research study about classroom management

Professional Learning and Development in Classroom Management for Novice Teachers: A Systematic Review

• Published: 27 August 2021
• Volume 44 , pages 291–307, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Shanna E. Hirsch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-9338 1 ,
• Kristina Randall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7868-6549 2 ,
• Catherine Bradshaw 3 &
• John Wills Lloyd   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2597-6216 4  

1359 Accesses

6 Citations

Explore all metrics

There is a growing awareness that novice teachers in particular are in need of support and additional professional learning and development (PLD), especially in the area of classroom management. Yet there is limited information regarding effective approaches for building novice teachers’ skills related to classroom management. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of experimental studies related to novice teacher PLD in classroom management. We identified eight original experimental peer-reviewed studies published. We explored the research base, applying the Council for Exceptional Children Quality Indicators and coding studies to identify elements of practice-based professional development. Together, the available studies suggested that providing PLD increases classroom management practices while increasing student engagement. We discuss the implications of this review and conclude with implications for practice and future research related to novice teacher PLD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

An Expert Teacher’s Use of Teaching with Variation to Support a Junior Mathematics Teacher’s Professional Learning

Unpacking Teacher Quality: Key Issues for Early Career Teachers

A Collaborative Classroom-Based Teacher Professional Learning Model

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). Jossey.

Bateman, B. D. (2007). Elements of teaching: A best practices handbook for beginning teachers. Attainment.

Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21 , 262–285.

Article   Google Scholar  

Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special Education Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 89 (5), 697–744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495 .

*Briere, D. E., Simonsen, B., Sugai, G., & Myers, D. (2015). Increasing new teachers’ specific praise rates using a within-school consultation intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713497098

Browers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 , 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8

Boardman, A. G., Arguelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teacher’s views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39 , 168–180.

Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. Mathematics Education, 43 , 175–187.

Google Scholar  

Bowsher, A., Sparks, D., & Hoyer, K. M. (2018). Preparation and support for teachers in public schools: Reflections on the first years of teaching (NCES 2018-143). Stats in Brief, U.S. Department of Education.

Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43 , 3–11.

Conroy, M. A., & Sutherland, K. S. (2012). Effective teachers for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Active ingredients leading to positive teacher and student outcomes. Beyond Behavior, 22 (1), 7–13.

Cook, B. G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T. J., McWilliam, R. A., Tankersley, M., & Test, D. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36 , 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271 .

Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence-based practices in special education .

Council for Exceptional Children: Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. (2014). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46 (6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development . Learning Policy Institute.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council. http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.PLDf

*Dicke, T., Elling, J., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013

Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Josephine County Mental Health Program.

Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (2008). Classroom management for middle and high school teachers (with MyEducationLab) (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/long-view

*Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protégés’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294-304.

Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., Rebelo, J. A., Damiao, M. H., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2014). Professional development in self-regulated strategy development: Effects on the writing performance of eighth grade Portuguese students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40 , 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.004 .

Fischer, S. H., Rose, A. J., McBain, R. K., Faherty, L. J., Sousa, J., & Martineau, M. (2019). Evaluation of technology-enabled collaborative learning and capacity building models: Material for a report to Congress . RAND Corporation.

Fixsen, D. L., & Paine, S. (2009). Implementation: Promising practices to sustained results (Sustainability Series No. 5) . RMC Research Corporation.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, The National Implementation Research Network. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRNMonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: a multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 , 219–232.

Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D., & MacSuga-Gage, A. M. (2014). Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37 (2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413507002 .

*Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). Professional development for teacher behavior specific praise: A single-case design replication. Psychology in the Schools, 55 , 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22106

*Gage, N. A., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Crews, E. (2017). Increasing teachers’ use of behavior specific praise using a multi-tiered system for professional development. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19 , 239-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693568

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 , 149–164.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 , 466–476.

Goodson, B., Caswell, L., Dynarski, M., Price, C., Litwok, D., Crowe, E., Meyer, R., & Rice, A. (2019). Teacher preparation experiences and early teaching effectiveness: Executive summary (NCEE 2019-4010). In National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance . U.S. Department of Education.

Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76 , 173–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002173 .

Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Practice-based professional development for self-regulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63 , 103–119.

Herro, D., Hirsch, S. E., & Quigley, C. (2019). Faculty-in-Residence program: Enacting practice-based professional development in a STEAM-focused middle school. Professional Development in Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1702579 .

*Hirsch, S. E., Lloyd, J. W., & Kennedy, M. J. (2019). Professional development in practice: Improving novice teachers’ use of universal classroom management practices. Elementary School Journal, 120 , 61-87. https://doi.org/10.1086/704492

Hirsch, S. E., Randall, T., Common, E., & Lane, K. L. (2020). Results of practice-based professional development for supporting special educators in learning how to design functional assessment-based interventions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43 (4), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419876926 .

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 , 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429005 .

Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us. Phi Delta Kappa, 93 , 47–51.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force, uPLDated April 2014. CPRE Report (#RR-80). Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., & Collins, G. (2018). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force, uPLDated October 2018. Research Report (# R.R. 2018–2). Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. M. (2003, May). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 30–33.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. In B. Joyce & B. Showers (Eds.), Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for learning, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

King, S., Davidson, K., Chitiyo, A., & Apple, D. (2020). Evaluating article search and selection procedures in special education literature reviews. Remedial and Special Education, 41 (1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518813142 .

Landrum, T. J., Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2007). Teacher perceptions of the usability of intervention information from personal versus data-based sources. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (4), 27–42.

Lane, K. L., Common, E. A., Royer, D. J., & Muller, K. (2014). Group comparison and single-case research design quality indicator matrix using Council for Exceptional Children 2014 standards. Unpublished tool. Retrieved from http://www.ci3t.org/practice

Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Powers, L., Diebold, T., Germer, K., Common, E. A., & Brunsting, N. (2015). Improving teachers’ knowledge of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes of a professional development series. Education and Treatment of Children, 38 , 93–120.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31 (6), 1–24.

Lewis, R., Roache, J., & Romi, S. (2011). Coping styles as mediators of teachers’ classroom management techniques. Research in Education, 85 , 53–68.

Leko, M. M., & Brownell, M. T. (2009). Crafting quality professional development for special educators: What school leaders should know. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42 (1), 64–70.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1999). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.

Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). CEP Press.

Maggin, D. M., Talbott, E., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 42 , 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688653 .

Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology Research and Practice., 16 , 191.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action . ASCD.

McCarthy, C. J., Lineback, S., & Reiser, J. (2015). Teacher stress, emotion, and classroom management. In E. T. Emmer & E. J. Sabornie (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management (2nd ed., pp. 301-321). Routledge.

MetLife Inc. (2013). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership. https://www.metlife.com/content/dam/microsites/about/corporate-profile/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.PLDf

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 , Article 1.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Schools and Staffing Survey. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/

Office of Special Education Programs. (2015). Supporting and responding to student behavior: Evidence-based classroom strategies for teachers. Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/resources/supporting-and-responding-to-behavior-evidence-based-classroom-strategies-for-teachers

Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation and professional development. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543769.PLDf .

Pogodzinski, B., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. A. (2013). Collegial climate and novice teachers’ intent to remain teaching. American Journal of Education, 120 , 27–54.

*Rathel, J. M., Drasgow, E., Brown, W. H., & Marshall, K. J. (2014). Increasing induction-level teachers’ positive-to-negative communication ratio and use of behavior-specific praise through e-mailed performance feedback and its effect on students’ task engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 16 , 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713492856

Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Sprick, R. (2011). Motivational interviewing for effective classroom management: The classroom check-up. Guilford Press.

Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Wachsmuth, S., & Newcomer, L. (2015). The Brief Classroom Interaction Observation –Revised: An observation system to inform and increase teacher use of universal classroom management practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 17 , 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715570640 .

Root-Elledge, S., Hardesty, C., Hidecker, M. J. C., Bowser, G., Leki, E., Wagner, S., & Moody, E. (2018). The ECHO model for enhancing assistive technology implementation in schools. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 12 , 37–55.

Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., & Common, E. A. (2017). Group comparison and single-case research design quality indicator matrix using Council for Exceptional Children 2014 standards: Standards overview and walk-through guide . Unpublished tool. Retrieved from https://www.ci3t.org/practice

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31 , 351 – 380 .

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41 , 681–714.

Stallion, B. K., & Zimpher, N. L. (1991). Classroom management intervention: The effects of training and mentoring on the inductee teacher’s behavior. Action in Teacher Education, 13 , 42–50.

Stevenson, N. A., VanLone, J., & Barber, B. R. (2020). A commentary on the misalignment of teacher education and the need for classroom behavior management skills. Education and Treatment of Children . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00031-1 .

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implict technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10 , 349–367.

Stough, L. A., & Montague, M. L. (2015). How teachers learn to be classroom managers. In E. T. Emmer & E. J. Sabornie (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management (2nd ed., pp. 446-458). Routledge.

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.

Sutton, R., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Knight, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation and classroom management. Theory into Practice, 38 , 130–137.

*Tolan, P., Elreda L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., Downer, J. T., & Ialongo, N. (2020). Randomized trial testing the integration of the Good Behavior Game and MyTeachingPartner TM :The moderating role of distress among new teachers on student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 78 , 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.12.002

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 , 944–956.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2009). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges . National Staff Development Council.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 200 No. 033). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Education and Human Development, Clemson University, 228 Holtzendorff Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

Shanna E. Hirsch

Department of Human Performance and Health, University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, SC, USA

Kristina Randall

Department of Human Services, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Catherine Bradshaw

Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

John Wills Lloyd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shanna E. Hirsch .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Code availability

Not applicable

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hirsch, S.E., Randall, K., Bradshaw, C. et al. Professional Learning and Development in Classroom Management for Novice Teachers: A Systematic Review. Educ. Treat. Child. 44 , 291–307 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00042-6

Download citation

Accepted : 30 May 2021

Published : 27 August 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00042-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• behavior management
• classroom management
• new teacher
• novice teacher
• professional development
• quality indicators
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, teachers’ perceptions of their role and classroom management practices in a technology rich primary school classroom.

• 1 Department of Education and Sports Science, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
• 2 Department of Education, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

This case study investigates primary school teachers’ perceptions of their role and practices regarding classroom management in technology-rich classrooms. The data was collected through individual and focus group interviews, observation and a survey at a school where implementation of digital technologies has been a high priority over several years. The study identifies complexity and contemporary elements in teachers’ perceived role and practices, as the rapid evolution of ICT requires teachers to constantly keep up-to-date, gain new competencies and evaluate their practices to be able to facilitate learning in physical classrooms that have expanded to the digital space. In this process, the role of leadership, collegial collaboration, good teacher-pupil relationships and teachers’ ability to adapt and take up a role of a learner have been found pivotal.

Introduction

Digitalization has advanced in leaps in Norwegian schools, and pupils’ and teachers’ personal digital devices have become standard pieces of equipment in the majority of classrooms, including primary education ( Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ). This consequently sets new demands to effective classroom management ( Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ; Ministry of Education and Research, 2017 ). Traditionally, the purpose of classroom management has been establishing a safe, supportive and orderly environment to optimize opportunities for learning and social, emotional and moral growth ( Evertson and Weinstein, 2006 ; Wubbels, 2011 ). While the definition of classroom management itself is still valid, the rapid development in digitalization at all levels of schooling forces us to reconsider the means to reach its goals. Research shows that in general, teachers have expressed insufficient pedagogical digital competence and fear of losing control when digital technologies have been introduced and implemented ( Krumsvik et al., 2013 , 2016 ; Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ; Moltudal et al., 2019 ). However, a synthesis of Cho et al. (2020) finds some positive features and implications in both abovementioned areas, in using digital technologies to aid in classroom management, as well as in understanding the role of digital technologies in the overall flow of classroom practices ( Cho et al., 2020 ). Schools have for example implemented applications that focus on pupil behavior and employed virtual platforms for a variety of classroom management tasks ( Pas et al., 2016 ; Sanchez et al., 2017 ; Cho et al., 2020 ). Overall, there is still little research documenting how introducing digital resources actually influences classroom management in primary school level ( Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ; Cho et al., 2020 ).

