Student teachers’ classroom management learning process and outcomes during the internship

ABSTRACT

This exploratory study investigated the process of student teachers’ CM competence development and resulting outcomes in the context of secondary education professional development schools in the Netherlands. Curriculum assignment output of four student teachers was analysed, and the student teachers and their teacher educators were interviewed. The learning process of the student teachers for CM was reconstructed in terms of (self-regulated) learning, the role of others and (un)planned (learning) activities. Also, student teachers’ goals and learning outcomes were investigated. The results showed that student teachers’ CM goals and outcomes mainly focused on creating healthy teacher-pupil relationships and were only marginally different. However, large variation was found in their learning processes, especially in terms of taking initiative for their own learning, the systematic approach to learning and the use of resources. Moreover, results showed the crucial role of teacher educators and theoretical knowledge for student teachers’ CM learning during their internship.

KEYWORDS:

• Classroom management
• teacher education curriculum
• workplace learning

1. Introduction

Classroom management (CM) is a core (student) teacher competence (Emmer and Stough 2001; Oliver and Reschly 2007). Effective CM results in productive teacher-pupil relationships and higher cognitive and affective pupils’ outcomes (Hattie 2009; Wubbels et al. 2015). As a result, CM should be one of the core topics in the teacher education curriculum (Emmer and Sabornie 2015; Evertson and Weinstein 2006). However, scholars have concluded that attention for CM in teacher education curricula is limited and that more attention is needed (Stough 2006; van Tartwijk and Hammerness 2011; Wubbels 2011).

Little is known about the role the school internship period plays in this development.

In a previous study, Adams, Koster and den Brok (2022a) studied the intended curriculum for CM in teacher education, focusing on the school internship part. They found that CM is likely to be undervalued by both teacher educators and student teachers themselves, since no specific CM goals were found in curricular documents. Nevertheless, the interviewed teacher educators argued that they emphasised CM content in their coaching of student teachers during their internship.

However, from this and other studies, it remains largely unclear how the intended curriculum is translated into an implemented and attained curriculum (Thijs and van den Akker 2009): intentions may not be implemented or attained, and results or implementations may not have been intended. Therefore, the implemented and attained curriculum for CM in the context of the school internship will be investigated in the present study. The implemented curriculum focuses on how the curriculum takes place and can be observed in practice. The attained curriculum concerns what has been learned, and to what degree the goals in the intended curriculum have been met (Thijs and van den Akker 2009).

The implemented and attained teacher education curriculum will be investigated in the context of professional development schools (PDS). The PDS is an intensified collaboration between teacher education institutes and secondary education schools, which aims to reduce the gap between theory and practice and where teacher education, research and professional development of teachers go hand-in-hand (Adams, Koster, and den Brok 2022b; Darling-Hammond 2005; Helms-Lorenz et al. 2018). In a PDS, institutional courses are integrated in the context of the workplace while in non-PDS schools no teacher education curriculum components are taught in the school context. Supervising teachers at PDS schools also receive training from the university and obtain paid time from school management for student teacher supervision. Recent studies have provided indications that PDS contexts show better results in terms of student teacher development than non-PDS practice schools (Helms-Lorenz et al. 2018). The ambition of the present study is to map patterns of CM learning and potential outcomes of CM learning during the student teacher internship in the context of PDS schools.

2. Conceptual framework

This study focuses on student teachers’ CM learning during the school internship. In order to conceptualise the learning processes and outcomes, the three elements of constructive alignment (goals, activities/learning processes and outcomes) form the starting point (Biggs and Tang 2011). Concerning the learning process, the learning curve (Huberman 1989; Meijer 2014) will be studied, as well as self-regulated learning and the use of theory, as they are interconnecting concepts (Tynjälä 2008). Student teachers’ CM learning outcomes contains the elements of competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes) and teacher-student interpersonal relationships (see Figure 1). Combined, the following five topics will be discussed in this section that were used to conceptualise the learning processes and outcomes: CM learning goals, CM learning processes (learning curve, sources of learning, and self-regulated learning), and CM learning outcomes teacher-pupil interpersonal relationship). Below, these concepts will be elaborated more in detail.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of this study.

2.1. CM learning goals

The goals student teachers formulate for their internship can be related to CM. In various recent studies this topic was centred in order to promote student teachers’ learning during their internship (Adams, Koster, and den Brok 2022b; Berger and Girardet 2022; van Driel et al. 2023). As discussed by Hammerness (2011), CM has no universally agreed definition. However, in various studies researchers refer to Brophy (2006), who argued that CM entails actions taken to create and maintain a learning environment conductive to successful instruction (arranging the physical environment, establishing rules and procedures, maintaining students’ attention to

lessons and engagement in activities)’ (p. 17). In line with prior research (Girardet 2018; Korpershoek et al. 2016) the definition of CM by Evertson and Weinstein (2006) is regarded as a broadly shared definition, and, for this study, the basis to categorise the goals and outcomes of student teachers’ CM learning. In order to attain high quality CM, Evertson and Weinstein (2006) distinguish between five elements: (1) establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils, (2) optimising pupils’ access to learning, (3) encouraging pupils’ academic engagement, (4) developing pupils’ social skills and self-regulation and (5) intervening when behaviour problems occur.

