1
Classroom Management in Middle School Computer Labs: The Turkish Experience Deniz Deryakulu Ankara University
Sadegül Akbaba-Altun Başkent University
Abstract This study examined the classroom management problems that Turkish public middle school Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) teachers face in computer labs, and the classroom management strategies that these teachers employ. We conducted a content analysis on 44 videotaped ICT lessons. Results showed that the majority of computer labs were ill suited for teaching ICT. The most common classroom management problems were making noise, lack of interest, and inappropriate movement in the computer lab. The most common classroom management strategies that ICT teachers employed were using effective teaching methods, planning effective learning tasks and activities to keep students on task, calling attention to the classroom rules, yelling in anger, and asking students to shut down computer monitors during lecture. We also present interpretations of results and potential directions for future research. (Keywords: Classroom management, computer labs, computer classrooms, computer education, ICT education.)
1. Introduction The teaching of ICT in Turkish public schools has a relatively short history. Teachers began using computers in Turkish public schools in the mid-1980s. However, the widespread implementation of computers started in 1998. The Turkish Ministry of National Education (MNE) received a loan from the World Bank for the Basic Education Project. The primary aims of this project were to expand the scope of basic education (grades 1–8) and to improve the quality of education. To achieve these objectives, the MNE set additional goals, such as ensuring each student and teacher became computer literate, integrating information technologies (IT) into school curriculum, and establishing computer laboratories in schools (MNE, 2004). At the same time, the MNE revised the curricula
of compulsory courses and designed some new elective courses to improve education quality. In 1998–99, the MNE introduced a new elective course called “Computer” in basic education schools for 1–2 hours per week and for grades 4 through 8. Parallel to these initiatives in 1998, the Council of Higher Education (CHE) worked with the teacher education system to conduct a nationwide reorganization of the Faculties of Education and establish a new teacher-training program called Computer and Instructional Technologies Education. The purpose was to train ICT teachers (formerly called computer teachers) to teach in basic education schools (grades 1–8) and high schools (grades 9–12). However, in the Turkish school system, grades 1–4 are entitled as elementary school and grades 5–8 are entitled as middle school. In 2005, the MNE allowed students to take computer courses as electives in grades 1–8. In the Turkish public basic education system, however, not only the students but also the classroom teachers and school administrators decide which electives schools will offer. In 2006, the MNE completely revised the basic education computer curriculum and changed the title of this course to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). In 2007, the MNE yet again revised the Regulation of Basic Education by adding an article that lifted the requirement to include grades for elective courses, including the ICT course, on student report cards. The result was that students devalued the elective ICT courses. Many students came to regard the ICT course as unimportant and as pastime to play computer games. In 2010, the MNE limited ICT courses as an elective to grades 6–8 and lowered the total teaching time to one hour per week. In 2012, however, the MNE once again changed the title of ICT course to ICT and Software. In addition, the MNE allowed students to take the ICT and
2
Software course as elective in grades 5–8. This redesign fixed the total teaching time for course at two hours per week. Finally, in 2013, the MNE allowed students to take ICT and Software courses as compulsory at fifth and sixth grades (2 hours per week), and as an elective at seventh and eighth grades (2 hours per week) in middle schools. Several studies examined the job-related problems of ICT teachers in Turkey (Deryakulu, 2006; Deryakulu & Olkun, 2007). In these studies, researchers found role conflict, inadequate teacher induction policies, lack of required technological infrastructure and technical support, the elective status of ICT, lack of student interest, insufficiency of preservice teacher training programs, large class sizes, higher teaching load, inappropriate curriculum and textbooks, unsupportive administrators, and insufficient teaching time were the stress-inducing problems that ICT teachers experienced. We believe that all of these factors can affect the classroom management practices of ICT teachers. Based on this belief, curiosity about the nature of classroom management in Turkish public middle school computer labs led us to examine the ICT teachers’ classroom management practices. 1.1 Background Classroom Management Kounin (1970) defines effective classroom management as “producing a high rate of work involvement and a low rate of deviancy in academic settings” (p. 63). It involves teacher actions that create and maintain a learning environment conducive to successful instruction (e.g., arranging the physical environment, establishing rules and procedures, maintaining students’ attention to lessons, and engagement activities) (Brophy, 2006). One of the main goals of classroom management is to maintain order. To establish and maintain order in the classroom, teachers must ensure that students focus on instructional tasks with no misbehaving. Burden (2003) distinguishes the difference between offtask behavior and misbehavior. He defines off-task behavior as student actions that are not focused on the instructional activities, yet would not be considered disruptive, such as daydreaming or not paying attention. Misbehavior, on the other hand, includes behavior interferences with teaching, with the rights of others to learn, is psychologically or physically unsafe, or destroys property (Levin & Nolan, 2000; Burden, 2003). Thus, he further explains discipline as the act of responding to misbehaving students in an effort to restore order.
