Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factory Settings at Vocational Schools

Abstract

Context: As part of vocational education and training, learning factories are a new, hands-on learning setting in which students can create products with realistic digital manufacturing equipment while still in vocational school. Given their novelty, learning factories have not yet been studied with respect to whether special classroom management may be needed. One key aspect of classroom management for teachers is the dealing with classroom disruptions. The aim of this study is to investigate what types of classroom disruptions occur in learning factories and how teachers deal with them. Methods: To close the existing research gap, a guideline-based, semi-structured interview study with seven teachers from the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, was conducted. The interviews were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis using the software MAXQDA. Findings: The findings show that in this new setting, established strategies for mitigating classroom disruptions can be adapted and applied. Teachers were found to use and optimize their existing abilities to ensure learning success and were able to protect the monetary value of the factory against certain disruptions. Mutual trust between teachers and students, as well as teachers utilizing strategies according to their personality, were mentioned as the most important factors in ensuring success in this context. Conclusion: Learning factories as a new learning environment in vocational schools do not seem to require specific classroom management approaches. As a result, their use can be safely expanded. Teachers value the possibility of teaching in this special setting while seeing that there are new possible ways of disruptions. Nevertheless, the interviewees feel themselves prepared for these new challenges, using their already established repertoire of strategies, adapting them, if necessary, to this new setting. To do this, teachers need to systemize and understand disruptions inside their classrooms. So far, research is lacking systemizations for classroom disruptions in digital settings like learning factories. This study extends the research landscape with an adaption of an already existing construct.

Full text

International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET)
2025, Vol. 12, Issue 2, 266–288
https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.12.2.5
ISSN: 2197-8646
https://www.ijrvet.net
*Corresponding author: pierre.meinokat@kit.edu
Classroom Disruptions and Classroom
Management in Learning Factory
Settings at Vocational Schools
Pierre Meinokat*, Ingo Wagner
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for School Pedagogy and Didactics,
Kaiserstraße 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Department for Sports and Sport Science,
Sandfangweg 4, 79102 Freiburg, Germany
Received: 24 June 2024, Accepted: 22 November 2024
Abstract
Context: As part of vocational education and training, learning factories are a new, hands-
on learning setting in which students can create products with realistic digital manufactu-
ring equipment while still in vocational school. Given their novelty, learning factories have
not yet been studied with respect to whether special classroom management may be needed.
One key aspect of classroom management for teachers is the dealing with classroom disrup-
tions. e aim of this study is to investigate what types of classroom disruptions occur in
learning factories and how teachers deal with them.
Methods: To close the existing research gap, a guideline-based, semi-structured interview study
with seven teachers from the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, was conducted.
e interviews were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis using the soware MAXQDA.
Findings: e ndings show that in this new setting, established strategies for mitigating class-
room disruptions can be adapted and applied. Teachers were found to use and optimize their
existing abilities to ensure learning success and were able to protect the monetary value of
the factory against certain disruptions. Mutual trust between teachers and students, as well as
teachers utilizing strategies according to their personality, were mentioned as the most impor-
tant factors in ensuring success in this context.
*

267
Meinokat, Wagner
Conclusion: Learning factories as a new learning environment in vocational schools do
not seem to require specic classroom management approaches. As a result, their use can
be safely expanded. Teachers value the possibility of teaching in this special setting while
seeing that there are new possible ways of disruptions. Nevertheless, the interviewees feel
themselves prepared for these new challenges, using their already established repertoire of
strategies, adapting them, if necessary, to this new setting. To do this, teachers need to sys-
temize and understand disruptions inside their classrooms. So far, research is lacking sys-
temizations for classroom disruptions in digital settings like learning factories. is study
extends the research landscape with an adaption of an already existing construct.
Keywords: Classroom Management, Student Behaviour, Interview, VET, Vocational Education
and Training
1 Introduction
Classroom disruptions are known to prevent schools from providing eective learning time
for students (Marquez et al., 2016; Scherzinger & Wettstein, 2019) and create health risks
for (beginning) teachers in all types of schools (Gonzalez et al., 2015; Kokkinos, 2007; Little,
2005; Rajendran et al., 2020). One of these types is vocational schools, in which learning
factories (LFs) have become increasingly common. e new and special setting that LFs pro-
vide is expected to create the highest possible level of competence in students with respect
to work-oriented behaviors (Fasshauer et al., 2021). is represents a new type of learning
arrangement that meets both the pressing educational demands in the area of digitization
(European Union, 2020; Kultusministerkonferenz, 2021) and the growing need for vocatio-
nal training (Pfeier et al., 2022). In this practice-oriented and independent form of instruc-
tion, learners gain realistic insights into the production processes of their future professional
worlds. Due to the inclusion of digital components, LFs can be considered a digital setting,
according to the denition advanced by Meinokat and Wagner (2022). While schools in vo-
cational education and training (VET) have recognized the potential of LFs in this context,
it is not yet clear how this novel setting impacts the ways in which classroom disruptions are
managed.
2 TheoreticalBackgroundandFramework
is article examines the ways in which LFs may be vulnerable to classroom disruptions. Un-
derstanding this vulnerability requires knowledge of certain related classroom management
practices.

268 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
2.1 ClassroomManagementandClassroomDisruptions
e eective and successful arrangement of a classroom has been a topic of research since
the 1970s (Kounin, 2006). e wealth of research in this area has led to a variety of ex-
planations and denitions being proposed for the term classroom management. A modern
meta-analysis that sought to attend to the uniformities as well as the dierences between
these denitions generally concluded that classroom management is based on "a multitude
of actions to establish and maintain" (Martin et al., 2016, p. 31) smooth classroom practi-
ces. Generally speaking, classroom management refers to the activity of teachers in shaping
the learning environment in a way that makes professional, emotional, and social learning
possible (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). On a non-subject-related level, such management in-
cludes multiple areas of foci, such as the management of the physical structure, teaching ma-
nagement, time management, management of intra-classroom relationships, and behavior
management (Durak & Saritepeci, 2017). e right combination of these dierent aspects of
management can lead to a relatively undisturbed lesson, which is benecial for both students
and teachers (Kokkinos, 2007; Marquez et al., 2016; Rajendran et al., 2020; Scherzinger &
Wettstein, 2019). Accordingly, research has shown that well-structured instruction with mi-
nimal disruptions is a predecessor to growth in competences among students (Byo & Sims,
2015).
Classroom disruptions are understood as entailing "behavior a reasonable person would
view as being likely to substantially or repeatedly interfere with conduct of a class" (Stock-
ton University, 2001, p. 1). As such, they "impair, interrupt or make the teaching-learning
process impossible" (Lohmann, 2011, p. 13). Distractions in the classroom have been found
to reduce learning success (Wilbers, 2007). However, conducting quality research on this to-
pic depends on an appropriate understanding of the relevant cultural inuences and certain
conceptual accuracies. While the German language has its own word for classroom disrup-
tions, "Unterrichtsstörungen" ("Unterricht" for classroom and "Störungen" for disruptions),
the international literature contains references to several terms (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022).
As just one aspect of classroom management, classroom disruptions are oen researched
alongside other related practices and behaviors. Research dedicated exclusively to classroom
disruptions in certain settings is still lacking (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022). General research
on the topic of classroom disruptions shows that there are two types of systemizations: (a)
Systemizations that weigh the severity of disruptions against each other and (b) systemiza-
tions that group disruptions without weighing them (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024). Examples
can be found in table 1 and table 2.

