at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’perceived preparedness or confidence?

Sue O’Neill*, Jennifer StephensonMacquarie 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 confidence in use.< Unit completion increased the number of models known and confidence in use 4:1.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2012Received in revised form3 May 2012Accepted 25 June 2012

Keywords:Classroom behaviour managementPre-service teachersPreparednessConfidence

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 2 9482 5984; faxE-mail addresses: susan.oneill@uts.edu.au (S. O

mq.edu.au (J. Stephenson).

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008

a b s t r a c t

There has been conjecture that completing focused coursework units on classroom management duringpre-service teacher preparation might lead to increased feelings of preparedness and confidence. Thisstudy reports the preparedness in managing specific problem behaviours, familiarity, and confidence inusing management strategies and models of final-year pre-service teachers in Australia who had and hadnot completed focused classroom management units. Unit completion significantly increased perceivedpreparedness, familiarity, and confidence in using strategies and models. However, the whole sample feltonly somewhat prepared to manage misbehaviour, and were confident in using only half of the strategiesthey were familiar with.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the eyes of school principals and experienced teachers,a beginning teacher’s ability to manage classroom behaviour is anessential skill (Brophy & McCaslin, 1992). This area is, however, onewhere pre-service teachers and beginning teachers from manycountries have been reported to lack confidence (see for example,Boz, 2008 (Turkey); Bromfield, 2006 (UK); Swabey, Castleton, &Penney, 2010 (Australia); Veenman, 1984 (USA)). Insufficient orinadequate preparation for classroom and behaviour managementhas been suggested as a possible cause for beginning teacherconcern (Oliver & Reschly, 2007). Romano (2008) reported thatbeginning teachers believed that more preparation for classroombehaviour management could increase preparedness to teach andalleviate the struggles experienced during the first years ofteaching. Completion of focused classroom behaviour managementcontent during teacher training might lead to increased confidenceand sense of efficacy (Giallo & Little, 2003),which in turn may lead

: þ61 2 9850 8708.’Neill), jennifer.stephenson@

All rights reserved.

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 inclassroom management during pre-service teacher preparationcould make a difference to how prepared or confident new grad-uates feel, there is little empirical research that would support thisassertion. This study aimed to move the discussion in the literaturebeyond conjecture and into the realm of findings based on empir-ical data. Since the 1990s, little research has been conducted onpre-service or beginning teachers’ perceptions of preparedness (seeBoe, Shin, & Cook, 2007; Kee, 2011), and none has exploredpreparedness in managing specific problematic behaviours. Itemsrelated to specific problematic behaviours are more often found inscales developed to measure teacher concerns (see for exampleKokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2004; Martin, Linfoot, &Stephenson, 1999), or manageability beliefs (Safran, 1989). Suchresearch has shown that different forms of behaviour such asdistractibility and hindering others cause teachers greatest concern(Stephenson, Linfoot, & Martin, 2000).

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431132

Similarly, scant research exists that has explored pre-serviceteacher confidence in using different specific behaviour manage-ment strategies (see Reupert &Woodcock, 2010, 2011). No researchreports were located that included discussion of which manage-ment models pre-service teachers were familiar with or confidentin using, or that explored the effect that completing focused cour-sework units in classroom management had on pre-serviceteachers’ feelings of preparedness, familiarity with, or confidencein use of different strategies or management models. The findingsof such research could provide important information for thosedesigning teacher education programs, and renew the discussionon the benefits or pitfalls of teachingmultiple theoretical classroommanagement strategies and models to pre-service teachers raisedmore than two decades ago by Brophy (1988).

1. Classroom behaviour management

Brophy’s (2006) conceptualisation of classroom managementincluded the arrangement of physical space and resources, creatingand maintaining rules, routines and procedures, methods ofmaintaining and engaging students attention, disciplinary inter-ventions, and student socialisation actions. The selected focus ofthis study is on the behaviour management that teachers use intheir classrooms. Behaviour management has been defined as “.all those actions (and conscious inactions) teachers . engage in toenhance the probability that children, individually and in groups,will develop effective behaviours that are personally fulfilling,productive, and socially acceptable” (Walker, Shea, & Bauer, 2004,p. 7). We contend that teachers select and perform a range ofpreventative and reactive actions drawn from all of Brophy’s facetsof classroom management to develop appropriate student behav-iours, inextricably linking classroom and behaviour management.

2. Preparedness

Housego (1990) suggested that estimates of preparedness wereakin to self-assessment of teaching competence. Boe et al. (2007)and Kee (2011) explored beginning teacher preparedness in theUS, using scales containing only seven and five items respectively.Both scales contained only one item related to behaviourmanagement. Boe et al. found that 60% of those with extensivetraining felt well prepared to manage misbehaviour, compared to47% of those who reported only some training, and 52% of thosewith little to no preparation. Similarly, Kee reported that alternativecertification route teachers felt less well prepared than theirtraditional certification peers, and that completion of courseworkunits in learning theory or psychology (that might include class-room management content) increased overall preparedness scoresby .22 point on a four-point scale, which equated to amedium effectsize of d ¼ .37 (p < .05).

Cains (1995) developed a scale to explore teaching preparedness(Prepcon) of newly qualified teachers in the United Kingdom. Pre-pcon contained 41 items that included five behaviour managementitems: preventative approaches towhole class disruption; methodsof maintaining whole class discipline; dealing with disruptiveindividuals; rewards and punishment; and managing difficultclasses. Pre-service teachers that had completed four-yearprograms rated their preparedness to manage behaviour signifi-cantly higher (p < .001, ES ¼ .81) at 4.24/7, compared to 3.22/7 bythose who had completed a one-year post-graduate teachingcertificate (Cains & Brown, 1996).

Using a 43-item PREP scale, Housego (1990) explored thepreparedness of Canadian pre-service teachers enrolled in a one-year graduate teacher preparation program. The scale containedten classroommanagement items; three pertaining to rules, one on

transitions, one on maintaining momentum and smoothness, oneon building self-discipline, two on individualising management,and two on handling problem behaviour. By the end of theprofessional experience placement, and a semester of coursework,classroom management items that showed most positive changesfor preparedness included handling problem behaviours, indi-vidualising management, and momentum and smoothness. Leastchange was seen in preparedness to build student self-discipline.

These three scales focused on preparedness for general teachingtasks and not on perceived preparedness to manage specific prob-lematic student behaviours. To date, no research has explored therelationship between tertiary education coursework in classroommanagement and pre-service teacher perceptions of preparednessin managing a range of problematic student behaviours.

3. Confidence

Confidence is defined here as the strength of one’s beliefs inone’s capabilities, and is conceptually different to self-efficacybeliefs that, according to Bandura (1997), “. include both theaffirmation of capability and the strength of that belief” (p. 382).Measuring self-confidence beliefs is thought to clarify the mainte-nance of self-efficacy beliefs in the face of disconfirming experi-ences (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005). Research onteacher confidence has shown that teachers who are confident intheir classroom management are more resilient to stress (Parkay,Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988). Previous research has tendedto explore confidence in classroom or behaviour management asa general perception using a single scale item, and has not focusedonwhich classroombehaviourmanagement strategieswere used oradvocated (see Martin et al., 1999). When strategies used by pre-service teachers have been explored, the focus has been onwhether participants had used or would use particular strategies inreal or hypothetical situations (see Atici, 2007; Tulley & Chiu, 1995).

3.1. Confidence of pre-service teachers

Recently, the confidence of Canadian (Reupert & Woodcock,2010), and Australian and Canadian (Reupert & Woodcock, 2011)pre-service teachers in using classroom behaviour managementstrategies was reported. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) developedand used a 25-item, five-point scale, Survey of BehaviourManagement Practices (SOBMP), to assess the frequency of use,confidence in use, and perceived success of use for strategiesderived from classroom management literature. They found thatCanadian pre-service teachers were most confident in usingpreventative and initial correction strategies such as using physicalproximity, and least confident in using later correction strategiessuch as time out. When they compared Australian and Canadianpre-service teachers’ confidence scores in the 2011 study, theyfound that the Australian participants weremost confident in usingrewards, and the Canadians, preventative strategies. The scaleincluded a number of effective strategies, but did not appear toinclude other specific strategies found in theoretical models ofmanagement such as Dreikur’s (1968) I messages or Gordon’s(1974) identifying teacher or student owned problems. Suchstrategies are presented as tenable options in classroom manage-ment texts commonly used in teacher education programs (forexample, Charles, 2010; Tauber, 2007).

