Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/vpsf20

Supporting teachers’ effective classroom and

behavior management: what do teachers tell us?

Tara C. Moore, Stephanie Daniels, Kala L. H. Taylor, Regina M. Oliver, Jason

Chow & Joseph H. Wehby

To cite this article: Tara C. Moore, Stephanie Daniels, Kala L. H. Taylor, Regina M. Oliver,
Jason Chow & Joseph H. Wehby (2024) Supporting teachers’ effective classroom and behavior
management: what do teachers tell us?, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 68:1, 60-69, DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2022.2158160

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2022.2158160

Published online: 28 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 965

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vpsf20
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth
2024, VOL. 68, NO. 1, 60–69
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2022.2158160

Supporting teachers’ effective classroom and behavior management:

what do teachers tell us?
Tara C. Moorea, Stephanie Danielsb, Kala L. H. Taylorb, Regina M. Oliverc, Jason Chowd and Joseph H.
Wehbye
a
Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA; bDepartment of Educational
Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA; cDepartment of Special Education and Communication
Disorders, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA; dDepartment of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA; eDepartment of Special Education, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Elementary teachers (N = 160) from two districts responded to survey questions about inservice administrator; classroom
professional development and administrator feedback and support for implementing research-based, management; principal; problem
behavior; professional
effective classroom and behavior management (C/BM) strategies. Results indicated slightly more than
development
half (55%) of teachers reported their participation in formal, inservice professional development
activities improved their ability to implement research-based C/BM strategies. A higher percentage
(77%) of teachers reported they receive adequate feedback from their current school supervisor (e.g.,
principal, curriculum/instructional coach) on their use of C/BM. Teachers’ reported specific ways for
school and district administrators to better prepare and support them for challenges related to C/
BM. Implications are provided for improving inservice professional development and administrator
feedback to promote teachers’ use of effective classroom and behavior management practices.

Managing students’ classroom behavior is a major concern
and problem for teachers (e.g., Meister & Melnick, 2003;
Melnick & Meister, 2008). Student discipline, behavior prob-
lems, and teachers’ low self-efficacy and confidence for class-
room and behavior management (C/BM) have been associated
with teacher burnout (e.g., Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Fernet
et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010;
Tsouloupas et al., 2010) and have been identified as reasons
for leaving the teaching profession (Hong & & others, 2012;
Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Findings suggest many teachers feel
unprepared for C/BM (Baker, 2005; Coggshall et al., 2012;
Melnick & Meister, 2008; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Stough
et al., 2015), and school administrators acknowledge teachers’
deficits and challenges for C/BM (Albright et al., 2017).
Teachers are particularly concerned with managing students’
serious problem behaviors (Meister & Jenks, 2000) and man-
aging problem behaviors of students with disabilities (Buell
et al., 1999; Melnick & Meister, 2008), and they are less
confident in their abilities to address students’ more serious
problem behaviors (Reupert & Woodcock, 2010).
Pre-service teacher preparation programs (e.g., teacher
training programs from a university or institute of higher
education or an alternative teacher training program) have
been criticized for not adequately addressing pre-service
teachers’ needs related to C/BM skills. For example, results
from several studies examining content of teacher preparation
courses and programs (e.g., examining course relevant course
syllabi) highlight a lack of comprehensive coverage of
research-based prevention and intervention C/BM practices
(Cooper et al., 2018; Flower et al., 2017; Freeman et al., 2014;
Greenberg et al., 2014; Oliver & Reschly, 2010). Flower et al.
(2017) reported that pre-service teachers were more likely to
receive instruction on general, preventative classroom man-
agement strategies and less instruction on specific intervention
strategies to address more serious problem behaviors.
Similarly, once teachers enter the classroom, they are
more likely to be knowledgeable about general, preventative
classroom management strategies (e.g., teaching and rein-
forcing rules or routines) and to use those strategies more
frequently than more intensive behavioral intervention strat-
egies (Ficarra & Quinn, 2014; McKenna et al., 2022; Moore
et al., 2017; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010; Shook, 2012).
Likewise, many teachers indicate they would like more inser-
vice training in C/BM (i.e., training or other professional
development occurring after beginning their teaching careers;
Giallo & Little, 2003), particularly training for students with
more serious problem behaviors (Stough et al., 2015). These
findings suggest teachers continue to need training or pro-
fessional development in C/BM even after beginning their
teaching careers (Stough et al., 2015), and they need training
specific to addressing serious problem behaviors.
Professional development for effective C/BM
Emerging research suggests inservice training, feedback,
and support specific to C/BM can be beneficial for teachers.
For example, Ficarra and Quinn (2014) reported much of
teachers’ knowledge of C/BM strategies came from inservice