The aim of this article is to position the study toward the current state of knowledge, as well as to contribute toward increasing this knowledge base on how teachers perceive their role regarding classroom management in learning environments that are characterized by frequent access and use of digital technologies, and how they practice this role in their everyday classroom management. The context for the case study is particularly related to Norwegian primary schools, and the data was collected in a school that could be defined as a leading-edge school ( Schofield, 1995 ) due to its notable investments in pioneering in ICT implementation. The article examines the following research question:

How does the use of digital technologies influence teachers’ perceptions of their role and practices in terms of classroom management in a technology-rich primary school classroom?

Norwegian Context

In Norway, primary school is divided between lower primary school (ages 6-9, grades 1-4) and upper primary school (ages 10-12, grades 5-7). Norwegian teachers enjoy a significant amount of autonomy compared to their colleagues in many other countries and as a rule, have a fair amount of influence regarding their pedagogical work. The national curriculum (known as LK20) allows a wide spectrum of methods and teaching strategies, while highlighting the importance of educating digitally competent citizens ( Ministry of Education and Research, 2019 ). Teachers and pupils in Norwegian schools have a good access to educational technology, such as one-on-one digital devices, projectors and digital whiteboards ( Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ), and competence in classroom management in technology-rich learning environments has been named as one of the central aspects in the national digitalization strategy for Norwegian schools ( Ministry of Education and Research, 2017 ).

For instance, Blikstad-Balas (2012) , Krumsvik et al. (2013) , Krumsvik (2014) , Fjørtoft et al. (2019) have cast light on the impact of digital technologies to teachers’ role and classroom management practices in secondary education. Some of the main findings are that teachers and school leaders both fear and experience that use of technology causes distractions, and that a large body of pupils do not use technology as instructed. Teachers have expressed doubts regarding their pupils’ maturity to demonstrate an adequate amount of self-regulation and responsibility when the temptations of digital devices are constantly within the reach, but it has been argued that many of such issues could be resolved by better competence in classroom management ( Krumsvik et al., 2013 ). Although several Norwegian studies have examined the relationship between digitalization and classroom disruptions, a recent systematic review shows that this topic has received little attention internationally ( Meinokat and Wagner, 2021 ). Studies also show that while the access to and the use of digital technologies has increased significantly during the past years, there is still great variation in digital practices within and between Norwegian schools ( Krumsvik et al., 2016 ; Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ). National studies and international comparison indicate that in spite of teachers’ positive attitudes and good access to digital technologies, the use of ICT in Norwegian schools has been generally rather mediocre ( Ottestad et al., 2013 ; Throndsen and Hatlevik, 2015 ; Blikstad-Balas and Klette, 2020 ).

Teacher’s Role and Classroom Management

For a long time, classroom management has been considered as one of the teacher’s basic tasks, and in several studies classroom management has been found to be a key predictor of student success ( Hattie, 2009 ; Marquez et al., 2016 ). While traditional classrooms tend to be rather teacher-centered, a technology-rich learning environment requires a paradigm shift toward a more constructivist approach where technology is no longer treated as a mere tool but viewed more holistically in regards to its potential and influence in classroom dynamics and culture ( Säljö, 2010 ; Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ). What separates classroom management in elementary grades from classroom management in secondary level is that everything blends with everything: academic, social, emotional and behavioral aspects merge in such manner that individual achievements are often a result of all of the above, rather than a consequence from formal instruction ( Carter and Doyle, 2006 ). Research has also found that quality classroom management has a stronger footing in primary education, and as pupils get older, teachers have a tendency to assume less need for classroom management or focus on subject-related curriculums and educational goals, at the expense of classroom management ( Beijaard et al., 2000 ; Bru, 2013 ; Kalin et al., 2017 ).

Carter and Doyle (2006) divide classroom management in elementary level in two main strands: firstly, classroom management has emphasis on procedures (methods, techniques, skills and cognitions) that contribute toward an orderly learning environment by capturing pupils’ attention, engagement and focus, in order to allow and execute curricular activities. Secondly, there are the consequences of how classrooms are being managed. This strand consists of the moral and emotional aspect of classroom management, and the outcomes of interacting with children in a school setting. Powell et al. (2001) call this the social curriculum of a classroom. This aspect has been considered to be particularly important in successful classroom management ( Korpershoek et al., 2016 ). Researchers argue that authoritative teachers focusing on positive behavior support are more successful in the prevention of unwanted behavior than those employing reactive strategies and attributing problems to external factors ( Alter and Haydon, 2017 ; Hepburn and Beamish, 2019 ). It is noteworthy that positive behavior support does not rule out negative consequences, as long as they are a logical fit for the rule, and it can be argued that teaching rules with clear positive and negative consequences can be an effective strategy when managing a primary school classroom ( Alter and Haydon, 2017 ).

Teachers and researchers worldwide generally agree that the march of digital technologies has a major influence on teachers’ role in a classroom, and the rapid changes in digital technologies force teachers to adopt a dynamic role where they keep themselves up-to-date regarding new educational technologies ( Albion et al., 2015 ; Martin et al., 2016 ). As the emphasis in the more contemporary way of viewing classroom management is more constructivist and less teacher-centered, it has a direct influence on teachers’ role in the classroom: teachers are urged to become facilitators of learning rather than just transmit knowledge, as well as initiate, guide and influence the way their pupils think about learning ( Beijaard et al., 2000 ). In fact, in order to succeed with digital technologies, teachers themselves should be open to become learners themselves, take some risks, adopt a somewhat playful and curious attitude toward using educational technologies and continuously reflect on the learning and new practices in their professional community ( Desimone, 2009 ). This type of cognitive playfulness, as defined by Webster and Martocchio (1992) , Goodwin et al. (2015) , is a set of personality traits, affective styles and motivational orientations, which often occur spontaneously in an inventive and imaginary way and has been found to have a positive influence in perceived importance of ICT and sense of competence.

Teacher’s Professional Digital Competence and Classroom Management

There have been many attempts to create a framework that explains, defines or facilitates teacher’s pedagogical digital competence, such as TPACK ( Mishra and Koehler, 2006 ), SAMR ( Puentedura, 2015 ), and DigCompEdu ( Punie and Redecker, 2017 ); however, these models offer little concrete recommendations and guidelines for defining and developing teacher’s professional digital competence (PDC) and can therefore be seen as quite generic ( Hjukse et al., 2020 ). Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers framework, developed by Kelentrić et al. (2017) for The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education, was launched by the Norwegian Directory of Education and Training and was chosen to frame this study due to its relevance to the context and design that has targeted primary and secondary education in particular. This PDC framework is divided into seven different categories: Subjects and basic skills, School in society, Ethics, Pedagogy and subject didactics, Leadership of learning processes, Interaction and communication , and Change and development . Particularly the category leadership of learning processes offers relevant outlines to classroom management in a technology rich classroom.

“A professional, digitally competent teacher possesses the competence to guide learning work in a digital environment. This entails understanding and managing how this environment is constantly changing, and challenging the role of the teacher. The teacher makes use of the opportunities inherent in digital resources in order to develop a constructive and inclusive learning environment—” ( Kelentrić et al., 2017 , p.8).

When discussing teachers’ pedagogical digital competence, it is noteworthy to point out that the term is more than a compilation of technical skills and knowledge. Krumsvik (2011) has defined teacher’s digital competence as their proficiency in using ICT in school with good pedagogical judgment and with their awareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of their pupils. Based on this definition, Krumsvik and colleagues found a significant correlation between teachers’ classroom management and their digital competence ( Krumsvik et al., 2013 ). Recent trends in research indicate that in a broader context, teachers should view digital technologies not only as tools but artifacts, which act as cultural extensions and reflect how knowledge and social aspects of our lives are organized and presented in our society ( Säljö, 2010 ; Lund et al., 2014 ). In other words, a teacher with pedagogical digital competence sees technology as a more comprehensive concept than just a collection of applications, software and devices, and understands how a digital culture in 21st century schools and society influences their role and everyday practices beyond the tool-value of technologies. It is not unusual that variety in teachers’ PDC – and their willingness to use technology to facilitate learning – has led to a variety of different classroom practices, which in a broader context could even widen the gap between practices ( Moltudal et al., 2019 ). Therefore, to support a cohesive development of pedagogical competence and practices, school leaders should, through support and supervision, shift the teachers’ focus from their individual motives and preferences to a mutual goal, and create a supportive, motivating community ( Phelps and Graham, 2014 ).

Case Study Design

This article examines teachers’ perceptions of their role and practices regarding classroom management in technology-rich classrooms The data draws from a more comprehensive case study, with the aim of generating a holistic picture of how the teachers generally perceive their role in a technology-rich primary school environment, and how using technology has influenced their perceived classroom management practices. The study follows the principles of an intrinsic case study design, as defined by Stake (1995) , with its focus on empirical, descriptive and interpretive knowledge of that one particular case. The complexity of the phenomenon advised a qualitatively driven mixed methods study, where the data was collected cumulatively by employing individual interviews, observation, focus group interviews and a survey. Triangulation of qualitative data was used to increase validity and reliability when analyzing and interpreting the results. This article has a focus on teachers’ own perceptions; therefore the main sources of data for this paper are the interviews and the survey, while observation findings have a more supplementary role in providing examples and adding in-depth information to interview results.

Context and Participants

Due to the nature of this case study, it served the purpose to apply the principles of purposeful sampling ( Bryman, 2016 ; Creswell and Guetterman, 2021 ). The data was collected in a Norwegian primary school where PDC training of the staff and ICT implementation have a high priority. The school has made significant investments in utilizing digital technologies in a best possible way; thus, a social constructivist approach highlighting the interaction between individual experiences, ideas and environment was considered a relevant epistemological standpoint. Seven teachers on two different grade levels were first interviewed individually and then observed. Focus group interviews rounded the qualitative data collection, and the same seven teachers were then interviewed in their respective grade level teams. The survey was sent to all teachers teaching in the school after a thorough analysis of interview and observation data, and all 19 teachers working at the time submitted their answers, as well as one informant with a combined role as a teacher and administrator. The participants had been working in primary and lower secondary education for varying lengths of time: their seniority ranged from 3 to 27 years, with the median value of 14.

Instruments

Seven one-on-one interviews were chosen to start the data collection process, to map out how the teachers themselves perceived their role and changes in their classroom management practices. An abductive approach in their interviews enabled a semi-structured interview design where the interviewer was able to collect data about some of the preselected topics, while also enabling elaboration and ranging out when the interviewees brought up other perspectives. One of the well-known disadvantages of individual interviews ( Creswell and Guetterman, 2021 ) is that the informants can present somewhat deceptive data by answering based on their assumptions about what the interviewer wants to hear. To address this disadvantage, the interviewees were observed for a duration of four weeks (56 observed lessons, 3515 min in total) after the individual interviews had been conducted. Observation data has also been used to exemplify and to get a more in-depth understanding of the information the participants provided in the interviews. The observation part was based on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2015) checklist of elements important for observation (1) the physical settings, (2) the participants, (3) activities and interactions, (4) conversation, (5) subtle factors, and (6) the researchers’ own behavior.

Two focus group interviews were carried out after the observation period, mainly for two purposes. Firstly, they were executed to gain more in-depth information and understanding of the individual interview and observation data. The same participants who were interviewed individually, and thereafter observed in action, were also interviewed in groups. A semi-structured interview guide was developed in line with the conceptual framework and tentative analysis of the one-on-one interviews and observation data. Focus group approach was considered relevant, as talking to the teachers as a group allowed them to challenge and elaborate on each other’s answers, as well as help the researcher understand how they collectively made sense of their role and classroom management practices in a technology-rich classroom ( Bryman, 2016 ). Focus group interviews also helped avoid misinterpretations and validate previously collected data. The second purpose for focus group interviews was to gain some information regarding the school’s resources and philosophy regarding technology, teaching and learning in general. This third focus group interview was carried out with the school’s development team (three members of the school leadership and a teacher member). Also in this interview, it was of interest to find out how individuals discuss the matter as a group, building out an understanding from the interaction between the members of the group ( Bryman, 2016 ).

