Teaching and Teacher Education: Sue O 'Neill, Jennifer Stephenson

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Does classroom management coursework inuence pre-service teachers

perceived preparedness or condence?
Sue ONeill*, Jennifer Stephenson
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Building X5A, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia
h i g h l i g h t s
< Completion of classroom behaviour management units leads to feeling better prepared.
< When completed, they felt only somewhat prepared to manage any kind of misbehaviour.
< Completing no units decreased preparedness to manage challenging behaviours.
< Unit completion increased the number of strategies known and condence in use.
< Unit completion increased the number of models known and condence in use 4:1.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 January 2012
Received in revised form
3 May 2012
Accepted 25 June 2012
There has been conjecture that completing focused coursework units on classroom management during
pre-service teacher preparation might lead to increased feelings of preparedness and condence. This
study reports the preparedness in managing specic problem behaviours, familiarity, and condence in
using management strategies and models of nal-year pre-service teachers in Australia who had and had
not completed focused classroom management units. Unit completion signicantly increased perceived
preparedness, familiarity, and condence in using strategies and models. However, the whole sample felt
only somewhat prepared to manage misbehaviour, and were condent in using only half of the strategies
they were familiar with.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Classroom behaviour management
Pre-service teachers
Preparedness
Condence
In the eyes of school principals and experienced teachers,

a beginning teachers ability to manage classroom behaviour is an
essential skill (Brophy & McCaslin, 1992). This area is, however, one
where pre-service teachers and beginning teachers from many
countries have been reported to lack condence (see for example,
Boz, 2008 (Turkey); Bromeld, 2006 (UK); Swabey, Castleton, &
Penney, 2010 (Australia); Veenman, 1984 (USA)). Insufcient or
inadequate preparation for classroom and behaviour management
has been suggested as a possible cause for beginning teacher
concern (Oliver & Reschly, 2007). Romano (2008) reported that
beginning teachers believed that more preparation for classroom
behaviour management could increase preparedness to teach and
alleviate the struggles experienced during the rst years of
teaching. Completion of focused classroom behaviour management
content during teacher training might lead to increased condence
and sense of efcacy (Giallo & Little, 2003),which in turn may lead
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 2 9482 5984; fax: 61 2 9850 8708.
E-mail addresses: susan.oneill@uts.edu.au (S. ONeill), jennifer.stephenson@
mq.edu.au (J. Stephenson).
0742-051X/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008
to better choices in dealing with misbehaviour (Woolfolk, Rosoff, &

Hoy, 1990), and act as a protective factor against stress, burnout,
and attrition (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).
Although there is conjecture that completing coursework in
classroom management during pre-service teacher preparation
could make a difference to how prepared or condent new graduates feel, there is little empirical research that would support this
assertion. This study aimed to move the discussion in the literature
beyond conjecture and into the realm of ndings based on empirical data. Since the 1990s, little research has been conducted on
pre-service or beginning teachers perceptions of preparedness (see
Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007; Kee, 2011), and none has explored
preparedness in managing specic problematic behaviours. Items
related to specic problematic behaviours are more often found in
scales developed to measure teacher concerns (see for example
Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2004; Martin, Linfoot, &
Stephenson, 1999), or manageability beliefs (Safran, 1989). Such
research has shown that different forms of behaviour such as
distractibility and hindering others cause teachers greatest concern
(Stephenson, Linfoot, & Martin, 2000).
1132
S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143
Similarly, scant research exists that has explored pre-service

teacher condence in using different specic behaviour management strategies (see Reupert & Woodcock, 2010, 2011). No research
reports were located that included discussion of which management models pre-service teachers were familiar with or condent
in using, or that explored the effect that completing focused coursework units in classroom management had on pre-service
teachers feelings of preparedness, familiarity with, or condence
in use of different strategies or management models. The ndings
of such research could provide important information for those
designing teacher education programs, and renew the discussion
on the benets or pitfalls of teaching multiple theoretical classroom
management strategies and models to pre-service teachers raised
more than two decades ago by Brophy (1988).
transitions, one on maintaining momentum and smoothness, one

on building self-discipline, two on individualising management,
and two on handling problem behaviour. By the end of the
professional experience placement, and a semester of coursework,
classroom management items that showed most positive changes
for preparedness included handling problem behaviours, individualising management, and momentum and smoothness. Least
change was seen in preparedness to build student self-discipline.
These three scales focused on preparedness for general teaching
tasks and not on perceived preparedness to manage specic problematic student behaviours. To date, no research has explored the
relationship between tertiary education coursework in classroom
management and pre-service teacher perceptions of preparedness
in managing a range of problematic student behaviours.
1. Classroom behaviour management
3. Condence
Brophys (2006) conceptualisation of classroom management

included the arrangement of physical space and resources, creating
and maintaining rules, routines and procedures, methods of
maintaining and engaging students attention, disciplinary interventions, and student socialisation actions. The selected focus of
this study is on the behaviour management that teachers use in
their classrooms. Behaviour management has been dened as .
all those actions (and conscious inactions) teachers . engage in to
enhance the probability that children, individually and in groups,
will develop effective behaviours that are personally fullling,
productive, and socially acceptable (Walker, Shea, & Bauer, 2004,
p. 7). We contend that teachers select and perform a range of
preventative and reactive actions drawn from all of Brophys facets
of classroom management to develop appropriate student behaviours, inextricably linking classroom and behaviour management.
Condence is dened here as the strength of ones beliefs in

ones capabilities, and is conceptually different to self-efcacy
beliefs that, according to Bandura (1997), . include both the
afrmation of capability and the strength of that belief (p. 382).
Measuring self-condence beliefs is thought to clarify the maintenance of self-efcacy beliefs in the face of disconrming experiences (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005). Research on
teacher condence has shown that teachers who are condent in
their classroom management are more resilient to stress (Parkay,
Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988). Previous research has tended
to explore condence in classroom or behaviour management as
a general perception using a single scale item, and has not focused
on which classroom behaviour management strategies were used or
advocated (see Martin et al., 1999). When strategies used by preservice teachers have been explored, the focus has been on
whether participants had used or would use particular strategies in
real or hypothetical situations (see Atici, 2007; Tulley & Chiu, 1995).
2. Preparedness
Housego (1990) suggested that estimates of preparedness were
akin to self-assessment of teaching competence. Boe et al. (2007)
and Kee (2011) explored beginning teacher preparedness in the
US, using scales containing only seven and ve items respectively.
Both scales contained only one item related to behaviour
management. Boe et al. found that 60% of those with extensive
training felt well prepared to manage misbehaviour, compared to
47% of those who reported only some training, and 52% of those
with little to no preparation. Similarly, Kee reported that alternative
certication route teachers felt less well prepared than their
traditional certication peers, and that completion of coursework
units in learning theory or psychology (that might include classroom management content) increased overall preparedness scores
by .22 point on a four-point scale, which equated to a medium effect
size of d .37 (p < .05).
Cains (1995) developed a scale to explore teaching preparedness
(Prepcon) of newly qualied teachers in the United Kingdom. Prepcon contained 41 items that included ve behaviour management
items: preventative approaches to whole class disruption; methods
of maintaining whole class discipline; dealing with disruptive
individuals; rewards and punishment; and managing difcult
classes. Pre-service teachers that had completed four-year
programs rated their preparedness to manage behaviour signicantly higher (p < .001, ES .81) at 4.24/7, compared to 3.22/7 by
those who had completed a one-year post-graduate teaching
certicate (Cains & Brown, 1996).
Using a 43-item PREP scale, Housego (1990) explored the
preparedness of Canadian pre-service teachers enrolled in a oneyear graduate teacher preparation program. The scale contained
ten classroom management items; three pertaining to rules, one on
3.1. Condence of pre-service teachers

Recently, the condence of Canadian (Reupert & Woodcock,
2010), and Australian and Canadian (Reupert & Woodcock, 2011)
pre-service teachers in using classroom behaviour management
strategies was reported. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) developed
and used a 25-item, ve-point scale, Survey of Behaviour
Management Practices (SOBMP), to assess the frequency of use,
condence in use, and perceived success of use for strategies
derived from classroom management literature. They found that
Canadian pre-service teachers were most condent in using
preventative and initial correction strategies such as using physical
proximity, and least condent in using later correction strategies
such as time out. When they compared Australian and Canadian
pre-service teachers condence scores in the 2011 study, they
found that the Australian participants were most condent in using
rewards, and the Canadians, preventative strategies. The scale
included a number of effective strategies, but did not appear to
include other specic strategies found in theoretical models of
management such as Dreikurs (1968) I messages or Gordons
(1974) identifying teacher or student owned problems. Such
strategies are presented as tenable options in classroom management texts commonly used in teacher education programs (for
example, Charles, 2010; Tauber, 2007).
4. Classroom management models in teacher preparation
programs
Many classroom behaviour management strategies are parts of
theories, approaches, or models of management (for ease these will
be referred to as models). Classroom management models, of which