CONTACT Tara C. Moore tara.moore@utk.edu 409 Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996-3442, USA
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth
activities or sources, and Cooper et al. (2018) argued for
capitalizing on inservice training and support activities
(such as coaching, mentoring, peer observations, reflection,
and corrective feedback) to increase teachers’ use of effec-
tive strategies. Researchers have begun to examine effects
of specific inservice professional development protocols for
improving teachers’ abilities to implement research-based
strategies to prevent and reduce problem behaviors in
school settings (e.g., Hirsch et al., 2019; Kennedy et al.,
2017; Simonsen et al., 2020). For example, Hirsch et al.
(2019) reported the effects of a multi-component a profes-
sional development protocol using brief training,
video-recorded demonstrations of a set of preventative
classroom management strategies (precorrection, opportu-
nities to respond, teacher praise, and teacher reprimands),
small group discussions to develop action plans for imple-
menting strategies, and self-monitoring and feedback to
support six new teachers’ use of those strategies. Results
of their multiple baseline across groups of teachers revealed
positive changes in teachers’ use of targeted strategies.
Similarly, Simonsen et al. (2020) reported general increases
in teachers’ use of targeted strategies (prompts and specific
praise) while the 11 teachers participated in a professional
development package consisting of a brief training, email
prompts, and training teachers to self-manage their use of
the targeted strategies through self-monitoring,
self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement.
Administrator feedback and support for effective C/BM
In a related area of research on administrator feedback and
support for effective C/BM, Mireles-Rios et al. (2019)
recently reported findings that focus on the benefits of
feedback from school administrators in supporting teachers’
effective classroom management. Here, Mireles-Rios et al.
conducted interviews with 28 high school teachers to gather
information on teachers’ perceptions about administrator
feedback during teacher observation and evaluation pro-
cesses. Specifically, Mireles-Rios et al. reported new and
experienced teachers talked about benefits of receiving feed-
back from their administrators specific to classroom man-
agement; their findings also highlighted teachers’ perceived
benefit in administrator feedback to address context-specific
problems and successes. For Mireles-Rios and colleagues,
teachers’ responses during these interviews highlighted a
relation between administrator feedback on classroom man-
agement and teachers’ self-efficacy. Mireles-Rios and col-
leagues’ findings also emphasize the significant role school
administrators likely play in supporting teachers’ efforts to
provide effective C/BM.
Purpose
Results from several studies (e.g., Baker, 2005; Coggshall
et al., 2012; Ficarra & Quinn, 2014; McKenna et al., 2022;
Melnick & Meister, 2008; Moore et al., 2017; O’Neill &
Stephenson, 2012; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010; Shook, 2012;
Stough et al., 2015) indicate many teachers feel unprepared
61
or lack necessary knowledge and skills for effective C/BM,
and results reported by Stough et al. (2015) suggest teachers
need C/BM training throughout their inservice careers.
Recent empirical research highlights the potential for tar-
geted professional development protocols to improve teach-
ers’ use of specific research-based strategies in school
settings (Hirsch et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2017; Simonsen
et al., 2020). Furthermore, Mireles-Rios et al. (2019) find-
ings illustrate teachers’ perceived benefits of their school
administrators’ feedback related to C/BM. Nevertheless,
these lines of research further highlight the need for both
professional development (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2017) and
administrator feedback (e.g., Mireles-Rios et al., 2019) to
match classroom contexts. Specifically, professional devel-
opment and administrator feedback should be relevant to
teachers’ specific needs to help them address problems they
encounter.
However, the contemporary literature on C/BM is lacking
a targeted review of what teachers tell us they need in
inservice to support effective C/BM. The purpose of this
study, then, was to examine teachers’ perceptions about
specific needs and areas for improvement in inservice train-
ing and administrator support to improve teachers’ use of
research-based, effective C/BM to prevent and reduce prob-
lem behaviors. Our goals for this study are to inform and
provide implications to school and district leaders and to
prompt further examination of effective professional devel-
opment activities and administrator practices to support
teachers’ skillful and purposeful use of research-based C/
BM strategies to more effectively respond to “real life”
problems they encounter in their classrooms. We will pres-
ent findings from a follow-up analysis of additional data
collected as part of a survey research study on elementary
school teachers’ reported knowledge and use of sets of
research-based C/BM strategies (Moore et al., 2017) to
address three research questions. First, how do teachers
rate the adequacy of inservice professional development
activities to improve their ability to implement
research-based C/BM strategies? Second, how do teachers
rate the adequacy in administrator feedback to support
their use of C/BM strategies? Finally, what are ways in
which teachers report their school/district administrators
could better prepare and support them for challenges
related to C/BM?
Method
Participants
Participants were 160 elementary (PreK—5th grade) teachers:
115 (71.88%) general education teachers; 18 (11.25%) special
education teachers; 4 (2.50%) art teachers; 6 (3.75%) librar-
ians; 5 (3.13%) technology teachers; 6 (3.75%) ESL teachers;
3 (1.88%) physical education teachers; and 3 (1.88%) music
teachers. Mean years as a full-time educator was 13.34
