McGuireetal 2023

Child & Youth Care Forum
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09750-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Classroom and Behavior Management Training Needs

and Perceptions: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Stacy N. McGuire1 · Hedda Meadan2 · Rebecca Folkerts2
Accepted: 15 April 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract
Background Students with behavioral support needs are educated in elementary class-
rooms daily. However, teachers receive limited training to support students, resulting in
limited preventative and intervention services for such students. It is currently unclear what
types of training preservice and inservice teachers receive, their perceptions of such train-
ing, and the quality of that training.
Objective The purpose of this systematic literature review was to identify the empirical
evidence for various forms of classroom and behavior management training for preservice
and inservice teacher training and participants’ perceptions of such training.
Method A systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Articles
published between 2004 and 2022, based on IDEA 2004, were included. The start date of
the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 was chosen because of its implementation of positive
behavior supports for students with and without disabilities.
Results Twenty-two studies were included in the literature review based on inclusion cri-
teria. The included studies presented findings about classroom and behavior management
programs or strategies, as well as survey data based on teachers’ perceptions of classroom
and behavior management training.
Conclusion Results indicated preservice teachers receive limited training related to overall
classroom management during their teacher preparation programs, but no studies could be
found showing they receive any training related to behavior management. Inservice teach-
ers receive far more training related to both classroom and behavior management but indi-
cate a need for more training related to both.
Keywords Preservice teachers · Inservice teachers · Behavior management · Teacher

training · Systematic review
* Stacy N. McGuire
[email protected]
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Introduction
Researchers and teachers have reported high levels of challenging behavior (CB) in ele-
mentary classrooms specifically (Alter et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2018; Westling, 2010).
CB can be defined as “any repeated pattern of behavior, or perception of behavior, that
interferes with or is at risk of interfering with optimal learning or engagement in prosocial
interactions with peer and adults” (Powell et al., 2007, p. 83). CB can also be culturally
defined, with some behaviors being considered challenging based on one’s background,
race/ethnicity, and biases (Division for Early Childhood, 2017). Differences in defining CB
has led to exclusionary disciplinary practices (e.g., suspension), disproportionately impact-
ing students from underrepresented groups, boys, and students with disabilities, particu-
larly in early childhood and elementary settings (Meek et al., 2020) Students with behav-
ioral support needs in early grades (i.e., kindergarten or first grade) are at a higher risk for
grade retention, need for intervening services, or placement in special education services
than those who do not have behavioral support needs in the same grade levels (Bettencourt
et al., 2018; Crane et al., 2013; Montes et al., 2012). As students with behavioral support
needs continue to age, their social-emotional skill gap widens which increases the likeli-
hood for them to need additional supports and services later in elementary school, middle
school, or high school (DiPrete & Jenninges, 2012). In an effort to intervene early, there is
a clear need for additional training for elementary education teachers to enable students to
access more equitable classroom and behavior management strategies across elementary
grade levels.
To better support all students in the classroom, teachers often implement classroom
management (CM) strategies. Simonsen and colleagues (2008) conducted a literature
review of evidence-based CM strategies and identified five critical features of effective
CM. The five critical features they identified were: “(a) maximize structure; (b) post,
teach, review, monitor, and reinforce expectations; (c) actively engage students in observ-
able ways; (d) use a continuum of strategies for responding to appropriate behaviors; and
(e) use a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behaviors” (p. 353). When
these elements are in place in a classroom, they can have positive effects on the general
education teachers’ morale and the students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional
achievement. Similarly, Korpershoek and colleagues (2016) conducted a meta-analysis that
examined 54 CM strategies. They found that CM interventions targeting social-emotional
learning have the highest effects on students’ social-emotional development, which in
turn can have a positive effect on students’ academic skills in elementary school. These
researchers also stressed that CM programs improve the general education environment,
which has a positive effect on both students and teachers.
Though CM strategies may be appropriate for most students, some students may need
more individualized or intensive behavior management strategies. Such strategies require
additional training beyond what is covered in many CM procedures, such as function-
based supports and interventions (Dunlap & Fox, 2011). By identifying the function of
a student’s behavior, supports and interventions can be tailored to student needs, which
will allow general education teachers to shape behavior to be more socially valid (Dun-
lap & Fox, 2011). In some cases, general education teachers may need support from other
professionals in conducting functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and implementing
behavior plans. In a study conducted by Lane and colleagues (2007), elementary general
education teachers were trained on FBA procedures, and then assessed their own students
and implemented a function-based behavior plan. Findings indicated a functional relation
13
between a teacher-implemented functional assessment and behavior plan, and a reduction

in the students’ target behaviors. Similarly, in a meta-synthesis conducted by Walker et al.,
(2018), it was found that when general education teachers conduct behavioral assessments
and then implement function-based behavioral interventions there is a larger decrease in
students’ challenging behaviors compared to other interventionists. Walker and colleagues
hypothesized this was likely because of the relationship general education teachers already
have with their students, in addition to the teachers’ background knowledge of the students’
learning and behavioral characteristics. Because general education teachers are more likely
to see success when providing behavior management strategies with their students, it is
important to examine the training needs teachers have related to behavior management
training, including their needs for both prevention and intervention strategies.
Teachers should develop their CM and behavior management skills so they can inter-
vene early. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires sup-
port for students who show early delays in academic, behavioral, and/or social-emotional
areas to prevent later special education referrals (IDEA, 2004). General education teachers
are required to consider the use of prereferral interventions for those students who need
them. By using Positive Behavior Supports (PBS; Carr et al., 2002), teachers can imple-
ment preventative and responsive behavioral strategies for all students (Keller-Bell &
Short, 2019). Such preventative and responsive strategies can be used with all students as
CM strategies, and with small groups or individual students as behavior management strat-
egies (Keller-Bell & Short, 2019). Regardless of how they are used, it is the general educa-
tion teacher’s responsibility to implement both preventative and responsive strategies, per
IDEA 2004, to ensure students are successful.
The training teachers already receive should be considered. States have policies regard-
ing course requirements for general education preservice teachers, with some states requir-
ing preservice teachers to complete training related to CM and behavior management.
Freeman and colleagues (2014) explored legislative and state policies related to CM and
behavior management and found that 45 states required instruction related to CM for
elementary general education majors, though only 28 states required instruction include
research-based practices. In comparison, 49 states required special education majors to
complete coursework related to CM, with 34 states requiring coursework include research-
based practices. When looking at specific evidence-based practices for behavior manage-
ment, only three states required instruction related to responding to appropriate behavior,
and four states required instruction related to responding to inappropriate behavior for
elementary education majors. This may be reflected in how preservice teachers perceive
CB students engage in. In a study conducted by Butler and Monda-Amaya (2016), preser-
vice elementary teachers reported low-intensity, but high-frequency behaviors (e.g., mak-
ing noises, students being out of their seat) of higher concern than preservice secondary
teachers. Butler and Monda-Amaya encourage the field to couple behavior management
courses with fieldwork experiences to provide preservice teachers with additional support
in managing CB.
Flower and colleagues (2017) conducted a similar study looking at CM content cov-
ered in university courses. They reported 89% of traditional special education programs
offered a course on CM or behavior management, followed by 88% of traditional general
education programs, 67% of alternative special education programs, and 58% of alternative
general education programs. However, they found that special education teacher prepara-
tion programs were most likely to teach preservice teachers strategies for increasing appro-
priate behavior, reducing socially inappropriate behavior, and assessing behavior. In con-
trast, general education teachers were unlikely to be prepared in such areas (i.e., increasing
13
appropriate behavior, reducing inappropriate behavior, and assessing behavior). These

