific seminars and be observed approximately once a month by a content field instructor. CERT teachers were concurrently enrolled in an ACP, which required teachers to work full-time in an urban K-12 school contingent on making satisfactory progress in a certification program (e.g., CERT). These urban schools were defined by the programs as having a majority of students who qualified for free and reduced-price lunches and located in a large, metropolitan city. Teachers had to attend ACP-specific bimonthly pedagogical seminars and be observed by an ACP content field supervisor throughout the year. ACP also required teachers to attend a 6-week summer training which included an accelerated student teaching experience prior to enrolling in a certification program. This training had an explicit focus on classroom management by teaching assertive discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976), which promoted teachers to clearly state expectations, narrate student behavior, and administer consequences as needed.

Of the 124 first-year teachers who completed their first year of CERT, 87 completed both the beginning and end of year surveys (described below), comprising the analytic sample. Approximately half of the sample was split between elementary and secondary teachers. Seventy-six percent of first-year teachers were in charter schools, 6% were in public schools, and 18% were in state-operated public schools. Within this analytic sample, five CERT teachers volunteered as case participants: elementary teachers Ms. Chatman and Ms. Babkin, and secondary teachers Mr. Vante, Mr. Frank, and Mr. Sand. All case participants were White (one is a Russian immigrant) and recent college graduates. These teachers responded to recruitment emails and were willing to participate in more in-depth qualitative research. These teachers taught in diverse and high poverty contexts, with class sizes of approximately 25 students for elementary case participants and 15 to 25 students for the secondary teachers, depending on the period. Additional case participant and their school characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were no noticeable qualitative or quantitative survey differences between these case participants and the whole program.

Table 1.

Case Participant Characteristics.

Name	College major	Grade level	School	School demographic population	% of students who qualify for free & reduced-price lunch
Ms. Babkin	Global development & social justice	1st grade	K-12 Public	98% African American	68
Ms. Chatman	Political science	2nd grade	K-5 Public Charter Elementary	100% African American	86
Mr. Sand	English literature	8th, 9th grade	K-10 Public Charter	88% Arab American, 9% African American	83
Mr. Frank	Political science	8th grade	6-8 Public Religious Charter	100% African American	86
Mr. Vante	Law	8th grade

Method

A mixed methodological approach was used to allow for multiple theoretical frames and modes of data collection to investigate classroom management (Greene, 2007). This study collected CERT administered programmatic surveys³ and qualitative data on the five CERT case participants, which are described in more detail below.

CERT Program Survey

CERT created an electronic program survey as an instrument to study the change in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs through a beginning and end of the year program survey. Analyses focused on one open-ended question that asked teachers to report on classroom management actions they have successfully used: “Describe (or imagine) a time when you used an effective classroom management skill and how that impacted the classroom.” Out of a total of 124 first year teachers who completed the certification program, 87 teachers completed both programmatic surveys for a 70% response rate.

Video Recordings of Teaching Practice

Case participants video recorded themselves teaching during three different waves throughout the school year. For each “wave” of video recording, teachers self-recorded the same class period, approximately 1-hr long, every day for a week. Teachers set up a recording device (i.e., phone, laptop, video recorder) in the back of the room to obtain a student perspective of the teacher (Derry, 2007) and to capture what teachers said and did to manage the classroom.

Each video recording was systematically reviewed by the author at least twice. In the initial review, teacher statements that could be interpreted for classroom management purposes were transcribed verbatim, including contextual information as necessary. These were statements to get students to behave properly, engage in the lesson, or facilitate a positive interaction. In the second systematic data review, nonverbal behaviors were focused on and a low level of inference was used to verify whether teachers intentionally implemented these actions for classroom management purposes.

Field Visits

The author visited each case participant’s classroom on two separate occasions for an entire school day. During these visits, extensive field notes were taken as a nonparticipant observer, which meant limited interactions with the teacher and students while class was in session. Observation and field notes focused on the teacher’s actions, attending to both verbal and nonverbal actions. In addition, each case participant was informally interviewed throughout field visits to learn more about the intent and reported frequency of certain classroom management strategies that they used. These interviews focused on how and why teachers implemented their actions, and were asked to the teacher throughout the day as their schedules permitted (Horvat, 2013). Immediately following each field visit, formal observation memos were written based on field notes and then converted into a descriptive narrative, emphasizing central themes and occurrences.

Teacher Interviews

A beginning and end of the year semistructured interview was conducted with each case participant to gather general impressions about classroom management. As part of the end of the year interview, a video compilation from each teacher’s set of video recordings was created to explore teachers’ thoughts about how they managed their classroom. Video clips included teachers quieting a whole class, becoming frustrated with a student, administering a consequence, and engaging students through instruction. Video recall allowed teachers to discuss their observations in context, what they had intended to do, and if there was anything they wish they had done differently (Kersting, 2008).

Classroom Management Journal

As an alternative to researcher-generated ideas, teachers maintained an electronic classroom management journal as a source of teacher-generated ideas (Johnstone, Johnstone, & Balester, 1994). They filled out an online survey at the end of each day that they video recorded their classroom. They described each classroom management strategy they thought they used, why it was used, and whether they believed it worked.