269
Meinokat, Wagner
Table 1: Categories for Separating Systematizations (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024)
Biller (1979) Lohmann (2011) Winkel (2011)
– Minor faults – Verbal disruptions – Disciplinary disruptions
– (In)direct disruptions – Lack of willingness to learn – Provocation and aggression
– Unrecoverable disruptions – Motoric restlessness – Permanent acoustic and visual disruptions, as
well as restlessness and concentration
– Unavoidable disruptions – Aggressive behavior – Disruptions from outside the class
– Refusal to learn and passivity
– Missing motivation
– Neurotic disorders
Table 2: Severity Weighting Systematizations (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024)
Severity Cogswell et al. (2020) Rattay et al. (2018) Scherzinger and Wettstein (2019)
High – High-level classroom
disruption
– Conduct disorders – Aggressive
– Behavioral problems
– Impossibility
– Interruption
low – Low-level classroom
disruption
– Impairment – Nonaggressive
In terms of digital settings, where LFs are located in, so far only one systemization for disrup-
tions exists: e Student Online Misbehavior scale (SOMs) by Li and Titsworth (2015). ey
name four categories for disruptions in a digital classroom: Aggressiveness, lack of communi-
cation, internet slacking, and seeking unallowed assistance. ese categories are expanded by
(Meinokat & Wagner, 2024) with three more categories: Technical errors, operating errors, and
illicit social behavior.
2.2 VocationalEducationinGermanyandLearningFactories
Education systems dier internationally, as do teacher training and school conditions. is
is considered below.
2.2.1 EducationalSysteminGermany
To establish a general understanding of the status of vocational education and vocational
schools in Germany, it is important to have some knowledge of the German education

270 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
system. Since education lies within the responsibility of each of the 16 federal states in Ger-
many, there is no such thing as one singular German educational system (Edelstein, 2013).
Nevertheless, while the forms of the schools and the styles of participation may dier from
state to state, the basic structure remains similar. Generally, vocational schools, referred to
as "Berufsschule" in Germany, are a part of the second half of secondary education, which
is designed to target young people aer their mandatory minimum schooling period. ere
are two main types of vocational schools. e rst type is part of a dual educational system
in which the students are trained mostly in companies, and this perennial education is sup-
ported by blocks of several weeks in which they attend the vocational school for mandatory
additional education. e second type of vocational school is full-time attendance in a parti-
cular school in preparation for the chosen job (Edelstein, 2013). Only vocational schools of
the rst type were included in this study.
2.2.2 VETTeachers
To become a teacher in Germany, multiple career paths exist. Most (future) teachers chose
their (two) subjects to teach and study them at bachelor and consecutive master programs at
university. Aer reaching the master's degree, the teachers enter a preparation phase. During
this phase new teachers are teaching part-time with supervision and as well receive external
training (one day a week). Aer approximately 1.5 years and passing their exam, they become
full teachers. In Addition, even without teacher training at university graduates can apply for
a teacher job in VET according to their profession and will get a pedagogical training during
their beginning phase of their teaching profession (Federal State of Baden-Württemberg,
2024a). ere is also the possibility of a "Seiteneinstieg" for professionals in which persons
can become teachers without being to university before. is is connected to certain con-
ditions and will be guided with pedagogical training as well (Federal State of Baden-Würt-
temberg, 2024b). Although all teachers experience a sort of pedagogical training, due to the
multiple possibilities in becoming a VET teacher, not every teacher is equally prepared for
challenges in their classrooms.
2.2.3 LearningFactories
Since vocational schools are closely linked to students’ training companies, the schools them-
selves and their equipment need to be as close as possible to what the students will actually
encounter in their respective professions (Abele, 2019). e constant change in modern in-
dustrial techniques makes it necessary for schools to adapt their education as well. To achieve
this aim, the federal state of Baden-Württemberg in Germany began to foster the integration
of 16 LFs, "Lernfabriken" in German, into schools in 2016. Two years later, another 21 LFs

271
Meinokat, Wagner
were established. Other vocational schools have set up LFs without state funding (Barthru,
2024). erefore, it is evident that LFs are increasingly being established in vocational schools
to provide students with insight into real production processes as early as possible in their
careers (Abele, 2019). Overall, the focus of LFs lies on learners' acquisition of competencies
and increasing their motivation (Jossberger et al., 2018). erefore, an LF is understood as
"a learning environment specied by processes that are authentic, include multiple stations,
and comprise technical as well as organizational aspects" (Abele, 2019, p. 1027). Learners are
exposed to the complex thinking and programming behind the factory's operations and can
directly practice certain tasks with the available equipment. e LFs implemented in schools
are as dierent as the schools themselves. In general, these replicas of real production faci-
lities are integrated into the school building itself. When it comes to the specic equipment
of the LF, the schools set their priorities according to their prole. What all schools have in
common is that the integrated LFs enable students to access realistic production facilities
within the school building. e factories oen have a modular structure, allowing the teacher
to focus on specic areas of real production chains (Abele, 2019).
Accordingly, LFs comprise a setting that facilitates the successful transfer between school
and professional life, and as Bonnes and Hochholdinger (2020) have highlighted, they pro-
vide the education required for a contemporary apprenticeship. To implement these proces-
ses, the components used in LFs are recognized and processed in real time using technical
identication methods (e.g., Radio Frequency Identication [RFID] codes; Pistorius, 2020).
Furthermore, the modules of an LF are oen provided on digital devices. Also, many parts
of LFs are based on digital communication and use monitors or other peripherals for in- and
output. According to the specic form of LF in schools, other digital parts may also be inte-
grated. erefore, LFs are part of digital settings according to Meinokat and Wagner (2022).
is variety of design options creates didactic leeway for teachers. Teachers can initiate
both instruction-driven and explorative lessons. Prior familiarization with the existing hard-
ware is essential. e didactic setting can be adapted to the requirements of the content and
the learning group within the spatial possibilities of the LF and the time available to the
teachers. erefore, other possibilities are given than compared to settings in a more classical
classroom.
2.3 ResearchGap
Like all other didactical settings, LFs suer from classroom disruptions, which lead to vari-
ous educational disadvantages. is includes a decreased student academic success (Marquez
et al., 2016) when the teaching-learning environment is disrupted. Meinokat and Wagner
(2024) show, that the increased number of digital settings bring up new challenges as well as
new possibilities for teachers. LFs, as a relatively new digital setting inside vocational schools,

