Introduction and theory. Very often we value innovation, creativity, “outside the box thinking” - particularly in STEM education. And yet when we see these behaviors in our young learners, we try to shut it down (Ripley, 2016). Teachers, for example, value compliant originality and conforming behavior over independent thinking (Beghetto, 2010). Negative classroom management styles are often used due to what the teacher interprets as misbehavior (c.f. Lewis et al., 2008). Unfortunately, a large number of students, who are defiant and don’t have the tools to adept, do disengage and lose interest. There seems to be a clash between valued STEM attributes and what is considered a good student. Defiance, disturbance, and misbehavior in general are serious issues in every-day schooling: It stresses students and teachers (Aldrup et al., 2018; Aloe et al., 2014; Kulinna, 2007) and distressed teachers are more likely to interpret behavior as misbehavior (Herman et al., 2018). Most disciplinary classroom management styles lead to negative emotions, impaired wellbeing, impeded learning or negative student-teacher relationships and do not lead to behavior change (Goodboy et al., 2018; Little & Akin-Little, 2008). But if one wants to increase general wellbeing of students and teachers and generate an engaged and positive emotional atmosphere, research needs to better understand the nature of these disparities. When and why are students believed “troublemakers” by teachers, how is a “troublemaker” defined from a teacher and a student perspective, how does the “troublemaker“ status and teachers’ consequent reaction and behavior impact students and how to positively integrate “troublemakers” into schooling?

Research question and objectives. There are two major objectives in this study: (1) Understand sources and indicators of negative emotions of teachers and students during instruction, (2) introduce “troublemakers” research as a way to reframe a conversation on defiance and perceived negative behavior. With these aims we want to add new perspectives on instruction, behavior and student/teacher wellbeing. In order to achieve this we aim to evaluate teachers’ beliefs about characteristics of “troublemakers” in classrooms, characteristics of innovation in STEM and to investigate teacher attributions of student behavior. By knowing about instructional, professional and attributional beliefs of teachers, we can propose a working definition of “troublemakers” and differentially address the problem of inclusion and participation in diverse STEM education beyond behavioral management approaches: It allows to better understand the cause of “troublemaking” as perceived by the teacher and opens new paths to implement a culture of STEM innovation that connects school and adds to building a stronger STEM workforce development. In addition to improved instructional beliefs and practices and student outcomes such as wellbeing and engagementthe project wants to build on teachers’ capacity to customize instructional approaches by means of empathic and instructional support which is essential in improving STEM learning environments and examine the influence of these instructional approaches on students‘ trust of teachers.

We focus on elementary school STEM, because 1) In elementary school student-teacher relationships may affect both teacher and student wellbeing and engagement generally (and not only subject specifically); 2) STEM subjects are taught in an integrative way. 3) Research indicates a very high stress level and least developed coping mechanism amongst elementary teachers particularly crucial at a time when students begin to shape their peer status and foundations for future student-teacher relationships (Herman et al., 2018; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992).

Methodology, methods and sample. In this study we combine broadening participation, improvement of STEM learning environments and wellbeing at elementary school on the teacher and the student level in a mixed-method approach that evaluates the potential effect of socio-emotional STEM education using qualitative and quantitative research methods. We do address a) the teacher perspective (e.g. What are teacher beliefs and attributes about STEM as a profession vs “troublemaker” students’ and their nature of achievement in STEM fields?), b) the student perspective (e.g. Where do students see potential improvements to make themselves more comfortable and motivated during STEM instruction?), and c) the interaction of students and teachers (e.g. How do “trouble” situations change when teachers try to handle problematic situations differently?). Based on this multi-perspective view on teacher and student behavior our goal is to find dimensions of instruction that support a more inclusive and valuing classroom atmosphere. In the first phase we will conduct semi-structured interviews with teachers and groups of students to assess their perception and treatment of “troublemakers”. The interviews will be accompanied by classroom observations and short ex-post teacher interviews. In a second step, we will employ a design based research approach on teachers’ beliefs about “troublemakers” and their student-oriented/ inclusive STEM teaching. Within the design-based context, we want to address the teachers’ understanding of “troublemakers” and give the opportunity to implement innovative STEM instruction. In the third phase we intend to scale teacher beliefs, attributions, and treatments of “troublemakers” in a quantitative survey and use these as dependent variables in a three year design based research we lay the theoretical and methodological groundwork for an empirical experimental 2x2 factorial design with the independent variables empathy and instruction, each with two levels: innovative and regular. Innovative includes three half days of teacher training, regular equals instruction as usual. In this presentation we will present preliminary results from the first interview phase.

Analyses and results. First results from six interviews indicate that teachers seem to have a prototypical view on disruptive students as “troublemakers”: they are those who disrupt the flow of learning, i.e. “troublemakers” are disciplined when fellow students are hindered in their regular learning activities as perceived by the teacher. In terms of perspective taking this indicates a stronger mental association of the teacher toward the “good” students. Preliminary results also point to a learner centered view of the teacher, because often teachers refer to disrupted learning as opposed to disrupted teaching. In one case, the teacher gave an example where she was able to re-interpret the student misbehavior and used the student competency as an asset in the instructional process: The student was very knowledgeable in STEM and challenged the teacher often in regular class sessions. One day, the teacher introduced a problem-based self-learning scenario and the “troublemaker” was asked to serve as a specialist consultant for the teacher and students, a method that turned out well for all, the teacher, the class, and the student. Discussion. The positive re-interpretation of “trouble” behavior and implementing the student as an active participant in the instructional process shows that understanding, perspective taking and establishing a common basis of interaction and collaboration can have a positive effect on the student and his/her “troublemaking”. This effect may be extended to a teacher perspective: Understanding is not only a matter of cultural synchronization. Teacher instructional beliefs and competences need to be addressed as well. If we understand that behavior and instruction are governed by biography, beliefs and contextual factors, we can start to understand these factors and approach teaching and learning from individualistic prerequisites and move classrooms towards inclusive communities of practice and equal participation.

Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls. Sociology of Education, 65(3), 169–187. Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126–136. Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30–44. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the Classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 447–466). Cambridge et al.: CUP. Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Baker, J. P. (2018). Instructor misbehaviors impede students’ cognitive learning: testing the causal assumption. Communication Education, 67(3), 308–329. Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A.-M. (2004). Elementary School Children with Behavior Problems: Teacher-Child Relations and Self-Perception. A Prospective Study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138. Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., & Reinke, W. M. (2018). Empirically Derived Profiles of Teacher Stress, Burnout, Self-Efficacy, and Coping and Associated Student Outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100. Kulinna, P. H. (2007). Teachers’ attributions and strategies for student misbehavior. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42(2), 21–30. Lewis, R., Romi, S., Katz, Y. J., & Qui, X. (2008). Students’ reaction to classroom discipline in Australia, Israel, and China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.003 Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Psychology’s contributions to classroom management. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 227–234. Ripley, A. (2016). How America Outlawed Adolescence. The Atlantic, (November), 26p.