Data Analysis

Across data, action⁴ units were first identified as observable or self-reported verbal and nonverbal behaviors that the teacher used to manage an individual student or the whole classroom. Identification of action units was tested for reliability with an external researcher, someone familiar with classroom management but not associated with this study. We established a Cohen’s kappa value of κ = 0.88, which, according to Landis and Koch (1977), is considered “almost perfect” in magnitude. Second, focused coding was used to create thematic codes of the types of actions that all teachers used (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Three codes about how teachers were observed managing or discussed how they managed the classroom were created, based on this study’s theoretical framework: managing students using academic content (academic actions), managing student behavior (behavioral actions), and relationship building practices (relational actions). Third, a coding rubric was created using these thematic codes and then worked with the same external researcher to establish reliability in applying the coding rubric. We established a Cohen’s kappa value of κ = 0.67, which, according to Landis and Koch (1977), is considered “substantial” in magnitude, before applying the rubric to all the data. Fourth, data were assigned into one of two time periods to measure how classroom management changed over time with each time period including at least one set of data from each data source.

Once all data were coded, analytic memos were written for each type of classroom management action, expanding on patterns of observed actions and explanations of how and why those actions were used. As more detailed descriptions of these actions were established, the survey data were qualitatively analyzed to get a broader picture of how frequent these actions were being used. Specifically, the distributions of coding categories were investigated to get an idea of the kinds of actions that were common across case participants as a group. Code distributions at each time period were calculated to compare whether the distributions changed over time as well as by the type of data to determine differences between whole group and case participant actions.

Results

What Classroom Management Actions Do CERT Teachers Use?

Teachers were observed and self-reported using broad categories of behavioral, academic, and relational actions, shown in Figure 1. The majority (88%) of CERT teachers reported using behavioral actions, making the use of academic and relational actions less common. Similarly, when observing five of these teachers in more detail revealed that 56% of case participants’ actions that they used were behavioral, 33% academic, and 11% relational. Therefore, teachers primarily report and are seen using behavioral actions, though they infrequently use academic and relational actions.

Figure 1.

Teachers’ classroom management actions.

Behavioral actions

Teachers established and enforced rules to guide how students should behave in their classrooms by making sure students were quiet, were in an academic body posture, had the correct classroom materials, and, when necessary, administering consequences for misbehavior.

Dealing with student talking

Teachers used prepared strategies to get students silent, most often with attention-getting actions when the whole class was distracted in conversation or engaged in group work. Whenever teachers needed their voice to be heard over a classroom full of talking students, they often had a prepared verbal statement to get students to end their conversations. A common approach was to regularly count down from a specific number, giving students several seconds to quiet down. Teachers occasionally added individual directions in between numbers, such as telling the class to face forward, put certain materials away, or by saying individual students’ names to get their attention. Other teachers created their own “attention-getters,” exemplified by Mr. Frank saying, “Eyes on me. Silence in 3-2-1” (Field Note, June 5, 2014) or Mr. Sand calling out, “We are in math,” requiring students to respond by saying, “Math” (Recording, February 10, 2014).

Teachers also established behavioral expectations to prevent student talking. Sometimes teachers designated a noise level at different points during the class, as demonstrated by Mr. Sand when he encouraged students during an independent work time to “keep this level of quiet and to increase our level of focus” (Field Note, May 28, 2014). In saying this, he acknowledged the current classroom noise was appropriate and told students to maintain that same standard for the remainder of independent work time. Likewise, Ms. Chatman previewed for students how they should act throughout one activity by setting behavioral guidelines. Prior to her interactive demonstration of how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to teach students how to follow steps, she asked them to participate with the caveat that if she “makes a mistake or they have a step that is different than hers, the students’ voices should still be off” (Field Note, May 13, 2014). She knew the students would feel compelled to comment, but she did not want their eagerness to derail the activity.

Though teachers prepared strategies to quiet students, they also frequently used reactive, nonverbal strategies. For example, teachers used nonverbal cues to stop students when they were talking, and, as Ms. Chatman described, “to redirect behavior without interrupting learning” (Survey, September 10, 2013). Ms. Chatman implemented this approach when she encouraged individuals to look at the student who was talking by pointing at that student and tapping the arms of a couple of nearby students who were either talking or not paying attention. Ms. Chatman managed attention by using touch and hand signals so as not to disrupt the student who was providing a response. The distracted students understood what she was conveying with these signals and complied (Field Note, May 13, 2014). Relatedly, Mr. Vante made direct eye contact with a disruptive student to get her to stop talking. The student acknowledged that she was misbehaving, and Mr. Vante’s nonverbal reminder brought her back on task without having to interrupt the activity or draw attention to the student (Field Note, May 12, 2014). Another subtle, nonverbal action used by teachers was to circulate around the room. Teachers walked by students so they felt and saw the teachers’ presence nearby, encouraging them to behave appropriately. Mr. Frank described how circulation helped “students [get] back to work quickly when I passed by them” (Journal, April 14, 2014). Teachers consistently walked around to hold students accountable of behavioral expectations, which was the main reason why all case participants rarely sat at their desks.

Establishing student body posture

Another behavioral action used by teachers was to correct students’ body posture, which was viewed as an outward gesture that they were attentive and actively learning. To do this, teachers first had to get students seated. Students often got up from their desks and walked around the classroom to talk with another student. All case participants frequently had to instruct students to return to their assigned seats to avoid commotion around the room.

