08878731003623669 (1)
DESCRIPTION
classroom management of novice teachersTRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Dogu Akdeniz University]On: 27 April 2013, At: 03:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20
A NEW LOOK AT PRESERVICETEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OFCLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ANDORGANIZATION: UNCOVERINGCOMPLEXITY AND DISSONANCEDouglas Kaufman a & David M. Moss aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction,University of ConnecticutVersion of record first published: 07 Apr 2010.
To cite this article: Douglas Kaufman & David M. Moss (2010): A NEW LOOKAT PRESERVICE TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ANDORGANIZATION: UNCOVERING COMPLEXITY AND DISSONANCE, The Teacher Educator,45:2, 118-136
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878731003623669
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
The Teacher Educator, 45:118–136, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online
DOI: 10.1080/08878731003623669
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A NEW LOOK AT PRESERVICE TEACHERS’
CONCEPTIONS OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
AND ORGANIZATION: UNCOVERING COMPLEXITY
AND DISSONANCE
DOUGLAS KAUFMAN and DAVID M. MOSS
Department of Curriculum and Instruction,University of Connecticut
This article examines preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom managementand organization in light of their training and beliefs about good teaching.
Students in their final year of a 5-year program discussed their definitions and
conceptions of classroom management, organization, and rule systems throughan open-ended questionnaire. Researchers analyzed responses using a grounded
approach. Findings revealed a portrait of student perceptions more complex
than those in previous studies, with conceptions often changing according tothe nature of the question asked. Respondents exhibited a preoccupation with
behavior management previously recognized in other studies; however, findings
also revealed underlying conflicts between respondents’ theoretical orientationsand conceptions of management, a lack of attention to developing student
independence, and a conceptual schism between organization and management.
Findings suggest a need for teacher educators to clarify the role of management,clarify relationships between organization and management, and help students
to bridge specific theory–practice gaps.
As faculty in a well-regarded 5-year teacher preparation program, wefeel that our students are highly motivated and committed to teaching.However, we also recognize that many will struggle to align their beliefsabout good teaching with the practices they have seen implemented in
Address correspondence to Douglas Kaufman, Associate Professor, University ofConnecticut, Neag School of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 249
Glenbrook Road, Unit 2033, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
118
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 119
their field experiences and during their own early teaching. In short,there appears to exist a gap between their beliefs and their intendedpractice. Our initial concern arose from evidence accumulated overseveral years of formal self-study of our program, which was tied toaccreditation. Our students, in their academic writing, usually shareprogressive beliefs: they often champion constructivist, student-centeredagendas, which suggest that students learn best by doing, exploring,and building independently off prior knowledge while teachers serve asfacilitators. They support student creativity, education as a lifelong en-deavor, and teacher flexibility in order to meet individual needs. How-ever, when faced with the complexities of a real classroom—particularlyits management—they often turn to methodologies that contradict theirstated beliefs (Crow, 1991; Martin, 2004; Weinstein, 1998). A moreteacher-centered classroom that limits student independence begins toappear more appealing. Our students have said, ‘‘I don’t believe theteacher should have all the power, but I think I’ll take control until Ilearn how to teach better.’’
Previous research has clearly demonstrated that management is aprimary concern for preservice and beginning teachers (Cakmak, 2008;Cruickshank, Kennedy, & Meyers, 1974; Latz, 1992; Martin, Chiodo,& Chang, 2001; McNally, I’anson, Whewell, & Wilson, 2005; Pigge,1978). In a meta-analysis of studies examining perceived problems ofbeginning teachers, Veenman (1984) identified classroom discipline asthe most frequently cited concern for young professionals, appearingin 85% of the nearly 100 articles reviewed.
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that students’ first reaction uponentering teaching often is to try to establish control and authority,usually through the enforcement of classroom rules (Boostrom, 1991;Chouliaraki, 1996; Doyle, 1986; Fields, 1997; Johnson, 1994; McCor-mack, 2001; Stoughton, 2007). Jones and Vesilind (1995) noted thatalthough preservice teachers may eventually look at student learningand management issues from broader perspectives that include thesupport of student learning, they still experience deep conflicts betweenoffering flexibility and retaining rules that serve to control students.
However, missing from many of these studies are clear definitionsof key terminology, particularly in regard to preservice teachers’ ownconceptions of classroom management. For instance, Veenman (1984)noted that most of the studies included in his meta-analysis used Lik-ert rating scales or simple checklists to record student responses toshort questions. Rarely were concepts such as classroom managementand discipline—to which the respondents were expected to react—defined. As a result they remained highly ambiguous concepts. Veen-man wrote:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
120 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
What is called discipline or order by one teacher may be called disorderby another teacher and vice versa. Even the interview studies did not givemore information. They, too, only registered the problem; they did notclarify the problem as viewed by beginning teachers: : : : Such clarificationis much needed for a correct understanding of the problem. (p. 153)
Latz (1992) noted that many studies define management, a priori, asorder and control. However, there is little evidence that this definitionis universal among teachers and students. He concluded, ‘‘discrepanciesbetween how preservice teachers and teacher educators perceive ‘orderand control’ should have implications for preservice education’’ (p. 1).