there are scores (see Evertson & Weinstein, 2006), span a diverse
range of beliefs about the role of teacher and students within
classrooms, and societies purposes of schooling. Some classroom
management models focus strongly on classroom discipline such as
Assertive Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976), outlining preventative
and reactive teacher actions designed to establish and maintain
order and the control of student behaviour, whilst others such as
Discipline With Dignity (Curwin, Mendler, & Mendler, 2008) focus
more on relationship building between teachers and students to
promote student self-discipline. The development of self-discipline
is seen as more important than mere obedience, which Curwin
et al. (2008) believed could lead to immaturity irresponsibility,
lack of critical thinking, helplessness, and power struggles.
Models of management appear to be common content in
classroom management units in pre-service teacher education
programs (Banks, 2003; ONeill & Stephenson, 2011). In the US,
among the dozen or more models that Banks (2003) and Blum
(1994) reported, common models included were Assertive Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976), Choice/Reality Therapy (Glasser,
1986), and Applied Behaviour Analysis (see Banks, 2003; Blum,
1994; Wesley & Vocke, 1992). In Australia, ONeill and Stephenson
(2011) found that among the 36 different models included in
Australian teacher education programs, the dominant models were
Decisive Discipline (Rogers, 1989), Applied Behaviour Analysis,
Positive Behaviour Intervention and Support, and Choice Theory/
Reality Therapy (Glasser, 1986). The models included in units could
have been inuenced by locally available and promoted materials,
popular classroom management textbooks, coordinators ideological belief system, or the comfort level of the unit coordinator.
5. Research questions
Recent research conducted by ONeill and Stephenson (2012a)
suggested that most Australian pre-service teachers were
receiving mandatory coursework instruction in classroom behaviour management. With little known about the effects of
completing such coursework, this article seeks to explore by
examining the responses to a survey questionnaire: (a) how
prepared do nal-year pre-service teachers feel in managing
specic problematic student behaviours; (b) what specic classroom behaviour management strategies are familiar to pre-service
teachers and how condent do they feel in using them; and (c)
what specic classroom management models are familiar to preservice teachers, and how condent are they in applying them?
6. Method
The results reported here are part of a larger study that was
carried out to explore Australian nal-year pre-service teachers
sense of efcacy, the sources of information that contributed to
their sense of efcacy, how classroom behaviour management
coursework units might affect their sense of efcacy, and how other
opportunities for interacting with children, apart from professional
practice, might affect their sense of efcacy. A full account of the
methods may be found in ONeill and Stephenson (2012b).
6.1. Participants
Australian public and private institutions offering four-year
undergraduate primary teaching programs were located through
Google searches in mid-2009. In Australia, primary teaching
programs prepare educators to teach students from kindergarten
through to grade six, aged 5e12 years. Telephone contact was made
with each institution to conrm that the program was operating in
1133
2009. Thirty-two four-year undergraduate primary teaching

programs with fourth and nal-year students enrolled in 2009
were identied.
Once ethical clearance was received, an e-mail was sent to each
Head of School/Dean explaining the purpose of the study, along
with a PDF copy of the online survey questionnaire and a copy of
the participants information letter. Consenting Heads of School/
Deans provided an e-mail address for a nominated faculty liaison
person. This person was asked to forward the invitation e-mail and
reminder e-mail (one week later), with the link to the online survey
hosted by SurveyMonkey, to all students currently enrolled in the
nal year of the program. Twenty-one (65.6%) institutions from six
out of eight states/territories in Australia participated in this study.
Many of the participating institutions were located in the most
populous eastern states of New South Wales and Victoria (n 15,
71.4%). These states have the most teacher preparation programs
(ONeill & Stephenson, 2011). The e-mail invitation was sent to
approximately 4033 students (some institutions only provided
rounded estimates of enrolments). A total of 573 (14.2%) responses
were received, with 40.14% (n 230) of participants enrolled in
New South Wales programs.
Predominantly the participants were female (n 504, 87.96%).
Compared to pre-service primary/elementary teaching populations
locally and overseas, this percentage was slightly higher than the
82.3% reported in an Australian study (Turner, Jones, Davies, & Ramsay,
2004), from samples in Canada (85%, Reupert & Woodcock, 2010),
Spain (83.5%, de la Torre Cruz & Arias, 2007), and Greece (84.8%,
Poulou, 2007), but lower than that reported in a sample from Cyprus
(93.5%, Charalambous, Philippou, & Kyriakides, 2008). The percentage
of females in this study is slightly higher than the Australian national
average of 81% for full-time primary teachers in Australia (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2010), the US (81.8%, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2010), Germany and France (85.2% and 82.4% respectively, Eurostat,
2010), but lower than Italy (95.3%, Eurostat, 2010), Armenia and
Belarus (99.7% and 99.3% respectively, European Commission,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2011).
More than half of the participants were aged 22e25 years
(n 293, 51.13%), and this was similar to other nal-year undergraduate primary/elementary pre-service teacher populations in
Australia (M 25.16, Turner et al., 2004), Spain (M 21.7, de la
Torre Cruz & Arias, 2007), and in the US (M 24.8, Hamman,
Fives, & Olivarez, 2007). Many had completed their nal extended
professional experience (n 380, 66.32%), some were in the
process of completion (16.40%), and some had not yet begun
(17.28%). Most reported completion of one or more mandatory
classroom behaviour management coursework units (n 450,
81.37%) and 103 (18.63%) had not completed a mandatory classroom behaviour management unit. One or more elective classroom
behaviour management coursework units had been completed by
124 (22.42%) participants. Ninety (16.28%) participants had not
completed either mandatory or elective units. In Australia, a coursework unit (also known as a subject) is typically presented over
a 10e15 week semester, and may include lectures, tutorials, or
workshops in face-to-face or online attendance mode. Four units
per semester is a typical full-time study load in an eight-semester
four-year program. A stand-alone classroom behaviour management unit is dened here as a unit having more than 50% of its time
and content allocated to imparting knowledge, skills or understanding in classroom behaviour management.
6.2. Instruments
The multi-scale survey questionnaire used included items for
age, gender, program type, the number of stand-alone classroom
behaviour management units completed, the number of and types
1134
of experiences in managing school-aged children (aside from

professional experience), and ve measurement scales. This article
reports on the responses to three of the scales: the Preparedness in
Managing Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS); the Behaviour
Management Strategies Scale (BMSS); and the Classroom
Management Theories and Approaches Scale (CMTAS). The three
measurement scales were developed for the purposes of this study.
6.2.1. Preparedness in Managing Behaviour Problems Scale
The rst scale, the Preparedness in Managing Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS), was designed to measure how prepared preservice teachers felt in managing specic problematic student
behaviours. The 40-item scale included items that covered disorganisation problems (untidiness), off-task behaviours (out of
seat), disruptive behaviours (calling out answers), aggressive
behaviours (verbal or physical), destructive behaviours (of own or
others property), non-compliant behaviours (disobey class rules),
and antisocial behaviours (stealing). Items were drawn from
research into the types of student behaviours that teachers report
as troublesome or stressful, authors knowledge, and suggestions
made by two experienced behaviour consultants and three
academics who coordinated units with classroom management
content (see Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007; Geving, 2007;
Safran, 1989; Stephenson et al., 2000). Participants responded to
a four-point scale, including the options of unprepared, somewhat
prepared, prepared, and well prepared. The total scale split-half
reliability was a .98, and sub-scale reliabilities ranged from
a .93e.97, suggesting that the items in the sub-scales measured
the underlying constructs reliably.
6.2.2. Behaviour Management Strategies Scale
The second scale, the Behaviour Management Strategies Scale
(BMSS), gathered information on participants condence in using
specic classroom behaviour management strategies. The 55-item
scale had items pertaining to four types of strategies including
motivational strategies (group contingency), reductive strategies
(response cost), preventative strategies (forming and establishing
classroom rules), and communicative strategies (I messages). Some
strategies were drawn from classroom management texts such as
Charles (2010), Evertson and Emmer (2008), and Alberto and
Troutman (2009). Other items were based on the knowledge/skill
statements Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson (1994) compiled from teacher
education programs for teachers of emotionally and behaviourally
disordered students. In addition, strategies known to the authors and
the two behaviour consultants mentioned above were included. The
scale utilised a ve-point scale. Response options included unfamiliar
with, not at all condent, somewhat condent, condent, and very
condent. The split-half reliability for the full scale was a .98.
6.2.3. Classroom Management Theories and Approaches Scale
The third scale, the Classroom Management Theories and
Approaches Scale (CMTAS), examined which management models
participants were condent in applying. The list included 22
models, such as Applied Behaviour Analysis, Assertive Discipline
(Canter & Canter, 1976), and Teacher Effectiveness Training
(Gordon, 1974). The list was compiled from classroom management
texts such as Charles (2010), Tauber (2007), and educational
psychology texts such as Berk (2003). This list of models was
previously used by ONeill and Stephenson (2012a) in survey
research conducted with teacher education program coordinators
of units with classroom behaviour management content in
Australia. We provided an other category for respondents to include
additional models, and used a ve-point scale with the same
response category options as the Behaviour Management Strategies
Scale (BMSS) above.
6.3. Instrument validation