2.2. CM learning processes

Student teachers experience their internship as a high-impact period for their competence development, commonly characterised as a transformative process (Leeferink et al. 2015). During this process, student teachers tend to start their internship rather positively and find themselves disillusioned after some time (Moir 2002). This first period is known as the ‘survival’ period, mostly related to CM (Huberman 1989). Meijer (2014) states that the ‘crisis’ which is part of this first period, is a rather fundamental phenomenon people experience during impactful changes in their professional career. Usually, after a few weeks or months, this crisis period will come to an end and student teachers will find themselves in a more stable period of ‘rejuvenation’. In this period student teachers ‘reinvent’ themselves as teachers (Moir 2002). The ‘learning curve’ as described here will be used in this study to understand patterns or phases in student teachers’ learning processes.

During their internship, student teachers can use various sources in their learning processes. Lecat et al. (2019) made an overview of the sources student teachers use for their learning during their internship, mentioning learning from others, non-interpersonal resources and from oneself. Learning from others may consist of (Lecat et al. 2019): speaking to colleagues (seeking feedback), talking to other people/non-colleagues (for instance people in the student teacher’s personal domain) and observing colleagues’ lessons. Learning at the workplace, as is the case during the internship, is often more contextual and collaborative than learning in traditional learning settings at the teacher education institute (Tynjälä 2008). One may learn much from social interactions with colleagues and others at the workplace (Christensen 2013; Marsick and Marsick 2009), and includes support and feedback from educators, colleagues and peers (Järvelä, Järvenoja, and Veermans 2008).

The second type of source is learning from non-interpersonal resources with as typical learning activities (Lecat et al. 2019): reading (seeking information in a book), or getting input from sources at the teacher education institute. For the present study, it is important to emphasise the key role of theoretical knowledge that students mostly receive at the institute. Sjølie (2014) argued that most student teachers use ‘theory as a perspective’ to make practice explicit, for example to justify choices. Theory can also expand one’s horizon, raising awareness or give new understandings. Furthermore, theory can be seen as ‘prescriptive for practice’, in which theory can for instance provide specific insights or advice. Finally, ‘theory as foundation’ can structure and enrich professional and practical knowledge, form a scaffold for teachers and can play an important role in the development of professional expertise.

In addition, Sjølie (2014) argued that student teachers’ relationship to theory could be described as ambivalent. Student teachers understand that teacher education provides them theoretical insights which should be helpful for their acquisition of professional skills. On the other hand, Sjølie (2014) found that student teachers do not experience pedagogical theory as a novelty, but an articulation of what they already know. In that light, some student teachers in her research, seemed to denigrate pedagogical theory.

The third type is learning from oneself (Lecat et al. 2019), with potential learning activities: trial and error (trying things out in the classroom), learning by doing, and reflecting (analysing learners’ own work). Learning from oneself is rather familiar and common practice in teacher education (e.g. Korthagen 2014). The three sources of learning will be used in this study to label the activities in student teachers’ learning process.

Finally, student teachers’ self-regulated learning plays a key role in student teachers’ learning during their internship. As a form of workplace learning, learning during an internship can be typified with four characteristics (Jacobs and Park 2009; Kyndt and Beausaert 2017): the context and the role of others such as educators and colleagues (already elaborated in the introduction and previous paragraph), the planning of learning and the active role of the learner.

Looking at the active role of the learner, Eraut (2000, 2004) argued that learning can be deliberative, reactive or implicit. Deliberate refers to planned learning, for which goals are defined. Reactive learning is unplanned and unintentional. Implicit learning is unintentional and unconscious.

Although learning if often unplanned, student teachers have to plan their own learning process because of the freedom and responsibility they get as student teachers in the context of their practice school. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is therefore a crucial element in student teachers’ learning (Butler et al. 2004; Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002).

Focussing on SRL of student teachers, Endedijk et al. (2012) combined planning of learning and the active role of the learner. They distinguished the way student teachers’ planned their learning from the extent of learners’ proactivity, and found two dimensions of student teachers self-regulation: (a) passive or active regulation, and (b) prospective or retrospective regulation (based on Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2000). Active regulation implies that the student teacher makes considered choices in relation to the learning goals and strategy, and reflects profound on what is learned, the learning process and the own role. When there is a lack of argumentation by the student teacher, this regulation is passive. As for the second dimension, in prospective regulation, the student teachers actively choose learning goals and strategies. In retrospective regulation, a learning experience is often unplanned, in which no active regulation took place.

The extent to which student teachers’ plan their learning and are proactive is a key focus in this study.

2.3. CM learning outcomes

CM learning outcomes in this study are seen as competences and in typifying the content of these outcomes we again use the elements of Evertson and Weinstein (2006), as described above. Since our previous study (and other studies) showed that teacher-student interpersonal relationships – the first element of Evertson and Weinstein – play a central role in the student teacher period, we put extra focus on this element in the present study. Wubbels et al. (2006) claim that this element is conditional for other teacher competences. In their research, they used the Model for Teacher Interpersonal Behaviour and the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), which is a widely accepted and commonly used instrument to measure student teachers’ CM competence at most teacher education programmes in the Netherlands (Wubbels et al. 2015). The model consists of two dimensions: (1) the control or agency dimension, measuring the degree of influence of the teacher, and (2) the proximity or communion dimension, measuring the degree of warmth versus interpersonal distance between teacher and pupils (see Figure 2). Words at the circumference of the circle are typical descriptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour, each representing a specific blend of agency and communion. The top of the Agency blend represents dominance, while the bottom represents submission. As for the communion blend, the right side is characterised as cooperation, the left side as opposition. The questionnaire measures how pupils perceive the dimensions in terms of teachers’ behaviour.