Studies have identified classroom management as the most important variable when measuring influences to student learning in school settings (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Studies have also found that teachers’ classroom management strategies and students’ subjectspecific interest were positively related (Kunter, Baumert, & Köller, 2007). Studies have shown that beginning teachers rank classroom management and student discipline as one of the main challenges (Crow, 1991; Veenman, 1984; Weiner, 2003). Landau (2009) asserts that classroom management practices are reflections of each teacher’s educational philosophy, personal values, and professional preparation. Moreover, types of teaching context have important implications on teachers’ classroom management practices. As Emmer and Stough (2001) stated, “teaching context may vary according to instructional goals, subject matter taught, grade or age and other student characteristics, use of technology, and so forth” (p.108). Although there are various teaching contexts that might cause some difference in classroom management, we specifically concentrate on classroom management in computer lab settings. Classroom Management in Computer Labs and Computerized Classrooms Selinger (1999, p. 36) asserts that managing a classroom in which ICT has a dominant focus is different from managing a classroom with other resources. The classroom management research of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Project showed that the introduction of computers to classrooms opened up a new realm of student misbehavior (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1992, p. 485). There is evidence that teachers are fearful of losing control of their students and disruption of natural order in the computer lab (Burns, 2002). Similarly, studies identify the inability to manage a classroom as one of the reasons for unsuccessful teaching by computer science and information technology (IT) teachers (Carbone, Mannila, & Fitzgerald, 2007). Simmons and Hawkins (2009) describe the complexity of managing an ICT lesson: Teaching ICT offers opportunity and challenge in just about equal measure. Many pupils are motivated to study ICT and this can make your classroom one of the most positive environments within a school. On the other hand, distractions in an ICT room can be enormous. The magical box which sits in front of your pupils can play music, videos and games, and provides a window to the entire world—most people would find that pretty distracting, especially if they are
3
disengaged with what is happening in the classroom. In fact, ICT teachers have to manage two learning spaces, the physical classroom and the virtual environment (p. 107). In addition, computer systems are complicated. They tend to malfunction frequently and move rapidly toward obsolescence. As a result, they need lots of technical support to keep operating (Rutherford, 2004). Thus, organization and management of a computer lab can be daunting for teachers (Selinger, 1999). As Morrison, Lowther, and DeMeulle (1999) highlighted, “computers cannot be introduced without making immediate shifts in classroom management processes” (p. 78). Although there are many studies on classroom management in different subject matter classes, such as science and math, studies specifically investigating classroom management issues in computer labs or classrooms in the context of separate computing/ICT subjects are sparse. However, several studies that investigate classroom management issues in technology-rich learning environments are available in the literature. We will summarize the results of these studies in detail because of their importance in understanding the dynamics of classroom management in computerized classrooms. Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1990, 1992) examined the evolution of classroom management in ACOT’s high-tech environments during a four-year period. The research team used a three-stage model of development that reflects teacher concerns about classroom management: survival, mastery, and impact. Results showed that teachers in the survival stage mentioned four common problems: student misbehavior and attitudes, physical environment, technical problems, and classroom dynamics. Examples of the students’ misbehaviors and attitudes included copying software illegally, protecting their disks from teacher access, entering secure areas on the system network, and sabotaging other students’ work. The addition of computers to the classrooms created a number of problems related to the physical environment. For instance, the classroom lighting and the glare from windows made it difficult to view images on the computer screens, and classrooms had become more crowded, making it difficult to move around and work with students. Teachers also expressed frustration about technical problems including hardware failure and incompatibility between the software and computers. Another concern for teachers was the new classroom dynamics. The increase in noise level and the necessity for students to move freely around the classroom troubled teachers. In addition, the computers became