The survey questionnaire was pilot tested twice with ve 3rdyear primary education students enrolled at the rst authors
institution, rstly for item clarity and the time taken to complete
the survey questionnaire. Feedback led to the inclusion of some
examples placed in brackets after the names of some behaviour
management strategies in the BMSS. A second round of pilot testing
was then conducted to test the online functionality, item clarity,
and time required for completion. Feedback indicated that items
and instructions were clear, online functionality was good, and that
it took approximately 15 min to complete the three scales and the
demographic type items.
6.4. Data collection
The survey could be completed either anonymously, or condentially if participants elected to participate in a follow-up study.
Those who consented to be contacted for the follow-up study
provided their name, and a contact e-mail and telephone numbers.
Participants could choose to enter a prize draw to win one of ve
$150 gift vouchers from an educational supplier and this required
the provision of an e-mail address for prize notication. We
requested an e-mail address that did not include their full name to
protect anonymity. Participants had three weeks from the time that
the initial invitation was sent to respond to the survey.
6.5. Data analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore the
existence of underlying components of the Preparedness in
Managing Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS) and the Behaviour
Management Strategies Scale (BMSS), using both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations (Oblimin) to determine the correct
rotation required. When oblique rotations yield correlations above
.30 in the component correlation matrix, then the orthogonal
rotation should be discarded (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Component retention methods used included examining scree
plots for the point of inexion, eigenvalues greater than one,
parallel analysis (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), and interpretability of component items to determine the most appropriate
number of underlying components.
Where PCA resulted in a scale being reduced to component
parts such as the PMBPS, component means for each participant
were obtained by averaging item scores belonging to the component. For chi-square tests, missing values were replaced with the
sample mean score for each item as recommended by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007). For the PMBPS and BMSS, missing values were
few (n 77, .35%, and n 90, .34% respectively). Four participants
selected unfamiliar with for all items in the BMSS and these data
were removed from further analysis and treated as missing values.
In partitioning out participants that indicated some level of condence from those that were unfamiliar with a particular strategy,
the unfamiliar category was changed to a form of missing value. To
overcome the loss of participants in the PCA, missing values were
excluded pairwise rather than listwise, as this provides a reasonable solution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Pearsons chi-square tests were calculated to explore signicant
associations or relationships between categorical variables. When
multiple analyses were conducted, the Bonferroni correction
method was used to adjust the signicance level to reduce the
possibility of Type 1 errors. Standardised residuals were examined
for all signicant associations to highlight which interactions
contributed to the overall association. To discern the low level of
preparedness category for PMBPS scores, the cut-off point for the
low level was set at one standard deviation below the mean
(Creswell, 2005).
To explore whether differences existed in familiarity and condence scores between pre-service teachers who had completed standalone classroom behaviour management units and those who had not,
ManneWhitney U tests were conducted as the BMSS data was found
not to be normally distributed via KolmogoroveSmirnov tests.
7. Results
7.1. Preparedness in managing specic problematic student
behaviours
Principal component analyses (PCAs) were conducted to reveal
whether pre-service teachers perceptions of their preparedness to
manage behaviours differed with the nature of the problem
behaviour. The oblique rotation (Oblimin, d 0) was selected as
most suitable, as the component correlation matrix contained r
values greater than .3, suggesting that components were not
independent (Field, 2009). Five items (three social skill and two
aggression items) were removed as they did not load onto
components or loaded onto two components equally highly. The
PCA was re-run with 35 items, resulting in a three-factor solution,
1135
which was conrmed by the parallel analysis and scree plot. The
variance explained for the model was 70.6%.
Items that clustered on component one represented preparedness in managing behaviours that disrupted learning (disruptive),
and non-compliance (DNC). Component two contained aggressive,
antisocial, and destructive (AAD) items, and component three disorganisation (DIS) items. Factor loadings were good, with a mean of
.72 (see Table 1). A factor loading of .72 means that an item shares
51.8% of its variability with the factor it has correlated with. Possible
item scores ranged from one to four, and the mean and standard
deviation for each item is presented in Table 1.
The number of participants with low levels of preparedness for
the three components is presented in Table 2. The component with
the greatest number of pre-service teachers with a low level of
preparedness was for managing disorganised behaviours (n 103,
19.9%). For the AAD component, the reader should note, that to
obtain the low level of preparedness, subtracting the standard
deviation from the mean resulted in scores of less than one (a score
that did not exist), so the score of one (unprepared) was used. This
may have caused a small over-estimation of the number with a low
level of preparedness. Chi-square tests indicated there were no
signicant differences (p < .01) for gender at and low levels of
preparedness for any component (see Table 2).
Table 1
Factor loadings for principal components analysis with Oblimin rotation from the pattern matrix and mean item scores for the PMPBS (N 491).
Item
Rotated factor loadings

DNC
Talking to peers during instruction

Limited persistence with set task
Talking out of turn/calling out
Out of seat/wandering
Lack of motivation
Idleness/slow to begin set task
Inattentive behaviour
Hindering others/disrupting peer activities
Fidgeting
Noises
Excessive demand on teacher for assistance
Rocking/swinging on chairs
Whinging, whining, pulling faces
Disobeying class rules
Non-compliance to request/directions
Physical aggression to staff
Physical aggression to peers
Self-injurious behaviour
Sexually explicit actions
Verbal aggression to staff
Verbal aggression to peers
Tantrums/poorly managed anger
Offensive language
Bullying or intimidation
Destroying school property
Destroying peers work or property
Throwing objects
Setting others up
Lying or cheating
Absconding from classroom or school
Studentestudent conicts
Forgetfulness
Late to class
Untidiness
Disorganisation
Eigenvalues
% of Variance
a
Component mean
SD
AAD
DIS
.86
.85
.84
.78
.77
.76
.75
.75
.75
.69
.67
.65
.63
.60
.57
.94
.93
.88
.80
.80
.74
.74
.73
.72
.65
.63
.62
.58
.51
.48
.48
17.37
58.62
.97
2.24
.88
16.21
8.00
.97
1.78
.83
.78
.78
.77
.71
10.32
4.01
.93
2.22
.93
Total sample
No CBM units completed
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
CBM units completed

Mean
SD
2.42
2.16
2.44
2.25
2.38
2.17
2.34
2.21
2.29
2.20
2.12
2.30
2.07
2.21
1.99
1.65
1.74
1.54
1.56
1.86
1.95
1.76
1.73
2.08
1.73
1.73
1.79
1.72
1.84
1.64
2.08
2.22
2.15
2.19
2.31
.89
.83
.92
.93
.86
.84
.77
.87
.90
.91
.84
.99
.91
.85
.86
.79
.82
.75
.77
.88
.89
.83
.80
.90
.81
.82
.83
.82
.85
.80
.84
.91
.98
.92
.89
1.78
1.63
1.78
1.57
1.98
1.62
1.89
1.62
1.73
1.57
1.59
1.59
1.49
1.70
1.46
1.39
1.42
1.26
1.22
1.47
1.51
1.46
1.33
1.62
1.39
1.40
1.47
1.28
1.37
1.31
1.65
1.78
1.73
1.79
1.91
.78
.68
.76
.77
.84
.66
.71
.66
.79
.69
.67
.76
.65
.62
.64
.56
.59
.49
.52
.67
.69
.63
.59
.73
.65
.67
.67
.53
.60
.52
.69
.84
.88
.83
..85
2.53
2.26
2.54
2.36
2.46
2.28
2.43
2.30
2.38
2.30
2.20
2.43
2.15
2.30
2.09
1.69
1.78
1.59
1.62
1.92
2.02
1.81
1.80
2.16
1.77
1.77
1.83
1.80
1.91
1.70
2.14
2.29
2.23
2.26
2.38
.86
.82
.89
.90
.85
.83
.75
.86
.87
.90
.83
.98
.91
.85
.85
.81
.83
.77
.78
.89
.89
.83
.81
.90
.81
.82
.84
.84
.86
.83
.84
.89
.97
.92
.88
Note: for the PCA, the KaisereMeyereOlkin calculation .97, and Bartletts test of sphericity c2 (595) 18 807.63, p < .001. Figures in bold indicate highest and lowest item
means for each group. CBM classroom behaviour management.
1136
7.1.1. Effects of coursework completion on level of preparedness

Chi-square tests indicated that for managing disruptive behaviours and non-compliance (DNC), there was a highly signicant
association (p < .001) between the number of mandatory, elective,
and total (mandatory and elective) classroom behaviour management units that participants had completed, and level of
preparedness (see Table 2). Signicant associations were driven by
statistically higher than expected counts of participants who had
not completed any mandatory, or total units having low preparedness levels, and lower than statistically expected counts of participants who had completed two or more mandatory, or elective units
having low preparedness levels. For those who had completed
classroom behaviour management units, the sub-scale mean score
for the DNC category was 2.3 (SD .1), equating to feeling more
than somewhat prepared. For those who had not completed classroom behaviour management units, the sub-scale mean was 1.7
(SD .1), equating to feeling less than somewhat prepared.
For aggressive, antisocial, and destructive behaviours (AAD),
there was a highly signicant (p < .001) association between the
number of mandatory, and total units completed and level of
preparedness (see Table 2). The signicant associations (p < .01)
were driven by statistically higher than expected counts of participants who had not completed any mandatory, or total units, and by
fewer than would be statistically expected with a low level of
preparedness who had completed two or more mandatory
(p < .01), or two or more total units (p < .05). For those who had
completed classroom behaviour management units, the sub-scale
mean for the AAD category was 1.8 (SD .2), equating to being
less than somewhat prepared. For those who had not completed
units, the sub-scale mean was 1.4 (SD .1), which is closer to
feeling not at all prepared than somewhat prepared.
For managing disorganisation (DIS), there was a highly signicant (p < .001) association between mandatory, and total units
completed and level of preparedness, and only a modest association between completing elective units and level of preparedness
(see Table 2). The signicant (p < .001) associations were driven by
statistically higher than expected counts of participants reporting
low levels of preparedness who had not completed any mandatory,
or total units, and fewer than would be statistically expected
reporting a low level of preparedness who had completed two or
more mandatory, elective units (p < .01), or two or more total units
(p < .001). For those who had completed classroom behaviour
management units, the sub-scale mean for the DIS category was 2.3
(SD .1), equating to feeling more than somewhat prepared. For
those who had not completed units, the sub-scale mean was 1.8
(SD .1), suggesting they felt less than somewhat prepared.
7.2. Familiarity and condence in using behaviour management
strategies
The 55-item Behaviour Management Strategies Scale (BMSS)
was subjected to PCA to ascertain whether pre-service teachers
Table 2
Chi-square test results for PMBPS components and gender, and completion of units
with stand-alone classroom behaviour management content.
Gender effect
DNC
AAD
DIS
c2 (1) .25
c2 (1) .37
c2 (1) .03
Number of units completed

