Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Challenging Behavior

Abstract

Challenging behavior can have adverse effects on both students and teachers, and preservice teachers often report feeling ill prepared to manage this behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine (a) preservice teacher perceptions of student and teacher behavior during scenarios of challenging behavior, (b) alternative solutions or strategies in examining the teacher’s role in the scenarios, (c) perceptions of challenging behaviors that may present the greatest difficulty in their future positions, and (d) their attitudes and opinions regarding challenging behavior in the classroom. Results indicated that preservice teachers are able to identify the teacher’s role in scenarios both positively and negatively. The preservice teachers perceived certain behaviors as easy or difficult to manage. Overall, preservice teachers feel moderately confident with classroom management and challenging behavior. Future research on preservice teacher implementation of strategies and behavior management in real-life contexts is suggested.

Keywords

behavior management teacher preparation practices and outcomes at-risk students high-incidence disabilities

Challenging behavior in schools has an impact on both students and teachers. When teachers feel inadequately prepared to address challenging behavior in their classrooms, behaviors initially deemed “minor” could escalate to levels with significant consequences (Albin, O’Brien, & Horner, 1995). General and special educators find themselves responsible for addressing increasing levels of challenging behavior in the classroom. In fact, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, (NCES;Aud et al., 2012), approximately 34% of teachers reported that disruptive behavior was interfering with their instruction and teachers cite student problem behavior as a key reason for leaving the teaching profession (Algozzine, Christian, Marr, McClanahan, & White, 2008; Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001; Kelly, 2004; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).

Schools across the United States have taken action to address issues of challenging behaviors. One “practical, science-based approach to understanding and ameliorating problem behavior” is Positive Behavior Supports or PBS (Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2015, p. 3). PBS uses a set of foundational principles coupled with various strategies for managing behavior specifically tailored to each school. Although PBS programs have demonstrated success in changing student behavior (Christensen, Young, & Marchant, 2004; Johnson-Gros, Lyons, & Griffin, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2001; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008), serious challenging behavior continues to raise significant concerns.

Teachers must have a good understanding of classroom management, behavior management, and specific challenges when they occur. Questions often arise as to how well teachers are prepared to manage the overall structure of the classroom and implement behavior management strategies. Preparation in how to manage challenging behavior is a serious concern, particularly the extent to which teachers know how to (a) examine the function of the behavior, (b) develop appropriate interventions for children displaying those behaviors, and (c) understand their own role in the escalation or de-escalation of the behaviors. Generally, data indicate that both preservice and practicing teachers feel ill prepared in behavior management (Alvarez, 2007; Freeman, Simonsen, Briere, & MacSuga-Gage, 2014; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006; Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006; McNally, I’anson, Whewell, & Wilson, 2005; Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010; Westling, 2010). In fact, Algozzine et al. (2008) found that a relatively small number of teachers contributed to the largest number of discipline referrals. Those found to engage in effective teaching and management practices had significantly fewer disruptions in their classrooms (Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). For that reason, it is critical that preservice teachers be adequately prepared to manage challenging behavior and use a variety of proactive strategies to prevent those behaviors from occurring.

Outcomes When Students Engage in Challenging Behavior

Challenging behaviors that occur in classrooms have clear, adverse effects on the classroom teacher, the students exhibiting those behaviors, and their peers (Gunter, Jack, DePaepe, Reed, & Harrison, 1994b), particularly in terms of the quality and effectiveness of academic instruction (Gunter et al., 1994b; Harrison & Gunter, 1996; Shores & Wehby, 1999; Wehby, Lane, & Falk, 2003). The serious impact on teachers has been connected with teacher burnout (Pas, Bradshaw, Hershfeldt, & Leaf, 2010), loss of teaching efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Perrachione, Rosser, & Petersen, 2008), and, most drastically, an exit from the teaching profession (Algozzine et al., 2008; Billingsley et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2001; Kelly, 2004; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). Challenging behavior also affects teacher–student relations, resulting in increasingly negative interactions, decreases in teacher praise statements and/or instructional time (Stichter et al., 2009; Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002), and teacher presentation of fewer and easier tasks to avoid negative interactions (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Taylor & Romanczyk, 1994). Wehby, Symons, Canale, and Go (1998) noted that to classroom teachers, disruptive behaviors (e.g., aggression) may act as a punisher and therefore they may choose to avoid or escape those interactions.

For students who engage in chronic challenging, or antisocial behavior, the data are disconcerting. As antisocial behavior patterns increase in severity, there is a greater likelihood that these patterns will continue into adulthood and generalize across settings such as school and home (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Antisocial behavior displayed at a young age becomes the best predictor for adolescent delinquency (Walker et al., 2004). Therefore, it is imperative that teachers design effective interventions to address these behaviors.

Wehby et al. (1998) noted how challenging behavior created inconsistent classroom interactions and unpredictable environments in which neither the teacher nor student knew what to expect. These levels of inconsistency and unpredictability can lead to the implementation of ineffective strategies, resulting in the escalation. Furthermore, Sutherland and Morgan (2003) described a nonlinear transactional or reciprocal relationship between a teacher and student in which each of their behaviors are affected by a myriad of factors that in the end contribute to the academic and behavioral success of the student. Sutherland and Morgan (2003) suggested that in designing effective interventions, teachers must “understand that their behavior not only influences student behavior, but is itself influenced by student behavior” (p. 37).

Overall, while strategies and techniques grounded in the principles of PBS and applied behavior analysis (ABA) have proven effective in managing challenging behavior, the outcome of inadequate implementation of these strategies is often an escalation of behavior. Reciprocal relationships between the teacher and student during an incident of behavior require thorough examination of why behaviors may have escalated and what interventions could have prevented or de-escalated the behavior. By identifying behaviors or triggers that are problematic for the teacher or student, challenging behavior is greatly reduced.

Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Challenging Behavior

Although various investigations have been conducted into the support and subsequent retention of beginning teachers (Corbell, Osborne, & Reiman, 2010; Parker, Ndoye, & Imig, 2009; Pas et al., 2010; Perrachione et al., 2008), few studies have examined preservice teacher perceptions of challenging behavior and the role teachers may play in incidents of behavior. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) conducted a survey of preservice teachers in Canada to assess reports of and confidence in using classroom management strategies. They found that preservice teachers were most confident in using preventive strategies and initial corrective strategies such as proximity control and redirective statements. Participants, however, did not report using preventive strategies as frequently as the initial corrective strategies. Respondents reported being less confident and less likely to use “latter” corrective strategies (e.g., behavioral contracts) after behavior became challenging. The strategies used most frequently were the ones they felt most confident in using, yet these strategies were not always the most effective, according to the teachers’ self-reports (Reupert & Woodcock, 2010).

Although researchers recognize that all teachers need a solid foundation in behavior management strategies, few empirical studies have examined specific escalating interactions or exchanges between teachers and students. In addition, there is limited research surrounding preservice teachers’ perceptions of and ability to identify or describe escalation during teacher and student interactions. This study was designed to explore preservice teachers’ perceptions of challenging behavior and the role classroom teachers play in the escalation or diffusion of that behavior. The specific questions guiding this investigation were as follows: (a) What are preservice teachers’ perceptions of student–teacher interactions during scenarios of challenging behavior? To what extent do they perceive the teacher’s behavior influences the interaction and the potential outcome? (b) Which behaviors do preservice teachers perceive will be the most challenging for them to manage in their future classrooms? and (c) How do preservice teachers rate their level of confidence with classroom and behavior management?

Method

Participants

General education elementary and secondary preservice teachers (n = 255) from a large Midwestern university participated in the study. Participants included 114 elementary education majors and 141 secondary majors (English, foreign language, agriculture, science, social studies, and mathematics) at the junior, senior, and graduate levels. All participants were enrolled in a required special education course for general education preservice teaching majors. The course examined issues, methods, and strategies for educating students with disabilities in the general classroom. It included information on service delivery models, roles of teachers and related service providers, classroom assessment and evaluation, adapting and individualizing curriculum, and designing appropriate accommodations and modifications. Students also received general information on behavioral concepts (antecedent, consequence, function, etc.) as well as strategies for the prevention and management of challenging behavior. In their previous coursework in their respective programs, some participants also received information about classroom management that focused on general structures for helping the classroom run smoothly (arranging space, engaging students in instruction, instructional arrangement, class rules), but little if any information on behavior management or challenging behavior.

Surveys were distributed across five sections of the same course (two secondary and three elementary). Each section was administered the survey after they received instruction or content related to behavior management and challenging behavior. Administration occurred on the same day as the lecture for elementary students, but because of course time limitations, it was administered to secondary students at the start of the next lecture, before any new content was introduced. The survey was administered in this manner to assure that all participants had generally the same foundational knowledge of challenging behavior. The content of these lectures included definitions and information on classroom management, behavior management, and managing challenging behavior. It is important to note, that in and of themselves, these definitions are not mutually exclusive, or separate and distinct. Students, however, were provided with separate definitions for each of the abovementioned terms. Classroom management was defined as, “instructional strategies to prevent academic and behavioral difficulties and thereby facilitate increased student achievement . . .” (Oliver & Reschly, 2007; p. 5). This includes (a) considering the overall environment structure, (b) facilitating and encouraging student engagement, (c) implementing rules and routines, (d) actively supervising students, (e) using strategies that will increase the likelihood of appropriate behaviors, (f) using strategies that decrease the likelihood of inappropriate behaviors, and (g) collecting data and making data-based decisions to inform future classroom management. Behavior management was defined as strategies for students who require additional supports beyond the classroom management procedures. Behavior management focuses on the specific strategies and supports for students who may have difficulty with certain aspects of the classroom. Finally, challenging behavior was defined as strategies to address behaviors that “are harmful to other individuals or the student or that interfere with learning and social relationships” (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2006, p. 5). Additional information about behavior management and challenging behavior was presented in subsequent course lectures (after survey administration). The survey was administered to elementary majors midway through the spring semester and to secondary majors toward the end of the semester.

Of the 288 surveys distributed, 255 (90%) were usable for data analysis. The majority of participants were female (76.9%) and White (80.8%). There was a fairly even distribution of preservice secondary (53.8%) and elementary majors (42.7%). It should be noted that for the purpose of analysis, students from two K-12 certification programs (agriculture and foreign language) were grouped with the secondary preservice teachers because their curriculum tended to be focused at the secondary level and most accepted teaching positions in middle and high schools.

Instrument

The Challenging Behaviors Perception Scale (CBPS; Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2010) was created following an extensive review of the literature on classroom and behavior management and the needs of preservice teachers. The CBPS was subject to several revisions following piloting. The CBPS contained three sections: responses to video scenarios, ratings of challenging behaviors, and participant demographics.

Survey Section A

In Section A, preservice teachers responded to a set of questions for three separate video scenarios (SC1, SC2, and SC3) that demonstrated teacher and student interaction during incidents of challenging behavior. Two of the scenarios (SC1 and SC3) were selected from an IRIS Media program by Dr. Geoff Colvin titled Defusing Anger and Aggression: Strategies for Secondary School Educators (Iris Media, 2004) with prior approval from the author. The portions of the scenario used in the CBPS demonstrated escalation in student behavior during a teacher and student interaction. Although the IRIS media video in SC1 and SC3 goes on to explain the interactions in each scenario and possible diffusion strategies, that portion of the video was not shown to participants.

The second scenario selected from a video on the Internet for (SC2) was a display of what was considered a “neutral” situation in which escalation did not occur. It was selected to determine how the respondents reacted to a scene in which challenging behavior occurred but was managed by the teacher.

Scenario descriptions

In SC1, a student enters the classroom with a drink in hand. The teacher reminds the student that drinks are not allowed in the classroom and behavior escalates as the teacher and student argue. SC1 ends with the teacher approaching the student to grab the drink.

In SC2, two students are seated at a table arguing over an item. The teacher momentarily stops instruction and successfully intervenes. SC2 ends with the teacher continuing with her lesson and the students returning to their work.

In SC3, a student is walking down the hallway with a group of friends and is wearing a t-shirt displaying inappropriate language on the front. The teacher stops the student and asks her to turn the shirt inside out; the student refuses. SC3 ends with the student walking away and the teacher grabbing the student’s arm.