When seated, teachers made sure students were also in an appropriate learning position. Ms. Babkin frequently asked her students to model the “scholar position” by having their “back straight, feet on the floor, your eyes are on me and your hands are folded” (Field Note, June 2, 2014). By giving students specific directions on how to achieve an appropriate learning position, she wanted students to appear “scholarly,” which she believed would prevent students from misbehaving. Ms. Chatman reinforced the same body posture with her students, demanding that students be in what she termed, “star position” (Field Note, May 13, 2014), which included folded hands and sitting up straight. Throughout lectures, she reiterated that students should be in the appropriate posture by saying a student’s name and telling him or her to get in “star,” or stopping class to remind them of the behavioral expectation.

Positive reinforcement

Another common behavioral action used by teachers was to positively reinforce students through praise and behavioral narration. Teachers often did this in a public manner to share with all students about specific positive behaviors they observed. Teachers strategically voiced when a student was behaving correctly or working hard on content to affirm the individual student and to reiterate to other students how model behavior should appear in that moment. As one teacher explained, “positive behavior narration is still one of the most effective strategies . . . because students respond to positive recognition and praise more than anything else” (Teacher 6, Survey, May 14, 2014). Case participants similarly believed that narrating what one student did made other students want to receive praise and helped to reinforce behavioral expectations. Nearly every time Mr. Frank used his attention getter, he would follow it by positively reinforcing individuals that listened: “[Student] is quiet” or “[Student’s] eyes are on me” (e.g., Field Note, June 5, 2014).

Teachers also gave tangible rewards or fun experiences for positive student behavior and effort. Rewards proved to be satisfying for both the students who earned them and for the teacher in seeing students meet certain standards. Students were recognized for trying their best on academic work or given a “reward for following directions and going above and beyond” (Babkin, Survey, September 10, 2013). Ms. Babkin used a range of individual rewards. Notably, in one instance, she stopped her lesson because one student quietly raised his hand and then gave him a sticker, a rainmaker to play with, and positively changed his color on the classroom color chart system⁵ (Recording, February 24, 2014). She wanted students to have something tangible to feel good about their actions. Whether it was a piece of candy for correct answers or the opportunity to choose from a range of costume accessories that they could wear if they behaved correctly, Ms. Babkin was the one case participant who consistently rewarded students for meeting or exceeding her expectations. Other case participants also distributed rewards, albeit less frequently, including the offering of free class time (e.g., Frank, Recording, April 14, 2014) and the opportunity to watch a fun video (e.g., Chatman, Field Note, May 12, 2014).

Managing student materials

Teachers also managed classrooms by overseeing student possession and organization of learning materials, especially basic school resources for engaging in classroom work. Mr. Vante, for example, would regularly ask students to get out a pencil and paper when class began, telling students that they should ask a neighbor for materials if they did not bring them (Field Note, May 12, 2014). Mr. Sand was particularly strict in this area: Prior to class starting, he would not let students enter the classroom unless they showed him requisite class materials. During one observation, Mr. Sand asked one student whether he had a pencil and paper. When the student stated that he did not, Mr. Sand promptly told the student that he could not enter the classroom until he had the necessarily materials. The student then went to get the materials and came back prepared before class started (Recording, May 5, 2014). Mr. Sand said he wanted his students to have basic resources to participate and succeed in class rather than have an excuse to not do work.

Removing potentially distracting materials unrelated to the current activity proved to be, at times, just as important to teachers as students having the correct materials. Teachers often instructed students to put away extraneous items, academic or otherwise, which were unneeded at that time. They asked students to remove books, papers, and toys that were in front of them so they would not be distracted from learning. Often when there was a transition between academic activities, Ms. Babkin could be heard telling students to put away a folder, worksheet, or other item leftover from the previous activity (Field Note, June 2, 2014). For students who did not immediately comply, teachers regularly took distracting items away and put them in a separate location. For instance, Mr. Vante warned one student to put a stuffed penguin “away in your locker unless I take it away.” The student did not comply, so Mr. Vante took the toy and put it behind his own desk. He believed the toy would be a distraction and instructed the student to pick it up after class (Field Note, May 12, 2014).

Administering consequences

Teachers upheld behavioral expectations by administering one of several consequences. Sometimes they gave explicit warnings to point out and reprimand students’ misbehavior to make students aware of what was and was not appropriate. During one class, for example, Mr. Frank cautioned a group of students, “Guys, last warning. Silently take notes and raise your hand if you have a question” (Recording, May 12, 2014). In this instance, he explicitly gave a warning to students who were not acting according to expectations; he then restated the expectation to quell subsequent, similar misbehavior. A warning often prevented further misbehavior because the self-consciousness associated with public recognition for their disruption seemed to encourage them to stay on task.

Students who continued to misbehave or chose to ignore the warning typically prompted teachers to choose a more severe consequence. One consequence was teachers sometimes moved students to another desk or location in the classroom to separate peers that were distracting one another. For instance, Ms. Babkin had arranged her classroom to include adjacent spaces away from the rest of the students but within earshot of the lesson. Ms. Babkin consistently sent disruptive students to this area because “certain kids . . . needed to be moved at that moment. I feel like all my kids care about learning so much that if they saw a student move [seats] like that, they would realize you’re wasting class time and maybe that would motivate them in the moment” (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014). She recognized that moving disruptive students sent a clear message to both them and the remaining students to behave appropriately, but she wanted misbehaving students to still have opportunities to continue learning.