c2 (2) 62.02*** c2 (2) 24.88*** c2 (2) 32.61***
Mandatory
Elective units
c2 (1) 11.97*** c2 (1) .76
c2 (1) 5.64*
Total (mandatory
c2 (2) 57.35*** c2 (2) 18.87*** c2 (2) 37.85***
and elective units)
Note: *indicates p < .05, *** indicates p < .001.
perceived some management strategies as similar in some way

(based on their condence in use scores). The ve-factor solution
that the PCA returned was not clearly interpretable, so a onecomponent solution for the BMSS was chosen. The onecomponent model accounted for 48.9% of the variability in participants condence scores. Factor loadings for all items ranged from
.58 to .72 (see Table 2).
7.2.1. Effects of coursework completion on strategy familiarity
Each of the 55 strategies included in the BMSS was familiar to
the majority of pre-service teachers (see Table 3). The total sample
was familiar with a mean of 50.5 (SD 8.4, Mdn 53) strategies.
Those who had completed classroom behaviour management units
checked a mean of 51.6 strategies (SD 5.7, Mdn 54), compared
to a mean of 44.1 (SD 15.5, Mdn 50) for those who had not.
Participants who had completed classroom behaviour management
units were familiar with signicantly more strategies than those
who had not (U 9561.50, z 4.70, p < .000).
The most familiar strategy was praise, encouragement and
rewards, with all but ve participants indicating familiarity. Four of
these participants (who had not completed classroom behaviour
management units) checked unfamiliar with for all the listed
strategies. The strategy that the total sample was most unfamiliar
with was the Premack principle, with 56.3% of those who had not
completed classroom behaviour management units, and 31.8% of
those who had, indicating unfamiliarity.
7.2.2. Effects of coursework completion on condence in using
strategies
For the total sample, the mean number of strategies that preservice teachers felt condent in using was 26.7 (SD 17.3,
Mdn 27). To ascertain this, the categories of condent and very
condent were collapsed. Pre-service teachers who had completed
classroom behaviour management units felt condent in using
a signicantly higher number of strategies (M 28.5, SD 16.9,
Mdn 29) than those who had not (M 16.2, SD 15.9, Mdn 12)
(U 8656, z 5.40, p < .000). The total sample felt condent in
using 52.9% of the strategies, those who had completed classroom
behaviour management units were condent in using 55.3%, and
those who had not completed any classroom behaviour management units felt condent in using 36.8% of familiar strategies. The
variability in the number of strategies was high for familiarity
(SD 15.5) and condence (SD 15.9) for those who had not
completed classroom behaviour management units, suggesting
that the median score provided a better measure of central
tendency. Using median scores, participants felt condent in using
24.0% of the strategies they were familiar with.
Table 3 shows the mean level of condence for each management strategy based on classroom behaviour management unit
completion. For the total sample and sub-samples, praise, encouragement, and rewards had the highest mean condence score (total
sample M 3.1). Collaboration with a school counsellor had the
lowest mean condence score (total sample M 2.1). Using
ManneWhitney U tests, with a Bonferroni correction applied
(changing the level of signicance to p < .001), signicant differences in condence scores based on whether pre-service teachers
had undertaken classroom behaviour management units or not
were found for 23 (41.8%) of the 55 strategies (see Table 3). For
motivational or communicative strategies, the only between-group
signicant differences in condence scores were for praise,
encouragement, and rewards, and group contingencies. For
reductive and preventative strategies, there were signicant
between-group differences in scores for 12 out of 16 (75.0%)
reductive strategies, and 8 out of 16 (50%) preventative strategies
(see Table 2).
1137
Table 3
Unfamiliarity and condence in items in the Behaviour Management Strategies Scale by completion of stand-alone classroom behaviour management (CBM) units.
Item
Motivational strategies
Praise, encouragement, rewards
Token economies
Levels systems
Group contingency
(whole class incentives)
Student self-monitoring
and evaluation
Behavioural momentum
Partial agreement
Premack principle
Behavioural contracts
Reductive strategies
Suggesting loss of time,
item, privilege
Time out to reect on choices
Time out from positive
reinforcement
Response cost
Tactical ignoring
Reprimands
Logical consequences
Restitution
Least to most intrusive
Offering choices and following
through
Diagnostic thinking about
underlying causes
Diagnosing student or teacher
owned problems
Follow-up discussions after class
Distraction via questioning or
personal invitation
Physical proximity
Line management
Preventative strategies
Forming and establishing rules
Creating and using behaviour
intervention plans
Diagnosing cant from
wont problems
Teaching social skills
Teaching conict resolution skills
Bibliotherapy
Rule reminders/pre-corrections
Verbal cuing to the appropriate
Monitoring student behaviour
(withitness)
Multi-tasking (overlapping)
Planned transitions (smoothness)
Non verbal gestures or signals
Seating or room arrangements
Removing or minimising distractions
Rescheduling activities due to
previous over-stimulation or fatigue
Teaching class routines
Communicative strategies
Voice modulation
Negotiating solutions
Class meetings
Collaboration with parents or carers
Conferencing with student and
others (peers or parents)
Humour to diffuse tense situations
Collaboration with school counsellor
Supportive replies, reective listening
Unfamiliar with
Condence in using
Entire sample
No CBM units
completed
CBM units
completed
Entire sample
No CBM units
completed
CBM units
completed
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
5
72
83
13
1.1
15.1
17.4
2.7
5
18
26
9
7.0
25.4
36.6
12.7
54
57
4
13.3
14.0
1.0
3.10
2.68
2.46
2.78
.80
.87
.89
.85
2.68
2.43
2.16
2.21
.86
.77
.87
.83
3.17*
2.71
2.50
2.86*
.77
.88
.89
.82
16
3.3
11
15.5
1.2
2.47
.86
2.25
.82
2.50
.86
98
118
169
29
20.5
24.7
35.4
6.1
27
29
40
17
38.0
40.8
56.3
23.9
71
89
129
12
17.5
21.9
31.8
3.0
2.32
2.22
2.32
2.30
.87
.85
.95
.88
2.09
2.02
2.00
1.96
.77
.79
.82
.87
2.35
2.24
2.36
2.35
.88
.85
.96
.88
17
3.6
10
14.1
1.7
2.59
.85
2.10
.79
2.67*
.83
10
13
2.1
2.7
7
7
9.9
9.9
3
6
.7
1.5
2.68
2.61
.82
.83
2.25
2.20
.76
.80
2.75*
2.67*
.81
.82
17
24
28
20
126
85
23
3.6
5.0
5.9
4.2
26.4
17.8
4.8
9
12
10
9
27
29
12
12.7
17.1
14.1
12.7
38.0
40.8
16.9
8
12
18
11
99
56
11
2.0
2.9
4.5
2.5
24.6
13.8
2.7
2.55
2.60
2.40
2.70
2.24
2.34
2.63
.89
.90
.88
.82
.83
.90
.84
2.18
2.16
1.95
2.30
1.82
1.88
2.25
.84
.79
.81
.88
.79
.86
.82
2.61*
2.66*
2.48*
2.77*
2.30*
2.40*
2.69*
.88
.90
.87
.79
.82
.89
.83
63
13.2
25
35.2
38
9.4
2.26
.87
2.04
.84
2.29
.87
61
12.7
22
31.0
39
9.7
2.23
.84
2.06
.78
2.25
.85
20
45
4.2
9.4
10
19
14.1
26.8
10
26
2.5
6.4
2.56
2.43
.90
.88
2.15
2.10
.93
.93
2.62*
2.47
.88
.87
57
61
11.9
12.8
20
20
28.2
28.2
37
41
9.1
10.1
2.66
2.28
.93
.86
2.18
2.10
.82
.78
2.72*
2.31
.93
.87
7
15
1.4
3.1
6
9
8.5
12.7
1
6
.2
1.5
3.04
2.48
.82
.92
2.62
2.05
.76
.93
3.11*
2.55*
.80
.90
45
9.4
17
23.9
28
6.9
2.31
.86
1.91
.88
2.37*
.85
23
19
63
17
14
47
4.8
4.0
13.2
3.6
2.9
9.8
13
12
16
11
10
17
18.3
16.9
22.5
15.5
14.3
23.9
10
7
47
7
4
30
2.5
1.7
11.6
1.7
1.0
7.4
2.45
2.39
2.35
2.73
2.73
2.64
.83
.88
.90
.86
.83
.86
2.16
2.14
1.98
2.30
2.27
2.22
.83
.94
.71
.91
.84
.82
2.50
2.43
2.40
2.80*
2.79*
2.70*
.82
.86
.92
.83
.81
.85
50
28
12
8
7
16
10.5
5.6
2.5
1.7
1.5
3.3
18
15
8
6
6
8
25.4
21.1
11.3
8.5
8.5
11.3
32
13
4
2
1
8
7.9
3.2
1.0
.5
.2
2.0
2.47
2.56
2.86
2.85
2.74
2.60
.84
.86
.84
.88
.84
.89
2.21
2.30
2.52
2.49
2.35
2.25
.77
.87
.86
.97
.91
.93
2.50
2.59
2.91
2.91
2.80*
2.65
.85
.86
.83
.85
.81
.87
11
2.3
11.3
.7
2.80
.87
2.37
.89
2.86*
.85
11
18
23
23
23
2.3
3.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
7
8
11
8
12
9.8
11.3
15.5
11.3
16.9
4
10
12
15
11
1.0
2.5
3.0
3.7
2.7
2.77
2.50
2.38
2.22
2.33
.87
.84
.89
.90
.87
2.47
2.19
2.12
2.03
2.10
.87
.81
.87
.93
.85
2.82
2.55
2.42
2.24
2.36
.86
.83
..88
.89.
.88
28
37
24
2.1
7.7
5.0
10
12
14
14.0
16.9
19.7
18
25
10
4.4
6.2
2.5
2.45
2.14
2.66
.89
.87
.84
2.18
1.86
2.42
.79
.93
.93
2.49
2.19
2.69
.90
.85
.82
(continued on next page)
1138
Table 3 (continued )
Item
Instruction at a good pace (momentum)

