Field-placement programs are expected to offer multiple opportunities to student teachers (STs) to enable lessons learnt in university-based coursework to teaching practices in the field (Moyer and Husman 2006; Tigchelaar and Korthagen, 2004). Early field placement experiences provide STs with a first (teaching) experience on developing generic aspects of teaching, including classroom management (CM) practices (Anderson, Barksdale, and Hite, 2005). One of STs’ main concerns during practice is CM (Ma and Cavanagh, 2018; O’Neill and Stephenson, 2012). STs during their first teaching efforts, ebb and flow between theory and practice, often guided by their attitudes and beliefs on what they consider as an effective practice to gain classroom’s control (Caner and Tertemiz, 2015).

Several CM models are discussed in the literature (e. g. the Assertive Discipline Model, the Withitness and Group Management Model, the Choice Theory Model, see Balli, 2011), from which several aspects are introduced during early field coursework. CM is often related with developing procedures and routines to maximize the use of teaching time and dealing with pupils’ misbehavior (Meister and Melnick, 2003). In handling commonly occurring CM situations, the development of procedures/routines might offer STs a place to begin in developing heuristics and associated procedures for responding to (less) predictable situations during teaching (see Brophy, 1988). At the same time, various studies show that time management in the context of CM is one of the greatest concerns for beginning teachers since they lack experience in calculating/addressing the amount of time needed for each activity during enactment (see Kyriakides, Christoforidou, Panayiotou and Creemers 2017; Moore 2003). However, only a few studies investigated STs’ use of teaching time (Cakmak 2008).

During early field placement, traditional modes of CM need to give their place to more enhanced-supportive engagement of STs and pupils in their first (and subsequent) interaction. Hence, the use of strict rules or formalized CM “contracts” as STs’ first or last resort during practice, might contradict the idea of a blended mode of CM models according to STs’ and pupils’ needs. The development of a procedure as a routine as it is discussed in coursework and implemented during practice (i.e. discussion/agreement with pupils, rehearsal and encouragement, see Wong and Wong, 2018) could be used as a paradigm of blending CM models offering STs with a place to begin their CM efforts. To this end, we acknowledge that STs’ engagement and limited presence in schools, makes the establishment of procedures/routines a very difficult endeavor (Brophy, 1988).

Blending particular CM models is defined as selecting different aspects of teaching from each model related with practices that enhance CM not neglecting pupils’ needs. In this context, every step of the teaching procedure (i.e. assertive discipline model) is developed carefully within the classroom with pupils’ interaction (i.e. withitness group management model), considering the different needs of pupils’ which are interlinked with the general needs of the classroom (choice theory model) (see Balli 2011). In this study, we explore STs’ experimentation on CM using a video-setting (see Zhang et al. 2011) during early field placement after a coursework section based on blending particular aspects of CM models. Hence, we particularly focus on the aspects of developing procedures/routines and the management of time, implementing a video-setting to support STs’ reflection during/after practice. In this context, we ask:

i) How do STs experiment and reflect on developing classroom and time management procedures/routines in a video setting during early field placement?

ii) What challenges do STs face when enacting classroom and time management procedures/routines during early field placement?