Figure 2. The model for interpersonal teacher behavior (or Teacher interpersonal Circle) (Pennings et al. 2014).

Based on the two dimensions and sectors eight teacher profiles can be distinguished (see Figure 3): Directive (Directive (classroom is well-structured and task-oriented), Authoritative (atmosphere is well-structured, pleasant and task-oriented), Tolerant-Authoritative (these teachers maintain a structure that supports pupils’ responsibility and freedom), Tolerant (atmosphere is pleasant and supportive, and pupils enjoy attending class), Uncertain-Tolerant (teachers are cooperative but do not show much leadership in the classroom), Uncertain-Aggressive (classroom is characterised by an aggressive kind of disorder), Repressive (pupils of Repressive teachers are uninvolved and extremely docile), and Drudging (these teachers constantly struggle to managing their class) (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and van Tartwijk 2005). The most common profiles for student and beginning teachers are: Directive, Tolerant and Tolerant-Authoritative. Teachers’ interpersonal styles are rather stable. Yet, different profiles can be found in different classes, especially with beginning teachers, and teachers might change from type to type during their teaching career (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and van Tartwijk 2005). The model and profiles are used in this study to more precisely map student teachers’ CM learning outcomes in terms of the teacher-pupil relationship.

Figure 3. Profiles of teacher interpersonal behaviour (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and Levy 1993).

3. Research questions

The main research question of this study is: What does a student teacher’s learning process, focussing on CM, and CM learning outcomes look like?

This question is – based on the aforementioned theoretical framework – specified into the following six sub-questions:

• What do student teachers’ CM learning processes look like in terms of goals, the sources of learning they used, their learning curve and their SRL?

• What are student teachers’ CM learning outcomes?

• What is the relation between student teachers’ CM learning processes and outcomes?

4. Method

4.1. Context of the study

This study was conducted in the context of a network of professional development schools (PDS) related to one teacher education institute of a Dutch university of applied science. In a PDS, teacher education institutes and practice schools work collectively on educating student teachers. Moreover, at a PDS, institutional courses are integrated in the context of the school. At non-PDS schools no teacher education curriculum components are taught in the school context. Various practice schools participated in this network. The student teachers who participated in this study were in the fourth and final year of their programme, and worked at different practice schools. In the context of the PDS, they were merged in a group to work on their teacher education courses. During an entire academic year from September until June, student teachers worked in the context of their internship. During their internship they were the responsible teacher for their own classes, this varied from three till four days per week. For one day per week, they worked on their teacher curriculum courses (see also Instruments). In both PDS and non-PDS contexts, school based teacher educators and institute based teacher educators are involved in practice to coach and supervise student teachers during their internship. Activities in both context are usually related to conversations, lesson observations etc. The difference is, however, that school based teacher educators are facilitated more in time, so they have more time for more frequent conversations, lesson observations etc. Furthermore, the institute based teacher educator is facilitated to offer institutional courses at the context of the internship. In this context, these were grouped with other student teachers of other schools in one network.

4.2. Participants

A group of 36 fourth year student teachers was selected, who had their internship at a PDS. Six student teachers suffered some delays during their internship, or even quitted their internship. Participation was on a voluntary basis. Six student teachers declined the research invitation. A wide range of valuable data was collected from the remaining 24 student teachers. As not much is known about how student teachers learn CM during the internship, we used an exploratory study design, and selected four student teachers as cases. Kevin, Anne, Nina and Isabel were selected because their documents were comprehensive and rich. More specifically, the complete individual dataset (see Table 1) of these participants contained much detailed information about the way these student teachers described and documented their CM learning process, how they worked with their initial CM goals, how the learning curve went and what sources were helpful. Moreover, they also described extensively about their own SRL, and how these processes ultimately led to the development of their CM learning outcomes. In the first three years of their teacher education curriculum, these student teachers had followed a standard offered programme by the teacher education institute, which was also related to their practical experiences during their internship. However, the attention related to CM was marginal, and only present in two courses in the first and second year of their teacher education curriculum (see also Adams, Koster, and den Brok 2022b). In their fourth year, these student teachers work on two courses in which they are free to choose their topic (see Instruments).

Table 1. Overview of research instruments.

Data source	Participant	Short description of content
Portfolio - professional development curriculum	Student teacher	General set of competences of student teachers’ internship learning goals
Thesis - pedagogical research course	Student teacher	Competence development research project with emphasis on the pedagogical teachers’ role
Interview	Student teacher	Interview, focussing on the learning process and outcomes inform the student teachers’ perspective
Teacher educator interview	Teacher educator	Interview, focussing on the learning process of the student teacher from the teacher educators’ perspective
Questionnaire on Teacher Interactions	Student teachers’ pupils	Student teachers set out the Questionnaire on Teacher Interactions Wubbels et al. (2006) distributed in two classes, at the start and end phase of their internship.

Furthermore, these student teachers had in common that they were working and learning at a pre-vocational education school. Their institute based teacher educators were all educated at a scientific university. Their school based teacher educators were educated at a university of applied science, but had completed internship supervision courses, offered by the partner teacher education institute of this PDS.

In the analysis, next to focus on the different components of the learning process and outcomes, in-depth focus was on finding patterns between process and outcomes.