As part of this consequence, teachers typically had an individual conversation with the disruptive students about their misbehavior before they were allowed back into their normal seating assignments. Teachers often used these conversations as teaching opportunities. For example, Mr. Sand recounted what he told a group of students that he had sent out of class:

[I told them] how they have a lot of power in the classroom. If I have to fight them, they’re going to win. [We] need to pick the same side and we need to find a reason for that. I’ll ask them, “Do you know where I am coming from in the lesson?” “Yeah yeah yeah, you’re trying to teach us math,” the disruptive students would respond. (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014)

He tried to reason with the students, had them reflect on their behavior, and come to an understanding of what their actions should look like before returning to the classroom. He wanted to prevent further disruptions and made sure the consequences positively impacted students for the future.

One of the most severe consequences for student misbehavior was when teachers notified a higher authority who could administer a harsher consequence than the teacher. One example was when teachers notified school administrators, who disciplined students frequently with a suspension or community service. Mr. Frank understood the severity of this consequence because “if anything, [administrators] go overkill, which is nice because I can play the good guy. I can send a kid out and [administrators] will want to write him up. ‘Oh, I didn’t want that but once you leave this classroom I cannot control what happens,’” he would tell his students (Personal Interview, June 17, 2014). Mr. Frank and his students knew the authority of administrators; therefore, Mr. Frank could threaten to get them involved as a consequence in itself.

Parent involvement (or the threat thereof) was another consequence teachers would use. Teachers would communicate student misbehavior to family members at their home. In fact, Mr. Sand commented how he “should’ve done more parents calls . . . for some students I called at the beginning of the year they were fine forever” (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014). Teachers only used these consequences on occasions when students were defiant or completely unruly, and rarely as a proactive form of preventing student misbehavior.

Academic actions

While teachers used actions to prevent, stop, or discipline misbehavior, teachers also engaged students in content to manage the classroom. Academic actions were used to intentionally manage their classrooms by increasing student engagement and preventing misbehavior. The three kinds of academic actions they commonly used were planning specific learning activities, refocusing students to content, and asking content questions throughout the lesson.

Planning learning activities

Teachers chose an activity that they thought best conveyed content and engaged students deliberately to maximize engagement with content and, thus, minimize off-task behaviors. Throughout their journals, for example, teachers referred to instructional activities as classroom management strategies because purposeful planning engaged students. When students were engaged with content, it “denies students the ability to misbehave because they don’t understand something, which generally increases their ownership of misbehavior” (Frank, Journal, April 14, 2014). Teachers listed activities such as assigning homework, note taking, quiz review (Vante, Journal, April 28, 2014), guided notes (Babkin, Journal, February 24, 2014), and independent work as ways to keep students engaged with academic material and thus avoid classroom disruptions.

Ms. Babkin shared how she used “circulating stations” to manage the classroom, which she defined as “pacing the lesson, allowing short bursts of intensive critical thought.” This lesson activity put students in small groups for a short amount of time to learn about a topic and after some time, students would rotate to another “station” to learn about a different topic. She explained that this strategy, as it related to classroom management, promoted engagement and reduced misbehavior: “Students did not exhibit behavior problems or need much redirection” (Journal, February 24, 2014). In addition to being an instructional or pedagogical strategy for teaching academic content, Ms. Babkin used circulating stations to minimize behavioral issues that could otherwise obstruct student learning.

Refocusing students on content

Teachers also used quick, verbal statements to direct students toward the work. The emphasis on content or class work was the primary distinction between this strategy and a behavioral strategy that would only focus on getting students quiet. Often, teachers encouraged students to concentrate on challenging material or to do their best to complete assigned independent work. Teachers prompted students to “get to work” whenever they were distracted or gave subtle reminders for the work they had to complete. Sometimes they used the amount of time remaining to complete an academic task to keep or redirect students to the task at hand. During one observation, for example, Mr. Frank reminded the class: “Six minutes left. People are finishing up so hurry up” (Field Note, June 5, 2014). Mr. Frank would then periodically update the time remaining to finish the assignment, helping students to determine how fast they should be working. Likewise, teachers sometimes announced how many questions students should have completed or what problem they should be currently working on. These reminders helped students pace their work while reminding momentarily disengaged students what they should do to stay on track.

Content questions for student attention

Throughout their lessons, teachers also gathered students’ attention by posing content questions to engage students and prevent misbehavior. Teachers would deliberately select individuals to answer a question or practice a problem, as Ms. Babkin described, “to keep students accountable for paying attention and be ready to answer a question” (Journal, March 6, 2014). Mr. Vante similarly felt like checking for understanding helped him to manage the classroom because it “causes more students to pay attention if they don’t know when their name will be called” (Journal, April 28, 2014). He thought this was an opportunity to keep students engaged, requiring them to actively participate in the lesson and have a prepared answer for his questions. Periodically during lectures, he cold-called students and, depending on their answer, he chose his response. If students knew the answers, he continued with the lesson; for students who did not have an answer, he told them to pay attention to the content before calling on another student or allowing a volunteer to provide the correct answer (Field Note, March 18, 2014). Other case participants incorporated more formalized systems to determine which students would answer the question. Mr. Sand randomly chose from a deck of cards to select students to answer the warm up questions. He felt this approach kept “students engaged because they might be called on at any time” (Journal, February 10, 2014). Ms. Babkin drew sticks with students’ names on them (Recording, May 12, 2014) and Ms. Chatman tended to wait for a certain proportion of student volunteers to raise their hand before calling on one individual (Journal, June 10, 2014).

