Classroom management (CM) is widely recognised as a key determinant of teaching quality, student engagement, and learning outcomes (e.g., Sabornie & Espelage, 2023). Decades of research in primary and secondary education demonstrate that effective classroom management extends far beyond maintaining order; it encompasses relational, instructional, and organisational dimensions that jointly shape classroom climate and learning processes (Wubbels, 2011). In contrast, classroom management in higher education (HE) has received relatively little empirical attention and is often treated implicitly or narrowly framed as a behavioural or procedural issue (Albayrak & Ateskan, 2022). This limited focus is partly rooted in persistent assumptions that HE students are autonomous, intrinsically motivated learners and that behavioural regulation is therefore less relevant in university classrooms. However, declining attendance (Credé et al., 2010), increasing digital distraction (DePryck et al., 2020), and heterogeneous student populations (Juang & Schachner, 2020) challenge these assumptions and raise questions about how HE teachers experience and conceptualise classroom management in practice.

The present study aims to identify and conceptualise the classroom management challenges experienced by higher education teachers and to examine how these challenges are structured in terms of perceived importance and perceived control. Rather than imposing school-based frameworks onto HE contexts, this study adopts an exploratory, participatory approach to capture teachers’ own perspectives. Using Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed-methods methodology designed to structure complex, practice-based knowledge, we engaged HE teachers in generating, organising, and evaluating classroom management challenges drawn from their daily teaching practice.

Participants were 93 teachers from universities and universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. In the GCM brainstorming phase, teachers generated statements in response to the prompt: “A classroom management challenge I face in my face-to-face or online classes is…”. After refinement, 82 statements were retained. In subsequent phases, a panel of content experts (N=7) sorted the statements into thematic groups, while a larger group of teachers (N=35) rated each statement on perceived importance and perceived control. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis produced visual concept maps representing the shared structure of teachers’ perceptions.

The analysis yielded five coherent clusters of classroom management challenges: (1) Relational dynamics, (2) Classroom diversity and complexity, (3) Off-task behaviour, (4) Attention and engagement, and (5) Disruptive behaviour.

Teachers perceived behavioural and ecological challenges, such as off-task behaviour and managing diverse classrooms, as most important, while relational dynamics and attention and engagement received comparatively less emphasis. Interestingly, teachers reported the greatest sense of control over disruptive behaviour, whereas challenges related to student attention and engagement were perceived as both less important and less controllable. Spatial proximity in the cluster maps further suggested that attention and engagement, off-task behaviour, and disruptive behaviour are closely interconnected, pointing to a continuum of engagement-related behaviours rather than distinct problem categories.

The data allows to perceive classroom management as relational regulation: a continuous process of aligning interpersonal, instructional, and environmental factors to sustain engagement and learning. This conceptualisation challenges the narrow, reactive framing of classroom management that currently dominates HE practice and highlights the underutilised role of relational teacher behaviour in preventing disengagement and disruption. By providing an empirically grounded map of classroom management challenges in higher education, this study contributes to bridging the gap between school-based classroom management theory and HE contexts. The findings have implications for teacher professionalisation, suggesting the need to explicitly address classroom management as a relational-didactic competence in higher education teaching development.

This study employed Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a participatory mixed-methods methodology that integrates qualitative idea generation with quantitative structuring and analysis. GCM is particularly suited to exploring complex, under-theorised phenomena, as it captures stakeholders’ lived experiences while producing conceptually robust visual representations of shared perspectives. Participants and procedure Participants were higher education teachers from universities and universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. Participants were higher education teachers from universities and universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands, recruited through professional networks and social media calls. The sample size exceeds established Group Concept Mapping requirements for the brainstorming phase, ensuring a rich and diverse set of practice-based perspectives. In the brainstorming phase, 93 teachers with varying levels of teaching experience generated statements describing classroom management challenges encountered in face-to-face and online teaching. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. Following established GCM procedures (Rosas & Kane, 2012), the initial set of 113 brainstormed statements was refined by the researchers to remove duplicates and multi-issue statements, resulting in a final set of 82 statements. For the sorting phase, a purposive sample of seven content experts (teacher educators, classroom management researchers, and highly experienced practitioners) organised the statements into clusters based on perceived similarity of meaning. In the rating phase, 35 teachers evaluated each statement on two dimensions using five-point Likert scales: perceived importance (the extent to which the challenge affects their teaching) and perceived control (the extent to which they feel able to influence the challenge). Data analysis Data were analysed using The Concept System® Global MAX™ software. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was applied to the sorting data to generate a two-dimensional point map, in which the proximity between statements reflects how frequently they were grouped together by participants. Hierarchical cluster analysis was subsequently used to identify thematically coherent clusters. Multiple cluster solutions were examined iteratively, and a five-cluster solution was selected based on conceptual clarity and interpretability. The goodness-of-fit of the point map was assessed using a stress value, which fell within the acceptable range reported in prior GCM research, indicating a reliable representation of the data structure. Rating data were integrated with the cluster solution to produce cluster rating maps for perceived importance and perceived control. These maps enabled comparison of how teachers prioritised different categories of classroom management challenges and how much agency they perceived within each domain.

This study demonstrates that classroom management is a salient and multifaceted concern for HE teachers, even though it is rarely made explicit in HE pedagogy or professional development. The five clusters from this study reveal both continuity with, and divergence from, classroom management challenges documented in primary and secondary education. As in school contexts, HE teachers report challenges related to student behaviour and classroom order. However, these challenges are embedded in a context characterised by greater student autonomy, increased diversity, hybrid learning, and limited pedagogical preparation for teachers. A key finding is the disproportionate focus on visible behavioural challenges, such as off-task and disruptive behaviour, alongside a relative neglect of attention, engagement, and relational dynamics. Teachers tend to perceive engagement-related challenges as less important and less controllable, despite extensive evidence that engagement is foundational to learning and preventive classroom management. This pattern suggests a reactive orientation towards classroom management in HE, in which problems are addressed once they become disruptive rather than prevented through relational and instructional strategies. The conceptual proximity between attention and engagement, off-task behaviour, and disruptive behaviour supports an integrated interpretation of these domains as manifestations of fluctuating student engagement. From this perspective, classroom management in higher education should be reframed from a disciplinary task to a relational-didactic process. We therefore propose relational regulation as a conceptual lens for understanding classroom management in HE: a continuous alignment of teacher behaviour, instructional design, and learning environment that supports engagement and reduces the likelihood of disruption. These findings have important implications for teacher professional development and call for explicit attention to classroom management in higher education teaching development programmes, including relational teacher behaviour and engagement-oriented strategies. Classroom management in higher education is more than just teaching: it entails ongoing relational and didactic work that shapes engagement and learning climates.

Albayrak, D., & Ateskan, A. (2022). Classroom management in higher education: A systematic literature review, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(7),1006-1022, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2022.2038099 Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272-295. DePryck, K., Aldelhof, W., Wambacq, I., Konings, F., Oldenstam, J., & Adriaenssens, N. (2020, June). Generation Z: What are they and what might that mean for education? A pilot study in Belgium and Suriname. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 303-309). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Juang, L. P., & Schachner, M. K. (2020). Cultural diversity, migration and education. International Journal of Psychology, 55(5), 695-701. Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rosas, S.R. & Kane, M. (2012), Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(2), 236–245. Sabornie, E. J., Espelage, D. L. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues. Third edition. New York: Routledge Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: What should prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113-131.