(SD = 9.90, range of 1 to 47 years). Approximately 55% of
teachers in this sample reported to have participated in four
or more days of professional development related to C/BM
since beginning teaching.
62 T. C. MOORE ET AL.
Setting
Teachers were from two public school districts from different
geographic regions in the same state in the southeastern
United States: District 1 was a large urban district and
District 2 was a smaller, rural district. These two districts
were selected because the primary researcher had profes-
sional relationships with these districts and because they
represented a rural and an urban district in different parts
of the state. District 1 had 51 elementary schools with a
student enrollment of approximately 60,000 (district demo-
graphics: approximately 70% White, 17% Black, 9% Hispanic;
approximately 14% were students with disabilities and 29%
“economically disadvantaged”). District 2 had 8 elementary
schools with a student enrollment of approximately 6,000
(district demographics: approximately 75% White, 6% Black,
18% Hispanic; approximately 14% were students with dis-
abilities and 44% were “economically disadvantaged”). There
were not significant differences across the two district sam-
ples for highest level of education, for number of years as
a full-time educator, or for amount of formal, inservice
professional development received related to C/BM (Moore
et al., 2017).
Procedure
The primary researcher contacted all elementary school
principals in each district via email to seek permission to
invite teachers to complete a survey about their perceptions
about training and support related to C/BM since beginning
their teaching careers (i.e., inservice training and support).
In District 1, 20% of principals agreed (from 10 out of 50
schools) to allow us to contact their teachers while in
District 2, 75% of principals (6 out of 8) allowed us to
contact their teachers. Next, the primary researcher con-
tacted each teacher from these schools via email to invite
them to participate and shared with them the link to the
online survey.
After all data were collected, participants that did not
provide answers for the Likert-type items related to training
and support related to C/BM were excluded from further
analysis. This resulted in percentages of teachers completing
surveys ranging from approximately 4% to 83% across
schools in District 1 and ranging from approximately 60%
to 100% across schools in District 2. Because some schools
from District 1 had low response rates, all schools with
less than 30% teacher response rate were excluded from
this analysis. This resulted in 160 elementary teachers: 44
teachers in District 1 (from 3 schools) and 116 teachers
in District 2 (from 6 schools). Across districts, approxi-
mately 63% of invited participants responded to the three
relevant Likert-type items. Participants were also asked an
open-ended question related to administrator support where
118 teachers provided a response (approximately 46%
response rate). The overall response rate (63%) is consistent
with an acceptable and average response rate of at least
40% (Cook et al., 2000; Kramer et al., 2009) to 50%
(Draugalis et al., 2008) for survey research in the health
fields, and item-level response rates presented here aligned
with or exceed these minimum requirements. In addition,
overall and item-level response rates are well above other
reported response rates of just over 30% for survey research
in the field of education conducted with teachers and other
school staff (e.g., Bambara et al., 2012; Bradshaw et al.,
2013; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009).
Survey development and administration
The survey was developed by the first, fourth, and sixth
authors, all of whom conduct research on and/or train future
and inservice teachers and school staff to implement
research-based C/BM strategies. We solicited feedback from
teachers on two pilot versions of the survey: first with 32
and then with 104 inservice teachers. For some items
reported in a previous study (Moore et al., 2017), we edited
the wording for clarity (e.g., rewording response options
based on feedback from teachers); however, no revisions to
items reported in this study were revised following the
review of pilot versions of the study. Detailed description
of survey revisions and development are provided by Moore
et al. (2017). The final version of the survey was presented
to teachers in an online format. The survey included a series
of questions were presented to gather information about
teachers’ perceptions of C/BM inservice training, feedback,
and support, specific areas of need identified in previous
research.
Adequacy of inservice professional development
Teachers were asked to consider their “inservice training/
professional development and support since beginning their
teaching careers.” Specifically, they were asked to rate their
level of agreement with a statement related to adequacy of
inservice professional development activities: “My participa-
tion in formal professional development activities improved
my ability to implement research-based classroom and
behavior management strategies” with Likert-type choice
options of strongly disagree (score of 1), disagree (score of
2), neutral (score of 3) agree (score of 4), or strongly agree
(score of 5), with the option to select not applicable or
no answer.
Adequacy of administrator feedback
Teachers were then asked to rate their level of agreement
related to adequacy of administrator feedback: “In my current
teaching position, I receive adequate feedback from my
administrator(s) (e.g., principal, curriculum/instructional
coach, supervisor) on my use of classroom and behavior
management strategies” using the same Likert-type choice
options.
Ways to improve administrator support
Teachers were asked an open-ended question about ways to
improve administrator support: “In what ways could your
school or district administrators better prepare you for chal-
lenges related to classroom and behavior management or
better support you when you are faced with these challenges?”
 Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 63