Relational actions

Teachers used other actions to foster a positive climate within their classrooms. These relational actions included building relationships with students and manipulating the environment to promote student interactions.

Building personal relationships

When managing classrooms, teachers often focused on building relationships to establish a personal connection and to promote a comfortable environment for students. Positive interactions between students and teachers seemed to help students to listen to the teacher and make them more compliant and willing to engage in material. As one survey respondent said, “I found that management was easier when I formed relationships with students” (Teacher 33, Survey, September 10, 2013).

Case participants tended to build relationships in one of two ways: sharing about their lives with students or getting to know their students as individuals. Mr. Vante consistently shared with students because he felt like it helped students to understand him “as a human [rather] than a robot teacher that plugs in at night” (Personal Interview, December 5, 2014). He enjoyed talking with his students and often continued student discussions rather than quelling them, such as telling the class a story of his trip to Disney when students were already off topic during the lesson (Field Note, May 12, 2014). This action engaged students for a moment before then redirecting the attention that he had gathered back to the lesson.

Ms. Babkin shared about her life experiences to convey moral lessons. These pseudolessons would often be deep and philosophical, as she “literally have talked to my kids like they’re in college and I teach them life lessons I learned” (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014). She explained that she hoped sharing would create a bond with her students, impart wisdom that went beyond academic content, and keep them motivated throughout the school year (Field Note, June 2, 2014). For example, she shared about her distant relationships with her father and sister and that despite not having close familial support, she followed her dream by working hard and not making excuses (Field Note, May 7, 2014). She had hoped these lessons would build student motivation and investment toward the content, making it easier to then manage the students.

While she shared about her life, Ms. Babkin also spent time learning about her students. Ms. Babkin prioritized opportunities to learn more about her students by “getting to know my kids personally, having lunch with them, visiting their houses, [and] writing them letters. I have a working relationship with all my kids” (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014). She sought opportunities to get to know and interact with her students within and outside of school hours. Prior to starting one lesson, for example, she asked, “Anyone want to share about their weekends?” She allowed multiple students to respond and even engaged with follow-up questions about their experiences (Field Note, June 2, 2014). She dedicated class time to these conversations so that she could build a stronger relationship. Likewise, Mr. Frank often took time to talk with students entering his classroom or passing by in the hall before class started. In one instance, he asked a student who had missed the previous day about the student’s trip to Mississippi (Field Note, June 5, 2014). Before focusing on the work that the student missed, Mr. Frank took the opportunity to check in on the student’s personal life.

Establishing the classroom layout

Teachers also impacted teacher–student and student–student interactions by rearranging the classroom layout. Although preventing misbehavior was a by-product of this action, teachers primarily described that they changed the desk and seating arrangement to positively impact the interactions in the classroom. Teachers set up desks in a convenient position so they could easily walk to and interact with students. Several teachers changed their classroom layout numerous times throughout their first year before settling on a preferable arrangement. Ms. Babkin shared the importance of establishing a desk arrangement to “be responsive to who sits where and who gets distracted.” She added that, after changing desks several times, she eventually found an arrangement that she liked and had the desired impact: “Now I don’t change them [desks] at all because the U-shape works” (Field Note, June 2, 2014). She felt like this alignment fit her classroom because it gave her the best view of what students were doing in their seats and afforded her the access to students that she had desired.

Mr. Vante shared about frequently changing his desk arrangement because he recognized that each design offered affordances and constraints for how he could manage the classroom. One characteristic that was most salient to him was how the desk configuration affected how he circulated the room: “Whatever the layout of the classroom is, if it’s a U-shape, I’m walking around like this. If it’s groups, I’m bouncing from group to group. If it’s rows, I’m in and out or just around the outside” (Field Note, May 12, 2014). How he interacted with students, he felt, largely depended on how the desks were arranged. He felt individually spaced desks gave him access to all students but limited the interactions that students had with one another; he could easily see what all students were doing in a U-shape arrangement but did not have equal access to everyone; grouped desks were difficult to behaviorally manage but helpful if he wanted to incorporate group work. Individually spaced desks was his “default” arrangement, but Mr. Vante often moved desks around to organize the classroom around planned learning activities or how he intended students to interact with one another (Personal Interview, June 16, 2014).

Relatedly, teachers prevented negative interactions by assigning students to specific desks rather than letting students choose their own seats. As one survey respondent explained, seating assignments “seemed to help create—if not a perfect classroom environment—a more manageable one” (Teacher 34, Survey, September 10, 2013). Teachers intentionally placed students who could work well with one another next to each other or separated students who were likely to distract one another. Mr. Sand used a daily random seating assignment, but prior to class starting, he would look around the room and make sure to “split up troublesome groupings” (Journal, June 2, 2014) so that students were not seated next to their friends. While Mr. Sand changed seats daily, Mr. Vante said he adjusted “seating arrangements about every two or three weeks” to account for the shifting student dynamics throughout the year (Personal Interview, June 16, 2014). He believed that consistently moving students into new seats kept them from growing too accustomed to their neighbors but still maintained a positive atmosphere. Ms. Babkin and Ms. Chatman adjusted seating only when they felt individual students needed a change in surroundings.