4.3. Instruments

To study the learning process and outcomes with respect to CM, course assignment outcomes of students in the fourth-year curriculum were analysed, consisting of the professional development course (PDC), and the pedagogical research course (PRC). The PDC is the internship programme, in which student teachers worked on their competence development. For this course, student teachers presented their learning goals, process and outcomes in a portfolio. The PRC is a competence development research project with emphasis on the teachers’ own role. Student teachers were free to choose their own research activities, such as experimenting teaching strategies in their classroom or observing and talking to others, for example their teacher educators, fellow peers, experts, colleagues, etc. The PDC was presented in a portfolio, the PRC was presented in a thesis, diary, blog or vlog. CM was taught during the first three years of their teacher education programme. Should they choose so, they focus their curriculum courses in the fourth year on CM.

In addition to analysing these course outputs, both the student teachers and their teacher educators were interviewed at the end of the internship. The student teachers’ interview was based on the storyline method (Henze, Van Driel, and Verloop 2009). Student teachers were asked to draw a line of their development of the classroom management competence(s) during the internship period and to place meaningful moments on it. The storyline was used in the interview as a starting point for questions such as: what happened during these meaningful moments, the relation to their CM learning goals, who was involved? To obtain an ‘outsider view’ of student teachers’ learning, student teachers’ school-based and institute based teacher educators, who were coaching the student teachers at the workplace, were interviewed. In the interview, they were asked how they coached their student teachers, what content they provided and how they perceived their student teachers’ CM learning during the whole academic year.

Moreover, the QTI was distributed by student teachers in two of their internship classes twice during their internship, mapping their pupils’ perceptions of their interpersonal teacher behaviour at the beginning and end of the internship. Via this instrument, student teachers’ pupils answered 24 questions about the student teacher’s interpersonal behaviour. In numerous studies, this instrument has shown to be reliable and valid (Wubbels et al. 2006, 2015). The QTI shows the development of student teachers’ interpersonal competence, from the perception of their pupils.

An overview of the data sources is presented in Table 1.

4.4. Analysis

As start of the analysis process, the researchers created a reconstructive picture of the CM learning process, by placing meaningful moments (as mentioned by the student teachers) and input from teacher educators on a timeline (see procedure above). This resulted in a description of the student teacher’s learning curve.

Moreover, all relevant fragments found in student teachers’ produced documents and the interviews were placed in a case matrix, in order to structure the information about student teachers’ CM goals, sources of learning, self-regulated learning and CM learning outcomes (with participant in the columns and topics in the rows). The relevant fragments were subsequently labelled in terms of categories based on the earlier described theoretical framework.

As labels for the CM goals the five elements of CM by Evertson and Weinstein (2006) were used. The sources of learning were labelled using the distinction of professional learning activities at the workplace by Lecat et al. (2019): learning from others, non-interpersonal resources and learning from oneself. Moreover, the role of theory was labelled by the distinction of Sjølie (2014): theory as perspective, theory as prescriptive for practice and theory as foundation.

In line with Endedijk et al. (2012), fragments were coded in terms of ‘passive/active regulation’ and ‘prospective/retrospective regulation’.

The outcomes of student teachers’ CM focus were related to the main components of competence: skill, knowledge and/or attitude. The interpersonal learning outcome was analysed using the eight profiles linked to the QTI (Wubbels et al. 2006; see theoretical framework section).

As for studying the relation between the process and the outcomes the data were first analysed within-cases. The researchers searched for patterns in the various variables, as described before. Then, the researchers searched for patterns between student teachers’ PRC research topics (in which student teachers described their initial CM goals), and student teachers’ CM learning outcomes, more specifically divided and described in terms of knowledge, skills and attitude. The data of the QTI was used to verify relationships between processes and outcomes. Next, data were analysed across cases, by comparing overall findings between the students. The entire analysis process was conducted and discussed by all three authors (consensus based coding). In case of doubt about the steps in the procedure or content, this was discussed until unanimous agreement was reached.

5. Results

5.1. Student teachers’ CM learning processes

CM goals were identical for each of the four selected participants: they all focused on ‘establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’. Kevin’s goal was to find a balance in positive relationships with and among his pupils to create a better learning atmosphere in his classroom. In addition, the goals of Anne, Nina and Isabel were also focused on ‘intervening when behaviour problems occur’. Anne was focused on dealing with pupils’ disruptions. Nina’s goal was focused on finding pedagogical tools to reduce order disruptions. Isabel’s goal was to find a better balance between being strict and friendly, to keep order in her classes.

The reconstructed timelines gave an insight in similarities and differences in student teachers’ learning curves. In the first months of their internship they had a comparable learning curve: a wave from the beginning of September until the Autumn break, in which they familiarised themselves with their context, found a way how to relate to that context. Moreover, they were confronted with their CM ideals and beliefs in reality, which in some cases led to incidents: conflicts with pupils, classes, colleagues and also with themselves. In the month before the Christmas holiday they all had a ‘crisis’, suffering from an overload of work in their school context in combination with their teacher education curriculum. They all felt that they made insufficient progress and had troubles in motivating themselves to write their portfolio.

The four student teachers reported that they experienced more stability after the Christmas holiday, they told they knew their pupils better, started to know the procedures and colleagues in their school, knew where to go to find a solution for problems and their pupils knew them better as well. As they obtained more practical experience in teaching, they felt that their teacher-pupil relationships improved and stabilised and they were able to distinguish strict or imposing behaviour from leading or steering behaviour (and hesitant behaviour from acquiescing).