4. Classroom management models in teacher preparationprograms

Many classroom behaviour management strategies are parts oftheories, approaches, or models of management (for ease these will

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1133

be referred to asmodels). Classroommanagementmodels, of whichthere are scores (see Evertson & Weinstein, 2006), span a diverserange of beliefs about the role of teacher and students withinclassrooms, and societies’ purposes of schooling. Some classroommanagementmodels focus strongly on classroom discipline such asAssertive Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976), outlining preventativeand reactive teacher actions designed to establish and maintainorder and the control of student behaviour, whilst others such asDiscipline With Dignity (Curwin, Mendler, & Mendler, 2008) focusmore on relationship building between teachers and students topromote student self-discipline. The development of self-disciplineis seen as more important than mere obedience, which Curwinet al. (2008) believed could lead to immaturity irresponsibility,lack of critical thinking, helplessness, and power struggles.

Models of management appear to be common content inclassroom management units in pre-service teacher educationprograms (Banks, 2003; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011). In the US,among the dozen or more models that Banks (2003) and Blum(1994) reported, common models included were Assertive Disci-pline (Canter & Canter, 1976), Choice/Reality Therapy (Glasser,1986), and Applied Behaviour Analysis (see Banks, 2003; Blum,1994; Wesley & Vocke, 1992). In Australia, O’Neill and Stephenson(2011) found that among the 36 different models included inAustralian teacher education programs, the dominant models wereDecisive Discipline (Rogers, 1989), Applied Behaviour Analysis,Positive Behaviour Intervention and Support, and Choice Theory/Reality Therapy (Glasser, 1986). The models included in units couldhave been influenced by locally available and promoted materials,popular classroom management textbooks, coordinators’ ideolog-ical belief system, or the comfort level of the unit coordinator.

5. Research questions

Recent research conducted by O’Neill and Stephenson (2012a)suggested that most Australian pre-service teachers werereceiving mandatory coursework instruction in classroom behav-iour management. With little known about the effects ofcompleting such coursework, this article seeks to explore byexamining the responses to a survey questionnaire: (a) howprepared do final-year pre-service teachers feel in managingspecific problematic student behaviours; (b) what specific class-room behaviour management strategies are familiar to pre-serviceteachers and how confident do they feel in using them; and (c)what specific classroom management models are familiar to pre-service teachers, and how confident are they in applying them?

6. Method

The results reported here are part of a larger study that wascarried out to explore Australian final-year pre-service teachers’sense of efficacy, the sources of information that contributed totheir sense of efficacy, how classroom behaviour managementcoursework units might affect their sense of efficacy, and howotheropportunities for interacting with children, apart from professionalpractice, might affect their sense of efficacy. A full account of themethods may be found in O’Neill and Stephenson (2012b).

6.1. Participants

Australian public and private institutions offering four-yearundergraduate primary teaching programs were located throughGoogle searches in mid-2009. In Australia, primary teachingprograms prepare educators to teach students from kindergartenthrough to grade six, aged 5e12 years. Telephone contact wasmadewith each institution to confirm that the programwas operating in

2009. Thirty-two four-year undergraduate primary teachingprograms with fourth and final-year students enrolled in 2009were identified.

Once ethical clearance was received, an e-mail was sent to eachHead of School/Dean explaining the purpose of the study, alongwith a PDF copy of the online survey questionnaire and a copy ofthe participants’ information letter. Consenting Heads of School/Deans provided an e-mail address for a nominated faculty liaisonperson. This person was asked to forward the invitation e-mail andreminder e-mail (oneweek later), with the link to the online surveyhosted by SurveyMonkey, to all students currently enrolled in thefinal year of the program. Twenty-one (65.6%) institutions from sixout of eight states/territories in Australia participated in this study.Many of the participating institutions were located in the mostpopulous eastern states of New South Wales and Victoria (n ¼ 15,71.4%). These states have the most teacher preparation programs(O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011). The e-mail invitation was sent toapproximately 4033 students (some institutions only providedrounded estimates of enrolments). A total of 573 (14.2%) responseswere received, with 40.14% (n ¼ 230) of participants enrolled inNew South Wales programs.

Predominantly the participants were female (n ¼ 504, 87.96%).Compared to pre-service primary/elementary teaching populationslocally and overseas, this percentage was slightly higher than the82.3%reported inanAustralian 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 percentageof females in this study is slightly higher than the Australian nationalaverage of 81% for full-time primary teachers in Australia (AustralianBureau 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 andBelarus (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 ¼ 293, 51.13%), and this was similar to other final-year under-graduate primary/elementary pre-service teacher populations inAustralia (M ¼ 25.16, Turner et al., 2004), Spain (M ¼ 21.7, de laTorre Cruz & Arias, 2007), and in the US (M ¼ 24.8, Hamman,Fives, & Olivarez, 2007). Many had completed their final extendedprofessional experience (n ¼ 380, 66.32%), some were in theprocess of completion (16.40%), and some had not yet begun(17.28%). Most reported completion of one or more mandatoryclassroom behaviour management coursework units (n ¼ 450,81.37%) and 103 (18.63%) had not completed a mandatory class-room behaviour management unit. One or more elective classroombehaviour management coursework units had been completed by124 (22.42%) participants. Ninety (16.28%) participants had notcompleted either mandatory or elective units. In Australia, a cour-sework unit (also known as a subject) is typically presented overa 10e15 week semester, and may include lectures, tutorials, orworkshops in face-to-face or online attendance mode. Four unitsper semester is a typical full-time study load in an eight-semesterfour-year program. A stand-alone classroom behaviour manage-ment unit is defined here as a unit having more than 50% of its timeand content allocated to imparting knowledge, skills or under-standing in classroom behaviour management.

6.2. Instruments

The multi-scale survey questionnaire used included items forage, gender, program type, the number of stand-alone classroombehaviour management units completed, the number of and types

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431134

of experiences in managing school-aged children (aside fromprofessional experience), and five measurement scales. This articlereports on the responses to three of the scales: the Preparedness inManaging Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS); the BehaviourManagement Strategies Scale (BMSS); and the ClassroomManagement Theories and Approaches Scale (CMTAS). The threemeasurement scales were developed for the purposes of this study.

6.2.1. Preparedness in Managing Behaviour Problems ScaleThe first scale, the Preparedness in Managing Behaviour Prob-

lems Scale (PMBPS), was designed to measure how prepared pre-service teachers felt in managing specific problematic studentbehaviours. The 40-item scale included items that covered dis-organisation problems (untidiness), off-task behaviours (out ofseat), disruptive behaviours (calling out answers), aggressivebehaviours (verbal or physical), destructive behaviours (of own orothers property), non-compliant behaviours (disobey class rules),and antisocial behaviours (stealing). Items were drawn fromresearch into the types of student behaviours that teachers reportas troublesome or stressful, authors’ knowledge, and suggestionsmade by two experienced behaviour consultants and threeacademics who coordinated units with classroom managementcontent (see Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007; Geving, 2007;Safran, 1989; Stephenson et al., 2000). Participants responded toa four-point scale, including the options of unprepared, somewhatprepared, prepared, and well prepared. The total scale split-halfreliability was a ¼ .98, and sub-scale reliabilities ranged froma ¼ .93e.97, suggesting that the items in the sub-scales measuredthe underlying constructs reliably.

6.2.2. Behaviour Management Strategies ScaleThe second scale, the Behaviour Management Strategies Scale

(BMSS), gathered information on participants’ confidence in usingspecific classroom behaviour management strategies. The 55-itemscale had items pertaining to four types of strategies includingmotivational strategies (group contingency), reductive strategies(response cost), preventative strategies (forming and establishingclassroom rules), and communicative strategies (I messages). Somestrategies were drawn from classroom management texts such asCharles (2010), Evertson and Emmer (2008), and Alberto andTroutman (2009). Other items were based on the knowledge/skillstatements Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson (1994) compiled from teachereducation programs for teachers of emotionally and behaviourallydisordered students. In addition, strategies knownto theauthorsandthe two behaviour consultants mentioned abovewere included. Thescaleutilised afive-point scale. Responseoptions includedunfamiliarwith, not at all confident, somewhat confident, confident, and veryconfident. The split-half reliability for the full scale was a ¼ .98.

6.2.3. Classroom Management Theories and Approaches ScaleThe third scale, the Classroom Management Theories and

Approaches Scale (CMTAS), examined which management modelsparticipants were confident in applying. The list included 22models, such as Applied Behaviour Analysis, Assertive Discipline(Canter & Canter, 1976), and Teacher Effectiveness Training(Gordon, 1974). The list was compiled from classroommanagementtexts such as Charles (2010), Tauber (2007), and educationalpsychology texts such as Berk (2003). This list of models waspreviously used by O’Neill and Stephenson (2012a) in surveyresearch conducted with teacher education program coordinatorsof units with classroom behaviour management content inAustralia. We provided an other category for respondents to includeadditional models, and used a five-point scale with the sameresponse category options as the Behaviour Management StrategiesScale (BMSS) above.