How Do CERT Teachers’ Actions Classroom Management Actions Change Over Time?

Teachers’ actions were also explored in how they changed throughout their first year. McNemar’s tests determined whether there was a statistically significant change in whether a teacher listed a type of action or not on the survey from Time Period 1 to Time Period 2. Results were not statistically significant, suggesting that teachers, on average, reported using each type of action at similar frequencies throughout the year. However, qualitative analyses of the case participant data revealed a shift in how some teachers used classroom management that could not have been captured in the quantitative analyses. Even though teachers often used similar types of actions, several tended to refine these actions.

One example is Mr. Sand’s use of attention getters to quiet students throughout the year. Initially, he counted down until students were silent, then switched to an attention getter that he was not fond of, and eventually created a more effective strategy that was meaningful to him and his students. Mr. Sand explained the evolution of his attention getters:

I had this thing where I would say, “We are in math.” And they [the students] would say, “Math.” And I thought this was awful. I was counting down for the first half of the year and it just took forever. They stopped taking it seriously because at some point I yelled. I think in October and November I yelled and it was over because I had to yell every single time. “We are in math” thing, I got consistent with that, but it’s so boring. And I got the “radical and radio” thing. I just thought of it. That’s a little bit catchier and it rhymes. The meanings work. It’s the two main things that I need, which is [for students to] sit down and to face forward. And then to focus on me and don’t talk . . . Some of the kids even like it a little bit and they’ll say it, so it works in that way. (Field Note, May 28, 2014)

Saying “radical and radio” had a meaning the he and his students shared: “Why I was saying tune in to radio . . . but saying which frequencies are going to help you succeed . . . if you’re making noise with your radio whereas you can’t hear anything, you can’t catch anything. I think . . . that resonated with the students” (Personal Interview, June 23, 2014). This attention-getter required students to actively respond and utilize words that had significance. Saying “radical,” which is an expression using a square root, had a connection to math and made Mr. Sand feel like he was using content to get students quiet. He continued to focus on student behavior and changed strategies until he found one that he felt like was effective.

Another example is Ms. Chatman’s use of the color system. Teachers used this system to track student behavior by notating on a board posted in the front of the room how each student acted during that day using specific colored cards. Each color was associated with certain individual rewards and consequences at the end of the day. At the behest of her students, Ms. Chatman included a warning before administering a “check.” She recalled a conversation she had with them:

With certain kids especially, there was a point in the year where I told kids, “What I am noticing now when I am giving you checks, you just give up. What can I do for you to make it better?” I had kids tell me, “You don’t give me a warning.” [She responded,] “Well you get two checks and then a color change; it’s like your warning.” [The students replied,] “Yeah but I don’t get a warning.” So, then I would add a warning before the first check. So that’s me changing the system. . . . For me, it’s semantics. But for the kid, no. (Personal Interview, June 19, 2014)

Students suggested to Ms. Chatman how to improve her behavioral system and she made the corresponding change. It was a minor tweak for her, but it helped students to follow and invest more into her color chart system. That is, she adapted the color chart to meet the students’ needs.

Discussion

This study explores beginning teachers’ classroom management actions through program surveys and qualitative methods from five case participants. Results indicate that teachers used behavioral, academic, and relational actions to manage their classrooms, with corresponding examples and details of each type of action provided. While there did not appear to be a shift in the types of classroom management actions across teachers over the course of their first year, qualitative data indicate that some teachers refined the types of actions that they used over time.

One finding from this study was that CERT teachers prioritized behavioral actions. Most teachers across CERT self-reported using behavioral types of actions, and case participants were observed using these types of actions frequently in their classrooms. This finding corresponds with previous literature that states beginning teachers and teachers who work in urban schools tend to be more behaviorally focused (Martin & Yin, 1999; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010). However, my results extend previous research by identifying that many of the reported and observed behavioral actions were, in fact, research-based strategies, such as the use of rules, procedures, expectations, verbal, and nonverbal strategies (Atici, 2007; Balli, 2011; Kunter et al., 2007). This contrasts with Headden (2014), who found that beginning teachers tend to not use empirical strategies to manage their classroom. This could occur because of the particular preparation provided by ACP and CERT, or from the support they received from their school. Future studies should investigate how beginning urban teachers are prepared and supported in classroom management as well as whether they are cognizant of which strategies they implement are research-based.

While most teachers focused on behavior, there was still some emphasis, though infrequent, on academic and relational actions. CERT teachers were not solely preoccupied on maintaining authority and administering student discipline. At times, they focused on using content and academic material to engage students as one way to curtail student misbehavior, consistent with one subset of literature (e.g., Stichter et al., 2009). CERT teachers also built relationships with students by getting to know them during and outside of the classroom, which complements numerous studies suggesting the importance of building relationships to manage the classroom (e.g., Wubbels et al., 2014). This finding indicates that beginning teachers can be multifaceted in managing their classrooms, utilizing academic and relational strategies alongside behavioral actions (Bondy et al., 2007). However, my study extends previous findings by suggesting that beginning urban teachers, on average, can incorporate all three types of actions and is not limited to a group of researcher-selected teachers. Knowing that these teachers can implement relational strategies, in particular, is important because these strategies have been associated with positive teacher outcomes (e.g., Kwok, 2017). More could be researched, though, about why teachers prioritized behavioral management over getting to know their students.