The survey was based on an analysis of the interview and observation data and took place approximately 9 months after the focus interviews. The purpose of the survey was to verify interpretations of the qualitative data and to obtain a more representative sample of the qualitative data ( Maxwell, 2010 ; Hesse-Biber et al., 2015 ). In addition, the intention with the survey was to identify and check for diversity vs. uniformity in the data material, in order to avoid the claim of cherrypicked data for only supporting certain interpretations ( Maxwell, 2009 ). The survey consisted of 56 questions. Five of these questions were administered to gain more knowledge about the participant demographics, and nine of the questions were open-ended, allowing the informants to comment freely or complement their other answers. The main part of the questionnaire consisted of 42 questions where the informants reflected on their personal beliefs, experiences and practices in regards to education and technology. They used two different scales to provide their answers: one to express their personal beliefs, and another one to reflect on their own practices and experiences.

A simultaneous analysis and collection of data was used during the project, during which the methodological approaches built on and informed the subsequent steps ( Merriam, 1998 ). This cumulative process was carried out to increase the ecological validity ( Gehrke, 2014 ) and minimize researcher bias and reactivity ( Maxwell, 2009 ). Such approach to the analysis is considered both relevant and necessary in a case study with constructive epistemological commitments and holistic perspectives as some of the central characteristics ( Stake, 1995 ; Merriam, 1998 ).

The analysis of individual interviews followed the main principles of thematic analysis ( Bryman, 2016 ), and NVivo was used to organize and code the interview data. Once all interviews were transcribed, the data was first organized in main themes that draw from the research questions of the case study. This was done to separate results relevant for this particular article from all case study data and coded using the main themes as codes. During the second cycle, the data was coded into preselected categories that derive from the most relevant frameworks and literature, which were also employed when developing interview and observation guides. These frameworks and literature define and discuss teacher’s role in a 21st century classroom (e.g., Hattie, 2009 ), teacher’s competence in a technology-rich classroom (e.g., Kelentrić et al., 2017 ) and different aspects of classroom management (e.g., Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ). The third cycle of interview data analysis prompted new codes, which emerged from the data itself. Ryan and Bernard’s (2003) checklist was employed to identify and develop possible new categories, as well as for analyzing the data. During this phase, for instance repetition, similarities, differences, transitions and what is missing from the data were analyzed. The same procedure was used to code and analyze the focus group interviews; however, no new categories emerged from focus group interview data. During the interviews, the topics had a tendency to overlap and emerge several times during one interview. For instance, during the 9 interviews, teacher’s competence was discussed – or at least mentioned – 54 times, so 54 excerpts of the data were tagged with the code ‘teacher’s competence’. All codes and their frequency in data are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1. Overview of coding of the interviews and observations.

Table 2. Example of qualitative interview data coding: classroom management practices.

Observation data was coded analogically twice: first, using cycle 1 categories and later, cross-referencing with cycle 2 and 3 categories from the interviews. While many of the categories were present during all lessons, the focus was on how technology influenced either teacher’s role or their chosen classroom management practices. For instance, all lessons were organized in one way or the other, and teacher-pupil relationships are an integral part of every single lesson, but when coding and categorizing the contents of the observed lessons, only lessons where technology clearly influenced teachers’ role or classroom management practices were coded.

As the interview and observation data were used to develop the survey , there were questions directly and indirectly linked to all categories. Due to the small sample size, Microsoft Excel offered sufficient tools for analysis of quantitative data. All multiple-choice survey data was converted into numeric values, after which an analysis was run to detect patterns, repetition and other features. Sorting, filtering, conditional formatting and visualization of data were used to not only detect patterns in general, but also to compare results between teachers with and without higher education PDC training.

Results are presented in Tables 3 , 4 in the Section “Results” and divided into categories matching the coding cycles and categories.

Table 3. Teachers’ perceptions of their role and competence in regard to classroom management in a technology-rich primary school classroom – summary of data.

Table 4. Teachers’ perceptions of classroom management in a technology-rich primary school classroom – summary of data.

The main findings regarding classroom management from each stage of data collection were organized in tables, as pictured below ( Tables 3 , 4 ). As visible in the tables, the same themes were often discussed in both, individual interviews and focus group interviews, and the participants in both types of interviews were the same teachers. In most cases, a topic was first brought up by the interviewer or the interviewee in one or more one-on-one interviews, and later, the topic was revisited in a focus group interview, in order to elaborate, gain more perspectives and find out about the informants’ collective views on it. The actual results from both types of interviews were very similar, with the focus group perspectives commonly offering more detail and exemplification, and that is why all interviews in the Section “Results” are simply referred to as “interviews,” without making a distinction between individual and focus group results.

The results of the coding and analysis introduce several interesting aspects of classroom management, such as changes in the traditional role and competence of a teacher. In what follows, these aspects will be further investigated in terms of the categories presented in Tables 1 – 4 . All interviewees considered teacher’s role in a classroom somewhat different today than what it used to be, prior to the march of educational technologies. Teacher interviews indicated that one of the most notable changes regarding teacher’s role as a classroom manager is having to constantly keep up-to-date with the rapid developments of digital technologies and understanding how technology can be used – or abused – in a classroom.

“You have to be ready for change yourself.—. That’s how it is with technology, too, all the time. You can’t just stop. You have to keep developing yourself to secure learning.” (Teacher T, Grade 5).

Some interviewees pointed out that in their busy work days, it could be difficult to find time for keeping up with the rapid developments of educational technologies, finding out about new possibilities and taking full advantage of the existing technologies. They noted that the leadership in the school has a major role in securing enough time for teachers to get the time and training that they need to perform their job in a satisfactory manner. The interviewees found that professional development opportunities offered by the school and particularly sharing in their own professional community had been important sources of new competencies, but that one also has to take initiative oneself and want to learn more.

“But we have PD time when we sit together and get a glimpse of and learn so that everyone can feel that they can use it [ICT]. And they [leadership] want that we use it, so that all the pupils can use it. So, there is a little bit of pressure, but that just fun. — And it’s important to have a little bit of a push, so that everyone learns it.” (Teacher S, Grade 1).

In the survey, teachers reported that they gain new competencies through formal professional development, such as attending higher education courses and programs, courses offered by the municipality or a commercial provider, and workshops within their own professional community. Informal professional development channels, such as social media and particularly impromptu collegial collaboration, also held a significant role. In the survey, 18 out of 20 informants reported that their employer offered them opportunities for professional development in regard to educational technologies to a great or very great extent, and 19 out of 20 informants felt that their leaders supported the development of their professional digital competence in other ways to a large or very large extent. 13 out of 20 informants had completed or were in the process of completing a formal PDC training program in higher education (30 ECTS points) and 13 out of 20 teachers reported that they use informal methods, for example social media and other web resources, for professional development to a great, or very great extent.

All interviewees found that while they are just as needed in the technology-rich classrooms than before, the way they view themselves as the classroom authority has changed. In the interviews the teachers described how the more traditional leader role, where a teacher should know and be able to do everything, has become obsolete in the 21st century.

“It’s always difficult to know what’s happening, but we are a little bit more exploratory together with our pupils. Like, we were always the know-it-alls, but we don’t have to be that anymore. We are a team with them [pupils], and I think it’s a good thing. More exciting: we can’t do this; we need to find out!” (Teacher I, Grade 1).

During the observed lessons, teachers exercised this type of approach for example by allocating time for experimenting and exploring with their pupils, for example when learning about the basic principles of coding and using robotics to measure and define angles. The teachers had created a structure for these lessons and guided their pupils, but had chosen an approach similar to guided inquiry, where they helped their student to learn through exploration, investigation and active dialogue. While there were several examples where the teachers had adopted more of a facilitator role in their pupils’ learning process, more traditional use of technologies, such as to search information, create digital products that reproduce old knowledge or using an application targeting specific skills, were also used regularly.

All 20 survey informants agreed teachers are as much needed in the classrooms than before, but that it is necessary to gain new competencies in regard to classroom management, such as knowledge about digital technologies, solid basic skills with technology, student-active approaches to pedagogy, and ability to let go of some of the control in the classroom.

Structure and Organization

All interviewees reported that they use technology in their classrooms to organize contents and create structure for their lessons, and they found that digital technology had made contributions to classroom management in this area, such as better transitions between subjects and assignments, and easy platforms for lesson plans and contents.

“It can actually create better structure in teaching because the different parts we work on build on one another.” (Teacher D, Grade 1).

“You have lots of tools available right there on your iPad, so when you transition from one exercise to another you use digital tools, so you don’t have to get up and fetch things.” (Teacher T, Grade 5).

When observing how teachers used digital tools to organize instruction and create structure for their lessons, much of what they did and used was based on mutual agreements of tools used within the professional community. They used the same applications, for example iThoughts and Showbie, to organize and distribute information, resources and assignments, and pupils could find assignments and resources, as well as organize and submit their own work through these platforms. This, according to the teacher interviews, was a result of leadership, collaboration and ongoing professional development, to help teachers feel confident and competent when managing the pedagogical work, and to create predictability and frequent opportunities for self-direction for their pupils. Interviewees found that the ease of access to pupils’ work and giving feedback had enabled the teachers to give more feedback to their pupils, which in return had contributed toward better teacher-student relationships. They also felt that they were given the freedom to try out and experiment with new potential technologies or how to use old technologies in a new way.

“They (leadership) are not going to make you accountable if you have used… you have taught and tried… wanted to try something. They won’t make you accountable. They rather say that cool that you tried that, and now you can rather learn from it, how to do it.” (Teacher T, Grade 5).

Survey results reveal that only one of the 20 teachers did not believe that technology could contribute toward better structure, and similarly only one informant reported little or no routines in the structure and organization in a technology-rich classroom. 13 out of 20 informants found that digital technologies make transitions easier, and 14 out of 20 teachers had routines in their classroom where technology contributed toward smoother transitions.

Risk-Taking and Relationships

When discussing different themes during the interviews and reading comments on the survey, a recurring aspect of teacher’s role was teacher’s willingness to take risks and its importance in personal professional development and when using technology to model learning to the pupils. One of the seven interviewees admitted that they sometimes feel somewhat anxious about trying new things, while the other interviewees reported no fear toward technologies, as long as they can test out the new technologies beforehand. Some of the interviewees pointed out that while they had received a significant amount of professional development within educational technologies and felt rather confident about working in technology-rich learning environments, they also found that with technology, unexpected setbacks inevitably happen; however, it did not frighten them or make them shun technology. They found it important to “take the plunge” and dare to model also a trial-and-error approach to their pupils, and be a teacher who takes risks and learns together with their pupils. Such approach was observed for example when using the new podcast studio for the first time and composing music with micro:bit.

Survey results indicate that the teachers in this school are generally not avoiding risk taking, nor are they afraid of making mistakes in front of their pupils: 14 out of 20 teachers reported little or no fear toward taking risks or failing in front of their pupils when using digital technologies, while 5 out of 20 teachers had concerns about this to some or great extent.

While it was emphasized in many of the interviews and comments in the survey that it is important to plan meticulously and be well-prepared when incorporating digital technologies in everyday classroom work, the informants also found that witnessing a teacher fail with their plan could provide learning opportunities for the students.

“I think that the kids learn also from it, that things don’t always work out as they should. That’s how it is.” (Teacher S, Grade 1).

In the individual interviews, teachers mentioned good relationships in the classroom as the main reason for not being afraid to try something new and take a risk. The importance of having good teacher-pupil relationships in the classroom was also highlighted in the survey, as 17 of the 20 informants agreed that good teacher-pupil relationships are particularly important in technology-rich classrooms. Also trust between teachers and pupils was seen as an important factor, as 18 of the 20 informants agreed that trust between teachers and pupils is particularly important in a technology-rich environment. When pupils and teachers knew each other and were comfortable in each other’s presence, teachers were more willing to take risks.

