174 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Let./Vol. 71 (137)
 Št./No. 1/2020
 Str./pp. 174–191
ISSN 0038 0474 Kateřina Lojdová
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher 
and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom 
Management: On the Scene and  
Behind the Scenes
Abstract: This case study, which focuses on a student teacher and her cooperating teacher, reveals 
the differences in classroom management that are mainly associated with the distinct roles in teaching 
practice. An inductive qualitative analysis of video-recordings of classes taught by the student teacher 
and cooperating teacher was performed and interviews were conducted with both teachers. The results 
reveal that behaviour management is more difficult for the student teacher because it is influenced by 
factors connected with the role of the teacher. In instructional management, the student teacher can 
more easily draw from thorough lesson preparation or subject-matter knowledge. The findings of this 
study strengthen the need for the improved education of cooperating teachers to reflect on classroom 
management with student teachers.
Keywords: Behaviour management, classroom management, cooperating teacher, instructional ma-
nagement, student teachers, teaching practice
UDC: 37.091
Professional paper
Kateřina Lojdová, PhD., assistant professor, Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, Department of 
Education, Poříčí 623/7, 60300 Brno, Czech Republic; email: lojdova@ped.muni.cz

  Lojdová     175
Introduction
Classroom management is one of the most difficult tasks for both beginning and 
experienced teachers. For beginning teachers, classroom management is connected 
with a so-called reality shock (Ben-Peretz 1986; Kremer-Hayon and V eenman 1984). 
However, it is not only beginning teachers who experience a reality shock; student 
teachers who teach in school classrooms during their teaching practice, which forms 
part of their initial teacher education, also often experience it. The reality shock is 
typically explained as a gap between the theoretical preparation and subsequent 
practice, which leaves novice or student teachers across various cultures and edu-
cational systems feeling insufficiently prepared for managing classrooms (Beijaard, 
Dicke et al. 2015, Siebert 2005, Meijer and Verloop 2004). If we focus on classroom 
management at the beginning of the teacher’s professional career – i.e. during 
their initial teacher education – then we need to consider the distinctive role of the 
teacher trainee and the teacher. This paper compares the classroom management 
abilities of student teachers and cooperating teachers in terms of their social roles. 
The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of classroom management as a 
challenge for student teachers and to improve initial teacher education.
Theoretical framing
Classroom management can be defined as a “system of strategies employed by a 
teacher to influence the physical and social space of the classroom in order to foster 
an environment where learning can occur” (Christofferson, et al. 2015, p. 248). We 
can distinguish between behaviour and instructional management, which overlap 
in practice. Behaviour management refers to efforts to prevent misbehaviour by 
pupils and the teacher’s response to a behaviour . Brophy’s (2006) conceptualisation 
of behaviour management includes the arrangement of physical space, creating 
and maintaining rules, methods of maintaining pupils’ attention and disciplinary 
interventions. Emmer and Sabornie (2013) claimed that behaviour management 
comprises proactive and reactive elements. Proactive behaviour management aims to 

176 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
prevent misbehaviour by setting rules, instructional interactions and the teacher’s 
scaffolding of pupils’ self-regulation, whereas reactive behaviour management 
involves reacting to misbehaviour and is mainly represented by the disciplining of 
pupils (Martin and Sass 2010). Reupert and Woodcock (2010, p. 1261) found that 
the most frequently employed reactive strategies by student teachers are initial 
or low level corrective strategies such as »the use of physical proximity«, »moving 
closer to a student«, and »saying a student’s name as a warning«. The ideal situ-
ation would be that (student) teachers make more use of proactive strategies than 
reactive strategies, though both are an important part of classroom management.
Instructional management addresses the field of didactics and consists of such 
things as »establishing teaching goals, using educational methods, and monitoring 
pupils’ independent work« (Martin and Sass 2010, p. 1126). It is clear from these 
definitions that behaviour and instructional management overlap. »The teacher’s 
approach to instructional management sets the tone for the overall classroom 
atmosphere, which can be connected with behaviour management« (Martin et al.  
2012, p. 547). However, behaviour management can influence instructional man-
agement. For example, as a distinct aim of classroom management in general, 
minimising classroom disturbances is a prerequisite for high-quality instruction 
(Evertson and Weinstein 2006).
Effective classroom management consists of a good pupil–teacher relationship 
(Evertson and Weinstein 2006). In this relationship, teachers are described as 
»warm demanders«, which means that they perform caring relationship, but also 
show pupils that the care is holding them to high expectations. Such attitude has 
a positive impact on cognitive and affective learning outcome (Wubbels and Levy 
2005). In terms of student teachers, the problem of »warm demander« does not 
derive from the student teachers’ beliefs, because student teachers want to have a 
friendly relationship with their pupils and want to be helpful and understanding 
teachers (Brophy 1988; Stenberg et al. 2014). However , an examination of whether 
the desired pedagogical image was congruent with actual classroom practices showed 
that the majority of student teachers were unable to adhere to their preferred 
approach to teaching (Fung and Chow 2002).
Existing research into the classroom management of student teachers has 
highlighted the difficulties student teachers experience with performing effective 
classroom management, particularly when comparing a beginning teacher with an 
expert teacher (Dicke et al. 2015; Oral 2012; Wolff et al. 2017). The difficulties of 
student teachers in classroom management have thus been described, especially 
in terms of how to cope with pupil’s discipline. However, some difficulties may be 
caused not only by the phase of professional development (Ennis 1994; Kim and 
Klassen 2018), but also by the specific social role of the student teacher in the 
teaching practice. This study aims to fill a research gap by investigating how a 
student teacher’s role in their teaching practice influences their classroom man-
agement ability.

