Next Article in Journal
Correction: Ma et al. (2025). Knowledge Mapping of Geography Examinations in Chinese National Entrance Examination to Universities: Insights from Four Decades of Research. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1423
Previous Article in Journal
Taking Care: A GloCal Service-Learning Experience with Teacher and Parent Education in Northeast Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/educsci15121653
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Profiles of Classroom Management Across Five Countries: A Person-Centered Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data

by
Célia Oliveira
1 and
João Lopes
2,*
1
HEI-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Lab, Lusófona University, 4000-098 Porto, Portugal
2
School of Psychology, University of Minho, 4710-05 Braga, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 1653; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121653
Submission received: 4 November 2025 / Revised: 2 December 2025 / Accepted: 4 December 2025 / Published: 7 December 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Classroom management is a crucial aspect of effective teaching. However, little is known about how teachers’ approaches vary across countries. This study identified classroom management profiles using data from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey in five countries: Brazil, Canada (Alberta), Japan, Portugal, and South Africa. We applied latent class analysis (LCA) to four behavioral indicators, testing structural invariance and exploring associations with teacher characteristics and cultural dimensions. Three profiles emerged: Rule-Enforcing, Rule-Balanced, and Rule-Avoidant, which were structurally invariant across countries but varied in prevalence. Rule-Enforcing teachers reported the highest classroom management self-efficacy, whereas Rule-Avoidant teachers reported the lowest, with differences also observed in instructional and engagement efficacy. Cross-national variation in profile prevalence aligned descriptively with Hofstede’s cultural values, suggesting that cultural context shapes how universal management dimensions are enacted. These findings support the notion that classroom management is a universal construct shaped by significant national and cultural specificities.

1. Introduction

Classroom management is a crucial aspect of effective teaching and learning. It includes teachers’ strategies to establish order, maintain student engagement, and create conditions for academic achievement (Chen et al., 2020; Doyle, 1986; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). Effective classroom management has consistently been linked to higher student motivation, improved academic outcomes, and reduced disruptive behavior (Duan et al., 2024; Granger et al., 2025; Kwok, 2023; Perera et al., 2022; Scott, 2021). Conversely, classroom management difficulties are associated with teacher stress, burnout, and attrition (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017; Wartenberg et al., 2023).
Research further highlights that teachers’ beliefs about how instruction and discipline must be conducted are central to the enactment of management (Wei, 2025; Wang et al., 2024). Moreover, since authority in the classroom is relational, it depends on whether teachers believe they can manage behavior effectively and make students accept the teacher’s legitimacy (Boström, 2023; Weitkämper, 2024). When such beliefs are absent, behavioral problems are more likely to escalate. Altogether, these dynamics highlight the significance of perceived control and self-efficacy in shaping classroom practices (Bandura, 1991; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Importantly, classroom management is also shaped by cultural context. What constitutes effective management may vary depending on national values related to authority, discipline, and interpersonal relations (Chiu & Chow, 2011; Shimahara, 2014; Wubbels, 2011). Cross-national evidence on classroom management remains limited, but the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) provides robust, comparable data on teachers’ practices, beliefs, and working conditions. Building on TALIS 2018, this study identifies latent profiles of classroom management across five education systems—Alberta (Canada), Brazil, Japan, Portugal, and South Africa—and tests their invariance across these systems. We also examine associations with teacher experience, self-efficacy, and cultural frameworks, integrating person-centered methodology with cross-cultural theory to advance understanding of management as a universal and contextually situated phenomenon.

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Classroom Management

Classroom management has long been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct involving establishing rules and routines, preventing and redirecting misbehavior, and creating an effective learning environment (Doyle, 1986; Emmer & Evertson, 1981; Kounin, 1970). Kounin’s model, for instance, highlights proactive strategies such as withitness, overlapping, and momentum as key to effective management. More recent frameworks distinguish between authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive classroom control styles, paralleling research on parenting (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Žerak et al., 2024). These distinctions align with dimensions such as structure, responsiveness, and emotional support, which also feature prominently in the profiles identified in the present study.
Classical classroom management models posit that a teacher’s role comprises two fundamental dimensions: behavior management and instruction (Doyle, 1986; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). The first supports the second; both are essential to promoting student learning (Duan et al., 2024; Fischer et al., 2020; Granger et al., 2025). Consequently, they should be understood as instrumental rather than ends in themselves. These models further propose that the effectiveness of a teacher’s management efforts depends on the dynamic interaction between these dimensions and, crucially, on the teacher’s ability to prioritize instruction—meaning the capacity to devote more time to teaching than to managing behavior (Perera et al., 2022; Scott, 2021).
Although teachers are, by definition, granted a degree of authority necessary to manage the classroom, for this authority to translate into effective control that supports learning, two conditions must be fulfilled: students must acknowledge the teacher’s authority, and teachers must believe that (1) student behavior is manageable and (2) they are capable of managing it (Boström, 2023; Weitkämper, 2024). When either of these beliefs is absent, problematic behavior is more likely to emerge. Clarifying this dual role requires examining how teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to manage classrooms shape their ability to balance instructional goals with behavioral regulation. In this regard, one aspect that remains relatively underexplored in the literature is whether teachers’ beliefs and behaviors regarding classroom control vary across countries (Hu, 2024; Liu & Feng, 2015).
Classroom management is also not a culturally neutral construct. Cross-national variation in how teachers define and enact authority, structure, and control suggests that these dimensions are shaped by deeper cultural values (Shimahara, 2014; Wubbels, 2011). Large-scale international assessments—such as the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)—now enable the development of robust cross-cultural comparisons, providing valuable insights into commonalities and culturally specific patterns in classroom practices.
Based on these assumptions, the present study explores the associations between perceived classroom control and teachers’ demographic characteristics across five countries from five different continents (Alberta (Canada), Brazil, Japan, Portugal, and South Africa). The analysis was based on data from TALIS 2018 and integrated Hofstede et al. (2010) cultural dimensions to examine classroom management practices. This approach treats classroom management not only as a pedagogical construct but also as one embedded within broader cultural systems that shape beliefs about control, authority, and interpersonal relations.

