A growing body of research documents the effectiveness of classroom management programs on a range of student outcomes, yet few early-career teachers receive training on these practices prior to entering the classroom. Moreover, few studies have attended to how variations in teacher distress or level of classroom misbehavior affects training benefits. This study reports findings from a randomized trial of a teacher training program that combined two evidence-based programs (Good Behavior Game [GBG] and MyTeachingPartner™ [MTP]) to determine their impact on novice teachers and their students. In addition, the current study reports findings on moderated impacts by initial teacher distress as well as the overall classroom level of misbehavior. The sample included 188 early-career teachers (grades K-3) in their first three years of teaching from three large, urban school districts. Analyses indicated that intervention had no main effects, but yielded moderated impact depending on the combination of the baseline levels of classroom disruptive behavior and teacher distress; it appears that the program impacts were greatest in the highest risk circumstance (i.e., high teacher stress and elevated challenging student behaviors). For those classrooms, those assigned to intervention evidence improved behavior and student achievement compared to control counterparts by the spring of the training year, relative to the fall baseline (d = 0.18–0.70 depending on outcome). This study is significant in that it highlights effects during a critical window of training and coaching for early career teachers and the need to consider teacher and classroom contextual factors that may moderate professional development efforts.

越来越多的研究记录了课堂管理计划对一系列学生成果的有效性，但很少有早期职业教师在进入课堂之前接受过这些实践的培训。此外，很少有研究关注教师压力或课堂不当行为水平的变化如何影响培训效益。本研究报告了一项教师培训计划随机试验的结果，该计划结合了两个循证计划（良好行为游戏 [GBG] 和 MyTeachingPartner™ [MTP]），以确定它们对新手教师及其学生的影响。此外，当前的研究报告了关于初始教师压力的缓和影响以及整体课堂不当行为水平的调查结果。样本包括来自三个大型城市学区的 188 名早期职业教师（K-3 年级），他们在他们的前三年教学中。分析表明，干预没有主效应，但产生了适度的影响，这取决于课堂破坏行为和教师压力的基线水平；在最高风险的情况下（即高教师压力和高挑战性的学生行为），该计划的影响似乎最大。对于那些教室，相对于秋季基线，那些被分配到干预措施的教室与对照组相比，在培训年春季之前改善了行为和学生成绩。但取决于课堂破坏行为和教师压力的基线水平的结合，产生了适度的影响；在最高风险的情况下（即高教师压力和高挑战性的学生行为），该计划的影响似乎最大。对于那些教室，相对于秋季基线，那些被分配到干预措施的教室与对照组相比，在培训年春季之前改善了行为和学生成绩。但取决于课堂破坏行为和教师压力的基线水平的结合，产生了适度的影响；在最高风险的情况下（即高教师压力和高挑战性的学生行为），该计划的影响似乎最大。对于那些教室，相对于秋季基线，那些被分配到干预措施的教室与对照组相比，在培训年春季之前改善了行为和学生成绩。d  = 0.18–0.70，取决于结果）。这项研究具有重要意义，因为它强调了早期职业教师培训和辅导的关键窗口期间的影响，以及考虑可能会缓和专业发展努力的教师和课堂背景因素的必要性。