Analyses cases, initial disagreements in coding occurred for responses

First, we summarized teachers’ level of agreement with ques-
tions about adequacy of inservice professional development and
adequacy of administrator feedback by reporting descriptive
statistics (means, standard deviations, and medians). In addi-
tion, for each item, a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test
was conducted to examine for potential differences across
schools in each district and Mann-Whitney U tests were con-
ducted to compare teachers’ ratings across the two districts.
These nonparametric tests were used because of the ordinal
data structure of Likert-type choice options of these two items.
Next, we analyzed participant responses to the open-ended
question using standard qualitative techniques for thematic
analysis (i.e., Braun & Clarke, 2006; Patton, 1990). For the
open-ended question “In what ways could your school or
district administrators better prepare you for challenges related
to classroom and behavior management or better support you
when you are faced with these challenges?”, 118 teachers (74%
out of 160 participants) provided responses, but ten teachers’
responses were not coded because they included, “not appli-
cable”, “I don’t know”, etc. resulting in coded responses for
108 teachers (40 teachers from District 1 and 68 teachers
from District 2). Following a process similar to that described
by Braun and Clarke (2006), a thematic analysis was com-
pleted. After becoming familiar with the data, by reading
participant responses several times, two members of the
research team independently generated initial codes based on
responses and organized the codes into potential themes.
Next, the coding team evaluated and compared initial codes
and potential themes yielded by those codes. Some teachers’
responses fit into more than one theme (i.e., more than one
coded unit identified in a single teacher’s response); thus,
those responses were coded as many times as were relevant.
This resulted in 111 coded units into potential themes. The
coding team continued to analyze responses and codes, defin-
ing and naming the final six themes. Inter-coder agreement
was calculated by dividing the number of agreements between
the two researchers’ coding at the participant level (i.e., agree-
ments on coding for 97 teacher responses—divided by 97
agreements plus 11 disagreements—resulting in inter-coder
agreement of approximately 90%). When disagreements
occurred, the two original coding team members met with
another member of the research team to discuss disagreements
and come to a consensus on final codes assigned. In most
where more than one code was identified.
Results
Adequacy of inservice professional development
Teachers’ ratings for the Likert-type items related to ade-
quacy of inservice professional development related to C/
BM are presented in Figure 1. Across both districts, approx-
imately 55% of teachers indicated they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the item about adequacy of inservice
professional development; mean ratings were at the neutral
level (M = 3.50, SD = .96) and the median rating was at the
agree level (Mdn = 4); “not applicable” or “no answer”
responses excluded. Kruskal-Wallis H tests did not indicate
significant differences across schools within each district for
adequacy of inservice professional development (District 1:
χ2(2) = 1.74, p = .419; District 2: χ2(5) = 9.42, p = .094,
and Mann-Whitney U tests indicated teachers’ ratings were
not significantly different across districts for adequacy of
inservice professional development (Z = −0.68; p = .499,
d = −.07, 95% CI = [-.43, .29]).
Adequacy of administrator feedback
Approximately 77% of teachers indicated they either agreed
or strongly agreed with the item about adequacy of adminis-
trator feedback (see Figure 2). For this item, mean ratings
were again at the neutral level (M = 3.97, SD = .80), but where
approaching agree (score of 4), and the median rating was at
agree level (Mdn = 4). Kruskal-Wallis H tests did not indicate
significant differences across schools within each district for
adequacy of administrator feedback (District 1: χ2(2) = 1.60,
p = .450; District 2: χ2(5) = 5.35, p = .374), and Mann-Whitney
U tests did not indicate significant differences across districts
(Z = −1.50; p = .134, d = −.21, 95% CI = [-.56, .14]).
Ways to improve administrator support
Qualitative analyses of teachers’ responses to the question:
Qualitative analyses of teachers’ responses to the question:
“In what ways could your school or district administrators
better prepare you for challenges related to classroom and

Percentage of Teachers' (N = 160) Ratings of Adequacy of Inservice Professional Development

60 Related to Classroom and Behavior Management (C/BM)

55
50 44.65
45
40
35
30 24.53
25
20
13.21
15 10.69
10 4.40
5 2.52
0
Not applicable or no Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
answer

Figure 1. Percentages of teachers’ ratings of level of agreement with the statement: “My participation in formal professional development activities improved
my ability to implement research-based C/BM strategies.”
64 T. C. MOORE ET AL.
Percentage of Teachers' (N = 160) Ratings of Adequacy of Inservice Feedback
60
Related to Classroom and Behavior Management (C/BM)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 1.26
0
Not applicable or no Strongly Disagree
answer
Figure 2. Percentages of teachers’ ratings of level of agreement with the statement: “My participation in formal professional development activities improved
my ability to implement research-based C/BM strategies.”
behavior management or better support you when you are
faced with these challenges?” generated the six following
themes: 1) More Professional Development, 2) Specific
Administrative Actions Needed to Prevent and Respond to
Problems, 3) Positive Appraisal of Administrative Support/
Actions, 4) More Opportunities for Observing and Learning
from Others, 5) More General Support/Guidance, and 6)
More Resources (see Table 1 for example responses illus-
trating each theme). See Figure 3.
Of the initial disagreements in coding for 11 teachers,
most often disagreements in coding occurred when responses
were related to Specific Administrative Actions Needed to
Prevent and Respond to Problems. Specifically, for three
teacher responses, coding team members disagreed on how
to assign codes to either Specific Administrative Actions or
to “More Resources”. For example, one coder initially coded
“Removing disruptive students from the regular classroom
either by suspension [or in-school suspension]” as More
Resources, but after discussing the disagreement coders
agreed on a final Specific Administrative Actions coding.
Another common disagreement (for two teachers’ responses)
was one coder did not code multiple coded units within a
single response. For example, for two teachers, one coding
team member coded the full response as Specific
Administrative Action rather than coding short, embedded
comments about needing more training as Professional
Development. Two disagreements occurred when the two
coding team members disagreed about assigning a coded
unit to More Resources or More General Support/Guidance
(e.g., “paperwork” and “provide aides for students who need
one on one constantly…” received a final code under More
Resources rather than one coder’s initial coding of More
General Support/Guidance.
Many teachers’ responses were related to a need for more
or more frequent professional development on effective C/
BM strategies, in general, and a need for training for inten-
sive or specific behavioral problems or for specific types of
students (e.g., students with autism, students with “special
needs”, and students with emotional or behavioral problems).
Several responses indicated teachers are concerned behav-
ioral issues are a “growing problem” in their schools.
Findings highlight additional types of supports needed
by teachers. Teachers frequently identified specific admin-
istrative actions that were needed to prevent and respond
to serious problem behaviors. This included a variety of
53.46
23.90
16.35
4.40
0.63
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
things such as a desire for administrators to be consistent
and “strict” in their responses to problem behavior and
issuance of consequences for problem behaviors; a desire
for help in developing and implementing a school-wide
discipline or positive behavior plan; a desire for more
administrative support when specific problems arise (e.g.,
“we need serious back-up”, wanting to be “taken more seri-
ously”) or when student behavior is disrupting instruction
(e.g., using options to remove child from classroom); and
a desire for better administrator communication and
follow-through related to disciplinary actions.
Some teachers indicated positive appraisal of the admin-
istrative support they received. Often these responses indi-
cated feeling generally supported by their principals (e.g.,
“[our principal] has our backs when it comes to these types
of issues and dealing with parents”).
Although less frequently, teachers indicated a need for
more opportunities to observe and learn from others (e.g.,
observing teachers with strong C/BM skills, pairing new
teachers with veteran teachers), and building time and oppor-
tunities for mentoring or feedback from other teachers. Some
teachers indicated a need for more general administrative
support and guidance such as giving teachers guidance or
ideas on what to do for more serious problems, suggesting
appropriate and acceptable consequences they can use, or
just general support for teachers when needed. Finally, teach-
ers indicated needs for specific resources such as teaching
assistances trained to help with extreme problem behaviors,
smaller class sizes, time to prepare, in-school suspension class,
or better connections with social programs outside of school.
Discussion
Implications for improving inservice training and
support
Results of this study help identify specific needs and areas
for improvement in inservice training and support with the
end goal of promoting teachers’ use of effective C/BM prac-
tices to prevent and reduce problem behaviors.
Inservice professional development
Slightly over half of teachers in this sample were generally
positive in their perceptions about adequacy of inservice
 Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 65