1.1.2. Teachers’ Classroom Behavior Across Countries

Although some research has explored how educational systems shape teachers’ classroom behavior, empirical cross-country studies remain relatively scarce, often focusing on single-country contexts (e.g., Chiu & Klassen, 2010; Liu & Feng, 2015). Large-scale surveys such as TALIS now provide an opportunity for more systematic comparisons.
To interpret cultural variation, we draw on Hofstede’s framework, which distinguishes six dimensions of cultural values, including power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede et al., 2010). Despite criticisms regarding methodological limitations and assumptions of cultural uniformity (McSweeney, 2002; Taras et al., 2010), Hofstede’s indices remain widely used and are available for nearly all countries, making them a pragmatic, albeit imperfect, choice for cross-national comparison. Table 1 reports the cultural scores for the five education systems in our study.
The results suggest cross-country differences that may help explain variation in classroom management styles. For instance, Portugal and Japan score high on uncertainty avoidance, indicating a preference for structure and predictability, whereas Canada exhibits low power distance and high individualism, suggesting more participatory approaches. Brazil and South Africa display intermediate profiles, combining hierarchical tendencies with relational flexibility.
Complementary approaches—such as Schwartz’s (1992, 2010) theory of universal values and the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004)—offer more dynamic perspectives by emphasizing motivational continua and distinguishing cultural values from practices. However, their indices do not fully cover the education systems selected for this study.
Building on a cross-country framework, it is reasonable to expect that teachers’ beliefs about authority, autonomy, and behavioral expectations—key components of perceived classroom control—may vary across national contexts and influence how teachers manage their classrooms and experience their professional roles.
Perceived control, the belief in one’s capacity to influence events and outcomes, has been linked to teachers’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being. Theoretical models, such as Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008), Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1985, 1993), and Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991, 2006), provide useful frameworks for interpreting these associations. Conversely, low perceived control has been associated with increased stress and burnout, particularly when misbehavior is frequent or persistent (Klassen et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). These theoretical models suggest that when teachers perceive greater control over their classrooms, they will likely experience a stronger sense of professional efficacy, higher job satisfaction, and lower emotional exhaustion.
The link between classroom management and teacher outcomes can be further interpreted through the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Admiraal & Kittelsen Røberg, 2023; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; De Carlo et al., 2019). This model posits that professional well-being results from balancing job demands (e.g., managing disruptive behavior) and job resources (e.g., perceived self-efficacy, autonomy). Profiles characterized by high structure and control (e.g., Rule-Enforcing) may offer protective resources that buffer the impact of behavioral demands. In contrast, low-structure profiles (e.g., Rule-Avoidant) may lack such buffers, increasing the risk of burnout or emotional exhaustion (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015).
While most studies rely on variable-centred approaches—focusing on average associations between classroom practices and outcomes—person-centred approaches such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA) allow researchers to identify qualitatively distinct profiles of classroom management behavior, offering a more nuanced understanding of how patterns of practice relate to context and teacher outcomes.
The present study addresses literature gaps by adopting a person-centred approach—latent class analysis (LCA)—to identify such profiles and explore their associations with teachers’ background characteristics, professional outcomes, and national cultural context. In addition to identifying latent profiles, it is also important to examine whether the underlying class structure is comparable across countries. Given likely cross-country and systemic differences, testing for structural invariance of the latent profiles enables us to assess whether similar classroom management patterns emerge across diverse educational contexts or whether country-specific configurations prevail.
The study has the following objectives:
(1)
To identify latent profiles of teachers’ classroom management practices across five participating countries in TALIS 2018: Brazil, Canada (Alberta), Japan, Portugal, and South Africa. Four TALIS 2018 indicators are considered: controlling disruptive behavior, clarifying expectations, getting students to follow rules, and calming disruptive students.
(2)
Using covariates, examine whether profiles differ as a function of the teacher’s country of origin and teaching experience.
(3)
To explore whether latent profiles are associated with teacher-reported outcomes, such as self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being.
(4)
To test the invariance of the latent class structure across five countries, from five different continents, with distinct educational traditions.
(5)
To explore descriptively whether national scores on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are associated with the relative prevalence of classroom management profiles across countries.