Another element of the classroom dynamic that appears to bemissing from most of the reviewed research, but that may have a di-rect impact on successful classroom management, is that of organiza-tion. Kaufman (2000, 2001) conceptualized classroom organization asthe physical structures and procedural systems—rather than behavioralguides—that promote ease of classroom movement and learning ef-ficiency. Good organization appears to diminish students’ confusion,frustration, and disruptive behavior; increase their ability to navigatethe classroom independently; and promote academically productivesocial interaction. This research compelled us to include conceptionsof organization as a component of a management study.
Understanding our own preservice teachers’ conceptions was im-portant to us because, in our education courses, they are often exposedto progressivist and social constructivist theory (Bruner, 1986; Dewey,1963; Koch, 2005; Moore, 2003; Prawat, 1992; Vygotsky, 1986). Many ofthem develop philosophies that promote opportunities to learn throughexperience and experimentation. These preservice teachers write thatthey hope to create classrooms that are more democratic, offeringstudents greater choice in regard to subject material and more timeto work independently.
These changes from what might be regarded as a more ‘‘tradi-tional’’ classroom construct, where teachers have more exclusive controlover the subject matter presented (Hirsch, 1996) and lecture moreoften to communicate information, suggest the need for a new class-room organization and management paradigm. In this ‘‘traditional’’classroom, organization and management often promote a focus onthe teacher (the source of information) by limiting disruptive studentactivity. Room structures, which may be organized so that the focal pointis the teacher, and rules such as ‘‘raise your hand before talking’’ and‘‘keep your hands and feet to yourself’’ help the teacher to transmitinformation with minimal distraction (Boostrom, 1991). However, thismanagement system may conflict with the teacher’s agenda when he
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 121
or she attempts to promote more student autonomy. When teachersoffer students more individual choices regarding their activities andencourage them to learn through experience, an organization andmanagement system that diminishes the ability for students to moveindependently and efficiently may undermine pedagogical goals (Kauf-man, 2000, 2001).
Until we have a greater understanding of how our students con-ceive of organization and management, we will struggle to gauge theeffectiveness of our instruction and determine how to revise it to bridgecrucial gaps between theory and practice. Therefore, this study exam-ines preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom organization, man-agement, and rule systems in order to provide us with an understandingof where students are in relation to apparently competing conceptionsof ‘‘traditional’’ or ‘‘progressive’’ classroom structures. Our guidingquestions were:
� What are preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom organizationand management?
� How do their anticipated organization and management practicesalign with their stated conceptions?
Methods
Program Context
This study took place at a public university in New England. Our pro-gram spans three years, beginning in the students’ junior year. Uponsuccessful completion of the program, participants will have earnedbachelors’ and masters’ degrees and eligibility for certification.
During their work in the program, the preservice teachers addressissues of classroom management in a variety of settings: (a) in sixconsecutive-semester clinic experiences—occurring in urban, suburban,and rural settings—where they observe inservice teachers’ managementapproaches and practice their own approaches; (b) in accompanyingseminars, where participants discuss management concepts, skills, strate-gies; and (c) in methods courses, where organization and managementare taught as critical components of successful teaching.
Although instructor approaches can vary within and across sub-programs, organization and management concepts and approaches aretaught with a generally consistent focus, introducing, examining, andpromoting concepts that are widely considered to be effective (Doyle,1986; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). Two features in particular might
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
122 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
be defined as classically ‘‘progressive’’ or ‘‘constructivist’’ in nature.First is the emphasis on developing learning communities that fostermutual care and respect (Agne, Greenwood, & Miller, 1994; Brown,2004; Cothran, Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2003; Haberman, 2004; Patrick &Smart, 1998; Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, & Curran, 2004) and pro-vide student-centered environments rich in interpersonal communica-tion (Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, & James, 2002; Witcher, Onwueg-buzie, & Minor, 2001). Second is the promotion of student indepen-dence and self-responsibility through intensive teaching and practice(Kaufman, 2000, 2001; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block,& Morrow, 2001). This teaching often emphasizes physical organizationand the development of effective procedures and operations over ateacher’s singular focus on student behavior (Brophy, 1988; Evertson& Harris, 1992; Everston & Smithey, 2001; Kaufman, 2001; Morrow,Tracey, Woo, & Pressley, 1999; Pressley et al., 2001).
Participants
The participants were 42 elementary education and secondary edu-cation preservice students who were in their final master’s semesterof our program and actively engaged in graduate field experiencesin professional development schools. This group represented approx-imately 50% of the total population in these programs. These candi-dates had completed their traditional student teaching experience inthe spring semester of their senior year and were beginning to seektheir first teaching positions. Eighty-six percent of the respondentswere female. Fifty-two percent were elementary candidates, and theremaining were distributed about evenly across the various secondarysubject areas.
Data Collection Procedures
We employed purposeful sampling for maximum variation (Patton,2002) to select the respondents. Respondents completed a survey ofnine open-ended questions developed specifically for this project: (a)Briefly discuss your greatest fear or concern when thinking about teach-ing in your own classroom; (b) What specific areas of your job will youwant to focus on first (or most) when you begin teaching?; (c) What isyour definition of a well-organized classroom?; (d) What are the mostimportant actions you can take to organize your classroom well?; (e)What is your definition of classroom management?; (f) What specificsteps do you intend to take in order to manage your classroom well?;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 123
(g) Do you anticipate creating classroom rules once you begin teaching?If so, how will you go about creating them?; (h) What are the reasonsfor creating classroom rules?; (i) List the most important rules that youanticipate having in your classroom.