findings indicate that special education teachers have more preparation in CM and behavior
management than general education teachers despite many students with behavioral sup-
port needs spending more time in general education settings (Alter et al., 2013; Owens
et al., 2018; Westling, 2010).
Though it is a requirement that teachers use prevention and intervention strategies with
students, many preservice elementary general education teachers are underprepared to sup-
port students in their elementary classroom (Flower et al., 2017; Freeman et al., 2014).
General education teachers are also able to provide more successful behavioral interven-
tions and supports for their students than other interventionists, likely because of the rela-
tionship already established with their students (Walker et al., 2018). Preservice and inser-
vice elementary general education teachers’ training needs related to CM and behavior
management should be further examined so teachers can prevent and address CB and sup-
port students’ development. Though previous research indicates special education teachers
are more qualified to work with students who have behavioral support needs than general
education teachers, and that general education teachers are typically undertrained to sup-
port students with behavioral support needs in general, it is important to understand what
work has been done to support the development of general education teachers and their
perceptions of such training. When we, as researchers, are able to understand what has
already been done, and how teachers are perceiving that work, we can better understand
what work still needs done to support preservice and inservice general education teachers
as they work with students who engage in CB. As such, this systematic review of literature
focuses on the following questions: (a) What is the empirical evidence for various forms of
preservice and inservice elementary education teacher training related to overall CM strat-
egies and managing individual CBs? (b) What are preservice and inservice general educa-
tion teachers’ perceptions related to these training activities? And (c) What is the quality of
studies published related to this topic?
General education teachers were targeted for inclusion instead of special education
teachers for two reasons. First, students who engage in challenging behavior are often edu-
cated first in general education settings and then referred for special education services if
preventative support is not provided and/or effective. Second, researchers have reported dif-
ferences in the amount and type of training general and special educators receive (Flower
et al., 2017; Freeman et al., 2014). Much of what has already been identified shows that
general education teachers are less prepared than special education teachers, though most
of the needed support for students who engage in challenging behavior is in the general
education setting. Therefore, we expect the outcomes of the literature review to further
reflect the limited training that both preservice and inservice general education teachers
receive in the areas of classroom and behavior management strategies, while also identify-
ing their perceptions of previous trainings in relation to their students’ needs.
Method
Search Procedures
As we developed this literature review, we followed the procedures outlined by the Pre-
ferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Page
et al., 2021). We included the following databases: PyscINFO, ERIC, PsycARTICLES,
13
Sociological Abstracts, EdArXv, and PsyArXiv. We focused on the search terms (second-
ary search terms are referenced in parentheses) preservice training (preservice education,
undergraduate education, student teaching), inservice professional development (train-
ing, inservice, professional development), general education (regular education, regular
classroom, inclus* setting, inclus* education), classroom management (behavior manage-
ment, PBS, PBIS, behavior* intervention), challenging behavior (problem behavior, unde-
sirable behavior, unacceptable behavior, inappropriate behavior), competence (ability,
proficiency, experience), and confidence (belief, assertion, certainty). We conducted the
search using 12 clusters, or groups of search terms that were combined into similar cat-
egories. For example, three primary terms and their secondary terms were used for the first
cluster: preservice training, general education, and classroom management. We entered the
three search terms into the databases using the Boolean term “OR” between the secondary
search terms to include any variation of the included terms and the Boolean term “AND”
between the primary search terms. This was considered one cluster. The search was con-
cluded in August 2022.
We used the following inclusion criteria: (a) articles published between 2004 and 2022,
based on the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, which implemented supports and services for
students without disabilities who have behavioral support needs (IDEA, 2004); (b) written
in English; (c) conducted in the United States; (d) published in a peer-reviewed journal;
I included empirical data (i.e., studies that included the manipulation of data and survey
studies); (f) included elementary education teachers in the sample population (i.e., kin-
dergarten through fifth or sixth grade teachers); and (g) included data about classroom or
behavior management training, instruction, or intervention (the definition of this criterion
that was provided to coders was “the article includes reports about preservice or inservice
training related to managing classrooms and/or challenging behavior for general educa-
tion teachers. This can include perceptions from the included teachers, program evalua-
tions, types of trainings, etc. This should not include training related to academic content
or studies that primarily focus on behavioral assessment”). We also searched databases
that included gray literature (i.e., EdArXv and PsyArXiv) and literature found during these
searches were required to meet all inclusion criteria except for publication in peer-reviewed
journal. Exclusion criteria included: (a) articles published prior to 2004; (b) articles con-
ducted outside of the United States or that included participants not living in the United
States; (c) articles that did not include empirical data; (d) articles that included participants
who were only preschool teachers, secondary teachers (i.e., 6–12 grade teachers), single
subject teachers (e.g., English teachers, math teachers, music teachers), or special educa-
tion teacherI(e) articles that included a training related to an academic content area; (f) arti-
cles that only included student outcome data; and (g) studies that focused only on behavior
assessment (e.g., training teachers to conduct functional behavior assessment [FBA] with-
out implementing a behavior intervention plan [BIP]). We found that criteria (f) and (g) led
to the exclusion of many articles due to their foci only on data collection or specific student
outcomes.
We used a rigorous selection process to identify studies for review as outlined by
PRISMA (Page et al., 2021). After the initial search, the first author downloaded all
abstracts into an excel document (N = 4923). The first author removed all duplicate articles
and then screened titles for relevancy. As a team, we screened the abstracts of the remain-
ing articles against the inclusion criteria, and then 20% of the abstracts were screened again
for reliability purposes. We achieved 96% agreement, and disagreements were included in
the next round of screening. We removed any articles that did not meet inclusion criteria
based on abstract screening, and remaining articles went through a full-text review. The
13
first author screened all remaining articles and 30% of the articles were reviewed by the
second and third authors for reliability. We reached 97% agreement, and we discussed disa-
greements until agreement was reached.
We conducted a backwards search of the remaining articles to identify citations that
might be relevant for the current literature review. This process included pulling all the
citations from the reference pages of the included articles. The additional citations were
initially reviewed to ensure they were eligible for screening. Screening eligibility required
that they had to have been published between 2004 and 2022, written in English, and pub-
lished in a peer-reviewed journal. From this process, we identified 20 articles for another
round of screening. Abstracts were screened by the first author and 100% were reviewed by
the second and third authors for reliability, leaving eight articles. In this process, agreement
reached 95%, and disagreements were discussed until agreement was achieved. Finally, the
first author conducted a full-text review of the remaining eight articles from the backwards
search, and 30% of the articles were reviewed by the second and third author for reliability,
which yielded 100% agreement.
We also conducted a forward search of the original articles and those identified in the
backwards search to identify any studies that might meet inclusion criteria. We screened
the abstracts for relevancy in the same manner we did during the backwards review. Those
articles that met inclusion criteria went through a full-text screening. Articles that contin-
ued to meet inclusion criteria were included in the literature review. Overall, 22 articles
met all inclusion criteria and are included in the final set (see Suppl. Figure 1).
Data Extraction Procedures
We conducted the data analysis process in three steps. First, we extracted data from each
article into a matrix based on the following parameters: (a) purpose of the study, (b) setting
and participants, (c) methods used, (d) methodology (including tools/measures) and proce-
duresInd (e) key findings. This process allowed important information from each article to
be organized in one document and for key findings to be easily coded.
Second, we used an a priori coding scheme that was created based on the research ques-
tions. The coding scheme included the following themes: (a) preservice training related to
CM, (b) inservice training related to CM, (c) preservice training related to individual stu-
dent’s behavioral support needs, (d) inservice training related to individual student’s behav-
ioral supporIeeds, (e) preservice teachers’ perceptions of training, and (f) inservice teach-
ers’ perceptions of training. Training related to CM was defined as strategies that could be
used with an entire class as opposed to individual student’s behavioral support needs, and
training related to individual student’s behavioral support needs was defined as strategies
used to manage behaviors exhibited by individual students with behavioral support needs.
Therefore, information provided in studies related to entire classrooms or larger groups of
students were coded into CM categories, and information provided in studies related to
individual students were coded into individual CB categories. The key findings previously
extracted from each article were assigned a code. By doing this, the key findings could be
coded based on relevance to the research questions.
Third, we organized key findings within each code with similar data. For example,
within the code “inservice training related to CM,” information related to behavior specific
praise (BSP) was organized together such that all key findings related to BSP were reported
together in the findings (coding manual and matrix are available upon request from the first
author).
13
We also assessed the included articles for rigor. First, we assessed group and single-case
studies according to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards for Evidence-
Based Practices in Special Education (2014). A total of eight quality indicators, with vary-
ing criteria depending on design type were included, and each article was evaluated against
each criterion. Some criteria are indicated for both design types, while some are specified
for group designs or single case designs. Then, we entered each article into a matrix, and
the first author determined if the study met each criterion by marking “yes” or “no.” Since
the CEC Standards are specifically designed for studies in special education instead of gen-
eral education there were some criteria that were not completely relevant to the included
studies (e.g., criterion 2.2, disability risk status of participants). We evaluated survey stud-
ies against necessary components of survey studies outlined by Stapleton (2018). A total
of 11 components were included, and each article was evaluated against components in
the same way described previously. The second author conducted a reliability screening on
30% of the studies and 93% agreement was reached. Disagreements were discussed until a
consensus was reached.
Results
Study Characteristics
The included studies (N = 22) represented a variety of designs. There were 11 quantitative
studies, five of which were survey studies, four were randomized-controlled trials, and two
were quasi-experimental designs. There were also 10 single case studies, eight of which
were multiple baseline across participants designs, one alternating treatment design, and
one multiple probe design. The final study was a multiple methods design, which primarily
used a survey and followed-up by interviewing two participants; however, the two partici-
pants who were interviewed did not meet inclusion criteria for this review (i.e., one was
a high school teacher and the other was an administrator) and, therefore, data were not
included for analysis.
The represented studies included a total of 4,753 participants. Of those participants,
3,592 were inservice elementary education teachers, and 111 were preservice elementary
education teachers. There were also 526 inservice teachers and 172 preservice teachers
whose grade level was not specified. There were 158 inservice teachers and 42 preservice
teachers who were included in studies, but taught grade levels outside elementary (i.e.,
preschool or secondary grade levels). Additionally, there were 116 inservice participants
and 36 preservice participants that represented other specialties such as special education,
school psychology, or administration. Demographic data about the included participants
were unable to be extracted because of variances in the ways they were reported by the
research teams. For example, a few research teams primarily focused on reporting racial,
ethnic, and gender data and others reported data pertaining to educational background. Still
others did not report demographic data about their participants. As such, it is not possi-
ble to report demographic information across the included articles in this literature review.
When possible, data from studies that included teachers from multiple grade levels or dis-
ciplines were excluded from the findings in this literature review, as this literature review
focuses primarily on elementary education teachers.
There were two primary types of studies included: intervention and survey stud-
ies. Of the intervention studies included, data were collected on: interventions related to
13
school-wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS) at tier one (Bethune, 2017) and tier two
(Bradshaw et al., 2012), interventions related to the Incredible Years (IY) Program (Murray
et al., 2018; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008), interventions related to BSP (Briere et al., 2015;
Gage et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2017) and/or positive vs. negative feedback (Mrachko
et al, 2017; Myers et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2012; Zakszeski et al., 2020), interven-
tions related to function-based supports (Auld et al., 2010; Renshaw et al., 2008; Stoiber
& Gettinger, 2011); interventions related to managing the environment (Torelli et al.,
2017), and CM training for preservice teachers (Putman, 2012). Survey studies included
data related to CM training preservice teachers received (Begeny & Martens, 2006; Bosch
& Ellis, 2021; Christofferson & Sullivan, 2015), CM training and practices of inservice
teachers (Cooper et al., 2018; Moreno & Scaletta, 2018), and factors that affected teacher
efficacy in managing student behavior (Tsouloupas et al., 2014). A summary of findings
from each study can be found in supplemental Table 1.
Synthesis of Results
Results are presented by research question. The first research question focuses on the types
of training preservice and inservice training teachers received based on the reports of the
included studies. Then, teachers’ perceptions of the trainings are discussed. Finally, the
quality analysis of included studies is shared.
Research Question 1: Preservice and Inservice Teacher Training
Data analysis resulted in two main themes: preservice teacher training and inservice
teacher training. Each of the themes includes relevant subthemes related to the amount of
training teachers received, types of training they received, and effects of the training.
Preservice Teacher Training Researchers reported different types of training preservice