After viewing each video, participants responded to a series of questions in which they described the incident and rated the extent they perceived the student’s behavior to present a problem for the teacher (0 = not a problem at all to 3 = extreme problem). Next, respondents were asked to attribute a percentage of the problem to the behavior of the (a) student, (b) teacher, and/or (c) other students. Respondents’ total distribution of the percentage was equal to 100. For example, after viewing SC1, a respondent might attribute 30% of the problem to the teacher, 60% of the problem to the student, and 10% of the problem to peers.

Respondents then were asked to describe what they believed the outcome would be if the scenario continued on its current path based on what they observed in the clip. They also indicated whether the teacher’s response in the video was positive or negative. Finally, respondents described why they felt the student and teacher responded in the way he or she did and what they would have done differently if they were the teacher in that situation. Respondents answered the same set of questions for each scenario.

Survey Section B

In Section B of the survey, respondents rated, on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = easy to manage—not a problem to 3 = extremely difficult to manage), the extent to which they perceived 29 behaviors that may occur in the classroom as difficult to manage as a classroom teacher. The behaviors were selected from those identified in previous research on teacher behavior management (e.g., Algozinne, 1977; Algozzine et al., 2008; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006; Safran & Safran, 1984). Examples were provided of behaviors not considered self-explanatory, and these examples were developed from piloting feedback. Levels of behavior intensity ranged from very mild (e.g., being late to class, slowness in starting or completing tasks, and failure to complete classwork) to more extreme (e.g., throwing objects, physical aggression, bullying, and physical altercation in the classroom), a range deliberately selected based on (a) research indicating the variation in what teachers considered difficult to manage and (b) what behaviors preservice teachers were being prepared to manage (e.g., Baker, 2005; McCready & Soloway, 2010).

At the end of Section B, respondents rated their overall levels of confidence (0 = not at all confident to 5 = expert) in behavior management, classroom management, and management of challenging behavior. Definitions of classroom management, behavior management, and management of challenging behavior were provided to students in their foundation lecture on behavior (see above).

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to test inter-item consistency in this section. Analyses revealed that the alpha coefficient score was .896, which exceeded the minimum reliability coefficient of .70 (Cortina, 1993).

Survey Section C

The final section of the survey requested respondent demographic information. Participants provided information on age, gender, specific content area major, and future plans in education.

Survey Validation and Piloting

The survey instrument was validated in several ways. First, four general education teachers were given the descriptions of behaviors in Section B. They reviewed items for content and clarity. They were asked to identify any items with descriptions requiring further clarification. The teachers identified four items that were unclear and subsequently changed. The same teachers then reviewed and agreed to the changes. Next, this list of behaviors in Section B was given to four behavior intervention specialists currently teaching in the field of special education. These teachers were asked to validate, based on their experience, that the behaviors being presented were realistic as problematic to teachers in classrooms. They also examined descriptions and also rated the behaviors in Section B as either “major” or “minor” problems to determine reliability with how the researchers categorized and described each behavior.

Once all of the changes were complete to the behaviors in Section B, a pilot study was conducted using the revised survey instrument. The researcher recruited two preservice special education teachers and two practicing teachers (one elementary and one secondary) to complete the entire survey. After completing the survey, participants were asked whether they felt the video clips presented realistic scenarios and whether the behaviors listed in Section B were clear. They recorded the time taken to complete the instrument and answered the following questions about the instrument: (a) Are there any items that are unclear? (b) Are there any items that you recommend changing? (c) Are there any other comments you have about the survey? The survey took the participants approximately 15 minutes to complete. Pilot participants suggested changing the font size and format for one particular question, and clarifying two questions in Section A. Based on their feedback, final revisions were made to the survey instrument.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze preservice teachers’ perceptions of the student–teacher interactions in the scenarios. ANOVAs were conducted on survey items and across video clips by level (i.e., elementary and secondary preservice teachers) and content specialization (e.g., secondary English, math). Correlations were conducted to examine relationships between the effect of the teacher response and the percentage attribution of the problem to student, teacher, or peer. Open-ended questions were analyzed through content analysis procedures adapted from L. J. Johnson and LaMontagne (1993): (a) Data were prepared for analysis and entered into an excel spreadsheet, (b) researchers read through responses and made initial notes about possible themes or categories, (c) units of analysis were identified, (d) researchers developed tentative categories for coding the responses, and (e) approximately 20% of the samples of responses were selected to use with the tentative codes. The codes were refined and discussed during this step, and (f) interrater agreement was established for each question. An interrater agreement of 95% was achieved upon examining 20% of the qualitative data to determine accuracy of theme coding.

Results

Understanding the Context of Challenging Behavior

In understanding how respondents viewed challenging behaviors that may occur in a classroom, researchers examined the mean scores and percentage of respondents rating behaviors at different difficulty levels (see Table 1). Then, levels of confidence in classroom and behavior management and dealing with challenging behaviors were examined (see Table 2). ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences between elementary and secondary respondents. Overall, mean scores on behaviors ranged from 0.50 to 2.45. Findings indicated that the respondents ranked physical aggression (M = 2.45), physical altercation in the classroom (M = 2.42), bullying (M = 2.10), temper tantrum (M = 2.09), either physical or verbal behavior that indicates refusal to follow classroom rules (M = 2.07), racial slurs (M = 2.07), and emotional breakdown (M = 2.05) as the top most difficult behaviors to manage. The respondents ranked talking out of turn (M = 0.50), being late (M = 0.54), excessive fidgeting (M = 0.69), slowness in starting or completing tasks (M = 0.70), side conversations during lecture or activity (M = 0.81), whining (M = 0.93), and making noises (M = 0.93) as less difficult to manage behaviors. Findings indicated that elementary respondents rated throwing objects (i.e., books, pencil, etc.; F = 29.871; p < .05), making noises (either verbalizations or sounds with an object like tapping a pencil; F = 4.710; p < .05) and frequent out of seat behavior (F = 8.339; p < .05) as significantly more difficult to manage than secondary respondents.