Identifying mistaken goals
I messages
Gaining whole class attention
Communicating expectations
Teacher modelling a
ppropriate behaviour
Unfamiliar with
Condence in using
Entire sample
No CBM units
completed
CBM units
completed
3.6
11.5
12.1
4.0
2.7
2.5
9
23
19
10
7
7
12.7
32.4
26.8
14.0
9.9
10.1
17
55
58
19
13
12
8
32
39
9
6
5
%
2.0
7.9
9.6
2.2
1.5
1.2
Entire sample
No CBM units
completed
CBM units
completed
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
2.66
2.44
2.66
2.78
2.79
2.83
.84
.88
.86
.84
.82
.82
2.44
2.25
2.42
2.59
2.53
2.58
.78
.81
.99
.78
.89
.82
2.69
2.47
2.70
2.81
2.84
2.86
.85
.88
.83
.84
.80
.82
Note: * indicates that the mean was signicantly higher at p < .000 than the mean for those who had not completed stand-alone CBM (classroom behaviour management)
units.
7.3. Familiarity with classroom management models

For the total sample, the number of models that pre-service
teachers reported being familiar with ranged from 0 to 23, the
mean was 12.5 (SD 7.5, Mdn 11). Five participants indicated
familiarity with other unlisted models, including the Balance Model
(Richmond, 2008), Tribes (Gibbs, 2001), and Bumping Model
(Bennett & Smilanich, 1994). Those who had undertaken classroom
behaviour management units were familiar with signicantly more
(U 7080.00, z 5.74, p < .000, r .27) models than those who
had not (M 13.3, Mdn 13 vs. M 7.8, Mdn 6).
Table 4 shows the familiarity with, and level of condence in using
each of 22 listed models. The most familiar models were Positive
Behaviour Intervention and Support (74.5%), with over 70% indicating familiarity with Positive Classroom Discipline (Jones, 1987),
Reality Therapy/Choice Theory (Glasser, 1986), Decisive Discipline
(Rogers, 1989), and Teacher Effectiveness Training (Gordon, 1974).
Conversely, fewer than 33% were familiar with Judicious Discipline
(Gathercoal, 1990), and Transactional Analysis (Berne, 1961).
7.4. Condence in using classroom management models
Few pre-service teachers felt very condent about using any of
the models based on their coursework (see Table 3). At best, 11.1%
felt very condent in using Positive Classroom Discipline (Jones,

1987). The condent in using category had modestly low percentages, with Brophy and Goods (1986) Self-reective teaching
(32.6%), and Glassers (1986) Reality Therapy/Choice Theory (32.3%)
having the highest percentages. Most participants felt only somewhat condent in the listed models, with 53.4% indicated feeling
somewhat condent in using Applied Behaviour Analysis. There
were several models that 40% or more of the participants indicated
they were not at all condent in using. These included Judicious
Discipline (Gathercoal, 1990), Discipline with Dignity (Curwin et al.,
2008), Transactional Analysis (Berne, 1961), and Congruent
Communication (Ginnott, 1971).
7.4.1. Effects of coursework completion on condence in using
classroom management models
Overall, the mean number of models that pre-service teachers
felt condent or very condent in using was 3.7 (SD 5.1, Mdn 1),
this rose to a mean of 4.1 (SD 5.3, Mdn 2) for those who had
undertaken classroom behaviour management units, and dropped
to a mean of 1.4 (SD 2.7, Mdn 0) for those who had not. As the
standard deviations were quite high, the median score provides
a better measure of central tendency. There was a signicant
association (p < .01) between having undertaken classroom
behaviour management units and the number of models
Table 4
Knowledge and condence in items in the Classroom Management Theories and Approaches Scale (N 441).
Theory, approach, management model
Applied behaviour analysis

Assertive discipline (Canter & Canter)
Congruent communication (Ginnott)
Dealing with the group (Redl & Wattenberg)
Decisive discipline, the 4Rs (Bill Rogers)
Democratic teaching (Balson)
Developmental approach (Ramon Lewis)
Discipline with dignity (Curwin & Mendler)
Ecological approach
Functional behavioural assessment
Goal-centred theory (Dreikurs)
Judicious discipline (Forrest Gathercoal)
Kounin variables
Plan-teach-evaluate model (Barry & King)
Positive behaviour intervention and support
Positive classroom discipline (Jones)
Reality therapy/choice theory (Glasser)
Restorative justice
Self-reective teaching (Brophy & Good)
Social learning theory (Bandura)
Teacher effectiveness training (Gordon)
Transactional analysis (Berne)
Grand mean
Note: items in bold were the highest for each category.
Unfamiliar with
Condence level
Not at all
Somewhat
Condent
175
151
268
257
128
220
227
269
240
202
137
294
189
161
112
124
131
197
138
143
129
290
39.7
34.2
60.9
58.3
29.0
50.0
51.6
61.0
54.4
45.9
31.3
66.7
43.0
36.6
25.5
28.2
29.7
44.7
31.5
32.6
29.3
66.1
25.9
22.1
40.7
37.0
19.8
34.5
37.1
42.4
38.8
26.5
21.9
48.3
25.1
19.7
18.0
17.1
17.7
33.2
17.4
23.4
17.6
40.9
53.4
48.6
40.1
42.4
48.6
38.6
42.3
40.7
43.8
50.4
43.9
40.1
42.2
44.8
43.1
42.1
41.0
37.8
39.5
42.0
46.2
40.3
18.0
24.8
16.3
19.0
24.9
22.7
16.9
14.5
13.9
18.5
27.9
11.6
24.7
26.5
31.8
29.7
32.3
23.7
32.6
26.8
27.2
17.4
Mean
SD
1.97
2.12
1.81
1.85
2.19
1.96
1.87
1.77
1.82
2.01
2.19
1.63
2.16
2.25
2.28
2.35
2.33
2.01
2.36
2.19
2.28
1.79
2.05
.74
.80
.81
.78
.83
.86
.82
.78
.80
.80
.85
.68
.89
.87
.84
.89
.87
.89
.89
.88
.86
.77
.83
Very
2.6
4.5
2.9
1.6
6.7
4.1
3.8
2.3
3.5
4.6
6.3
8.0
9.0
7.0
11.1
9.0
5.4
10.5
7.8
9.0
1.3
participants reported being condent in using (c2 (3) 18.09). In