272 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
are thus in need of further research to address these issues. As Meinokat and Wagner (2024)
have shown, there is a need for settings outside of the standard classroom to be investigated
in terms of classroom disruptions and how participants deal with them. While some research
has been conducted on both preventive (preceding a disruption) and interventive (following
a disruption) teacher behaviors (Evertson & Emmer, 2013; Lohmann, 2011; Mayr, 2006; Sy-
ring et al., 2013), the ways in which those working in LFs can manage classroom disruptions
has thus far been unexplored (Abele et al., 2015; Cachay et al., 2012; Scheid, 2018; Steen et
al., 2013). Due to their dierentiated design and teachers not being experienced herein, it
should also be assumed that digital-based LFs demonstrate an opportunity for new forms
of disruptions (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024). Considering these issues, in combination with
previous research, the following research questions were formulated:
– RQ1: What types of classroom disruptions occur in LFs?
– RQ2: What preventive and interventive measures do teachers use to deal with
classroom disruptions in LFs?
3 Methods
e lack of research on this topic suggested that a qualitative, exploratory design would be
most appropriate (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Similar research in this area, arguably in the
absence of reference to LFs, shows that the actual impressions of practicing teachers can be
very informative (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024). To gain new insights while maintaining some
exibility (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018), this study relied on semi-standardized, guideline-based
interviews conducted with teachers at vocational schools in the federal state of Baden-Würt-
temberg, Germany, who were actively teaching at LFs.
3.1 Sample
e restriction to vocational schools with learning factories in the state of Baden-Württem-
berg reduces the choice of potential schools for this study. Eligible schools were contacted in
writing and the request was forwarded internally to eligible teachers. Seven of these teachers
agreed to take part in the study and were asked in advance to give their written consent to the
information about the use of the interviews for scientic research and to data protection in
accordance with current legal regulations in Germany.

273
Meinokat, Wagner
Table 3: Overview of Participants
Alias General teaching experience in years LF teaching experience in years
A 25 5
B 20 4
C 14 5
D 12 1
E 20 2
F 9 5
G 11 2
A total of seven teachers were interviewed. e interviews were conducted partly online and
partly face-to-face; all were recorded and transcribed verbatim before the analysis (Hussy et
al., 2013). e transcription was carried out with the aim to maintain the intended meaning
rather than to generate easy-to-read accessibility. A total of 45 pages with 2601 lines of inter-
view transcript were generated out of the approximately four hours of recorded interviews.
Since the interviews were held in German, parts of the transcripts were translated into the
English language by one of the authors and all authors discussed if the intended meaning
was kept during the translation process. Before each interview, all teachers were informed
in detail about the purpose of the interview and gave their consent for further data proces-
sing. Any information that allowed for any conclusions to be drawn about names, schools,
or local characteristics was anonymized. Biographical information was also collected from
the teachers, who received the main questions of the interview in advance to prepare their
responses and to decide for themselves which answers they would like to provide. As a result,
it was hoped that the subject of disruptions could be addressed as openly as possible.
3.2 InterviewGuide
According to Misoch (2015), semi-structured, guideline-based interview protocols are sui-
table for conducting expert interviews. erefore, an interview guide was developed, which
included a set of main questions that aimed to nd answers to the given research questions
and supportive questions that could be used in case additional information was needed. is
allowed for good comparability while simultaneously maintaining the individuality of each
interview (Hussy et al., 2013). Furthermore, there was the possibility of using additional ques-
tions not mentioned in the guide to clarify some of the statements provided by the teachers
if necessary. e same order of questions was maintained throughout all the interviews, and
a simplied version of the guide can be seen in Table 4. As mentioned above, organizational
information, relevant declarations, and socio-demographic information about the teachers
were all provided or obtained prior to the interviews.

274 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
Table 4: Interview Guide
RQ1 Main question:
– What kinds of classroom disruptions are you experiencing in LFs?
Support questions:
– What consequences do classroom disruptions have for the students?
– How do you recognize that your lessons are free of disruptions?
RQ2 Main question:
– How do you act to avoid or react to classroom disruptions during your lessons in LF?
Support questions:
– What strategies do you use to deal with classroom disruptions?
– How do you plan your lessons to avoid disruptive situations?
– How does the LF setting aect classroom disruptions?
3.3 Analysis
A qualitative content analysis in line with Mayring's (2019) specications was carried out using
MAXQDA. rough this process, the aim was to analyze the interviews in a systematic, rule-
based, and theory-driven manner (Mayring, 2019). e ndings drawn from the teachers'
answers were organized according to certain empirical themes (Mayring, 2019). Research has
shown that categories of classroom disruptions in digital settings and the strategies used to deal
with them can be adapted from existing categories employed in research on non-digital settings
(Meinokat & Wagner, 2024). is led to the further assumption that these categories could be
applied to the ndings related to LFs as well. erefore, the fundament of this analysis was a
theory-based category system according to Meinokat and Wagner (2024). During the process,
additional categories were developed inductively. e coding process was repeated until no
further categories were identied. A comparison between literature-based categories and in-
ductively developed will be discussed.
For quality assurance, the focus was on the classic quality criteria recommended by Mayring
(2019). A level of objectivity resulted from the comparability created by the guidelines and an
interview orientation that was always presented in the same way. e evaluation was carried out
systematically, and each step was documented. e consistency of the questions, which were
delivered by the same interviewer, generated good reliability. Good validity was ensured by the
fact that experts in their specialist elds were interviewed, they reported on real situations, the
questions were known in advance, and no evaluation took place during the interviews.