Participants and Setting Four STs studying to become generalist elementary schoolteachers in a four-year public university education program [country blinded] were enrolled in this study and are herein given the pseudonyms Vicky, Anna, Selia and Vaso. The sample varied in terms of content-area specialization and was selected out of a total of eight volunteers, who were enrolled in an early field placement coursework. The coursework was structured based on a blended combination of three classroom management models, namely the updated Assertive Discipline Model, the Withitness and Group Management Model and the Choice Theory Model (Balli, 2011). Developing procedures/routines and aspects concerning the management of time were explicitly addressed considering STs’ first teaching efforts. Data sources For each ST the corpus of data included: four videotaped lessons (Mathematics or Language arts), four lesson plans; post-lesson and final written reflections. In addition, STs would form pairs in order to particularly reflect on selected video excerpts related with the development of procedures and routines on classroom and time management. In each lesson, particular video segments were selected based on STs’ needs regarding the aforementioned aspects of CM and two reflection notes were written, one preceding and one following the reflection of each ST’s pear on each segment. Two more round of reflections followed, namely: a) a final reflection regarding STs’ CM after the two-round reflections, STs interactions and the video observation of each lesson and b) a final reflection at the end of the field placement program concerning STs’ experiences and general reflections on the video-setting procedure, the reflection cycle followed and the field placement program in general. Data analysis The data analysis involved all STs’ reflections, lesson plans and video-taped lessons. Firstly, particular video-taped lesson segments in which the aspects of developing procedures and routines on classroom and time management were identified, whereas challenges observed or self-reported by the STs and their reflection upon those segments were analyzed. Based on these data, we then developed detailed analytic memos for each ST (Patton, 2002). Approximately, twenty five percent of the data were coded, analyzed and then discussed with an independent researcher. These memos provided the basis for a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009) during which STs’ experimentation on developing procedures/routines on classroom and time management is analyzed below.

The data analysis showed that STs made an explicit effort of developing classroom and time management procedures/routines on which they reflected during their first teaching efforts. STs experienced that, developing procedures (in order to become routines) was not only feasible during early field placement but could be helpful in solving CM problems (e.g. getting the classroom attention). Such findings highlight the importance of providing STs with the tools needed (video-setting and blending CM models during coursework) in order to manage their classrooms, challenging the established assumption that STs cannot develop procedures/routines during early field placement. Significant challenges also emerged. The need for consistency, reinforcement and reinstatement of the procedures/routines’ steps as well as providing positive feedback to pupils after the implementation of a procedure were considered as fundamental aspects of managing classroom as a group during coursework. STs’ differentiated and often inconsistent enactment of the coursework’s methodology (i.e. applying an interactive approach of teaching a procedure while combining aspects of CM models), as well as the pervasiveness of the traditional assertive discipline model were evident throughout STs’ efforts. In addition, the inconsistency regarding the time allocated between planning and enactment was noticed from all STs after reflecting on the video-taped lessons and was attributed to several reasons (e.g. applying time consuming procedures during teaching like noting all the pupils’ answers on the board). More research is needed on how STs experiment with a blended mode of CM models in a more systematic way, during the final phase of field placement in which they are placed in schools as teachers and not as visitors. Moreover, since STs may follow different learning paths we need to unpack several other aspects of CM models during early field coursework in order to customize further the support needed during their teaching practice.

Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., and Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice teachers' observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. Teacher education quarterly, 32(4), 97-117. Balli, S. J. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ episodic memories of classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.004 Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and teacher education, 4(1), 1-18. Caner, H. A., and Tertemiz, N. I. (2015). Beliefs, attitudes and classroom management: A study on prospective teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.098 Cakmak, M. (2008). Concerns about Teaching Process: Student Teachers' Perspective. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 57-77. Kyriakides, L., Christoforidou, M., Panayiotou, A., and Creemers, B. P. M. (2017). The impact of a three-year teacher professional development course on quality of teaching: Strengths and limitations of the dynamic approach. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 465-486. Ma, K., and Cavanagh, M. S. (2018). Classroom ready?: Pre-service teachers' self-efficacy for their first professional experience placement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(7), 134-151. Meister, D. G., and Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher study: Beginning teachers' concerns. Action in teacher education, 24(4), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2003.10463283 Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of teacher education, 54(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710223865 Moyer, P. S., and Husman, J. (2006). Integrating coursework and field placements: The impact on preservice elementary mathematics teachers' connections to teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 37-56. O’Neill, S., and Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and teacher education, 28(8), 1131-1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tigchelaar, A., and Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching experiences: implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights into teacher behaviour. Teaching and teacher Education, 20(7), 665-679. Wong, H. K., and Wong, R. T. (2018). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.