“When I have good relationships with them… that’s important to have first because I understand if someone finds it uncomfortable, pupils that I haven’t had much, but now I can luckily say that you know what, this is the first time I try this, first time that you try this, so we’ll see together how it works out.” (Teacher B, grade 5).

While good relationships and trust were highlighted as a prerequisite for effective work with digital technologies also in the survey, routines where technology actually contributes toward building relationships were found in a great or very great extent in only seven classrooms, and to some extent in ten classrooms. Three teachers reported little use of technology in regard to promoting relationships.

Rules and Routines

Having clear rules and routines has been a classroom management corner stone as long as classroom management has existed, and according to the participants in this case study, this isn’t any different in a technology-rich classroom. When asked about such rules in the interviews, teachers listed mostly rules and routines that were created to protect the devices and diminish distractions; however, some teachers focused on rules that were more relevant for ethical aspects of using digital technologies.

“Perhaps we need to be extra clear with technology. — It can be damaged if it falls on the floor. With a pencil it’s not that dangerous if it’s lying on the floor.” (Teacher N, Grade 1).

“The importance of privacy and everything that goes with netiquette, yes, we have rules at school about how that works.” (Teacher O, Grade 5).

Much like with structure and organization, also with rules and routines the interviewees found it to be important that there are some mutual agreements across the whole school, to create consistence for pupils and assist them with delf-direction and self-regulation. For example, when a teacher called “Apple up” in any of the observed classrooms, all the pupils knew what to do and placed their devices on the desks screen down. With rules also came consequences for not following the rules, and in the few observed violations the consequence was always the same: after a few reminders from the teacher, the pupil had to shift from digital devices to paper and pen.

All the data in this study indicates that the pupils across grade levels had generally a good understanding of how to treat their devices and when and how to use them. Teacher interviews indicated very little distractions and inappropriate use of technology, and the interviewees mentioned single cases where a student had misused their device during class, but none of the interviewees found it to be a recurring problem; however, the interviewees did acknowledge that without clear structures, instructions and routines, technology could become a distraction or lead to accidents with devices. Only few minor incidents were detected during the observed lessons, as well: in a typical scenario, a pupil spend a short time on a website with no relevance to the task, but was quickly returned to the task either by a peer, teacher or themselves. In the survey, 18 out of 20 informants agreed with the statement “it is particularly important to have clear rules and routines in a technology-rich classroom.” 17 out of 20 teachers reported very or quite little inappropriate use of technology during their lessons, and three teachers reported it to some extent. 17 out of 20 teachers found it to be a good idea to include pupils in the decision-making when the rules and routines where formed.

While the teachers had rather similar thoughts about changes regarding teacher’s role, rules, risk-taking and structure and organization, an aspect which they did not entirely agree on was how much they needed to be in control over what was happening on pupils’ personal devices. Some interviewees found that younger pupils, who were new to technology and school, had perhaps more need for teacher’s monitoring. Some teachers, however, found that it was the older pupils who might have to be monitored more closely, but that teachers can have a great influence on how well pupils follow up by planning ahead well.

“Yes, yes, one has to create such structure that they actually stay focused. I think this specifically concerns older pupils, as they would like to surf on the Internet and get distracted with other things.” (Teacher S, Grade 1).

Observations revealed that it was rather common in this school that groups got mixed and teachers and pupils took advantage of expanded physical learning space outside their classrooms, for instance hallways, library and smaller work rooms. The interviewees found that digital technologies are useful when the physical learning space expands but that it sets challenges to classroom management, as the teacher is no longer physically in the same space with the student. Using applications that allow teachers to view and partially control pupils’ devices, such as Apple Classroom and ZuluDesk, was observed mostly in grade 5, where the students were also more often trusted to spread out in the physical space. Using such applications was something that teachers had somewhat controversial views and practices on. Those using them found it important to always inform their students when they were using the apps and explain why. They wanted to emphasize that they used it for supervision, not for surveillance: the purpose was not to “get” pupils that had gotten distracted but to communicate and support the pupils through the application when the teacher could not be physically present. Teachers also used it to get an overview for themselves, and in some rare cases for intervention. The complexity of using such applications was reflected in the interview dialogue:

“I believe that the pupils should get the… they should feel trusted to do what they are supposed to do. But sometimes, you see, like generally in the working environment, it gets a little out of hand. It makes it a little more effective, also for myself. I use it more with some groups than the others, because there is a greater need for motivating. So, the danger with these things is that you almost monitor the pupils constantly, that they… like, that they are under surveillance. But the positive is that you can help those who don’t always stick with what they are supposed to. — I use it a lot to, in a way, to get a glimpse myself, where everyone’s at. I can’t do that if they’re using books. — With Classroom app it is easy to see where everyone’s at, is it time to move on with the class or do we need to wait a little.” (Teacher T, Grade 5).

Also survey results reveal variation, and that teachers with more formal PDC training (minimum of 30 ECTS points in PDC in higher education, either in process or completed) seemed to find it less necessary to have constant control over pupil screens (average value 3) than those who had less formal training (average value 3.86). There were no obvious differences between grade levels; however, during the observations, control-related aspects seemed to play a larger role in lower grades than in upper primary school. There teachers reinforced particularly rules revolving around safety of the device: how to hold it, where to store it and how to carry it. In upper primary grades, pupils were more often taking advantage of an extended physical learning space, and more use of applications that allow access to pupils’ devices was more common.

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this study was to find out how the use of digital technologies influences the way teachers perceive their role and classroom management practices in a technology-rich primary school. To sum up the informants’ perceptions of their role in technology-rich environment, they agreed in many aspects regarding the teacher’s role. They found that a teacher has become more of a facilitator, who creates structure and opportunities for learning and models learning processes, for example through experimenting and collaborating with their pupils. An authoritative teacher role in a classroom environment characterized by good relationships and clear routines and rules was considered foundational, and such appreciation was in line in many of the informants’ classroom management practices. The informants also agreed that due to the rapid developments of digital technologies, keeping up-to-date and gaining new competences, such as mastering basic technological skills and understanding the possibilities and pitfalls of digital technologies, has become increasingly important. They found that the leadership has a crucial role in not only offering professional development opportunities, but also expecting the teachers to take advantage of them. School leaders that facilitate for a school culture where experimenting with technologies was encouraged, and which builds on collegial collaboration, was found important for supporting teachers in their never-ending quest for those new competencies and skills. These components had helped the informants to “take the plunge” and elevate their PDC in regards to classroom management.

The contemporary aspects of teacher’s role as a classroom manager in a technology-rich environment are reflected in many of the classroom management practices of the informants. It is important to emphasize that the data for this case study was collected in a school that can rather be viewed as a frontrunner than mainstream, as they had made significant investments in digital technologies, teacher training and generally building a school culture where digital technologies are a natural part of everyday practices. This can in part explain the generally positive and progressive perceptions the informants had toward classroom management in technology-rich learning environment, as well as explain some of the interesting deviation from previous research. One of such elements is the informants’ willingness to adopt practices that demonstrate experimenting and playfulness. The teachers in this study reported very little fear for risk-taking and failing when using digital technologies, in contrast to many previous studies ( Blikstad-Balas, 2012 ; Krumsvik et al., 2013 ). The reasons can be many, but one could assume that the investment in teachers’ PDC has made the teachers more confident when implementing new technologies, and thus, they are also more willing to be more exploratory in their own practices. An indication that supports the abovementioned assumption is that in this case study, teachers with more formal PDC training were generally less concerned about control and more often found that digital technologies contribute toward better classroom management than their colleagues with less formal professional development. Such results imply that although collegial collaboration is often seen as one of the most significant ways of gaining more competence ( Borko, 2004 ; Voogt et al., 2011 ; Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ), the role of more systematic, knowledge-based professional development should not be undervalued ( Hughes, 2005 ). A good socio-emotional learning environment has also been found meaningful in technology-rich settings ( Nordenbo et al., 2008 ), and the teachers in this study found good teacher-pupil relationships foundational for establishing an environment where also a teacher can experiment with new approaches, reflecting a somewhat playful attitude, which is in line with the concept of cognitive playfulness and its affordances ( Webster and Martocchio, 1992 ; Goodwin et al., 2015 ). As mentioned earlier in this article, teacher’s ability to build good relationships and an encouraging learning environment can be viewed as one of the key classroom management competences ( Powell et al., 2001 ; Evertson and Weinstein, 2006 ; Korpershoek et al., 2016 ) and teachers have a tendency to invest in quality classroom management more in primary level than in later years ( Beijaard et al., 2000 ; Bru, 2013 ; Kalin et al., 2017 ). As much of the previous research has been executed in secondary and higher education settings, an intriguing question is how much of the fear and negative experiences teachers have experienced when using digital technologies derive from the lack of time or effort in developing good relationships and a safe social classroom environment.

Results from national mappins of digitalization of Norwegian schools also report about a trend where disruptions and inappropriate use of digital technologies are steadily decreasing in Norwegian schools ( Hatlevik et al., 2013 ; Egeberg et al., 2016 ; Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ). While the informants in this study acknowledged that there had been single events where pupils had misused their devices, and that technology could potentially cause distractions, none of them found this to be a recurring issue. The informants in this study could name multiple factors that can contribute toward better engagement and less issues with non-instructional use of technology: teachers’ own competence in classroom management, meticulous planning, good relationships with their students and a school culture with mutual and clear rules and routines for technology use worked effectively in preventing such behavior ( Erstad, 2012 ; Wang et al., 2014 ; Baker et al., 2016 ; Alter and Haydon, 2017 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; Moltudal et al., 2019 ). Bjørgen (2021) suggests that we should in a much larger extent invite pupils’ framings and priorities into school-related digital practices, to learn and understand how they engage in digital practices outside school. Building such a connection could assist in creating an engaging and supportive learning environment, which is essential for quality classroom management.

During the past decade, as teachers’ awareness and competence regarding digital technologies has increased ( Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ), rules and routines framing how and when to use technology at school have also evolved substantially. While teachers and pupils reported less mutual rules for technology use in class a decade ago ( Krumsvik and Jones, 2015 ), the teachers in this study found that practicing classroom management with clear and consistent rules and routines is foundational in technology-rich learning environments. It could be argued that while there was some variation between grade levels in this study, the mutual ground rules for technology use across the whole school can help pupils internalize the rules and routines and makes it more predictable and consistent for them, which in turn makes it easier for the pupils to follow them and easier for the teachers to reinforce them. A positive socio-emotional learning environment does not rule out negative consequences, should rules be violated ( Alter and Haydon, 2017 ), and logical consequences that the pupils are aware of, such as having their device confiscated, can be effective in preventing disruptions ( Baker et al., 2016 ; Bjørgen, 2021 ).

A somewhat contradictory finding in this case study is that while the teachers in the interviews and survey highlighted the importance of trust, good relationships and risk-taking, more than half of the teachers still found that a teacher should have control over pupils’ screens at all times. A similar perspective was visible in some of the other findings, as well; for instance, some teachers wanted the devices to be placed and held in a certain way in a classroom, to have a visual on the screens, and teachers used applications that allowed them access to pupils’ screens from a distance. This invites us to ponder why so many teachers still feel a need to have control over pupils’ screens at all times , when they self-report very little non-instructional and otherwise disruptive use of digital technologies. Active monitoring can be efficient to prevent disruptions ( Storch and Juarez-Paz, 2019 ), but one can nevertheless speculate if the pupils still feel trusted – a perspective also discussed in the focus group interviews. It is natural that the teachers want to know what their pupils are doing, and not just to find out if they’re on-task but also to see how far along they’ve come, but this alone does not explain why so many teachers find it important to know about their pupils’ screen activity at all times .