Table 1. Themes identified from open-ended responses and example responses.

Theme Example Responses
Question: “In what ways could your school or district administrators better prepare you for challenges related to classroom and behavior management
or better support you when you are faced with these challenges?”
More Professional Development It would be helpful for more behavioral instruction and group discussions for specific behavioral problems.
More training with behavior issues since this growing problem given student population.
I feel all teachers should receive a type of autism training. We see it frequently and aren’t as educated on
how to handle those situations.
We could have an inservice day devoted to positive reinforcement.
There should be more training for dealing with children with emotional problems.
There are several children who have special needs beyond just "behavior management" issues. These are
the students who I need special training to serve adequately.
Offer more frequent behavior management professional development
Offer more [professional development] with research-based implementation ideas for management
Specific Administrative Actions Needed to I feel like we need to be consistent with each child about their behavior and follow action immediately. The
Prevent and Respond to Problems problem needs to be solved in a timely manner.
That there will be consequences if you are not doing what you are supposed to be in class. Consistency is
very important.
Administrators could be more prepared to back-up their teachers when it comes to discipline. If we get to
the point of needing to take a child to the office, we need some serious back-up and that does not always
happen.
By getting to the root of the problem and not slapping a band-aid onto it.
I think implementing a [stricter] environment would help behavior management.
A school wide plan for behavior would be beneficial. Our school does have set consequences in place, but
perhaps a positive behavior plan with a reward system could motivate some children and/or teachers
It is difficult to teach when dealing with a behavior problem. It takes instructional time. There are times
when the student may need to be removed from the classroom, so the rest of the class can be instructed.
At my particular school, there are a high number of behavior problems that they system can’t keep up and
are running out of options for the higher offenses.
Be available and supportive when a child is disruptive to the learning of the classroom
When a child returns to the classroom from the office, the office should give you feedback as to what did
the child say, did they call the parent, what should I do differently, etc.
By letting us know when a child is volatile before they come to the classroom.
I always try all of my tricks before I ask for assistance from administration. When I decide to seek
assistance I would like for my word as professional and my input on classroom situations to be taken more
seriously and action taken [quickly]. It takes too long to get help from administration, whose hands are
tied due to a long process of paper work, to get serious classroom disturbances out of the room…
Remove disruptive students from the regular education classroom either by suspension [or in-school
suspension].
Positive Appraisal of Administrative Support/ I feel my administrator supports me well.
Actions I think that my school and district administrators do an excellent job preparing me for challenges related
to classroom and behavior management.
Our principal does an excellent job at supporting us. She has our backs when it comes to these types of
issues and dealing with parents as well.
More Opportunities for Observing and I would like to visit a classroom that has excellent behavioral management to watch it in action, or have the
Learning from Others teacher with those skills work in my classroom to watch them for a lesson or day.
Time for observing classrooms that are using good classroom and behavior management strategies
New teachers have a hard time establishing good classroom management and behavior management in
their classrooms. Pairing them with a season[ed] teacher… could really help.
Real life experiences are the best, and then talk about them afterward. What you did well and what you
could have done better.
More General Support/ Support for teachers when behavior is completely out of control instead of just deal with it.
Guidance Suggest possible/acceptable consequences to assign misbehaving students
Give us some ideas on the more serious types of behavior issues.
Classroom teachers need help, guidance, and support from administrators because sometimes we are just
at a dead end and do not know what to do next in particular situation.
More Resources [Smaller class] size
They need to provide extra support in the form of assistants who are more extensively trained to help
address behavioral challenges.
We need a class and teacher for in school suspension.
It would be helpful to have more time to better prepare for all aspects of classroom and lesson
preparation.
Better relationships with social programs in the community. The programs seem to be more likely to "help"
teachers then anything in the school systems.