Table 1.

Mean Score and Percentage of Respondents Rating Difficulty of Behaviors.

Behavior	M (SD)	0Easy (%)	1Mildly difficult (%)	2Difficult (%)	3Extremely difficult (%)
Physical aggression	2.45 (0.731)	2.0	8.2	32.4	56.3
Physical altercation in the classroom	2.42 (0.761)	1.6	11.7	29.3	55.9
Bullying	2.10 (0.785)	3.5	15.2	47.4	32.4
Temper tantrum	2.09 (0.785)	3.1	16.8	46.5	31.6
Refusal to follow classroom rules	2.07 (0.786)	2.0	21.5	43.4	32.0
Racial slurs	2.07 (0.890)	6.3	16.8	39.1	36.3
Outright refusal to follow directions	2.06 (0.719)	2.3	15.6	54.7	26.2
Emotional breakdown	2.05 (0.802)	3.1	19.9	44.5	30.9
Angry/belligerent	1.96 (0.780)	2.7	23.4	46.9	25.4
Bothering other students physically	1.90 (0.689)	1.6	24.2	55.5	17.2
Refusal to participate in a group activity	1.82 (0.786)	2.7	32.4	43.0	20.3
Refusal to begin a class assignment	1.80 (0.797)	3.1	33.6	41.8	20.3
Talking back	1.73 (0.802)	4.7	34.8	42.2	17.2
Bothering other students verbally	1.58 (0.729)	6.3	37.1	47.7	7.8
Heckling/making fun of other people	1.53 (0.748)	7.4	39.8	43.8	7.8
Lacking motivation	1.46 (0.789)	9.4	43.4	37.1	9.0
Arguing	1.33 (0.702)	9.4	51.2	34.0	3.9
Frequent absences	1.32 (0.784)	13.3	46.9	32.4	6.3
Failure to complete classwork	1.28 (0.732)	12.9	48.8	33.6	3.5
Frequent out of seat behavior	1.27 (0.666)	9.4	56.3	30.9	2.7
Making noises	0.93 (0.684)	25.4	55.9	16.4	1.2
Whining	0.93 (0.704)	26.2	55.5	15.2	2.0
Side conversations during lecture or activity	0.81 (0.661)	31.6	54.7	11.7	0.8
Excessive fidgeting	0.69 (0.684)	41.0	48.0	7.8	1.6
Slowness in starting or completing tasks	0.70 (0.596)	36.7	55.9	5.9	0.4
Talking out of turn	0.50 (0.574)	53.9	41.4	3.9	0
Being late to class	0.54 (0.626)	51.6	42.2	4.7	0.8

Table 2.

Mean Score and Percentage of Respondents Rating for Confidence.

Type	M (SD)	0Not at all (%)	1Slightly confident (%)	2Moderately confident (%)	3Confident (%)	4Extremely confident (%)	5Expert (%)
Behavior management	2.29 (.90)	1.2	17.6	38.4	34.5	5.9	0.8
Classroom management	2.69 (.86)	0.4	8.2	28.2	46.7	14.1	0.8
Challenging behavior	1.71 (.98)	8.6	34.9	36.1	14.5	3.9	0.4

In terms of confidence, the overall ratings were low on one item, managing challenging behavior, with only 19% of elementary and 23.4% secondary participants rating themselves between a level of 3 (confident) and 5 (expert). Significant differences were found in the confidence ratings, with elementary respondents ratings themselves as significantly more confident in classroom management (F = 4.096; p = .044; η² = .016) and management of challenging behavior (F = 5.768; p = .017; η² = .023). No significant differences were found on Pearson correlations between confidence ratings and participants’ classification of degree of severity of the problem for each scenario.

Scenarios: The Role of the Teacher in Escalation

When examining preservice teachers’ responses to the video scenarios, 91% rated SC2 as either a minor problem or not a problem at all, and the majority of participants (74.5%) would not have responded differently from the teacher in the scenario. The only significant difference found in SC2 was that elementary majors perceived the teacher to have a greater effect on the outcome (F = 6.820; p < .01). For these reasons, discussion of results will focus on SC1 and SC3.

When asked the level at which they classified each scenario as a problem for the teacher (0 = not at all to 3 = extreme problem), 64% and 83% of respondents rated SC1 (student bringing a drink to class and subsequent escalation) and SC3 (student wearing t-shirt with foul language and subsequent escalation), respectively, as a “moderate” to “extreme” problem. Results of ANOVAs indicated that for SC3, secondary preservice teachers rated the problem as more extreme than elementary preservice teachers (F = 35.60; p < .001).

Mean percentages were calculated on the extent to which respondents attributed the problem to the student, teacher, or peers. On average in SC1 (n = 254), 56% of the problem was attributed to the student behavior, 40% to the teacher, and 4% peers. In SC3 (n = 254), 60% of the problem was attributed to teacher behavior, 38% to the student, and 2% to peers. In examining the perceived effect that the teacher’s response would have on a potential outcome for SC1, 91% reported the teacher having a negative effect. That same percentage stated they would have responded differently to the incident. For SC3, 99% felt the teacher would have a negative effect on the potential outcome and 97% reported they would have responded differently if they were the teacher in the scenario.

Scenario 1 (SC1)

After viewing the video, respondents described what they perceived to have happened in each scenario. From the 255 respondents to Scenario 1, 527 coded responses emerged. Responses were classified into three general themes: either (a) a general description of the incident (11% of responses), (b) identified specific student behavior or action (49%), or (c) identified specific teacher behavior or action (39%). Most coded responses described specific student behavior or action, such as noncompliance, or failure to follow rules or a specific teacher request (“the student refused to do what the teacher wanted . . . ,” “student talked back and wouldn’t give up the drink,” and the “student brought a drink into class and refused to get rid of it or leave the class when asked by the teacher”). Respondents (56%) attributed a majority of the problem to the student, which corresponds with coded responses in describing the behavior.