not only a source of distraction for the students but also a physical shield to hide their off-task behavior. According to the results of this study, however, teachers in the mastery stage developed strategies for solving these problems. In the impact stage, on the other hand, teachers used technology to their advantage in managing the classroom. The research team concluded that teaching in innovative, high-tech environments is not likely to occur until teachers have achieved a significant level of mastery over classroom management issues. Gross (2002, as cited in Bolick & Cooper, 2006) identified the problem of managing technology in the classroom as one of the greatest challenges mentioned by teachers. According to findings, teachers were concerned about student behavior problems developing when the teachers worked with one group of students at the computer, while another group of students worked on a different task. In two different studies by Lim et al. (2003), and Lim, Pek, and Chai (2005), researchers identified classroom management issues that facilitate or hinder the creation of a conducive learning environment that provides the necessary condition for the effective integration of ICT in Singaporean elementary schools. According to findings, to create a well-managed ICT-based lesson, ICT tools should be available in the classroom, teachers have to set clear discipline-specific and educational rules and procedures, teachers also have to employ both ICT and non-ICT tools to support ICT-based activities, and every participant in the ICT-based lesson (e.g., teacher, students, technical assistant, etc.) should play their roles in ensuring a conducive learning environment. Elstad (2006) examined the nature and dynamics of technology-filled classrooms in a Norwegian uppersecondary school. He used observation and interview techniques to identify how teacher and students interacted in technology-filled classrooms, and whether they were working with the teaching material specified in the lesson plan or they were engaged in nonacademic activity. His observations revealed that the majority of students alternated between the schoolrelated tasks and non-academic activity. “Giving in” in the face of non-academic activity was a dominant strategy among many of the teachers interviewed. He also observed that the physical setting of the technology-filled classrooms (e.g., power cables crisscrossed throughout the room) made it difficult for the teacher to move around. In situations where the teacher was communicating with the whole class, he or she was usually not able to see what each student was
4
viewing on his or her screen. In addition, free access to the Internet in classrooms, games, and chatting made it difficult for teachers to control the students’ operations. Another study conducted in Thailand showed that classroom management in ICT classroom learning environments was one of the practical problems for both teachers and students. Interestingly, one student expressed his/her observation as follows (see Rumpagaporn, 2007): “Most students do not follow the teacher’s instruction and assignments because they are playing games and surfing the Internet, not attending to the teacher’s instruction” (p. 234). Deryakulu, Büyüköztürk, Karadeniz, and Olkun, (2008) investigated the most satisfying and frustrating aspects of ICT teaching in Turkish elementary and secondary schools. They found that the difficulty of classroom management in computer labs was one of the frustrating aspects of ICT teaching. This study also showed that the teachers who have low self-efficacy perception about ICT teaching ranked the difficulty of classroom management in computer labs as a frustrating aspect of ICT teaching two times more than the teachers who have high self-efficacy perception about ICT teaching. Finally, Erdoğan et al., (2010) investigated classroom management problems that Turkish ICT teachers have faced, using semi-structured interviews with 14 ICT teachers. From a content analysis, the research team grouped the classroom management problems ICT teachers have faced under the following themes: lack of student motivation, breaking the rules and routines, lack of necessary infrastructure, insufficient time management skills, ineffective computer classroom environment, and lack of effective communication between the teacher and students. All of the aforementioned studies revealed that the introduction of computer technology into classrooms changed and affected the dynamics of classroom management. As mentioned earlier, until now, no study investigated both classroom management problems and classroom management strategies that teachers employ in computer labs in the context of separate ICT subjects using content analysis of video-taped ICT lessons. Therefore, in this study we tried to find answers to the following questions: 1.What types of classroom management problems do middle school ICT teachers face in computer labs?
2.What types of classroom management strategies do middle school ICT teachers employ in computer labs?