2. Materials and Methods

The theoretical frameworks outlined earlier—including classical classroom management models (e.g., Doyle, 1986; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions—inform the design of the present study. These perspectives underscore the importance of control, structure, and relational dynamics in shaping teachers’ beliefs and behaviors. Accordingly, a person-centred approach was adopted to identify distinct profiles of classroom management practices, and covariates and distal outcomes were selected to reflect theoretically relevant constructs such as professional experience, cultural context, and perceived self-efficacy.
To identify meaningful patterns in how teachers manage their classrooms, we employed latent class analysis (LCA). This method groups individuals based on similarities in their responses, enabling us to uncover distinct profiles of classroom management practices that are not directly observable. In this study, LCA helped reveal how teachers from different countries align with specific management styles based on four key indicators reported in the TALIS 2018 survey.

2.1. Participants

Teacher data were obtained from the 2018 edition of the OECD’s TALIS survey (OECD, 2019). Although the OECD has announced the release of TALIS 2024, the teacher-level microdata are not publicly available. TALIS 2018 remains the most recent accessible dataset, allowing in-depth, cross-national, teacher-level analyses, and it continues to serve as the primary source for robust person-centred and comparative investigations. This is demonstrated by the many studies published in recent years that rely on this wave. Using TALIS 2018 also enables comparability with the extensive body of literature already built on this cycle, while offering a baseline against which the forthcoming 2024 data can later be contrasted.
All respondents taught at the lower secondary level (ISCED-2), which encompasses students in grades 7 to 9 in many countries. According to the TALIS 2018 Technical Report, participants were recruited through a stratified two-stage probability sampling design. Table 2 shows the demographic information of the participants from the five countries involved in the study. Two features are relevant: (1) the significant majority of female teachers and (2) the much higher average experience of Portuguese teachers.

2.2. Variables and Measures

The variables used in our study were single measures extracted from the TALIS 2018 database (https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2018-database.html, accessed 20 July 2025). Four indicators were used for the latent class identification: controlling disruptive behavior, clarifying expectations, getting students to follow rules, and calming a disruptive student. These indicators were included in a section called “Teaching in general,” in which teachers are asked the following questions: “In your teaching, to what extent can you do the following? (1) Control disruptive behavior in the classroom; (2) Make my expectations about student behavior clear; (3) Get students to follow classroom rules; and (4) Calm a student who is disruptive or noisy. Answers are provided on a four-point scale (not at all, to some extent, quite a bit, a lot).
All outcome variables used in this study to examine whether the identified latent profiles differed on relevant psychological and professional outcomes were derived from the TALIS 2018 teacher questionnaire and are based on confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted by the OECD to ensure construct validity and cross-national comparability (Table 3). These latent constructs were standardized with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 2. Specifically, self-efficacy in instruction (T3SEINS) reflected teachers’ perceived ability to deliver effective instruction. In contrast, self-efficacy in student engagement (T3SEENG) captured their confidence in motivating and involving students in learning. Self-efficacy in classroom management (T3SECLS) referred to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to manage student behavior effectively. Regarding professional attitudes, job satisfaction with the profession (T3JSPRO) measured overall satisfaction with being a teacher, and perceived disciplinary climate (T3DISC) assessed the frequency of classroom misbehavior as reported by the teacher.
Personal utility value (T3PERUT) also captured the personal importance that teachers assigned to their work. Perceived value and policy influence (T3VALP) reflected the sense of being valued by society and their influence on policy, while teacher–student relations (T3STUD) evaluated the perceived quality of interactions with students. Finally, Workplace Well-being and Stress (T3WELS) addressed teachers’ emotional well-being and work-related stress. Further technical details regarding scale construction and reliability can be found in the TALIS 2018 Technical Report (OECD, 2019).

2.3. Analytic Procedure

Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was employed to identify distinct profiles of classroom management practices based on teachers’ responses to four behavioral indicators. The analysis proceeded in three steps: (1) identification of the optimal number of classes, (2) inclusion of covariates such as country and teaching experience, and (3) tests of structural invariance across groups using Multiple-Group Latent Class Analysis (MG-LCA). Competing models with increasing numbers of classes were compared using fit indices, including the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), entropy, and classification error, and the model showing the best balance between statistical fit and interpretability was retained.
All latent class and multiple-group analyses were conducted using Latent GOLD 6.0 (Statistical Innovations, Belmont, MA, USA), which applies maximum-likelihood estimation and provides robust fit indices suitable for person-centered modeling.