particular, there was a higher than statistically expected count of
participants (p < .01) who had not completed any classroom
behaviour management units reporting condence in zero models,
and a lower (p < .01) than statistically expected count reporting
condence in ten or more models.
8. Discussion
8.1. Preparedness to manage problematic student behaviours
This study is the rst to report on the possible effect of coursework preparation in classroom behaviour management on preservice teachers feelings of preparedness to manage a range of
specic problematic student behaviours, and the ndings were less
than favourable. The principal component analysis of the
Preparedness in Managing Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS)
suggested that pre-service teachers did not view all misbehaviour
as equally problematic, a result consistent with pre-service teacher
research on perceived seriousness of problem behaviour conducted
in Greece and Cyprus (Kokkinos et al., 2004), and from behaviour
manageability and teacher concern research from Australia (Safran,
1989; Stephenson et al., 2000). Items in the PMBPS clustered onto
three components: disruptive behaviours and non-compliance,
aggressive, antisocial and destructive, and disorganisation.
Disruptive and aggressive behaviour components were also
detected in the study by Kokkinos et al., suggesting that these forms
of problematic behaviour are conceptually distinct in the minds of
pre-service teachers, and that perceptions of preparedness and
perceived seriousness of problem behaviours may be related. We
found no signicant differences for gender and low levels of
preparedness to manage problematic behaviours. Kokkinos et al.
also found no signicant gender effect for perceived seriousness of
problematic behaviours.
The completion of mandatory, or a combination of mandatory
and elective classroom behaviour management units, was associated with higher feelings of preparedness for all categories of
problematic behaviours. However, it would appear that even when
classroom behaviour management units are completed, pre-service
teachers feel that it has only somewhat prepared them to manage
disruption, non-compliance, or disorganisation, afrming assertions of inadequate preparation by beginning teachers, principals,
and teacher educators (Levine, 2006; Oliver & Reschly, 2007).
Respondents who had not completed classroom behaviour
management units reported being less than somewhat prepared to
manage these forms of misbehaviour. Worldwide, disruptive, noncompliant, and disorganised behaviours are among the most
commonly occurring troublesome behaviours (Beaman et al.,
2007). They appear to be perceived as less serious, and were
ranked among the middle to lower end of behaviours by Greek and
Cypriot pre-service teachers (Kokkinos et al., 2004). In studies
conducted in Turkey and the US, pre-service teachers reported that
these behaviours were frequently encountered (Atici, 2007; Tulley
& Chiu, 1995), and presented both challenges and concerns (Boz,
2008; Moore, 2003).
When pre-service teachers had completed classroom behaviour
management units, they felt less than somewhat prepared to
manage the more challenging aggressive, antisocial, or destructive
behaviours. Pre-service teachers who had not completed such units
felt closer to not at all prepared to manage these behaviours.
Although these behaviours occur less frequently in classrooms
(Carter, Clayton, & Stephenson, 2006), these forms of challenging
behaviours have been rated amongst the most serious by preservice teachers in Greece and Cyprus (Kokkinos et al., 2004), and
were of great concern to pre-service teachers in the United
1139
Kingdom (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). These more severe

behaviours have been shown to have a negative effect on Australian
pre-service teachers sense of efcacy in classroom behaviour
management (Giallo & Little, 2003).
The nding that completion of classroom behaviour management units increased perceptions of preparedness is supported by
other research on the effects of education in classroom behaviour
management. Teachers in the US who had completed courses on
behaviour management had better affective responses to aggressive student behaviours (Alvarez, 2007). Pre-service teachers in the
US who were taught to implement behaviour intervention scripts
and plans in coursework units, were able to bring about meaningful
changes in student behaviours (Allen & Blackston, 2003; Lewin,
Nelson, & Tollefson, 1983).
8.2. Familiarity and condence in using classroom behaviour
management strategies
Pre-service teachers indicated they were familiar with a broad
range of options for managing student misbehaviour from their
coursework preparation. Studies conducted in the US have shown
that knowledge of intervention strategies was positively related to
the use of interventions (Hall & Wahrman, 1988), increased acceptability of intervention strategies (Tingstrom, 1989), and feelings of
condence in teaching difcult students (Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, &
Oats, 1998). As this is the rst study that has explored familiarity
with intervention strategies, direct comparisons with other preservice or in-service teaching populations are not possible.
The strategy that was most familiar to the total sample and subsamples of pre-service teachers was praise, encouragement, and
rewards. Such forms of positive reinforcement have a strong
research base for efcacy (Akin-Little & Little, 2009), and were the
most used effective strategy by pre-service teachers in a US study
(Tulley & Chiu, 1995), but were viewed as less successful and were
less frequently used by a combined sample of Australian and
Canadian pre-service teachers than initial correction, differentiation, or preventative strategies (Reupert & Woodcock, 2011). That
praise, encouragement, and rewards were most familiar appears
consistent with reports of their frequent inclusion in the content of
classroom behaviour management units in Australia, Turkey, and
the US (see Atici, 2007; ONeill & Stephenson, 2012a; Siebert, 2005;
Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, & Rouse, 2007).
The strategy that was most unfamiliar to the total sample and
sub-samples of pre-service teachers was the Premack principle. It is
also known as Grandmas rule (if you eat your vegetables, youll get
dessert), and this alternative name and an example was provided in
the survey. This strategy has been shown to be effective in
promoting attention to task (Azrin, Vinas, & Ehle, 2007), and time on
task (Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, & Whitman, 1980). This strategy is
drawn from Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), a model that was
often included in classroom behaviour management units, but did
not appear to account for much of the unit content in Australian
primary education programs (ONeill & Stephenson, 2011).
Familiarity with a strategy does not necessarily equate to having
condence in its use (Peters, 2009). Although the total sample of
pre-service teachers were familiar with a mean of 50.5strategies,
they were only condent in using a mean of 26.8 strategies (52.3%).
This gap might be due to insufcient time being allocated during
coursework units to allow for strategies to be explained, modelled,
or practised. ONeill and Stephenson (2012a) reported that
Australian pre-service teachers may be receiving only 2e3 h of
instruction per management model in focused units (less when
embedded in other pedagogy units), with each model likely to
contain multiple strategies. The gap between familiarity and
condence in using strategies widened from approximately one in
1140
two for those who had completed classroom behaviour management units, to one in four for those who had not. If having a sound
grasp of theory is important for underpinning classroom management decisions, then the pre-service teachers in this study had
a limited range of models they could condently apply at their
disposal.
The results of the principal component analysis suggest that, for
this sample of four-year trained pre-service primary teachers,
condence in using classroom behaviour management strategies is
best represented as a unidimensional construct. This differs from
the ndings of Reupert and Woodcock (2010, 2011) with their
samples of Canadian, and Australian and Canadian pre-service
teachers enrolled in a one-year post-graduate teaching program.
In 2010, they reported a four-component model, and in 2011, a vecomponent model from their condence scale, which appeared to
have a number of items in common with the BMSS. It is unclear,
however, how well their component models tted their data as
they did not publish the variance explained from their models.
Differences in program length, the scale items included, and the
focus on coursework units only in this study may also have led to
a different factor structure emerging from the data.
The strategy that pre-service teachers reported feeling most
condent in using was praise, encouragement, and reward. Reupert
and Woodcock (2010) found that the component they labelled
rewards only had the third highest mean score (M 3.16) out of
four components, with higher condence scores reported by
Canadian pre-service teachers for using initial correction
(M 3.84), and prevention strategies (M 3.79). Similarly, Cakir
and Alici (2009), working with Turkish pre-service teachers, reported that an item on using incentives and rewards had a mean
score of 3.18 (out of ve), and was not amongst the top ten items in
their 34-item teaching self-efcacy scale used. In a comparative
study conducted by Reupert and Woodcock (2011), they found that
Australian pre-service teachers were most condent in using
rewards (M 3.33), and that Canadian pre-service teachers were
most condent in using preventative strategies (M 3.68). Neither
Reupert and Woodcock nor Cakir and Alici asked their samples to
judge their condence based solely on their coursework preparation, and this may in part account for differences.
Almost 84% of participants in this study reported having
completed one or more units with classroom behaviour management content, compared to a half unit that was reported by Reupert
and Woodcock (2010, 2011) for Canadian and Australian samples
enrolled in a one-year graduate teaching program. The Turkish
sample (Cakir & Alici, 2009) had not completed a classroom
behaviour management unit, and classroom management content
was embedded in two school experience units. The greater
instructional time may have provided more opportunities for the
Australian sample in this study to learn about positive reinforcement and the benets of using it appropriately (Akin-Little, Eckert,
Lovett, & Little, 2004). Reupert and Woodcock (2010) also noted
that their sample had been made aware of the debate over rewards
on student motivation (Akin-Little et al., 2004), and this may have
lowered their condence in using rewards.
Collaboration with a school counsellor was the strategy with the
lowest mean condence score (2.1) equating to feeling only slightly
more than somewhat condent. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) also
reported a low mean condence score (2.16) for their item referral of
student to other professional (p. 1264) that included school counsellors as an example (S. Woodcock, personal communication,
December 6, 2011). These scores suggest that Canadian and Australian pre-service teachers have low condence levels in seeking
assistance from, or collaborating with, other professionals. It may be
that pre-service teachers perceive the role of the school counsellor as
providing student counselling or testing rather than teacher
consultation (Leach, 1989). This reticence was not apparent with