6.3. Instrument validation

The survey questionnaire was pilot tested twice with five 3rd-year primary education students enrolled at the first author’sinstitution, firstly for item clarity and the time taken to completethe survey questionnaire. Feedback led to the inclusion of someexamples placed in brackets after the names of some behaviourmanagement strategies in the BMSS. A second round of pilot testingwas then conducted to test the online functionality, item clarity,and time required for completion. Feedback indicated that itemsand instructions were clear, online functionality was good, and thatit took approximately 15 min to complete the three scales and thedemographic type items.

6.4. Data collection

The survey could be completed either anonymously, or confi-dentially if participants elected to participate in a follow-up study.Those who consented to be contacted for the follow-up studyprovided their name, and a contact e-mail and telephone numbers.Participants could choose to enter a prize draw to win one of five$150 gift vouchers from an educational supplier and this requiredthe provision of an e-mail address for prize notification. Werequested an e-mail address that did not include their full name toprotect anonymity. Participants had threeweeks from the time thatthe initial invitation was sent to respond to the survey.

6.5. Data analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore theexistence of underlying components of the Preparedness inManaging Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS) and the BehaviourManagement Strategies Scale (BMSS), using both orthogonal (Var-imax) and oblique rotations (Oblimin) to determine the correctrotation required. When oblique rotations yield correlations above.30 in the component correlation matrix, then the orthogonalrotation should be discarded (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).Component retention methods used included examining screeplots for the point of inflexion, eigenvalues greater than one,parallel analysis (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), and interpret-ability of component items to determine the most appropriatenumber of underlying components.

Where PCA resulted in a scale being reduced to componentparts such as the PMBPS, component means for each participantwere obtained by averaging item scores belonging to the compo-nent. For chi-square tests, missing values were replaced with thesample mean score for each item as recommended by Tabachnickand Fidell (2007). For the PMBPS and BMSS, missing values werefew (n ¼ 77, .35%, and n ¼ 90, .34% respectively). Four participantsselected unfamiliar with for all items in the BMSS and these datawere removed from further analysis and treated as missing values.In partitioning out participants that indicated some level of confi-dence from those that were unfamiliar with a particular strategy,the unfamiliar category was changed to a form of missing value. Toovercome the loss of participants in the PCA, missing values wereexcluded pairwise rather than listwise, as this provides a reason-able solution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Pearson’s chi-square tests were calculated to explore significantassociations or relationships between categorical variables. Whenmultiple analyses were conducted, the Bonferroni correctionmethod was used to adjust the significance level to reduce thepossibility of Type 1 errors. Standardised residuals were examinedfor all significant associations to highlight which interactionscontributed to the overall association. To discern the low level ofpreparedness category for PMBPS scores, the cut-off point for the

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1135

low level was set at one standard deviation below the mean(Creswell, 2005).

To explore whether differences existed in familiarity and confi-dence scoresbetweenpre-service teacherswhohadcompleted stand-alone classroombehaviourmanagementunits and thosewhohadnot,ManneWhitney U tests were conducted as the BMSS data was foundnot to be normally distributed via KolmogoroveSmirnov tests.

7. Results

7.1. Preparedness in managing specific problematic studentbehaviours

Principal component analyses (PCAs) were conducted to revealwhether pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness tomanage behaviours differed with the nature of the problembehaviour. The oblique rotation (Oblimin, d ¼ 0) was selected asmost suitable, as the component correlation matrix contained rvalues greater than .3, suggesting that components were notindependent (Field, 2009). Five items (three social skill and twoaggression items) were removed as they did not load ontocomponents or loaded onto two components equally highly. ThePCA was re-run with 35 items, resulting in a three-factor solution,

Table 1Factor loadings for principal components analysis with Oblimin rotation from the patter

Item Rotated factor loadings T

DNC AAD DIS M

Talking to peers during instruction .86 2Limited persistence with set task .85 2Talking out of turn/calling out .84 2Out of seat/wandering .78 2Lack of motivation .77 2Idleness/slow to begin set task .76 2Inattentive behaviour .75 2Hindering others/disrupting peer activities .75 2Fidgeting .75 2Noises .69 2Excessive demand on teacher for assistance .67 2Rocking/swinging on chairs .65 2Whinging, whining, pulling faces .63 2Disobeying class rules .60 2Non-compliance to request/directions .57 1Physical aggression to staff .94 1Physical aggression to peers .93 1Self-injurious behaviour .88 1Sexually explicit actions .80 1Verbal aggression to staff .80 1Verbal aggression to peers .74 1Tantrums/poorly managed anger .74 1Offensive language .73 1Bullying or intimidation .72 2Destroying school property .65 1Destroying peers’ work or property .63 1Throwing objects .62 1Setting others up .58 1Lying or cheating .51 1Absconding from classroom or school .48 1Studentestudent conflicts .48 2Forgetfulness .78 2Late to class .78 2Untidiness .77 2Disorganisation .71 2Eigenvalues 17.37 16.21 10.32% of Variance 58.62 8.00 4.01a .97 .97 .93Component mean 2.24 1.78 2.22SD .88 .83 .93

Note: for the PCA, the KaisereMeyereOlkin calculation ¼ .97, and Bartlett’s test of spherimeans for each group. CBM ¼ classroom behaviour management.

which was confirmed by the parallel analysis and scree plot. Thevariance explained for the model was 70.6%.

Items that clustered on component one represented prepared-ness in managing behaviours that disrupted learning (disruptive),and non-compliance (DNC). Component two contained aggressive,antisocial, and destructive (AAD) items, and component three dis-organisation (DIS) items. Factor loadings were good, with a mean of.72 (see Table 1). A factor loading of .72 means that an item shares51.8% of its variability with the factor it has correlatedwith. Possibleitem scores ranged from one to four, and the mean and standarddeviation for each item is presented in Table 1.

The number of participants with low levels of preparedness forthe three components is presented in Table 2. The component withthe greatest number of pre-service teachers with a low level ofpreparedness was for managing disorganised behaviours (n ¼ 103,19.9%). For the AAD component, the reader should note, that toobtain the low level of preparedness, subtracting the standarddeviation from the mean resulted in scores of less than one (a scorethat did not exist), so the score of one (unprepared) was used. Thismay have caused a small over-estimation of the number with a lowlevel of preparedness. Chi-square tests indicated there were nosignificant differences (p < .01) for gender at and low levels ofpreparedness for any component (see Table 2).

n matrix and mean item scores for the PMPBS (N ¼ 491).

otal sample No CBM units completed CBM units completed

ean SD Mean SD Mean SD

.42 .89 1.78 .78 2.53 .86

.16 .83 1.63 .68 2.26 .82

.44 .92 1.78 .76 2.54 .89

.25 .93 1.57 .77 2.36 .90

.38 .86 1.98 .84 2.46 .85

.17 .84 1.62 .66 2.28 .83

.34 .77 1.89 .71 2.43 .75

.21 .87 1.62 .66 2.30 .86

.29 .90 1.73 .79 2.38 .87

.20 .91 1.57 .69 2.30 .90

.12 .84 1.59 .67 2.20 .83

.30 .99 1.59 .76 2.43 .98

.07 .91 1.49 .65 2.15 .91

.21 .85 1.70 .62 2.30 .85

.99 .86 1.46 .64 2.09 .85

.65 .79 1.39 .56 1.69 .81

.74 .82 1.42 .59 1.78 .83

.54 .75 1.26 .49 1.59 .77

.56 .77 1.22 .52 1.62 .78

.86 .88 1.47 .67 1.92 .89

.95 .89 1.51 .69 2.02 .89

.76 .83 1.46 .63 1.81 .83

.73 .80 1.33 .59 1.80 .81

.08 .90 1.62 .73 2.16 .90

.73 .81 1.39 .65 1.77 .81

.73 .82 1.40 .67 1.77 .82

.79 .83 1.47 .67 1.83 .84

.72 .82 1.28 .53 1.80 .84

.84 .85 1.37 .60 1.91 .86

.64 .80 1.31 .52 1.70 .83

.08 .84 1.65 .69 2.14 .84

.22 .91 1.78 .84 2.29 .89

.15 .98 1.73 .88 2.23 .97

.19 .92 1.79 .83 2.26 .92

.31 .89 1.91 ..85 2.38 .88

city c2 (595) ¼ 18 807.63, p < .001. Figures in bold indicate highest and lowest item

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431136

7.1.1. Effects of coursework completion on level of preparednessChi-square tests indicated that for managing disruptive behav-

iours and non-compliance (DNC), there was a highly significantassociation (p < .001) between the number of mandatory, elective,and total (mandatory and elective) classroom behaviour manage-ment units that participants had completed, and level ofpreparedness (see Table 2). Significant associations were driven bystatistically higher than expected counts of participants who hadnot completed any mandatory, or total units having low prepared-ness levels, and lower than statistically expected counts of partici-pants who had completed two or moremandatory, or elective unitshaving low preparedness levels. For those who had completedclassroom behaviour management units, the sub-scale mean scorefor the DNC category was 2.3 (SD ¼ .1), equating to feeling morethan somewhat prepared. For those who had not completed class-room behaviour management units, the sub-scale mean was 1.7(SD ¼ .1), equating to feeling less than somewhat prepared.