We designed the questions to offer respondents at least two dif-ferent lenses through which to consider the concepts of organization,management, and rules: one more theoretical and potentially removedfrom their own roles as practicing teachers and one more connectedto their anticipated practice. For instance, although Question 3 asksrespondents to provide a conceptual definition of organization, it doesnot ask them to contemplate the definition’s influence on their ownpractice. On the other hand, the related Question 4 asks respondents toimagine the same concept within the context of their own anticipatedactions: their actual application of skills, strategies, and activities. Wewanted to discover any relationship between answers when conceptswere approached from these two different points of view.
We gave special care to word questions to obtain maximum feed-back. For instance, when the question ‘‘Discuss your greatest fear aboutentering teaching’’ was piloted, many students responded that they hadno actual fears, so the research question was expanded to include theterm ‘‘concerns.’’
We established content validity for the questionnaire by having apanel of teacher educators review the questions and then piloting thequestionnaire with a small group of graduate students enrolled in aneducation seminar. Subsequently, our respondents received the ques-tionnaires in seminar classes during the spring semester and completedthem during class time.
Data Analysis
Given that survey questions were open-ended and responses were there-fore sometimes extensive, we used a grounded approach, relying onconstant comparison for coding and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We conducted reiterative readings of all sur-veys and engaged in code-mapping (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002)to develop specific pattern categories of response pertaining to eachquestion. Simultaneously, we systematically searched for evidence thatmight contradict or disconfirm these emerging patterns.
To begin code mapping, we independently divided responses into‘‘episodic units’’ (Grant-Davie, 1992, p. 276), identified by their singularfocus on a particular idea. For instance, a response to the questionabout a student’s greatest fears upon entering teaching might result in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
124 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
the respondent naming ‘‘classroom management,’’ ‘‘relationships withparents,’’ and ‘‘knowing my subject.’’ Each of these was coded as asingle episodic unit. Many responses, although not all, contained morethan one episodic unit. Through multiple independent, then joint,readings and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), we reduced anddistilled similar codes derived from each question’s answers into morecomprehensive categories. Through discussion, we agreed to count anycategory containing five or more responses as a reportable pattern (e.g.,Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver, 2005).
Finally, we conducted an across-question examination of categories,comparing the general themes elicited from different questions to oneanother in order to establish any correlations. We also compared theanswers of individual respondents across the questions to establish sim-ilar relationships.
Although the themes that we discovered offer new insights into thecomplexity of issues of organization and management, we also recognizelimitations to our study. Readers should be cautious about attributinggeneralizability due to the sample size and context of the researchin our particular setting. Although open-ended in nature, the surveyquestions may have unduly shaped participants’ self-reported responses;and follow-up interviews, which would have afforded respondents theopportunity to expand upon their initial answers, were not conducted.Additionally, as this was a perception study, we received an incompletepicture of the connection between students’ conceptions and theiractual practices. This study did not follow graduates through theirinduction years to reveal how their beliefs, fears, and intentions relatedto practice.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 depicts the coded categories. These straightforward categoriesmight stand on their own as interesting insights into the variety offears, intentions, and understandings of preservice teachers. Overall,the breadth of responses is significant, providing initial insight into therespondents’ thinking.
However, early in our coding we encountered both clear connec-tions and confusing anomalies among certain answers that led us tosharpen our focus on their specific relationships. A closer look into theinterrelationships among answers revealed new insights into both theconsistencies and notable dissonances among different answers. As weanalyzed and interpreted our results, we identified several larger themesthat complicate and build upon previous research.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
TA
BL
E1
Pre
serv
ice
Teac
hers
’R
esp
on
ses
toQ
uest
ion
nai
re,
Fre
qu
en
cies
by
Cat
eg
ory
Qu
est
ion
Co
de
cate
go
ryP
rim
ary
focu
so
fco
mm
en
tary
n
1.
Bri
efl
yd
iscu
ssyo
ur
gre
atest
fear
or
con
cern
wh
en
you
thin
kab
ou
tte
ach
ing
inyo
ur
clas
sro
om
next
year
.
Cla
ssro
om
man
agem
en
tR
esp
on
sib
ilit
yfo
rst
ud
en
tw
elf
are
Lo
gis
tics
&p
lan
nin
g
Lo
sin
gco
ntr
ol
of
beh
avio
ran
dd
isci
pli
ne
Fear
so
fm
is-e
du
cati
ng
stu
den
tsT
ime
need
ed
for
pla
nn
ing
and
the
abil
ity
top
ut
less
on
sto
geth
er
18 9 9
2.
Wh
atsp
eci
fic
areas
of
you
rjo
bw
ill
you
wan
tto
focu
so
nfi
rst
(or
mo
st)
wh
en
you
begin
teac
hin
g?