The informants found also that digital technologies have many affordances in creating structure for their lessons. Also in this context, teachers had uniform approaches, in order to create consistency and to support their own professional development, and the findings in all data accentuate the high appreciation of collegial collaboration. In this school, much of the practices, awareness and competence in regards to PDC and digital technologies in general derive from mutual agreements and collaboration. Such approach addresses the risk of widening the gap between teachers’ PDC and classroom practices, and helps create a supportive and motivating community – for teachers and pupils ( Phelps and Graham, 2014 ; Moltudal et al., 2019 ). Meanwhile, the teachers felt that they were allowed and even encouraged to experiment with alternative approaches, and such culture can be highly valuable to make sure that common practices can be questioned, re-evaluated and even criticized.

The results presented in this article confirm what previous research already has suggested: technology-rich learning environments require contemporary competencies and pedagogical approaches to classroom management. A somewhat playful attitude, meticulous planning, frequent opportunities for professional development, collegial collaboration and good teacher-pupil relationships all seem to make considerable contributions toward more effective classroom management in technology-rich classroom environment, while ethical and philosophical questions regarding the overall understanding of the use of ICT in classroom management seem to require further attention. Naturally, as an intrinsic case study ( Stake, 1995 ), these findings have their limitations regarding generalizability, but at the same time, they do provide us with important descriptions and examples regarding teacher’s role and classroom management practices in a technology-rich primary school. In this study, we have delved into teachers’ perceptions in order to cast light on how they perceive their role and classroom management practices in technology-rich environments, but the field certainly has more space for pupils’ voices, as well ( Meinokat and Wagner, 2021 ). In the light of lack of uniform definitions and practices, as well as scarcity of relevant studies from primary education ( Bolick and Bartels, 2015 ; Cho et al., 2020 ; Meinokat and Wagner, 2021 ) we find these results promising regarding implications toward succeeding in classroom management in technology-rich learning environments but acknowledge the need for gaining more knowledge and further research focusing particularly on classroom management in primary education.

Limitations

In this case study certain limitations can be identified. One limitation is related to that the majority of the empirical data applied in this article is based on self-reported data (interviews, focus groups and survey) and might reflect the teachers’ intentions more than the actual situation in their daily practices. Another limitation might be that the selected school has a clear digital agenda, the majority of the sample consists of teachers participating in professional development within PDC and the study has been carried out among young pupils (grades 1 to 7) with less pronounced digital lifestyle and with less digital distractions in classrooms than among older pupils ( Fjørtoft et al., 2019 ). In terms of coding, all coding was executed by a single person. While this eliminates discussion regarding intercoder reliability, it can raise questions about the reliability of the results and a researcher looking to confirm certain expectations or hypothesis. Potential bias related to one coder has been addressed in the design, which relies on triangulation of rich qualitative data, as well as mixed methods design. Executing an excessive cumulative data collection process and analysis during a long period of time allowed the researcher to confirm their interpretations along the way, as well as detect contrary evidence and reach saturation during the coding and analysis ( Creswell and Guetterman, 2021 ).

Data Availability Statement

The anonymized datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

MJ is the primary author of the manuscript. RJK, HEB, and NH have made significant contributions to article revisions. All authors have approved the submitted version.

This research and the publication fees related to it were funded by the University of Stavanger as a part of Johler’s doctorate training program.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Albion, P. R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., and Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Educ.Inform. Technol. 20, 655–673.

Google Scholar

Alter, P., and Haydon, T. (2017). Characteristics of effective classroom rules: a review of the literature. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 40, 114–127. doi: 10.1177/0888406417700962

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, C., Gentry, J., and Larmer, W. (2016). A model for online support in classroom management: perceptions of beginning teachers. Adm. Issues J. Connect. Educ. Pract. Res. 6, 22–37.

Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., and Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: an exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teach. Teach. Educ. 16, 749–764. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00023-8

Bjørgen, A. M. (2021). Tablets in two Norwegian primary schools: is it time to consider young pupils’ framings of using tablets in education? Education 3–13, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2021.1929376

Blikstad-Balas, M. (2012). Digital literacy in upper secondary school – what do students use their laptops for during teacher instruction? Nordic J. Digit. Lit. 7, 81–96.

Blikstad-Balas, M., and Klette, K. (2020). Still a long way to go: narrow and transmissive use of technology in the classroom. Nordic J. Digit. Lit. 15, 55–68. doi: 10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-05

Bolick, C. M., and Bartels, J. T. (2015). “Classroom management and technology,” in Handbook of Classroom Management , eds E. Emmer and E. J. Sabornie (New York, NY: Routledge), 479–495.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educ. Res. 33, 3–15. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033008003

Bru, E. (2013). Elever på Høyere Klassetrinn Opplever Dårligere Klasseledelse [University of Stavanger. Research. School. Classroom Management.]. Hvordan Påvirker Klasseledelse Læringsmiljøet?. Available online at: https://www.uis.no/nb/hvordan-pavirker-klasseledelse-laeringsmiljoet#/ (accessed November 28, 2013).

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods , 5th Edn. London: Oxford University Press.

Carter, K., and Doyle, W. (2006). “Classroom management in early childhood and elementary classrooms,” in Handbook of Classroom Management , eds C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 373–406.

Cho, V., Mansfield, K. C., and Claughton, J. (2020). The past and future technology in classroom management and school discipline: a systematic review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 90:103037. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103037

Creswell, J. W., and Guetterman, T. C. (2021). Educational Research. Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research , 6th Edn. Harlow: Pearson.

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ. Res. 38, 181–199.

Egeberg, G., Hultin, H., and Berge, O. (2016). Monitor Skole 2016 Monitor 2016. Skolens Digitale Tilstand. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.

Erstad, O. (2012). The learning lives of digital youth—beyond the formal and informal. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 38, 25–43.

Evertson, C. M., and Weinstein, C. S. (2006). “Classroom management as a field of inquiry,” in The Handbook of Classroom Management , eds C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (New York, NY: Routledge).

Fjørtoft, S. O., Thun, S., and Buvik, M. P. (2019). Monitor 2019. En Deskriptiv Kartlegging av Digital Tilstand I Norske Skoler og Barnehager. Trondheim: SINTEF.

Gehrke, P. J. (2014). Ecological validity and the study of publics: the case for organic public engagement methods. Public Understand. Sci. 23, 77–91. doi: 10.1177/0963662513493575

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodwin, A. L., Low, E. L., Ng, P. T., Yeung, A. S., and Cai, L. (2015). Enhancing playful teachers’ perception of the importance of ICT use in the classroom: the role of risk taking as a mediator. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 40, 132–149.

Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., Loftsgarden, M., and Loi, M. (2013). Monitor Skole 2013. Om Digital Kompetanse og Erfaringer med Bruk av IKT i Skolen. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.

Hepburn, L., and Beamish, W. (2019). Towards implementation of evidence-based practices for classroom management in Australia: a review of research. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 44, 82–98.

Hesse-Biber, S., Rodriguez, D., and Frost, N. A. (2015). “A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research,” in The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry , eds S. Hesse-Biber and R. B. Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.547773

Hjukse, H., Aagaard, T., Bueie, A. A., Moser, T., and Vika, K. S. (2020). Digitalisering i grunnskolelærerutdanningen: om faglige forskjeller i arbeidet med profesjonsfaglig digital kompetanse. Acta Didactica Norden 14, 1–27. doi: 10.5617/adno.8023

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 13, 277–302.

Kalin, J., Peklaj, C., Pečjak, S., Levpušček, M. P., and Zuljan, M. V. (2017). Elementary and secondary school students’ perceptions of teachers’ classroom management competencies. Center Educ. Policy Stud. J. 7, 37–62.

Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., and Arstorp, A.-T. (2017). Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers in Norway. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.

Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., and Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 643–680.

Krumsvik, R. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and school. Högre Utbildning 1, 39–51.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 58, 269–280. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2012.726273

Krumsvik, R. J., Egelandsdal, K., Sarastuen, N. K., and Jones, L. Ø, and Eikeland, O. J. (2013). Sammenhengen Mellom IKT-Bruk og Læringsutbytte (SMIL) I Videregående Opplæring. Oslo: Kommunesektorens organisasjon (KS).

Krumsvik, R. J., and Jones, L. Ø (2015). Klasseleiing i teknologirike klasserom i vidaregåande opplæring. Norsklæreren 3, 36–50.

Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. Ø, Øfstegaard, M., and Eikeland, O. J. (2016). Upper secondary school teachers’ digital competence: analysed by demographic, personal and professional characteristics. Nordic J. Digit. Lit. 11, 143–164. doi: 10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2016-03-02

Lund, A., Furberg, A., Bakken, J., and Engelien, K. L. (2014). What does professional digital competence mean in teacher education? Nordic J. Digit. Lit. 9, 280–298. doi: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-04

Marquez, B., Vincent, C., Marquez, J., and Pennefather, J. (2016). Opportunities and challenges in training elementary school teachers in classroom management: initial results from classroom management in action, an online professional development program. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 24, 87–109.

Martin, N. K., Schafer, N. J., McClowry, S., Emmer, E. T., Brekelmans, M., Mainhard, T., et al. (2016). Expanding the definition of classroom management: recurring themes and new conceptualizations. J. Classroom Interact. 51, 31–41.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). “Designing a qualitative study,” in The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods , eds L. Bickman and D. J. Rog (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qual. Inq. 16, 475–482. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364740

Meinokat, P., and Wagner, I. (2021). Causes, prevention, and interventions regarding classroom disruptions in digital teaching: a systematic review. Educ. Inform. Technol. 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10795-7

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , 4th Edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of Education and Research (2017). Framtid, Fornyelse og Digitalisering. Digitaliseringsstrategi for Grunnopplæringen 2017-2021. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

Ministry of Education and Research (2019). Core Curriculum – Values and Principles for Primary and Secondary Education [Forskrift]. Government.No. Available online at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/verdier-og-prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen—overordnet-del-av-lareplanverket/id2570003/ (accessed April 8, 2019)

Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 108, 1017–1054.

Moltudal, S., Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. Ø, Eikeland, O.-J., and Johnson, B. (2019). The relationship between teachers’ perceived classroom management abilities and their professional digital competence: experiences from upper secondary classrooms. A qualitative driven mixed method study. Des. Learn. 11, 80–98. doi: 10.16993/dfl.128

Nordenbo, S. E., Søgaard Larsen, M., Tiftikçi, N., Wendt, R. E., and Østergaard, S. (2008). Lærerkompetanser og Elevers Læring I Førskole Og Skole: Et Systematisk Review Utført for Kunnskapsdepartementet. Aarhus: Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning, DPU, Aarhus Universitet.

Ottestad, G., Throndsen, I., Hatlevik, O., and Rohatgi, A. (2013). Digitale Ferdigheter for Alle? Norske Resultater fra ICILS 2013. Oslo: UiO, 46.

Pas, E. T., Johnson, S. R., Larson, K. E., Brandenburg, L., Church, R., and Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Reducing behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder: coaching teachers in a mixed-reality setting. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46, 3640–3652. doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-2898-y

Phelps, R., and Graham, A. (2014). Developing technology together, together. J. Comput. Teach. Educ. 24, 125–134.

Powell, R. R., McLaughlin, H. J., Savage, T. V., and Zehm, S. (2001). Classroom Management: Perspectives on the Social Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Puentedura, R. R. (2015). SAMR: A Brief Introduction. Ruben R. Puentedura’s Blog. Available online at: http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf (October 14, 2015)

Punie, Y., and Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators [Policy Report]. Brussels: European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union.

Ryan, G. W., and Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15, 85–109. doi: 10.1177/1525822x02239569

Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 53–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x

Sanchez, E., Young, S., and Jouneau-Sion, C. (2017). Classcraft: from gamification to ludicization of classroom management. Educ. Inform. Technol. 22, 497–513. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9489-6

Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511571268

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Storch, S. L., and Juarez-Paz, A. V. O. (2019). Efficacy of cell phones within instructional design: a professor’s perspective. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. 11, 12–25. doi: 10.4018/IJMBL.2019010102

Throndsen, I., and Hatlevik, O. E. (2015). Læring av IKT. Oslo: Scandinavian Univeristy Press (Universitetsforlaget).

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65, 555–577.

Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., et al. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teach. Teach. Educ. 27, 1235–1244. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003

Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Reeves, T. C., and Coster, D. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: lessons learned from a design-based research study. Comput. Educ. 79, 101–115. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.006

Webster, J., and Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Q. 16, 201–226. doi: 10.2307/249576

Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: what should prospective teachers learn? Teach. Educ. 22, 113–131.

Keywords : primary school, technology, teacher’s role, pedagogy, classroom management

Citation: Johler M, Krumsvik RJ, Bugge HE and Helgevold N (2022) Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Role and Classroom Management Practices in a Technology Rich Primary School Classroom. Front. Educ. 7:841385. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.841385

Received: 22 December 2021; Accepted: 01 March 2022; Published: 07 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Johler, Krumsvik, Bugge and Helgevold. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Minttu Johler, [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Investigating the teacher’s perceptions of classroom management and teaching self-efficacy during Covid-19 pandemic in the online EFL courses

Zahra akbarzade farkhani.

1 Islamic Azad University, Quchan Branch, Quchan, Iran

Ghazal Badiei

2 Islamic Azad University, West Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

Farzad Rostami

3 Islamic Azad University, Baneh Branch, Baneh, Iran

Associated Data

The data will be available upon request.

During the coronavirus pandemic, online education continued to expand across varied educational factors. Therefore, the teachers had to develop and change some of the strategies used in their classes previously. Online classroom management is a synchronous-based online learning environment in education that is worthwhile to modify. For this purpose, the current study sought to understand the perceptions of classroom management and teaching self-efficacy by Iranian EFL teachers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Concerning sampling, 100 male and female English teachers constituted the study sample. Data were collected via Online Teaching Self–Efficacy Inventory questionnaire through different online platforms. The findings reflected that EFL teachers could select appropriate classroom management during online and face-to-face classes. In addition, the teachers had a positive attitude toward managing the classroom during the Covid-19 pandemic. The implications of this study may open up new perspectives into successful pedagogy for, teachers and students in outbreak days.

Introduction

Classroom management is one of the most critical issues in educational settings (Yilmaz & Cavas, 2008 ) and vital in constructing effective learning environments (Akar et al., 2010 ). The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic made countries change their instructional system. Traditional face-to-face teaching, that was using for many years, was replaced by entirely online e-learning courses. In the meanwhile, the management of the online courses changed, and new strategies were adopted. Several studies supported that classroom management has correlations with some variables including self-control, responsibility, psychological well-being, and discipline, influencing academic outcomes (Bean, 2007 ; Brophy, 1988 ; Fareh, 2018 ; Jones & Jones, 2004 ; Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003 ; Savage & Savage, 2009 ; Wang et al., 1993 ). Moreover, evidence suggests that teachers with professional classroom skills impact learners’ behaviors positively (Emmer & Emertson, 2013 ; Fareh, 2018 ; Raider-Roth, 2005 ; Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004 ).

Although many studies have been carried out about classroom management, few papers directly investigate the potential role of technology in online classes (Cho et al., 2020 ). In an online educational setting, recently teachers have been able to practice classroom management in computer-simulated classes- rooms (Judge, Bobzien; Maydosz, Gear, & Katsioloudis, 2013 ) or connect with classroom management coaches online (Rock et al., 2013 ). However, the investigation of teachers’ insights of classroom management during online classes has been less exported particularly in EFL Iranian context. Acquiring such information will provide a deeper understanding of challenges related to classroom management and online courses to find an advanced solution and improve a well-adjusted educational system that is forced to be integrated with technology. Hence, the current research addresses the following research questions.

• What are the EFL teachers' views on online classroom management?
• How confident do EFL teachers feel in preparing, conducting, and managing online courses?
• What are teachers’ perceptions toward the kind of applications used during online courses?

Review of literature

One of the key factors of professional teacher competence, and effective learning in face-to-face or online classrooms is classroom management. There are multiple definitions of classroom management. Brophy ( 1996 ) introduced it as “actions taken to create and maintain a learning environment conducive to successful instruction” (p. 5). In addition, Marzano ( 2003 ) proposed “establishing and reinforcing rules and procedures, carrying out disciplinary actions, maintaining effective teacher and student relationships, and maintaining an appropriate mental set for management” (p. 88). Later Weber et al. ( 2018 ) noted crucial variables underlying classroom management including monitoring, which refers to keeping teachers’ awareness of events continuously that may happen in the classroom (Gold & Holodynski, 2017 ; Kounin, 1970 ; Wolff, 2015 ). For example, feedback, appreciation, and prompt responses to misbehaviors are included in this component (Doyle, 2006 ; Evertson & Emmer, 2013 ; Little & Akin-Little, 2008 ).

Another variable is how to manage momentum (Thiel et al., 2012 ). It refers to making a balance between little wasted time and activities in the class (Pianta et al., 2012 ). Also, it contains clarifying the instructions, fulfilling the purpose and the structure of the lesson, appropriate materials, providing group focus and classroom conditions (Doyle, 2006 ; Kounin, 1970 ). Another significant aspect of classroom management is establishing rules and regulations which can positively affect learners' behavior (Emmer & Emertson, 2013 ; Fareh, 2018 ; Raider-Roth, 2005 ; Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004 ). In 2004, Jones and Jones published a paper about classroom management in the context of three approaches entail counseling which focuses on maintaining learners under discipline, behaviorist approach which concentrates on modification techniques for learner’s undesirable behaviors, and preventive approach which emphasizes to hinder learners’ misbehaviors.

A large and growing body of literature has investigated the importance of classroom management. In this regard, Kounin, ( 1970 ) reported this factor increases learning, reduces interpretation, and maintains an influential environment. A positive correlation was identified between teachers ‘classroom management and learners’ achievement (Hattie, 2009 ) and academic optimism (Murray & Zvoch, 2011 ). This component creates an effective learning environment (Fareh, 2018 ) influences teachers’ mental health, and can keep them from burnout and stress (Friedman, 2006 ; López et al., 2008 ). Moreover, the role of teachers’ experience in providing effective classroom management has been investigated in different studies to emphasize the distinction between knowledge and vision of the classroom among experts and novice practitioners (Gold & Holodynski, 2017 ; Wolff et al., 2017 ). In this field of study, one of the scales of classroom management is the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale developed and validated by (Martin & Sass, 2010 ). Behavior management is associated with teachers’ attempts to prevent and respond to learners’ misbehavior, but instructional management comprises goals, plans, rules, that teachers apply to provide instructions in a class to engage learners.

Classroom management in EFL context

The evidence presented in literature manifested that “classroom management as inherently equal to all subject matter areas and so ignored the distinctive characteristics of classroom management for specific content areas” (Macías, 2018 , p. 155), whereas he believed that according to eleven language teachers’ characteristics introduced by Borg ( 2006 ), three dramatic factors including the use of target language, patterns of interaction, and communicative competence influence classroom management in EFL context. Macías ( 2018 ) elaborated that, In the EFL context, teachers should apply medium language to give them instruction when students might not understand by the term of interaction patterns or group work, which might not be essential in other subjects.

Different studies exist in the literature regarding classroom management. Lee and van Vlack’s ( 2018 ) research on 127 English south Korean teachers showed that “Enjoyment and, surprisingly, anger also correlated positively with classroom management self-efficacy, while frustration correlated negatively. This shows a significant relationship between teachers’ emotions and classroom management self-efficacy” (p. 12). They suggested that future studies could be done as longitudinal research or on a larger sample. Akman ( 2020 ) examined 608 secondary school students in Turkey and found that “classroom management was an important element influential in students’ perceptions of confidence and stress” (p. 341). The suggestions for future studies were conducting mixed-methods research and considering a larger sample. Egeberg et al.'s ( 2021 ) mixed-methods research investigated 50 Australian teachers’’ perceptions about classroom management. “Effective classroom management is multidimensional including caring relationships, high expectations, and opportunities for engagement, participation, and contribution (p. 121). It was not in the EFL context. Recently Traditional face-to-face teaching has been shifted into online courses. It is required to update teaching strategies in a virtual classroom context.

Online classroom

The characteristics of an online classroom identified by Lathifah et al. ( 2020 ) are as follows: (a) the class session must be in real-time connecting the teacher and the students synchronously, (b) the teacher and the students are distinguished by location, and (c) the class uses a platform closed for certain people (p. 264). Although virtual class lacks physical contact between teachers and learners and managing the rules is demanding, this sort of class is more flexible to attend and learner-based (Rufai et al., 2015 ). The term online classroom refers to the whole teaching–learning procedures carried out in online ways. According to Taghizadeh and Amirkhani ( 2022 ), online teaching includes planning, organizing, leading, controlling, and administering the online materials in the classroom; online courses can be as successful as face-to-face experiences with effective teachers' management. Ghateolbahra and Samimi, ( 2021 ) mentioned that "the professional development of online education, especially in the field of classroom management, requires a set of practical strategies, knowing how to communicate well with students, having an effective classroom management program, and managing asynchronous discussions and online teamwork" (p. 510). The study suggested that more research should focus on teachers' knowledge and skills in effective classroom management in other disciplines and at different levels.

Durak and Saritepeci’s ( 2017 ) mixed-method study, among 52 teachers as participants, found that technology use positively influenced classroom management. According to the results of these studies, teachers emphasized the level of their teacher's IT literacy as the most significant element of classroom management in technology-assisted courses. Durak and Saritepeci ( 2017 ) added although it seems that younger teachers could be better at using technology in classroom management, the result of their research was vice versa. The critical factor was that older teachers with higher experience had fewer problems managing their classrooms. Most of the previous studies related to classroom management were from the general perspective of teaching, and the investigation of the role of this factor in foreign language teaching context is missing and less explored (Macías, 2018 ). Although the vast amount of classroom management research was based on face-to-face classes, a systematic review conducted by (Cho et al., 2020 ) suggested that “there is a pressing need for scholars and practitioners to view the landscape of possibilities when it comes to classroom management and technological advancement” (p. 2). Evidence shows it is a need to investigate how teachers view the management of online classes in the EFL context that the current paper tries to cover this gap through a quantitative study.

Methodology

Participants.

It was difficult to find enough participants during the coronavirus pandemic. The survey was performed online and sent to 377 EFL teachers through some web-based platforms (Telegram 36%, WhatsApp 57%, and others about 7%). Among 339 teachers receiving the survey, only 100 answered the questionnaire. Among the participants completing the study, there were 65% females and 35% males, with an average allocated time of eleven minutes. The teaching experience ranged from novice researchers to those with more years of experience. All of the participants attending this study came from Iran, of whom 44.4% were teaching at intermediate to upper-intermediate levels of private language institutions, 45.5% at public education, and about 10% didn't mention their teaching place. Most of them held an MA or BA degree in different branches of English studies, including English literature, English teaching, English translation, and some teachers were Ph.D. candidates in English teaching. All of them had about three semesters teaching online. For non-probability sampling, the participants were selected based on convenience sampling.

The classroom management subcategory was extracted from Online Teaching Self-Efficiency Inventory (OTSEI) to answer the preceding research questions and collect the data from participants. The questionnaire is based on the work of Dr. Kevin P. Gosselin in Australia (Gosselin, 2009 ). It was the primary research questionnaire (See Appendix A). OTSEI is a Likert scale survey consisting of 46 items to assess online teaching, management, and efficacy of the teacher (Maddux & Gosselin, 2012 ). This questionnaire was used because classroom management is one of its categories. According to that, it was adopted and only nineteen related items were used in this study. These items examined teachers’ competence for online teaching, including how confident EFL teachers felt in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses and whether they evaluated the learners in online classes, checked assignment, provided feedback, and set the learning goals in the online classroom. Also, there is a lack of domain-specific research instruments for measuring the online classroom management of EFL teachers. Data collected from OTSEI across each stage provided the necessary information for this quantitative research. Some online school teachers were supposed to answer the scale to indicate how confident they were in accomplishing the activities by selecting a number for each question on a scale ranging from 0 (No confidence) to 10 (Complete confidence). It is noteworthy that the questionnaire also included some subcategories. The sections include selection of technological resources, virtual interaction, unit content migration (the ability to successfully transfer instructional materials from face-to-face to online units), online courses alignment, online resources, and web-based unit structure (the ability to construct and design an online team including a clear organizational structure and facilitating software and communication guidelines). In addition to the information gathered in the survey, some demographic information such as the age of participants, gender, ethnic identity, current teaching position, years of experience, and online teaching experience was also collected (see Appendix A). Alpha reliabilities of the ranking scales ranged from 0.84 to 0.95, reflecting suitable internal consistency. The average variance accounted for the five single-factor scales ranged from 45.93 to 64.38%, with an average of 53.16% of explained variance, providing evidence for good factor validity (Stevens, 1996 ).