For aggressive, antisocial, and destructive behaviours (AAD),there was a highly significant (p < .001) association between thenumber of mandatory, and total units completed and level ofpreparedness (see Table 2). The significant associations (p < .01)were driven by statistically higher than expected counts of partic-ipants who had not completed anymandatory, or total units, and byfewer than would be statistically expected with a low level ofpreparedness who had completed two or more mandatory(p < .01), or two or more total units (p < .05). For those who hadcompleted classroom behaviour management units, the sub-scalemean for the AAD category was 1.8 (SD ¼ .2), equating to beingless than somewhat prepared. For those who had not completedunits, the sub-scale mean was 1.4 (SD ¼ .1), which is closer tofeeling not at all prepared than somewhat prepared.

For managing disorganisation (DIS), there was a highly signifi-cant (p < .001) association between mandatory, and total unitscompleted and level of preparedness, and only a modest associa-tion between completing elective units and level of preparedness(see Table 2). The significant (p < .001) associations were driven bystatistically higher than expected counts of participants reportinglow levels of preparedness who had not completed any mandatory,or total units, and fewer than would be statistically expectedreporting a low level of preparedness who had completed two ormore mandatory, elective units (p < .01), or two or more total units(p < .001). For those who had completed classroom behaviourmanagement units, the sub-scale mean for the DIS category was 2.3(SD ¼ .1), equating to feeling more than somewhat prepared. Forthose who had not completed units, the sub-scale mean was 1.8(SD ¼ .1), suggesting they felt less than somewhat prepared.

7.2. Familiarity and confidence in using behaviour managementstrategies

The 55-item Behaviour Management Strategies Scale (BMSS)was subjected to PCA to ascertain whether pre-service teachers

Table 2Chi-square test results for PMBPS components and gender, and completion of unitswith stand-alone classroom behaviour management content.

DNC AAD DIS

Gender effect c2 (1) ¼ .25 c2 (1) ¼ .37 c2 (1) ¼ .03

Number of units completedMandatory c2 (2) ¼ 62.02*** c2 (2) ¼ 24.88*** c2 (2) ¼ 32.61***Elective units c2 (1) ¼ 11.97*** c2 (1) ¼ .76 c2 (1) ¼ 5.64*Total (mandatoryand elective units)

c2 (2) ¼ 57.35*** c2 (2) ¼ 18.87*** c2 (2) ¼ 37.85***

Note: *indicates p < .05, *** indicates p < .001.

perceived some management strategies as similar in some way(based on their confidence in use scores). The five-factor solutionthat the PCA returned was not clearly interpretable, so a one-component solution for the BMSS was chosen. The one-component model accounted for 48.9% of the variability in partic-ipants’ confidence scores. Factor loadings for all items ranged from.58 to .72 (see Table 2).

7.2.1. Effects of coursework completion on strategy familiarityEach of the 55 strategies included in the BMSS was familiar to

the majority of pre-service teachers (see Table 3). The total samplewas familiar with a mean of 50.5 (SD ¼ 8.4, Mdn ¼ 53) strategies.Those who had completed classroom behaviour management unitschecked a mean of 51.6 strategies (SD ¼ 5.7, Mdn ¼ 54), comparedto a mean of 44.1 (SD ¼ 15.5, Mdn ¼ 50) for those who had not.Participants who had completed classroom behaviourmanagementunits were familiar with significantly more strategies than thosewho had not (U ¼ 9561.50, z ¼ �4.70, p < .000).

The most familiar strategy was praise, encouragement andrewards, with all but five participants indicating familiarity. Four ofthese participants (who had not completed classroom behaviourmanagement units) checked unfamiliar with for all the listedstrategies. The strategy that the total sample was most unfamiliarwith was the Premack principle, with 56.3% of those who had notcompleted classroom behaviour management units, and 31.8% ofthose who had, indicating unfamiliarity.

7.2.2. Effects of coursework completion on confidence in usingstrategies

For the total sample, the mean number of strategies that pre-service teachers felt confident in using was 26.7 (SD ¼ 17.3,Mdn ¼ 27). To ascertain this, the categories of confident and veryconfident were collapsed. Pre-service teachers who had completedclassroom behaviour management units felt confident in usinga significantly higher number of strategies (M ¼ 28.5, SD ¼ 16.9,Mdn¼ 29) than those who had not (M¼ 16.2, SD¼ 15.9, Mdn¼ 12)(U ¼ 8656, z ¼ �5.40, p < .000). The total sample felt confident inusing 52.9% of the strategies, those who had completed classroombehaviour management units were confident in using 55.3%, andthose who had not completed any classroom behaviour manage-ment units felt confident in using 36.8% of familiar strategies. Thevariability in the number of strategies was high for familiarity(SD ¼ 15.5) and confidence (SD ¼ 15.9) for those who had notcompleted classroom behaviour management units, suggestingthat the median score provided a better measure of centraltendency. Using median scores, participants felt confident in using24.0% of the strategies they were familiar with.

Table 3 shows the mean level of confidence for each manage-ment strategy based on classroom behaviour management unitcompletion. For the total sample and sub-samples, praise, encour-agement, and rewards had the highest mean confidence score (totalsample M ¼ 3.1). Collaboration with a school counsellor had thelowest mean confidence score (total sample M ¼ 2.1). UsingManneWhitney U tests, with a Bonferroni correction applied(changing the level of significance to p < .001), significant differ-ences in confidence scores based on whether pre-service teachershad undertaken classroom behaviour management units or notwere found for 23 (41.8%) of the 55 strategies (see Table 3). Formotivational or communicative strategies, the only between-groupsignificant differences in confidence scores were for praise,encouragement, and rewards, and group contingencies. Forreductive and preventative strategies, there were significantbetween-group differences in scores for 12 out of 16 (75.0%)reductive strategies, and 8 out of 16 (50%) preventative strategies(see Table 2).

Table 3Unfamiliarity and confidence in items in the Behaviour Management Strategies Scale by completion of stand-alone classroom behaviour management (CBM) units.

Item Unfamiliar with Confidence in using

Entire sample No CBM unitscompleted

CBM unitscompleted

Entire sample No CBM unitscompleted

CBM unitscompleted

n % n % n % Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Motivational strategiesPraise, encouragement, rewards 5 1.1 5 7.0 3.10 .80 2.68 .86 3.17* .77Token economies 72 15.1 18 25.4 54 13.3 2.68 .87 2.43 .77 2.71 .88Levels systems 83 17.4 26 36.6 57 14.0 2.46 .89 2.16 .87 2.50 .89Group contingency

(whole class incentives)13 2.7 9 12.7 4 1.0 2.78 .85 2.21 .83 2.86* .82

Student self-monitoringand evaluation

16 3.3 11 15.5 5 1.2 2.47 .86 2.25 .82 2.50 .86

Behavioural momentum 98 20.5 27 38.0 71 17.5 2.32 .87 2.09 .77 2.35 .88Partial agreement 118 24.7 29 40.8 89 21.9 2.22 .85 2.02 .79 2.24 .85Premack principle 169 35.4 40 56.3 129 31.8 2.32 .95 2.00 .82 2.36 .96Behavioural contracts 29 6.1 17 23.9 12 3.0 2.30 .88 1.96 .87 2.35 .88