3. Results

3.1. Latent Class Identification

The analysis identified three distinct approaches teachers take to classroom management, varying in structure and rule orientation. Three profiles emerged from the model: Rule-Enforcing (structured managers), Rule-Balanced (adaptive managers), and Rule-Avoidant (inconsistent managers). The three-class solution provided a clear and interpretable pattern, exhibiting high entropy (R2 = 0.87) and a low classification error rate (0.051), indicating a robust model fit.
The Rule-Enforcing profile (structured managers) (≈45.8%) represented teachers who strongly endorsed structured classroom practices and scored high on all indicators. The Rule-Balanced profile (adaptive managers) (≈39.3%) reflected a moderate, flexible approach that balanced structure with responsiveness. Finally, the Rule-Avoidant profile (inconsistent managers) (≈14.9%) described teachers who applied structured management strategies inconsistently or infrequently.
The analysis identified three distinct approaches teachers take to classroom management, varying in structure and rules. Models with increasing classes were estimated and compared using fit indices, including the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), classification error, and entropy. However, the three-class solution provided the best balance between model fit and interpretability (BIC = 77.910; classification error = 0.051; entropy R2 = 0.87) and was therefore selected as the optimal model.
Figure 1 shows the conditional means of each indicator by class, highlighting the intensity differences between profiles, especially between the Rule-Enforcing and Rule-Avoidant classes.
In summary, three distinct profiles—Rule-Enforcing, Rule-Balanced, and Rule-Avoidant—emerged from this analysis, characterized by high entropy and clear interpretability, which supports the robustness of the model.

3.2. Covariate Effects on Class Membership

To examine how teacher background and national context predicted latent profile membership, a model-based Step 2 analysis was conducted. Table 4 presents the estimated class membership probabilities across countries and teacher characteristics.
Teachers from Portugal and South Africa showed the highest likelihood of being classified into the Rule-Balanced profile (52.8% and 66.3%, respectively), while Brazilian teachers were more likely to belong to the Rule-Enforcing class (55.6%). Japanese teachers stood out with a higher-than-average probability of membership in the Rule-Avoidant class (42.7%).
Regarding teaching experience, more experienced teachers (those with 21 or more years of experience) showed slightly higher probabilities of being in the Rule-Balanced class and lower probabilities of being Rule-Avoidant. Novice teachers, especially those with 0–6 years of experience, were likelier to fall into the Rule-Avoidant profile (28.1%).
These findings suggest that country-level educational cultures and professional experience play a role in shaping classroom management orientations. As shown in Figure 2, the proportion of Rule-Balanced teachers was highest in South Africa and Portugal, whereas the Rule-Enforcing profile predominated in Brazil and Canada (Alberta), and the Rule-Avoidant profile was most frequent in Japan.

3.3. Differences in Distal Outcomes

To examine whether the identified latent profiles differed on relevant psychological and professional outcomes, a BCH method was applied to include nine distal continuous variables.
Table 5 summarizes the explained variance (R2) for each outcome. The most substantial differences between classes were found in self-efficacy for classroom management (R2 = 0.675), followed by self-efficacy in student engagement (R2 = 0.214) and instruction (R2 = 0.180). These results suggest that teachers’ perceived efficacy closely aligns with their management profile.
Other variables, such as job satisfaction (R2 = 0.010), teacher–student relations (R2 = 0.020), and well-being (R2 = 0.007), showed weaker associations. This pattern indicates that classroom management beliefs may be relatively independent from broader affective or institutional factors.

3.4. Multiple-Group Latent Class Analysis by Country

The relative frequency of class membership is displayed in Figure 3, revealing similar proportions across the five countries. A chi-squared test of independence was conducted to assess the structural stability between the latent class and the country. The result was not statistically significant, χ2(8) = 13.53, p = 0.095, indicating that the class structure was invariant across countries.

3.5. Cultural Dimensions and Profile Prevalence

An exploratory ecological analysis was conducted using Spearman’s rank correlations between each profile and six cultural dimensions across the five participating countries to explore whether national scores on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are associated with the relative prevalence of classroom management profiles across countries. Given the very small number of countries (N = 5), statistical significance tests are not meaningful and were not interpreted. The aim was to identify potential trends worthy of further investigation.
Several strong associations emerged (see Table 6). The Rule-Enforcing profile showed a positive correlation with Long-Term Orientation (ρ = 0.80), suggesting that teachers in future-oriented countries may be more likely to adopt structured, rule-based classroom management. The Rule-Balanced profile was strongly and negatively associated with Power Distance (ρ = −0.90) and Long-Term Orientation (ρ = −0.90), indicating that this more flexible and responsive style may be more prevalent in egalitarian and present-focused cultural contexts.
The Rule-Avoidant profile displayed the strongest associations overall, with a near-perfect positive correlation with Masculinity (ρ = 0.98) and a perfect negative correlation with indulgence (ρ = −1.00). While this unusual result may suggest a theoretical inverse relationship between self-restraint at the country level and avoidance of behavioral control in the classroom, it is almost certainly driven by the small sample size and should not be overinterpreted.