professional development related to C/BM. Specifically,
approximately 55% agreed or strongly agreed with the state-
ment about participation in formal professional development
activities improved their abilities to implement research-based
C/BM strategies. This highlights a promising area for
improvement, particularly in light of Ficarra and Quinn
(2014) reports that much of teachers’ knowledge about C/
BM strategies came from inservice activities as well as
Cooper and colleagues’ (2018) call for capitalizing on inser-
vice training and support to increase teachers’ use of
research-based practices. On the other hand, approximately
40% of teachers in the current sample reported neutral or
unfavorable ratings about the adequacy of formal inservice
professional development in improving their abilities to
implement research-based C/BM practices. This is somewhat
consistent with findings reported by Stough et al. (2015)
66 T. C. MOORE ET AL.
Percentages of Teachers' (N = 108) Coded Resonses
35
for Ways to Improve Inservice Training and Support
29.63
30 27.78
25
20
15
10
0
More Professional Specific
Development Administrative
Actions Needed to
Prevent and Respond
to Problems
Figure 3. Percentages of teachers’ coded responses for each identified theme for the question: “In what ways could your school or district administrators better
prepare you for challenges related to classroom and behavior management or better support you when you are faced with these challenges?”.
where 64% of teachers who had received inservice training
related to C/BM still indicated a need for additional training.
When asked ways in which their school or district
administrators could better prepare them for challenges
related to C/BM, approximately 30% of responses indicated
that they needed more professional development. In addi-
tion, teachers also indicated a need for more professional
development, learning opportunities, support, and resources
on effective C/BM strategies, in general, as well as more
targeted professional development for intensive or specific
behavioral problems or for specific types of students, includ-
ing students with autism, “special needs”, and students with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Teachers also indicated
student behavior as an increasing concern. These themes
are consistent with previous research indicating many teach-
ers want and need more inservice training specific to C/
BM (Giallo & Little, 2003), particularly to address students’
more serious problem behaviors (Stough et al., 2015) by
using more intensive research-based intervention strategies
(Ficarra & Quinn, 2014; Moore et al., 2017; Reupert &
Woodcock, 2010; Shook, 2012). Our recommendation is that
school and district leaders ensure trainings are centered on
research-based strategies and are designed to address “real”
and specific classroom problems. It may be helpful to center
professional development around specific cases or actual
problems as they arise. We also encourage partnerships with
state education agencies, technical assistance providers, or
universities to identify professional development resources
which are focused on comprehensive strategies that are sup-
ported by research.
Administrator feedback and support
An even higher percentage of teachers (approximately 77%)
agreed or strongly agreed and the statement about receiving
adequate feedback from their school supervisor(s) on their
use of C/BM strategies whereas only approximately 21%
indicated neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree with ade-
quacy of administrator feedback. Relatively speaking, these
ratings are quite favorable. This finding is particularly note-
worthy: school administrators (such as principals or curric-
ulum/instructional coaches) are likely an important agent
19.44
10.19
8.33
7.41
Positive Appraisal of More Opportunities More General More Resources
Administrative for Observing and Support/Guidance
Support/Actions Learning from
Others
in improving and supporting teachers’ use of effective C/
BM practices. We encourage school leaders to find ways to
design coaching and feedback activities specific to
research-based strategies. Of course, an important prereq-
uisite is to ensure that school administrators are knowledge-
able about these strategies.
When we asked about ways their school or district
administrators could better prepare or support them for
challenges related to C/BM, many teachers indicated specific
administrative actions needed to prevent and respond to
problems. These included responses such as desires for their
administrators to be strict and consistent in consequences
for problem behavior, for administrators to help in devel-
oping a school-wide approach to behavior, for administrators
to provide more administrative support and options for
specific and serious problems, and for better administrator
communication and follow-through related to disciplinary
actions. Additional themes identified focused on teachers’
desire for more general support and guidance from admin-
istrators and for more resources to help them deal with
serious problems. In contrast, teachers who provided positive
appraisals about their school administrators indicated feeling
generally supported by their teachers (e.g., feeling that their
principal “has [their] backs”). Finally, teachers indicated a
need for more opportunities to observe and learn from
others (e.g., observing teachers with strong C/BM skills,
pairing new teachers with veteran teachers), and building
time and opportunities for mentoring or feedback from
other teachers.
We recommend school administrators consider these
themes while working with teachers to address approaches
for preventing problem behaviors (e.g., establishing and sup-
porting effective prevention practices at the classroom and
school level) and to address specific problems as they arise.
Most importantly, we encourage school administrators to
continue to expand their knowledge of research-based C/
BM practices to enhance their abilities to promote
system-level improvements that will be beneficial to teachers
and their students. This may include ensuring all teachers
and teacher leaders at their school are knowledgeable of
continuums of research-based strategies, providing logistical,
 Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth
financial, personnel resources to support implementation of
effective intensive interventions, and providing meaningful
and effective professional development activities (including
training, coaching, etc.) to promote teachers’ use of effective
practices to prevent and reduce problem behaviors. We
encourage administrators to seek out partnerships with state
education agencies, technical assistance providers, or uni-
versities to help identify resources for supporting teachers’
knowledge and use of research-based C/BM strategies.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study including the
following. First, these findings only represent a sample of
teachers from each district, and not all invited teachers
chose to participate. This may limit representativeness of
findings. Second, findings are drawn from only a small
number of survey items. Certainly, there are several other
important aspects related to teacher training and support
that were not addressed in this study or by the survey items.
Third, the open-ended question was posed via an online
survey format, which likely limited teachers’ responses.
Further research could improve this by incorporating addi-
tional research methods (e.g., advanced qualitative analysis
of focus groups or interviews) to gather more detailed and
focused information.
Directions for future research
Future research is needed to address these limitations and
extend our knowledge about inservice professional develop-
ment and administrator support to specifically improve
teachers’ implementation of C/BM practices which are sup-
ported by research. In particular, our results indicate that
a sizable portion (40%) of teachers in our study were neutral
or unfavorable about the professional development they
received related to C/BM, many specifically wanted more