teachers received; however, training was limited and focused only on overall CM strategies
instead of behavior management. The included studies focused on different types of the
courses preservice teachers received and interventions in which preservice teachers partici-
pated.
Two research teams explored coursework provided to preservice teachers (Begeny &
Martens, 2006; Christofferson & Sullivan, 2015). Neither study focused primarily on ele-
mentary general education teachers, though information pertaining to the breakdown of
included participants was provided. Christofferson and Sullivan (2015) surveyed 157 pre-
service teachers and Begany and Martens (2006) surveyed 110 preservice teachers. Disag-
gregated data were not provided. Findings from both studies revealed preservice teachers
received limited training related to behavior management. Specifically, Christofferson and
Sullivan (2015) reported only 60% of participants reported taking a stand-alone course
dedicated to CM strategies, despite this method of instruction resulting in the highest sense
of preparation in implementing CM strategies for preservice teachers. Similarly, Begany
and Martens (2006) found that preservice elementary education majors reported receiving
training related to instruction and promoting active engagement but received the lowest
amount of training related to using behavior strategies, practices, and programs.
Three research teams implemented classroom management interventions for preservice
teachers (Auld et al., 2010; Bosch & Ellis, 2021; Putman, 2012). Two (Auld et al., 2010;
Putman, 2012) focused on the use of class-wide CM strategies, though Putman (2012)
13
examined ways in which a university implemented its CM training for preservice teachers,
while Auld et al. (2010) examined effects of a specific CM strategy on reducing CBs within
the classroom. Bosch and Ellis (2021) administered the Ohio State Self-Efficacy Survey
after participants completed a classroom management training that measured changes in
self-efficacy.
Putman (2012) examined effects of a traditional course layout compared to a blocked
course. In the traditional course layout, preservice teachers participated in a college course
dedicated to CM instruction for one semester, and then participated in a field placement
the following semester to implement strategies they learned previously. In the experimen-
tal condition (i.e., blocked course), students partook in CM instruction and field place-
ment courses simultaneously. Based on reported findings, the experimental group showed
statistically significant growth in self-efficacy related to student engagement (d = 1.93),
instructional strategies (d = 2.26), and CM (d = 1.73). Additionally, independent samples t
tests favored the intervention group over the control group (student engagement: d = 0.95,
instructional strategies: d = 1.23, CM: d = 0.92). These findings indicate that providing CM
instruction while preservice teachers are engaging in field placement experiences is more
advantageous than having preservice teachers complete them in separate semesters.
Auld and colleagues (2010) conducted a multiple baseline design across participants
study with seven participants during the second six-week placement of their student teach-
ing experience; however, only three participants were elementary preservice teachers.
Therefore, the results from the three elementary preservice teachers are included in the
literature review. Preservice teachers were provided with training on differential reinforce-
ment focused on hand raising, which included a one-hour workshop and weekly meetings
to provide performance feedback. Based on the findings, two preservice teachers showed
an immediate increase in appropriate responses to student behavior following interven-
tion and one showed an increasing trend following the intervention condition. Addition-
ally, students in all three preservice teachers’ classrooms showed an increase in appropriate
hand raising during the intervention phase (i.e., classroom 1 increased M = 45% to 80%,
classroom 2 increased M = 28% to 68%, classroom 3 increased M = 61% to 75%). Results
indicated a successful intervention for the preservice teachers, who were able to reinforce
students for raising their hand when needed and provide appropriate error correction when
students did not raise their hand.
Bosch and Ellis (2021) provided a pre- and post-questionnaire to 44 preservice teachers,
26 of whom were preservice elementary education teachers. The questionnaire focused on
four elements: self-efficacy in classroom management, self-efficacy in student engagement,
self-efficacy in instructional strategies, and overall self-efficacy. Participants completed a
six phase avatar experience using Mursion. Throughout the phases students were provided
with instruction on evidence-based CM strategies, opportunities to practice strategies with
the avatars during a five-minute session, individualized coaching from a professor, a sec-
ond five-minute session with the avatars, and then a final feedback session with the profes-
sors. Preservice teachers from the included sample showed significant increase in all four
areas measured on the questionnaire.
Inservice Teacher Training Research related to training inservice teachers received was
vaster and more focused on both CM strategies and behavior management. Findings came
from both survey and intervention studies and identified a variety of needs and successful
interventions. Findings are reported on types of CM trainings inservice teachers received,
and then are broken down into the specific interventions implemented. Interventions focused
13
on the use of BSP and/or positive and negative feedback, trainings related to CM strategies
(i.e., SWPBS and IY Program), and training related to managing the environment.
Survey Studies Cooper and colleagues (2018) administered a questionnaire to 248 inser-
vice teachers (57.7% elementary education teachers) regarding their training related to
overall CM strategies, antecedent strategies, consequence strategies, and self-management
practices. They found that 65% of total respondents reported having formal training in CM
practices, with 75% receiving training in antecedent strategies, 67.8% in consequence strate-
gies, and 56.7% in self-management strategies. Further analyses indicated special education
teachers were more likely to have received training in these areas, though elementary gen-
eral education teachers were least likely to have received training in all four strategies and
procedures. This indicates many of the initial findings may have favored teachers other than
elementary education teachers.
BSP and/or Positive and Negative Feedback Several research teams reported on the
effects of training focused on BSP and/or positive and negative feedback. Findings revealed
positive effects from various trainings, implying that when teachers are provided with direct
training, they can implement BSP and positive feedback appropriately.
Briere and colleagues (2015), Gage and colleagues (2018), Simonsen and colleagues
(2017), and Zakszeski and colleagues (2020) conducted studies looking at the use of BSP
when trainings were implemented by researchers. The initial trainings focused on use of
BSP, with Briere and colleagues using self-monitoring, structured consultation meetings,
and performance feedback to support teachers through. Gage and colleagues implemented
a training that included a 20-min individualized meeting to review the definition of BSP,
review baseline data, and explain email feedback. After the initial training, inservice teach-
ers received emailed feedback after every two observations that included positive feed-
back, suggestions for increasing BSP, and a graph of the teacher’s use of BSP. Simonsen
and colleagues held an initial meeting with participants to introduce the intervention and
provide a scripted training. The training lasted 15–20 min and focused on specific and
contingent praise and self-management. Then, teachers developed a self-management
plan that included an estimate of their current BSP rate, a goal BSP rate, a reinforcer the
teacher would self-administer if the goal was met, a plan for monitoring and documenting
data, and a process for checking email for weekly reminders from the research team. The
research team sent a weekly email that included sample BSP statements and reminders to
use BSP statements with students. Zakszeski and colleagues also implemented a training
with teachers on their use of self-management. In their study, a school psychologist led a
20-min training for all staff after school. The training included baseline data on use of BSP
and specific corrections, introduced goal setting and self-monitoring, and discussed types
of praise statements. Then, the research team invited inservice teachers to participate in
goal setting and self-monitoring for the next three weeks. Findings from all four studies
(i.e.,Briere et al., 2015; Gage et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2017; Zakszeski et al., 2020)
indicated interventions were successful based on teachers showing an increase in use of
BSP with students during intervention. Briere and colleagues reported an increased and
maintained use of BSP among new teachers after the intervention. Gage and colleagues
reported inservice teachers maintained their skills following intervention; however, Simon-
sen and colleagues reported a decrease in the use of BSP during the maintenance phase.
Zakszeski reported that praise and on-task behavior improved for the treatment school
compared to the control school at post-observation (F[6, 50] = 2.78, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.25).
13
Though some studies focused primarily on use of BSP, others looked at both positive
and negative interactions with students. Mrachko and colleagues (2017) and Myers and
colleagues (2011) both examined effects of a teacher intervention on positive and negative
behaviors of teachers in a classroom. Both studies used single case design with inservice
fifth grade teachers. Mrachko and colleagues implemented a two-hour, individual training
with each inservice teacher that included topics such as avoiding coercion, building a rap-
port, and positive and negative interactions. Email feedback was used with each teacher
individually and included the number of positive and negative feedback statements from
the observation, any instances of coercion, two specific instances of BSP, and one or
two suggestions for improvement. Findings reported by Mrachko and colleagues (2017)
were mixed, with some teachers showing improvements with one behavior (e.g., positive
interactions) but not the other (e.g., negative interactions). However, teachers were able
to maintain their newly learned skills, indicating a successful intervention overall. Myers
and colleagues (2011) provided a school-wide training on tier one interventions followed
by an opportunity for inservice teachers to participate in a tier two training. A fifth-grade
teacher chose to participate and was provided with a short consultation about the impor-
tance of BSP and taught to review data of positive to negative interactions with students.
Then they were provided with a weekly meeting with the researcher to review BSP data
and receive weekly praise, contingent on increased use of BSP. The teacher’s use of BSP
did not increase to the rate initially set by the research team (i.e., six BSP statements),
but they did meet the four-to-one, positive-to-negative interaction ratio initially set by the
research team.
Classroom Management Programs for Inservice Teachers Two CM programs discussed