Est
abli
shin
gcl
assr
oo
mm
anag
em
en
t&
con
tro
lE
stab
lish
ing
ap
osi
tive
soci
alen
viro
nm
en
tD
eve
lop
ing
less
on
pla
ns
&ac
tivi
ties
Deve
lop
ing
ast
yle
of
teac
hin
gSett
ing
up
&o
rgan
izin
gth
ecl
assr
oo
mD
eve
lop
ing
rela
tio
nsh
ips
wit
hco
lleag
ues
Est
abli
shin
gru
les
Teac
her
est
abli
shin
gb
eh
avio
rco
ntr
ol
Cre
atin
g‘‘
safe
,’’
‘‘w
elc
om
ing,’
’&
‘‘co
mfo
rtab
le’’
en
viro
nm
en
tsC
reat
ing
teac
hin
gp
rod
uct
s&
mat
eri
als
Deve
lop
ing
stu
den
t-ce
nte
red
,h
and
s-o
n,
inq
uir
y-b
ased
app
roac
hC
lass
roo
mfe
atu
res
and
layo
ut
Ob
tain
ing
men
tors
hip
Teac
her
est
abli
shin
gru
les
of
beh
avio
r
11 8 8 7 6 6 5
3.
Wh
atis
you
rd
efi
nit
ion
of
aw
ell
org
aniz
ed
clas
sro
om
?W
ell
org
aniz
ed
mat
eri
als
and
layo
ut
Cle
arro
uti
nes,
sch
ed
ule
s,&
pla
ns
Cle
arru
les
and
exp
ect
atio
ns
Wh
ere
stu
den
tsar
ele
arn
ing
Wh
ere
stu
den
tsar
een
gag
ed
&o
n-t
ask
Wh
ere
stu
den
tsfe
el
safe
&co
mfo
rtab
le
Neat
ness
&st
ud
en
tac
cess
tom
ateri
als
&w
ork
Stu
den
tac
cess
ton
ece
ssar
yin
form
atio
nB
eh
avio
rco
ntr
ol
Pro
mo
tin
gle
arn
ing
thro
ugh
eas
yn
avig
atio
n&
mat
eri
als
acce
ssStu
den
tsat
ten
din
gto
acad
em
icw
ork
Cre
atin
ga
po
siti
veso
cial
en
viro
nm
en
t
20
13
13
12 8 8
4.
Wh
atar
eth
em
ost
imp
ort
ant
acti
on
syo
uca
nta
ke
too
rgan
ize
you
rcl
assr
oo
mw
ell
?
Est
abli
shcl
ear
rou
tin
es
&co
nse
qu
en
ces
for
beh
avio
r.O
rgan
ize
mat
eri
als
&cl
assr
oo
msp
ace
Be
pers
on
ally
org
aniz
e&
pre
par
ed
Est
abli
sh&
teac
hcl
ear
pro
ced
ure
s&
rou
tin
es
Beh
avio
rco
ntr
ol
Neat
ness
&o
rder
tofa
cili
tate
teac
her
wo
rkK
no
win
gw
hat
teac
her
wan
tsto
acco
mp
lish
Est
abli
shin
gp
red
icta
bil
ity
tom
ake
task
sau
tom
atic
&eff
icie
nt
15
15
15
10
5.
Wh
atis
you
rd
efi
nit
ion
of
clas
sro
om
man
agem
en
t?B
eh
avio
rco
ntr
ol
Asa
feen
viro
nm
en
tth
atp
rom
ote
sle
arn
ing
Aw
ell
org
aniz
ed
clas
sro
om
Teac
her
con
tro
lo
fst
ud
en
tb
eh
avio
rC
reat
ing
asp
ace
con
du
cive
tori
skta
kin
gan
din
dep
en
den
ceC
reat
ing
asp
ace
con
du
cive
tost
ud
en
tle
arn
ing
28
14 9
6.
Wh
atsp
eci
fic
step
sd
oyo
uin
ten
dto
take
ino
rder
tom
anag
eyo
ur
clas
sro
om
well
?
Est
abli
shcl
ear
rule
s,exp
ect
atio
ns,
rew
ard
s,&
con
seq
uen
ces
for
beh
avio
rT
eac
her
con
tro
lo
fst
ud
en
tb
eh
avio
r32
7.
Do
you
anti
cip
ate
creat
ing
clas
sro
om
rule
so
nce
you
begin
teac
hin
g?
Ifso
,h
ow
wil
lyo
ugo
abo
ut
creat
ing
them
?
Cre
ate
rule
sin
coll
abo
rati
on
wit
hst
ud
en
tsF
ocu
so
nst
ud
en
tsh
avin
gco
-ow
ners
hip
of
clas
sro
om
35
8.
Wh
atar
eth
ere
aso
ns
for
hav
ing
clas
sro
om
rule
s?T
ocr
eat
ea
safe
lear
nin
gen
viro
nm
en
tT
oest
abli
shb
eh
avio
rco
ntr
ol
&o
rder
Cre
atin
gsa
fety
,co
mfo
rt,
&o
rder
that
pro
mo
tes
lear
nin
gU
nd
ers
tan
din
gte
ach
er
exp
ect
atio
ns
for
acce
pta
ble
beh
avio
r24
22
9.
Lis
tth
em
ost
imp
ort
ant
rule
sth
atyo
uan
tici
pat
eh
avin
gin
you
rcl
assr
oo
m.