In addition, respondents described what they thought the outcome to SC1 might be. The 254 respondents provided 356 coded responses, 32% of which focused on an outcome of the student leaving or being removed from class. For example, respondents noted, “I think the student will get sent out of the room to the principal or any other administrator, “. . . the teacher might make him leave,” or “the student will storm out.” Some respondents (19%) noted an outcome of a verbal or physical altercation between the teacher and the student: “student tosses drink at teacher or similar action,” “the student will throw the soda at the teacher,” “there will be a bigger problem and louder verbal confrontation, maybe a physical confrontation,” or “the teacher and student might have a physical fight (pushing).” It should be noted that a higher percentage of coded responses for secondary preservice teachers indicated the potential for an “altercation” (23%) over the elementary respondents (13%).

Another theme that emerged under this question described a student outcome that was a direct result of the teacher’s response (20% of the coded responses). Elementary participants seemed to provide more responses under this theme (27%) than secondary respondents (14%). Respondents provided a general description of a student behavior (“student will be punished for not listening,” “student will embarrass teacher”) or description of teacher behavior (“the teacher will get really mad and make the student even more angry”). Approximately 6% of the coded responses contained statements about the overall impact of the behavior or long-term outcomes: “the student will continue to defy the teacher,” “the conflict will not be resolved and it will cause continual class disruption,” or “there will be a respect/possible trust loss issue for students and teacher.”

Of the 244 respondents, 93% (n = 238) thought that the teacher’s response was negative; respondent explanations yielded 268 coded responses. Some respondents (34%) described a teacher reaction to the behavior: “[teacher] confrontational and seemed aggressive. It is not the way to interact with an agitated student,” “he charged the student and was abrasive from the start,” and “the teacher called out the student in front of peers and was confrontational.” In addition, 33% of the respondents provided a critical evaluation of the teacher: “it’s not good to try and chase a student to make them comply with your rules,” “. . . the teacher handled the situation completely wrong.” Of the coded responses, 7% used terminology that specifically acknowledged the teachers’ role in the escalation of the behavior: “the teacher responded confrontationally which escalated the problem,” or “the teacher helped to escalate the problem; he provoked the student to react the way he did.”

Preservice teachers also were asked why they felt the student and teacher responded in the way they did. For the student, five themes emerged: (a) an emotional response (24%—“he was angry about being singled out over a small rule”), (b) maintaining appearances (“save face”) in front of peers (21%), and (c) student feeling threatened or attacked (21%—for example, “because the teacher came at him”), (d) student needing to exercise control or power in the situation (16%), and (e) student being noncompliant or disrespectful (11%).

When describing reasons the teacher responded the way he did, some similar themes emerged from the 268 coded responses: (a) emotional response (“He was frustrated with Hank’s disobedience,” “He was angry,” “Because he was insulted”), (b) student acting noncompliant or disrespectful (“The student refused to follow classroom rules and challenged the teacher”; “Student was openly defiant in front of the class”), (c) teacher exercising control or authority (“He felt like his authority was being questioned”; “To show his dominance, to take back control of his classroom”), (d) teacher had history of problems with student (“The teacher may have had similar issues with Hank before”), and (e) teacher feels threatened or wants to maintain appearances (“He might have felt threatened by the student”).

Finally, when asked how they believed they might have responded in that situation, 91% (n = 232) indicated that they would have responded differently. The 268 coded responses fell into the following themes: (a) selecting a different verbal or physical approach (70%—“I would have calmly asked the student to throw out the drink and not scolded him,” “I would have been calmer and more controlled in my approach”), (b) clarified rules/expectations/consequences (16%—“I would have explained why he couldn’t have the drink in class,” Tell him to ditch the drink or detention,” and “followed through with consequence expected”), (c) removal from the setting (5%), and (d) use humor or make light of the situation (4%).

Scenario 3 (SC3)

In describing what happened between the teacher and student in the SC3, responses identified a specific teacher behavior including rule enforcement and physical response such as “teacher told student to turn shirt inside out,” or “teacher confronted student [about] shirt.” Overall, respondents (n = 252) perceived that the outcome of the incident would be (a) a physical or verbal altercation (37%—“. . . it will escalate to violence”), (b) student consequences that were unspecified (27%—“consequences based on school rules”), (c) removal from setting (15%—“The student will be sent home to change”; “It will end up in the principal’s office”), (d) a third party’s involvement (8%—“Call parents”), and (e) outcomes affecting the teacher and student relationship (8%—“The student will not respect that teacher”). Secondary preservice teachers perceived an altercation as the outcome (51% of the coded responses) at a much higher rate than the elementary respondents (19%). In contrast, the elementary respondents tended to select an outcome related to removal from setting more frequently (27%) than the secondary respondents (5%).

Nearly all respondents described the teacher as having a negative effect on the outcome (98.8%; n = 252). When describing why they felt this way, the 301 coded responses were broken into the following themes: (a) critical evaluation of teacher behavior (55%—“raising the voice taunted/provoked the student”), (b) described teacher reactions to behavior (15%), (c) specified a reason(s) for escalation/problem behavior (9%—“she was getting unnecessarily upset and worked up. She elevated the situation,” and “by grabbing the student’s arm, the problem escalated”), (d) student response directly resulting from teacher’s behavior (6%—“she embarrassed and humiliated the student . . .”), and (e) long-term impact (5%).

Overall, preservice teachers (n = 251; 265 coded responses) felt that the student in the video responded the way she did (a) as a direct response to the teacher’s behavior (31%—“she was humiliated because it happened in the hallway in front of her friends and peers”), (b) by giving an immediate emotional response (30%—“because of the aggressive and loud approach by the teacher”), or (c) because she was noncompliant or disrespectful (14%—“she wanted to do what she wanted”).

When asked why the teacher responded the way she did in the incident, the largest portion of the 310 coded responses connected to the theme of emotional response (42%—“she hated the shirt. Angry,” “frustrated by back talk,” “she was really offended by the shirt”). Other themes identified under teacher response were as follows: (a) to exercise control, authority, or power (26%; for example, “she wanted to assert her authority,” “she felt like she needed to win the power struggle”), (b) student was noncompliant (18%; for example, “because the student was resistant and nonobliging”), and (c) general justifications for the teacher’s behavior (13%; “She might have been fed up with the student already”).