Reductive strategiesSuggesting loss of time,

item, privilege17 3.6 10 14.1 7 1.7 2.59 .85 2.10 .79 2.67* .83

Time out to reflect on choices 10 2.1 7 9.9 3 .7 2.68 .82 2.25 .76 2.75* .81Time out from positive

reinforcement13 2.7 7 9.9 6 1.5 2.61 .83 2.20 .80 2.67* .82

Response cost 17 3.6 9 12.7 8 2.0 2.55 .89 2.18 .84 2.61* .88Tactical ignoring 24 5.0 12 17.1 12 2.9 2.60 .90 2.16 .79 2.66* .90Reprimands 28 5.9 10 14.1 18 4.5 2.40 .88 1.95 .81 2.48* .87Logical consequences 20 4.2 9 12.7 11 2.5 2.70 .82 2.30 .88 2.77* .79Restitution 126 26.4 27 38.0 99 24.6 2.24 .83 1.82 .79 2.30* .82Least to most intrusive 85 17.8 29 40.8 56 13.8 2.34 .90 1.88 .86 2.40* .89Offering choices and following

through23 4.8 12 16.9 11 2.7 2.63 .84 2.25 .82 2.69* .83

Diagnostic thinking aboutunderlying causes

63 13.2 25 35.2 38 9.4 2.26 .87 2.04 .84 2.29 .87

Diagnosing student or teacherowned problems

61 12.7 22 31.0 39 9.7 2.23 .84 2.06 .78 2.25 .85

Follow-up discussions after class 20 4.2 10 14.1 10 2.5 2.56 .90 2.15 .93 2.62* .88Distraction via questioning or

personal invitation45 9.4 19 26.8 26 6.4 2.43 .88 2.10 .93 2.47 .87

Physical proximity 57 11.9 20 28.2 37 9.1 2.66 .93 2.18 .82 2.72* .93Line management 61 12.8 20 28.2 41 10.1 2.28 .86 2.10 .78 2.31 .87

Preventative strategiesForming and establishing rules 7 1.4 6 8.5 1 .2 3.04 .82 2.62 .76 3.11* .80Creating and using behaviour

intervention plans15 3.1 9 12.7 6 1.5 2.48 .92 2.05 .93 2.55* .90

Diagnosing can’t fromwon’t problems

45 9.4 17 23.9 28 6.9 2.31 .86 1.91 .88 2.37* .85

Teaching social skills 23 4.8 13 18.3 10 2.5 2.45 .83 2.16 .83 2.50 .82Teaching conflict resolution skills 19 4.0 12 16.9 7 1.7 2.39 .88 2.14 .94 2.43 .86Bibliotherapy 63 13.2 16 22.5 47 11.6 2.35 .90 1.98 .71 2.40 .92Rule reminders/pre-corrections 17 3.6 11 15.5 7 1.7 2.73 .86 2.30 .91 2.80* .83Verbal cuing to the appropriate 14 2.9 10 14.3 4 1.0 2.73 .83 2.27 .84 2.79* .81Monitoring student behaviour

(withitness)47 9.8 17 23.9 30 7.4 2.64 .86 2.22 .82 2.70* .85

Multi-tasking (overlapping) 50 10.5 18 25.4 32 7.9 2.47 .84 2.21 .77 2.50 .85Planned transitions (smoothness) 28 5.6 15 21.1 13 3.2 2.56 .86 2.30 .87 2.59 .86Non verbal gestures or signals 12 2.5 8 11.3 4 1.0 2.86 .84 2.52 .86 2.91 .83Seating or room arrangements 8 1.7 6 8.5 2 .5 2.85 .88 2.49 .97 2.91 .85Removing or minimising distractions 7 1.5 6 8.5 1 .2 2.74 .84 2.35 .91 2.80* .81Rescheduling activities due to

previous over-stimulation or fatigue16 3.3 8 11.3 8 2.0 2.60 .89 2.25 .93 2.65 .87

Teaching class routines 11 2.3 8 11.3 3 .7 2.80 .87 2.37 .89 2.86* .85

Communicative strategiesVoice modulation 11 2.3 7 9.8 4 1.0 2.77 .87 2.47 .87 2.82 .86Negotiating solutions 18 3.8 8 11.3 10 2.5 2.50 .84 2.19 .81 2.55 .83Class meetings 23 4.8 11 15.5 12 3.0 2.38 .89 2.12 .87 2.42 ..88Collaboration with parents or carers 23 4.8 8 11.3 15 3.7 2.22 .90 2.03 .93 2.24 .89.Conferencing with student and

others (peers or parents)23 4.8 12 16.9 11 2.7 2.33 .87 2.10 .85 2.36 .88

Humour to diffuse tense situations 28 2.1 10 14.0 18 4.4 2.45 .89 2.18 .79 2.49 .90Collaboration with school counsellor 37 7.7 12 16.9 25 6.2 2.14 .87 1.86 .93 2.19 .85Supportive replies, reflective listening 24 5.0 14 19.7 10 2.5 2.66 .84 2.42 .93 2.69 .82

(continued on next page)

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1137

Table 3 (continued )

Item Unfamiliar with Confidence in using

Entire sample No CBM unitscompleted

CBM unitscompleted

Entire sample No CBM unitscompleted

CBM unitscompleted

n % n % n % Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Instruction at a good pace (momentum) 17 3.6 9 12.7 8 2.0 2.66 .84 2.44 .78 2.69 .85Identifying mistaken goals 55 11.5 23 32.4 32 7.9 2.44 .88 2.25 .81 2.47 .88“I” messages 58 12.1 19 26.8 39 9.6 2.66 .86 2.42 .99 2.70 .83Gaining whole class attention 19 4.0 10 14.0 9 2.2 2.78 .84 2.59 .78 2.81 .84Communicating expectations 13 2.7 7 9.9 6 1.5 2.79 .82 2.53 .89 2.84 .80Teacher modelling a

ppropriate behaviour12 2.5 7 10.1 5 1.2 2.83 .82 2.58 .82 2.86 .82

Note: * indicates that the mean was significantly higher at p < .000 than the mean for those who had not completed stand-alone CBM (classroom behaviour management)units.

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431138

7.3. Familiarity with classroom management models

For the total sample, the number of models that pre-serviceteachers reported being familiar with ranged from 0 to 23, themean was 12.5 (SD ¼ 7.5, Mdn ¼ 11). Five participants indicatedfamiliarity with other unlistedmodels, including the BalanceModel(Richmond, 2008), Tribes (Gibbs, 2001), and Bumping Model(Bennett & Smilanich, 1994). Those who had undertaken classroombehaviour management units were familiar with significantly more(U¼ 7080.00, z¼�5.74, p< .000, r¼�.27) models than those whohad not (M ¼ 13.3, Mdn ¼ 13 vs. M ¼ 7.8, Mdn ¼ 6).

Table4 shows the familiaritywith, and level of confidence inusingeach of 22 listed models. The most familiar models were PositiveBehaviour Intervention and Support (74.5%), with over 70% indi-cating 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. Confidence in using classroom management models

Few pre-service teachers felt very confident about using any ofthe models based on their coursework (see Table 3). At best, 11.1%

Table 4Knowledge and confidence in items in the Classroom Management Theories and Approa

Theory, approach, management model Unfamiliar with

n % Not at

Applied behaviour analysis 175 39.7 25.9Assertive discipline (Canter & Canter) 151 34.2 22.1Congruent communication (Ginnott) 268 60.9 40.7Dealing with the group (Redl & Wattenberg) 257 58.3 37.0Decisive discipline, the 4Rs (Bill Rogers) 128 29.0 19.8Democratic teaching (Balson) 220 50.0 34.5Developmental approach (Ramon Lewis) 227 51.6 37.1Discipline with dignity (Curwin & Mendler) 269 61.0 42.4Ecological approach 240 54.4 38.8Functional behavioural assessment 202 45.9 26.5Goal-centred theory (Dreikurs) 137 31.3 21.9Judicious discipline (Forrest Gathercoal) 294 66.7 48.3Kounin variables 189 43.0 25.1Plan-teach-evaluate model (Barry & King) 161 36.6 19.7Positive behaviour intervention and support 112 25.5 18.0Positive classroom discipline (Jones) 124 28.2 17.1Reality therapy/choice theory (Glasser) 131 29.7 17.7Restorative justice 197 44.7 33.2Self-reflective teaching (Brophy & Good) 138 31.5 17.4Social learning theory (Bandura) 143 32.6 23.4Teacher effectiveness training (Gordon) 129 29.3 17.6Transactional analysis (Berne) 290 66.1 40.9Grand mean

Note: items in bold were the highest for each category.

felt very confident in using Positive Classroom Discipline (Jones,1987). The confident in using category had modestly low percent-ages, with Brophy and Good’s (1986) Self-reflective teaching(32.6%), and Glasser’s (1986) Reality Therapy/Choice Theory (32.3%)having the highest percentages. Most participants felt only some-what confident in the listed models, with 53.4% indicated feelingsomewhat confident in using Applied Behaviour Analysis. Therewere several models that 40% or more of the participants indicatedthey were not at all confident in using. These included JudiciousDiscipline (Gathercoal, 1990), Discipline with Dignity (Curwin et al.,2008), Transactional Analysis (Berne, 1961), and CongruentCommunication (Ginnott, 1971).