4. Discussion

The objectives of our study were to identify cross-national profiles of teachers’ classroom management strategies, test their structural invariance across countries, and explore how these profiles relate to teacher characteristics, professional outcomes, and national cultural dimensions.

4.1. Objective 1: Identification of Management Profiles

Our study identified three distinct profiles of classroom management: Rule-Enforcing (emphasizing strong classroom structure), Rule-Balanced (characterized by a balance between structure and flexibility), and Rule-Avoidant (characterized by inconsistent use of structured practices). These profiles were consistent across countries but varied in prevalence. This finding aligns with person-centred perspectives (e.g., Spurk et al., 2020), which suggest that teachers’ practices cluster into qualitatively distinct patterns rather than forming a simple continuum.
The Rule-Enforcing profile reflects what classical models (Doyle, 1986; Evertson et al., 1997) describe as assertive, proactive management rooted in clear routines and behavioral expectations. This profile also aligns with the authoritative parenting style (Baumrind, 1971), characterized by high expectations, structure, and responsiveness. Kounin (1970) highlighted strategies such as withitness, overlapping, and momentum as proactive components of management, which are reflected in the structured practices of Rule-Enforcing teachers.
In contrast, the Rule-Avoidant profile resembles permissive approaches, characterized by low consistency and weak behavioral guidance. The Rule-Avoidant profile reflects concerns about under-managed classrooms, often associated with lower self-efficacy and higher stress (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The Rule-Avoidant profile may also expose teachers to higher stress and burnout, consistent with the Job Demands–Resources framework (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), as lack of perceived control increases job strain. The Rule-Balanced profile may correspond to adaptive or context-sensitive approaches that integrate structure with relational flexibility (Reddy et al., 2013).
These profiles demonstrate that latent class analysis applied to TALIS yields patterns consistent with established typologies while providing cross-national validation.

4.2. Objective 2: Variations by Country and Experience

Profiles differed according to both national context and teaching experience. More experienced teachers were less likely to belong to the Rule-Avoidant class, consistent with research showing that professional experience fosters confidence and proactive management strategies (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Novice teachers, by contrast, were more likely to adopt avoidance or inconsistent practices (Huberman, 1989; Pressley et al., 2020). Cross-nationally, Rule-Enforcing teachers were more prevalent in Portugal and Japan, whereas Rule-Avoidant teachers were more common in Brazil and South Africa, with Canada showing higher representation in the Rule-Balanced profile. These patterns may reflect how systemic and cultural contexts influence teachers’ approaches to classroom management.

4.3. Objective 3: Associations with Teacher-Reported Outcomes

Profiles were strongly associated with teacher self-efficacy, especially in classroom management (R2 = 0.675), followed by engagement and instruction. These findings support theoretical frameworks emphasizing the central role of perceived control and competence in professional functioning (Bandura, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Given that the profiles identified in our study represent distinct configurations of perceived control over classroom rules, the Rule-Avoidant profile may expose teachers to higher stress and burnout, according to the Job Demands–Resources framework (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), as a lack of perceived control is associated with increased job strain. Conversely, teachers in the Rule-Enforcing and Rule-Balanced profiles tend to foster positive disciplinary climates and stronger relationships between teachers and students.
In contrast, weaker associations with broader outcomes, such as job satisfaction, teacher–student relations, and well-being, suggest that management beliefs are more closely tied to instructional self-concept than to general affective states (Perera et al., 2019). These findings have practical implications: strengthening teachers’ management competencies may be most effective in increasing instructional self-efficacy, particularly in terms of beliefs about handling disruptive behavior (Huang et al., 2025; Lazarides et al., 2020).

4.4. Objective 4: Structural Invariance Across Countries

The fourth objective of this study was to examine whether the latent profiles of classroom management practices identified through a person-centred approach were invariant across five countries. The analysis confirmed structural invariance, indicating that the same underlying profile structure was present across all national contexts. This finding supports the idea that core dimensions of classroom management—such as control, structure, and responsiveness—are conceptually robust and can be meaningfully applied across diverse educational systems. For example, Fischer et al. (2020) found that the classical distinction between teacher-directed and student-directed teaching styles is valid in twelve countries, grouped in four clusters based on language families. These results are consistent with theoretical accounts suggesting that fundamental teaching processes are shared across settings, even if their expression is shaped by contextual and cultural factors (Evertson et al., 1997; Korpershoek et al., 2022; Shimahara, 2014; Wubbels, 2011).
Overall, the structural invariance observed across countries suggests that teachers organize their classroom management practices around similar latent structures, regardless of cultural or systemic context. This structural invariance does not imply uniformity in how such practices are enacted, but rather points to a shared cognitive and professional architecture that underlies teachers’ approach to classroom control and organization. Such findings are consistent with the notion that core dimensions of effective classroom management—structure, clarity, consistency, and responsiveness—are not culturally arbitrary but reflect fundamental pedagogical demands in formal education systems worldwide (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006).