      177
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
The role of the student teacher and the cooperating teacher in teaching 
practice
The social role is determined by the social status of an individual in social 
institutions. The role of the student teacher in the teaching practice, unlike that 
of the teacher, is for a limited time and to a large extent shaped by the cooperating 
teacher. 
The cooperating teacher is an irreplaceable contributor to the professional 
preparation of teachers and serves as an integral part of the teaching practice 
experience in terms of providing support, direction, role-modelling (Clarke 2001) 
and supervision (Young and MacPhail 2015) for student teachers. Osunde (1996) 
claimed that the student teacher spends more time with the cooperating teacher 
than with any other individual instructor throughout the duration of the degree 
programme. While university-based supervisors are influenced by academic views 
and focus on the teacher education curriculum, cooperating teachers in practicing 
schools focus more on school pedagogy and are more familiar with the school 
curriculum (Uusiautti and Määttä 2012, p. 343). However, Hutchinson (2011) 
showed the tendency of cooperating teachers to mask or hide the instructions for 
student teachers, which contributes to their difficulties in constructing an identity 
as teachers. Additionally, the student teacher may perceive the interfering of the 
cooperating teacher in the lessons as a sign of mistrust (Taskin 2006). Nevertheless, 
cooperating teachers are essential agents for socialising student teachers, not only 
with regard to the classroom but also to the institution of the school. A study by 
Cohen et al. (2013) confirmed the lack of involvement on the part of principals or 
other institutional officials involved in the teaching practice.
The cooperating teacher’s role is also shaped by aspects that lie behind the 
teaching in the classroom, particularly the parental involvement, the schools and 
the community (Severiens et al. 2014). However, as student teachers are unable 
to fully participate in parental involvement, they should gain more theoretical 
knowledge in initial teacher education about working with minority families, the 
legal position of parents in schools and seeing parents as experts on their child  
(de Bruïne et al. 2014).
Research design 
This study compares the classroom management of a student teacher during 
teaching practice and a cooperating teacher from the perspective of their different 
social roles. The research question is as follows: How does the behaviour and in-
structional management of the student teacher differ from that of the cooperating 
teacher?

178 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
Sampling
This study took place at a lower secondary comprehensive class (ISCED 2A) in 
the Czech Republic. The class is situated in a mainstream school; however , because 
of the inclusive education in the Czech Republic, there may be some pupils with 
special educational needs or behaviour disorders in the class.
Student teacher Zdena and her cooperating teacher Iveta were selected based 
on the following criteria:
 – Student teacher: a teaching qualification in Czech language and literature 
(thus many teaching hours), a declared interest in the teaching profession in 
the future and an evaluation of the student from her university teachers. 
 – Cooperating teacher: more than five years in the role of cooperating teacher, 
teaching qualification in Czech language and literature, cooperates with a stu-
dent teacher who is willing to participate in the research project, teaching in 
the same grade (the sixth grade of lower secondary education) and in the same 
subject (the Czech language and literature) as the student teacher. 
Both participants were aware of the methodological design and signed an agree-
ment to cooperate. Their names were pseudonymised and data were anonymised. 
Research Methods
This case study comprises a unique and complex sample based on the above-men-
tioned criteria. The type of the case is intrinsic, guided by the interest of the re-
searcher in the case itself rather than aiming to extend a theory or generalise across 
cases (Stake 1995). Two data gathering methods were employed: video-recordings 
of classes and semi-structured interviews. 
Video-recordings of classes
Six consecutive lessons in the same class taught by student teacher Zdena and 
her cooperating teacher Iveta were recorded on video. Transcripts of the video-re-
cordings were made according to a conversation analysis (Jefferson 2004).
Semi-structured interviews
The semi-structured interviews focused on the perceptions of behavioural 
and instructional management derived from the theory and expanded themes 
mentioned by both participants. 