Ru
les
top
rom
ote
resp
ect
Ru
les
toco
ntr
ol
acti
on
s&
beh
avio
rsR
ule
sfo
rst
ud
en
tsta
ke
resp
on
sib
ilit
yfo
rth
eir
wo
rk
Resp
ect
ing
oth
ers
Lim
itin
gp
hys
ical
acti
vity
En
suri
ng
on
-tas
kb
eh
avio
r
36
17
12
125
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
126 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
The Inherent Complexity of Preservice Teachers’ Views
Some responses appeared to us to be fairly straightforward and to con-firm assumptions that we had made about our students’ views, based onseveral years of interactions: In Question 1, these included respondents’fears and concerns about undermining their future students’ welfare.One student wrote, ‘‘When I think about teaching in my own classroomthe main thing I fear is somehow affecting a student negatively and per-manently without meaning to do so.’’ Respondents’ fears about logisticsand planning included the overwhelming time required for planningand instruction, paperwork, and their ability to put together lessonseffectively as personal concerns. In Questions 3 and 4, attention tologistics, routines, and planning continued, with some students defininga well-organized classroom, in part, as a classroom where materials wereneat and accessible, the room was easily navigable, and clear routines,schedules, and plans promoted efficiency and eliminated confusion.When asked what actions they could take to organize their classroomswell, many focused on organizing materials and space by keeping theirrooms clean, neat, and orderly and having necessary materials stockedand ready.
However, several other responses across questions coalesced topaint an exponentially more complex and nuanced portrait of these stu-dents’ views and understandings. Analysis revealed several interrelated(although sometimes contradictory) themes across questions, whichappeared to belie many of the neat results we had read in similarstudies. We unearthed not only clear themes of focus, but also sur-prising dissonances in students’ views, which might be interpreted asdiametric. However, we discovered logic in them, eventually definingthe differences as reasonable struggles between divergent but perhapsequally important aims. The following themes emerged as particularlysignificant.
A Confirmation of Preservice Teachers’ Attention to Classroom
Management Through Behavior Management and Control
Clearly, students focused on behavior management across all questions,which is consistent with the findings of other studies cited previously.A great majority of respondents’ fears and concerns (Question 1) weregrounded in student–teacher relationships, and they cited classroommanagement as a fear at least twice as often as any other response.Explicitly and consistently, they framed management in terms of bothbehavior control and discipline, worrying about keeping behavior prob-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 127
lems to a minimum so that teaching could occur without disruption. Asone respondent wrote in describing her fear, ‘‘It is imperative that wehave control over our classrooms or anything we attempt to teach willbe lost.’’
When asked what aspects of their jobs they intended to focus onfirst or most (Question 2), a plurality (11) cited classroom management.Those who elaborated used key words like ‘‘order’’ and ‘‘control,’’again operationally defining classroom management as maintainingdiscipline and controlling behavior: ‘‘First, I want to establish order andrespect in my classroom. My students will understand what is expectedof them in terms of behavior and conduct.’’
In discussing their intended steps for managing their future class-rooms (Question 6), an even greater majority focused on the directcontrol of student behavior. In fact, analysis revealed only one clearcategory, which was devoted to systematizing teacher control of behav-ior: ‘‘Establishing a set of rules (and following them), using a behaviormanagement program with rewards and consequences.’’
When asked to provide reasons for having rules (Question 8), somerespondents stated that rules helped eliminate ambiguity of expecta-tions, letting students know explicitly what ‘‘acceptable’’ and ‘‘appro-priate’’ behaviors were:
Rules are important because students need to explicitly know what isexpected of them. If there were no rules, and one got in trouble, theteacher will have nothing to substantiate the punishment because thechild would not know they were misbehaving.
Respondents stressed the need to create rules at the beginning ofthe year and adhere to them consistently, focusing both on rules thatpromoted respect and rules that limited students’ physical activity ortalk, such as ‘‘raise your hand’’ and ‘‘don’t talk while others are talkingor working.’’ In sum, the emphasis on behavior control across questionswas unequivocal.
A Disconnect Between Preservice Teachers’ Concerns About
Behavior Management and Their Anticipated Practice
However, a closer look at the answers across questions complicates theseresponses. For instance, of the 18 students who cited management as afear in Question 1, only four said that they would focus on managementwhen they began to teach (Question 2). The others who stated that theyplanned to focus on classroom management, did not cite management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
128 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
as a fear in Question 1. These responses suggest that although a sig-nificant number of respondents identified behavior management as aconcern, they may not have yet made a clear connection between theirconcerns and how to address them through professional strategies andproactive work.
A Dichotomy Between Preservice Teachers’ Philosophical–
Theoretical Stances and Their Conceptions of How They Will
Organize, Manage, and Instruct
At the same time, several responses across questions suggested thatmany respondents wanted to create classrooms where their studentscould learn creatively and independently, a scenario that might beundermined by structures exclusively supporting unilateral teachercontrol. We interpreted an influence of personal fears on students’theoretical and ideological stances, which translated into an apparentdivision between theory and practice. To wit, while concerns overstudent behavior were seen in responses to all questions, when questionswere framed to elicit more general responses about teaching, organi-zation, management, and rules, at least some respondents appearedto draw on learner-centered conceptions of classroom pedagogy, dis-cussing the classroom as a place where student inquiry and learningwere paramount. However, when other questions forced students specif-ically to contemplate their future practice, any notion of progressive,constructivist, or learner-centered approaches and environments almostcompletely vanished in favor of an even greater focus on behaviorcontrol.