2. Method 2.1 Data Source With the aim of identifying classroom management problems that Turkish public middle school ICT teachers face in computer labs, and classroom management strategies that these teachers employ, the design of the present study included the collection, observation, and content analysis of 44 distinct videotaped ICT lessons. We received permission from the Ministry of National Education to record the videos. We captured both the teachers’ operations and students’ behaviors by the video recordings. Of the 44 videotaped lessons, 30 (68%) were taken from 6th grade, 9 (21%) were taken from 7th grade, and 5 (11%) were taken from 8th grade ICT lessons. We analyzed a total of 21 hours and 8 minutes of recordings. The lessons averaged 20–40 minutes. Of the 44 videotaped ICT teachers, 20 (45%) were female, and 24 (55%) were male. Each of these teachers appeared only in a single video. 2.2 Analysis of the Computer Lab Videos We applied content analysis procedures to the videos. Content analysis is “a research technique for the objective, systematic, quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (Berelson, 1952, p.18). We used each ICT lesson video as the unit of analysis. To classify the types of classroom management problems that Turkish public middle school ICT teachers face in the computer labs, and the classroom management strategies that these teachers employ, used a deductive approach. In other words, we used pre-existing codes to categorize the incidences. (For the codes of classroom management problems see Atici & Merry, 2001; Geving, 2007; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Shen et al., 2009; Türnüklü & Galton, 2001. For the codes of teachers’ classroom management strategies see Clement, 2002; CluniesRoss, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010; Wubbels, 2011; Zuckerman, 2007). After multiple viewings of the ICT lessons in their entirety, we coded them using a three-step approach: (1) selecting coding categories, (2) assigning each incident to a category, and (3) providing tallies for each category. Since the videos comprised more than one type of classroom management problem and strategy, we coded each incident into the related category. To hone our skills in coding each incidence into the related
5
categories, the first author coded 30 videos and the second author coded 28 videos. We compared and discussed the results. Later, the first author coded and recoded the 44 videos. We assessed intra-rater reliability using Cohen’s kappa to compare the first author’s ratings given during the first and second rounds. We report these coefficients in Table 1. Table 1. The intra-rater reliability coefficient for each classification
Method Cohen’s kappa
3.
Classification Classroom Classroom Management Management Problems Strategies 0.90
It was also observed that the students had difficulties with the size of the working surface, storage space, crowding, lighting, inflexible chairs and desks, and the spacing between the computer terminals. Therefore, it can be said that the majority of the computer labs were ill suited for effective and efficient teaching of ICT. Moreover, according to our observations, the physical characteristic of a computer lab was the most important source of classroom management problems for ICT teachers. Table 2 shows the seating arrangements of the computer labs we videotaped. Table 2. Computer Lab Seating Arrangements Type
Designs of computer labs
f
0.88
A
19
B
16
Findings and Discussion
3.1 Physical Characteristics of the Computer Labs Because physical characteristics of classrooms play a significant role in both creating positive learning environments and successful classroom management, we first examined the physical characteristics of the computer labs. In fact, the scope of physical characteristics of a classroom is extensive, such as seat allocation, density, flexibility, lighting, color, decoration, noise, temperature, ventilation, furniture, safety, and hygiene (see, Leung, Lu, & Ip, 2005). In the Turkish school system, the computer labs are not just for hands-on activities, but also for teaching. In the 25 (57%) computer labs, the class sizes ranged from 15 to 30 students whereas in the 19 (43%) computer labs, the class sizes ranged from 31–50 students. In the 34 (77%) computer labs, two or three students were obliged to use the same computer because of the lack of separate computers for each student. In such situations, there was not enough opportunity for each student to have a turn at the computer, thus students were more likely engaged in off-task behaviors and/or misbehaviors. Of the 44 computer labs, 37 (84%) labs came equipped with a data projector, and only 26 (60%) labs had adjustable/movable chairs. None of the computer labs had ventilation or an air conditioning system. Noise was a very common problem that needed to be controlled. Sloppy cable connections created potential dangers for students in many computer labs. In many cases, the location of a teacher’s workstation was not providing complete control over the lab. However, in several cases, the teachers were able to view and control student monitors with remote control software (i.e., NetOp School).