There were also differences; Kevin, Nina and Isabel all reported a more or less continuous process, focussing on one topic/issue of CM all the time: As mentioned earlier, Kevin was focused on creating a positive relationship with and among his pupils, Anne’s focus was on dealing with pupils’ disruptions and Nina focused on finding pedagogical tools to reduce order disruptions. However, only Isabel in the beginning of her internship was specific in what she wanted to do and learn, which gave her stability and control during her learning process. The other student teachers needed at least a few weeks more to find out their particular focus. Kevin’s documentation of his learning process was in the beginning of his internship rather superficial. He knew he was struggling with the relationship with his pupils’, but simply was not able to find the words to describe his challenges. After Christmas this became more specific and profound, as he received coaching and support by his teacher educators and colleagues. He also found ideas in literature to improve his relationship with his pupils in order to create a better learning atmosphere in the classroom. The same was true for Nina, who was reactive in the beginning, struggling with order disruptions and not able to find direct support that could improve her practice. After some time, around Christmas, she turned to a more active role and called in more support from others, teacher educators, peers and colleagues, which led to a more stability in the classroom and more focus in documenting her learning process in the second half of the internship. Interestingly, only Anne was learning via multiple cycles. In the first half of the internship she focused on maintaining order and reacting consistently to student (mis)behaviour, as this was an urgent issue in her classes. After the Christmas holiday, she gained more control over the class and shifted her focus to the relationship with individual pupils.

SRL of the four student teachers’ CM learning could be typified in three ways: ‘following/wait-and-see approach’, ‘searching and struggling’ and ‘systematic learning and enterprising’. The ‘role of others’ could be clearly linked to the extent to which a student teacher was self-regulatory. The more student teachers were self-regulatory, the less they depended on their teacher educators, and the more they were able to find other valuable resources at the workplace. In contrast, the less student teachers displayed self-regulatory learning, the more they depended on what others (e.g. their teacher educator) offered to them. In Table 2 some details of the SRL process are shown, and after the table the typification is described in more detail.

Table 2. Details of student teachers’ CM learning process and CM outcomes.

	Participant Kevin	Participant Anne	Participant Nina	Participant Isabel
Student teachers’ CM goals	Finding balance in positive relationships with and among his pupils to create a better learning atmosphere in his classroom.	Dealing with pupils’ disruptions.	Finding pedagogical tools to reduce order disruptions.	Find a better balance between being strict and friendly, to keep order in her classes.
Student teachers’ CM goals related to CM component	‘Establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’	‘Establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’, and ‘Intervening when behaviour problems occur’	‘Establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’, and ‘Intervening when behaviour problems occur’	‘Establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’, and ‘Intervening when behaviour problems occur’
Student teachers’ CM learning process
Passive/active regulation	Reactive, follows what is offered by teacher educators.	Searches actively for expertise and creates own learning activities.	Looking around, observes, talks, reads, experiences, doubts and searches for information.	In the lead, initiates contact with colleagues in practice school/teacher educators.
Prospective/retrospective regulation	Process is not systematic, gained experience is largely unplanned and unconscious.	Consciously active in initiating and planning actions for learning.	Searching for systematic learning, after Christmas this became more planned and focused.	Works consciously towards learning goals.
Role of others	Coach	Expert	Role model/Inspirator	Expert
Overall typification	Following and wait-and-see approach	Systematic learning and enterprising approach	Searching and struggling approach	Systematic learning and enterprising approach
Learning curve	Continuous cycle	Multiple cycles	Continuous cycle	Continuous cycle
Reflection	Superficial	Deep	Superficial	Deep
Use of theory	Theory as foundation	Theory as foundation	Theory as prescriptive for practice	Theory as prescriptive for practice
Student teachers’ CM learning outcomes
PRC research topics (CM goal)	How can I balance a good, positive relationship with and among my pupils, and create a better learning atmosphere in my classroom?	How do I deal with student disruptions in the classroom?	Which pedagogical tools can I use in my classroom management to reduce order disruptions?	How can I find a better balance between being strict and friendly, to keep order in my classes?
Knowledge (about)	Pupils’ social-emotional processes	Strategies for interpersonal teacher behaviour/order problems	CM procedures (rules and regulations)	Strategies for interpersonal teacher behaviour
Skills	Found more balance between personal enthusiasm and showing consistent teacher behaviour, by keeping a positive climate.	Less (or more professional) communion, found balance between personal and professional interpersonal teacher behaviour.	More skilled in reacting consistently to student misbehaviour. Learned to maintain classroom boundaries by offering clear CM routines and structure.	Developed interpersonal CM strategies to create more proximity in teacher-pupil relationship. More active in conversation with (individual) pupils. Making rules together with pupils.
Attitudes	More self-confidence about own core CM values and presence in front of the class	More secure in front of the class by maintaining procedures (rules and regulations).	Discovered what type of interpersonal teacher behaviour fits to personal style.	More self-confidence in maintaining both distance and closeness.

Kevin’s learning process could be characterised as reactive learning, doing what was offered or organised by others, lacking own learner agency. According to himself and his teacher educator he was motivated but unable to structure his problems/learning in CM. Therefore, he needed a coach to give him insights and help him structuring his learning experiences. He said this as follows: ‘’my teacher educators gave me a lot of potential new strategies they based on literature, which I tried out. Some worked, others not, and by doing so, I learned by trial and error’.’Based on this we would typify Kevin’s process as a ‘following/wait and see approach’.