Evidence of a desire for a more constructivist, student-centeredclassroom are scattered throughout many of the questions. For instance,in Question 2—‘‘What specific areas of your job will you want to focuson first (or most) when you begin teaching?’’—a clear response cat-egory was ‘‘establishing a positive social environment.’’ Respondentshere spoke of creating spaces that fostered student independence, in-teraction, thinking, and teamwork, which led to effective practices andconditions for learning: ‘‘I will create a safe, comfortable environmentthat promotes risk taking and free thinking’’ and ‘‘I want to give them(and myself) a sense of community—students learning about one an-other in an environment that encourages them to work together as ateam.’’
Another category, ‘‘developing a style of teaching,’’ indicatedtheir desire to devise student-centered, hands-on, and inquiry-basedinstructional approaches by establishing community structures that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 129
encouraged risk-taking and problem solving. They mention establishingrapport with students, getting to know them, and focusing on theirindividual needs.
Similarly, in both their definitions of a well-organized classroom(Question 3) and of classroom management (Question 5), some stu-dents focused on creating safe, comfortable, navigable environmentsthat allowed learning to occur: ‘‘A well organized classroom is one thatprovides an environment that produces maximum learning and onethat provides students with the comfort level and motivation needed towant to learn.’’
Embedded in a few of these answers is evidence of a student-centered approach in which good organization fosters student auton-omy and learning independence. Two students defined management,in part, as creating a learning environment that builds ‘‘student own-ership.’’
However, Questions 3 and 5 are definitional, perhaps allowingstudents to view organization and management from a more abstractperspective, removed from thoughts about their own future teaching.In contrast, when Questions 4 and 6 asked respondents to contemplatetheir implementation of organization and management practices, anycommentary about learning or student-centeredness almost completelydisappeared, and the already strong emphasis on behavior control be-came even more pronounced. In short, those who had introducedconceptions of classroom management and organization as learningtools replaced them with conceptions of management and organiza-tion as behavior control tools. When respondents described how theyintended to implement organization (Question 4), many more focusedon student behavior, stating that teachers must communicate limitsclearly in order to establish order: ‘‘[I will have a class] where objectivesand rules are discussed and expected to be followed with consequencesunderstood.’’
Other categories—‘‘organizing materials and classroom space,’’‘‘being personally organized and prepared,’’ and ‘‘establishing clearprocedures and routines’’—focused primarily on benefits to the teacher,not student: ‘‘Developing an organizational system which works for theteacher, be it color coding things, devoting crates to certain subjects,investing in a lifetime supply of post-it notes, utilizing file cabinets,ands so forth.’’ Respondents here did not mention organization as atool to facilitate learning, independence, or creativity as they had in theprevious question.
As stated earlier, responses to Question 6 were unambiguous: Re-spondents focused almost exclusively on creating rules to control behav-ior and did not mention learning or student centeredness. The same
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
130 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
patterns existed in respondents’ conceptions of rules and rule imple-mentation. For instance, Question 8 asked respondents to contemplatethe reasons for rules—a more theoretical perspective. Whereas theydescribed rules as necessary for either conveying expectations of behav-ior or establishing teacher order and control, they just as frequentlydescribed rules as creating appropriate, safe learning environments.Many exhibited a strong, consistent attention to learning not nearly asapparent in responses to previous questions. Most focused on establish-ing ‘‘safety’’ and ‘‘comfort’’ to promote learning, whereas others tied‘‘order’’ to learning and increased productivity.
However, when Question 9 focused on their personal implemen-tation of rules, their attention to learning diminished greatly, clearlyshifting focus to creating rules that demand respect and explicitly ad-dressing behavior control without mentioning learning.
A View of Organization and Management as the
Sole Responsibility of the Teacher
Respondents often explicitly stated their intentions to organize andmanage autocratically because they perceived that it was the teacher’srole to do so. Although other elements of their answers indicated thatthey preferred learner-centered, constructivist classrooms, they rarelydiscussed students’ roles in creating organizational and managementstructures. Their comments were often absolute in tone. For instance,when asked to define classroom management, one student wrote, ‘‘Hav-ing the students respond and behave according to how you want themto. If you want them always quiet, then they are. If you like them active,that is how they are.’’
The exception to this pattern was found in responses to Ques-tion 7, about how respondents intended to create classroom rules. Thevast majority stated that they intended to create rules with students’input: ‘‘I plan on working with the students on the first day of schoolin a whole-class meeting to develop the rules. The students must takeownership!’’
However, their commitment to this ideal is belied by responses toother questions. When they described which areas of their jobs theyintended to focus on first or most (Question 2), some responded thatthey intended to establish rules. However, here no one mentioned co-creating rules with students. Instead, those who elaborated explicitlystated that they would create rules to enforce ‘‘what I expect of them.’’Similarly, when asked what steps they intended to take to manage theirclassrooms well (Question 6), the vast majority of respondents said they
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 131
intended to establish clear rules and expectations in order to controlbehavior.