Procedure and data analysis

This study was carried out among English teachers from different cities in Iran. The EFL teachers received the English version of the OTSEI questionnaire through a web-based platform. To keep themselves healthy and away from infection to Coronaviruses, the participants were reluctant to be interviewed face to face or observed. Thus, the questionnaire was the best choice to be sent out to the participants online and sent back to the authors. Although filling in the questionnaire was taking about ten minutes, some participants delivered the questionnaire late, about a week to ten days, because of different problems such as not having enough time or engaging in online classes. They answered the questionnaire anonymously, but each participant left an email address in their answer sheet for any other request in case of need. They sent a word document of the survey that they filled out for the authors.

When the schools closed their doors to face-to-face instruction, English language teachers had to manage their classrooms via online courses. Therefore, all the subjects had online teaching experience. After data collection, this questionnaire was addressed by calculating means and standard deviations of the teacher classroom management in online teaching courses through OTSEI survey scores for the five measures, including the selection of online resources, virtual interaction, and units content migration, online course alignment, and web-based unit structure. Descriptive statistics were applied to describe the collected data. Finally, SPSS software was used for analyses due to the normality of data.

Examining the first research question

The first research question of the current study aimed to investigate how EFL teachers viewed online classroom management. It means whether they could manage their online classes similar to face to face ones or they could adopt a teaching style that allowed for the facilitation of learning through guidance.

Table ​ Table1 1 displays the participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each questionnaire item related to online classroom management. Every item begins with (in the context of online units, I could …) for example, in the context of online units, I could get students to work together in my classes. The items are arranged on a scale ranging from 0 (No confidence) to 10 (Complete confidence).

The participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each item of the questionnaire related to online classroom management

0 = no confidence, 10 = complete confidence

As indicated in Table ​ Table1, 1 , the number of participants who responded to the items with an inclination towards the complete confidence end was substantially higher than those who responded to the items with a tendency towards the no-confidence. For instance, scrutiny of item 19 indicates that only 17 (17.3%) of the responses belonged to 0 while 82 (82.7%) of the answers belonged to the 10. Other items in the above table follow the similar pattern, and few participants checked 0 as no-confidence scale. Thus, it can be concluded that EFL teachers were confident in their online classroom management.

Examining the second research question

The second research question of the present study explored how confident EFL teachers felt in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses. Whether or not they evaluate the learners in online classes, if they check assignment, get feedback, get the learning goals in the online classroom. Table ​ Table2 2 shows the participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each questionnaire item related to preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses.

The participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each item of the questionnaire related to preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses

As presented in Table ​ Table2, 2 , the number of participants who responded to the items with an inclination towards the complete confidence end was considerably higher than those who answered the items with a tendency towards 0. For example, a look at item 36 shows that only 19 (19.1%) of the responses belonged to 0, while 81 (82.9%) of the answers belonged to10. Other items in the above table follow a similar pattern. Thus, it can be concluded that EFL teachers in the current study were confident in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses so that the online classroom could not affect the quality of classroom management and applying interaction strategies.

Examining the third research question

The third research question of this study explored teachers’ perceptions toward the kind of applications used during online courses and selecting the best one for their teaching. Also this question explored the way the teachers learned to use new technologies in their units. Table ​ Table3 3 depicts the participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each item of the questionnaire related to teachers’ perceptions toward the kind of applications used during online courses.

The participants’ numbers and the respective percentages of responses for each item of the questionnaire related to teachers’ perceptions toward the kind of applications used during online courses

As seen in Table ​ Table3, 3 , the number of participants who responded to the items with an inclination towards 10 was considerably higher than those who answered the items with a tendency towards 0. For instance, in item 11, only 16 (16.1%) of the responses belonged to the no-confidence end, while 83 (83.83%) of the answers belonged to the complete confidence end. Other items in the above table have a similar pattern. Thus, EFL teachers showed confidence in using the kind of applications in online courses. The results reflect that even though the teachers have difficulty with digital literacy and working with different platform in contraction with learners, they mediated various applications well to better control the class and qualify the online courses as they performed in face to face classes.

The present study sought to understand EFL teachers' perceptions towards classroom management during the Covid-19 pandemic. The first research question of this study concerned EFL teachers’ views on online classroom management. The results suggest that EFL teachers were confident in developing online courses and managing the online environment and instructions. They could adopt some teaching styles that allowed for the facilitation of learning through their guidance and conveyed their face-to-face class management strategies to online courses. This result confirms the finding of Diamond Hicks ( 2012 ), who explored the correlation between classroom management and some other influencing factors such as self-efficiency through the same questionnaire which authors applied in the current research paper. Moreover, the results of the present investigation are in accord with a recent qualitative study that performed by (Rufai, Alebious & Adeakin, 2015 ). The current paper indicated that although virtual classes lack physical interaction between learners and teachers, managing this sort of class is more flexible to attend. It can be also learner-based such as the typical situations of teaching in which EFL teachers are capable of establishing a positive social climate that engages students in learning via an online course. The other objective of this study was to explore how confident EFL teachers felt in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses. In other words, this question aimed to see whether the teachers could effectively align learning objectives, unit assignments and learning activities, assessment strategies, and procedures with online courses. Examining the ten items of the OTSEI questionnaire exclusively concerned with this question showed that EFL teachers were confident in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses. This means that in an online course, the EFL teachers can indicate their ability to manage the learning environment by providing whatever is necessary to have good teaching. On the other hand, when the online course alignment by the teacher is suitable, as Kirtman ( 2009 ) mentioned, there are similar learning outcomes whether the teacher teaches in a traditional or online class. In consistent with the findings of Francis and Oluwatoyin ( 2019 ), the results showed that online classroom management was easier and the class atomospher was cooler when teachers improved their various technological knowledge.

The last research question explored teachers’ perception toward the kind of applications used during online courses for managing the online classroom. In the context of online teaching, it is necessary to select appropriate technological resources. In other words, the teachers must have the ability to choose, utilize, and determine the appropriateness of technology for managing the classroom well in online courses to enhance the students' learning and enrich instruction. This study concluded that EFL teachers could select the appropriate software application to use in their classes to deliver materials to the students and develop their instruction despite the problems like internet speed and weak digital platforms that Iranian teachers have been encountered. This outcome agrees with a study (Bates and Poole, 2003 ), indicating that effective teaching enables the teachers to look at the use of technology to improve teaching and learning in complementary ways. As a result, they can make the right choices of using media and technology to enhance education significantly. In the same line, Graham et al. ( 2020 ) and Taghizadeh and Amirkhani ( 2022 ) conducted a research by means of questionnaire. They mentioned that teachers might view technology integration as beneficial when it increases productivity and social influence and fosters pedagogical changes. However, the results indicated the learners and teachers are required to improve their digital literacy and behavior to facilitate the management of online classes.

This study was an attempt to contribute to the effect of online teaching on classroom management by EFL teachers during the time that the way of teaching changed because of the coronavirus pandemic. The findings of the current study illustrated the importance of online courses and managing the classroom while showing that EFL teachers could select appropriate materials for teaching English and manage their classes even in the online teaching context. Furthermore, it showed that EFL teachers were confident in preparing, conducting, assessing, and aligning online courses. They could use technology and suitable software applications to develop their instruction and manage their online classes as they did in their face-to-face courses. In addition, there was no difference between male and female teachers in this procedure. It can be a good opportunity for teachers to improve their technical skills to use in their next face-to-face classes in the future. Thus, most teachers have no problems with managing the classroom in online courses.

One of the implications of the study can be for instructors and educators who may think to design the factors of online management classroom and other dimensions of education. The results of the present study contribute to directing teachers to consider potential strategies that fit online classes. In addition, it can help educators and other researchers to continue exploring the way technology and online platform affect how teachers can act in online classes and rethink some strategies that can help them to enrich their teaching and student learning. Moreover, according to the findings of this research and other similar projects, policy and curriculum makers must consider that there should be a review of teaching and its methods in the post-Corona era and some online teacher training courses can be held for teachers to be able to manage their online courses more efficiently because it seems students and teachers are interested in online education, although there are some problems in this area. One of the limitations of this study was utilizing one instrument to gather quantitative data. However, researchers could obtain more profound results by considering qualitative data. The same research can be carried out via a broader population, with more participants from different parts of the world. Moreover, future studies can use some other instruments such as observations, surveys, and other data analysis methods. The impacts of other variables such as age, gender, socio-economic status, technology importance, and distress of teachers were not studied in this research and need further investigation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to appreciate the participants and editors of the study.

Author contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

No funding was available for the present study.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

All author has no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Zahra Akbarzade Farkhani, Email: moc.oohay@75dijamidabarsan .

Ghazal Badiei, Email: moc.liamg@eeidabG .

Farzad Rostami, Email: moc.liamg@97rdazraF .