C
5
D
3
E
1
The most common computer lab seating arrangement was the peripheral layout (Type A), with computer workstations positioned along the walls and with students facing the walls. In this arrangement, the teacher can easily see student monitors, but students must turn their entire bodies to switch attention between their monitors and the teacher. The second common
6
computer lab layout was a linear row layout (Type B). In this configuration, students at the inside rows can see each other whereas students at the side rows faced the walls. Almost in all types of seating arrangements except the peripheral layout, the teachers had difficulties monitoring some of the students’ computer screens and moving freely around the lab to control the students’ operations. Figure 1 displays a Type C computer lab in which a pillar (a visual divider) in a narrow aisle makes it difficult for the teacher to move around, and makes it difficult for the students to see the teachers’ acts.
Figure 1. A Type C Computer Lab with a Pillar in Front of the Classroom
Figure 2. A Type A Computer Lab with High Student Density Figure 2 shows a Type A computer lab where at least two students shared each computer because of a lack of separate computers for each student. When we analyzed the videotaped ICT lessons, we frequently observed that
the students who sat at the side rows, which were relatively distant from the teacher’s action zone, exhibited much more off-task behaviors and misbehaviors than the students who sat at the inside rows that were closer to the teacher’s action zone. Türnüklü and Galton (2001) found that the majority of Turkish teachers felt that there was a relationship between the frequency of misbehavior and whether a student was sitting at the front or the rear, or either the wall or window side of the classroom. Some other researchers around the world found that the frequencies of students’ off-task behavior during lessons were related to their seating positions (i.e., Siang, 1991), and the students seated at the front rows were more attentive (i.e., Schwebel & Cherlin, 1972). Zandvliet and Straker (2001) evaluated the physical and psychosocial environments of the technological classrooms for 10 17-year-old students in Australia and Canada. This study revealed that there were significant associations among the workspace and visual environment of the technological classrooms and students’ cohesiveness, autonomy, task orientation, and co-operation. Therefore, it is obvious that physical characteristics of a computer lab strongly affect student behaviors both positively and negatively. 3.2 Classroom Management Problems Table 3 shows the types and frequencies of classroom management problems that Turkish ICT teachers faced in computer labs. The most frequently observed classroom management problems in the computer labs were noise, lack of student interest, inappropriate movement in the computer lab, and intrusive behaviors while asking questions. These problems are similar to the findings of other studies that attempted to find out the students’ misbehaviors in Turkish classrooms. For example, Demirci (2013), by using self-report questionnaires, found that the most frequent student misbehaviors in Turkish ICT classrooms were illicit talking, making noise, and speaking without permission. Likewise, Türnüklü and Galton (2001) found that the most frequent misbehaviors in the Turkish classrooms were noisy or illicit talking and inappropriate movement. Similarly, Atici and Merry (2001) found that the most frequent misbehaviors in Turkish classrooms were talking out of turn, inattentiveness, and being out of seat. Moreover, there are many studies conducted in other countries, such as Australia (Clunies, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008), China (Shen et al., 2009), England vs. Turkey (Atici & Merry, 2001; Türnüklü & Galton, 2001), and the USA (Clement, 2002; Geving, 2007), that found the same misbehaviors as frequently occurring classroom management problems.
7
On the other hand, swinging on the seats, making practical jokes, making fun of the teacher’s teaching, and falling asleep in class were among the classroom management problems that Turkish ICT teachers faced infrequently. Table 3. Types and Frequencies of Classroom Management Problems
3.3 Classroom Management Strategies Table 4 shows the types and frequencies of classroom management strategies that Turkish ICT teachers employed in the computer labs. Table 4. Types and Frequencies of Classroom Management Strategies
Making noise (e.g., noisy chatting, laughing, singing)
44
Lack of interest (not listening to the teacher and/or doing off-task activities with the computer, for example, listening to music, gaming, and surfing on the Internet)
23
Inappropriate movement in the computer lab
20
Intrusive behaviors while asking questions
19
Swinging on the seats
9
Making practical jokes
5
Making fun of the teacher’s teaching
4
The Classroom Management Strategies that Turkish ICT Teachers Employed Using effective teaching methods, planning effective learning tasks and activities to keep students on-task Calling attention to the classroom rules (e.g., please raise your hand to ask a question) Yelling in anger (e.g., do not make noise, be respectful) Asking for shutting down the computer monitors while lecturing Checking individually whether all the students successfully completed the learning tasks on their computers Calling names, clapping, or knocking to silence the students who are making noise or talking out of turn Physical proximity (e.g., move closer to a student) (nonverbal)
Falling asleep in class
2
Warning misbehaving students individually (verbal)
The Classroom Management Problems that Turkish ICT Teachers Faced
f
However, when we compared the findings of our study and the findings of other Turkish studies, we saw that the magnitude of the most frequent misbehaviors in the computer labs were higher than the magnitude of these misbehaviors in regular classrooms. Namely, the magnitude of making noise was 100% in computer labs (in our study), the magnitude of noise or illicit talking was 51% in Türnüklü and Galton’s study, and the magnitude of talking out of turn was 46% in Atici and Merry’s study for regular classrooms. Similarly, the magnitude of lack of interest was 52% in our study; however, Atici and Merry found the magnitude of inattentiveness as 19%. Finally, the magnitude of inappropriate movement in the computer lab was 45% in our study, whereas the magnitude of inappropriate movement was 27% in Türnüklü and Galton’s study, and the magnitude of being out of seat was 10% in Atici and Merry’s study. Therefore, it is not erroneous to infer that although the computer lab environments do not seem to open up a new realm of student misbehaviors in the Turkish context, these environments seem to increase the occurrence frequency of student misbehaviors and offtask behaviors.