4.5. Objective 5: Associations with National Cultural Dimensions

Given the cross-national scope of this study, it is important to consider whether the variability in the prevalence of classroom management profiles across countries may reflect deeper cultural patterns.
While the structural configuration of profiles remained invariant, their relative frequency differed markedly between contexts. These cross-country differences invite a closer examination of cultural frameworks that may help explain why certain management tendencies are more prominent in some national settings than others.
Interpreting cross-national differences requires a theoretical framework to capture how cultural norms shape professional beliefs (e.g., Biggs, 1998; Hu, 2024). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions offer such a lens, as they describe value systems that may influence how teachers conceptualize control, structure, and autonomy in the classroom.
This study’s fifth objective was to explore whether the prevalence of the latent profiles was descriptively associated with Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions. Although no formal statistical inference was possible due to the limited number of countries, exploratory Spearman’s correlations revealed strong associations. For example, the Rule-Avoidant profile was negatively associated with indulgence and positively with Masculinity, while the Rule-Enforcing profile showed a strong positive correlation with long-term orientation. These descriptive findings align with previous claims that cultural values may influence teachers’ beliefs about authority, discipline, and relational flexibility in the classroom (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Although exploratory, these associations support the notion that culture influences teachers’ perceptions of authority in the classroom, structures instruction, and establishes relationships with students. For instance, the strong presence of the Rule-Enforcing profile in Japan and Portugal aligns with their high scores on uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation (see Table 1), reflecting an educational culture that values order, discipline, and future planning. Conversely, the greater prevalence of the Rule-Avoidant profile in Brazil and South Africa may reflect cultural patterns characterized by higher indulgence, which emphasize emotional expressiveness, potentially undermining consistent rule enforcement. These findings suggest that Hofstede’s framework offers a valuable lens for understanding how deeply ingrained cultural orientations may influence classroom management practices.
Although preliminary, this cross-cultural perspective highlights the importance of integrating cultural frameworks into comparative education research. Cultural dimensions, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, or long-term orientation, may influence teachers’ expectations and classroom behaviors. Future studies involving larger samples of countries could test these associations more formally, helping to clarify the extent to which national culture constrains or enables specific classroom management profiles.
Although Hofstede’s indices provided a pragmatic comparative lens, alternative frameworks may refine future interpretations. In particular, Schwartz’s (1992, 2010) value theory and the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) offer complementary perspectives by emphasizing motivational continua and distinguishing cultural values from practices.

4.6. Broader Educational Implications

Effective classroom management is consistently linked to student engagement, achievement, and reduced disruptive behavior (Duan et al., 2024; Granger et al., 2025; Kwok, 2023). Our results suggest that Rule-Enforcing and Rule-Balanced profiles may foster productive learning environments, whereas Rule-Avoidant patterns could hinder student outcomes. Future research could incorporate student-level data, thereby linking teacher management profiles to direct measures of academic achievement.
Beyond documenting cross-national patterns, the present findings have practical implications for teacher education and professional development. The identification of distinct classroom management profiles suggests that training programs could be tailored to help teachers cultivate balanced and proactive approaches to behavior regulation early in their careers. For novice teachers, in particular, targeted mentoring and reflective practice modules could strengthen self-efficacy and reduce the likelihood of adopting avoidant management styles. Integrating these insights into pre-service and in-service training may therefore support the development of adaptive classroom practices before less effective habits become entrenched.

5. Conclusions and Contributions

This study demonstrates that teachers’ classroom management practices converge into three robust latent profiles invariant across countries, yet differ in prevalence according to cultural values and professional experience. Theoretically, the findings extend classical models by showing that dimensions of structure, control, and responsiveness are both pedagogical and culturally mediated constructs. Methodologically, the use of person-centered and cross-national approaches illustrates the potential of LCA and MG-LCA to uncover both universal patterns and cultural variability. The results underscore the importance of teacher education programs that recognize cultural diversity while emphasizing core competencies in behavior management. Together, these contributions advance our understanding of classroom management as both a universal and context-sensitive dimension of teaching.