7.4.1. Effects of coursework completion on confidence in usingclassroom management models

Overall, the mean number of models that pre-service teachersfelt confident or very confident in using was 3.7 (SD¼ 5.1, Mdn¼ 1),this rose to a mean of 4.1 (SD ¼ 5.3, Mdn ¼ 2) for those who hadundertaken classroom behaviour management units, and droppedto a mean of 1.4 (SD ¼ 2.7, Mdn ¼ 0) for those who had not. As thestandard deviations were quite high, the median score providesa better measure of central tendency. There was a significantassociation (p < .01) between having undertaken classroombehaviour management units and the number of models

ches Scale (N ¼ 441).

Confidence level Mean SD

all Somewhat Confident Very

53.4 18.0 2.6 1.97 .7448.6 24.8 4.5 2.12 .8040.1 16.3 2.9 1.81 .8142.4 19.0 1.6 1.85 .7848.6 24.9 6.7 2.19 .8338.6 22.7 4.1 1.96 .8642.3 16.9 3.8 1.87 .8240.7 14.5 2.3 1.77 .7843.8 13.9 3.5 1.82 .8050.4 18.5 4.6 2.01 .8043.9 27.9 6.3 2.19 .8540.1 11.6 1.63 .6842.2 24.7 8.0 2.16 .8944.8 26.5 9.0 2.25 .8743.1 31.8 7.0 2.28 .8442.1 29.7 11.1 2.35 .8941.0 32.3 9.0 2.33 .8737.8 23.7 5.4 2.01 .8939.5 32.6 10.5 2.36 .8942.0 26.8 7.8 2.19 .8846.2 27.2 9.0 2.28 .8640.3 17.4 1.3 1.79 .77

2.05 .83

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1139

participants reported being confident in using (c2 (3) ¼ 18.09). Inparticular, there was a higher than statistically expected count ofparticipants (p < .01) who had not completed any classroombehaviour management units reporting confidence in zero models,and a lower (p < .01) than statistically expected count reportingconfidence in ten or more models.

8. Discussion

8.1. Preparedness to manage problematic student behaviours

This study is the first to report on the possible effect of cour-sework preparation in classroom behaviour management on pre-service teachers’ feelings of preparedness to manage a range ofspecific problematic student behaviours, and the findings were lessthan favourable. The principal component analysis of thePreparedness in Managing Behaviour Problems Scale (PMBPS)suggested that pre-service teachers did not view all misbehaviouras equally problematic, a result consistent with pre-service teacherresearch on perceived seriousness of problem behaviour conductedin Greece and Cyprus (Kokkinos et al., 2004), and from behaviourmanageability and teacher concern research from Australia (Safran,1989; Stephenson et al., 2000). Items in the PMBPS clustered ontothree components: disruptive behaviours and non-compliance,aggressive, antisocial and destructive, and disorganisation.Disruptive and aggressive behaviour components were alsodetected in the study by Kokkinos et al., suggesting that these formsof problematic behaviour are conceptually distinct in the minds ofpre-service teachers, and that perceptions of preparedness andperceived seriousness of problem behaviours may be related. Wefound no significant differences for gender and low levels ofpreparedness to manage problematic behaviours. Kokkinos et al.also found no significant gender effect for perceived seriousness ofproblematic behaviours.

The completion of mandatory, or a combination of mandatoryand elective classroom behaviour management units, was associ-ated with higher feelings of preparedness for all categories ofproblematic behaviours. However, it would appear that even whenclassroom behaviour management units are completed, pre-serviceteachers feel that it has only somewhat prepared them to managedisruption, non-compliance, or disorganisation, affirming asser-tions of inadequate preparation by beginning teachers, principals,and teacher educators (Levine, 2006; Oliver & Reschly, 2007).Respondents who had not completed classroom behaviourmanagement units reported being less than somewhat prepared tomanage these forms of misbehaviour. Worldwide, disruptive, non-compliant, and disorganised behaviours are among the mostcommonly occurring troublesome behaviours (Beaman et al.,2007). They appear to be perceived as less serious, and wereranked among the middle to lower end of behaviours by Greek andCypriot pre-service teachers (Kokkinos et al., 2004). In studiesconducted in Turkey and the US, pre-service teachers reported thatthese 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 behaviourmanagement units, they felt less than somewhat prepared tomanage the more challenging aggressive, antisocial, or destructivebehaviours. Pre-service teachers who had not completed such unitsfelt 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 challengingbehaviours have been rated amongst the most serious by pre-service teachers in Greece and Cyprus (Kokkinos et al., 2004), andwere of great concern to pre-service teachers in the United

Kingdom (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). These more severebehaviours have been shown to have a negative effect on Australianpre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in classroom behaviourmanagement (Giallo & Little, 2003).

The finding that completion of classroom behaviour manage-ment units increased perceptions of preparedness is supported byother research on the effects of education in classroom behaviourmanagement. Teachers in the US who had completed courses onbehaviour management had better affective responses to aggres-sive student behaviours (Alvarez, 2007). Pre-service teachers in theUS who were taught to implement behaviour intervention scriptsand plans in coursework units, were able to bring about meaningfulchanges in student behaviours (Allen & Blackston, 2003; Lewin,Nelson, & Tollefson, 1983).

8.2. Familiarity and confidence in using classroom behaviourmanagement strategies

Pre-service teachers indicated they were familiar with a broadrange of options for managing student misbehaviour from theircoursework preparation. Studies conducted in the US have shownthat knowledge of intervention strategies was positively related tothe use of interventions (Hall & Wahrman, 1988), increased accept-ability of intervention strategies (Tingstrom, 1989), and feelings ofconfidence in teaching difficult students (Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, &Oats, 1998). As this is the first study that has explored familiaritywith intervention strategies, direct comparisons with other pre-service or in-service teaching populations are not possible.

The strategy that was most familiar to the total sample and sub-samples of pre-service teachers was praise, encouragement, andrewards. Such forms of positive reinforcement have a strongresearch base for efficacy (Akin-Little & Little, 2009), and were themost used effective strategy by pre-service teachers in a US study(Tulley & Chiu, 1995), but were viewed as less successful and wereless frequently used by a combined sample of Australian andCanadian pre-service teachers than initial correction, differentia-tion, or preventative strategies (Reupert & Woodcock, 2011). Thatpraise, encouragement, and rewards were most familiar appearsconsistent with reports of their frequent inclusion in the content ofclassroom behaviour management units in Australia, Turkey, andthe US (see Atici, 2007; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012a; Siebert, 2005;Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, & Rouse, 2007).

The strategy that was most unfamiliar to the total sample andsub-samples of pre-service teachers was the Premack principle. It isalso known as Grandma’s rule (if you eat your vegetables, you’ll getdessert), and this alternative name and an examplewas provided inthe survey. This strategy has been shown to be effective inpromoting attention to task (Azrin, Vinas, & Ehle, 2007), and time ontask (Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, &Whitman,1980). This strategy isdrawn from Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), a model that wasoften included in classroom behaviour management units, but didnot appear to account for much of the unit content in Australianprimary education programs (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011).

Familiarity with a strategy does not necessarily equate to havingconfidence in its use (Peters, 2009). Although the total sample ofpre-service teachers were familiar with a mean of 50.5strategies,they were only confident in using a mean of 26.8 strategies (52.3%).This gap might be due to insufficient time being allocated duringcoursework units to allow for strategies to be explained, modelled,or practised. O’Neill and Stephenson (2012a) reported thatAustralian pre-service teachers may be receiving only 2e3 h ofinstruction per management model in focused units (less whenembedded in other pedagogy units), with each model likely tocontain multiple strategies. The gap between familiarity andconfidence in using strategies widened from approximately one in

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431140

two for those who had completed classroom behaviour manage-ment units, to one in four for those who had not. If having a soundgrasp of theory is important for underpinning classroom manage-ment decisions, then the pre-service teachers in this study hada limited range of models they could confidently apply at theirdisposal.

The results of the principal component analysis suggest that, forthis sample of four-year trained pre-service primary teachers,confidence in using classroom behaviour management strategies isbest represented as a unidimensional construct. This differs fromthe findings of Reupert and Woodcock (2010, 2011) with theirsamples of Canadian, and Australian and Canadian pre-serviceteachers enrolled in a one-year post-graduate teaching program.In 2010, they reported a four-component model, and in 2011, a five-component model from their confidence scale, which appeared tohave a number of items in common with the BMSS. It is unclear,however, how well their component models fitted their data asthey did not publish the variance explained from their models.Differences in program length, the scale items included, and thefocus on coursework units only in this study may also have led toa different factor structure emerging from the data.