f 19 18 17 15 14
9 7 3
Asking questions to the students who are talking and/or not listening to the lecture
2
Changing computer lab seating arrangements
2
Staring at misbehaving students Threatening misbehaving students to isolate from the computer lab Making sarcastic comments
2
Ignoring inappropriate behaviors Forcing misbehaving students to repeat his/her lecture talk
1
2 1
1
The most frequently employed classroom management strategies were using effective teaching methods and planning effective learning activities, calling attention to the classroom rules, yelling in anger; asking students to shut down the computer monitors while lecturing (in order to prevent students’ off-task activities on computers), and checking individually whether all the students successfully completed the learning tasks. We also observed that despite the similarity of undesired student behaviors in the computer labs, 33 teachers (75%) successfully controlled and managed their classes whereas 11 teachers (25%) were unsuccessful in managing and controlling their classrooms. A recent study (using self-report questionnaires) also investigated the classroom management strategies of Turkish ICT teachers. According to the findings of this study, the most frequently employed classroom management strategies were warning the student by eye contact, asking a question to the student, giving
8
students a chance to use the ICT classroom to work on extracurricular activities, and warning the student verbally (Demirci, 2013). However, social desirability might influence self-report measures. Actual time students spend learning and working on meaningful tasks is one of the key predictors of their learning gains (Walberg & Paik, 2000). Using effective instruction that minimizes disruptive behavior can maximize rates of academic engagement (Ratcliff et al. 2011). Docking (1996, as cited in Türnüklü & Galton, 2001) suggested that effectively planned lessons decrease the frequency of inappropriate behaviors in the classrooms. Indeed, we observed that in the computer labs of ICT teachers who used effective teaching methods and learning activities, the students were more engaged in learning and were less disruptive. Besides, ICT teachers mostly used proactive strategies such as effective lesson planning, setting classroom rules, and asking for shutting down the computer monitors while lecturing. Proactive strategies are those behaviors that a teacher can use to lessen the likelihood of a student demonstrating inappropriate behavior, and involve altering a situation before problems escalate (CluniesRoss, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008). However, ICT teachers rarely tended to use reactive strategies, such as verbal and nonverbal warnings that include staring at misbehaving students and threatening misbehaving students with isolation from the computer lab. Reactive strategies are negative teacher behaviors that occur following a student’s inappropriate behavior (Clunies-Ross, Little & Kienhuis, 2008). Studies have shown that using proactive strategies increases student learning and on-task behavior, whereas using reactive strategies is less effective in managing student misbehavior (e.g., Arthur, Gordon, & Butterfield, 2003; Kern & Clements, 2007; Ratcliff et al., 2011; Simonsen et al., 2008; Zuckerman, 2007). Our observations are consistent with these results. Specifically, the ICT teachers who used proactive strategies were more successful than the teachers who used reactive strategies in managing inappropriate student behaviors in the computer labs.