275
Meinokat, Wagner
4 Findings
e results are presented here according to the research questions.
4.1 TypesofClassroomDisruptionsinLearningFactories(RQ1)
A total of 27 disruptions were reported during the interviews. From the point of view of the
teachers interviewed, disruptions could occur both through the behavior of the students and
through the circumstances of the LF itself.
4.1.1 DisruptionsThroughStudentBehavior
In terms of disruptions through student behavior, the teachers viewed certain actions on the
part of students as being disruptive to student success and lesson progression. e most re-
ported classroom disruption in LFs was the (un-) intentional manipulation of hardware (n =
7), where "they think they can swap some plugs or [...] they pull on some power supply plugs
[...] to annoy their classmates, and these are the things that disrupt lessons" (Teacher D, lines
22 – 28). is category also applied to situations in which students would ddle with parts of
the hardware until something broke. In both cases, the student's behavior resulted in some
measure of non-functionality in (parts of) the factory, leaving other students in the situation
of being unable to continue their work.
Almost as oen as manipulation, the teachers reported the disruption of students dealing
with content not related to the current lesson (n = 6). An example for this kind of disruption
was given by Teacher C, who mentioned the unallowed use of smartphones during their
lesson, and how "I always tell them that I don’t want them [...] to do things with their cell
phones [...]. Nevertheless, some do it" (Teacher C, lines 355 – 358). Besides being oen rela-
ted to digital possibilities, like using their smartphones, surng online, or watching videos,
the disruptive behavior from students in this category was not exclusively limited to the con-
nection with digital media and tools, "because when I’m up here at the front, something else
is being done back there" (Teacher C, lines 247 – 248). is "something else" could be for
example reading a piece of paper written by another student.
Disruptions in the category of non-participation (n = 3) could occur in two dierent ways:
Students were either absent entirely or they were present but not participating in the lesson
activities. As one teacher reported, "the main problems are disruptions to lessons such as
[that] they are missing every two or three days" (Teacher D, lines 248 – 250). is state-
ment shows that missing students adversely impact the learning progression intended by the
teacher and were therefore considered a classroom disruption. At the same time, "if one per-
son just sits there quietly and does nothing […] that could also be […] a disruption" (Teacher

276 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
A, lines 178 – 180). In both cases, the teachers maintained that being absent, whether physi-
cally or mentally, disrupted their teaching in LFs.
Disruptive social interaction between students was also mentioned by the teachers (n = 2). In
such cases, the teachers referred to students who were talking to one another or engaging in
social activities that were not appropriate at the moment. For example, "maybe some games
will start again with the table next to you" (Teacher D, lines 196 – 197). Teacher F also men-
tioned that it could be disruptive when students are very talkative.
e was another disruption mentioned by the teachers (n = 2). While the act of stealing
something might not be immediately disruptive if it goes unnoticed, the consequences could
lead to problems. Specically, problems like "when classes are unsupervised, a compressed
air seal is suddenly missing [or] a sensor is missing" (Teacher G, lines 129 – 130) led to the
non-functionality of the LF and therefore to a disrupted classroom.
Teacher A also mentioned tardiness, and that time was limited when learning practically
and within an LF. erefore, "if they arrive late" (Teacher A, line 192), it detracts from the
learning time available to the late student, as well as that aorded to other students in cases
where extra eort is needed to bring the late student back on track.
4.1.2 DisruptionsThroughtheLearningFactorySetting
Teachers described disruptions that arose not only through the students, but also via prob-
lems with the LF setting itself. e biggest problem in their opinion was the total failure of the
entire factory (n = 2), as mentioned by Teacher F (lines 215 – 217): "If it breaks down com-
pletely, then you’re le standing in front of the class, and nothing on […] the learning factory
works". Having planned an entire lesson inside or with the LF and not being able to use it
would require the teacher to alter their entire plan in cases where the LF was not operable.
Not only could a total failure lead to disruptions, but problems could also arise due to
wear and tear happening over time in the LF (n = 2). Teachers described this form of disrup-
tion as inevitable. Generally, it was related to the high number of maintenance requirements
that could be issued and depended on the amount of usage by dierent classes and teachers.
e shared use (n = 1) of the setting was mentioned by Teacher G as another possible
disruption. In this particular example, the LF needed a specic setup to function according
to the teacher’s plan for the students. In such cases, a problem may arise when teachers who
must use the LF shortly aer other learners require a dierent setup. is generates the need
to reset the soware and adjust other features in a short amount of time.
Teacher G also stated that it could sometimes be problematic to ensure that all students
were active at the same time due to infrastructural circumstances (n = 1). Due to the limited
space available, not all students could work in the LF at the same time, which led to extended
periods of time, as in a case where "they [the students] normally need 15 minutes for that

277
Meinokat, Wagner
but they now need one and a half hours in total" (Teacher G, lines 56 – 57) for all students
to nish the task. e loss of time here could detract from the time spent other parts of the
lesson, therefore creating a disruptive situation.
4.2 PreventiveandInterventiveMeasures(RQ2)
Keeping in mind that classroom disruptions lead to missed learning time, the teachers tried
to use preventive strategies to avoid such disturbances. If those disruptions occurred anyway,
the teachers attempted to use interventive strategies to deal with them. Since this led to two
separate sets of possible measures, the ndings are described separately.
4.2.1 Prevention
To prevent classroom disruptions, the teachers used certain strategies. Specically, the
teachers mentioned the following strategies to prevent disruptions in their LF settings: Being
physically present as a teacher, setting rules, having a trustful relationship with the students, ha-
ving good knowledge about the students, eectively arranging the didactical setting, and main-
taining direct communication. e teachers described these strategies in multiple ways, so it
was not possible to quantify the use of the strategies. Teachers mentioning a strategy were
not asked how oen they used them. Instead, the results will show the number of teachers
mentioning a specic way to approach disruptions.
Four teachers (n = 4) mentioned the importance of being physically present as a teacher to
prevent disruptions. is included being in a proximity to potentially disturbing situations as
well as "being a role model and being authentic" (Teacher C, line 74). On the one hand, a close
distance made it possible for the teachers to see possible disruptions before they occurred.
On the other hand, the students were less likely to act out against a set rule when the teacher
was nearby. In fact, such rules were another prevention strategy mentioned by the teachers.
Sometimes, in addition to the already-existing school rules, four teachers reported setting
specic rules for lessons inside an LF. Other teachers mentioned no need for the develop-
ment of new rules just because of the new setting: "Everything is normal. ere are no special
rules" (Teacher G, lines 261 – 262).
Having mutual trust with the students was described as a prevention strategy by four
of the teachers (n = 4). Since the high monetary value and high maintenance costs put the
schools, and therefore the teachers, in the position of having to take special care of the ar-
rangements and provisions in the LF, in some cases, the teachers were tasked with selecting
whom to bring to the LF and whom to leave out. e importance of this selection process
was recognized by the students as well and generated a transparent situation for both sides,
therefore laying the foundation for further trustful interactions. Such prerequisites for being