Nina’s process was characterised by looking around in the school, observing other teachers’ lessons, talking to people, reading literature and gaining experience in teaching and CM, contemplating and further searching. As a newcomer in the school, she needed some time to familiarise with the school context. She also worried about both her own and others’ expectations when it came to her classroom management skills. Therefore, she struggled initially with her self-confidence, and as a result, it took up to the Christmas holiday to find any systematic structure in planning of her CM learning. Her teacher educator suggested she could learn from others by finding a role model, someone having similar teacher characteristics as Nina, but more experienced, offering Nina practical examples or suggestions of teacher behaviour. Her teacher educator said this as follows: ‘Consindering Nina’s personality, age and teacher style I thought C would be a great model. SO I arranged a meeting with the three of us and we discussed what could be helpful for Nina. They all agreed, since then, Nina observed lessons of C and they talked afterwards. Nina told me this was helpful, because it gave her practical ideas’.

Nina also mentioned this during the interview: ‘I had great support from C. She was just like me, but she was already graduated and worked for multiple years at the school. We talked a lot, about different things concerning teaching and my CM issues. The way she coped with issues was an inspiration for me’.

Based on this we would typify Nina’s process as ‘searching and struggling’.

Isabel and Anne’s process was characterised by applying systematic approaches, by planning and organising activities with others (peers or colleagues). Both Isabel and Anne were enterprising in that they were proactive in initiating and planning activities. In addition, they always seemed to focus on the benefit of activities they engaged in and how these fitted in their learning process. With their specific focus on a CM issue/topic, they knew what information to search for more specifically. Isabel said during the interview how she would search for that information: “For my PDC I was curious whether other, more experienced teacher would also struggle with their CM. So, at the end of a meeting we had last week with the whole team. Close to the end of that meeting I mentioned what I was doing with my PDC and my struggles, and I just asked them to talk about their experiences. I felt excited to ask this, but everybody saw the urgency, and shared their views and experiences. I’d never expect them to be open and honest about their CM’.’

Isabel and Anne were both eager to find expertise. Moreover, they were not only interested in getting practical examples or suggestions of teacher behaviour (like Kevin), or gaining theoretical insights, explanation or ideas (like Nina), but specific insights for specifying or underpinning their own teacher behaviour. Furthermore, in contrast to Kevin and Nina, both Isabel and Anne consulted many other colleagues at the workplace than just their school-based teacher educator, like Kevin and Nina tended to do. Anne said this as follows: ‘There were so many people at the workplace available to talk to, share experiences, views and ask questions. I learned a lot from the moments I talked to colleagues, who knew my classes, because we had the same. Some colleagues I really see as experts in CM, also observed a few lessons of mine, and gave me feedback’.

Based on this, we would typify Isabel and Anne’s process as ‘systematic learning and enterprising’.

As for the aspect of ‘learning from non-interpersonal sources’, the participants in this study acknowledged and valued theoretical knowledge as an important element in their learning, claiming that it gave them perspectives and crucial ideas for their practice.

However, the student teachers differed in their use of theory. Kevin and Anne used theory as foundation. Kevin: ‘ … X mentions the self-determination theory as an descriptive tool which helps me to understand pupils behaviour in my classroom’.

Nina and Isabel used theory as prescriptive for practice, Anne did as well when she was halfway her internship. Anne: ‘I struggled with involving pupils in the lesson. Lately I read X who argued that you should place pupils in smaller groups, give them individual responsibility which increases attention. I think I might try that’.

In addition, both Kevin and Nina explained the importance of the teacher educator as a form of using non-interpersonal sources. Nina: ‘I think I really need a teacher educator to convert the theory in handbooks to the practice of the classroom’.

Finally, concerning student teachers’ learning from oneself. All student teachers learned from themselves, mostly by reflecting. They all seemed to prefer this to ‘learning by doing’ and ‘trial and error’. Throughout their internship, all student teachers’ documented their CM experiences, thoughts about what they did, about what needed to be developed, whom to consult, etc. These fragments typically looked like diary pages, one more in-depth and meaningful than the other, in a sense that some fragments described (only) daily processes, others also combined daily events with theory, input from others or links to previous experiences. Moreover, they all had in common that this was a consistent and persistent method in which they reconstructed their experiences.

An element of Isabel’s and Anne’s learning was their deep reflection. Like Kevin and Nina they kept a diary, in which they often used theoretical insights. However, Isabel and Anne referred more to their teacher educators and other colleagues who gave them insights or inspiration. In addition, they seemed to be aware of valuable, rather informal moments during their daily school routine: Anne: ‘…in conversations with colleagues CM was one of the most discussed topics. Mostly, those conservations just came up while standing at the coffee machine, the printing room and during break time. I think, that was pretty valuable. These conversations always fit, because there is a particular need at that specific moment.’

5.2. Student teachers’ CM learning outcomes

As for CM outcomes, results showed that the learning outcomes of Kevin, Anne and Isabel could be described in terms of Evertson and Weinstein’s component ‘establishing interpersonal relationships with and among pupils’. Isabel reported her own CM learning outcomes as follows”:I grew as both a person and as a teacher during this internship. I have learned to take actions, which don’t seem to be nice, but are necessary to keep the classroom managed. I had to step out my comfort zone, created more professional behaviour as a teacher and, as a consequence, founded more balance in terms of control and proximity”.