4.
characteristics of a computer lab are not suitable and well matched with the needs of students, inappropriate student behaviors are unavoidable. To prevent the occurrences of inappropriate behavior among students and keep students on task, ICT teachers should set clear instructional and disciplinary rules. Otherwise, computers can easily become a source of distraction for students and a management problem for teachers. Therefore, teachers who must teach lessons in computer labs need to gain classroom management skills accordingly. There has been a classroom management course in all teacher-training programs in Turkey since 1998, but the content of the course is subject matter and context free. Preservice teachers gain theoretical information on misbehaviors, class rules, physical organization of a regular classroom, teacher communication skills, instructional management, and models of classroom management. ICT teacher candidates, however, do not receive supplementary instruction about how to organize and manage a computer lab environment or what kind of student misbehaviors they might encounter in a technology-rich classroom. In addition, studies have shown that Turkish teachers mostly learn classroom management by trial and error; hence, they need training in preventive, systematic, and structured discipline programs (Atici, 2007). Thus, ICT teacher education programs in Turkey should incorporate ICT teaching and classroom management issues into their preservice teacher education experiences. In addition to the classroom management course, methods courses can also serve as a point of synthesis. In computer labs, teachers need to move around the room and provide individual attention to students. However, large class sizes and ill-designed computer labs made it more challenging. Thus, another interesting area for future research would be that of isolating specific physical characteristics of computer labs on both students’ behaviors and teachers’ instructional/management practices. Further, it will be useful to develop standards and create guidelines and regulations regarding ergonomic design of computer labs.
Conclusion and Future Research
If teachers use effective instructional methods and wellplanned learning activities, managing a computer lab is not very different from managing a regular classroom. However, the teachers should take into account the physical and psychosocial characteristics of the computer labs as well as the students’ perceptions regarding the importance and value of learning about computer technology. If the physical and psychosocial
In this study, the context is public middle schools. Studies show that troublesome student behaviors increase with grade level (e.g., Arbuckle & Little, 2004). Thus, future studies would compare classroom management problems that ICT teachers face in computer labs at the elementary, middle school, high school, and university levels, and classroom management strategies that these teachers employ. Finally, factors such as students’ prior knowledge and
9
interest regarding computer technology, student gender, teacher gender, levels of teaching experience (novice vs. experienced), school type (public vs. private), and geographic area of the school (urban vs. rural) could affect student behavior in computer labs as well as teachers’ classroom management. Future studies may want to examine these issues.
References Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 59–70. Arthur, M., Gordon, C., & Butterfield, N. (2003). Classroom management: Creating positive learning environments. Australia: Thomson. Atici, M. (2007). A small-scale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroom management and methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12(1), 15–27. Atici, M., & Merry, R. (2001). Misbehaviour in British and Turkish elementary classrooms. Pastoral Care in Education, 19(2), 32–39. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Bolick, M. C., & Cooper, J. M. (2006). Classroom management and technology. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 541–558). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17– 43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burden, P. R. (2003). Classroom management: Creating a successful learning community (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Burns, M. (2002). From black and white to color: Technology, professional development and changing practice. THE Journal, 29(11), 3–6. Carbone, A., Mannila, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2007). Computer science and IT teachers’ conceptions of successful and unsuccessful teaching: A phenomenographic study. Computer Science Education, 17(4), 275–299. Clement, M.C. (2002). What cooperating teachers are teaching student teachers about classroom management. The Teacher Educator, 38(1), 47–62. Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their
relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693–710. Crow, N. (1991). Personal perspectives on classroom management. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No: ED 332 959). Demirci, F. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenlerinin bilgi teknolojisi sınıflarındaki sınıf yönetimlerinin incelenmesi. [Examination of ICT teachers’ classroom management in IT classrooms]. Unpublished master thesis. Ankara University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Deryakulu, D. (2006). Burnout in Turkish computer teachers: Problems and predictors. International Journal of Educational Reform, 15(3), 370–385. Deryakulu, D., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Karadeniz, Ş., & Olkun, S. (2008, December). “Satisfying and frustrating aspects of ICT teaching: A comparison based on self-efficacy.” Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 36, (pp.481–484). International Conference on Communication and Information Technology in Education. Bangkok, Thailand. Deryakulu, D. & Olkun, S. (2007). Analysis of computer teachers’ online discussion forum messages about their occupational problems. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 131–142. Elstad, E. (2006). Understanding the nature of accountability failure in a technology-filled, laissezfaire classroom: Disaffected students and teachers who give in. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 459–481. Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L.M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112. Erdoğan, M., Kurşun, E., Tan-Şişman, G., Saltan, F., Gök, A., & Yıldız. (2010). Sınıf yönetimi ve sınıf içi disiplin problemleri, nedenleri ve çözüm önerileri üzerine nitel bir araştırma: Bilişim teknolojileri dersi örneği. [A qualitative study on classroom management and classroom discipline problems, reasons, and solutions: A case of information technologies class]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(4), 853–891. Geving, A. M. (2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviors associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 624–640. Gross, D. E. (2002). An analysis of perceptions of factors that influence microcomputer use in three urban public schools. (Doctoral dissertation), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. (Publication No. AAT 3071785).