We speculate that this stark discrepancy among answers was influ-enced by the instruction in our program: When instructors discuss rulecreation, they almost always suggest that students and teachers analyzeclassroom needs together and co-construct rule systems or charters.Significant, then, is that when our questions focused less explicitlyon the nature of rule creation, and more on envisioning the actualimplementation of rules, any notion of democratic negotiation andcollaboration disappeared. Students’ fears about uncontrolled behaviorappeared to supersede a more academic understanding of appropriatepedagogy as constructivist and student-centered.
A Schism Between Conceptions of Classroom Organization
and Classroom Management
Nine of the respondents to Question 5 cited organization as a com-ponent of classroom management, correlating it to student learning:‘‘[Organization is a] classroom in which students are ready to learn andlearning can really happen. I think it is the result of a well organizedclassroom along with a motivating environment.’’
However, when asked what steps they would take to manage theirclassrooms well (Question 6), all mention of organization disappeared,replaced with the exclusive focus on establishing rules, expectations,rewards, and consequences for behavior. This discrepancy may indicatethat students conceptualize management—focusing heavily on behaviorcontrol—as a precursor to good organization. This interpretation issupported by respondents to Questions 3 and 4 who saw rules, respect,and behavior management as factors in both their definitions of or-ganization and the steps that they intended to take to promote goodorganization. For instance, one respondent defined a well-organizedclassroom as ‘‘one in which all or most are following class rules. Thatmeans they are sitting in their seats on time, they do not roam around,and when they move into groups they do so efficiently.’’
Similarly, when asked to describe the most important actions fororganizing a classroom well, ‘‘establishing clear rules and consequencesfor behavior’’ was a dominant category. Respondents appeared to vieworganization as a condition that arose out of strong behavior manage-ment, not one that promoted or resulted in good management. This mayindicate a less sophisticated understanding of the importance of orga-nization as a condition that can eliminate many behavior or classroomnavigation problems before they begin (Kaufman, 2000, 2001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
132 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
Implications
Several implications arise out of our interpretations, which we believecan have a significant impact on both our pedagogy and our futureresearch.
We Need to Clarify the Role of Classroom Management
in Successful Classrooms
As teacher educators, we were concerned by the seemingly dissonantnature of these students’ notions of classroom management. We lookat classroom management as a condition to enhance student thinkingand learning ( Jones & Jones, 1995; Kunter, Baumert, & Koller, 2007;Martin, 2004; Weinstein et al., 2004). Our students’ conceptions ofcontrol may or may not be tied to learning; if they are not, they maylead to trouble. We have all witnessed classrooms where students sitquietly but learn little. Preservice teachers’ fears about classrooms runamok often lead them to view control of students as a primary goal andoutcome. They thus conceive of classroom management in unsophisti-cated ways. As we teach issues of management in our methods coursesand clinic experiences, we may need to explicate that (a) control isonly viable when it enhances other classroom conditions that lead tolearning, (b) teachers work to help students develop self control in orderto take more ownership of their own learning, and (c) managementthat supports learning may promote student movement as they take onmore responsibility in learner-centered environments. This necessitatesexplicit instruction on how to use independence responsibly and educa-tively. We may need to teach students that classroom management ismuch more complicated than developing autocratic order, but includescomplex interrelationships among practices of social and interpersonalinteraction, community building, self-analysis, and organization (Bro-phy, 1983; Cothran, Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2003; Kaufman, 2004; Martin,2004; McLaughlin, 1991).
We Need to Help Students Develop Strategies to
Transfer Philosophy and Theory Into Practice
The apparent schism between learning and classroom management maybe exacerbated by the somewhat fragmented nature of the teachingwithin our own program and its individual courses. In our programstudents study learning theory as an isolated entity in their first yearand then take methods courses in their second year. One oft-heard
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 133
complaint is that the material covered in the first year does not seemto apply to that covered in the second, or is even contradictory. Too,even within methods courses that examine both theory and practice,the tremendous amount of material taught may force educators tocover concepts in a limited amount of time and to box them intodiscrete, artificial units for ease of coverage. A teacher may devote a dayto the nature of learning in the classroom, another day to classroommanagement, and so on. This artificial containment of managementmay obscure theory–practice relationships.
Revealing these relationships may prove difficult. For instance, ourfaculty recently voted to create a new class devoted to issues of classroommanagement. This may or may not be a positive step. Although class-room management warrants the coverage afforded by an entire course,it may also diminish attention to management in other areas of theprogram, potentially isolating it from discussions of learning. Beforecommitting to steps such as this, programs may need to make moreexplicit connections between theory and practice across all programcomponents.
We Need to Teach and Clarify Conceptions
of Classroom Organization
Some of our own research has suggested that organization is a funda-mental precursor to an efficient, flowing—well-managed—classroom.Good organization may eliminate many of the anxieties and confusionsthat contribute to the student behaviors that new teachers most fear.A classroom where students know where things are kept and how theywork, understand procedures, and can navigate the classroom indepen-dently may increase the time available for learning. If our students seeorganization as a byproduct of behavior control rather than as a creatorof an efficient learning environment, they may miss this point. We assertthat organization as a pedagogical construct should be central to theprofessional knowledge base and that we must elevate its status to anessential condition of learning.