professional development and support related to preventative
C/BM as well as intervention approaches for more prob-
lematic behaviors, and that student behavior continues to
be an area of concern for many teachers. This, of course,
indicates there is still work to be done in our efforts to
provide effective inservice professional development to sup-
port teachers to implement strategies which are meaningful
and appropriate for their day-to-day classroom realities.
Experts in research-based C/BM practices should continue
to work toward validating effective inservice professional
development activities which are geared toward developing
teachers’ abilities to select and implement research-based
strategies to not only prevent problem behaviors but to also
respond to more serious behavioral problems. Certainly,
some of this validation research has been conducted and in
particular with more prevention-focused C/BM strategies
(e.g., Hirsch et al., 2019; Simonsen et al., 2020). However,
beyond validating effective professional development,
research is also needed to explore ways to efficiently and
seamlessly bring effective professional development activities
to scale (i.e., outside of typical research situations) and to
67
address more serious problems facing many classroom teach-
ers. This may include research on and development of
readily-accessible training content, materials, and supportive
resources which include training components found to be
effective in increasing teachers’ ability to demonstrate prac-
tices (e.g., providing demonstrations of practices in training
and providing opportunities for teacher to practice and
receive feedback in training; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Based
on our participating teachers’ responses, we would encourage
professional development researchers to solicit teacher feed-
back on the training content’s relevance to their own class-
rooms; in this way, researchers can refine professional
development content to better meet the needs of today’s
classrooms. Many teachers in our study expressed the need
for targeted professional development, learning opportuni-
ties, support, and resources to help them respond to inten-
sive or specific behavior problems and to help them support
specific types of students with disabilities or unique behav-
ioral needs; future research is needed to validate and trans-
late professional development in this area, in particular. Of
utmost importance, content for professional development
training should focus on C/BM practices which are sup-
ported by research and which match classroom contex-
tual needs.
Beyond developing and demonstrating the effectiveness
of training events, results from Joyce and Showers (2002)
meta-analysis highlight the importance of providing coach-
ing and feedback in teachers’ classrooms to increase their
use of teaching practices which are taught, modeled, and
practice in professional development training. Mitchell et al.
(2017) explain effective coaching complements training to
enhance teachers’ ability to adopt and implement
newly-learned effective C/BM practices with fidelity and in
an accurate, fluent, and contextually-appropriate manner; to
support sustained implementation of these practices over
time; and to support teachers to select appropriate adapta-
tions to research-based C/BM practices to best meet the
needs of their class. We see school administrators, who are
already available and leading instruction, as the essential
conduit for continuing inservice professional development
and support beyond formal training events. These school
leaders already work closely with teachers to develop their
instructional practice. In fact, teachers included in this study
already received frequent formal teaching observations and
feedback from their administrators throughout the year as
required by the state department of education. The results
of our study illuminate the importance of school adminis-
trators’ feedback in supporting teachers’ effective C/BM with
77% of teachers reporting they receive adequate feedback
from their administrator on their use of research-based C/
BM. Nevertheless, sizable portions of teachers in this study
also reported they needed more professional development,
in general, and many noted they needed help to address
very problematic behaviors. Several teachers’ responses indi-
cated a desire for increased support to provide consequences
and disciplinary actions for problem behaviors, and certainly,
preserving safety and productiveness is an important role
of the school administrator. However, we encourage research
toward capitalizing on school administrators as leaders and
68 T. C. MOORE ET AL.
coaches to develop teachers’ abilities to more effectively
respond to problem behaviors to supplement their disci-
plinary roles.
We would like to see purposeful and focused lines of
research to explore and test effective school administrators’
leadership actions aimed at support teachers skillful and
purposeful use of C/BM practices which are supported by
research. These lines of research could include: examining
and increasing administrators’ knowledge, skills, and
self-efficacy related to research-based C/BM strategies; iden-
tifying and refining administrator coaching and feedback
protocols and actions specifically related to C/BM imple-
mentation and adaptation; and identifying effective compo-
nents for scalable teacher-to-teacher structured learning
opportunities which can be fostered by school leaders. In
sum, we hope research will help us understand how best
to bring to scale effective administrator practices and inser-
vice professional development aimed specifically at devel-
oping and supporting teachers’ use of these research-based
practices to respond to problems they encounter in their
classrooms. Notably, we encourage researchers to focus not
only on research-based C/BM prevention practices but also
on more intensive intervention approaches to support stu-
dents with disabilities as well as students who exhibit
severely challenging behaviors and in general education and
special education settings.
ORCID
Jason Chow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2878-7410
References
Albright, J. L., Safer, L. A., Sims, P. A., Tagaris, A., Glasgo, D., Sekulich,
K. M., & Zaharis, M. C. (2017). What factors impact why novice
middle school teachers in a large Midwestern urban school district
leave after their initial year of teaching. NCPEA International Journal
of Educational Leadership Preparation, 12(1), 53–68. http://www.
ncpeapublications.org/attachments/article/734/IJELP%20Volume%20
12,%20Number%201%20(Spring%202017).pdf#page=57
Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teach-
ers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33,
51–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064554
Bambara, L. M., Goh, A., Kern, L., & Caskie, G. (2012). Perceived
barriers and enablers to implementing individualized positive be-
havior interventions and supports in school settings. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(4), 228–240. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300712437219
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O'Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova,
M. (2013). Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspec-
tives on bullying and prevention: Findings from a National Education
Association study. School Psychology Review, 42(3), 280–297. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087474
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.
1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher
burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999).
A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and
inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143–156. https://doi.
org/10.1080/103491299100597
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of
evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The
Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3–11. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022466908315563