within the included studies for inservice teachers were: SWPBS and the IY Program. Bet-
hune (2017) examined the use of coaching on the training and implementation of SWPBS
for four teachers, though three teachers were elementary general education teachers. The
teachers were trained by the instructional coach on CM strategies (e.g., reinforcement, con-
sequences). Data indicated a successful training in that all the teachers showed an increase
in SWPBS implementation during the intervention phase and maintained their skills after
intervention.
Both Murray and colleagues (2018) and Webster-Stratton and colleagues (2008) exam-
ined effects of the IY Program on inservice teachers’ use of CM strategies. Webster-Strat-
ton and colleagues examined effects of the training on Head Start and elementary educa-
tion teachers’ implementation of positive and responsive teaching strategies, and Murray
and colleagues examined effects of the IY Program on elementary education teachers’ use
of CM strategies in their classrooms. Webster-Stratton and colleagues conducted a four-
day, 28-h training that was provided via monthly workshops. The trainings focused on
CM strategies, such as building positive relationships with students and families, proac-
tive teaching methods, use of praise and encouragement, and creating behavior plans. Mur-
ray and colleagues implemented a five-day, staff-wide training for their participants, which
included discussions, reflections, role-plays, small group activities, brainstorming sessions,
and development of behavior plans for students in the teachers’ classrooms. Both research
teams reported positive results related to climate and discipline, with Webster-Stratton and
colleagues indicating the intervention led to significant improvements for kindergarten and
first grade teachers in the treatment group over control teachers in the areas of classroom
atmosphere and effective discipline. Murray and colleagues reported a statistically sig-
nificant main effect of the intervention and positive climate outcome on the observation
13
measure (b = 0.37, p = 0.02, d = 0.45), which indicated teachers in the intervention group
were rated to have a more positive climate than teachers in the control group after interven-
tion. Treatment teachers were also observed the following school year to see if treatment
effects were maintained with a different group of students. No statistically significant inter-
vention effects were found with a new group of students. Though initial intervention effects
revealed significant findings, maintenance data indicated continued intervention may be
needed to maintain implementation of the strategies learned.
The final training related to overall CM was conducted by Torelli and colleagues (2017).
This training consisted of a 15–20 min introduction to the purpose of the study and proce-
dures for implementing multiple schedules. Inservice teachers were taught how to respond
to students’ requests for attention and how to appropriately withhold attention using an
alternating treatment design with second and first grade classrooms. Teachers were trained
to use stimulus control with students who were seeking teacher attention during guided
reading groups, during which teachers were providing direct instruction to a small group of
students. During the intervention phase, teachers provided instructions to students prior to
the guided reading block about their expectations, and then used a lamp to indicate when
it was and was not appropriate to seek attention (i.e., when the lamp was off students could
seek attention from the teacher, when the lamp was on students could not seek attention
from the teacher). When it was inappropriate to seek attention, teachers were expected to
use extinction, ignoring any requests for attention from students other than those students
they were instructing at the time. Results indicated the intervention was successful for both
classrooms, with students’ recruitment of teacher attention increasing during the appropri-
ate conditions and decreasing during direct instruction.
Training Related to Individual Challenging Behavior Inservice teachers not only received
training related to overall CM, but also received training related to strategies to support
behavior at the student level. Included literature provided information about the frequency
at which teachers were trained and types of training received.
Tsouloupas and colleagues (2014) and Moreno and Scaletta (2018) surveyed 344
inservice teachers and 186 inservice teachers respectively. Tsouloupas and colleagues
(2014) found that inservice teacher participants attended nearly three trainings (M = 2.90,
SD = 1.82) related to behavior management in the past three years. Researchers also found
that the strongest factor associated with teacher self-efficacy was training related to manag-
ing CB (r = 0.76, p < 0.01), indicating that inservice teachers who engaged in more training
related to behavior management reported greater levels of teacher self-efficacy in manag-
ing CB. Additional findings indicated that teachers with more experience were more effec-
tive managers of CB, and that no significant correlations associated with school level (i.e.,
primary and secondary) and teacher self-efficacy were found. Moreno and Scaletta (2018)
found that inservice general education teachers were less prepared than special education
teachers in managing CB (t = −2.09, p = 0.038).
Some studies looked at training inservice general education teachers on supporting
students individually. These included adding to the current SWPBS literature (Bradshaw
et al., 2012), training inservice teachers to conduct FBAs (Renshaw et al., 2008; Stoiber
& Gettinger, 2011), or putting behavior plans in place for students with behavioral sup-
port needs (Murray et al., 2018). To expand on CM supports already implemented in many
schools, Bradshaw and colleagues (2012) implemented a training called PBISplus through
a randomized control trial (n = 20 treatment schools, n = 22 control schools). Intervention
schools participated in a two-day training about conducting an FBA, functional behavioral
13
thinking, cultural proficiency, and evidence-based practices. Results showed that inservice
teachers in the treatment schools reported the ability to better manage CB from individual
students. Student outcomes indicated treatment schools showed greater improvements in
achievement (b = −.02, p = 0.05) and a reduction in the number of students receiving spe-
cial education services (b = −0.59, p = 0.03). Additional analyses were conducted to iden-
tify effects on general education teachers only, and results continued to be significant.
Both Renshaw and colleagues (2008) and Stoiber and Gettinger (2011) implemented
interventions examining effects of training inservice elementary education teachers on
function-based supports. Renshaw and colleagues (2008) conducted a multiple-baseline
design study with four inservice teachers who each selected a student from their class with
behavioral support needs but did not receive special education services. Each inservice
teacher participated in a three-part training that focused on writing an FBA, constructing a
behavior support plan, and implementing and monitoring the behavior support plan. Inser-
vice teachers learned to collect behavioral data, identify and define target behaviors, iden-
tify behavioral function, identify and define replacement behaviors, select an intervention
method, select a data collection method, develop a behavior support plan, implement the
behavior support plan, and collect and graph data. Progress was measured using the Func-
tion-Based Support (FBS) Knowledge Test. Inservice teachers showed an overall improve-
ment on the FBS Knowledge Test of 28%. On the subscales, the teachers averaged a final
score of 94% on Conducting an FBA, an 85% on Developing a Behavior Support Plan, and
an 85% on Implementing and Monitoring the Behavior Support Plan. Additionally, two
students showed a reduction in their target behavior, while the other two students showed
an increase in their replacement behavior.
Stoiber and Gettinger (2011) recruited prekindergarten through first grade teachers to
participate in a randomized controlled trial (n = 35 treatment teachers, n = 35 control teach-
ers). Each inservice teacher in the treatment group selected two students from their class
with behavioral support needs, one was identified as a target student and the other identi-
fied as a general student. Treatment teachers engaged in a five-hour training that focused
on a five-step process for supporting students with behavioral support needs that included
conducting an FBA, developing a behavior support plan, implementing the behavior sup-
port plan, and collecting data on the behavior support plan. Researchers guided the school-
based team and teachers through the process for their target student, and then the school-
based team and teachers conducted the process independently for their general student.
Following intervention, teachers in the treatment group had higher implementation rates
for both target and general students for FBA and positive behavior support strategies. Addi-
tionally, teachers in the treatment group showed higher rates of preventative strategies
and teaching strategies compared to the control group. Inservice teachers in the interven-
tion group also rated their students as having more positive behaviors (F[1, 63] = 20.02,
η2 = 0.14) and fewer CB (F[1, 63] = 12.54, η2 = 0.17) following intervention.
In addition to class-wide CM training Murray and colleagues (2018) provided related
to the IY Program, inservice teachers were given an opportunity to write individual behav-
ior plans for a student in their classroom. Following training, 96% of inservice teachers
reported feeling confident in managing CB exhibited by the student following training and
that the student in their class showed behavioral improvement. Additionally, 90% of inser-
vice teachers in the treatment group reported feeling the behavioral approach was appropri-
ate for their student.
One study also considered effects of training teachers on the use of BSP with individual
students instead of the entire class (Thompson et al., 2012). The training followed a three-
tiered format, where tier one training focused on general praise and BSP, tier two focused
13
on video self-monitoring, and tier three included using a coach. One included inservice
teacher required tier two supports and then met necessary criteria to move to the mainte-
nance stage. The other two inservice teachers required tier three supports, including coach-
ing, before successfully meeting criteria to move to the maintenance stage. Researchers
determined that a one-time tier one intervention is not sufficient in supporting teachers
in providing BSP to students with behavioral support needs, and additional supports are
necessary.
Research Question 2: Perceptions of Teachers
Both preservice and inservice teachers shared their perceptions of training they received
related to CM and behavior management, whether that be in response to a direct interven-
tion in which they participated or to coursework or training experiences received over time.
Overall, both preservice and inservice teachers reported feeling the trainings were mean-
ingful and effective, though they did not feel they had adequate training to support their
CM and behavior management needs.
Preservice Teacher Perceptions Two researcher teams reported on the perceptions of pre-
service teachers (Auld et al., 2010; Christofferson & Sullivan, 2015). Auld and colleagues
(2010) reported on the social validity of the intervention provided to preservice teachers.
Teachers who responded to the social validity questionnaire felt the training was beneficial
and that it would be useful in the future. They also found that students responded appropri-
ately to their provided positive and corrective feedback. However, they found it difficult to