278 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
selected included "getting to know each other" (Teacher C, line 37) before entering the LF, as
well as earning some opportunities to explore what the LF had to oer (Teacher B).
Knowledge about the students and their abilities was considered crucial for three teachers
(n = 3) to prevent disruptions or damage to the factory. rough this strategy, "excessive
demands can be avoided" (Teacher B, line 217), the motivation could be held up high, and
frustration could be minimized, all leading to an overall more fruitful learning experience
(Teachers A, B, and D). Furthermore, teachers with good knowledge of their students and
their abilities could prepare more eective lessons accordingly. is also mitigated the poten-
tial for teachers' stress as well as students' overload.
Teachers B and C (n = 2) reported on the importance of an adapted and well-thought-
out didactical setting. Such a practice was built partially on good knowledge about the stu-
dents, as well as a strong understanding of the LF itself. With these two factors combined,
the teachers could design their lessons to generate a maximum learning experience while
lowering disruptions to a minimum. e teachers stated that there was not necessarily a
gold standard for teaching in an LF, since many factors came into play, such as the students
and their professions, time and infrastructure, and possible histories between the students
and teachers, among many others. erefore, dedicating time and eort to planning a good
class in an LF setting was an eective strategy for preventing possible classroom disruptions
related to these factors.
While other teachers indirectly implied the use of this strategy as well, two teachers (n
= 2) reported direct communication with the students as an eective means of preventing
disruptions. As soon as they felt that a problem was emerging, Teachers C and F sought to
establish a bilateral dialogue with the possible troublemaker. rough this process, potential
disruptions could be avoided before they aected other students, in which case there would
have been a need for a bigger intervention.
4.2.2 Intervention
e teachers described several strategies for dealing with classroom disruptions in LFs as
they occurred. Among all the mentioned measures, the teachers emphasized the importance
of being persistent and demonstrating stringency:
You just have to keep pointing it out and insisting on the rules you want, and then it usually
works out. Of course, if you get sloppy, then they'll quickly get on your back. at can also happen.
(Teacher F, lines 183 – 186)
All the teachers in this study were working with students who were trained primarily in
their respective companies and were only partially educated in vocational schools. erefore,
the most important points of contact for these students involved the companies and their

279
Meinokat, Wagner
instructors. As one intervention strategy, ve of the seven teachers mentioned the possibility
of getting in contact with the companies and reporting on the students' misbehavior. Since this
could lead to even more problems for the students in terms of their job, this strategy was seen
as highly eective by Teachers A, C, D, F, and G.
On a solely school-based level, four of the teachers made use of the possibility of (tem-
porarily) excluding students from the LF if they considered it necessary. Not only did this
make a visible statement to other students in the class, but it was also a situation that the
students did not want to experience because they would lose their privilege of being in the
LF. As Teacher B reported, if a particular student was disruptive, "then he can go […]. I won't
need him in the learning factory anymore, and he won't like that either because he’ll know
he’ll be excluded from it all" (Teacher B, lines 245 – 248).
Before escalating the disruption to an exclusion, four teachers chose the verbal interven-
tion as a direct strategy, although this was understood implicitly as being exercised by all the
teachers interviewed. Based on their personalities, the teachers met their students on die-
rent social levels. Personal contact or the use of irony in dealing with classroom disruptions
were possible approaches, for example. Behavioral changes on both sides played an impor-
tant role here, as this aorded both the students and teachers the opportunity to revise their
own behaviors in such challenging situations. Such an approach can be seen as connected to
the preventive strategy of the teachers’ establishing relationships of trust with their classes, as
well as maintaining direct communication:
[In such a situation,] I go over to them, and then I’m interested in what they're doing. And when
they switch o, then I say, " at's unfair", then I want to see what they've done. [...] I really say,
"No matter what it was, bring it on again", and then we watch it, and then I ask them why they
didn't do that [what they are supposed to do] now. If it's something interesting, we also talk about
it for two or three minutes. (Teacher C, lines 316 – 324)
5 Discussion
e results show how the special setting of the LF aected classroom disruptions and the
teachers' behavior toward them. e explorative character of the study and the impressions
of the teachers have given rise to further insights, which is presented here in the same order
as the ndings.
5.1 TypesofClassroomDisruptionsinLearningFactories
e classroom disruptions mentioned by the teachers are consistent with current denitions
of the term, such as those proposed by Lohmann (2011) and Stockton University (2001).
With reference to the work of Wilbers (2007), it can further be conrmed that classroom

280 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
disruptions in LFs have the same impact on the learning process as disruptions that occur in
other settings. Since LFs are embedded in vocational school settings, this should come with
no surprise.
e investigation of this special setting shows, for the rst time, that there is a connec-
tion between LFs and other classroom settings that oer a somewhat non-standard envi-
ronment for delivering lessons. Specically, the mentioned disruptions could sometimes be
transferred from/to other classroom settings or subjects. For example, the intentional ma-
nipulation of hardware, wear and tear, and the problem of a total operational failure can be
found in computer science classes, and issues with the shared use of resources can be found
in the education of STEM subjects. As mentioned before, the existing research by Li and
Titsworth (2015) is modied by Meinokat and Wagner (2024) identifying a total of seven
categories of classroom disruptions in digital teaching environments: Aggressiveness, lack of
communication, internet slacking, seeking unallowed assistance, technical errors, operating er-
rors, and illicit social behavior. Almost all the categories of disruptions mentioned in this
study can be sorted into this systemization, which further conrms its applicability (Table 5).
Table 5: Linking the Categories Found in is Study With the Current State of Research
Category of classroom disruption in this study Corresponding category from the literature
(Un-) Intentional manipulation Operating error
Dealing with content unrelated to the lesson Illicit social behavior / internet slacking
Non-participation Lack of communication
Disruptive social interaction Illicit social behavior
e Illicit social behavior
Tardiness Illicit social behavior
Total failure Technical error
Wear and tear Technical error
Shared use Technical error / operating error
e literature-based categories aggressiveness and seeking unallowed assistance (Li & Tits-
worth, 2015) were not represented in the interviews. A conclusion that those kinds of dis-
ruptions were not part of disruptions in LFs would be wrong. Rather this indicates that the
interviewed teachers were not able to remember and report them.
Looking from the other side, the only category mentioned by a teacher in this study that
could not be related to an existing category in literature was that of problematic infrastructure.
Described by the teacher as a problem with space and time that could be attributed to the
circumstances of a school's layout and location, this disruption is not necessarily correlated
with the behavior of an individual participant. Rather, it highlights a structural problem that
is beyond the control of both the teachers and students. A similar category for this type