One relational strategy stood out across CERT teachers that has not been widely discussed throughout the previous literature: managing the physical arrangement of the classroom. CERT teachers often discussed and implemented this strategy to promote positive student–student and teacher–student interactions for socioemotional or academic purposes. Mr. Vante, for instance, changed his seating and desk arrangement constantly, depending on how he wanted to interact with his students or the activity that he had planned for the students. Though prior literature suggests managing the physical environment is important for effective classroom management (Ahrentzen & Evans, 1984; Weinstein, 1977), these studies exclusively focused on the behavioral impacts of managing the physical arrangement (e.g., stops talking, reduces distractions). Some studies suggest that arranging the physical arrangement can be used to impact student peer interactions and prosocial behavior (Simonsen et al., 2008; Weinstein et al., 2004), which coincides with my finding of adjusting classroom layout more for relational purposes than behavioral issues. However, empirical studies investigating classroom layout were at least 20 years old and focused only on elementary classrooms, whereas my work extends these findings by documenting the importance of this strategy in contemporary elementary as well as secondary classrooms. And while this study focused more on the urban context than the comparison of strategies across grade level, both elementary and secondary teachers were seen and discussed incorporating this and a wide range of all types of classroom management actions. Even for actions such as incorporating a color chart, which is primarily used in elementary classrooms, there were examples of reward-consequence based systems used in secondary settings. However, future studies should investigate differences in actions of beginning urban teachers at the elementary and secondary level to determine nuances in how they manage their grade-specific classroom.

One limitation of this study is that there is no measure of quality for these actions. This study intentionally defines the behaviors that these teachers use as actions instead of strategies, because it does not investigate the effectiveness of teachers’ actions. Anecdotally, there were observations of both positive and negative instances of nearly every type of action. For instance, in gathering students’ attention, Mr. Frank would say, “Eyes on me in 3-2-1” and have few students comply while Mr. Vante who would say something similar but nearly all students followed directions. There was also little evidence that teachers used CRCM strategies, which could be an indication of quality. Because this study focused primarily on White educators teaching students of color, quality would need to be clearly defined through the lens of how race and culture plays in managing a classroom. This would need to be carefully examined and parsed apart to determine a measurement of quality for classroom management actions and how racial mismatch between teachers and students factors into how they manage the classroom.

One implication from this study is that teacher educators should instruct preservice teachers about the importance of behavioral, academic, and relational strategies for classroom management. Classroom management tends not to be an explicit focus within teacher preparation and when it is, it can lack in the range of strategies and perspectives provided for teachers (Hammerness, 2011). These results suggest an emphasis on classroom management, particularly in all three types of areas so that beginning teachers do not lean too heavily on behavioral actions. Examples of actions are illustrated throughout this study to provide teacher educators a foundation of what is occurring in the classroom to help inform and shape preservice preparation. This may require that some teacher preparation programs may need to increase their focus on academic and relational aspects to promote a more comprehensive understanding of classroom management.

Another finding from my study is that some CERT teachers appeared to develop as classroom managers over time. Exploring CERT teachers’ actions throughout their first year revealed that they refined certain actions to meet the needs of the classroom. For instance, Ms. Chatman conversed with her students on how to improve a behavioral system so that it could have the desired result. Increased classroom experience has been associated with more effective classroom management skills (e.g., Martin & Shoho, 2000), though this study provides some insight on how experience can play a role in developing classroom managers. Development could be as a result of teachers’ willingness to learn from their students and/or try a different way to address a recurring classroom management issue. Future studies could systematically collect data on a handful of teachers’ actions at multiple time points to more accurately capture a change in teacher action over time. This could account for a limitation to my study, which defined a change over time through two time periods of collected data and could possibly account for the discrepancy in the quantitative and qualitative results of my study. Further extensions could also investigate the mechanisms that promote teachers to want to refine certain classroom management actions as opposed to others.

One implication of this finding is that beginning urban teachers appear to be malleable in their classroom management actions. They may be willing to adjust and adapt how they manage a classroom to better meet the needs of their students. Teacher educators can promote beginning teachers to converse with their students to identify classroom management actions or areas of improvement. Then, teacher educators could work with those teachers to develop these actions so that they could be implemented as effective strategies. As a result, classroom management would be a strength, rather than a struggle, for beginning teachers who teach in urban classrooms.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the CERT program and case participants for their willingness to participate in this research. I would like to thank Matthew Ronfeldt, Elizabeth Davis, Kevin Miller, Pamela Moss, Michelle Kwok, and R. Joseph Waddington for their feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Andrew Kwok is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University and received his doctorate in Educational Studies from the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the preparation, development, and support of classroom management for novice teachers, particularly those who work in high needs areas. He also focuses on the impact of induction, coaching, and mentoring to better support beginning teachers to retain in the profession.

References

Ahrentzen

Evans

(1984). Distraction, privacy, and classroom design. Environment and Behavior, 16, 437-454.

Atici

(2007). A small-scale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroom management and methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12, 15-27.

Balli

(2011). Pre-service teachers’ episodic memories of classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 245-251.

Banks

(2014). Creating positive learning environments: Antecedent strategies for managing the classroom environment & student behavior. Creative Education, 5, 519-524.