Nina’s CM outcome was related to ‘intervening when behaviour problems occur’. She described this during the interview as follows: ‘At this point, the end of my internship, I believe that I am a friendly, patient, clear and determined teacher who gives pupils structure and radiates peace and calmness. I think this is also who am I as a person, but initiating this in front of the classroom was a real challenge. Now I know how to do that, and what resources I need to keep that balance’.

At the start of their internship, the PRC research questions of the student teachers were mainly related to CM skills. At the end of their internship period, however, student teachers’ outcomes of CM competence development related to knowledge (interpersonal teacher behaviour, CM procedure and pupils’ social emotional processes), skills (consistency and interpersonal teacher style) and attitude (self-confidence, motivation and efficacy) (see Table 2).

As for the outcomes of the QTI, Kevin’s interpersonal profile in both classes became more similar. His behaviour seemed to be less hesitant, and more corrective, resulting in a Tolerant (−Authoritative) profile. Anne’s QTI results in both classes differed over time. However, she became more friendly in one class and became more acquiescent in the other. The profiles in both classes differed, but both resembled the Tolerant profile the most. Nina’s QTI results showed similar developments in both classes. She tended to become more corrective. Interestingly, Nina developed a rather recognisable individual style, showing characteristics of both the Directive and Tolerant profile. The QTI’s of Isabel showed a different development in both classes. She became less confronting and strict in one class. In the other class she became more corrective. Isabel QTI’s differed over time, resulting in ultimately being Tolerant in one class and Tolerant-Authoritative/Directive in the other. Looking at the QTI outcomes, it is noteworthy that Kevin’s and Nina’s profiles in both classes looked alike and Isabel’s and Anne’s differed in both classes. This could suggest that Isabel and Anne were still struggling more to find a distinct style and were affected more by different classes, while Kevin and Nina already tended to act rather consistently in their classes.

5.3. The relation between the CM learning process and CM learning outcomes

As discussed in the results section there were similarities and differences in the four student teachers’ learning processes and outcomes. As all student teachers made a considerable CM development, the outcomes showed some differences in what elements of competence development were dominant: the emphasis of Kevin’s and Nina’s CM outcomes was drawn to their attitude development. Anne mostly developed her skills. Isabel’s outcomes showed an integration of attitude and skills. However, outcomes of the QTI showed only minimal differences between the student teachers. Therefore, it seems that outcomes overall were relatively similar, suggesting that different learning processes only led to marginally different learning outcomes.

6. Discussion

6.1. Conclusion and theoretical implications

This study explored the research question: What does a student teachers’ learning process focussing on CM, and CM learning outcomes look like? While the four student teachers in this study focused on relatively similar CM goals (e.g. creating a healthy interpersonal relation with their class) and reported similar learning outcomes (more knowledge of teacher and pupils’ behaviour and CM procedures, more confidence in maintaining order, more skill repertoire in dealing with classroom disruptions), we found a large variation in learning processes related to CM. This variation concerned both planned and self-regulated learning, as well as unplanned and supervised learning. While these processes concerned CM learning in the present study, these results are in line with research related to student teachers’ learning more in general (Endedijk et al. 2012; Meijer 2014). Furthermore, the attention for CM during student teachers’ internship was larger than in the previous study of Adams, Koster and den Brok (2022a) on the intended CM curriculum. With respect to student teachers’ CM competence development, the results suggest a broadening their knowledge base, and strengthening of their skills and attitudes. Concerning student teachers’ knowledge and skills, most attention was on the interpersonal aspect of CM, which is in line with Wubbels et al. (2015) and Evertson and Weinstein (2006). Interestingly, the other elements of Evertson and Weinstein’s definition did not occur as core focusses of student teachers’ CM learning. A possible explanation for this is that student teachers’ interpersonal challenges are so urgent that it needs their immediate attention before they can develop other teachers skills (Wubbels et al. 2015).

Interestingly, regarding the development of student teachers’ attitudes, outcomes seemed to relate to their professional growth in terms of self-confidence and discovering personal style. The outcomes, in particular the outcomes of the QTI, seemed to indicate that student teachers showed in the development of their interpersonal behaviour less anxiety, more self-efficacy, more comparable behaviour in different classes and more stable interpersonal teacher behaviour at the end of their internship (in line with Adams, Koster and den Brok (2022b) (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and van Tartwijk 2005; Wubbels et al. 2015).

Furthermore, the more student teachers displayed self-regulated learning, the more they seemed able to integrate theoretical and practical issues in their process. This led to deeper learning, which means that student teachers developed more often a meaning-oriented learning pattern in which SRL is accompanied with meaningful processing activities and intrinsic motivation (Oosterheert and Vermunt 2003). Clearly, this needs more research, but this seems to be an outcome of this study. Another finding in this study was that student teachers’ self-regulated learning was interconnected to learning from others. Moreover, student teachers whose SRL was characterised as active and prospective made more explicit use of meaningful sources. Student teachers who scored rather low on SRL were less able to make their learning explicit, and need others, such as their teacher educators in order to do this (Oosterheert and Vermunt 2003).

The distinction of SRL of Endedijk et al (2012) was helpful in finding patterns in student teachers’ processes of SRL. However, a we noticed a large role for theoretical knowledge and teacher educators, leading to different terminology in comparison with Endedijk et al (2012).