remember to focus on increasing desired behaviors while ignoring CB.
Christofferson and Sullivan (2015) reported that preservice teachers were most satisfied
with training they received from other teachers in their field (70.4%) and with the training
they received through supervised field work (70.4%). The participants reportedly felt satis-
fied with all modalities of training, including stand-alone CM courses, courses dedicated to
another subject, and reading about CM strategies, among others.
Inservice Teacher Perceptions Many research teams reported on the satisfaction teach-
ers felt regarding implementation of their respective interventions. Specifically, teachers
reported the interventions improved students’ CB (Bethune, 2017; Myers et al., 2011;
Thompson et al., 2011), they were more effective teachers after engaging in the intervention
(Bradshaw et al., 2012; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2011), they would continue to use information
learned during the intervention (Briere et al., 2015; Torelli et al., 2017), and would recom-
mend the intervention to other teachers (Briere et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2018; Myers et al.,
2011; Renshaw et al., 2008). Specific components related to trainings that teachers found
to be beneficial included: email feedback (Mrachko et al., 2017), PowerPoint presentations
(Mrachko et al., 2017), peer discussion groups (Murray et al., 2018), and coaching (Thomp-
son et al., 2011).
Though most feedback researchers received from participating teachers was positive,
there was also feedback that could help inform future training opportunities for teachers
and researchers. For example, participating teachers in the study conducted by Bethune
(2017) reported having difficulty implementing consequence strategies and phrasing praise
statements appropriately, indicating a need for more training on appropriate consequences
and reinforcement. There were also participants in two studies (Thompson et al., 2011;
Zakszeski et al., 2020) who indicated they did not feel the training they received was
13
enough to support their needs. For example, participants in the study conducted by Thomp-
son and colleagues (2011) did not agree that a staff-wide training was sufficient in meet-
ing the needs of all teachers, feeling individualized training was more effective. Because
the purpose of their study was to provide whole staff training, and then to offer additional
training to those teachers who needed it, this finding aligns with the purpose of the study.
Participants in the study conducted by Zakszeski and colleagues (2020) reported needing
additional support, either through more resources, consultative support, or additional train-
ing to adequately implement BSP and self-monitoring strategies in their classrooms. Zak-
szeski and colleagues (2020) claimed a staff-wide training was sufficient in meeting the
needs of an entire staff, and quantitative data supported their claim; however, social valid-
ity data indicated their participants did not agree with this statement.
Research Question 3: Quality of Included Studies
Studies were evaluated against quality indicators for their respective designs, with most
experimental designs (i.e., single-case and group designs, n = 16) meeting some quality
indicators and criteria (CEC, 2014). Survey studies (n = 6) met some necessary compo-
nents while failing to meet others (Stapleton, 2018). All experimental studies adequately
described settings, participants, intervention parameters, baseline conditions, and outcome
measures (CEC, 2014). The single-case studies also provided three demonstrations of basic
effect, and group designs provided adequate evidence of validity (CEC, 2014).
There were some issues with the rigor of the included experimental studies. For exam-
ple, seven included studies failed to provide an adequate description of the interventionist,
many stating who was providing the intervention (e.g., the first author), but not reporting
the credentials of the person providing the training (Myers et al., 2011; Renshaw et al.,
2008; Simonsen et al., 2017; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2011; Torelli et al., 2017; Webster-Strat-
ton et al., 2008; Zakszeski et al., 2020) (CEC; 2014). There were also issues with some
single-case studies not including an adequate number of data points in each experimental
phase (i.e., at least three; Bethune, 2017; Gage et al., 2018; Myers et al., 2011; Renshaw
et al., 2008) (CEC; 2014). Additional studies failed to meet criteria individually (see Suppl.
Table 2).
Survey studies also were evaluated against necessary survey components (Stapleton,
2018). Included studies met most necessary components for participant descriptions, sam-
pling procedures, measure development and/or description, and analysis (Stapleton, 2018).
Most studies failed to include information regarding response rates (Stapleton, 2018),
though three studies explained in the limitations sections that response rates were not pos-
sible to calculate due to the distribution procedures (Begeny & Martens, 2006; Christoffer-
son & Sullivan, 2015; Cooper et al., 2018) (see Suppl. Table 3).
Discussion
The purposes of this literature review were to (a) explore the empirical evidence for pre-
service and inservice elementary general education teachers CM and behavior manage-
ment training, (b) identify preservice and inservice teachers’ perceptions of those train-
ing opportunities, and (c) evaluate the quality of the included studies. Findings indicated
that preservice teachers have received some training related to CM, though coursework
has been a combination of stand-alone classes and classes devoted to topics other than
13
CM (Christofferson & Sullivan, 2015). Additionally, they have engaged in some trainings,
though these experiences have been limited in number of studies and participants (Auld
et al., 2010; Bosch & Ellis, 2021; Putman, 2012). Additionally, preservice teachers’ train-
ing has been limited to general CM strategies, with no literature found in the search that
showed preservice elementary education teachers are receiving coursework or trainings
focused on the needs of individual students who engage in CB (i.e., behavior management).
Findings related to the training experiences of inservice teachers were far more expan-
sive. Many included studies showed that some inservice elementary education teachers
were being trained on overall CM strategies (e.g., Gage et al., 2018; Mrachko et al., 2017;
Simonsen et al., 2017) and behavior management strategies (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2012;
Murray et al., 2018; Renshaw et al., 2008). However, findings from survey studies revealed
teachers continue to be under trained in CM, specifically related to antecedent strategies,
consequence strategies, and self-management procedures (Cooper et al., 2018). This find-
ing may be related to the limited training preservice teachers receive, impacting their needs
in their career. Continued training opportunities are needed for inservice teachers related to
these strategies and procedures.
Preservice and inservice teachers in reviewed studies also reported being highly satis-
fied with trainings they received, implying that these trainings may be appropriate for con-
tinued use (e.g., Auld et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2017). However,
some researchers also noted the need for individualized training opportunities for teachers
as opposed to staff-wide trainings, which do not meet teachers’ individual needs related
to their different teaching styles, personality styles, and students (Thompson et al., 2011;
Zakszeski et al., 2020). It is important to provide different levels of support, such that some
teachers receive more individualized interventions as was shown in studies conducted by
Myers et al. (2011) and Thompson et al. (2012). These types of interventions allow teach-
ers to receive targeted supports based on their individual training needs and the needs of
students in their classes.
Importance of Training in Classroom and Behavior Management for Teachers
Training preservice and inservice teachers on CM strategies can lower stress and attrition
rates for teachers while increasing teacher efficacy (Djonko-Moore, 2016; Harris et al.,
2019; Tsouloupas et al., 2014). Additionally, when teachers are trained in CM strategies,
students show stronger prosocial behaviors, lower rates of CB, and increased academic
performance; rates of behavioral and special education supports for students also decrease
(e.g., Korpershoek et al., 2016; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2011; van Dijk et al., 2019). Elemen-
tary education teachers reported the lowest rates of training in CM strategies compared
to teachers in other fields and grade levels (e.g., special education, secondary education;
Cooper et al, 2018), yet training in this area is the highest predictor of teacher efficacy
(Tsouloupas et al., 2014) and can lead to increases in teacher efficacy (Bosch & Ellis,
2021). To meet the needs of teachers and students, initial and ongoing training related to
CM and behavior management is needed.
Teachers who received training in behavior management responded positively to such
training through increased use in BSP (Briere et al., 2015; Gage et al., 2018; Simonsen
et al., 2017), changing both positive and negative behaviors (Mrachko et al., 2017; Myers
et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2012; Zakszeski et al., 2020), and applying appropriate func-
tion-based approaches with students (Renshaw et al., 2008; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2011).
This suggests that teachers were able to quickly implement change in their classrooms with
13
all students or with individual students. These findings also indicated trainings were highly
effective in changing class-wide behavior and individual student CB. However, it is impor-
tant to ensure teachers receive individualized support based on their needs and the needs of
their students. Some reviewed studies focused on function-based strategies (Renshaw et al.,
2008; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2011), which prior research teams have found to be best prac-
tice when meeting the needs of students who engage in CB (Dunlap & Fox, 2011; Lane
et al., 2007). Training preservice and inservice teachers to implement function-based inter-
ventions may be advantageous in meeting students’ behavioral needs, as research indicates
is the best way to ensure behavior change. Additionally, when teachers are addressing the
function of a student’s behavior instead of focusing on why a behavior may be challenging
to them (as the teacher), they are more effectively supporting the student. Some included
studies, specifically single-case research studies, also showed some teachers were unable
to maintain use of the strategies they learned (Murray et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2017).
Though implementation and success of trainings during intervention phases is important, it
is also important to ensure teachers continue to support students’ behavior in the classroom
after intervention has ended.
Need for Further Training Related to Behavior Management Strategies
Participants in the study conducted by Bethune (2017) reported they continued to struggle
with implementing consequence strategies following intervention. This finding aligns with
findings reported by Cooper and colleagues (2018), which suggested that elementary edu-
cation teachers are under trained in the implementation of consequence strategies. These
findings are similar to results shared by Moreno and Scaletta (2018) who found special
education teachers report receiving more training than general education teachers in the
area of behavior management. Additional research also supports that special education
