本研究以馬來西亞獨立中學普通班導師為研究對象，以正向行為支持的理念探討班導師所經歷學生在課堂中出現的干擾行為、處理干擾行為時使用之策略與成效、校內行政支持和教師習得專業知能的途徑，並進一步探討不同背景的班導師對於學生干擾行為之觀點、處理策略的使用和專業習得途徑的差異情形。研究採網路問卷進行調查並分析了163份問卷，研究結果如下：
一、最多班導師認為的輕度干擾行為是「遲到」，嚴重干擾行為則是「怒罵或威脅師長」以及「攻擊他人」。而有接近一半的班導師認為「動作慢，明顯跟不上班上活動節奏」非屬於干擾行為。另外，班導師在區分「以口語反抗、抗議」、「未告知而拿別人的東西或搶東西」以及「碰觸別人」的觀點上並未達成一致。班導師認為常見的嚴重干擾行為多以言語類為主，其中並未有直接傷害自己或他人的行為。不同教師資格的班導師對於學生在課堂出現的干擾行為之觀點有顯著的差異。
二、最多班導師使用的處理策略多屬使不當行為無效之後果策略，班導師並未因學生干擾行為的程度不同而採不一樣的處理策略。「約他下課談話」是班導師認為成效最好的策略。而不同任教階段、教學年資和教師資格的班導師在處理學生干擾行為時所使用之策略和成效均有顯著差異。另外，未超過六成的班導師使用預防策略預防學生的干擾行為。不同任教階段和教學年資的班導師在使用預防策略預防學生干擾行為亦有顯著差異。
三、相較處理輕度干擾行為時所獲得之校內行政，班導師認為在處理嚴重干擾行為時所獲得之校內行政較多。而「約談學生」是班導師在處理嚴重干擾行為時認為最需要獲得的協助。
四、不同教學年資的班導師在處理學生干擾行為之勝任程度有顯著的差異。班導師教學年資越高在處理學生干擾行為的勝任程度上就越高。
五、班導師獲得專業知能的途徑通常通過同事分享或是自己累積的經驗，較少教師認為通過教師研習或與相關專業人員的討論習得專業知能。不同任教階段、教學年資和教師資格的班導師在專業知能習得途徑中有顯著的差異。

To investigate (1) the student's classroom disruptive behavior, (2) the strategies and their effectiveness in dealing with the disruptive behavior, (3) the administrative support from the school, (4) teachers’ professional knowledge acquired skills, as well as (5) teachers’ perspective on students’ disruptive behavior, use strategies and knowledge acquired approach, who came from different backgrounds. The researcher used an online survey to collect the data and analyzed 163 surveys of secondary school teachers in Malaysia's Chinese Independent secondary school. The critical research results are as follows:

1. Teachers considered that “lateness to class” is a mild disruptive behavior in the classroom whereas "swearing or threatening the teacher" and "attacking others" are the most severe classroom disruptive behavior. Nearly half of the teachers do not agree that “slow motion, or unable to follow classroom activities” is one disruptive behavior. Additionally, there is a difference of opinion to distinguish the disruptive behaviors between “verbal aggression”, “grabbing one’s things without permission”, and “touching others”. The findings are consistent with previous studies where “talking out of turn” is the most common mild disruptive behavior while "speaking foul language" is the most common severe disruptive behavior in the classroom. Teachers agreed that most of the common severe disruptive behavior is verbal disruptive behavior, excluding harming himself or others. There is a significant difference in teachers’ perspectives on students’ classroom disruptive behavior from different backgrounds.

2. The most common strategy being used by teachers is to thwart misbehaviors. Regardless of the level of disruptive behaviors, teachers tend to use similar strategies. “After class talk” is one of the most common and effective strategies, according to teachers. There is a significant difference between teachers with different teaching levels, teaching seniority, and qualifications and the strategies and their effectiveness in dealing with classroom disruptive behavior. Moreover, there is less than 60% of teachers adopt prevention strategies to prevent students’ disruptive behavior. There is also a significant difference between teachers with different teaching levels and teaching seniority and the usage of preventive strategies in preventing classroom disruptive behavior.

3. Teachers believed that they received more administrative support from the school when dealing with severe classroom disruptive behaviors as compared to mild disruptive behaviors. Most teachers perceived that they need more support when having “personal conversations” with students with severe disruptive behaviors.

4. There is a significant difference between teachers with different teaching. seniority and competencies in dealing with students’ disruptive behaviors. The higher the level of teaching seniority, the higher the competency in dealing with disruptive behaviors.

5. Commonly, teachers acquired their professional knowledge through knowledge-sharing sessions with their colleagues or their own experiences. There are not many teachers that gain their professional knowledge through appropriate training sessions or proper discussion sessions with the relevant professionals. There is a significant difference between teachers’ teaching level, teaching seniority, qualifications, and their professional knowledge acquired skills.