The strategy that pre-service teachers reported feeling mostconfident in using was praise, encouragement, and reward. Reupertand Woodcock (2010) found that the component they labelledrewards only had the third highest mean score (M ¼ 3.16) out offour components, with higher confidence scores reported byCanadian pre-service teachers for using initial correction(M ¼ 3.84), and prevention strategies (M ¼ 3.79). Similarly, Cakirand Alici (2009), working with Turkish pre-service teachers, re-ported that an item on using incentives and rewards had a meanscore of 3.18 (out of five), and was not amongst the top ten items intheir 34-item teaching self-efficacy scale used. In a comparativestudy conducted by Reupert and Woodcock (2011), they found thatAustralian pre-service teachers were most confident in usingrewards (M ¼ 3.33), and that Canadian pre-service teachers weremost confident in using preventative strategies (M ¼ 3.68). NeitherReupert and Woodcock nor Cakir and Alici asked their samples tojudge their confidence based solely on their coursework prepara-tion, and this may in part account for differences.

Almost 84% of participants in this study reported havingcompleted one or more units with classroom behaviour manage-ment content, compared to a half unit that was reported by Reupertand Woodcock (2010, 2011) for Canadian and Australian samplesenrolled in a one-year graduate teaching program. The Turkishsample (Cakir & Alici, 2009) had not completed a classroombehaviour management unit, and classroom management contentwas embedded in two school experience units. The greaterinstructional time may have provided more opportunities for theAustralian sample in this study to learn about positive reinforce-ment and the benefits of using it appropriately (Akin-Little, Eckert,Lovett, & Little, 2004). Reupert and Woodcock (2010) also notedthat their sample had been made aware of the debate over rewardson student motivation (Akin-Little et al., 2004), and this may havelowered their confidence in using rewards.

Collaboration with a school counsellor was the strategy with thelowest mean confidence score (2.1) equating to feeling only slightlymore than somewhat confident. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) alsoreporteda lowmeanconfidence score (2.16) for their item “referral ofstudent to other professional” (p. 1264) that included school coun-sellors as an example (S. Woodcock, personal communication,December 6, 2011). These scores suggest that Canadian and Austra-lian pre-service teachers have low confidence levels in seekingassistance from, or collaborating with, other professionals. It may bethat pre-service teachers perceive the role of the school counsellor asproviding student counselling or testing rather than teacher

consultation (Leach, 1989). This reticence was not apparent withTurkish pre-service teachers, with five out of nine saying theywouldsend students to the school counsellor or consult with them to getmore information or strategies to assist the student (Atici, 2007).

Completing classroom behaviour management units appearedto make a significant difference to pre-service teachers’ confidencein using management strategies. Of the four categories of strategiesincluded in the scale, the most significant differences in confidencescores were for preventative and reductive strategies. Simonsen,Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, and Sugai (2008), and Kern andClemens (2007), have reported the efficacy of many of thesestrategies, for example, praise, response cost, tactical ignoring, androutines. The differences might be due to classroom behaviourmanagement units providing more specific instruction in preven-tative and reductive strategies, which are less likely to be covered inother coursework units. Conversely, most motivational andcommunicative strategies in the Behaviour Management StrategiesScale may be well covered in pedagogy or subject content units.

8.3. Familiarity and confidence in using management models

At the time that this research was conducted, no studies hadbeen located that reported on the models for behaviour andclassroommanagement presented in pre-service teacher educationprograms from the perspective of the recipients. This study shedslight upon which management models pre-service teachers werefamiliar with, what models they felt confident in using, and adds tothe limited knowledge base of classroom management curriculumin initial teacher education programs. The total sample of pre-service teachers were familiar with 25 different managementmodels. Australian data show coordinators of units with classroombehaviour management content, some of whomwere employed atthe institutions attended by participants in this study, included asmany as 36 models (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012a), Texan educationprofessors listed a dozen models.

Banks (2003) and Blum (1994) reported that professors froma broader US sample reported including 15 models. Exposure tomultiple models was the norm for Australian pre-service teachers,with a mean of 12 models (range of 0e23) known to the totalsample. Those who had completed classroom behaviour manage-ment units were exposed to almost twice as many models onaverage as those who had not (13.3 vs. 7.8).

Positive Behaviour Intervention and Support (PBIS) was themost familiar model, and had the highest percentage of partici-pants (74.9%) who reported feeling confident or very confident inusing this model. This finding is consistent with reports fromcoordinators of coursework units in Australian primary teachereducation programs, where PBIS was included in 57.9% of stand-alone units, and in 46.7% of units where classroom behaviourmanagement content was included with other content (O’Neill &Stephenson, 2012a). Recently, a number of Australian states andterritories have adopted the empirically validated school-wide PBISmodel (see for example Department of Education and TrainingQueensland, n.d.; Mooney et al., 2008). The strong familiarity andconfidence ratings in PBIS should be encouraging news to educa-tional authorities, and shows that teacher education programs havebeen responsive to changes occurring in school systems.

Othermodels with higher confidence percentageswere DecisiveDiscipline (Rogers, 1989), Assertive Discipline (Canter & Canter,1976), Teacher Effectiveness Training (Gordon, 1974), and RealityTherapy/Choice Theory (Glasser, 1986). These were commonlyincluded in Australian primary teacher education programs (O’Neill& Stephenson, 2012a), and all bar Decisive Discipline, in educationprograms in the US (see Banks, 2003; Blum, 1994; Wesley & Vocke,1992). Models that were most unfamiliar to participants were

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1141

Judicious Discipline (Gathercoal, 1990), and Congruent Communi-cation (Ginnott, 1971); models infrequently included in Australianprimary teacher education programs (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012a).

Although pre-service teachers were familiar with a dozenmodels, they were only confident or very confident in using a few.Those who had completed stand-alone units reported feelingconfident in using more models than their peers who had not (4.0vs. 1.4), and this difference was significant. Up until now, there hasonly been conjecture that completing stand-alone units would bemore beneficial in preparing teachers for the challenges of teaching(see Oliver & Reschly, 2007), than including classroom manage-ment content in other ways. The data from this study support theview that completing stand-alone units increases knowledge about,and confidence in using management models. This finding couldalso confirm the belief that too many models, delivered too briefly,may not support confidence in implementation (Brophy, 1988;Stewart-Wells, 2000).

9. Limitations

Some cautions should be taken in interpreting these results. Theresponse ratewas 14.2%, limiting the generalisation of these results.The response rate is comparable to other online survey researchconducted with teachers in the US where the researchers were notknown to participants, and where no individual incentives wereoffered (11%, Mertler, 2003; 18%, Melnick & Meister, 2008), and foronline surveys conducted with US college students (17.1%, Sax,Glimartin, & Bryant, 2003). The results may also be slightly biaseddue to slightly more females responding to the survey (byproportion) than might actually exist in Australian primaryprograms. There are also limitations inherent with self-report datasuch as inaccurate recall, over-estimation of preparedness(Housego, 1990) and confidence (Bandura, 1997), and the inabilityto validate survey responses with observations (Reupert &Woodcock, 2010). As participants were not asked to indicatewhen in their program they had completed stand-alone classroombehaviour management units, any conclusions about recencyeffects on strategy or model familiarity were not possible.

10. Conclusions, recommendations, and future directions

It is acknowledged that initial teacher education cannot be ex-pected to provide all the knowledge and skills a teacher requires,and that teachers should be life-long learners (Commission of theEuropean Communities, 2007; Martin et al., 1999). Initial teachereducation does, however, have an important role to play. Stand-alone coursework in classroom behaviour management doesmatter, and teacher education programs that provide it are allow-ing additional time for their pre-service teachers to acquire moreknowledge, leading to increased perceptions of preparedness andconfidence in classroom behaviour management. Although theteacher preparation curriculum is a crowded one, finding the timeto provide a mandatory unit in classroom management is recom-mended (Landau, 2001). Longitudinal research that follows pre-service teachers who have, and have not, completed stand-aloneunits, into their first years of teaching could extend our under-standing of its effects on perceptions of preparedness, and confi-dence as classroom managers.

Overall, pre-service teachers felt only somewhat prepared tomanage problematic student misbehaviour, and were only some-what confident in using awide variety of management strategies ormodels. They were familiar with many strategies and models, butwere only confident in using half of what strategies they knew, andan even lower proportion of models. Perhaps teacher educationprograms need to reconsider the classroom management content

they have been delivering, whether in stand-alone units or withinother units. Education systems also have a role to play in providingongoing professional learning related to classroom and behaviourmanagement to practicing teachers. This may be particularlyvaluable in the early years of teaching when teachers have obtainedreal teaching experience and have had the opportunity to developconceptions of their role in establishing and maintaining a positivelearning environment.