teachers are trained in behavior management strategies at higher rates than general educa-
tion teachers (Flower et al., 2017; Freeman et al., 2014).
Interestingly, no studies were found that indicated preservice teachers are trained on
how to support individual students who engage in CB. Similarly, preservice special edu-
cation teachers typically receive training in this area, while general education preservice
teachers receive limited training (Flower et al., 2017; Freeman et al., 2014). However, stu-
dents with behavioral support needs are educated in general education classrooms regu-
larly (Harris et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2018) and respond better when preventative and
intervention strategies are taught by their general education teacher (Walker et al., 2018).
Trainings provided to inservice teachers related to function-based strategies may also be
appropriate for preservice teachers, as they tend to highlight the need for tailoring anteced-
ent- and consequence-based supports to the needs of individual students (Dunlap & Fox,
2011; Walker et al., 2018).
Quality of Included Studies
As discussed previously, many studies met quality indicators and criteria outlined by their
respective indicators (CEC, 2014; Stapleton, 2018). Issues that should be addressed with
the included studies are the intervention agent and ways data are interpreted and used.
First, many studies relied on researchers for implementation, yet did not provide informa-
tion regarding the credentials of the researchers providing trainings to preservice and inser-
vice teachers. Not only does this not meet quality indicators as outlined by CEC (2014),
13
but it does not help the reader understand how to replicate and implement the intervention.
Future research should ensure intervention agents are thoroughly described.
The second area that should be addressed is how data were interpreted, specifically
social validity data. When quantitative data are collected and reveal a successful inter-
vention, yet social validity data indicate teachers felt the intervention was not effective,
it is important to consider both sets of data. Snodgrass and colleagues (2018) recommend
mixing social validity data with experimental results, as this may lead to more effective
and efficient interventions for teachers. This means interventions may be statistically effec-
tive and teachers may be more likely to continue using the information learned during the
intervention. Future studies may consider social validity data as this could help determine
long-term impacts of intervention for teachers. Specifically, when collecting social validity
data, researchers may consider the method with which they are collecting responses from
participants. Many of the included studies provided questionnaires, with limited opportuni-
ties for open-ended responses. To better mix social validity data with experimental results,
as recommended by Snodgrass et al., it may be more advantageous to acquire qualitative
social validity data from participants to elicit richer data.
Limitations
There are two types of limitations related to this review. The first relates to limitations
of the review process. The review process was rigorous, including three team members,
inclusion and exclusion criteria, and multiple reliability checks; however, it is impossible
to ensure every article related to the topic was included in the review. For example, specific
search terms may have been overlooked by the research team. Additionally, articles were
evaluated against quality indicators (CEC, 2014; Stapleton, 2018), but articles were not
excluded if they did not meet all quality indicators. This means that even if studies were not
rigorously designed and analyzed, they were included in this review.
The second type of limitation relates to the studies. First, most studies utilized single-
case designs, meaning they included a small sample size and interventions were highly
targeted. Though single-case studies are highly effective, findings related to teacher percep-
tions can be skewed towards the high effectiveness of interventions for this reason. Addi-
tionally, the included articles reported very different information in terms of teacher demo-
graphics, including racial/ethnic information and educational backgrounds. The variety of
information made it difficult to determine how or if demographics play a role in the way
teachers are prepared to support students with challenging behavior (e.g., if teachers with
advanced degrees are more prepared than those without). Studies that included information
regarding racial and ethnic information (n = 10) reported significantly more White partici-
pants than other minority groups (e.g., Black, Latinx) and women. This overrepresentation
of White women represents the field (NCES, 2020), but also points to the need for more
diverse teachers in classrooms and research and the continued perpetuation of students
being identified as engaging in challenging behavior when there may be a cultural discrep-
ancy between teacher and student.
Implications for Practice
Though results from the trainings indicated they were highly effective, and teachers’ per-
ceptions indicated they found them to be acceptable, a particularly salient finding was that
teachers preferred more individualized or customized training opportunities as opposed to
13
staff-wide training. Two research teams presented findings related to within-school con-
sultation models, specifically using teacher mentors or instructional coaches as interven-
tion agents (Bethune et al., 2017; Briere et al., 2015). It may be advantageous for schools
to train experienced teachers, special education teachers, and instructional coaches in CM
and behavior management strategies. These individuals can serve as within-school con-
sultants to support teachers who need it, to build capacity within the school building and/
or school district. Using teacher mentors, coaches, or other within-school consultants can
allow school systems to build multi-tiered systems of support for their teachers that will
allow them to receive individualized training opportunities, similar to the individualized
supports (i.e., tier two and tier three supports) provided to their students when they are
needed. With the use of individualized training opportunities comes the use of more tai-
lored performance-feedback, which has also been shown to improve teacher performance
in the classroom.
It is also important to support preservice teachers as they are advancing through teacher
preparation programs. Findings from included studies revealed that preservice teachers
benefit most from stand-alone CM courses and practicum experiences as opposed to gen-
eral courses that cover a variety of topics including CM (Christofferson & Sullivan, 2015).
Teacher preparation programs should consider creating and requiring stand-alone CM
courses that infuse a practicum experience for teachers to practice the skills they are learn-
ing simultaneously (Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; Putman, 2012). This aligns with what
researchers have reported about adult learning theory, recommending that adult learners be
provided with both explicit instruction related to key concepts and authentic experiences to
use skills they have learned (Dunst, 2015; Merriam, 2011). Additionally, to best support all
of their students, it is important for preservice teachers to understand how to manage the
CB individual student’s engage in (i.e., behavior management), and better understand their
own perceptions of what is “challenging.” As preservice teachers are engaging in course-
work, they can engage in stand-alone CM courses that focus on CM strategies, learn func-
tion-based strategies that address their students’ needs, and identify ways in which they can
address the behavioral support needs of all their students.
Implications for Research
Many studies were included that focused on CM and behavior management strategies for
practicing teachers, though some showed teachers failed to implement strategies after the
intervention ceased (Murray et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2017). Future research can focus
on implementation of interventions related to CM and behavior management that explores
ways in which teachers can maintain skills following intervention. This may be through the
use of “refresher courses” periodically offered over an extended period of time, reintro-
ducing the intervention when data indicate is necessary, or training within-school experts
to serve as consultants following intervention implementation. As researchers are continu-
ing to explore ways in which to train inservice teachers, their efforts should also focus on
maintenance strategies, with an emphasis on leaving a lasting impact on their participants.
In other words, researchers can create research plans that include maintenance strategies
similar to those outlined above. Collecting maintenance data will help the field better
understand the long-term effects of such trainings and the implementation of maintenance
efforts.
There were also CM and behavior management approaches that did not come up in the
search that may have been expected (e.g., the Good Behavior Game, Flower et al., 2014).
13
This may be because the focus of this review was teacher training, changes in teacher
behavior, and teacher perspectives of such training. There may be other CM or behavior
management approaches that have valid research but instead focus on student outcomes.
It may be worth exploring teacher outcomes of such trainings and their perceptions of the
training for such approaches.
Most importantly, future research needs to focus on training preservice teachers in the
area of individual student behavior management. The current literature review indicated
preservice teachers do not receive any training related to this, yet they often work with stu-
dents with behavioral support needs (Harris et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2018). As research-
ers continue to plan studies focusing on behavior management strategies, they should con-
sider including (or specifically focusing on) preservice teachers. It would be particularly
beneficial for training to focus on function-based interventions, as many students with
behavioral support needs benefit from these supports in the classroom (Dunlap & Fox,
2011; Lane et al., 2007).
Conclusion
Preservice and inservice general education teachers are provided with limited training
related to CM and behavior management strategies; however, the number of students with
and without disabilities who also have behavioral support needs in general education set-
tings is increasing. Given the high prevalence of CBs in the classroom, and the negative
impact these behaviors have on students and teachers, there is an urgent need to provide
training for preservice and inservice teachers so they can implement CM and behavior
management strategies in the general education setting.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10566-023-09750-z.
Funding No funding was used for the completion of this study.
Declarations
Confict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of inter-
est.
Ethical approval IRB approval was not needed for this study as there was no human subjects research con-
ducted.
References
*Indicates article included in systematic review
*Auld, R. G., Belfiore, P. J., & Scheeler, M. C. (2010). Increasing pre-service teachers’ use of differen-
tial reinforcement: Effects of performance feedback on consequences for student behavior. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 19, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9107-4
*Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ training in empirically validated
behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(3), 262–285.
13
*Bethune, K. S. (2017). Effects of coaching on teachers’ implementation of tier I school-wide positive