281
Meinokat, Wagner
of disruption would be a technical error, since their occurrence cannot be attributed to the
teachers or students, but rather to technological problems that were not thought of or dealt
with beforehand. Accordingly, this study shows that there is a separation between disruptions
based on human behavior and interaction and those caused by external conditions. Table
6 shows how the existing research relates to this new separation, based on the disruptions
reported in this study.
Table 6: Separation of Classroom Disruptions
Classroom disruptions caused by human behavior or interaction Classroom disruptions caused by external aspects
Lack of communication Technical errors
Internet slacking Infrastructure problems
Operating errors
Illicit social behavior
Technical errors and infrastructure problems are caused by external conditions, while the
other categories are associated with human behavior or interaction. With this expansion of
the current state of research, this study opens up new questions about the ways in which
classroom disruptions in digital settings can be dealt with. Can teachers only prevent or in-
tervene in disruptions caused by human factors? How is the didactic preparation of teachers
linked to the external factors of disruption? Are school administrators and education poli-
cymakers responsible for or able to counter teaching disruptions at an infrastructural level?
Further research is needed to answer each of these questions.
5.2 PreventiveandInterventiveMeasuresinLearningFactories
Elsewhere, teachers have shared the opinion that prevention is more important than inter-
vention when it comes to disruption-free teaching (Kounin, 2006; Lohmann, 2011). is
statement is supported by the fact that the teachers in the present study mentioned more pre-
ventive strategies to deal with classroom disruptions in their LFs than interventive strategies
(Chapter 4, Sections 2.1 and 2.2). While generally, the dierence between these strategies was
not very large, the teachers seemed to be very careful with their choice of students to bring to
the LFs, keeping in mind the high monetary value of the factory, as well as the possibility of
working in this setting being viewed as a privilege.
Regarding the types of classroom disruptions within LFs, it became clear that the stra-
tegies used to deal with them, both preventive and interventive, seemed to be transferred
from other (partially digital) settings. erefore, it is imaginable that the strategies used by
the teachers in the LFs were also used before in lessons that were not held in these settings.

282 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
According to the teachers interviewed in this study, there was a certain simplicity to im-
plementing instruction in the new learning environment of the LF based on the teachers'
existing repertoire of actions, as well as in implementing and adapting already-existing
strategies for dealing with classroom disruptions in this new classroom setting. is goes
along with current research on teachers' strategies for managing classroom disruptions
in digital settings (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024). It can further be conrmed that teachers
are capable of choosing the right strategy according to their respective personalities to
eectively deal with a certain situation (Lohmann, 2011). erefore, LFs, as a digital set-
ting in vocational education, can be integrated easily into the teachers' repertoire if the
school itself is willing to invest in such a setting. Such investment would support the need
expressed by the teachers to ensure that digitalization is an integrational part of their daily
work (Meinokat & Wagner, 2024).
Furthermore, it is striking that the relationship of trust between the students and
teachers was addressed so frequently during the interviews. It can be assumed that LFs,
due to their special equipment, high monetary value, and high maintenance requirements,
increase the demands for good behavior on the part of the students, which means that
teachers may only want to work with learning groups that they trust. Among other factors,
learners may develop trust through fewer disruptions in previous lessons, which means
that fewer disruptions should be expected in the LF. For the students, there is a possibility
to not participate in the LF which may also makes the lessons appear more interesting,
and research shows that interesting lesson designs can themselves prevent disruptions
(Mayr, 2006). It may thus be worthwhile to make interdisciplinary comparisons with other
digitally-based teaching formats and to include the aspect of motivation in such conside-
rations. Furthermore, the distinctive inuence of special settings and their connection to
the amount and severity of disruptions would be valuable to consider, as the LF setting
here gives a clear indicator that this change in setting was signicant. As a result of these
insights, this study shows that there is a need for research into more special settings, as well
as comparisons between more traditional settings.
e mention of expulsion as a possible strategy to intervene in classroom disruptions
stands in contrast to those strategies that aim at establishing a positive learning climate
and mutual trust. Since the teachers reported this as a sort of ultima ratio, and research
shows that expulsion can have a negative impact on student behavior (Russell & Rausch,
2015), the use of this measure in LFs is as questionable here as it is in other settings. At
the same time, it conrms the ndings of Rattay et al. (2018) and Cogswell et al. (2020),
both of whom based their research on a form of escalation process, choosing the impact of
classroom disruptions according to their severity. e strategies mentioned by the teachers
reect this escalation process, wherein approaches like verbal intervention are located at
the lower end of the severity scale and expulsion on the higher end. Linking the chosen