Increasing instruction in methods for managing challengingbehaviours seems necessary given the low preparedness scores foraggressive, antisocial, and destructive behaviours. Reducing thenumber of strategies and models imparted, and focusing ona smaller range of proven effective strategies suitable for a widerange of problematic behaviours that are underpinned by theo-retical models, could lead to greater perceptions of preparednessand confidence. Doing so would support the recent recommenda-tions of international committees such as the Commission of theEuropean Communities (2007) that called for teacher educationprograms to be based on “. solid evidence and good classroompractice” drawn from educational research (p. 15). Comparativestudies of beginning teacher perceptions that have completedprograms that have presented a limited range of effective strategiesandmodels, compared those that present awide range of strategiesand models, could further increase our knowledge of what works.

References

Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. L., & Little, S. G. (2004). Extrinsicreinforcement in the classroom: bribery or best practice. School PsychologyReview, 33, 344e362.

Akin-Little, K. A., & Little, S. G. (2009). Psychology’s contributions to classroommanagement. 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 (8thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Allen, S. J., & Blackston, A. R. (2003). Training preservice teachers in collaborativeproblem solving: an investigation of the impact on teacher andstudent behaviour change in real world settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18,22e51.

Alvarez, H. K. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to studentaggression 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 classroommanagement and methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties,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/4221.0MainþFeatures62010?OpenDocument.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towardsthe 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 forclassroom calmness of AHD children: a preliminary study. Child & FamilyBehavior Therapy, 29, 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J019v29n02_01.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. NewYork: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 caringapproach. 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 teacher’s educational training in classroom disci-

pline: A national survey of teacher education programs. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania.

Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter forbeginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of SpecialEducation, 41, 158e170.

Boz, Y. (2008). Turkish student teachers’ concerns about teaching. European Journal ofTeacher Education, 31, 367e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802420693.

Bromfield, C. (2006). PGCE secondary trainee teachers and effective behaviourmanagement: 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.

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e11431142

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 ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 328e375) New York: Macmillan.

Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers’ reports of how they perceive and copewith problem students. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 3e66.

Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. E. (2005). Towards anunderstanding of mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal ofApplied 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 teacherswho work with students with severe emotional/behavioral disorders: a revis-itation. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 108e125.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Household data annual averages. Employedpersons 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 qualified teacherse Alongitudinal study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, United Kingdom.

Cains, R. A., & Brown, C. R. (1996). Newly qualified primary teachers: a comparativeanalysis of perceptions held by B.Ed. and PGCE trained teachers of their trainingroutes. Educational Psychology, 16, 257e270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341960160303.

Cakir, Ö, & Alici, D. (2009). Seeing self as others see you: variability in self-efficacyratings 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 today’seducators. Seal Beach, CA: Canter & Associates.

Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Stephenson, J. (2006). Student with severe challengingbehaviour in regular classrooms: prevalence and characteristics. AustralianJournal of Guidance and Counselling, 16, 189e209.

Charalambous, Y. C., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the develop-ment of preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics duringfieldwork. 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 teachereducation. Communication from the Commission to the Council and EuropeanParliament. Brussels, Belgium. Report: COM (2007) 392 final. Retrieved from.http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluationquantitative 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. Newchallenges. New solutions (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectanciesof efficacy in in-service and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 23, 641e652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.005.

Department of Education and Training Queensland. (n.d.). School-wide positivebehaviour 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 theeastern partnership: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.Final report. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Educationand 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 socialconditions, education and training. European Union. Eurostat, Retrieved from.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-037/EN/KS-QA-10-037-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 relationshipbetween preparedness, classroom experiences and self-efficacy in graduate andstudent teachers. Australian Journal of Educational and DevelopmentalPsychology, 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-efficacy in pre-service

teachers: “priming the pump” for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly,13, 169e178.

Hall, C. W., & Wahrman, E. (1988). Theoretical orientations and perceived accept-ability of intervention strategies applied to acting-out behaviour. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 26, 195e198.

Hamman, D., Fives, H., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Efficacy and pedagogical interaction incooperating and student teacher dyads. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41/42, 55e63.

Housego, B. E. J. (1990). Student teachers’ feeling of preparedness to teach. CanadianJournal 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 certified 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 appropriateclassroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65e75.

Kokkinos, M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2004). Perceived seriousness ofpupils’ undesirable behaviours: the student teachers’ perspective. EducationalPsychology, 24, 109e120, doi:10/1080.0144341032000146458.

Konarski, E. A., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1980). Responsedeprivation 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 necessityfor preparing new teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of theAmerican 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 SchoolsProject, Retrieved from. http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf.

Lewin, P., Nelson, R., & Tollefson, N. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward disruptivechildren. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 17, 188e193.

Martin, A., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (1999). How teachers respond to concernsabout misbehaviour in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 347e358.

Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experiencedteachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31, 39e56.

Mertler, C. A. (2003). Patterns of response and nonresponse from teachers totraditional 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 systeminto the New South Wales Department of Education and Training Western SydneyRegion schools. Penrith, New South Wales: University of Western Sydney, Schoolof Education and the Centre for Educational Research.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexaming the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal ofTeacher Education, 54, 31e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487102238656.

Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective classroom management: Teacherpreparation and professional development. TQ connection issue paper onimproving student outcomes in general and special education. Washington:National Comprehensive Centre for Teacher Quality, Retrieved from. http://www.tqsource.org/topics/effectiveClassroomManagement.pdf.

O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2011). Classroom behaviour management preparationin undergraduate primary teacher education in Australia: a web-based inves-tigation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10), article 3. Available athttp://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss10/3.

O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012a). Classroom behaviour management content inAustralian undergraduate primary teaching programs. Teaching Education, 23,287e308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.699034.

O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012b). Exploring Australian pre-service teachers senseof efficacy, its sources, and some possible influences. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 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 relationshipamong teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 21, 13e22.

Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An inte-grated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peters, J. (2009, November). First year pre-service teachers learning about behaviourmanagement. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research inEducation conference, Canberra, Australia.

Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: student teachers’perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191e218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066693.

Reupert, A., &Woodcock, S. (2010). Success andnearmisses: pre-service teachers’use,confidenceand success invarious classroommanagement strategies. TeachingandTeacher 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, confidence 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 behaviourmanagement. Lindfield: Scholastic Australia.

Rogers, W. (1989). Making a discipline plan: Developing classroom management skills.South Melbourne, Australia: Thomas Nelson.

S. O’Neill, J. Stephenson / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 1131e1143 1143

Romano, M. (2008). Successes and struggles of the beginning teacher: widening thesample. The Educational Forum, 72, 63e78.

Safran, S. P. (1989). Australian teachers’ views of their effectiveness in behaviourmanagement. 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 andnonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44,409e432.

Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers’ success in classroom manage-ment by leveraging a local union’s resources: a professional developmentschool initiative. Education, 125, 385e392.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-basedpractices 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 inthe early years of school. International Journal of Disability, Development andEducation, 47, 225e235.

Stewart-Wells, G. (2000). An investigation of student teacher and teacher educatorperceptions of their teacher education programs and the role classroom manage-ment plays or should play in preservice education. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, The Claremont Graduate University, San Diego.

Swabey, K., Castleton, G., & Penney, D. (2010). Meeting the standards? Exploringpreparedness for teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(8), article3. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol35/iss8/3.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,MA: Pearson.

Tauber, R. T. (2007). Classroom management. Theory and practice (4th ed.). Westport,CT: Praeger.

Tingstrom, D. H. (1989). Increasing the acceptability of alternative behaviouralinterventions through education. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 188e194.

Tulley, M., & Chiu, L. H. (1995). Student teachers and classroom discipline. TheJournal of Educational Research, 88, 164e171.

Turner, K., Jones, E., Davies, M., & Ramsay, S. (2004). Student teacher perceptions ofpreparedness 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, Griffith University,Retrieved from: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/2400/26687_1.pdf;jsessionid¼19C7C3811E06B43DA6D8D0E6D90752E2?sequence¼1.

Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model forpreparing special and general education preservice teachers for inclusiveeducation. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 440e455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487107306803.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 54, 143e178.

Walker, J. E., Shea, T. M., & Bauer, A. M. (2004). Behavior management: A practicalapproach for educators. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Wesley, D. A., & Vocke, D. E. (1992, February). Classroom discipline and teachereducation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of TeacherEducators, Orlando, FL.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and theirbeliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137e148.