Turkish pre-service teachers, with ve out of nine saying they would
send students to the school counsellor or consult with them to get
more information or strategies to assist the student (Atici, 2007).
Completing classroom behaviour management units appeared
to make a signicant difference to pre-service teachers condence
in using management strategies. Of the four categories of strategies
included in the scale, the most signicant differences in condence
scores were for preventative and reductive strategies. Simonsen,
Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, and Sugai (2008), and Kern and
Clemens (2007), have reported the efcacy of many of these
strategies, for example, praise, response cost, tactical ignoring, and
routines. The differences might be due to classroom behaviour
management units providing more specic instruction in preventative and reductive strategies, which are less likely to be covered in
other coursework units. Conversely, most motivational and
communicative strategies in the Behaviour Management Strategies
Scale may be well covered in pedagogy or subject content units.
8.3. Familiarity and condence in using management models
At the time that this research was conducted, no studies had
been located that reported on the models for behaviour and
classroom management presented in pre-service teacher education
programs from the perspective of the recipients. This study sheds
light upon which management models pre-service teachers were
familiar with, what models they felt condent in using, and adds to
the limited knowledge base of classroom management curriculum
in initial teacher education programs. The total sample of preservice teachers were familiar with 25 different management
models. Australian data show coordinators of units with classroom
behaviour management content, some of whom were employed at
the institutions attended by participants in this study, included as
many as 36 models (ONeill & Stephenson, 2012a), Texan education
professors listed a dozen models.
Banks (2003) and Blum (1994) reported that professors from
a broader US sample reported including 15 models. Exposure to
multiple models was the norm for Australian pre-service teachers,
with a mean of 12 models (range of 0e23) known to the total
sample. Those who had completed classroom behaviour management units were exposed to almost twice as many models on
average as those who had not (13.3 vs. 7.8).
Positive Behaviour Intervention and Support (PBIS) was the
most familiar model, and had the highest percentage of participants (74.9%) who reported feeling condent or very condent in
using this model. This nding is consistent with reports from
coordinators of coursework units in Australian primary teacher
education programs, where PBIS was included in 57.9% of standalone units, and in 46.7% of units where classroom behaviour
management content was included with other content (ONeill &
Stephenson, 2012a). Recently, a number of Australian states and
territories have adopted the empirically validated school-wide PBIS
model (see for example Department of Education and Training
Queensland, n.d.; Mooney et al., 2008). The strong familiarity and
condence ratings in PBIS should be encouraging news to educational authorities, and shows that teacher education programs have
been responsive to changes occurring in school systems.
Other models with higher condence percentages were Decisive
Discipline (Rogers, 1989), Assertive Discipline (Canter & Canter,
1976), Teacher Effectiveness Training (Gordon, 1974), and Reality
Therapy/Choice Theory (Glasser, 1986). These were commonly
included in Australian primary teacher education programs (ONeill
& Stephenson, 2012a), and all bar Decisive Discipline, in education
programs in the US (see Banks, 2003; Blum, 1994; Wesley & Vocke,
1992). Models that were most unfamiliar to participants were
Judicious Discipline (Gathercoal, 1990), and Congruent Communication (Ginnott, 1971); models infrequently included in Australian
primary teacher education programs (ONeill & Stephenson, 2012a).
Although pre-service teachers were familiar with a dozen
models, they were only condent or very condent in using a few.
Those who had completed stand-alone units reported feeling
condent in using more models than their peers who had not (4.0
vs. 1.4), and this difference was signicant. Up until now, there has
only been conjecture that completing stand-alone units would be
more benecial in preparing teachers for the challenges of teaching
(see Oliver & Reschly, 2007), than including classroom management content in other ways. The data from this study support the
view that completing stand-alone units increases knowledge about,
and condence in using management models. This nding could
also conrm the belief that too many models, delivered too briey,
may not support condence in implementation (Brophy, 1988;
Stewart-Wells, 2000).
9. Limitations
Some cautions should be taken in interpreting these results. The
response rate was 14.2%, limiting the generalisation of these results.
The response rate is comparable to other online survey research
conducted with teachers in the US where the researchers were not
known to participants, and where no individual incentives were
offered (11%, Mertler, 2003; 18%, Melnick & Meister, 2008), and for
online surveys conducted with US college students (17.1%, Sax,
Glimartin, & Bryant, 2003). The results may also be slightly biased
due to slightly more females responding to the survey (by
proportion) than might actually exist in Australian primary
programs. There are also limitations inherent with self-report data
such as inaccurate recall, over-estimation of preparedness
(Housego, 1990) and condence (Bandura, 1997), and the inability
to validate survey responses with observations (Reupert &
Woodcock, 2010). As participants were not asked to indicate
when in their program they had completed stand-alone classroom
behaviour management units, any conclusions about recency
effects on strategy or model familiarity were not possible.
10. Conclusions, recommendations, and future directions
It is acknowledged that initial teacher education cannot be expected to provide all the knowledge and skills a teacher requires,
and that teachers should be life-long learners (Commission of the
European Communities, 2007; Martin et al., 1999). Initial teacher
education does, however, have an important role to play. Standalone coursework in classroom behaviour management does
matter, and teacher education programs that provide it are allowing additional time for their pre-service teachers to acquire more
knowledge, leading to increased perceptions of preparedness and
condence in classroom behaviour management. Although the
teacher preparation curriculum is a crowded one, nding the time
to provide a mandatory unit in classroom management is recommended (Landau, 2001). Longitudinal research that follows preservice teachers who have, and have not, completed stand-alone
units, into their rst years of teaching could extend our understanding of its effects on perceptions of preparedness, and condence as classroom managers.
Overall, pre-service teachers felt only somewhat prepared to
manage problematic student misbehaviour, and were only somewhat condent in using a wide variety of management strategies or
models. They were familiar with many strategies and models, but
were only condent in using half of what strategies they knew, and
an even lower proportion of models. Perhaps teacher education
programs need to reconsider the classroom management content
1141
they have been delivering, whether in stand-alone units or within

other units. Education systems also have a role to play in providing
ongoing professional learning related to classroom and behaviour
management to practicing teachers. This may be particularly
valuable in the early years of teaching when teachers have obtained
real teaching experience and have had the opportunity to develop
conceptions of their role in establishing and maintaining a positive
learning environment.
Increasing instruction in methods for managing challenging
behaviours seems necessary given the low preparedness scores for
aggressive, antisocial, and destructive behaviours. Reducing the
number of strategies and models imparted, and focusing on
a smaller range of proven effective strategies suitable for a wide
range of problematic behaviours that are underpinned by theoretical models, could lead to greater perceptions of preparedness
and condence. Doing so would support the recent recommendations of international committees such as the Commission of the
European Communities (2007) that called for teacher education
programs to be based on . solid evidence and good classroom
practice drawn from educational research (p. 15). Comparative
studies of beginning teacher perceptions that have completed
programs that have presented a limited range of effective strategies
and models, compared those that present a wide range of strategies
and models, could further increase our knowledge of what works.
References
Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. L., & Little, S. G. (2004). Extrinsic
reinforcement in the classroom: bribery or best practice. School Psychology
Review, 33, 344e362.
Akin-Little, K. A., & Little, S. G. (2009). Psychologys contributions to classroom
management. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 227e234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
pits.20293.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behaviour analysis for teachers (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Allen, S. J., & Blackston, A. R. (2003). Training preservice teachers in collaborative
problem solving: an investigation of the impact on teacher and
student behaviour change in real world settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18,
22e51.
Alvarez, H. K. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to student
aggression in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1113e1126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.001.
Atici, M. (2007). A small-scale study on students teachers perceptions of classroom
management and methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional and
Behavioural Difculties, 12, 15e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632750601135881.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Schools Australia, 2010. http://www.abs.gov.
au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4221.0MainFeatures62010?OpenDocument.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers attitudes towards
the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 277e293.
Azrin, N. H., Vinas, V., & Ehle, C. Y. (2007). Physical activity as reinforcement for
classroom calmness of AHD children: a preliminary study. Child & Family
Behavior Therapy, 29, 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J019v29n02_01.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Banks, M. K. (2003). Classroom management preparation in Texas colleges and
universities. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 22, 48e51.
Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on troublesome
classroom behaviour: a review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31,
45e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10300110701189014.
Bennett, B., & Smilanich, P. (1994). Classroom management: A thinking and caring
approach. Toronto, Canada: Bookation.
Berk, L. E. (2003). Child development (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematic individual and
social psychiatry. New York, NY, US: Grove Press.
Blum, M. H. (1994). The preservice teachers educational training in classroom discipline: A national survey of teacher education programs. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania.
Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for
beginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special
Education, 41, 158e170.
Boz, Y. (2008). Turkish student teachers concerns about teaching. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 31, 367e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802420693.
Bromeld, C. (2006). PGCE secondary trainee teachers and effective behaviour
management: an evaluation and commentary. Support for Learning, 4, 188e193.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 1e18.
1142
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson,

& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice,
and contemporary issues (pp. 17e43). Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher effects. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 328e375) New York: Macmillan.
Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers reports of how they perceive and cope
with problem students. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 3e66.
Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. E. (2005). Towards an
understanding of mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of
Applied
Sport
Psychology,
17,
209e277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10413200591010085.
Bullock, L. M., Ellis, L. L., & Wilson, M. J. (1994). Knowledge/skills needed by teachers
who work with students with severe emotional/behavioral disorders: a revisitation. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 108e125.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Household data annual averages. Employed
persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
Retrieved from. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf.
Cains, R. (1995). The perceptions, experiences and needs of newly qualied teachers e A
longitudinal study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, United Kingdom.
Cains, R. A., & Brown, C. R. (1996). Newly qualied primary teachers: a comparative
analysis of perceptions held by B.Ed. and PGCE trained teachers of their training
routes. Educational Psychology, 16, 257e270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0144341960160303.
Cakir, , & Alici, D. (2009). Seeing self as others see you: variability in self-efcacy
ratings in student teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15,
541e561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600903139555.
Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach for todays
educators. Seal Beach, CA: Canter & Associates.
Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Stephenson, J. (2006). Student with severe challenging
behaviour in regular classrooms: prevalence and characteristics. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 16, 189e209.
Charalambous, Y. C., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the development of preservice teachers efcacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during
eldwork. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 125e142. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10649-007-9084-2.
Charles, C. M. (2010). Building classroom discipline (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Improving the quality of teacher
education. Communication from the Commission to the Council and European
Parliament. Brussels, Belgium. Report: COM (2007) 392 nal. Retrieved from.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluation
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
Prentice Hall.
Curwin, R. L., Mendler, A. N., & Mendler, B. D. (2008). Discipline with dignity. New
challenges. New solutions (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies
of efcacy in in-service and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641e652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.005.
Department of Education and Training Queensland. (n.d.). School-wide positive
behaviour support. Retrieved from: http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/
behaviour/swpbs/index.html.
Dreikurs, R. (1968). Psychology in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. (2011). Study
on teacher education for primary and secondary education in six countries of the
eastern partnership: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
Final report. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Education
and Culture, Retrieved from. http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/
doc/2011/teacherreport_en.pdf.
Eurostat. (2010). Education in Europe e Key statistics 2008. Population and social
conditions, education and training. European Union. Eurostat, Retrieved from.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-037/EN/KS-QA10-037-EN.PDF.
Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. (2008). Classroom management for elementary teachers
(8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management.
Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Gathercoal, F. (1990). Judicious discipline (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.
Geving, A. M. (2007). Identifying the types of students and teacher behaviours
associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 624e640.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.006.
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: the relationship
between preparedness, classroom experiences and self-efcacy in graduate and
student teachers. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental
Psychology, 3, 21e34, Retrieved from. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/
Research%20Centres/SORTI/Journals/AJEDP/Vol%203/v3-giallo-little.pdf.
Gibbs, J. (2001). Tribes. A new way of learning and being together. Windsor, CA:
Center Source Systems.
Ginnott, H. (1971). Teacher and child. New York: Macmillan.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York: Peter H. Wyden.
Hagen, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., Wilson, C. P., & Oats, R. G. (1998). Using vicarious
experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efcacy in pre-service
teachers: priming the pump for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly,

13, 169e178.
Hall, C. W., & Wahrman, E. (1988). Theoretical orientations and perceived acceptability of intervention strategies applied to acting-out behaviour. Journal of
School Psychology, 26, 195e198.
Hamman, D., Fives, H., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Efcacy and pedagogical interaction in
cooperating and student teacher dyads. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41/
42, 55e63.
Housego, B. E. J. (1990). Student teachers feeling of preparedness to teach. Canadian
Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 37e56.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
Educational Leadership, 60, 30e33.
Jones, F. (1987). Positive classroom discipline. New York: McGrath Hill.
Kee, A. N. (2011). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively certied teachers:
what is the role of program features? Journal of Teacher Education. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487111421933, Advance online publication.
Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate
classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65e75.
Kokkinos, M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2004). Perceived seriousness of
pupils undesirable behaviours: the student teachers perspective. Educational
Psychology, 24, 109e120, doi:10/1080.0144341032000146458.
Konarski, E. A., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1980). Response
deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: a preliminary analysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 595e609.
Landau, B. E. (2001, April). Teaching classroom management: A stand-alone necessity
for preparing new teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Leach, D. J. (1989). Teachers perceptions of the work of psychologists in schools.
Australian Psychologist, 24, 357e376.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington: The Education Schools
Project, Retrieved from. http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_
Report.pdf.
Lewin, P., Nelson, R., & Tollefson, N. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward disruptive
children. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 17, 188e193.
Martin, A., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (1999). How teachers respond to concerns
about misbehaviour in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 347e358.
Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced
teachers concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31, 39e56.
Mertler, C. A. (2003). Patterns of response and nonresponse from teachers to
traditional and web surveys. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation,
8(22). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v8&n22.
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Barker, K., Power, A., Watson, K., & Yeung, A. S. (2008).
Positive behaviour for learning: Investigating the transfer of a Unites States system
into the New South Wales Department of Education and Training Western Sydney
Region schools. Penrith, New South Wales: University of Western Sydney, School
of Education and the Centre for Educational Research.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexaming the eld experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 54, 31e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487102238656.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective classroom management: Teacher
preparation and professional development. TQ connection issue paper on
improving student outcomes in general and special education. Washington:
National Comprehensive Centre for Teacher Quality, Retrieved from. http://
www.tqsource.org/topics/effectiveClassroomManagement.pdf.
ONeill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2011). Classroom behaviour management preparation
in undergraduate primary teacher education in Australia: a web-based investigation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10), article 3. Available at
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss10/3.
ONeill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012a). Classroom behaviour management content in
Australian undergraduate primary teaching programs. Teaching Education, 23,
287e308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.699034.
ONeill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012b). Exploring Australian pre-service teachers sense
of efcacy, its sources, and some possible inuences. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 535e545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.008.
Parkay, F., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationship
among teacher efcacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 21, 13e22.
Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peters, J. (2009, November). First year pre-service teachers learning about behaviour
management. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in
Education conference, Canberra, Australia.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efcacy and its sources: student teachers
perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191e218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01443410601066693.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: pre-service teachers use,
condence and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1261e1268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.003.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2011). Canadian and Australian pre-service teachers
use, condence and success in various behaviour management strategies.
International Journal of Educational Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2011.07.012, Advance online publication.
Richmond, C. (2008). Teach more, manage less. A minimalist approach to behaviour
management. Lindeld: Scholastic Australia.
Rogers, W. (1989). Making a discipline plan: Developing classroom management skills.
South Melbourne, Australia: Thomas Nelson.

Romano, M. (2008). Successes and struggles of the beginning teacher: widening the
sample. The Educational Forum, 72, 63e78.
Safran, S. P. (1989). Australian teachers views of their effectiveness in behaviour
management. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36,
15e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0156655890360103.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and
nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44,
409e432.
Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers success in classroom management by leveraging a local unions resources: a professional development
school initiative. Education, 125, 385e392.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based
practices in classroom management: considerations for research to practice.
Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 351e380.
Stephenson, J., Linfoot, K., & Martin, A. (2000). Behaviours of concern to teachers in
the early years of school. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 47, 225e235.
Stewart-Wells, G. (2000). An investigation of student teacher and teacher educator
perceptions of their teacher education programs and the role classroom management plays or should play in preservice education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University, San Diego.
Swabey, K., Castleton, G., & Penney, D. (2010). Meeting the standards? Exploring
preparedness for teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(8), article
3. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol35/iss8/3.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
1143
Tauber, R. T. (2007). Classroom management. Theory and practice (4th ed.). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Tingstrom, D. H. (1989). Increasing the acceptability of alternative behavioural
interventions through education. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 188e194.
Tulley, M., & Chiu, L. H. (1995). Student teachers and classroom discipline. The
Journal of Educational Research, 88, 164e171.
Turner, K., Jones, E., Davies, M., & Ramsay, S. (2004). Student teacher perceptions of
preparedness for teaching. In B. Bartlett, F. Bryer, & D. Roebuck (Eds.). Educating:
Weaving research into practice, Vol. 3 (pp. 184e193). Brisbane, Queensland:
School of Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Grifth University,
Retrieved from: http://www98.grifth.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/
2400/26687_1.pdf;jsessionid19C7C3811E06B43DA6D8D0E6D90752E2?
sequence1.
Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for
preparing special and general education preservice teachers for inclusive
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 440e455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022487107306803.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143e178.
Walker, J. E., Shea, T. M., & Bauer, A. M. (2004). Behavior management: A practical
approach for educators. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Wesley, D. A., & Vocke, D. E. (1992, February). Classroom discipline and teacher
education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, Orlando, FL.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers sense of efcacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137e148.

Teaching and Teacher Education: Sue O 'Neill, Jennifer Stephenson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching and Teacher Education: Sue O 'Neill, Jennifer Stephenson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching and Teacher Education: Sue O 'Neill, Jennifer Stephenson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

Does classroom management coursework inuence pre-service teachers

In the eyes of school principals and experienced teachers,

to better choices in dealing with misbehaviour (Woolfolk, Rosoff, &

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Similarly, scant research exists that has explored pre-service

transitions, one on maintaining momentum and smoothness, one

1. Classroom behaviour management

Brophys (2006) conceptualisation of classroom management

Condence is dened here as the strength of ones beliefs in

3.1. Condence of pre-service teachers

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

be referred to as models). Classroom management models, of which

2009. Thirty-two four-year undergraduate primary teaching

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

of experiences in managing school-aged children (aside from

6.3. Instrument validation

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Rotated factor loadings

Talking to peers during instruction

No CBM units completed

CBM units completed

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

7.1.1. Effects of coursework completion on level of preparedness

Number of units completed

perceived some management strategies as similar in some way

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

(continued on next page)

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Instruction at a good pace (momentum)

7.3. Familiarity with classroom management models

felt very condent in using Positive Classroom Discipline (Jones,

Applied behaviour analysis

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

participants reported being condent in using (c2 (3) 18.09). In

Kingdom (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). These more severe

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

consultation (Leach, 1989). This reticence was not apparent with

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

they have been delivering, whether in stand-alone units or within

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson,

teachers: priming the pump for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly,

S. ONeill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

You might also like