Coggshall, J. G., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D. J. (2012). Evaluating the
effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for support and account-
ability. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543773.pdf
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
response rates in web- and internet-based surveys. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00131640021970934
Cooper, J. T., Gage, N. A., Alter, P. J., LaPolla, S., MacSuga-Gage, A.
S., & Scott, T. M. (2018). Educators’ self-reported training, use, and
perceived effectiveness of evidence-based classroom management
practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 62(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/104598
8X.2017.1298562
Draugalis, J. R., Coons, S. J., & Plaza, C. M. (2008). Best practices for
survey research reports: A synopsis for authors and reviewers.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(1), 11–16. https://
doi.org/10.5688/aj720111
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Sénécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting in-
traindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived
school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(4), 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.
11.013
Ficarra, L., & Quinn, K. (2014). Teachers’ facility with evidence-based
classroom management practices: An investigation of teachers’
preparation programmes and inservice conditions. Journal of Teacher
Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.2478/
jtes-2014-0012
Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., & Haring, C. D. (2017). Behavior and
classroom management: Are teacher preparation programs really
preparing our teachers? Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 61(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/1045988X.2016.1231109
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2014).
Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of
state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 37(2),
106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413507002
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behavior problems: The re-
lationship between preparedness, classroom experiences, and
self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers. Australian Journal of
Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–34. http://www.
newcastle.edu.au/journal/ajedp/
Greenberg, J., Putnam, H., & Walsh, K. (2014). Training our future
teachers: Classroom management. Revised National Council on
Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556312.pdf
Hirsch, S. E., Lloyd, J. W., & Kennedy, M. J. (2019). Professional
development in practice: Improving novice teachers’ use of univer-
sal classroom management. The Elementary School Journal, 120(1),
61–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/704492
Hong, J. Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school,
and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psycho-
logical lenses. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(4),
417–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.696044
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the
teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff
development (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kennedy, M. J., Hirsch, S. E., Rodgers, W. J., Bruce, A., & Lloyd, J.
W. (2017). Supporting high school teachers’ implementation of
evidence-based classroom management practices. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 63, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.009
 Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth
Kramer, M., Schmalenberg, C., Brewer, B. B., Verran, J. A., &
Keller-Unger, J. (2009). Accurate assessment of clinical nurses’ work
environments: Response rate needed. Research in Nursing & Health,
32(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20315
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy
in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors,
and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict
teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4),
546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003
McKenna, J. W., Newton, X., Brigham, F., & Garwood, J. (2022).
Inclusive instruction for students with emotional disturbance: An
investigation of classroom practice. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 30(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/
106342662098260
Meister, D. G., & Jenks, C. (2000). Making the transition from
pre-service to inservice teaching: Beginning teachers’ reflections.
Action in Teacher Education, 22(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
1626620.2000.10463014
Meister, D. G., & Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher study:
Beginning teachers’ concerns. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4),
87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2003.10463283
Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning
and experienced teachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly,
31(3), 40–56.
Mireles-Rios, R., Becchio, J. A., & Roshandel, S. (2019). Teacher eval-
uations and contextualized self-efficacy: Classroom management,
instructional strategies and student engagement. Journal of School
Administration Research and Development, 4(1), 6–17. https://doi.
org/10.32674/jsard.v4i1.1938
Mitchell, B. S., Hirn, R. G., & Lewis, T. J. (2017). Enhancing effective
classroom management in schools: Structures for changing teacher
behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of
the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children, 40(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417
700961
Moore, T. C., Wehby, J. H., Oliver, R. M., Chow, J. C., Gordon, J. R.,
& Mahany, L. A. (2017). Teachers’ reported knowledge and imple-
mentation of research-based classroom and behavior management
69
strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 222–232. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0741932516683631
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management
coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness
or confidence? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1131–1143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher prepa-
ration in classroom management: Implications for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3),
188–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291003500301
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses:
Pre-service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various class-
room management strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6),
1261–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.003
Shook, A. C. (2012). A study of pre-service educators’ dispositions to
change behavior management strategies. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 129–136. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.606440
Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Myers, D., Dooley, K., Maddock, E., Kern,
L., & Byun, S. (2020). The effects of targeted professional develop-
ment on teachers’ use of empirically supported classroom manage-
ment practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(1),
3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719859615
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teach-
er burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Stough, L. M., Montague, M. L., Landmark, L. J., & Williams-Diehm,
K. (2015). Persistent classroom management training needs of ex-
perienced teachers. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 15(5), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i5.13784
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., &
Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers’
perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaustion: The im-
portance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation.
Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410903494460