Disruptions happen in every classroom, at every school and on every age level. Teachers report, that over 30% of learning time is used for dealing with classroom disruptions and not for learning itself (OECD, 2014). Thus, students loose precious minutes, up to hours, every single day (Ofsted, 2014), while teachers face serious health problems, because classroom disruptions are one of the biggest stress factors especially for young and unexperienced teachers (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Kokkinos, 2007). Burnout is often related to this pressure (Freiberg & Lapointe, 2006; Friedman, 2006). For these reasons, (future) teachers and students benefit equally from research on this topic.

Classroom disruptions are part of the Classroom Management (Durak & Saritepeci, 2017; Scherzinger & Wettstein, 2019). Since Kounin (1970), Classroom Management, defined as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006), has been researched widely. Models and conceptualizations are various, and disruptions are often treated as part of these, but rarely constitute the sole focus point. While there are also models and systemizations on classroom disruptions, the research knowledge becomes very thin when the term digitization is associated with classroom disruptions (Meinokat & Wagner, 2021). Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced education all over the world into the digital age faster than ever before (Daniel, 2020), also the need to deal with disruptions in digital settings increases.

Therefore, the authors conducted an interview study to get firsthand information concerning the following research questions:

• What forms of classroom disruptions appear in digital teaching and what are the reasons for them?
• How do teachers deal preventively and interventional with classroom disruptions in digital teaching?
• What (disruption) potentials do teachers expect when transferring elements of digital teaching from pandemic online teaching to face to face teaching?

13 teachers from the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany) were interviewed in early summer of 2021. All 13 teachers teach at the Gymnasium, the highest kind of secondary school level in Germany. Teachers (5 female and 8 male) were in an age range from 27 to 59 years with an experience level of teaching between 1 to 27 years. Interviews were held online via Microsoft Teams, audio-recorded, anonymized, transcribed by standardized rules, and coded using MAXQDA 2020 Plus. A qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014) was executed. In a recursive coding process, using deductive codes and developing inductive codes during the process, text segments were coded to answer the research questions. The quality of this study was secured through the classic quality criteria for qualitative research (Mayring, 2014, 107ff.): Besides a high inter-coder-reliability, a good construct validity was given through the use of established findings and an appropriate connection to the theoretical background. According to the theoretical background and prior research, predicted results and experienced findings militate in favor of a high predictability.

Results show, that even though teachers were from different subjects and different experience levels, perceived situations and solutions often are quite similar. Teachers report disruptions, that they have experienced before in non-digital settings, but they also face new disruptions that appear in online classes for the first time. The high amount of online teaching time leads to a focus on strategies on an administrative level, like for example giving students specific rights in an online conference tool. When asked about possible future problems, teachers tend to see more risks in a more-use of digital tools than in a minor-use. Teachers see disruption potential in the transition from digital to non-digital teaching (and vice versa) but remain mostly positive. Different participants of a classroom have different opinions. Therefore, future research will focus on the student’s point of view and external observation. A more complete view at the topic can be used to educate future teachers, help practicing teachers to avoid health problems and generate more effective learning time for students. Since teachers worldwide are facing similar problems due to the pandemic (Flores & Swennen, 2020), the findings create possibilities for interculturally and interdisciplinary exchange.

Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8 Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3 Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2017). Investigating the Effect of Technology Use in Education on Classroom Management within the Scope of the FATİH Project. FATİH Projesi Kapsamında Eğitimde Teknoloji Kullanımının Sınıf Yönetimi Üzerine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi, 46(2), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.303511 Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom Management as a Field of Inquiry. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). Routledge. Flores, M. A., & Swennen, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1824253 Freiberg, H. J., & Lapointe, J. M. (2006). Research-Based Programs for Preventing and Solving Discipline Problems. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 735–786). Routledge. Friedman, I. A. (2006). Classroom Management and Teacher Stress and Burnout. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 923–944). Routledge. Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt 1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344 Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Holt Rinehart & Winston. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Beltz. Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (2021). Causes, prevention, and interventions regarding classroom disruptions in digital teaching: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10795-7 OECD. (2014). Talis 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Teaching and learning International survey. OECD publ. Ofsted. (2014). Below the radar: low-level disruption in the countrys classrooms (No. 140157). Manchester. Scherzinger, M., & Wettstein, A. (2019). Classroom disruptions, the teacher–student relationship and classroom management from the perspective of teachers, students and external observers: a multimethod approach. Learning Environments Research, 22(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9269-x