中文文獻
王淑慧（2015）。教師在職進修：馬來西亞華文獨立中學的經驗。馬來西亞人文與社會科學學報，4（2），35-47。
呂建志（2014）。正向行為支持方案對情緒行為障礙學生不服管教之成效。雲嘉特教期刊，（19），51-59。
呂建志、李永昌（2014）。正向行為支持計畫對改善國小輕度自閉症學生上課分心行為之成效。障礙者理解半年刊，13（2），19-34。
卓福安（2016）。影響馬來西亞華裔學生來臺就讀高等教育之因素與因應之道。應華學報，（18），107-141。
洪儷瑜（2021）。教室干擾行為介入處理經驗調查表之教師版。科技部專題研究計畫期中報告，台北 ：國立臺灣師範大學。
洪儷瑜、鳳華、何美慧、張蓓莉、翁素珍主編（2018）。特殊教育學生的正向行為支持。中華民國特殊教育學會策畫。臺北:心理。
胡倫茹、洪儷瑜、陳心怡（2022）。班級層級功能本位介入小組方案改善國小融合班學生課堂參與行為之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，47（1）, 29-60。
夏菁穗（2018）。正向行為支持方案對國中學習障礙學生行為問題改善之行動研究。身心障礙研究季刊，16（3～4），178-200。
高翊娟、蔡淑妃（2020）。班級層級介入方案對於降低國小學生健康課干擾行為之個案研究。教育研究與實踐學刊，67（2），51-67。
張美華、簡瑞良（2010）。自我教導結合自我監控策略對國小學習障礙學生口語干擾行為效果之研究。特殊教育與輔助科技學報，（1），117-147。
曹慧珠（2012）。導師制度與導師角色，工作內涵之探討。教育研究論壇，3（2），109-125。
陳佩玉、蔡淑妃（2017）。正向行為支持的發展趨勢：2008-2017。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，163-184。
陳錦織（2005）。干擾性學生在教室內之師生互動分析。特殊教育研究學刊，28，1-24。
游森期、余民寧（2006）。網路問卷與傳統問卷之比較：多樣本均等性方法學之應用。測驗學刊，53（1），103-127。
黃禎玉（2013）。馬來西亞華文獨立中學「校本教師專業發展」之現況。教育資料集刊，58，25-42。
黃德祥、魏麗敏（2018）。馬來西亞獨立中學的發展與挑戰。教育研究月刊，291，97-108。
黃麗娟、林月仙（2016）。正向行為支持方案改善疑似情緒行為障礙學生行為問題之個案研究。特殊教育季刊，（138），29-37。
董總（2022年3月）。2021年全國華文獨中學生基本資料統計。華教導報，120，29-32。取自https://www.dongzong.my/v3/book/hj
董總（2022年6月）。2021年全國華文獨中教師基本資料統計。華教導報，121，29-32。取自https://www.dongzong.my/v3/book/hj
顏國樑、胡依珊（2020）。馬來西亞華文獨中教師評鑑制度實施意見之研究。學校行政，（127），126-155。

英文文獻
Alnahdi, G. (2020). Are we ready for inclusion? Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy for inclusive education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(2), 182-193.
Alter, P., Walker, J. N., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of students' challenging behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education and treatment of Children, 51-69.
Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers' Perceptions and Management of Disruptive Classroom Behaviour during the Middle Years (Years Five to Nine). Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 59-70.
Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 45-60.
Bozkuş, K. (2021). A Systematic Review of Studies on Classroom Management from 1980 to 2019. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 433-441.
Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A review of international research, 1983 to 2013. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 293-311.
Ding, M., Li, Y., Li, X., & Kulm, G. (2008). Chinese teachers' perceptions of students' classroom misbehaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 305-324.
Dutton Tillery, A., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General education teachers’ perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 86-102.
Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574-582.
Little, E. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ problem behaviours. Educational Psychology, 25(4), 369-377.
McPeake, J., Bateson, M., & O’Neill, A. (2014). Electronic surveys: how to maximise success. Nurse researcher, 21(3), 24-26.
Monsen, J. J., Ewing, D. L., & Kwoka, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, perceived adequacy of support and classroom learning environment. Learning environments research, 17(1), 113-126.
Muna, F. (2019). Effects of Classroom Disruptive Behaviour in Brunei Darussalam. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences, 1(2), 10-20.
Nayak, M. S. D. P., & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and weakness of online surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 24(5), 31-38.
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. (2014). Below the radar: Low-level disruption in the country’s classrooms, Manchester, England: Harford, S.
Özen, H. & Yıldırım, R. (2020). Teacher perspectives on classroom management. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 99-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.645818
Paramita, P. P., Sharma, U., & Anderson, A. (2020). Effective Teacher Professional Learning on Classroom Behaviour Management: A Review of Literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 61-81.
Putri, A. F., Andriningrum, H., Rofiah, S. K., & Gunawan, I. (2019). Teacher Function in Class: A Literature Review. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 382, 5-9.
Shamnadh, M., & Anzari, A. (2019). Misbehavior of School Students in Classrooms-Main Causes and Effective Strategies to Manage It. International Journal of Science & Engineering Development Research, 4(3), 318-321.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130-135.
Sun, R. C. (2014). Teachers' and students' causal explanations for classroom misbehavior: similarities and differences. International Science Index: International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering.
Sun, R. C. (2015). Teachers' experiences of effective strategies for managing classroom misbehavior in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 94-103.
Sun, R. C., & Shek, D. T. (2012). Student classroom misbehavior: an exploratory study based on teachers' perceptions. The scientific world Journal, 2012.
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and quantity, 40(3), 435-456.
Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 48-63.
Yahaya, A., Ramli, J., Hashim, S., Ibrahim, M. A., Rahman, R. R. R. A., & Yahaya, N. (2009). Discipline problems among secondary school students in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 659-675.
Yusoff, W. M. W., & Mansor, N. (2016). The effectiveness of strategies used by teachers to manage disruptive classroom behaviors: A case study at a religious school in Rawang, Selangor, Malaysia. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 133-50.
Zakaria, N., Reupert, A., & Sharma, U. (2013). Malaysian primary pre-service teachers’ perceptions of students’ disruptive behaviour. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 371-380.