behavioral interventions and support strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3),
131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716680095
Bettencourt, A. F., Gross, D., Ho, G., & Perrin, N. (2018). The costly consequences of not being socially
and behaviorally read to learn by kindergarten in Baltimore City. Journal of Urban Health, 95, 36–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0214-6
*Bosch, C., & Ellis, T. (2021). Using avatars to address teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Global Education
and Research, 5(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.5.1.1069
*Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Goldweber, A., Rosenberg, M. S., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Integrating school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports with tier 2 coaching to student support teams: The
PBISplus model. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 5(3), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1754730X.2012.707429
*Briere, D. E., Simonsen, B., Sugai, G., & Myers, D. (2015). Increasing new teachers’ specific praise using
a within-school consultation intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(1), 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713497098
Butler, A., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2016). Preserv’ce teachers’ perceptions of challenging behavior. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 39, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416654212
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson, J. L., Albin, R.
W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: evolution of an applied science. Jour-
nal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 4(1), 4–16.
*Christofferson, M., & Sullivan, A. L. (2015). Preservice teachers’ classroom management training: A
survey of self-reported training experiences, content coverage, and preparedness. Psychology in the
Schools, 52(3), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits
*Cooper, J. T., Gage, N. A., Alter, P. J., LaPolla, S., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Scott, T. M. (2018). Educa-
tors’ self-reported training, use, and perceived effectiveness of evidence-based classroom management
practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(1), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1298562
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). CEC standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
Author.
Crane, J., Winsler, A., & Sands, B. (2013). Patterns of referral recommendations for ethnically diverse chil-
dren in subsidized child care. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 45–64.
DiPrete, T. A., & Jenninges, J. L. (2012). Social and behavioral skills and the gender gap in early educa-
tional achievement. Social Science Research, 41, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.
001
Division for Early Childhood. (2017). Position statement on challenging behavior and young children. Zero
to Three, 38, 33.
Djonko-Moore, C. M. (2016). An exploration of teacher attrition and mobility in high poverty racially seg-
regated schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(5), 1063–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.
2015.1013458
Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (2011). Function-based interventions for children with challenging behavior. Journal
of Early Intervention, 33(4), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111429971
Dunst, C. J. (2015). Improving the design and implementation of in-service professional development in
early childhood intervention. Infants & Young Children, 28(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.
0000000000000042
Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the Good Behav-
ior Game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 546–
571. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314536781
Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., & Haring, C. D. (2017). Behavior and classroom management: Are teacher
preparation programs really preparing our teachers? Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 61(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1231109
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D., MacSuga-Gage, A., & S. (2014). Pre-service teacher training in class-
room management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 37(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413507002
*Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N. M., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). Professional development to increase
teacher behavior-specific praise: A single-case design replication. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 264–
277. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22106
Harris, S. P., Davis, R. S., Christensen, S. S., Hanks, J., & Bowles, B. (2019). Teacher attrition: Differences
in stakeholder perceptions of teacher work conditions. Educational Sciences, 9(4), 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.3390/educsci9040300
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)
13
Keller-Bell, Y., & Short, M. (2019). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in schools: A tuto-
rial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_
LSHSS-17-0037
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). Meta-analysis of effects of
classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behav-
ioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799
Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. H. (2007). Designing, implementing, and evaluat-
ing function-based interventions using a systematic, feasible approach. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2),
122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290703200205
Merriam, S. B. (2011). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New
Directors for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3
Montes, G., Lotyczewski, B. S., Halterman, J. S., & Hightower, A. D. (2012). School readiness among
children with behavior problems at entrance into kindergarten: Results from a US national study.
European Journal of Pediatrics, 171, 541–548.
*Moreno, G., & Scaletta, M. (2018). Moving away from zero tolerance policies: Examination of edu-
cator preparedness in addressing student behavior. International Journal of Emotional Education,
10(2), 93–110.
*Mrachko, A. A., Kostewicz, D. E., & Martin, W. P. (2017). Increasing positive and decreasing negative
teacher responses to student behavior through training and feedback. Behavior Analysis: Research
and Practice, 17(3), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000082
*Murray, D. W., Rabiner, D. L., Kuhn, L., Pan, Y., & Sabet, R. F. (2018). Investigating teacher and
student effects of the Incredible Years classroom management program in early elementary school.
Journal of School Psychology, 67, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.004
*Myers, D. M., Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2011). Increasing teachers’ use of praise with a response-to-
intervention approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/
etc.2011.0004
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Characteristics of Pub-
lic School Teachers. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.
asp
Owens, J. S., Holdaway, A. S., Smith, J., Evans, S. W., Himawan, L. K., Coles, E. K., Girio-Herrera, E.,
Mixon, C., Egan, T. E., & Dawson, A. E. (2018). Rates of common classroom behavior management
strategies and their associations with challenging student behavior in elementary school. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26(3), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426617712501
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson,
A., Lalu, H. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement:
an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13643-021-01626-4
Powell, D., Fixsen, D., Dunlap, G., Smith, B., & Fox, L. (2007). A synthesis of knowledge relevant to
pathways of service delivery for young children with or at risk of challenging behavior. Journal of
Early Intervention, 29(2), 81–106.
*Putman, S. M. (2012). Examining variations in programmatic delivery on teaching candidates’ sense of
efficacy. Research in the Schools, 19(2), 45–61.
Renshaw, T. L., Christensen, L., Marchant, M., & Anderson, T. (2008). Training elementary school gen-
eral educators to implement function-based support. Education and Treatment of Children. https://
doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0037
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in
classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Chil-
dren, 31(3), 351–380.
*Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Dooley, K., Maddock, E., Kern, L., & Myers, D. (2017). Effects of targeted
professional development on teachers’ specific praise rates. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions, 19(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716637192
Snodgrass, M. R., Chung, M. Y., Meadan, H., & Halle, J. W. (2018). Social validity in single case
research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 74, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.r idd.2018.01.007
Stapleton, L. M. (2018). Survey sampling, administration, and analysis. In G. R. Hancock, L. M. Sta-
pleton, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences
(2nd ed., pp. 467–481). Routledge.
13
*Stoiber, K. C., & Gettinger, M. (2011). Functional assessment and positive support strategies for pro-
moting resilience: Effects on teachers and high-risk children. Psychology in the Schools, 48(7),
686–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20587
*Thompson, M. T., Marchant, M., Anderson, D., Prater, M. A., & Gibb, G. (2012). Effects of tiered training
on general educators’ use of specific praise. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(4), 521–546.
*Torelli, J. N., Lloyd, B. P., Diekman, C., & A., & Wehby, J. H. (2017). Teaching stimulus control via
class-wide multiple schedules of reinforcement in public elementary school classrooms. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716632878
*Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., & Matthews, R. A. (2014). Personal and school cultural factors asso-
ciated with the perceptions of teachers’ efficacy in handling student misbehavior. Psychology in the
Schools, 51(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21739
van Dijk, W., Gage, N. A., & Grasley-Boy, N. (2019). The relation between classroom management and
mathematics achievement: A multilevel structural equation model. Psychology in the School, 56,
1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22254
Walker, V. L., Chung, Y., & Bonnet, L. K. (2018). Function-based intervention in inclusive school settings:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(4), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1098300717718350
*Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving
school readiness: Evaluation of the Incredible Years teacher and child training programs in high-risk
schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488.
Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327466
*Zakszeski, B., Thomas, L., & Erdy, L. (2020). Tier I implementation supports for classroom management:
A pilot investigation targeting teachers’ praise. School Psychology, 35(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.
1037/spq000354
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
Authors and Affiliations
Stacy N. McGuire1 · Hedda Meadan2 · Rebecca Folkerts2