10
Kern, L., & Clements, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 65–75. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17, 494–509. Landau, B. (2009). Classroom management. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 739–753). Springer-Science. doi: 10.1007/978-0-38773317-3_46 Leung, M., Lu, X., & Ip, H. (2005). Investigating key components of the facility management of secondary schools in Hong Kong. Facilities, 23(5/6), 226–238. Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (2000). Principles of classroom management (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lim, C. P., Pek, M. S., & Chai, C. S. (2005). Classroom management issues in information and communication technology (ICT)-mediated learning environments: Back to the basics. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(4), 391–414. Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, S. C., & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405–423. Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2004). Temel eğitim II. faz başlangıç semineri [Basic education phase II. beginning seminar]. Ankara, Turkey: İmaj. Morrison, G. R., Lowther, D. L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1131–1143. Ratcliff, N. J., Jones, C. R., Costner, R. H., SavageDavis, E., Sheehan, H., & Hunt, G. H. (2011). Teacher classroom management behaviors and student time-on-task: Implications for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 32(4) 38–50. Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: Pre-service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1261–1268. Rumpagaporn, M. W. (2007). Students’ critical thinking skills, attitudes to ICT and perceptions of ICT classroom learning environments under the ICT
schools pilot project in Thailand. Unpublished research portfolio. School of Education, University of Adelaide, Thailand. Rutherford, J. (2004). Technology in the schools. Technology in Society, 26, 149–160. Sandholtz, H. J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1990). Apple classrooms of tomorrow research: Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited: First-four year findings. Report No: 10. Retrieved from http://images.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt10.p df Sandholtz, H. J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1992). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 479–505. Schwebel, A. I., & Cherlin, L. (1972). Physical and social distancing in teacher-pupil relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(6), 543–550. Selinger, M. (1999). ICT and classroom management. In M. Leask & N. Pachler (Eds.), Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school (pp. 36–50). London: Routledge. Shen, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Caldarella, P., Richardson, M. J., & Shatzer, R. H. (2009). Chinese elementary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom behaviour problems. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 187–201. Siang, T. K. (1991). The effects of seat location on students’ learning behaviour in the classroom. Singapore Journal of Education, 11(2), 71–75. Simmons, C., & Hawkins, C. (2009). Teaching ICT: Developing as a reflective secondary teacher. London: Sage Publications. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380. Türnüklü, A., & Galton, M. (2001). Students’ misbehaviours in Turkish and English elementary classrooms. Educational Studies, 27(3), 291–305. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143–178. Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective educational practices, Vol. 3. Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of Education/International Bureau of Education. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74–79. Weiner, L. (2003). Why classroom management so vexing to urban teachers? Theory into Practice, 42(4), 305–312.
11
Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: What should prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113–131. Zandvliet, D. B., & Straker, L. M. (2001). Physical and psychosocial aspects of the learning environment in information technology rich classrooms. Ergonomics, 44(9), 838–857. Zuckerman, J. T. (2007). Classroom management in secondary schools: A study of student teachers’ successful strategies. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 4–16.
Author Information Deniz Deryakulu is a professor of Computer and Instructional Technologies Education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Turkey. Her research centres on the socio-psychological variables in instructional design and technology. She is also interested in training of computing / ICT teachers. Email:
[email protected] Sadegül Akbaba-Altun is a professor of Educational Administration and Supervision in the Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences at Başkent University, Turkey. Her research interests are Chaos Theory, school principals’ leadership, ICT integration, supervision, and curriculum evaluation. Email:
[email protected] 