It is in the responsibility of vocational education and training (VET) to prepare students with adequate competencies and skills for their professional life. One new possibility of this preparation in VET that is becoming more and more widespread is the use of learning factories. A learning factory is understood as “a learning environment specified by processes that are authentic, include multiple stations, and comprise technical as well as organizational aspects” (Abele, 2019, p. 1027). Thus, learning factories simulate real production factories within the school environment in a modular and smaller dimension. Hence vocational students gather insights in real production processes early in their education and training. This meets the important demand for a closer link and easier transition between school and work (Bonnes & Hochholdinger, 2020). As learning factories facilitate parts of workspace simulations (Jossberger et al., 2018) and digital settings (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022) many components foster successful learning. Having excellent classroom management is essential to make professional, emotional and social learning possible (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). To not waste precious learning time (Scherzinger & Wettstein, 2019) and as the most crucial factor regarding teachers’ health issues (Gonzalez et al., 2015; Kokkinos, 2007), dealing with classroom disruptions as part of the classroom management should be looked at in detail. For the setting of learning factories, research is alarmingly lacking (Abele et al., 2015; Scheid, 2018). In order to collect useful information about teaching in learning factories and thus, improve and disseminate international VET with learning factories, the following research questions arose:

• RQ1: What types of classroom disruptions occur in learning factories?
• RQ2: What preventive and interventive measures do teachers use to deal with classroom disruptions in learning factories?
• RQ3: Which key classroom management factors influence a low level of classroom disruptions in learning factories?

To obtain answers to the research questions while maintaining a certain flexibility (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018), which is necessary due to the weak state of research, this study used semi-standardized, guideline-based interviews with teachers at vocational schools in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, who were actively teaching at learning factories. The federal state is characterized by a high number of vocational schools with learning factories. After contacting them it was possible to conduct seven expert interviews with teachers, partly held online and face-to-face. These experts were asked to report on real situations which were not evaluated during the interviews, creating a good validity. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim before evaluation (Hussy et al., 2013). A qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2019) was conducted. A high scientific quality of research was ensured by the quality criteria, also from Mayring (2019). The created interview guideline, the interview orientation that was always presented in the same way, the systematic evaluation, and the gapless documentation result in a high level of objectivity. Again, taking advantage from a detailed interview guideline and carrying out the interviews by always the same interviewer creates a high reliability.

In general, results show that learning factories can be successfully integrated in VET. Considering types of classroom disruptions (RQ1) according to the teachers the high monetary value of a learning factory and the increased need for maintenance and preparation give the feeling that the learning factory deserves special treatment. Thus, disruptions seem to occur less frequent than in regular classroom lessons. Nevertheless, teachers feel well prepared for upcoming challenges with their expertise from teaching experiences in other settings. The mainly reported difference is that disruptions that can destroy (parts of) the learning factory do have a huge impact on the entire group and the teaching in general. Asked about preventive and intervening measures (RQ2), the interviewees again can rely on their experiences from other settings. For the case of learning factories teachers agree that prevention is more important than intervention. Students recognize the special status of a learning factory and teachers report on less need for correcting disruptive behavior. All the teachers compose their student groups with care when planning to use the learning factory. Once in action, learning is heavily group orientated, leading to minor. Facing disruptions in the learning factory, teachers assess the severity of a disruption individually and take appropriate action. This is often accompanied by a multi-stage escalation process, at the end of which there is exclusion and/or contact with the students’ work company. Teachers report: mutual trust is the most important factor (RQ3) when it comes to good classroom management in VET. For learning factories this trust is the foundation for a successful teaching and learning. Teachers need to prepare precisely before teaching. During the lessons they need to shift their role to a mentoring position, creating possibilities for the students to learn by themselves while ensuring compliance with the rules.

Abele, E. (2019). Learning Factory. In S. Chatti, L. Laperrière, G. Reinhart, & T. Tolio (Eds.), CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering (pp. 1027–1031). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53120-4_16828 Abele, E., Metternich, J., Tisch, M., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., ElMaraghy, H., Hummel, V., & Ranz, F. (2015). Learning Factories for Research, Education, and Training. Procedia CIRP, 32, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.187 Bonnes, C., & Hochholdinger, S. (2020). Approaches to Teaching in Professional Training: A Qualitative Study. Vocations and Learning, 13(3), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09244-2 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (Fifth edition). SAGE. 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. Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2015). Teachers Who Left the Teaching Profession: A Qualitative Understanding. The Qualitative Report. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1601 Hussy, W., Schreier, M., & Echterhoff, G. (2013). Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor [Research Methods in Psychology and Social Sciences for Bachelors]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34362-9 Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., van de Wiel, M. W. J., & Boshuizen, H. (2018). Learning in Workplace Simulations in Vocational Education: A Student Perspective. Vocations and Learning, 11(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9186-7 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 Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative Content Analysis: Demarcation, Varieties, Developments. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 20(16), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343 Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (2022). Causes, prevention, and interventions regarding classroom disruptions in digital teaching: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4657–4684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10795-7 Scheid, R. (2018). Learning Factories in Vocational Schools. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Digital Workplace Learning (pp. 271–289). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46215-8_15 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