In our study, both theory and teacher educators played a crucial role in student teachers’ learning processes. This finding regarding theoretical knowledge contrasts with the work of Sjølie (2014), who found that student teachers undervalue the role theory plays during their internship and did not appreciate pedagogical theory as ‘real theory’ and merely something they already knew. Teacher educators were in our study described as important for being a source of expertise and a role model. This might suggest a larger role than being a coach and supervisor, as argued for instance in the Handbook of CM by Jones (2006). Moreover, they were important in giving feedback and bridging the gap between theory and practice. Furthermore, the role of theory was important for student teachers’ learning since in particular ‘theory as foundation’ and ‘prescriptive for practice’ were without exception dominantly present in all the reconstructed student teachers’ learning processes. The role of theory was argued by student teachers as rather crucial for both understanding their practice as well as for giving them ideas to improve their CM issues. A plausible explanation might be that the student teachers in this study were in their first full academic year of teaching experience. They were confronted with their CM (especially with previous internship experiences), and for the first time had to find their own ways of support. In that perspective, theory and teacher educators were obvious, but relevant, (re)sources in student teachers’ learning-to-teach process (Zanting, Verloop, and Vermunt 2003).

6.2. Implications for teacher education practice

The outcomes of this study confirmed expectations and remarks made in our previous study by teacher educators who emphasised the importance of CM during the internship (Adams, Koster, and den Brok 2022b). Furthermore, we found that, despite differences in learning processes and outcomes of student teachers, that the role of theoretical knowledge and the teacher educators must not be undervalued (see also Adams, Koster and den Brok (2022b).

These emerged as core elements in the successful trajectories of CM competence development of the student teachers in this study. For student teachers, both these roles were crucial, and fundamental in understanding their own practice and their challenges in terms of both their CM competence and their CM professional identity and in finding answers and exemplary strategies for their CM issues. Teacher education institutes need to think about how they empower the role of theory and teacher educators in order to support student teachers’ CM during the internship. This suggestion is in line with Montague and Kwok (2022), who also argue for more practical support for teacher educators.

Furthermore, teacher educators should stimulate student teachers’ initiative and pro-activity in order to improve their SRL as this seemed to be a crucial factor in student teachers’ learning of CM. When student teachers are more ‘systematic and enterprising’ they are less dependent on others, are more able to make meaningful experiences explicit which could both have a positive effect on their CM, since personal factors as self-confidence, motivation and efficacy were found as outcomes.

In addition, the role of others and the use of theoretical knowledge were seen as key elements in student teachers’ learning of CM. Regarding the use and variety in these elements, student teachers seemed to differ. Teacher educators should take into account the value of using theory and others, but also the potential differences in student teachers learning, by staying closely involved and informed in the daily process of student teachers’ learning. The individual differences and needs of student teachers during their teacher education internship is also emphasised by van Driel et al. (2022).

Finally, teacher educators should be more aware of student teachers’ learning curve. This study has shown that the student teachers in this study showed both similarities and differences in their learning process. By following this process accurately, teacher educators could be more able to offer ‘tailor-made’ support. Moreover, teacher educators should consider what to offer in terms of theoretical knowledge and teacher educators’ support and coaching in the beginning of the internship, in the run to the Christmas holiday. However, it depends on student teachers’ preferences and styles what they need at what particular moment. Although more research is needed to unravel these processes of student teachers’ CM development during their internship, the roles of theoretical knowledge and teachers educators seem crucial in student teachers’ classroom management competence development at the workplace (see also Montague and Kwok 2022).

6.3. Limitations and opportunities for further research

In this study, there were two main limitations. First, we studied the learning process of only four student teachers. This limited number of students already gave insight into a rich and large amount of data, but also led to challenges in analyses. More research is needed, focused on more student teachers, to study if certain patterns apply to larger groups, what differences exist between them and what kind of roles teacher educators and theory precisely play. The second limitation was the context. This study was conducted in one particular context, involving student teachers from one university of applied science in the Netherlands. There is no reason to believe that this context differs from other contexts of student teachers’ learning during the internship. Unknown, however, is to what extent these outcomes apply to student teachers’ learning in different practice school contexts, for example non-PDS schools or (often much shorter) academic university teacher education internship trajectories.

As student teachers’ CM competence development was the main focus of this study, the question arises whether this learning process is comparable with the development of other competences at the workplace, for example the development of student teachers’ pedagogical content skills? While our findings do seem to suggest this, as they to a considerable degree resemble processes described more in general elsewhere (see previous section), for future research, it would be interesting to map other competence areas to complete the picture of student teachers’ competence development during the internship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs [Dutch Organisation for scientific research] under Grant [number 023.011.014].

Notes on contributors

Tom Adams

Tom Adams works as a teacher educator at the Fontys University of Applied Science in Tilburg, the Netherlands. In September 2023, he finished his PhD at the Wageningen University. The focus of his research is the competence development at the workplace of student teachers who are in the final stage of their education.

Bob Koster

Bob Koster is associate professor at Fontys University of Applied Science in Tilburg. He worked for over 30 years as a university based teacher educator and researcher at Utrecht University. He has published on topics such as professional standards for teacher educators, learning and development of student teachers, and learning environments and innovation in higher, especially teacher, education.

Perry den Brok

Perry den Brok is full professor and chair of the Education and Learning Sciences group at Wageningen University and Research. He also chairs the 4TU Centre for Engineering Education, a centre for innovation of the four universities of technology in the Netherlands. He has published on topics such as teacher learning and professional development, teacher-student interpersonal behaviour and classroom management, learning environments and innovation in secondary and higher education.