      179
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
Data corpus for case study
The data corpus of this case study included transcripts of six video-record-
ings of the student teacher’s lessons and six video-recordings of the cooperating 
teacher’s lessons, interviews with the student teacher (84 minutes) and with the 
cooperating teacher (69 minutes).
Data analysis
The obtained data were analysed inductively using a combination of thematic 
coding (Braun and Clarke 2006) and open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The 
programme Atlas.ti 7 was used for the data analysis. The researcher became familiar 
with the data through the data gathering and preliminary reading.
First, the interviews were analysed using thematic coding to achieve overall 
familiarity with the instructional and behaviour management techniques of the 
student teacher and her cooperating teacher.
 Sequences of instructional and behavioural management were identified. Then, 
thematic coding of the video-recordings of classes taught by the student teacher 
and by her cooperating teacher was performed to identify the sequences of instruc-
tional and behavioural management. Second, the entire dataset was open-coded to 
analyse the elements of behaviour and instructional management inductively and 
in more detail. The data were chunked into small units and labelled with codes. 
Some of these codes are used in the text in italics.bold. The codes were grouped into 
categories (Strauss and Corbin 1998) and may refer to a direct situation within the 
classroom (on the scene) or to factors outside of the classroom (behind the scenes). 
These two main categories emerged this way. Data segments and codes were con-
stantly reviewed during the analysis. A constant comparative method was applied 
in four stages: (1) comparing incidents applicable to each category , (2) integrating 
categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory and (4) writing the theory 
(Powell 1997, p. 155). Two main categories capture on the scene and behind the scenes 
factors of classroom management. According to the thematic analysis, these factors 
are described for behaviour and instructional management separately. First, we 
present a student teacher–cooperating teacher comparison of on the scene/behind 
the scenes factors for behaviour management, which is followed by a comparison 
of on the scene/behind the scenes factors for instructional management. 
Results
The results of the research focus on a comparison of the differences in the 
behaviour and instructional management displayed by student teacher Zdena and 
her cooperating teacher Ivana. The results of this case study are not intended 
to provide a generalised description. This study presents a detailed comparison 
of classroom management based mainly on the role characteristics of a student 

180 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
teacher and her cooperating teacher; however, the characteristics of professional 
development are still present. Described differences are divided into behaviour and 
instructional management and are framed according to the dominant resources: 
whether shaped directly in the classroom (on the scene) or outside of the classroom 
(behind the scenes).
The behaviour management of the student teacher and cooperating teacher
The area of behaviour management should not be perceived as a set of ex-
plicit rules, but rather as a complex normative world of the classroom. A part of 
these rules is inaccessible to the student teacher because they are created outside 
of the teaching process (behind the scenes). Student teacher Zdena considered the 
rules in the classroom in the passive voice, i.e. »They were told all this«. Student 
teacher Zdena talked about the limitations of her role in relation to the rules in 
the classroom. She noted that as she is only a visitor in the cooperating teacher’s 
classroom and she cannot influence the rules that the teacher sets for the pupils. 
She understands the rules as being fixed rather than negotiable on a daily basis. 
She side-lined her own role in the behaviour management considerably through 
rule creation. Nevertheless, behaviour management accounts for the main challenge 
in the work of both the teacher and the student teacher . Student teachers may have 
difficulty working with rules compared to experienced teachers.
On the scene: Behaviour management in the classroom management performed by 
the student teacher
Student teacher Zdena considered behaviour management to be reactive rather 
than proactive. Student teacher Zdena: »Well, it happened a couple of times and 
the pupil who misbehaved at the back, yeah, he beat his classmates, so that was a 
thing I had to address.«
Researcher: »[And how] did you address it?«
Student teacher Zdena: »So I just, eh, raised my voice at him so that he would 
stop doing that. And that’s when I set the director on him, but he has Asperger’s 
syndrome so it didn’t matter to him much.«
This situation corresponds to the fact that the student teacher thinks more 
about the consequences than the causes of misbehaviour of pupils. She named one 
of the causes of disruptive behaviour, but she did not consider how to work with a 
pupil with Asperger’s syndrome. The student teacher had difficulty gaining insight 
into what happens outside of the classroom and understanding the factors, other 
than the situational ones, that cause a lack of discipline. Especially, the issue of 
how a diagnosis influences a pupils’ behaviour and is associated with the student 
teacher’s concerns, uncertainty and lack of preparation.

      181
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
In the area of reactive classroom management, there are some difficulties 
for the student teacher. The student teacher claimed that she was missing the 
thorough knowledge of the pupils in the class, which would allow her to perform 
a differentiated disciplinary action. She could, for example, reseat the pupils to 
resolve the disciplinary problems directly during teaching. Student teacher Zdena 
performs behaviour management ‘here and now’ because her knowledge of the 
tools she could use to deepen the cooperation with the pupils and their parents are  
limited.
As a result, Zdena also considers the personal life of pupils and their family 
situation to be areas which she should not and cannot influence: »An individual 
teacher doesn’t influence it all that much. Well, I have the pupil with some problems, 
who doesn’t want to communicate. He is not interested in what he learns, yeah, or 
so. And it is then really difficult to motivate him. Y eah well, you must wait until the 
issue is resolved or until it stabilises.« (Student teacher Zdena)
The student teacher acts rather passively with regard to the personal life of 
pupils. She perceives it as something that should be resolved on its own. The pupils’ 
family backgrounds are unfamiliar to her, and only in exceptional cases does she 
communicate with parents. The student teacher perceives that she does not have 
any tools that would help her deepen the cooperation with parents or pupils, unlike 
the cooperating teacher who uses meetings with parents and regular homerooms 
for this purpose. She focuses mainly on current events in the classroom, where 
she employs reactive behaviour management from the situational point of view. 
Proactive behaviour management is for her an agenda that reaches outside the 
current events in the classroom (behind the scenes).
The student teacher’s lack of relationship with the parents is something 
that Zdena compensates for by means of the classroom authority of the director. 
The director should function here as somebody with a “higher power” outside the 
classroom context. In reactive classroom management, Zdena often uses the fol-
lowing pattern to force her pupils to obey: »an admonition, followed by a repeated 
admonition, followed by a threat to call the director«. The director here substitutes 
for an authority outside the classroom; the teacher uses mostly the parents of the 
pupils for this purpose.
For student teacher Zdena, one of the few perspectives on the current goings-on 
in the classroom (behind the scenes) are discussions with the cooperating teacher, 
who can inform her about the pupils. If the student teacher is uncertain, she turns 
to labelling the pupils, which serves her as a quick and simple guidance. That is, 
she labels badly behaved pupils (a guidance for behaviour management) and smart 
ones (a guidance for instructional management). Labelling the pupils may be a quick 
helping mechanism for a student teacher’s disciplinary intervention; however, it 
also presents a risk for mirroring a problematic relationship between the cooper-
ating teacher and a pupil into the relationship between the student teacher and 
a pupil. A similar situation is described by Zdena, who was informed that a pupil 
does not make an effort in the lessons: »And she [the cooperating teacher] told me, 
for example, that he learns it at home and that he knows it and doesn’t have bad 
grades,and that I should take it as it is and ignore it. So she told me this, so next 