Hedda Meadan
[email protected]
Rebecca Folkerts
[email protected]
1
School of Inclusive Teacher Education, Bowling Green State University, 422 Education Building,
Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA
2
Department of Special Education, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 1310 S. Sixth St,
Champaign, IL 61820, USA
13

McGuireetal 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGuireetal 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGuireetal 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child & Youth Care Forum

Classroom and Behavior Management Training Needs

Stacy N. McGuire1 · Hedda Meadan2 · Rebecca Folkerts2

Accepted: 15 April 2023

Keywords Preservice teachers · Inservice teachers · Behavior management · Teacher

between a teacher-implemented functional assessment and behavior plan, and a reduction

appropriate behavior, reducing inappropriate behavior, and assessing behavior). These

Data Extraction Procedures

Research Question 1: Preservice and Inservice Teacher Training

Preservice Teacher Training Researchers reported different types of training preservice

Classroom Management Programs for Inservice Teachers Two CM programs discussed

Research Question 2: Perceptions of Teachers

Research Question 3: Quality of Included Studies

Importance of Training in Classroom and Behavior Management for Teachers

Need for Further Training Related to Behavior Management Strategies

Quality of Included Studies

Implications for Practice

Implications for Research

Funding No funding was used for the completion of this study.

*Indicates article included in systematic review

*Bethune, K. S. (2017). Effects of coaching on teachers’ implementation of tier I school-wide positive

Authors and Affiliations

Stacy N. McGuire1 · Hedda Meadan2 · Rebecca Folkerts2

You might also like