• Akar, H., Erden, F. T., Tor, D., & Şahin, İ. T. (2010). Study on teachers’ classroom management approaches and experiences. Elementary Education Online , 9 (2). 10.3726/978-3-653-05968-7/11
• Akman Y. The role of classroom management on confidence in teachers and educational stress. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research. 2020 doi: 10.33200/ijcer.687109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates AW, Poole G. Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean S. Classroom management to promote learning. ETR Associates; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borg S. The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research. 2006; 10 (1):3–31. doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr182oa. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brophy JE. Teaching problem students. Guilford Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brophy J. Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1988; 4 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1016/0742-051x(88)90020-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho V, Mansfield KC, Claughton J. The past and future technology in classroom management and school discipline: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103037. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle WR. State accountability policies and Boyer’s domains of scholarship: Conflict or collaboration? New Directions for Institutional Research. 2006; 2006 (129):97–113. doi: 10.1002/ir.174. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durak H, Saritepeci M. Investigating the effect of technology use in education on classroom management within the scope of the FATİH project. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal. 2017; 46 (2):441–457. doi: 10.14812/cuefd.303511. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egeberg H, McConney A, Price A. Teachers’ views on effective classroom management: A mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 2021; 20 (2):107–124. doi: 10.1007/s10671-020-09270-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmer ET, Evertson CM. Classroom management for middle and high school teachers. Pearson; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fareh S. Planning and class management. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. 2018 doi: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0207. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis OB, Oluwatoyin FC. Principals’ personnel characteristic skills: A predictor of teachers’ classroom management in Ekiti state secondary school. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management. 2019; 7 (1):72–103. doi: 10.17583/ijelm.2019.3573. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman IA. Handbook of classroom management. Routledge; 2013. Classroom management and teacher stress and burnout. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gosseline, K.P. (2009). Development and Psychometric exploration of the online teaching self—efficacy inventory. (PHD), Texas Tech University.
• Ghateolbahra A, Samimi F. Classroom management strategies in online environment: A comparative study on novice and experienced teachers. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education. 2021; 12 (14):510–516. doi: 10.16949/turkbilmat.702540. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gold B, Holodynski M. Using digital video to measure the professional vision of elementary classroom management: Test validation and methodological challenges. Computers and Education. 2017; 107 :13–30. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham MA, Stols G, Kapp R. Teacher practice and integration of ICT: Why are or aren’t South African teachers using ICTS in their classrooms. International Journal of Instruction. 2020; 13 (2):749–766. doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13251a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hicks SD. Self-efficacy and classroom management: A correlation study regarding the factors that influence classroom management. Liberty University; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones VF, Jones LS. Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Boston; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge, S., Bobzien, J., Maydosz, A., Gear, S., & Katsioloudis, P. (2013). The use of visual-based simulated environments in teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Training Studies 10.11114/jets.v1i1.41
• Kirtman L. Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education. 2009; 18 (2):103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms . Holt, Rinehart & Winston
• Lathifah ZK, Helmanto F, Maryani N. The practice of effective classroom management in COVID-19 time. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2020; 29 (7):3263–3271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee M, Van Vlack S. Teachers' emotional labor, discrete emotions, and classroom management self-efficacy. Educational Psychology. 2018; 38 (5):669–686. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1399199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little SG, Akin-Little A. Psychology’s contributions to classroom management. Psychology in the Schools. 2008; 45 (3):227–234. doi: 10.1002/pits.20293. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López XMO, Otero AG, Bolaño CC, Pol EV, Fernández DP, Mariño MJS. An integrative approach to burnout in secondary school teachers: Examining the role of student disruptive behavior and disciplinary issues. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 2008; 8 (2):259–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macías DF. Classroom management in foreign language education: An exploratory review. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development. 2018; 20 (1):153–166. doi: 10.15446/profile.v20n1.60001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maddux JE, Gosselin JT. Self-efficacy. The Guilford Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin NK, Sass DA. Construct validation of the behavior and instructional management scale. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2010; 26 (5):1124–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzano RJ. What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzano RJ, Marzano JS, Pickering D. Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. ASCD; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray C, Zvoch K. The inventory of teacher-student relationships: Factor structure, reliability, and validity among African American youth in low-income urban schools. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2011; 31 (4):493–525. doi: 10.1177/0272431610366250. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pianta RC, Hamre BK, Mintz S. Classroom assessment scoring system: Secondary manual. Teachstone. 2012 doi: 10.1037/t08945-000. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raider-Roth M. Trusting what you know: Negotiating the relational context of classroom life. Teachers College Record. 2005; 107 (4):587–628. doi: 10.1177/016146810510700403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rock ML, Schoenfeld N, Zigmond N, Gable RA, Gregg M, Ploessl DM, Salter A. Can you Skype me now? Developing teachers’ classroom management practices through virtual coaching. Beyond Behavior. 2013; 22 (3):15–23. doi: 10.1177/107429561302200303. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rufai MM, Alebiosu SO, Adeakin OAS. A conceptual model for virtual classroom management. International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering, and Information Technology. 2015; 5 (1):27–32. doi: 10.5121/ijcseit.2015.5103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage TV, Savage MK. Successful classroom management and discipline: Teaching self-control and responsibility. Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens W. Letters of Wallace Stevens. Univ of California Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taghizadeh M, Amirkhani S. Pre-service EFL teachers’ conceptions and strategy use in managing online classes. System. 2022; 104 :102671. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiel F, Richter SG, Ophardt D. Steuerung von Übergängen im Unterricht. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft. 2012; 15 (4):727–752. doi: 10.1007/s11618-012-0325-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker HM, Ramsey E, Gresham FM. Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Wadsworth Publishing Company; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang MC, Haertel GD, Walberg HJ. Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research. 1993; 63 (3):249–294. doi: 10.3102/00346543063003249. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber KE, Gold B, Prilop CN, Kleinknecht M. Promoting pre-service teachers’ professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of a structured online-and video-based self-reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 76 :39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolff CE, Jarodzka H, Boshuizen HPA. See and tell Differences between expert and novice teachers' interpretations of problematic classroom management events. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017; 66 :295–308. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolff CE, van den Bogert N, Jarodzka H, Boshuizen HPA. Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education. 2015; 66 (1):68–85. doi: 10.1177/0022487114549810. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yılmaz H, Çavaş PH. The effect of the teaching practice on pre-service elementary teachers’ science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2008; 4 (1):45–54. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75305. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Our Mission

The Key to Effective Classroom Management

A three-phase process helps build strong teacher-student bonds, which can reduce disruptive behavior.

It’s a daunting but all-too-common sight for many teachers: A classroom full of rowdy students who are unable to focus on the lesson. Classroom management techniques may get things back on track, but valuable time has already been lost.

Many experienced teachers know that making meaningful connections with students is one of the most effective ways to prevent disruptions in the first place, and a new study set out to assess this approach . In classrooms where teachers used a series of techniques centered around establishing, maintaining, and restoring relationships, academic engagement increased by 33 percent and disruptive behavior decreased by 75 percent—making the time students spent in the classroom more worthwhile and productive.

“Strong teacher-student relationships have long been considered a foundational aspect of a positive school experience,” explains Clayton Cook, the lead author of the study and a professor at the University of Minnesota. When those relationships are damaged, student well-being may be affected, leading to academic and behavioral problems.

In the study, teachers used an approach called Establish-Maintain-Restore to build positive interactions with students—a total of 220 in fourth and fifth grade—and boost their sense of belonging. (A follow-up study with middle school teachers used the same strategies, with similar results.) Relationship-building was broken down into three phases: the first meeting, maintenance throughout the school year, and points when a relationship may suffer damage, with useful strategies for each phase.

Since it can be easy for some students to fall through the cracks, a relationship reflection form—like the one we share here—can help teachers take notes on each individual student and highlight ones who need the most attention.

Starting on a Positive Note

At the start of the school year, the teachers in the study made time for establishing relationships. “The goal is to ensure all students feel a sense of belonging that is characterized by trust, connection, and understanding,” Cook and his colleagues explain. For students with learning or behavioral problems, cultivating positive relationships provided “protective effects” that helped them stay focused on learning.

To establish positive relationships, teachers can:

• “Bank time” with students. Schedule one-on-one meetings with students to get to know them better. The goal is to “make deposits into the relationship” to help ease conflict in the future if you have to give constructive feedback or address disruptive behavior.
• Encourage student-led activities. Students feel more invested in their learning if given opportunity to share their interests . Teachers can step aside, be supportive, and listen.
• Welcome students into the classroom. Activities such as positive greetings at the door and icebreaker questions help create a warm classroom culture.
• Use positive communication techniques. Open-ended questions, reflective listening, validation statements, expressions of enthusiasm or interest, and compliments help students—especially shy or introverted ones—ease into classroom discussions.

Maintaining Relationships

Without active maintenance, relationships deteriorate over time, the study authors point out. Teachers may focus too much on academics and not enough on supporting students’ emotional well-being, slowly using up the banked time they initially built up with students.

Teachers can maintain relationships by continuing to implement the strategies above, and in addition they can:

• Take note of positive and negative interactions with students.  Teachers should aim for a five-to-one ratio.
• Regularly check in with students. Ask how they’re doing and what support they may need. In an Edutopia article, Todd Finley explains how 5x5 assessment time helped him focus on a handful of students every day.
• Acknowledge good behavior. When teachers focus attention on positive conduct, disruptive behavior is stemmed before it becomes an issue.

Repairing Harm Before Things Get Worse

Eventually, negative interactions such as misunderstandings, conflict, or criticism can weaken a teacher-student relationship. If these negative interactions are left unaddressed, students may feel disengaged and be less willing to participate in activities. They may also be more likely to misbehave, creating further damage. So it’s important for teachers to “intentionally reconnect” with students to restore the relationship to a positive state.

When relationships need repair, teachers can:

• Let go and start fresh. Teachers should avoid holding mistakes over a student’s head, instead giving them a chance to start each day with a clean slate.
• Take responsibility for their actions. Teachers can avoid blaming students when things go wrong, and think, “What could I have done to avoid the problem in the first place?” They shouldn’t be afraid to apologize when that’s called for—doing so helps build trust with students.
• Show empathy. There are two sides to every story, and a teacher can acknowledge that students may have a different perspective about what happened.
• Focus on solutions, not problems. Teachers can work with students to find a solution that everyone feels is fair.
• Separate the deed from the doer. It’s important to criticize the behavior, not the person. If teachers label children as “problem students,” there’s a danger that they’ll internalize that label, making it more likely that they’ll repeat the behavior in the future.

The takeaway: Effective classroom management starts with relationship building. When students feel a greater sense of belonging, they’re more likely to be academically engaged and demonstrate positive behavior.

Better Classroom Management Can’t Wait. How to Make Changes Now

• Share article

Next year. Whenever I talk to new teachers, whether informally or within a teacher education course that I instruct, there is consistent talk of the changes they will make “next year.”

Many first-year teachers in particular speak longingly about how their actions and classrooms will be improved the following school year. They describe all their mistakes this past year and how they will fix them in the fall.

Undoubtedly, one will eventually regurgitate some version of the old saw: “The first two weeks of the school year are crucial for classroom management and establishing rules and expectations.”

Teachers believe these two weeks are when they should develop the classroom structures that will allow students to know what to expect for the remainder of the school year. Conversely, because they were unable to establish such structures within their first two weeks of a school year, they can only look forward to correcting it the following year.

I’m here to say it’s all a lie.

Believing that one can establish their classroom management plan in the first two weeks of the school year is just one of the many “truths” about “managing” student behavior that teachers learn.

In my own first year of teaching , the first two weeks—and beyond —were full of difficulties. I struggled to understand which rules to enact or how to enforce consequences consistently. At some point, things improved but only well after two weeks. Through support and experience, I and many beginning teachers get better at managing the classroom.

But how? This is the question that all preservice and beginning teachers ask as they consider classroom management. Having now spent over a decade teaching preservice teachers and researching how teachers successfully manage classrooms , I’ve identified some key strategies that can improve classroom management at any point in the year.

Interestingly, these strategies have developed from repeated maxims—or what I deem as misconceptions:

“I build relationships before, between, and after classes.”

While informal conversations before class or between periods are positive, teachers can build relationships within lessons more effectively. Building relationships is central to every classroom, but it’s easier said than done. I love this meta-analysis (find the main table!) that lists concrete strategies from praise and check-ins to rewards and self-regulation.

You won’t know how to manage your students until you know who they are. This means ignoring other trite expressions, such as “not smiling before Christmas.”

“I need to focus on a good lesson, not classroom management.”

A good lesson engages students, reducing opportunities to misbehave. A good lesson also can be derailed if students’ perspectives are not considered. Here are a few tips:

• Think about what students do for each activity, not just what the teacher does. Interesting demonstrations and lectures often have students sitting quietly at their desks for a whole lesson. Consider other ways they could learn the material (e.g., small-group activities) and the appropriate directions and transitions needed to get there.
• Build from their interest. Whether it’s using examples about Paw Patrol or Taylor Swift, incorporating students’ interests engages them.
• Overplan material. Timing is difficult for beginning teachers, so it’s important to have an abundance of activities per day. You’d rather end long (and put a pin in it for tomorrow) than not have enough for your students to do. The more you have prepared, the less time you’ll spend dealing with misbehavior.

“I manage all my students the same.”

Consistent rules, procedures, and expectations are crucial in establishing the boundaries of your classroom. However, while the sentiment of treating everyone the same is understandable, we know that discipline is not administered equally.

Instead, teachers must be responsive to their class and understand that students may respond differently to consequences. Just like we do with instruction, it is important to manage behavior in a way that meets students where they are rather than treating them all the same.

Allow for some flexibility or have students offer suggestions for what’s important for their learning. Teachers can also find ways to promote positive interactions, such as utilizing nonverbal actions, specific praise, and parent partnerships to accommodate for student differences.

While these classroom management sayings are meant to help beginning teachers, they ultimately hurt students by ignoring how teachers can adapt classroom management skills throughout the school year. Of course, these recommendations are not exhaustive, and teachers must recognize that what works now may not work with next year’s students.

Instead of buying into these misnomers, teachers need to focus on skills that they can improve now. Don’t try to change everything all at once; find a few specific strategies to prioritize per day or week and solidify them in your classroom.

Teachers can even utilize the current classroom as a trial-and-error period to see which strategies they like best. Instead of waiting until next year’s first two weeks, how about changing things today?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In