182 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
time I knew that I shouldn’t get upset because of him, but I should work with the 
others as usual.« (Student teacher Zdena)
The student teacher accepts the cooperating teacher’s definition of what is 
happening and reaches the conclusion that it is pointless spending time with the 
pupil. At first sight, this decision solves the current problem in the classroom from 
her point of view. However, this approach could aggravate the learning problems 
of the pupil as well as his relationship with the student teacher.
Although Zdena’s behaviour management strategies mostly lack the use of 
parents’ authority , her role enables her to search for an alternative space for man-
agement »behind the scenes« . For example, she uses the time during breaks to try 
to get to know the pupils better.
»When the kids need it, they come to me during the break... and I talk with 
them and spend even the whole break with them. Yeah, even if I am hungry and 
want to eat… or go to the bathroom. So, I just stop and stay with them and even if 
we don’t find any solution or so… I listen to them, and they, just because I listened 
to them, they start feeling better or it satisfies them that somebody listened to them 
and that perhaps something will happen regarding what they complained about.« 
(Student teacher Zdena)
In this regard, Zdena uses the limited break time as a space for proactive 
behaviour management, but only when the initiative comes from the pupils. In 
contrast, the homerooms organised by the teacher include topics proposed by both 
the pupils and the teacher, and they can have a proactive or reactive character.
The limited role of a student teacher is demonstrated directly in the teaching 
by the fact that the cooperating teacher is always present in the student teacher’s 
lessons. On the one hand, the cooperating teacher always supports the student 
teacher by projecting her authority into the classroom, but on the other hand, 
the cooperating teacher’s presence demonstrates the limited role of the student 
teacher. Moreover, the cooperating teacher interferes in the classes taught by the 
student teacher.
Cooperating teacher Iveta sat on a bench with one of the pupils during Zdena’s 
teaching. During common reading, the pupil was looking somewhere other than at 
the textbook, which the cooperating teacher noticed immediately (observed in the 
video-recording of a lesson taught by student teacher Zdena).
The cooperating teacher used a very subtle non-verbal coercive strategy of 
nudging the pupil to draw her attention back to reading. Therefore, the cooperating 
teacher projects both proactive and reactive behaviour management more or less 
explicitly into the student teacher’s classroom management.
The behaviour management rules are implicit and invisible for the student 
teacher . Socialising towards the cultural practice of a classroom is a long-term pro-
cess that requires reflecting on what is happening in terms of the power relations 
inside and outside the classroom. Because of the limited setting of the teaching 
practice and the implicitly limited role of the student teacher, this area is difficult 
for student teachers. The student teacher is in a situation »here and now«(on the 
scene), and she therefore uses reactive behaviour management rather than the 
long-term formation of the learning environment. As the student teacher in her 

      183
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
teaching practice finds herself within the limits of a teaching unit, support in be-
haviour management through cooperation with parents and network of guidance 
professionals is mostly unavailable to her. The lack of long-term cooperation with 
the pupils also creates a gap for proactive behaviour management.
Behind the scenes: Behaviour management of the cooperating teacher as an agenda 
outside the classroom
For the cooperating teacher, behaviour management offers a larger space 
than for the student teacher. The role of the cooperating teacher includes a long-
term relationship with the pupils. This relationship is a prerequisite for effective 
proactive behaviour management and may lead towards a smaller proportion of the 
reactive classroom management found on the video-recordings of classes taught by 
cooperating teacher Iveta.
Moreover, teacher Iveta organises counselling circles where she can establish 
a relationship with the pupils, understand their needs related to learning and 
help them to succeed. Likewise, these extracurricular activities are not available 
to student teacher Zdena.
The cooperating teacher’s proactive behaviour management extends beyond 
the current events in the classroom (behind the scenes), particularly in relation to 
cooperation with parents and other professionals in the school. Cooperating teacher 
Iveta follows the family background of her pupils closely . The pupils’ parents are a 
significant partner (or opponent) in forming the proactive behaviour management 
for Iveta. The cooperating teacher uses the parents to formally legitimate her in-
structions. For example, she lets the parents sign her messages: »They have it on a 
slip of paper, the parents sign it, so that they are also informed and couldn’t make 
excuses.« (Cooperating teacher Iveta)
In this way, the teacher secures cooperation from both the pupils and their 
parents. The teacher builds on the relationship with the parents in proactive (see 
quotation above) and in the reactive classroom management as well. As reactive 
classroom management, she uses the pupils’ parents as a disciplinary strategy: 
»Today I’m gonna call daddy, yeah, you have some debts there (from other teachers 
as well), so we will just add it to that.« (Video-recording of cooperating teacher 
Iveta’s lesson)
In this sample from the cooperating teacher’s lesson, the authority of the par-
ents is used directly during teaching. Here, the cooperating teacher stops looking 
for a solution in her relationship with the pupil and transfers it to the parents. 
Thus, the cooperating teacher has access to a broader social network beyond the 
teaching compared to the student teacher . She may postpone unproductive teaching 
situations and tackle them using this network.
Cooperating teacher Iveta describes a structured mechanism for solving 
disciplinary problems, which highlights that the reactive behaviour management 
in the case of challenging situations is a shared responsibility of multiple school 
employees, and if necessary involves people outside of the school. »Well if it is here 