6. Limitations

The study is limited by its reliance on self-reported measures, its cross-sectional design, and the limited number of countries examined. These factors restrict causal inference and generalizability. Associations with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions should therefore be interpreted as exploratory.
While Hofstede’s indices were the only harmonized cultural scores available across the five countries, future research could benefit from incorporating alternative frameworks such as Schwartz’s value theory and the GLOBE project. These models may provide additional insights by capturing motivational continua and distinguishing cultural values from practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.O. and J.L.; Methodology, C.O. and J.L.; Formal analysis, C.O.; Data curation, J.L.; Writing—original draft, C.O. and J.L.; Writing—review and editing, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in TALIS—OECD at https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/talis-2018-results-volume-i_1d0bc92a-en.html, accessed on 20 July 2025.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Admiraal, W., & Kittelsen Røberg, K. I. (2023). Teachers’ job demands, resources and their job satisfaction: Satisfaction with school, career choice and teaching profession of teachers in different career stages. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn’t matter? International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boström, L. (2023). What is the problem and how can we solve it? School authorities’ perceptions of the shortage of teachers in Sweden. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 22(3), 479–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, R. J. C., Lin, H. C., Hsueh, Y. L., & Hsieh, C. C. (2020). Which is more influential on teaching practice, classroom management efficacy or instruction efficacy? Evidence from TALIS 2018. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(4), 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2011). Classroom discipline across forty-one countries: School, economic, and cultural differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), 516–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chiu, M. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2010). Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Carlo, A., Girardi, D., Falco, A., Dal Corso, L., & Di Sipio, A. (2019). When does work interfere with teachers’ private life? An application of the job demands-resources model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(MAY), 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). Mcmillan. [Google Scholar]
  15. Duan, S., Bissaker, K., & Xu, Z. (2024). Correlates of teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (1981). Synthesis of research on classroom management. Educational Leadership, 38(4), 342–343, 345–347. [Google Scholar]
  17. Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Clements, B. S., & Worsham, M. E. (1997). Classroom management for elementary teachers (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  18. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer, J., He, J., & Klieme, E. (2020). The structure of teaching practices across countries: A combination of factor analysis and network analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 100861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Granger, K. L., Chow, J. C., Montesion, A., Stouffer, J. M., Sutherland, K. S., & Conroy, M. A. (2025). Teacher’s classroom management self-efficacy and teacher–child conflict as a function of child ordinal behavior ranking. School Mental Health, 17, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind—Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  22. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hu, Y. (2024). How do Confucian schools and Anglo schools differ? A latent profile analysis based on PISA 2015. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 12(1), 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huang, D., Reeve, J., Jang, H.-R., Marsh, H. W., Dicke, T., & Cheon, S. H. (2025). Teaching with confidence: How a skill-based intervention develops teacher self-efficacy and improves educational outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 167, 105202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers’ relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Korpershoek, H., Mouw, J. M., & de Boer, H. (2022). International research on the foci and effectiveness of classroom management programs and strategies. In E. J. Sabornie, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 350–372). Taylor and Francis. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kwok, A. (2023). Facilitating classroom management development in teacher education. Educational Forum, 87(1), 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lazarides, R., Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2020). Teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy, perceived classroom management and teaching contexts from beginning until mid-career. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, S. N., & Feng, D. M. (2015). How culture matters in educational borrowing? Chinese teachers’ dilemmas in a global era. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1046410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  34. Perera, H. N., Calkins, C., & Part, R. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy profiles: Determinants, outcomes, and generalizability across teaching level. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Perera, H. N., Maghsoudlou, A., Miller, C. J., McIlveen, P., Barber, D., Part, R., & Reyes, A. L. (2022). Relations of science teaching self-efficacy with instructional practices, student achievement and support, and teacher job satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pressley, T., Croyle, H., & Edgar, M. (2020). Different approaches to classroom environments based on teacher experience and effectiveness. Psychology in the Schools, 57(4), 606–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reddy, L. A., Fabiano, G. A., Dudek, C. M., & Hsu, L. (2013). Instructional and behavior management practices implemented by elementary general education teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 51(6), 683–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scott, T. M. (2021). Implicit bias, disproportionate discipline, and teacher responsibility for instruction as prevention. Preventing School Failure, 65(4), 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shimahara, N. K. (2014). Politics of classroom life: Classroom management in international perspective. Taylor and Francis. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in the teaching profession-what do teachers say? International Education Studies, 8(3), 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Still motivated to teach? A study of school context variables, stress and job satisfaction among teachers in senior high school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 15–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A ThreeDecade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, L., Gulish, K. D., & Pollastri, A. R. (2024). Understanding teachers’ attributions and responses to student misbehavior: The roles of explanatory rationale and personal beliefs. School Mental Health, 16(4), 1094–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wartenberg, G., Aldrup, K., Grund, S., & Klusmann, U. (2023). Satisfied and high performing? A meta-analysis and systematic review of the correlates of teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wei, Y. (2025). A study on the influence of physical education teachers’ teaching beliefs and attributions of teaching success and failure on their effective teaching behaviors. PLoS ONE, 20(4), e0321137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Weitkämper, F. (2024). Un/Doing authority and social inequality: Understanding mutual vulnerability in pupil-teacher relations and challenging situations. Educational Review, 76(1), 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: What should prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Žerak, U., Juriševič, M., & Pečjak, S. (2024). Parenting and teaching styles in relation to student characteristics and self-regulated learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(2), 1327–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01653 g001
Figure 1. Latent class profiles based on classroom management indicators. Note: Rule-Enforcing: strongest endorsement of structured practices; Rule-Balanced: moderate, flexible use of rules; Rule-Avoidant: weakest consistency in applying classroom rules.
Figure 1. Latent class profiles based on classroom management indicators. Note: Rule-Enforcing: strongest endorsement of structured practices; Rule-Balanced: moderate, flexible use of rules; Rule-Avoidant: weakest consistency in applying classroom rules.
Education 15 01653 g001
Education 15 01653 g002
Figure 2. Proportion of latent classes by country. Note. Proportions sum to 1 within each country. Classes were estimated using a 3-class model.
Figure 2. Proportion of latent classes by country. Note. Proportions sum to 1 within each country. Classes were estimated using a 3-class model.
Education 15 01653 g002
Education 15 01653 g003
Figure 3. Relative frequency of latent classes by country.
Figure 3. Relative frequency of latent classes by country.
Education 15 01653 g003
Table 1. Hofstede’s dimensions applied to participant countries.
Table 1. Hofstede’s dimensions applied to participant countries.
DimensionPortugalBrazilSouth AfricaAlberta (Canada)Japan
Power Distance6369493954
Individualism2738658046
Masculinity3149635295
Uncertainty Avoidance9976494892
Long-Term Orientation2844343688
Indulgence3359636842
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of participants.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of participants.
FemaleMaleTotalAverage Teaching Experience
Brazil1621826244715.78
Canada (Alberta)680397107712.89
Japan15102045355517.25
Portugal2681995367622.73
South Africa1226820204614.41
Table 3. Mean Scores of TALIS 2018 Teacher-Reported Variables by Country.
Table 3. Mean Scores of TALIS 2018 Teacher-Reported Variables by Country.
CountrySelf EfficacyJob. Sat.Dis. Clim.Util. Val.Pol. Infl.T-S. Rel.Wel. Be.
Inst.Eng.Class. Manag.
Alberta (CAB)10.689.6210.4911.199.7710.87.9611.7510.02
Brazil (BRA)11.0710.2811.1711.5910.4211.468.7911.769.56
Japan (JPN)10.539.4910.6510.89.4711.027.7811.488.8
Portugal (PRT)11.3610.5411.1411.1210.1810.988.2211.6110.26
South Africa (ZAF)10.6610.1310.7510.789.9410.888.1711.579.83
Note: Inst.—Self-efficacy in Instruction; Eng.—Self-efficacy in Engagement; Class. Manag.—Self-efficacy in Classroom Management; Job. Sat.—Job Satisfaction; Dis. Clim.—Disciplinary Climate; Util. Val.—Utility Value; Pol. Infl.—Policy Influence; T-S. Rel.—Teacher-Student Relations; Wel. Be.—Well-being & Stress.
Table 4. Estimated Class Membership Probabilities by Covariate Level.
Table 4. Estimated Class Membership Probabilities by Covariate Level.
Covariate Rule
Enforcing		Rule
Balanced		Rule
Avoidant
CountryBrazil55.6%39.0%5.4%
Canada (CAB)47.5%45.0%7.5%
Japan48.1%9.1%42.7%
Portugal46.0%52.8%1.2%
South Africa26.2%66.3%7.6%
Teaching experience0–6 yrs41.2%30.7%28.1%
7–14 yrs46.0%36.5%17.6%
15–20 yrs47.5%43.4%9.1%
21–27 yrs44.6%46.6%8.8%
28–55 yrs47.2%39.9%12.9%
Table 5. Explained Variance (R2) for Distal Outcome Variables by Latent Class.
Table 5. Explained Variance (R2) for Distal Outcome Variables by Latent Class.
Distal VariableR2
Self-efficacy: classroom management 0.675
Self-efficacy: student engagement 0.214
Self-efficacy: instruction 0.180
Job satisfaction with the profession 0.010
Perceived disciplinary climate 0.044
Personal utility value 0.001
Value and policy influence 0.001
Teacher–student relations 0.020
Well-being and stress 0.007
Table 6. Spearman’s ρ between cultural dimensions and profile prevalence.
Table 6. Spearman’s ρ between cultural dimensions and profile prevalence.
ProfileCultural Dimensionρ (Spearman)
Rule-EnforcingLong-Term Orientation0.80
Rule-BalancedPower Distance−0.90
Rule-BalancedLong-Term Orientation−0.90
Rule-AvoidantMasculinity0.98
Rule-AvoidantIndulgence−1.00
Note. Due to the small number of countries (N = 5), p-values are not interpreted as statistically significant. Values shown are exploratory and hypothesis-generating.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira, C.; Lopes, J. Profiles of Classroom Management Across Five Countries: A Person-Centered Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121653

AMA Style

Oliveira C, Lopes J. Profiles of Classroom Management Across Five Countries: A Person-Centered Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(12):1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121653

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira, Célia, and João Lopes. 2025. "Profiles of Classroom Management Across Five Countries: A Person-Centered Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data" Education Sciences 15, no. 12: 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121653

APA Style

Oliveira, C., & Lopes, J. (2025). Profiles of Classroom Management Across Five Countries: A Person-Centered Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data. Education Sciences, 15(12), 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121653

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop