654212

research-article2016
TESXXX10.1177/0888406416654212Teacher Education and Special EducationButler and Monda-Amaya

Article
Teacher Education and Special Education
2016, Vol. 39(4) 276­–292
Preservice Teachers’ © 2016 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Perceptions of Challenging Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Behavior DOI: 10.1177/0888406416654212
tese.sagepub.com

Anne Butler1 and Lisa Monda-Amaya1

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

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

Challenging behavior in schools has an impact
on both students and teachers. When teachers
feel inadequately prepared to address chal-
lenging behavior in their classrooms, behav-
iors initially deemed “minor” could escalate
to levels with significant consequences
(Albin, O’Brien, & Horner, 1995). General
and special educators find themselves respon-
sible for addressing increasing levels of chal-
lenging behavior in the classroom. In fact,
according to the National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics, (NCES;Aud et al., 2012),
approximately 34% of teachers reported that
disruptive behavior was interfering with their
instruction and teachers cite student problem
behavior as a key reason for leaving the teach-
ing profession (Algozzine, Christian, Marr,
McClanahan, & White, 2008; Billingsley,
Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001;
Kelly, 2004; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
Schools across the United States have
taken action to address issues of challenging
behaviors. One “practical, science-based
approach to understanding and ameliorating
problem behavior” is Positive Behavior Sup-
ports or PBS (Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Freeman,
2015, p. 3). PBS uses a set of foundational
principles coupled with various strategies for
managing behavior specifically tailored to
each school. Although PBS programs have
demonstrated success in changing student
behavior (Christensen, Young, & Marchant,
2004; Johnson-Gros, Lyons, & Griffin, 2008;
1
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, USA
Corresponding Author:
Anne Butler, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
288 Education Building, 1310 S. Sixth Street, Champaign,
IL 61820, USA.
Email: abutler4@illinois.edu
Butler and Monda-Amaya 277
Kennedy et al., 2001; Todd, Campbell, Meyer,
& Horner, 2008), serious challenging behav-
ior continues to raise significant concerns.
Teachers must have a good understanding
of classroom management, behavior manage-
ment, and specific challenges when they
occur. Questions often arise as to how well
teachers are prepared to manage the overall
structure of the classroom and implement
behavior management strategies. Preparation
in how to manage challenging behavior is a
serious concern, particularly the extent to
which teachers know how to (a) examine the
function of the behavior, (b) develop appro-
priate interventions for children displaying
those behaviors, and (c) understand their own
role in the escalation or de-escalation of the
behaviors. Generally, data indicate that both
preservice and practicing teachers feel ill pre-
pared in behavior management (Alvarez,
2007; Freeman, Simonsen, Briere, & MacSuga-
Gage, 2014; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006;
Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006; McNally,
I’anson, Whewell, & Wilson, 2005; Tillery,
Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010; Westling,
2010). In fact, Algozzine et al. (2008) found
that a relatively small number of teachers con-
tributed to the largest number of discipline
referrals. Those found to engage in effective
teaching and management practices had sig-
nificantly fewer disruptions in their class-
rooms (Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). For
that reason, it is critical that preservice teach-
ers be adequately prepared to manage chal-
lenging behavior and use a variety of proactive
strategies to prevent those behaviors from
occurring.
Outcomes When Students
Engage in Challenging
Behavior
Challenging behaviors that occur in class-
rooms have clear, adverse effects on the class-
room teacher, the students exhibiting those
behaviors, and their peers (Gunter, Jack,
DePaepe, Reed, & Harrison, 1994b), particu-
larly in terms of the quality and effectiveness
of academic instruction (Gunter et al., 1994b;
Harrison & Gunter, 1996; Shores & Wehby,
1999; Wehby, Lane, & Falk, 2003). The seri-
ous impact on teachers has been connected
with teacher burnout (Pas, Bradshaw, Hersh-
feldt, & Leaf, 2010), loss of teaching efficacy
(Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Perrachione, Rosser,
& Petersen, 2008), and, most drastically, an
exit from the teaching profession (Algozzine
et al., 2008; Billingsley et al., 2004; Ingersoll,
2001; Kelly, 2004; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
Challenging behavior also affects teacher–
student relations, resulting in increasingly
negative interactions, decreases in teacher
praise statements and/or instructional time
(Stichter et al., 2009; Stormont, Smith, &
Lewis, 2007; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter,
2003; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002),
and teacher presentation of fewer and easier
tasks to avoid negative interactions (Carr,
Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Taylor & Romanc-
zyk, 1994). Wehby, Symons, Canale, and Go
(1998) noted that to classroom teachers, dis-
ruptive behaviors (e.g., aggression) may act as
a punisher and therefore they may choose to
avoid or escape those interactions.
For students who engage in chronic chal-
lenging, or antisocial behavior, the data are
disconcerting. As antisocial behavior patterns
increase in severity, there is a greater likeli-
hood that these patterns will continue into
adulthood and generalize across settings such
as school and home (Walker, Ramsey, &
Gresham, 2004). Antisocial behavior dis-
played at a young age becomes the best pre-
dictor for adolescent delinquency (Walker
et al., 2004). Therefore, it is imperative that
teachers design effective interventions to
address these behaviors.
Wehby et al. (1998) noted how challenging
behavior created inconsistent classroom inter-
actions and unpredictable environments in
which neither the teacher nor student knew
what to expect. These levels of inconsistency
and unpredictability can lead to the imple-
mentation of ineffective strategies, resulting
in the escalation. Furthermore, Sutherland and
Morgan (2003) described a nonlinear transac-
tional or reciprocal relationship between a
teacher and student in which each of their
behaviors are affected by a myriad of factors
278 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
that in the end contribute to the academic and
behavioral success of the student. Sutherland
and Morgan (2003) suggested that in design-
ing effective interventions, teachers must
“understand that their behavior not only influ-
ences student behavior, but is itself influenced
by student behavior” (p. 37).
Overall, while strategies and techniques
grounded in the principles of PBS and applied
behavior analysis (ABA) have proven effec-
tive in managing challenging behavior, the
outcome of inadequate implementation of
these strategies is often an escalation of
behavior. Reciprocal relationships between
the teacher and student during an incident of
behavior require thorough examination of
why behaviors may have escalated and what
interventions could have prevented or de-
escalated the behavior. By identifying behav-
iors or triggers that are problematic for the
teacher or student, challenging behavior is
greatly reduced.
Preservice Teachers’
Knowledge of Challenging
Behavior
Although various investigations have been
conducted into the support and subsequent
retention of beginning teachers (Corbell,
Osborne, & Reiman, 2010; Parker, Ndoye, &
Imig, 2009; Pas et al., 2010; Perrachione et al.,
2008), few studies have examined preservice
teacher perceptions of challenging behavior
and the role teachers may play in incidents of
behavior. Reupert and Woodcock (2010) con-
ducted a survey of preservice teachers in Can-
ada to assess reports of and confidence in
using classroom management strategies. They
found that preservice teachers were most con-
fident in using preventive strategies and initial
corrective strategies such as proximity control
and redirective statements. Participants, how-
ever, did not report using preventive strategies
as frequently as the initial corrective strate-
gies. Respondents reported being less confi-
dent and less likely to use “latter” corrective
strategies (e.g., behavioral contracts) after
behavior became challenging. The strategies
used most frequently were the ones they felt
most confident in using, yet these strategies
were not always the most effective, according
to the teachers’ self-reports (Reupert & Wood-
cock, 2010).
Although researchers recognize that all
teachers need a solid foundation in behavior
management strategies, few empirical studies
have examined specific escalating interac-
tions or exchanges between teachers and stu-
dents. In addition, there is limited research
surrounding preservice teachers’ perceptions
of and ability to identify or describe escalation
during teacher and student interactions. This
study was designed to explore preservice
teachers’ perceptions of challenging behavior
and the role classroom teachers play in the
escalation or diffusion of that behavior. The
specific questions guiding this investigation
were as follows: (a) What are preservice
teachers’ perceptions of student–teacher inter-
actions during scenarios of challenging
behavior? To what extent do they perceive the
teacher’s behavior influences the interaction
and the potential outcome? (b) Which behav-
iors do preservice teachers perceive will be
the most challenging for them to manage in
their future classrooms? and (c) How do pre-
service teachers rate their level of confidence
with classroom and behavior management?
Method
Participants
General education elementary and secondary
preservice teachers (n = 255) from a large Mid-
western university participated in the study.
Participants included 114 elementary educa-
tion majors and 141 secondary majors (Eng-
lish, foreign language, agriculture, science,
social studies, and mathematics) at the junior,
senior, and graduate levels. All participants
were enrolled in a required special education
course for general education preservice teach-
ing majors. The course examined issues, meth-
ods, and strategies for educating students with
disabilities in the general classroom. It included
information on service delivery models, roles
of teachers and related service providers,
Butler and Monda-Amaya 279
classroom assessment and evaluation, adapting
and individualizing curriculum, and designing
appropriate accommodations and modifica-
tions. Students also received general informa-
tion on behavioral concepts (antecedent,
consequence, function, etc.) as well as strate-
gies for the prevention and management of
challenging behavior. In their previous course-
work in their respective programs, some par-
ticipants also received information about
classroom management that focused on general
structures for helping the classroom run
smoothly (arranging space, engaging students
in instruction, instructional arrangement, class
rules), but little if any information on behavior
management or challenging behavior.
Surveys were distributed across five sec-
tions of the same course (two secondary and
three elementary). Each section was adminis-
tered the survey after they received instruction
or content related to behavior management and
challenging behavior. Administration occurred
on the same day as the lecture for elementary
students, but because of course time limita-
tions, it was administered to secondary students
at the start of the next lecture, before any new
content was introduced. The survey was admin-
istered in this manner to assure that all partici-
pants had generally the same foundational
knowledge of challenging behavior. The con-
tent of these lectures included definitions and
information on classroom management, behav-
ior management, and managing challenging
behavior. It is important to note, that in and of
themselves, these definitions are not mutually
exclusive, or separate and distinct. Students,
however, were provided with separate defini-
tions for each of the abovementioned terms.
Classroom management was defined as,
“instructional strategies to prevent academic
and behavioral difficulties and thereby facili-
tate increased student achievement . . .” (Oliver
& Reschly, 2007; p. 5). This includes (a) con-
sidering the overall environment structure, (b)
facilitating and encouraging student engage-
ment, (c) implementing rules and routines, (d)
actively supervising students, (e) using strate-
gies that will increase the likelihood of appro-
priate behaviors, (f) using strategies that
decrease the likelihood of inappropriate
behaviors, and (g) collecting data and making
data-based decisions to inform future class-
room management. Behavior management was
defined as strategies for students who require
additional supports beyond the classroom man-
agement procedures. Behavior management
focuses on the specific strategies and supports
for students who may have difficulty with cer-
tain aspects of the classroom. Finally, chal-
lenging behavior was defined as strategies to
address behaviors that “are harmful to other
individuals or the student or that interfere with
learning and social relationships” (Chandler
& Dahlquist, 2006, p. 5). Additional informa-
tion about behavior management and chal-
lenging behavior was presented in subsequent
course lectures (after survey administration).
The survey was administered to elementary
majors midway through the spring semester
and to secondary majors toward the end of the
semester.
Of the 288 surveys distributed, 255 (90%)
were usable for data analysis. The majority of
participants were female (76.9%) and White
(80.8%). There was a fairly even distribution
of preservice secondary (53.8%) and elemen-
tary majors (42.7%). It should be noted that
for the purpose of analysis, students from two
K-12 certification programs (agriculture and
foreign language) were grouped with the sec-
ondary preservice teachers because their cur-
riculum tended to be focused at the secondary
level and most accepted teaching positions in
middle and high schools.
Instrument
The Challenging Behaviors Perception Scale
(CBPS; Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2010) was
created following an extensive review of the
literature on classroom and behavior manage-
ment and the needs of preservice teachers.
The CBPS was subject to several revisions
following piloting. The CBPS contained three
sections: responses to video scenarios, ratings
of challenging behaviors, and participant
demographics.
Survey Section A. In Section A, preservice
teachers responded to a set of questions for
280 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
three separate video scenarios (SC1, SC2, and
SC3) that demonstrated teacher and student
interaction during incidents of challenging
behavior. Two of the scenarios (SC1 and SC3)
were selected from an IRIS Media program by
Dr. Geoff Colvin titled Defusing Anger and
Aggression: Strategies for Secondary School
Educators (Iris Media, 2004) with prior
approval from the author. The portions of the
scenario used in the CBPS demonstrated esca-
lation in student behavior during a teacher and
student interaction. Although the IRIS media
video in SC1 and SC3 goes on to explain the
interactions in each scenario and possible dif-
fusion strategies, that portion of the video was
not shown to participants.
The second scenario selected from a video
on the Internet for (SC2) was a display of
what was considered a “neutral” situation in
which escalation did not occur. It was selected
to determine how the respondents reacted to a
scene in which challenging behavior occurred
but was managed by the teacher.
Scenario descriptions. In SC1, a student
enters the classroom with a drink in hand. The
teacher reminds the student that drinks are not
allowed in the classroom and behavior esca-
lates as the teacher and student argue. SC1
ends with the teacher approaching the student
to grab the drink.
In SC2, two students are seated at a table
arguing over an item. The teacher momen-
tarily stops instruction and successfully inter-
venes. SC2 ends with the teacher continuing
with her lesson and the students returning to
their work.
In SC3, a student is walking down the
hallway with a group of friends and is wear-
ing a t-shirt displaying inappropriate lan-
guage on the front. The teacher stops the
student and asks her to turn the shirt inside
out; the student refuses. SC3 ends with the
student walking away and the teacher grab-
bing the student’s arm.
After viewing each video, participants
responded to a series of questions in which
they described the incident and rated the
extent they perceived the student’s behavior
to present a problem for the teacher (0 = not a
problem at all to 3 = extreme problem). Next,
respondents were asked to attribute a percent-
age of the problem to the behavior of the (a)
student, (b) teacher, and/or (c) other students.
Respondents’ total distribution of the percent-
age was equal to 100. For example, after
viewing SC1, a respondent might attribute
30% of the problem to the teacher, 60% of the
problem to the student, and 10% of the prob-
lem to peers.
Respondents then were asked to describe
what they believed the outcome would be if
the scenario continued on its current path
based on what they observed in the clip. They
also indicated whether the teacher’s response
in the video was positive or negative. Finally,
respondents described why they felt the stu-
dent and teacher responded in the way he or
she did and what they would have done differ-
ently if they were the teacher in that situation.
Respondents answered the same set of ques-
tions for each scenario.
Survey Section B. In Section B of the survey,
respondents rated, on a 4-point Likert-type
scale (0 = easy to manage—not a problem to
3 = extremely difficult to manage), the extent
to which they perceived 29 behaviors that
may occur in the classroom as difficult to
manage as a classroom teacher. The behav-
iors were selected from those identified in
previous research on teacher behavior man-
agement (e.g., Algozinne, 1977; Algozzine
et al., 2008; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006;
Safran & Safran, 1984). Examples were pro-
vided of behaviors not considered self-
explanatory, and these examples were
developed from piloting feedback. Levels of
behavior intensity ranged from very mild
(e.g., being late to class, slowness in starting
or completing tasks, and failure to complete
classwork) to more extreme (e.g., throwing
objects, physical aggression, bullying, and
physical altercation in the classroom), a range
deliberately selected based on (a) research
indicating the variation in what teachers con-
sidered difficult to manage and (b) what
behaviors preservice teachers were being pre-
pared to manage (e.g., Baker, 2005; McCready
& Soloway, 2010).
Butler and Monda-Amaya 281
At the end of Section B, respondents rated
their overall levels of confidence (0 = not at
all confident to 5 = expert) in behavior man-
agement, classroom management, and man-
agement of challenging behavior. Definitions
of classroom management, behavior manage-
ment, and management of challenging behav-
ior were provided to students in their
foundation lecture on behavior (see above).
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to
test inter-item consistency in this section.
Analyses revealed that the alpha coefficient
score was .896, which exceeded the minimum
reliability coefficient of .70 (Cortina, 1993).
Survey Section C.  The final section of the sur-
vey requested respondent demographic infor-
mation. Participants provided information on
age, gender, specific content area major, and
future plans in education.
Survey Validation and Piloting
The survey instrument was validated in sev-
eral ways. First, four general education teach-
ers were given the descriptions of behaviors in
Section B. They reviewed items for content
and clarity. They were asked to identify any
items with descriptions requiring further clari-
fication. The teachers identified four items
that were unclear and subsequently changed.
The same teachers then reviewed and agreed
to the changes. Next, this list of behaviors in
Section B was given to four behavior inter-
vention specialists currently teaching in the
field of special education. These teachers
were asked to validate, based on their experi-
ence, that the behaviors being presented were
realistic as problematic to teachers in class-
rooms. They also examined descriptions and
also rated the behaviors in Section B as either
“major” or “minor” problems to determine
reliability with how the researchers catego-
rized and described each behavior.
Once all of the changes were complete to
the behaviors in Section B, a pilot study was
conducted using the revised survey instru-
ment. The researcher recruited two preservice
special education teachers and two practicing
teachers (one elementary and one secondary)
to complete the entire survey. After complet-
ing the survey, participants were asked
whether they felt the video clips presented
realistic scenarios and whether the behaviors
listed in Section B were clear. They recorded
the time taken to complete the instrument and
answered the following questions about the
instrument: (a) Are there any items that are
unclear? (b) Are there any items that you rec-
ommend changing? (c) Are there any other
comments you have about the survey? The
survey took the participants approximately 15
minutes to complete. Pilot participants sug-
gested changing the font size and format for
one particular question, and clarifying two
questions in Section A. Based on their feed-
back, final revisions were made to the survey
instrument.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze
preservice teachers’ perceptions of the student–
teacher interactions in the scenarios. ANO-
VAs were conducted on survey items and
across video clips by level (i.e., elementary
and secondary preservice teachers) and con-
tent specialization (e.g., secondary English,
math). Correlations were conducted to exam-
ine relationships between the effect of the
teacher response and the percentage attribu-
tion of the problem to student, teacher, or
peer. Open-ended questions were analyzed
through content analysis procedures adapted
from L. J. Johnson and LaMontagne (1993):
(a) Data were prepared for analysis and
entered into an excel spreadsheet, (b)
researchers read through responses and made
initial notes about possible themes or catego-
ries, (c) units of analysis were identified, (d)
researchers developed tentative categories for
coding the responses, and (e) approximately
20% of the samples of responses were
selected to use with the tentative codes. The
codes were refined and discussed during this
step, and (f) interrater agreement was estab-
lished for each question. An interrater agree-
ment of 95% was achieved upon examining
20% of the qualitative data to determine
accuracy of theme coding.
282 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
Results
Understanding the Context of
Challenging Behavior
In understanding how respondents viewed
challenging behaviors that may occur in a
classroom, researchers examined the mean
scores and percentage of respondents rating
behaviors at different difficulty levels (see
Table 1). Then, levels of confidence in class-
room and behavior management and dealing
with challenging behaviors were examined
(see Table 2). ANOVAs were conducted to
examine differences between elementary and
secondary respondents. Overall, mean scores
on behaviors ranged from 0.50 to 2.45. Find-
ings indicated that the respondents ranked
physical aggression (M = 2.45), physical alter-
cation in the classroom (M = 2.42), bullying
(M = 2.10), temper tantrum (M = 2.09), either
physical or verbal behavior that indicates
refusal to follow classroom rules (M = 2.07),
racial slurs (M = 2.07), and emotional break-
down (M = 2.05) as the top most difficult
behaviors to manage. The respondents ranked
talking out of turn (M = 0.50), being late (M =
0.54), excessive fidgeting (M = 0.69), slowness
in starting or completing tasks (M = 0.70), side
conversations during lecture or activity (M =
0.81), whining (M = 0.93), and making noises
(M = 0.93) as less difficult to manage behav-
iors. Findings indicated that elementary respon-
dents rated throwing objects (i.e., books,
pencil, etc.; F = 29.871; p < .05), making
noises (either verbalizations or sounds with an
object like tapping a pencil; F = 4.710; p <
.05) and frequent out of seat behavior (F =
8.339; p < .05) as significantly more difficult to
manage than secondary respondents.
In terms of confidence, the overall ratings
were low on one item, managing challenging
behavior, with only 19% of elementary and
23.4% secondary participants rating them-
selves between a level of 3 (confident) and 5
(expert). Significant differences were found
in the confidence ratings, with elementary
respondents ratings themselves as signifi-
cantly more confident in classroom manage-
ment (F = 4.096; p = .044; η2 = .016) and
management of challenging behavior (F =
5.768; p = .017; η2 = .023). No significant
differences were found on Pearson correla-
tions between confidence ratings and partici-
pants’ classification of degree of severity of
the problem for each scenario.
Scenarios: The Role of the Teacher
in Escalation
When examining preservice teachers’
responses to the video scenarios, 91% rated
SC2 as either a minor problem or not a prob-
lem at all, and the majority of participants
(74.5%) would not have responded differently
from the teacher in the scenario. The only sig-
nificant difference found in SC2 was that ele-
mentary majors perceived the teacher to have
a greater effect on the outcome (F = 6.820;
p < .01). For these reasons, discussion of
results will focus on SC1 and SC3.
When asked the level at which they classi-
fied each scenario as a problem for the teacher
(0 = not at all to 3 = extreme problem), 64%
and 83% of respondents rated SC1 (student
bringing a drink to class and subsequent esca-
lation) and SC3 (student wearing t-shirt with
foul language and subsequent escalation),
respectively, as a “moderate” to “extreme”
problem. Results of ANOVAs indicated that
for SC3, secondary preservice teachers rated
the problem as more extreme than elementary
preservice teachers (F = 35.60; p < .001).
Mean percentages were calculated on the
extent to which respondents attributed the
problem to the student, teacher, or peers. On
average in SC1 (n = 254), 56% of the problem
was attributed to the student behavior, 40% to
the teacher, and 4% peers. In SC3 (n = 254),
60% of the problem was attributed to teacher
behavior, 38% to the student, and 2% to peers.
In examining the perceived effect that the
teacher’s response would have on a potential
outcome for SC1, 91% reported the teacher
having a negative effect. That same percent-
age stated they would have responded differ-
ently to the incident. For SC3, 99% felt the
teacher would have a negative effect on the
potential outcome and 97% reported they
Butler and Monda-Amaya 283

Table 1.  Mean Score and Percentage of Respondents Rating Difficulty of Behaviors.

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

would have responded differently if they were
the teacher in the scenario.
Scenario 1 (SC1). After viewing the video,
respondents described what they perceived to
have happened in each scenario. From the 255
respondents to Scenario 1, 527 coded responses
emerged. Responses were classified into three
general themes: either (a) a general descrip-
tion of the incident (11% of responses), (b)
identified specific student behavior or action
(49%), or (c) identified specific teacher behav-
ior or action (39%). Most coded responses
described specific student behavior or action,
such as noncompliance, or failure to follow
rules or a specific teacher request (“the student
refused to do what the teacher wanted . . . ,”
“student talked back and wouldn’t give up the
drink,” and the “student brought a drink into
class and refused to get rid of it or leave the
class when asked by the teacher”). Respon-
dents (56%) attributed a majority of the prob-
lem to the student, which corresponds with
coded responses in describing the behavior.
In addition, respondents described what
they thought the outcome to SC1 might be. The
254 respondents provided 356 coded responses,
32% of which focused on an outcome of the
284 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
Table 2.  Mean Score and Percentage of Respondents Rating for Confidence.
1 2
0 Slightly
Not at all confident
Type M (SD) (%) (%)
Behavior 2.29 (.90) 1.2 17.6
management
Classroom 2.69 (.86) 0.4 8.2
management
Challenging 1.71 (.98) 8.6 34.9
behavior
student leaving or being removed from class.
For example, respondents noted, “I think the
student will get sent out of the room to the
principal or any other administrator, “. . . the
teacher might make him leave,” or “the stu-
dent will storm out.” Some respondents (19%)
noted an outcome of a verbal or physical
altercation between the teacher and the stu-
dent: “student tosses drink at teacher or simi-
lar action,” “the student will throw the soda at
the teacher,” “there will be a bigger problem
and louder verbal confrontation, maybe a
physical confrontation,” or “the teacher and
student might have a physical fight (push-
ing).” It should be noted that a higher percent-
age of coded responses for secondary
preservice teachers indicated the potential for
an “altercation” (23%) over the elementary
respondents (13%).
Another theme that emerged under this
question described a student outcome that was
a direct result of the teacher’s response (20%
of the coded responses). Elementary partici-
pants seemed to provide more responses under
this theme (27%) than secondary respondents
(14%). Respondents provided a general
description of a student behavior (“student
will be punished for not listening,” “student
will embarrass teacher”) or description of
teacher behavior (“the teacher will get really
mad and make the student even more angry”).
Approximately 6% of the coded responses
contained statements about the overall impact
of the behavior or long-term outcomes: “the
student will continue to defy the teacher,” “the
conflict will not be resolved and it will cause
continual class disruption,” or “there will be a
4
Moderately 3 Extremely 5
confident Confident confident Expert
(%) (%) (%) (%)
38.4 34.5 5.9 0.8
28.2 46.7 14.1 0.8
36.1 14.5 3.9 0.4
respect/possible trust loss issue for students
and teacher.”
Of the 244 respondents, 93% (n = 238)
thought that the teacher’s response was nega-
tive; respondent explanations yielded 268
coded responses. Some respondents (34%)
described a teacher reaction to the behavior:
“[teacher] confrontational and seemed aggres-
sive. It is not the way to interact with an agi-
tated student,” “he charged the student and
was abrasive from the start,” and “the teacher
called out the student in front of peers and was
confrontational.” In addition, 33% of the
respondents provided a critical evaluation of
the teacher: “it’s not good to try and chase a
student to make them comply with your rules,”
“. . . the teacher handled the situation com-
pletely wrong.” Of the coded responses, 7%
used terminology that specifically acknowl-
edged the teachers’ role in the escalation of the
behavior: “the teacher responded confronta-
tionally which escalated the problem,” or “the
teacher helped to escalate the problem; he pro-
voked the student to react the way he did.”
Preservice teachers also were asked why
they felt the student and teacher responded in
the way they did. For the student, five themes
emerged: (a) an emotional response (24%—
“he was angry about being singled out over a
small rule”), (b) maintaining appearances
(“save face”) in front of peers (21%), and (c)
student feeling threatened or attacked
(21%—for example, “because the teacher
came at him”), (d) student needing to exercise
control or power in the situation (16%), and
(e) student being noncompliant or disrespect-
ful (11%).
Butler and Monda-Amaya 285
When describing reasons the teacher
responded the way he did, some similar
themes emerged from the 268 coded
responses: (a) emotional response (“He was
frustrated with Hank’s disobedience,” “He
was angry,” “Because he was insulted”), (b)
student acting noncompliant or disrespectful
(“The student refused to follow classroom
rules and challenged the teacher”; “Student
was openly defiant in front of the class”), (c)
teacher exercising control or authority (“He
felt like his authority was being questioned”;
“To show his dominance, to take back control
of his classroom”), (d) teacher had history of
problems with student (“The teacher may
have had similar issues with Hank before”),
and (e) teacher feels threatened or wants to
maintain appearances (“He might have felt
threatened by the student”).
Finally, when asked how they believed
they might have responded in that situation,
91% (n = 232) indicated that they would have
responded differently. The 268 coded
responses fell into the following themes: (a)
selecting a different verbal or physical
approach (70%—“I would have calmly asked
the student to throw out the drink and not
scolded him,” “I would have been calmer and
more controlled in my approach”), (b) clari-
fied rules/expectations/consequences (16%—
“I would have explained why he couldn’t
have the drink in class,” Tell him to ditch the
drink or detention,” and “followed through
with consequence expected”), (c) removal
from the setting (5%), and (d) use humor or
make light of the situation (4%).
Scenario 3 (SC3). In describing what hap-
pened between the teacher and student in the
SC3, responses identified a specific teacher
behavior including rule enforcement and
physical response such as “teacher told stu-
dent to turn shirt inside out,” or “teacher con-
fronted student [about] shirt.” Overall,
respondents (n = 252) perceived that the out-
come of the incident would be (a) a physical
or verbal altercation (37%—“. . . it will esca-
late to violence”), (b) student consequences
that were unspecified (27%—“consequences
based on school rules”), (c) removal from
setting (15%—“The student will be sent home
to change”; “It will end up in the principal’s
office”), (d) a third party’s involvement (8%—
“Call parents”), and (e) outcomes affecting the
teacher and student relationship (8%—“The
student will not respect that teacher”). Sec-
ondary preservice teachers perceived an alter-
cation as the outcome (51% of the coded
responses) at a much higher rate than the ele-
mentary respondents (19%). In contrast, the
elementary respondents tended to select an
outcome related to removal from setting more
frequently (27%) than the secondary respon-
dents (5%).
Nearly all respondents described the
teacher as having a negative effect on the out-
come (98.8%; n = 252). When describing why
they felt this way, the 301 coded responses
were broken into the following themes: (a)
critical evaluation of teacher behavior
(55%—“raising the voice taunted/provoked
the student”), (b) described teacher reactions
to behavior (15%), (c) specified a reason(s)
for escalation/problem behavior (9%—“she
was getting unnecessarily upset and worked
up. She elevated the situation,” and “by grab-
bing the student’s arm, the problem esca-
lated”), (d) student response directly resulting
from teacher’s behavior (6%—“she embar-
rassed and humiliated the student . . .”), and
(e) long-term impact (5%).
Overall, preservice teachers (n = 251; 265
coded responses) felt that the student in the
video responded the way she did (a) as a direct
response to the teacher’s behavior (31%—
“she was humiliated because it happened in
the hallway in front of her friends and peers”),
(b) by giving an immediate emotional response
(30%—“because of the aggressive and loud
approach by the teacher”), or (c) because she
was noncompliant or disrespectful (14%—
“she wanted to do what she wanted”).
When asked why the teacher responded the
way she did in the incident, the largest portion
of the 310 coded responses connected to the
theme of emotional response (42%—“she
hated the shirt. Angry,” “frustrated by back
talk,” “she was really offended by the shirt”).
Other themes identified under teacher response
were as follows: (a) to exercise control,
286 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
authority, or power (26%; for example, “she
wanted to assert her authority,” “she felt like
she needed to win the power struggle”), (b)
student was noncompliant (18%; for example,
“because the student was resistant and non-
obliging”), and (c) general justifications for
the teacher’s behavior (13%; “She might have
been fed up with the student already”).
Finally, the vast majority of the preservice
teachers reported that they would have
responded differently (96.5%; n = 246). A
majority of the coded responses (n = 347)
from the 248 respondents were under the
theme of verbal or physical approach (74% of
the coded responses). Examples under this
theme included “I would have calmly and
politely asked to speak to the student one-on-
one”; “I would have requested that the student
turn the shirt inside out but in a more respect-
ful way, suggesting it nicely if she disagreed
then ask administration to step in”; and
responding “in a calm and rational tone.”
Discussion
Elementary and secondary educators report
dealing with challenging behaviors at least
once during a typical school day (Clunies-
Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008). Success in
managing challenging behavior is crucial to
providing effective classroom instruction.
General and special educators need to under-
stand the impact of those behaviors on teacher–
student interactions (Gunter et al., 1994a;
Harrison & Gunter, 1996; Shores & Wehby,
1999; Wehby et al., 2003) and other academic
and social outcomes. In addition, teachers
need to recognize behaviors that present the
greatest challenge to them and how their own
responses to the situation play a role in the
escalation or de-escalation of behavior.
Researchers examining behavior manage-
ment in teacher preparation programs report
that preservice and practicing teachers felt ill
prepared (Baker, 2005; Westling, 2010) and
preservice teachers were anxious about man-
aging behavior in their own classrooms
(Kaufman & Moss, 2010; Stoughton, 2007).
Without adequate preparation, teachers do not
have a repertoire of strategies from which to
choose in handling difficult situations. Fur-
thermore, they tend to use inadequate strate-
gies or fail to implement appropriate strategies
effectively. As a result, teachers may escalate
behaviors to levels that are extremely difficult
to manage.
As teacher educators, it is important to
determine preservice teachers’ perceptions of
challenging situations to develop their skills
in the selection and use of appropriate preven-
tion and intervention strategies for managing
behavior. Often times, this starts with giving
general educators a strong foundation in
behavioral principles and a clear understand-
ing of PBS and how it is implemented in
schools. In addition, with knowledge of pre-
service teachers’ perceptions, teacher educa-
tors can design content and instruction to
facilitate a deeper understanding of challeng-
ing behavior, provide an array of appropriate
management strategies, and help preservice
teachers make appropriate behavior manage-
ment decisions.
One important concept addressed in this
study was the perception preservice teachers
had of student and classroom teacher interac-
tion during challenging behavior scenarios.
The ability to recognize the teachers’ role in
an interaction provides an important first step
in understanding how to approach challenging
behavior more effectively. The majority of
preservice general educators recognized that
the classroom teacher’s behavior in the videos
influenced the interactions and they identified
the teacher’s role in either escalating or dif-
fusing the situation. For example, in SC1 and
SC3, a majority (93.3% and 98.8%) of respon-
dents perceived that the teacher’s behavior
had a negative effect on the potential outcome.
In SC1, although respondents indicated that
the teacher’s response had a negative effect,
they attributed a majority of the problem to
the student. That may be because the episode
began with the student walking into the class-
room with a drink when he knew it was against
the rules, and the teacher provided a verbal
prompt to throw the drink away. This differs
from SC3, in which the teacher’s initial inter-
action to the student was viewed as overtly
aggressive from the onset.
Butler and Monda-Amaya 287
Also in SC3, a physical response (teacher
placing her hand on the student’s arm) took
place. Respondents clearly perceived the
teacher as having a distinct role in escalating
the student’s behavior. A majority (83.2%)
perceived the problem to be moderate to
extreme for the teacher and also attributed a
majority of the problem to the teacher. Nearly
all respondents felt the teacher had a negative
effect on the perceived outcome and felt they
would have responded differently if they were
the teacher in that situation. It should be noted
that there was a difference between the sec-
ondary and elementary preservice teachers’
ratings in the classification of problem for the
teacher. The secondary respondents rating the
problem as more difficult than the elementary.
A question arises as to whether partici-
pants’ perceptions in any way are reflective of
their potential responses as classroom teach-
ers. According to the attribution theory, it is
easier to identify the behaviors in someone
else, rather than in one’s own behavior
(Heider, 1958; Malle, 2006; Weiner, 1985). In
the case of the scenarios presented to the
respondents, it may have been relatively easy
for them to step back and evaluate how the
teacher handled problem behavior. With pre-
service teachers, it is important that we begin
preparation for managing challenging behav-
ior with helping them identify their own
strengths and weaknesses and help them
understand that they play a role in escalation,
potentially within the context of actual clini-
cal teaching placements. We also attempted to
have respondents personalize the scenarios by
asking how they would have responded in that
situation. Although it is difficult to know how
participants would respond in a real situation,
providing opportunities to examine scenarios
in the context of their own strengths and
weaknesses and discuss options for respond-
ing can prove valuable in helping them build a
repertoire of skills.
Finally, preservice teachers rated aggres-
sive or physical behaviors (i.e., physical
aggression, physical altercation in the class-
room, bullying, temper tantrum, and either
physical or verbal behavior that indicates
refusal to follow classroom rules) as the most
difficult. Although various studies have exam-
ined preservice teacher knowledge of evi-
dence-based practices in managing behavior
(Garland, Garland, & Vasquez, 2013), there is
little research that specifically examines pre-
service teachers’ ratings or perceptions of dif-
ficult-to-manage behaviors. Behaviors
identified in this study are similar to those of
practicing general and special education
teachers who reported challenging behaviors
such as defiance and noncompliance occur-
ring in their classrooms (Westling, 2010).
Results of the current study revealed other
differences worth noting. Elementary preser-
vice teachers rated throwing objects, making
noises, and frequent out-of-seat behavior sig-
nificantly higher than the secondary counter-
parts. Although challenging behaviors such as
physical altercations and aggression clearly
interfere with classroom instruction, it is
important that we understand the impact of
high-frequency, low-intensity behaviors on the
classroom.
In addition to identifying behaviors per-
ceived as challenging, preservice teachers rated
the confidence in behavior and classroom man-
agement and managing challenging behavior.
Overall, respondents were “moderately confi-
dent” to “confident” in behavior management;
significant differences were found in ratings of
classroom management and challenging
behavior by level. Although elementary partici-
pants were less confident in managing chal-
lenging behavior, they rated themselves as
more confident in behavior management. It is
important to consider that when classroom
teachers felt more confident in behavior man-
agement, they were more likely to implement
specific strategies in the classroom and report-
edly more comfortable addressing challenging
behavior (Baker, 2005; Westling, 2010).
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations to the study that
should be noted. First, perceptions of chal-
lenging behavior were connected to specific
scenarios of teacher–student interactions rather
than real-life interactions between the preser-
vice teachers and students. These contrived
288 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
situations may not be representative of what
preservice teachers actually feel or would do
in similar scenarios. Furthermore, issues asso-
ciated with self-reporting data stand true for
this study.
In addition, for the challenging behaviors
listed in Section B, brief descriptions were pro-
vided but no context within which to interpret
the behaviors. Participants were not given a
specific topography of the behavior, and there-
fore across respondents, there may have been
differing perceptions of those behaviors.
Although the researchers attempted to create
specific descriptions and socially validate them
with current preservice and practicing teachers,
there was a possibility that the respondents per-
ceived the behaviors differently.
Another limitation is connected to partici-
pants. All 255 participants were from the same
university, and analyses could only be con-
ducted between the elementary or secondary
groups because of limitations in numbers by
secondary content specializations, ethnicity,
and gender.
Implications and Future Research
There are several educational implications and
directions for future research to be discussed.
First, and foremost, this study addressed the
need for preservice teachers to examine the
role and influence a teacher can have during
incidents of challenging behavior. In preparing
preservice teachers to manage challenging
behavior, particularly general educators, pre-
sentations of broad management strategies are
not enough. Teacher educators must provide
explicit instruction in the stages of the acting-
out or escalation cycle, strategies for prevent-
ing or diffusing challenging situations, and
specific strategies that could be implemented
at each phase in the cycle.
Specifically, teacher educators need to
assist preservice teachers in developing an
array of strategies to manage behavior and to
encourage reflection on incidents of behavior
that help them (a) recognize the function of a
behavior, (b) use good judgment in determin-
ing which reinforcement or punishment strate-
gies would be effective in those situations, (c)
introduce appropriate replacement behaviors
to their students, (d) understand how previous
behavioral sequences ended, and (e) teach stu-
dents academic skills that establish student
success (adapted from Shukla-Mehta & Albin,
2003). This instruction on developing behav-
ior management strategies, however, must
extend beyond typical instruction in the uni-
versity classroom and be incorporated through-
out student teaching or clinical experiences .
Kaufman and Moss (2010) found a disconnect
between preservice teachers’ concerns about
behavior management in their final field expe-
riences and how to address those concerns
with the proactive/preventative strategies they
were learning in their courses. O’Neill and
Stephenson (2014) further noted that “even
when classroom behaviour management units
are completed, preservice teachers feel that it
has only somewhat prepared them to manage
disruption, noncompliance, or disorganization
. . .” (p. 1139). Preservice teachers need spe-
cific instruction in realistic situations con-
nected to challenging behavior rather than a
general set of behavior management strategies.
Two of the scenarios used in this study
came from an actual teacher training video
(Defusing Anger and Aggression; Colvin,
2010). Using this tool, preservice teachers can
watch each a student–teacher interaction, rec-
ognize the acting-out cycle, explain how the
escalation occurred, and describe how to man-
age that type of situation. Explicit instruction
like this can be very beneficial. Researchers
demonstrate that the more preparation preser-
vice teachers have in challenging behavior,
the more likely they are to implement a vari-
ety of effective strategies with confidence as
practicing teachers (Alvarez, 2007; Baker,
2005; H. L. Johnson & Fullwood, 2006;
Westling, 2010). Teacher preparation pro-
grams must produce preservice teachers with
high levels of confidence in behavior manage-
ment and effective strategies to implement in
a variety of situations.
Another implication addresses the need for
continual support with student problem
behaviors that arise during field experiences
to develop confidence in implementing proac-
tive strategies (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Mills,
Butler and Monda-Amaya 289
2011). Again, coursework in behavior man-
agement should be closely linked to student
teaching or clinical experiences and the feed-
back preservice teachers receive. As incidents
occur, they should be encouraged to parse out
student and teacher roles in the acting-out
cycle. There should also be frequent discus-
sion of behavior incidents as well as concerns
or fears regarding managing behavior.
Finally, coaching and mentoring programs
aimed at induction and retention are promis-
ing practices for supporting beginning special
and general educators (Capizzi, Wehby, &
Sandmel, 2010; Parker et al., 2009). Behav-
ioral coaching should begin at the preservice
level with supervisors providing embedded
professional development through direct feed-
back about management strategies.
Additional research is needed on percep-
tions of preservice teachers about challenging
behavior. In particular, additional research is
needed on the escalation cycle and whether
preservice teachers recognize how their own
behaviors during that cycle affect student
behavior. It is also worth investigating the
impact that behavioral coaching could have on
helping preservice and beginning teachers to
develop strategies to manage challenging
behavior and identify their potential roles in
the outcome of incidents. Gathering data on
student and teacher behaviors during incidents
of challenging behavior could help inform
coaching and the design of interventions.
Clearly, challenging behaviors have impli-
cations for the teacher and the student. If these
behaviors are not addressed in the classroom,
they can have dire outcomes. It is important
for teacher preparation programs to help pre-
service teachers develop proactive strategies
for managing challenging behavior. In partic-
ular, teacher preparation programs need to
address the teacher’s specific role in situations
of escalating behavior and provide students
with a level of confidence in dealing with
behaviors of all types.
Authors’ Note
Dr. Anne Butler is now affiliated to the DePaul
University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Albin, R. W., O’Brien, M., & Horner, R. H.
(1995). Analysis of an escalating sequence of
problem behaviors: A case study. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 16, 133-147.
Algozzine, B. (1977). The emotionally disturbed
child: Disturbed or disturbing? Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 205-211.
Algozzine, K., Christian, C., Marr, M. B.,
McClanahan, T., & White, R. (2008).
Demography of problem behavior in elemen-
tary schools. Exceptionality, 16, 93-104.
Alvarez, H. K. (2007). The impact of teacher
preparation on responses to student aggres-
sion in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 1113-1126.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth,
E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012).
The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES
2012-045). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces
.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior:
How ready are teachers to meet the challenge?
American Secondary Education, 33, 51-64.
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004).
The working conditions and induction support
of early career special educators. Exceptional
Children, 79, 333-347.
Butler, A. M., & Monda-Amaya, L. M. (2010).
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of challeng-
ing behaviors. Unpublished research project,
University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana,
Champaign.
Capizzi, A. M., Wehby, J. H., & Sandmel, K.
N. (2010). Enhancing mentoring of teacher
candidates through consultative feedback
and self-evaluation of instructional delivery.
Teacher Education and Special Education,
33, 191-212.
Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991).
The effects of severe behavior problems in
290 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
children on the teaching behavior of adults.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24,
523-535.
Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (2006).
Functional assessment: Strategies to prevent
and remediate challenging behavior in school
settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Christensen, L., Young, K. R., & Marchant, M.
(2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive
behavior support program on socially appro-
priate classroom behavior. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27, 199-234.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis. (2008).
Self-reported and actual use of proactive and
reactive classroom management strategies and
their relationship with teacher stress and student
behavior. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710
Colvin, G. (2010). Defusing disruptive behavior in
the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Corbell, K. A., Osborne, J., & Reiman, A. J. (2010).
Supporting and retaining beginning teachers: A
validation study of the Perceptions of Success
Inventory for beginning teachers. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 16, 75-96.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha?
An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., &
MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2014). Pre-service
teacher training in classroom manage-
ment: A review of state accreditation policy
and teacher preparation programs. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 37, 106-
120. doi:10.1177/0888406413507002
Garland, D., Garland, K. V., & Vasquez, E.
(2013). Management of classroom behav-
iors: Perceived readiness of education interns.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 13, 133-147.
Gunter, P. L., Denny, R. K., Shores, R. E., Reed,
T. M., Jack, S. L., & Nelson, C. M. (1994a).
Teacher escape, avoidance, and counter con-
trol behaviors: Potential responses to disrup-
tive and aggressive behaviors of students with
severe behavior disorders. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 3, 211-223.
Gunter, P. L., Jack, S. L., DePaepe, P., Reed, T. M.,
& Harrison, J. (1994b). Effects of challenging
behaviors of students with EBD on teacher
instructional behavior. Preventing School
Failure, 38, 35-40.
Harrison, J. S., & Gunter, P. L. (1996). Teacher
instructional language and negative reinforce-
ment: A conceptual framework for working
with students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Education and Treatment of
Children, 19, 183-196.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal
relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and
teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38,
499-534.
Iris Media. (2004). Defusing anger and aggression
[DVD]. Retrieved from www.lookiris.com
Johnson, H. L., & Fullwood, H. L. (2006).
Disturbing behaviors in the secondary class-
room: How do general educators perceive
problem behaviors? Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 35, 20-39.
Johnson, L. J., & LaMontagne, M. J. (1993).
Using content analysis to examine the verbal
or written communication of stakeholders
within early intervention. Journal of Early
Intervention, 17, 73-79.
Johnson-Gros, K. N., Lyons, E. A., & Griffin, J.
R. (2008). Active supervision: An intervention
to reduce high school tardiness. Education and
Treatment of Children, 31, 39-53.
Kaufman, D., & Moss, D. M. (2010). A new look at
preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom
management and organization: Uncovering
complexity and dissonance. The Teacher
Educator, 45, 118-136.
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of
teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and
socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 72, 195-220.
Kennedy, C. H., Long, T., Jolivette, K., Cox, J., Tang,
J-C., & Thompson, T. (2001). Facilitating gen-
eral education participation for students with
behavior problems by linking positive behavior
supports and person-centered planning. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9,
161-171. doi:10.1177/106342660100900302.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. (2010). Effects on
teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job
stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102, 741-756.
Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and
stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of
Educational Research, 102, 443-452.
Lohrmann, S., & Bambara, L. M. (2006).
Elementary education teachers’ beliefs about
essential supports needed to successfully
include students with developmental dis-
abilities who engage in challenging behavior.
Butler and Monda-Amaya 291
Research & Practice for Persons With Severe
Disabilities, 31, 157-173.
Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Freeman, R. (2015).
A historical perspective on the evolution of
positive behavior support as a science-based
discipline. In F. Brown, J. L. Anderson, & R.
L. DePry (Eds.), Individual positive behavior
supports: A standards-based guide to practices
in school and community settings (pp. 3-26).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymme-
try in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 895-919.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mills, S.
(2011). Special education teacher preparation.
In J. M. Kaufman, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Handbook of special education (pp. 47-58).
New York, NY: Routledge.
McCready, L. T., & Soloway, G. B. (2010). Teachers’
perceptions of challenging student behaviours
in model inner city schools. Emotional and
Behavioral Difficulties, 15, 111-123.
McNally, J., I’anson, J., Whewell, C., & Wilson, G.
(2005). “They think swearing is okay”: First
lessons in behaviour management. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 31, 169-185.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective
classroom management: Teacher preparation
and professional development. Washington,
DC: Learning Point Associates, National
Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-
based classroom and behaviour management
content in Australian pre-service primary
teachers’ coursework: Wherefore art thou?
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39,
1-22.
Parker, M. A., Ndoye, A., & Imig, S. R. (2009).
Keeping our teachers! Investigating mentoring
practices to support and retain novice educa-
tors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 17, 329-341.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Hershfeldt, P. A., &
Leaf, P. J. (2010). A multilevel exploration of
the influence of teacher efficacy and burnout
on response to student problem behavior and
school-based service use. School Psychology
Quarterly, 25, 13-27.
Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J.
(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teach-
ers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and reten-
tion. The Professional Educator, 32, 25-41.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Successes
and near misses: Pre-service teachers’ use,
confidence and success in various classroom
management strategies. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 1261-1268.
Safran, S. P., & Safran, J. S. (1984). Elementary
teachers’ tolerance of problem behaviors. The
Elementary School Journal, 85, 236-243.
Shores, R. E., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). Analyzing
the classroom social behavior of students with
EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 7, 194-199.
Shukla-Mehta, S., & Albin, R. W. (2003). Twelve
practical strategies to prevent behavioral esca-
lation in classroom settings. Preventing School
Failure, 47, 156-161.
Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Whittaker, T. A.,
Richter, M., Johnson, M. W., & Trussell, R.
P. (2009). Assessing teacher use of oppor-
tunities to respond and effective classroom
management strategies: Comparisons among
high- and low-risk elementary schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
11, 68-81.
Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007).
Teacher implementation of precorrection and
praise statements in head start classrooms as a
component of a program-wide system of posi-
tive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 16, 280-290. doi:10.1007/s10864-
007-9040-3
Stoughton, E. H. (2007). How will I get them to
behave? Pre-service teachers reflect on class-
room management. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 1024-1037.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011).
What makes good teachers good? A cross-case
analysis of the connection between teacher
effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339-355.
doi:10.1177/0022487111404241
Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003).
The effect of varying rates of opportunities to
respond to academic requests on the classroom
behavior of students with EBD. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239-
248. doi:10.1177/10634266030110040501
Sutherland, K. S., & Morgan, P. L. (2003).
Implications of transactional processes in
classrooms for students with emotional/
behavioral disorders. Preventing School
Failure, 48, 32-37.
Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Yoder, P.
J. (2002). Examination of the relationship
between teacher praise and opportunities for
students with EBD to respond to academic
292 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(4)
requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 12, 5-13.
Taylor, J. C., & Romanczyk, R. G. (1994).
Generating hypotheses about the function
of student problem behavior by observing
teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 27, 251-265.
Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A.
S. (2010). General education teachers’ percep-
tions of behavior management and interven-
tion strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 12, 86-102.
Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., &
Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted
intervention to reduce problem behaviors.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10,
46- 55. doi: 10.1177/1098300707311369
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F.
M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school:
Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Wehby, J. H., Lane, K. L., & Falk, K. B. (2003).
Academic instruction for students with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11,
194-197.
Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., Canale, J. A., & Go, F.
J. (1998). Teaching practices in classrooms for
students with emotional and behavioral disor-
ders: Discrepancies between recommendations
and observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24,
51-56.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory
of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challeng-
ing behavior: Knowledge, views, and prac-
tices. Remedial and Special Education, 31,
48-63.
Author Biographies
Anne Butler is apostdoctoral fellow at the Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her research
interests include challenging behavior, teacher
preparation, and coaching and collaboration with
teachers to implement strategies around behavior
management.
Lisa Monda-Amaya is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Special Education at the University of Illi-
nois in Urbana–Champaign. Her research interests
are in the areas of academic and behavioral strate-
gies for including students with disabilities in the
general education classroom, teacher preparation
and professional development, and collaboration
and co-teaching.