283
Meinokat, Wagner
strategy and its severity to the encountered disruptions and their impact on the class seems
like a productive approach for teachers to maintain a smooth-running lesson. Systemiza-
tions like those provided by Meinokat and Wagner (2024) may therefore be helpful for
teachers to decide how impactful their strategy has to be to deal with certain situations.
6 LimitationsandFutureResearch
It should be noted that the study presented here is of a highly explorative character. is can
be seen in the limited number of participants. Due to the limited number of qualied schools
and teachers having an LF, the number of possible interviewees was necessarily limited. is
could lead to missing ndings. A possible example for this is the absence of reported disrup-
tions in the literature-based categories aggressiveness and seeking unallowed assistance. Based
on the answers given by the teachers, it can be assumed that an appropriate saturation level is
reached but an increased number of participants could further improve the ndings.
Findings to RQ2 show limitations in the quantication of answers. Given the explorative
character of this study, the interview-guide and the questions within should be considered
for revaluation in future research. Using more support questions during an interview could
create more precise ndings, but of course, they should not be suggestive.
e topic of classroom disruptions is sensitive for some teachers, since they do not want
to talk about the rather unpleasant aspects of their teaching. is may have contributed to the
fact that only a small number of teachers agreed to take part in the study. Future studies could
reconsider the approach. Nevertheless, those teachers who were willing to participate were
highly transparent about their teaching, and as a result, the ndings of this study provide a
reliable and important baseline. Accordingly, this study should be considered the rst step
in a new area of inquiry. Nevertheless, voluntary participation in the interview study cannot
rule out the fact that perhaps only teachers with positive preferences regarding the LFs made
themselves available. Hence, the results cannot be considered representative. A larger num-
ber of participants is needed to obtain more varied and in-depth insights. is also raises the
possibility of taking other methodological approaches to the subject. In the future, the ques-
tion may arise as to whether LFs in this form will continue to increase at vocational schools
or whether smaller, cheaper, and more mobile alternatives will nd their way into this con-
text. Irrespective of such a development, research on LFs, with a special focus on classroom
management and classroom disruptions, provides a basis for decisions on future forms of
settings. On this foundation, future research can take a closer look at the specic features
of high-quality teaching in LFs. To achieve this aim, it would be particularly interesting to
obtain the students’ perspectives, as research in this eld and on classroom management in
general is already very teacher oriented.

284 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
Another interesting fact arising from the ndings of the study and their discussion is the
connection between classroom settings and experienced disruptions. Since connections
between, for example, computer science classes and LF settings can demonstrate similar dis-
ruptions, such as intentional manipulation, it is likely that other settings have similarities
as well. Special settings like physical education in gyms, natural science education in labo-
ratories, or extracurricular activities outside the school may share similarities and exhibit
key dierences from more standard classroom settings like those suited to mathematics or
language education. Further research is needed. is also applies to the separation of hu-
man and external factors that contribute to classroom disruptions in digital settings, and the
connection between special settings like LFs and the appeal to classroom management for
certain settings.
e ndings show that teachers adapt their existing strategies more than invent new stra-
tegies to deal with disruptions. is opens the question if teachers are not yet using digital
settings to their full potential in terms of new ideas and solutions or if digital settings are not
generating such possibilities. It could be assumed that teachers need more external perspec-
tives, for example in form of teacher trainings, to widen their horizon in possibilities of new
digital settings.
7 Conclusion
LFs, which can be considered a digital setting due to their digital components (Meinokat &
Wagner, 2022), represent a special learning environment that is especially suited to meet the
growing demands of education and digitization (European Union, 2020; Kultusministerkon-
ferenz, 2021). ese expensive systems, which involve a great deal of organizational eort,
represent real existing process and production chains in industry and enable vocational stu-
dents to gather practical experience in the school environment, which prepares them for
their later work. With reference to this special status, this study examined the occurrence of
classroom disruptions and the preventive and interventive approaches to addressing these
disruptions. e teachers from vocational schools in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, who
were interviewed in this partially standardized, guideline-based interview study, all taught
in LFs. e results show that all the actors involved were aware of their special status. In
extending existing research, this study shows that classroom disruptions can be based on
more than just human factors. In considering LFs as digital settings, external factors come
into play as well, which pose distinctive challenges to teachers with respect to their didactical
preparations. e teachers interviewed optimized their patterns and strategies for teaching in
LFs based on their experiences in other learning settings; in doing so, they enabled optimal
learning success for the students, and, at the same time, by averting potential destruction,
they protected the monetary value of the LF. e prevention and intervention strategies were

285
Meinokat, Wagner
based on an escalation process that is linked to the severity of the disruption. In general, it
was found that established classroom disruptions systemizations from other digital settings
can be applied to LFs; thus, LFs, as new learning environments in vocational schools, do
not require a particular classroom management style. It seems that the style teachers use to
manage their classrooms depends more on the teacher's personality than on the subject and
is just adapted situationally. Classroom management practices from other didactical settings
can be applied in LFs as well. Teachers and their ongoing adaptation of strategies can use
ndings of this study to evaluate their own lessons. Furthermore, being able to systemize
experienced disruptions and prioritize strategies accordingly creates space for other aspects
of classroom management that teachers can deal with.
References
Abele, E. (2019). Learning factory. In S. Chatti, L. Laperrière, G. Reinhart & T. Tolio (Eds.),
CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering (pp. 1027–1031). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53120-4_16828
Abele, E., Metternich, J., Tisch, M., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., ElMaraghy, H., Hummel, V., &
Ranz, F. (2015). Learning factories for research, education, and training. Procedia CIRP, 32, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.187
Barthru, T. (2024). Industrie 4.0 an die Schulen bringen [Bringing industry 4.0 to schools]. Ministe-
rium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. https://lernfabrik.kultus-bw.de/Startseite
Biller, K. (1979). Unterrichtsstörungen [Classroom disruptions] (1. Au.). Klett.
Bonnes, C., & Hochholdinger, S. (2020). Approaches to teaching in professional training: A qualitative
study. Vocations and Learning, 13(3), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09244-2
Byo, J. L., & Sims, W. L. (2015). Classroom management in music education. In E. T. Emmer (Ed.),
Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed., pp. 220–238). Routledge.
Cachay, J., Wennemer, J., Abele, E., & Tenberg, R. (2012). Study on action-oriented learning
with a learning factory approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 1144–1153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.608
Cogswell, S., Carr, A., Abbott, N., & Monks, C. P. (2020). e development and validation of a teacher-
reported low-level classroom disruption scale (LLCD-S). Emotional and Behavioural Diculties,
25(3–4), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2020.1816651
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). e SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5.). SAGE.
Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2017). Investigating the eect of technology use in education on
classroom management within the scope of the FATİH Project. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fa-
kültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.303511
Edelstein, B. (2013). Das Bildungssystem in Deutschland [e german education system]. Bundeszen-
trale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/themen/bildung/dossier-bildung/163283/das-
bildungssystem-in-deutschland/
European Union. (2020). Digital education action plan 2021-2027. In Re-
setting education and training for the digital age. European Union.
https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/digital-education-action-plan