184 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
in this class, I’m not a form teacher here, so I consult the form teacher , if it is really 
significant breaking of those rules, now I mean discipline. So we have such stages of 
monitoring, first a talk with the pupil, such a friendly one. If, however, the problem 
appears again, as happened here, as you sit on that seat, so there my colleague sits, 
a guidance counsellor. So we sit here together, or another teacher of course, and we 
write a record of the meeting with the pupil. The record then serves to inform the 
parents, or if [the problem appears] again once more, then meeting with parents, 
either the form teacher, guidance counsellor, or if the problem concerns more subjects, 
then more of the teachers meet in whose lessons the student has problems, the school 
director. Yeah, well and if even that doesn’t help, then the problem is referred to the 
Department of Child and Family Services at the municipal office«. (Cooperating 
teacher Iveta)
The cooperating teacher’s permanent role in the classroom and connected 
cooperation with parents and professionals creates broader space for behaviour 
management as an agenda outside the classroom (behind the scenes).
The instructional management of the student teacher and the cooperating teacher
Unlike behaviour management, student teacher Zdena showed stronger in-
structional management abilities due to her social role. 
Behind the scenes: A comparison of the instructional management performed by 
the student teacher and the cooperating teacher
Instructional management provides student teacher Zdena with more resources 
outside the classroom (behind the scenes) than does behaviour management, although 
even here, many factors remain hidden to the student teacher at the beginning of 
her practice (e.g. the individual educational needs of pupils, the current knowledge 
of the given topic and the pupils, learning style). Therefore, I will focus on behind 
the scenes factors of instructional management. In this case, the student teacher 
utilises her preparation of the lesson and her studies at the university.
»I always prepared conscientiously from one lesson to the next; I prepared lesson 
plans... even with time periods because I don’t like to be unprepared for the lesson, 
I don’t like that.« (Student teacher Zdena)
Student teacher Zdena devotes an extensive amount of time to lesson pre-
paration, which contributes to her comfort regarding instructional management.
On the whole, Zdena’s responses indicated that it is easier for her to prepare 
for instructional management than behavior management because instructional 
management is for her more predictable. In terms of individualisation of teaching, 
the student reported similar problems as in preparation for behaviour management, 
namely that she does not know the pupils. In the area of instructional management, 
the student teacher felt that she contributed to the cooperating teacher by enriching 
the teacher’s knowledge with new teaching approaches and methodologies. This 

      185
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
is confirmed by the cooperating teacher: »For example in one lesson, she did a 
worksheet which I then also included into my work.« (Cooperating teacher Iveta)
The student teacher can show the class to the teacher in a new light and 
apply teaching methods and procedures that the cooperating teacher would not 
try herself: »Well I would not dare to lead the lesson completely in German, as she 
did.« (Cooperating teacher Iveta).
The student teacher may gain a specific position in relation to her cooperating 
teacher and she can become the innovator by introducing educational trends into 
the classroom. Student teachers are typically well prepared in the field of their sub-
ject-matter knowledge. Compared to behaviour management, the student teacher 
may have a greater level of expertise in instructional management. 
Unlike the area of behaviour management, the area of instructional man-
agement is easier to define and share for both teacher Iveta and student teacher 
Zdena. When talking about rules in the classroom in the research interviews, both 
the teacher and the student teacher began with instructional management rules 
and they named them with ease. The cooperating teacher talked about the rules 
in the classroom as instructional management rules: »I tell them what textbooks 
and what notebooks they should bring to those lessons. I tell them when the first 
homework will be given and when to bring it; also what should the notebooks look 
like regarding graphics, edges; when we’ll write dictations, when tests will be written 
and I tell them about the grading scale... So, they know perfectly, when they write 
a test or dictation, so it doesn’t happen that they would argue, because they have 
points there and they have it evaluated in percentages. So they know everything 
about all this, what we talk about, and the reader’s diary, which means what the 
recommended reading is.« (Cooperating teacher Iveta)
When asked about the rules, the student teacher Zdena responded similarly 
and she mentioned rules associated with instructional management rather than 
with behaviour management. For example, she described the evaluation criteria 
of pupils. This contrasts to the rules of behaviour management which are not fully 
visible to the student teacher here and they often remain unmentioned even during 
the reflection with the cooperating teacher.
Therefore, instructional management can be considered more explicit than 
behaviour management for both the teacher and the student teacher, and it can 
thus be assumed that it will be easier for the teachers to share. On the whole, the 
cooperating teacher is naturally more experienced in instructional management than 
a student teacher, and the role of the cooperating teacher is a better prerequisite 
for successful instructional management than the role of the student teacher. 
Concerning the social role, student teachers face problems primarily in connecting 
the individual lessons, mostly because the lessons they lead do not always follow 
after each other and the student teachers do not work with the class continually. 
However, instructional management still remains an area where preparation 
work behind the scenes helps student teacher Zdena more thanfor behaviour  
management.