Finally, the vast majority of the preservice teachers reported that they would have responded differently (96.5%; n = 246). A majority of the coded responses (n = 347) from the 248 respondents were under the theme of verbal or physical approach (74% of the coded responses). Examples under this theme included “I would have calmly and politely asked to speak to the student one-on-one”; “I would have requested that the student turn the shirt inside out but in a more respectful way, suggesting it nicely if she disagreed then ask administration to step in”; and responding “in a calm and rational tone.”

Discussion

Elementary and secondary educators report dealing with challenging behaviors at least once during a typical school day (Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008). Success in managing challenging behavior is crucial to providing effective classroom instruction. General and special educators need to understand the impact of those behaviors on teacher–student interactions (Gunter et al., 1994a; Harrison & Gunter, 1996; Shores & Wehby, 1999; Wehby et al., 2003) and other academic and social outcomes. In addition, teachers need to recognize behaviors that present the greatest challenge to them and how their own responses to the situation play a role in the escalation or de-escalation of behavior.

Researchers examining behavior management in teacher preparation programs report that preservice and practicing teachers felt ill prepared (Baker, 2005; Westling, 2010) and preservice teachers were anxious about managing behavior in their own classrooms (Kaufman & Moss, 2010; Stoughton, 2007). Without adequate preparation, teachers do not have a repertoire of strategies from which to choose in handling difficult situations. Furthermore, they tend to use inadequate strategies or fail to implement appropriate strategies effectively. As a result, teachers may escalate behaviors to levels that are extremely difficult to manage.

As teacher educators, it is important to determine preservice teachers’ perceptions of challenging situations to develop their skills in the selection and use of appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for managing behavior. Often times, this starts with giving general educators a strong foundation in behavioral principles and a clear understanding of PBS and how it is implemented in schools. In addition, with knowledge of preservice teachers’ perceptions, teacher educators can design content and instruction to facilitate a deeper understanding of challenging behavior, provide an array of appropriate management strategies, and help preservice teachers make appropriate behavior management decisions.

One important concept addressed in this study was the perception preservice teachers had of student and classroom teacher interaction during challenging behavior scenarios. The ability to recognize the teachers’ role in an interaction provides an important first step in understanding how to approach challenging behavior more effectively. The majority of preservice general educators recognized that the classroom teacher’s behavior in the videos influenced the interactions and they identified the teacher’s role in either escalating or diffusing the situation. For example, in SC1 and SC3, a majority (93.3% and 98.8%) of respondents perceived that the teacher’s behavior had a negative effect on the potential outcome. In SC1, although respondents indicated that the teacher’s response had a negative effect, they attributed a majority of the problem to the student. That may be because the episode began with the student walking into the classroom with a drink when he knew it was against the rules, and the teacher provided a verbal prompt to throw the drink away. This differs from SC3, in which the teacher’s initial interaction to the student was viewed as overtly aggressive from the onset.

Also in SC3, a physical response (teacher placing her hand on the student’s arm) took place. Respondents clearly perceived the teacher as having a distinct role in escalating the student’s behavior. A majority (83.2%) perceived the problem to be moderate to extreme for the teacher and also attributed a majority of the problem to the teacher. Nearly all respondents felt the teacher had a negative effect on the perceived outcome and felt they would have responded differently if they were the teacher in that situation. It should be noted that there was a difference between the secondary and elementary preservice teachers’ ratings in the classification of problem for the teacher. The secondary respondents rating the problem as more difficult than the elementary.

A question arises as to whether participants’ perceptions in any way are reflective of their potential responses as classroom teachers. According to the attribution theory, it is easier to identify the behaviors in someone else, rather than in one’s own behavior (Heider, 1958; Malle, 2006; Weiner, 1985). In the case of the scenarios presented to the respondents, it may have been relatively easy for them to step back and evaluate how the teacher handled problem behavior. With preservice teachers, it is important that we begin preparation for managing challenging behavior with helping them identify their own strengths and weaknesses and help them understand that they play a role in escalation, potentially within the context of actual clinical teaching placements. We also attempted to have respondents personalize the scenarios by asking how they would have responded in that situation. Although it is difficult to know how participants would respond in a real situation, providing opportunities to examine scenarios in the context of their own strengths and weaknesses and discuss options for responding can prove valuable in helping them build a repertoire of skills.

Finally, preservice teachers rated aggressive or physical behaviors (i.e., physical aggression, physical altercation in the classroom, bullying, temper tantrum, and either physical or verbal behavior that indicates refusal to follow classroom rules) as the most difficult. Although various studies have examined preservice teacher knowledge of evidence-based practices in managing behavior (Garland, Garland, & Vasquez, 2013), there is little research that specifically examines preservice teachers’ ratings or perceptions of difficult-to-manage behaviors. Behaviors identified in this study are similar to those of practicing general and special education teachers who reported challenging behaviors such as defiance and noncompliance occurring in their classrooms (Westling, 2010).

Results of the current study revealed other differences worth noting. Elementary preservice teachers rated throwing objects, making noises, and frequent out-of-seat behavior significantly higher than the secondary counterparts. Although challenging behaviors such as physical altercations and aggression clearly interfere with classroom instruction, it is important that we understand the impact of high-frequency, low-intensity behaviors on the classroom.

In addition to identifying behaviors perceived as challenging, preservice teachers rated the confidence in behavior and classroom management and managing challenging behavior. Overall, respondents were “moderately confident” to “confident” in behavior management; significant differences were found in ratings of classroom management and challenging behavior by level. Although elementary participants were less confident in managing challenging behavior, they rated themselves as more confident in behavior management. It is important to consider that when classroom teachers felt more confident in behavior management, they were more likely to implement specific strategies in the classroom and reportedly more comfortable addressing challenging behavior (Baker, 2005; Westling, 2010).

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations to the study that should be noted. First, perceptions of challenging behavior were connected to specific scenarios of teacher–student interactions rather than real-life interactions between the preservice teachers and students. These contrived situations may not be representative of what preservice teachers actually feel or would do in similar scenarios. Furthermore, issues associated with self-reporting data stand true for this study.