286 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (2013). Classroom management for elementary teachers (9. ed.). Pear-
son.
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a eld of inquiry. In C. M.
Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
Fasshauer, U., Wilbers, K., & Windelband, L. (2021). Lernfabriken: Ein Zukunsmodell für die be-
ruiche Bildung? [Learning factories: A future model for vocational training?]. In K. Wilbers &
L. Windelband (Eds.), Lernfabriken an beruichen Schulen. Gewerblich-technische und kaufmän-
nische Perspektiven [Learning factories at vocational schools. Industrial-technical and commercial
perspectives] (pp. 15–48). epubli.
Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2015). Teachers who le the teaching profession: A qualitative un-
derstanding. e Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1601
Hussy, W., Schreier, M., & Echterho, G. (2013). Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissen-
schaen für Bachelor [Research methods in psychology and social sciences for bachelor]. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34362-9
Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., van de Wiel, M. W. J., & Boshuizen, H. (2018). Learning in work-
place simulations in vocational education: A student perspective. Vocations and Learning, 11(2),
179–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9186-7
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. e British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344
Kounin, J. S. (2006). Techniken der Klassenführung [Classroom management techniques] (Vol. 3).
Waxmann.
Kultusministerkonferenz. (2021). Lehren und Lernen in der digitalen Welt [Teaching and learning in
the digital world]. Die ergänzende Empfehlung zur Strategie "Bildung in der digitalen Welt". KMK.
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2021/2021_12_09-Lehren-
und-Lernen-Digi.pdf
Li, L., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Student misbehaviors in online classrooms: sca-
le development and validation. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.994360
Little, E. (2005). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of students’ problem behaviours. Educational
Psychology, 25(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500041516
Lohmann, G. (2011). Mit Schülern klarkommen [Getting along with students] (8. rev.). Cornelsen.
Marquez, B., Vincent, C., Marquez, J., Pennefather, J., Smolkowski, K., & Sprague, J. (2016). Opportu-
nities and challenges in training elementary school teachers in classroom management: Initial re-
sults from classroom management in action, an online professional development program. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(1), 87–109.
Martin, N. K., Schafer, N. J., McClowry, S., Emmer, E. T., Brekelmans, M., Mainhard, T., & Wubbels, T.
(2016). Expanding the denition of classroom management: Recurring themes and new concep-
tualizations. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 51(1), 31–41.
Mayr, J. (2006). Klassenführung auf der Sekundarstufe II: Strategien und Muster erfolgrei-
chen Lehrerhandelns [Classroom management at secondary level II: Strategies and pat-
terns of successful teacher action]. Swiss Journal of Educational Research, 28(2), 227–242.
https://doi.org/10.24452/sjer.28.2.4726

287
Meinokat, Wagner
Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum Quali-
tative Sozialforschung, 20(16), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343
Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (2022). Causes, prevention, and interventions regarding classroom dis-
ruptions in digital teaching: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4),
4657–4684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10795-7
Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (2024). Classroom disruptions in digital teaching during the pandemic – an
interview study. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1335249. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1335249
Misoch, S. (2015). Qualitative Interviews. Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Pfeier, S., Nicklich, M., & Blank, M. (2022). Ausbildungspersonal im Fokus 2021 [Training sta in fo-
cus 2021]. https://wap.igmetall.de/docs_FAU_-_Ausbilder_innenstudie__2022__f8161b3a1a38f-
9ccbf2c0f4ce500422dd3100804.pdf
Pistorius, J. (2020). Industrie 4.0—Schlüsseltechnologien Für Die Produktion [Industry 4.0—key tech-
nologies for production]. Springer.
Rajendran, N., Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2020). Teacher burnout and turnover intent. e
Australian Educational Researcher, 47(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00371-x
Rattay, C., Schneider, J., Wensing, R., & Wilkes, O. (2018). Unterrichtsstörungen souverän meistern
[Master classroom disruptions condently] (5. ed.). Auer.
Russell, J. S., & Rausch, M. K. (2015). Reconsidering exclusionary discipline: e ecacy and equity
of out-of-school suspension and expulsion. In E. T. Emmer (Ed.), Handbook of classroom manage-
ment (2. ed., pp. 116–138). Routledge.
Scheid, R. (2018). Learning factories in vocational schools. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Di-
gital workplace learning (pp. 271–289). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46215-8_15
Scherzinger, M., & Wettstein, A. (2019). Classroom disruptions, the teacher-student relati-
onship and classroom management from the perspective of teachers, students and exter-
nal observers: A multimethod approach. Learning Environments Research, 22(1), 101–116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9269-x
Steen, M., Frye, S., & Deuse, J. (2013). Vielfalt Lernfabrik [Diversity learning factory]. Werkstattstech-
nik Online Jahrgang, 103, 233–239.
Stockton University. (2001). Classroom disruption protocol. Stockton University.
https://stockton.edu/dean-of-students/documents/Classroom-Disruption-v2.pdf
Syring, M., Reuschling, A., Bohl, T., Kleinknecht, M., Kuntze, S., & Rehm, M. (2013). Classroom-
Management lehren und lernen [Teaching and learning classroom management]. In R. Arnold, C.
Gómez Tutor & C. Menzer (Eds.), Didaktik im Fokus [Didactics in focus]. Tagung ... 2012 an der TU
Kaiserslautern (pp. 75–91). Schneider-Verlag.
Wilbers, K. (2007). Klassenführung in beruichen Schulen: Honung auf ein einfaches Miteinander
in schwierigen Zeiten [Classroom management in vocational schools: Hope for easy cooperation
in dicult times]. Wirtscha & Erziehung, 59, 347–351.
Winkel, R. (2011). Der gestörte Unterricht [e disrupted lesson] (10. ed). Schneider Verlag.

288 Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factories
BiographicalNotes
Pierre Meinokat, M.Ed., is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Karlsruhe Ins-
titute of Technology (KIT), Institute for School Pedagogy and Didactics (ISD). Since com-
pleting his Master of in the subjects of physical education, computer science and educational
science, he has been working on the topic of classroom disruption. With digitalization as
a connecting element, his interdisciplinary research is intended for both prospective and
practicing teachers. e ndings of his research are currently being incorporated into the
further training of teachers in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Ingo Wagner, Dr phil., works as Full Professor of Sport Pedagogy, Sport Sociology and Health
Education at the University of Freiburg, Germany. He formerly led the department of In-
terdisciplinary Didactics at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Ingo Wagner strives to
actively shape the future of education through innovative perspectives. e central starting
point for this is his research on didactic designs of teaching-learning processes in order
to further develop teacher training in the course of studies, in teacher traineeships and in
schools.