The tremendous complexity of the answers we analyzed and inter-preted in this study gave rise to a sense of excitement because they offerus new directions for teaching and research. We have not yet adequatelyaddressed the legitimacy of new teachers’ concerns about classroommanagement, nor offered them an environment in which to engagein a thorough and complex treatment of the inherent theoretical andpractical issues. We hope that this study renews the larger effort to exam-ine the roles of organization and management in learning, and, morebroadly, what constitutes the professional knowledge base for teachers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
134 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
References
Agne, K. J., Greenwood, G. E., & Miller, L. D. (1994). Relationships betweenteacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness. Journal of Research and Devel-
opment in Education, 27(3), 141–152.Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis
on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher,
31(7), 28–38.Boostrom, R. (1991). The nature and function of classroom rules. Curriculum
Inquiry, 21(2), 193–216.Brophy, J. (1983). Classroom organization and management. Elementary School
Journal, 83(4), 265–285.Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–18.Brown, D. F. (2004). Urban teachers’ professed classroom management strate-
gies: Reflections of culturally responsive teaching. Urban Education, 39(3),266–289.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.
Cakmak, M. (2008). Concerns about teaching process: Student teacher’s per-spectives. Education Research Quarterly, 31(3), 57–77.
Chouliaraki, L. (1996). Regulative practices in a ‘‘progressivist’’ classroom:‘‘Good habits’’ as a ‘‘disciplinary technology.’’ Language and Education, 10(2& 3), 103–118.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). ‘‘This is kind of givinga secret away : : : ’’: Students’ perspectives on effective class management.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4), 435–444.
Crow, N. (1991). Personal perspectives on classroom management. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL.
Cruickshank, D. R., Kennedy, J. J., & Meyers, B. (1974). Perceived problems ofsecondary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 68(4), 154–159.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier.Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York:Macmillan.
Evertson, C. M., & Harris, A. H. (1992). What we know about managing class-rooms. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 74–78.
Everston, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2001). Mentoring effects on protégés’ class-room practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research,
93(5), 294–304.Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J. L., & Shaver, A. N. (2005).
Preservice teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21(6), 717–727.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions 135
Fields, B. A. (1997). Nature and function of rules. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 22(3), 7–12.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Grant-Davie, K. (1992). Coding data: Issues of validity, reliability, and inter-
pretation. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in
composition research (pp. 270–286). Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.
Haberman, M. (2004). Can star teachers create learning communities? Educa-
tional Leadership, 61(8), 52–57.Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York:
Doubleday.Johnson, V. G. (1994). Student teachers’ conceptions of classroom control.
Journal of Educational Research, 88(2), 109–117.Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (1995). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating
positive learning environments (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Jones, M. G., & Vesilind, E. (1995). Preservice teachers’ cognitive frameworks
for class management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4), 313–330.Kaufman, D. (2000). Conferences & conversations: Listening to the literate classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Kaufman, D. (2001). Organizing and managing the language arts workshop:
A matter of motion. Language Arts, 79(2), 114–123.Kaufman, D. (2004). ‘‘A sense of place’’: Donald Graves and the organization
and management of the writing classroom. New England Reading Association
Journal, 40(1), 10–15.Koch, J. (2005). Science stories: A science methods book for elementary teachers (3rd ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Koller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management
and the development of subject-related interests. Learning & Instruction,
17(5), 494–509.Latz, M. (1992). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and concerns about classroom
management and discipline: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 3(4), 1–4.Martin, L. A., Chiodo, J. J., & Chang, L. (2001). First year teachers: Looking
back after three years. Action in Teacher Education, 23(1), 55–63.Martin, S. D. (2004). Finding balance: Impact of classroom management con-
ceptions on developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(5), 405–422.McGlaughlin, H. J. (1991). Reconciling care and control: Authority in classroom
relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 182–195.McCormack, A. C. (2001). Investigating the impact of an internship on the
classroom management beliefs of preservice teachers. The Professional Educa-
tor, 23(2), 11–22.McNally, J., I’anson, J., Whewell, C., & Wilson, G. (2005). ‘‘They think that
swearing is okay’’: First lessons in behavior management. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 31(3), 169–185.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013
136 D. Kaufman and D. M. Moss
Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preser-vice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics ofeffective teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 116–126.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers.Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31–42.
Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., Woo, D. G., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristicsof exemplary first-grade literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52(5), 462–468.
Patrick, J., & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effec-tiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 23(2), 165–178.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pigge, F. L. (1978). Teacher competencies: Need, proficiency, and where pro-
ficiency was developed. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(4), 70–76.Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow,
L. L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. NewYork: Guilford.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A construc-tivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Stoughton, E. H. (2007). ‘‘How will I get them to behave?’’: Preservice teachersreflect on classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7),1024–1037.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 54(2), 143–178.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Weinstein, C. S. (1998). I want to be nice, but I have to be mean: Exploring
prospective teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14(2), 153–163.Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a con-
ception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher
Education, 55(1), 25–38.Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of
effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools,
8(2), 45–57.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dog
u A
kden
iz U
nive
rsity
] at
03:
54 2
7 A
pril
2013