Bear

(2014). Preventive and classroom-based strategies. In Emmer

E. T.

Sabornie

E. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 15-39). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bondy

Ross

Gallingane

Hambacher

(2007). Creating environments of success and resilience: Culturally responsive classroom management and more. Urban Education, 42, 326-348.

Bullough

Jr. Richardson

(2014). Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on classroom management. In Emmer

E. T.

Sabornie

E. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 283-300). New York, NY: Routledge.

Canter

(1976). Assertive discipline: A take charge approach for today’s educator. Seal Beach, CA: Canter & Associates.

Clunies-Ross

Little

Kienhuis

(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, 693-710.

10.

de Jong

Mainhard

van Tartwijk

Veldman

Verloop

Wubbels

. (2014). How pre-service teachers’ personality traits, self-efficacy, and discipline strategies contribute to the teacher-student relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 294-310.

11.

Delpit

(2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.

12.

Derry

S. J.

(2007). Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations from an expert panel. Chicago, IL: Data Research and Development Center, University of Chicago.

13.

Dunkake

Schuchart

(2015). Stereotypes and teacher characteristics as an explanation for the class-specific disciplinary practices of pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 56-69.

14.

Emmer

Stough

(2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103-112.

15.

Ennis

McCauley

(2002). Creating urban classroom communities worthy of trust. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 149-172.

16.

Evertson

Weinstein

(2006). Field of inquiry. In Evertson

Weinstein

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3-51). London, England: Routledge.

17.

Glock

(2016). Stop talking out of turn: The influence of students’ gender and ethnicity on preservice teachers’ intervention strategies for student misbehavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 106-114.

18.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

19.

Grossman

Loeb

(2008). Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

20.

Hammerness

(2011). Classroom management in the United States: A view from New York City. Teaching Education, 22, 151-167.

21.

Headden

(Producer). (2014). Beginners in the classroom: What the changing demographics of teaching mean for schools, students, and society. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/beginners_in_classroom.pdf

22.

Horvat

(2013). The beginner’s guide to doing qualitative research: How to get into the field, collect data, and write up your project. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

23.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Smith

T. M.

(2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

24.

Jacob

B. A.

(2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17, 129-153.

25.

Johnstone

Balester

(1994). Uses for journal keeping: An ethnography of writing in a university science class. New York, NY: Ablex.

26.

Kersting

(2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item prompts to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 845-861.

27.

Kunter

Baumert

Koller

(2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17, 494-509.

28.

Kwok

(2017). Relationships between instructional quality and classroom management for beginning urban teachers. Educational Researcher, 46, 355-365.

29.

Landis

Koch

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

30.

Langdon

Vesper

(2000). The sixth Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’ attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 607-611.

31.

Martin

Shoho

(2000, January). Teacher experience, training, & age: The influence of teacher characteristics on classroom management style. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440963.pdf

32.

Martin

Yin

(1999). Beliefs regarding classroom management style: Differences between urban and rural secondary level teachers. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15, 101-105.

33.

Mayer

Mullens

Moore

Ralph

(Producer). (2001). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001030.pdf

34.

Miles

Huberman

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

35.

Milner

H. R.

(2006). Classroom management in urban classrooms. In Evertson

Weinstein

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 491-522). London, England: Routledge.

36.

Milner

H. R.

(2014). Research on classroom management in urban schools. In Emmer

E. T.

Sabornie

E. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 167–185). London, UK: Routledge.

37.

Milner

H. R.

Tenore

(2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45, 560-603.

38.

Mulhern

Wexler

(Producer). (2013). Leap year: Assessing and supporting effective first-year teachers. Retrieved from https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_Leap_Year_2013.pdf

39.

Musu-Gillette

Robinson

McFarland

KewalRamani

Zhang

Wilkinson-Flicker

(2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016007.pdf

40.

Nie

Lau

(2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 185-194.

41.

O’Neill

Stephenson

(2014). Evidence-based classroom and behaviour management content in Australian pre-service primary teachers’ coursework: Wherefore art thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 1-22.

42.

Reupert

Woodcock

(2010). Success and near misses: Pre-service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1261-1268.

43.

Schonfeld

Feinman

(2012). Difficulties of alternatively certified teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44, 215-246.

44.

Simonsen

Fairbanks

Briesch

Myers

Sugai

(2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351-380.

45.

Sokal

Smith

Mowat

(2003). Alternative certification teachers’ attitudes toward classroom management. The High School Journal, 86(3), 8-16.

46.

Stichter

Lewis

Whittaker

Richter

Johnson

Trussell

(2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 68-81.

47.

Sun

(2015). Teachers’ experiences of effective strategies for managing classroom misbehavior in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 94-103.

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. Retried from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf

49.

van Tartwijk

den Brok

Veldman

Wubbels

. (2009). Teachers’ practical knowledge about classroom management in multicultural classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 453-460.

50.

Weinstein

C. S.

(1977). Modifying student behavior in an open classroom through changes in the physical design. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 249-262.

51.

Weinstein

C. S.

Tomlinson-Clarke

Curran

(2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 25-38.

52.

Westling

(2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 48-63.

53.

Wubbels

Brekelmans

den Brok

Wijsman

Mainhard

van Tartwijk

(2014). Teacher-student relationships and classroom management. In Emmer

E. T.

Sabornie

E. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 363-386). New York, NY: Routledge.