186 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
Discussion
Classroom management is a complex activity performed by the teacher, 
which is conditioned by factors originating in the classroom and outside of it. We 
have placed these factors into the broad categories of on the scene and behind the 
scenes. In terms of the research question, some differences in classroom manage-
ment appeared between the student teacher and her cooperating teacher in these 
categories. Although the generalisability of the findings from a single dyad is not 
possible, the findings present a detailed comparison of classroom management by 
a student teacher and her cooperating teacher from the perspective of the social 
role, uncovering themes that are relevant to an international context.
Behaviour management is considered a significant challenge for student 
teachers in many European countries (Atici 2007; Bromfield 2006; Emmer and 
Stough 2001). The results of this study show that part of behaviour management 
is connected with the role of a teacher , not with the role of a student teacher , and is 
formed outside of the actual goings-on in the classroom (behind the scenes). Thus, 
one of the reasons why student teachers have a clear idea of how they want to 
manage the class, but they do not manage to apply it in practice (Poom-V alickis and 
Löfström 2019), may be associated with their role as trainees. The student teacher 
thinks more about the consequences than about the causes of misbehaviour and 
she also lacks opportunities to build long-term relationships with pupils. Thus, her 
behaviour management is more reactive than proactive. Additionally , the preparation 
for behaviour management in initial teacher education is limited to a certain extent, 
not only because of the gap between theory and practice (Darling-Hammond 2009) 
but also due to the difference between the role of a student teacher and a teacher. 
We conclude that the area of behaviour management is more demanding for the 
student teacher because behaviour management is closely connected with the social 
role of the teacher. Behaviour management works with the normative world of a 
classroom, which is, for a student teacher visiting the class for a short time, mostly 
implicit (Lojdová 2016). The normative world of the classroom is significantly shaped 
outside of the classroom (behind the scenes) in cooperation with parents and other 
professionals. The role of the student teacher is in this respect (behind the scenes) 
therefore limited when compared to the role of the teacher.
A more significant domain of the student teacher is instructional manage-
ment; this finding complies with the research of Kaldi and Xafakos (2017, p. 255), 
who found that student teachers rated their teaching competences concerning 
instructional strategies rather highly . Instructional management is an area where 
student teachers feel more comfortable. Unlike behaviour management, the rules 
of instructional management are more explicit for the student teacher and the 
cooperating teacher and they may thus be shared more easily. Contrary to beha-
viour management, student teachers can draw on instructional management from 
behind the scenes, from their preparation of lessons and university studies. These 
findings are in compliance with the research by Safak et al. (2016), which found 
that student teachers participated in their study based on their knowledge acquired 
from their university courses. Moreover, student teachers can demonstrate their 

      187
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
expertise in subject-matter knowledge and up-to-date teaching methodologies 
(theoretically gained at university), although even here student teachers may lack 
confidence in believing that they know anything (Hoveid and Hoveid 2004). The 
cooperating teacher still has the upper hand in instructional management due to 
a more advanced stage of professional development. This finding supports Chen’s 
(2002) research, which focused on the implementation of constructivist teaching: 
»The student teachers, unlike the expert teachers, did not use constructivist-based 
instructional strategies to respond to pupils‘ learning responses« (Chen 2002, 
p. 255), which may be connected with constructivist teaching being more difficult 
for student teachers. However, student teachers’ practices offer a certain poten-
tial for cooperating teachers because they encounter (at least indirectly) current 
educational trends. Instructional management is therefore an area in which the 
student teachers may enrich the cooperating teachers substantially, even though 
they may be not aware of it.
Despite the limited role of student teachers in behaviour management, classroom 
management remains an important part of initial teacher education. As Alvarez 
(2006, p. 1116) proved, »teachers’ response to aggressive behavior in the classroom 
was impacted by their prior training in classroom behavior management.« It seems 
reasonable to »teach student teachers to make use of proactive strategies whenever 
and as much as possible, to use punishment only when strictly necessary, and to 
avoid the use of aggressive strategies« (de Jong et al. 2013, p. 593).
Our findings confirm the need for training programmes where student teachers 
are involved in a continuum of training situations in the schools (post-lesson in-
terviews and/or arranged class situations) (Escalié and Chaliès 2016). Hutchinson 
(2011) provided approaches to initial teacher education which rethink of the roles 
of those engaged in the process including the role of the student teacher and the 
nature of the partnership between universities and schools. Various training 
programmes in classroom management have been developed, which aim to avoid 
a reality shock (Dicke et al. 2015), help teachers with evidence-based classroom 
management, e.g. using self-monitoring checklist (Oliver et al. 2015) or placing 
student teachers as members of a collaborative teacher research team (Willegems 
et al. 2018) or a community of practice (Escalié and Chaliès 2016).
In these programmes, teaching practice has an essential place, particularly 
due to the unique role of the cooperating teacher (Koc 2012, p. 32). During the 
practice, the cooperating teacher should reflect on their role affects the classroom 
management and how to support the student teacher in areas which the student 
teacher’s role does not cover. However, research shows that cooperating teachers 
work with students rather intuitively. As Clement (2002, p. 60) stated:  »Many 
cooperating teachers exhibit ‘best practice’ in their classrooms, but they need to 
focus on published knowledge that will provide more than tricks for managing 
today’s diverse classrooms«.
This study identifies the need for further education for cooperating teachers 
– this education should focus on a reflection of the practice with student teachers. 
Further education for cooperating teachers can help to determine their roles with 
the students in the teaching practice to bring »situated understandings of teaching« 

188 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
(Rorrison 2010, p. 516) and avoid the cooperating teacher hiding instructions 
(Hutchinson 2011) or interfering in the lessons inappropriately (cf. Taskin 2006). 
Such education can also help cooperating teachers provide an informed reflection 
and offer support to the student teachers regarding the factors behind the scenes 
which limit the role of the student teacher. Last, there is a benefit of teaching 
practice for the pupils. According to Tygret (2017, p. 123), having both the teacher 
and the student teacher in the classroom could have a positive impact on pupils’ 
achievements., especially if they are working together. 
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by project GA16-02177S (Czech 
Science Foundation): Classroom Management Strategies of Student Teachers and 
Experienced Teachers (Their Mentors) in Lower Secondary Education. 
References
Alvarez, H. K. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to student aggression 
in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, issue 7, pp. 1113–1126.
Atici, M. (2007). A small ‐scale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroom man-
agement and methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional and Behavioural 
Difficulties, 12. issue 1, pp. 15–27.
Beijaard, D. (1995). Teachers’ Prior Experiences and Actual Perceptions of Professional 
Identity. Teachers and Teaching, 1, issue 2, pp. 281–294.
Beijaard, D., Meijer , P . C. and Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ profes-
sional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20, issue 2, pp. 107–128.
Braun, V . and Clarke, V . (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research 
in Psychology, 3, issue 2, pp. 77–101.
Bromfield, C. (2006). PGCE secondary trainee teachers and effective behaviour manage-
ment: an evaluation and commentary . Support for Learning, 21, issue 4, pp. 188–193.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching 
and Teacher Education, 4, pp. 1–18.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In: C. M. Evertson and 
C. S. Weinstein (eds.). Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice, and 
contemporary issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 17–43.
Chen, W . (2002). Six expert and student teachers‘ views and implementation of constructivist 
teaching using a movement approach to physical education. The Elementary School 
Journal, 102, issue 3, pp. 255–272.
Christofferson, M., Sullivan, A. and Bradley , E. (2015). Preservice teachers´classroom man-
agement training: A survey of self-reported training experiences, content coverage, 
and preparedness. Psychology in the Schools, 52, issue 3, pp. 248–264.
Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of cooperating teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 
26, issue 3, pp. 237–256.
Clarke, A., Triggs, V . and Nielsen, W . (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher 
education a review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84, issue 2, pp. 
163–202.

      189
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
Clement, M. C. (2002). What cooperating teachers are teaching student teachers about 
classroom management. The Teacher Educator, 38, issue 1, pp. 47–62.
Cohen, E., Hoz, R. and Kaplan, H. (2013). The practicum in preservice teacher education: a 
review of empirical studies. Teaching Education, 24, issue 4, pp. 345–380.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V . L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods 
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to 
equity will determine our Nation’s Future. NY: Teachers College.
De Jong, R., van Tartwijk, J., Wubbels, T ., Veldman, I. and Verloop, N. (2013). Student tea-
chers’ discipline strategies: relations with self-images, anticipated student responses 
and control orientation. Educational Studies, 39, issue 5, pp. 582–597.
Dicke, T ., Elling, J., Schmeck, A. and Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects 
of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 48, pp. 1–12.
Emmer , E. and Sabornie, E. (2013). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, 
and contemporary issues. Routledge.
Ennis, C. D. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46, issue 
2, pp. 164–175.
Evertson, C. M. and Weinstein, C. S. (eds.). (2006). Handbook of classroom management: 
research, practice, and contemporary issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fung, L. and Chow , L. P . Y . (2002). Congruence of student teachers’ pedagogical images and 
actual classroom practices. Educational Research, 44, issue 3, pp. 313–321.
Johnson, B. R. and Christensen, L. B. (2013). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, 
and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jones, V . F . and Jones, L. S. (1998). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating com-
munities οf support and solving problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaldi, S. and Xafakos, E. (2017). Student teachers’ school teaching practice: The relation 
amongst perceived self-competence, motivation and sources of support. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 67, pp. 246–258.
Kim, L. E. and Klassen, R. M. (2018). Teachers’ cognitive processing of complex school-based 
scenarios: Differences across experience levels. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 
pp. 215–226.
Knowles, G. J. and Cole, A. L. (1996). Developing practice through field experiences. In: F . 
B. Murray (ed.). The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the 
preparation of teachers. San Francisco, Jossey ‐Bass, pp. 648–688.
Koc, I. (2012). Preservice science teachers reflect on their practicum experiences. Educational 
Studies, 38, issue 1, pp. 31–38.
Korthagen, F . A. J. (2010). The Relationship between theory and practice in teacher educa-
tion. In. E. Baker, B., McGaw and P . Peterson (eds.). International Encyclopaedia of 
Education, n. 7. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 669–675.
Kremer-Hayon, L. and Ben-Peretz, M. (1986). Becoming a teacher: The transition from 
teachers’ college to classroom life. International Review of Education, 32, issue 4, pp. 
413–422.
Lojdová, K. (2016) Student nonconformity at school. Studia paedagogica, 21, issue 4, pp. 53–76.

190 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Lojdová
 
Martin, N. and Sass, D. (2010). Construct validation of the Behavior and Instructional Ma-
nagement Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, issue 5, pp. 1124–1135.
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A. and Schmitt, T . A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, 
instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using 
in-class variables to predict teachers‘ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 
28, issue 4, pp. 546–559.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: 
Sage.
Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H. and Nelson, J. R. (2015). Helping teachers maintain classroom 
management practices using a self-monitoring checklist. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 51, pp. 113–120.
Osunde, E. O. (1996). The effect of student teachers of the teaching behaviors of cooperating 
teachers. Education, 116, issue 4, pp. 612–619.
Poom-Valickis, K. and Löfström, E. (2019). “Pupils should have respect for you, although 
I have no idea how to achieve this?”: The ideals and experiences shaping a teacher’s 
professional identity. Educational Studies, 45, issue 2, pp. 1–18.
Reupert, A. and Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: Pre-service teachers’ use, 
confidence and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 26, issue 6, pp. 1261–1268.
Riedler, M. and Eryaman M. Y. (2016). Complexity, Diversity and Ambiguity in Teaching 
and Teacher Education: Practical Wisdom, Pedagogical Fitness and Tact of Teaching. 
International Journal of Progressive Education. 12, issue 3, pp. 172–186.
Rorrison, D. (2010). Assessment of the practicum in teacher education: Advocating for the 
student teacher and questioning the gatekeepers. Educational Studies, 36, issue 5, 
pp. 505–519.
Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers‘ success in classroom management by 
leveraging a local union‘s resources: A professional development school initiative. 
Education, 125, issue 3, pp. 385–392.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stoughton, E. H. (2007). “How will I get them to behave?”: Pre-service teachers reflect 
on classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, issue 7, pp. 29–51.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral 
research.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Taskin, C. S. (2006). Student teachers in the classroom: their perceptions of teaching practice. 
Educational Studies, 32, issue 4, pp. 387–398.
Tygret, J. A. (2017). The influence of student teachers on student achievement: A case study 
of teacher perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, pp. 117–126.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Re-
search, 54, issue 2, pp. 143–178.
Willegems, V ., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K. and Engels, N. (2018). Pre-service teachers as 
members of a collaborative teacher research team: A steady track to extended profes-
sionalism? Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, pp. 126–139.

      191
 
Role Comparison of a Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher in Classroom Management: ...
 
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H. and Boshuizen, H. P . (2017). See and tell: Differences between 
expert and novice teachers’ interpretations of problematic classroom management 
events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, pp. 295–308.
Wubbels, T. (1993). The model for interpersonal teacher behavior. In: T. Wubbels and  
J. Levy (eds.). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal rela-tionships in educa-
tion. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 13–28.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kateřina LOJDOVÁ (Univerza Masaryk, Češka)
PRIMERJAVA MED VLOGAMA UČITELJA IN PRIPRAVNIKA PRI VODENJU ODDELKA
Povzetek: V prispevku predstavljamo študijo primera, s katero smo raziskovali sodelovanje med učite-
ljem mentorjem in pripravnikom pri izvajanju pouka. Razlike so se pokazale pri samem vodenju oddelka 
in smo jih pripisali zlasti različnima vlogama v neposredni poučevalni praksi. Opravili smo induktivno 
kvalitativno analizo video posnetkov pouka, ki sta ga vodila oba učitelja (pripravnik in mentor), z obema 
smo opravili tudi intervju. Rezultati so pokazali, da je učitelju pripravniku več težav povzročalo urav-
navanje vedenja v oddelku, na kar vplivajo številni dejavniki, ki so povezani z vlogo učitelja. Ko gre za 
samo vodenje pouka, se lahko učitelj pripravnik lažje opre na svojo učno pripravo ter na znanje, ki ga 
ima kot predmetni strokovnjak. Ugotovitve, ki jih predstavljamo, nakazujejo na potrebo po nadaljnjem 
usposabljanju učiteljev mentorjev na področju sodelovanja z učitelji pripravniki pri vodenju oddelka.  
Ključne besede: uravnavanje vedenja; vodenje oddelka; sodelovanje učiteljev; vodenje pouka; učitelji 
pripravniki; poučevalna praksa
E-naslov: lojdova@ped.muni.cz