In addition, for the challenging behaviors listed in Section B, brief descriptions were provided but no context within which to interpret the behaviors. Participants were not given a specific topography of the behavior, and therefore across respondents, there may have been differing perceptions of those behaviors. Although the researchers attempted to create specific descriptions and socially validate them with current preservice and practicing teachers, there was a possibility that the respondents perceived the behaviors differently.

Another limitation is connected to participants. All 255 participants were from the same university, and analyses could only be conducted between the elementary or secondary groups because of limitations in numbers by secondary content specializations, ethnicity, and gender.

Implications and Future Research

There are several educational implications and directions for future research to be discussed. First, and foremost, this study addressed the need for preservice teachers to examine the role and influence a teacher can have during incidents of challenging behavior. In preparing preservice teachers to manage challenging behavior, particularly general educators, presentations of broad management strategies are not enough. Teacher educators must provide explicit instruction in the stages of the acting-out or escalation cycle, strategies for preventing or diffusing challenging situations, and specific strategies that could be implemented at each phase in the cycle.

Specifically, teacher educators need to assist preservice teachers in developing an array of strategies to manage behavior and to encourage reflection on incidents of behavior that help them (a) recognize the function of a behavior, (b) use good judgment in determining which reinforcement or punishment strategies would be effective in those situations, (c) introduce appropriate replacement behaviors to their students, (d) understand how previous behavioral sequences ended, and (e) teach students academic skills that establish student success (adapted from Shukla-Mehta & Albin, 2003). This instruction on developing behavior management strategies, however, must extend beyond typical instruction in the university classroom and be incorporated throughout student teaching or clinical experiences . Kaufman and Moss (2010) found a disconnect between preservice teachers’ concerns about behavior management in their final field experiences and how to address those concerns with the proactive/preventative strategies they were learning in their courses. O’Neill and Stephenson (2014) further noted that “even when classroom behaviour management units are completed, preservice teachers feel that it has only somewhat prepared them to manage disruption, noncompliance, or disorganization . . .” (p. 1139). Preservice teachers need specific instruction in realistic situations connected to challenging behavior rather than a general set of behavior management strategies.

Two of the scenarios used in this study came from an actual teacher training video (Defusing Anger and Aggression; Colvin, 2010). Using this tool, preservice teachers can watch each a student–teacher interaction, recognize the acting-out cycle, explain how the escalation occurred, and describe how to manage that type of situation. Explicit instruction like this can be very beneficial. Researchers demonstrate that the more preparation preservice teachers have in challenging behavior, the more likely they are to implement a variety of effective strategies with confidence as practicing teachers (Alvarez, 2007; Baker, 2005; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006; Westling, 2010). Teacher preparation programs must produce preservice teachers with high levels of confidence in behavior management and effective strategies to implement in a variety of situations.

Another implication addresses the need for continual support with student problem behaviors that arise during field experiences to develop confidence in implementing proactive strategies (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Mills, 2011). Again, coursework in behavior management should be closely linked to student teaching or clinical experiences and the feedback preservice teachers receive. As incidents occur, they should be encouraged to parse out student and teacher roles in the acting-out cycle. There should also be frequent discussion of behavior incidents as well as concerns or fears regarding managing behavior.

Finally, coaching and mentoring programs aimed at induction and retention are promising practices for supporting beginning special and general educators (Capizzi, Wehby, & Sandmel, 2010; Parker et al., 2009). Behavioral coaching should begin at the preservice level with supervisors providing embedded professional development through direct feedback about management strategies.

Additional research is needed on perceptions of preservice teachers about challenging behavior. In particular, additional research is needed on the escalation cycle and whether preservice teachers recognize how their own behaviors during that cycle affect student behavior. It is also worth investigating the impact that behavioral coaching could have on helping preservice and beginning teachers to develop strategies to manage challenging behavior and identify their potential roles in the outcome of incidents. Gathering data on student and teacher behaviors during incidents of challenging behavior could help inform coaching and the design of interventions.

Clearly, challenging behaviors have implications for the teacher and the student. If these behaviors are not addressed in the classroom, they can have dire outcomes. It is important for teacher preparation programs to help preservice teachers develop proactive strategies for managing challenging behavior. In particular, teacher preparation programs need to address the teacher’s specific role in situations of escalating behavior and provide students with a level of confidence in dealing with behaviors of all types.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Dr. Anne Butler is now affiliated to the DePaul University.

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.

Author Biographies

Anne Butler is apostdoctoral fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her research interests include challenging behavior, teacher preparation, and coaching and collaboration with teachers to implement strategies around behavior management.

Lisa Monda-Amaya is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Illinois in Urbana–Champaign. Her research interests are in the areas of academic and behavioral strategies for including students with disabilities in the general education classroom, teacher preparation and professional development, and collaboration and co-teaching.

References

Albin

R. W.

O’Brien

Horner

R. H.

(1995). Analysis of an escalating sequence of problem behaviors: A case study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, 133-147.

Algozzine

(1977). The emotionally disturbed child: Disturbed or disturbing? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 205-211.

Algozzine

Christian

Marr

M. B.

McClanahan

White

(2008). Demography of problem behavior in elementary schools. Exceptionality, 16, 93-104.

Alvarez

H. K.

(2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to student aggression in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1113-1126.

Aud

Hussar

Johnson

Kena

Roth

Manning

Wang

Zhang

(2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Baker

P. H.

(2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33, 51-64.

Billingsley

Carlson

Klein

(2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 79, 333-347.

Butler

A. M.

Monda-Amaya

L. M.

(2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of challenging behaviors. Unpublished research project, University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana, Champaign.

Capizzi

A. M.

Wehby

J. H.

Sandmel

K. N.

(2010). Enhancing mentoring of teacher candidates through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of instructional delivery. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 191-212.

10.

Carr

E. G.

Taylor

J. C.

Robinson

(1991). The effects of severe behavior problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 523-535.

11.

Chandler

L. K.

Dahlquist

C. M.

(2006). Functional assessment: Strategies to prevent and remediate challenging behavior in school settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

12.

Christensen

Young

K. R.

Marchant

(2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support program on socially appropriate classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 199-234.

13.

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 behavior. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710

14.

Colvin

(2010). Defusing disruptive behavior in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

15.

Corbell

K. A.

Osborne

Reiman

A. J.

(2010). Supporting and retaining beginning teachers: A validation study of the Perceptions of Success Inventory for beginning teachers. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16, 75-96.

16.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

17.

Freeman

Simonsen

Briere

D. E.

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

(2014). Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 106-120. doi:10.1177/0888406413507002

18.

Garland

K. V.

Vasquez

(2013). Management of classroom behaviors: Perceived readiness of education interns. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13, 133-147.

19.

Gunter

P. L.

Denny

R. K.

Shores

R. E.

Reed

T. M.

Jack

S. L.

Nelson

C. M.

(1994a). Teacher escape, avoidance, and counter control behaviors: Potential responses to disruptive and aggressive behaviors of students with severe behavior disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 211-223.

20.

Gunter

P. L.

Jack

S. L.

DePaepe

Reed

T. M.

Harrison

(1994b). Effects of challenging behaviors of students with EBD on teacher instructional behavior. Preventing School Failure, 38, 35-40.

21.

Harrison

J. S.

Gunter

P. L.

(1996). Teacher instructional language and negative reinforcement: A conceptual framework for working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 183-196.

22.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.

23.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534.

24.

Iris Media. (2004). Defusing anger and aggression [DVD]. Retrieved from www.lookiris.com

25.

Johnson

H. L.

Fullwood

H. L.

(2006). Disturbing behaviors in the secondary classroom: How do general educators perceive problem behaviors? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 20-39.

26.

Johnson

L. J.

LaMontagne

M. J.

(1993). Using content analysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholders within early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 73-79.

27.

Johnson-Gros

K. N.

Lyons

E. A.

Griffin

J. R.

(2008). Active supervision: An intervention to reduce high school tardiness. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 39-53.

28.

Kaufman

Moss

D. M.

(2010). A new look at preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom management and organization: Uncovering complexity and dissonance. The Teacher Educator, 45, 118-136.

29.

Kelly

(2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 195-220.

30.

Kennedy

C. H.

Long

Jolivette

Cox

Tang

J-C.

Thompson

(2001). Facilitating general education participation for students with behavior problems by linking positive behavior supports and person-centered planning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 161-171. doi:10.1177/106342660100900302.

31.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

(2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756.

32.

Kukla-Acevedo

(2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 443-452.

33.

Lohrmann

Bambara

L. M.

(2006). Elementary education teachers’ beliefs about essential supports needed to successfully include students with developmental disabilities who engage in challenging behavior. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 157-173.

34.

Lucyshyn

J. M.

Dunlap

Freeman

(2015). A historical perspective on the evolution of positive behavior support as a science-based discipline. In Brown

Anderson

J. L.

DePry

R. L.

(Eds.), Individual positive behavior supports: A standards-based guide to practices in school and community settings (pp. 3-26). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

35.

Malle

B. F.

(2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 895-919.

36.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mills

(2011). Special education teacher preparation. In Kaufman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 47-58). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

McCready

L. T.

Soloway

G. B.

(2010). Teachers’ perceptions of challenging student behaviours in model inner city schools. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 15, 111-123.

38.

McNally

I’anson

Whewell

Wilson

(2005). “They think swearing is okay”: First lessons in behaviour management. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 169-185.

39.

Oliver

R. M.

Reschly

D. J.

(2007). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation and professional development. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates, National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.

40.

O’Neill

S. C.

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, 1-22.

41.

Parker

M. A.

Ndoye

Imig

S. R.

(2009). Keeping our teachers! Investigating mentoring practices to support and retain novice educators. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17, 329-341.

42.

Pas

E. T.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Hershfeldt

P. A.

Leaf

P. J.

(2010). A multilevel exploration of the influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 13-27.

43.

Perrachione

B. A.

Rosser

V. J.

Petersen

G. J.

(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32, 25-41.

44.

Reupert

Woodcock

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

45.

Safran

S. P.

Safran

J. S.

(1984). Elementary teachers’ tolerance of problem behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 236-243.

46.

Shores

R. E.

Wehby

J. H.

(1999). Analyzing the classroom social behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 194-199.

47.

Shukla-Mehta

Albin

R. W.

(2003). Twelve practical strategies to prevent behavioral escalation in classroom settings. Preventing School Failure, 47, 156-161.

48.

Stichter

J. P.

Lewis

T. J.

Whittaker

T. A.

Richter

Johnson

M. W.

Trussell

R. P.

(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.

49.

Stormont

M. A.

Smith

S. C.

Lewis

T. J.

(2007). Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise statements in head start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 280-290. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9040-3

50.

Stoughton

E. H.

(2007). How will I get them to behave? Pre-service teachers reflect on classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1024-1037.

51.

Stronge

J. H.

Ward

T. J.

Grant

L. W.

(2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339-355. doi:10.1177/0022487111404241

52.

Sutherland

K. S.

Alder

Gunter

P. L.

(2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239-248. doi:10.1177/10634266030110040501

53.

Sutherland

K. S.

Morgan

P. L.

(2003). Implications of transactional processes in classrooms for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 48, 32-37.

54.

Sutherland

K. S.

Wehby

J. H.

Yoder

P. J.

(2002). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise and opportunities for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 5-13.

55.

Taylor

J. C.

Romanczyk

R. G.

(1994). Generating hypotheses about the function of student problem behavior by observing teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 251-265.

56.

Tillery

A. D.

Varjas

Meyers

Collins

A. S.

(2010). General education teachers’ perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 86-102.

57.

Todd

A. W.

Campbell

A. L.

Meyer

G. G.

Horner

R. H.

(2008). The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 46- 55. doi: 10.1177/1098300707311369

58.

Walker

H. M.

Ramsey

Gresham

F. M.

(2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

59.

Wehby

J. H.

Lane

K. L.

Falk

K. B.

(2003). Academic instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 194-197.

60.

Wehby

J. H.

Symons

F. J.

Canale

J. A.

F. J.

(1998). Teaching practices in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations and observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 51-56.

61.

Weiner

(1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

62.

Westling

D. L.

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