See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315628091

Characteristics of Effective Classroom Rules: A Review of the

Literature

Article in Teacher Education and Special Education The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children · March 2017
DOI: 10.1177/0888406417700962

CITATIONS READS

71 52,865

2 authors, including:

Todd Haydon
University of Cincinnati
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,161 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Haydon on 22 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

700962
research-article2017
TESXXX10.1177/0888406417700962Alter and HaydonAlter and Haydon

Article
Teacher Education and Special Education
1­–14
Characteristics of Effective © 2017 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Classroom Rules: A Review Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
of the Literature DOI: 10.1177/0888406417700962
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417700962
journals.sagepub.com/home/tes

Peter Alter1 and Todd Haydon2

Abstract
Difficulty managing classroom behavior is a frequently recognized problem for teachers,
especially teachers early in their careers. Classroom rules are identified as an integral part
of effective classroom management as they are relatively simple to implement and focus on
preventing challenging behaviors before they occur. Sources such as classroom management
textbooks and practitioner-oriented journal articles recommend a number of characteristics
that make classroom rules effective; unfortunately, these sources have not been uniform
in their recommendations. The purpose of this review of effective practices is to compare
what information teachers are being given either in their preservice coursework or in-service
training via textbooks and practitioner-oriented articles with actual empirical research that
used classroom rules as an independent variable. Results indicated that the two most important
characteristics of effective classroom rules are teaching the rules to students and tying rules
to positive and/or negative consequences. Other characteristics recommended in secondary
sources remain equivocal in the research. Implications for effective teacher preparation in
classroom management are discussed.

Keywords
positive behavior supports, teacher preparation practices and outcomes, behavior management,
emotional and behavioral disabilities

Teachers frequently identify difficulty managing absenteeism, burnout, and decreased student
classroom behavior as a major problem in their achievement (Perrachione, Rosser, &
classrooms. Verbal disruptions, noncompliance, Petersen, 2008). Nationally representative
and being off-task (i.e., disengaged) are the most findings from the School and Staffing Survey
frequently identified challenging behaviors, and conducted by the National Center for Educa-
assistance with classroom management is the tion Statistics indicated that student discipline
most frequent request made by teachers (Alter, problems were the second most frequently
Walker, & Landers, 2013; Rose & Gallup, cited reason after salary for teacher dissatis-
2005). Ineffective classroom management has faction (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). In fact,
deleterious effects on the overall classroom 10% of surveyed teachers, who left the field,
environment, affecting students’ social and aca-
demic outcomes and teachers’ self-efficacy, 1
Saint Mary’s College of California, Moraga, CA, USA
attrition, and burnout (Algozzine, Wang, & Vio- 2
University of Cincinnati, OH, USA
lette, 2011; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Kokkinos,
Corresponding Author:
Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005). Peter Alter, Saint Mary’s College of California, P.O. Box
Low teacher job satisfaction has been iden- 4350, Moraga, CA 94575, USA.
tified as a factor related to teacher attrition, Email: [email protected]
2 Teacher Education and Special Education

left because of school discipline issues (Inger- 2013). While the classroom is not specifi-
soll & Smith, 2003). Other investigations cally discussed within the typical Positive
reveal similar findings, as student behavior Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
remains one of the top three concerns for leav- framework, clear rules are one of the “basics”
ing the profession (Gonzalez, Brown, & Slate, of effective management and an integral part
2008). Considering the importance of effec- of a management system that combines more
tive classroom management for teacher reten- globally stated expectations (e.g., “Be
tion and students’ academic achievement respectful”) as well as the routines that con-
(Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994), it is logi- stitute effective functioning (Gable, Hester,
cal to examine the information that teachers Rock, & Hughes, 2009). As noted by Alberto
are given in their preservice preparation and and Troutman (2013), all classrooms have
in-service trainings. rules but whether they are made explicit
The grim state of teacher preparation in depends on the teacher.
effective classroom management has been If the classroom is described as a microcosm
well-documented. In 2010, Oliver and of society, rules provide the structure for how
Reschly described the programmatic students see the classroom world and their place
approaches to teaching effective classroom in it (Boostrom, 1991; Maag, 2004). They rep-
management as inconsistent, with only resent a social contract established between the
seven out of 26 programs devoting an entire teacher and the students. In fact, their creation
class to classroom management. Further- and implementation are the first and second rec-
more, in their review, programs tended to ommendations in the article titled “20 Ways to
emphasize reactive behavior reduction pro- Be Proactive in Managing Classroom Behav-
cedures. Consistent with these findings, ior” (Babkie, 2006). In highlighting the impor-
Freeman, Simonsen, Briere, and MacSuga- tance of classroom rules, Bicard (2000) also
Gage (2014) also noted that “a significant described them as cost-effective in that they are
gap exists between the effective classroom very easily implemented and focus on the pre-
management research base and teacher train- vention of challenging behaviors before they
ing” (p. 107). To begin to address this gap, it occur, thus saving time, effort, and potentially
is imperative to compare the practices that resources. In a commissioned report titled
are being recommended in teacher prepara- “Training Our Future Teachers: Classroom
tion with what has been established through Management,” Greenberg, Putman, and Walsh
empirical research. This information is most (2014) described classroom rules as one of the
likely to be communicated in classroom “Big Five” strategies in a list that also included
management textbooks and practitioner-ori- routines, praise, consequences for misbehavior,
ented articles. Implementing classroom and engagement.
rules is a common recommendation as a Classroom management textbooks, litera-
foundation for effective classroom manage- ture reviews, and practitioner-based articles
ment in both of these sources; this is logical have devoted considerable effort to describing
as they are relatively simple to implement the characteristics of effective classroom
and focus on preventing challenging behav- rules. Unfortunately, this array of secondary
iors before they occur. sources has not been uniform in their recom-
Classroom rules are defined as the state- mendations. The purpose of this article is first
ments that teachers present to describe to examine the recommendations for effec-
acceptable and unacceptable behavior. tive classroom rules as they appear in non-
Within multitiered systems of support such empirical based textbooks and other available
as School-Wide Positive Behavior Interven- secondary sources. Second, the empirical lit-
tions and Supports (SW-PBIS), the establish- erature will be examined to determine whether
ment of enforceable rules that are taught to the identified recommended features of effec-
students is regarded as a fundamental part of tive classroom rules are supported by a
this system (Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, research-based foundation. The summative
Alter and Haydon 3

goal is to determine what characteristics of Review of Nonempirical

effective classroom rules have been validated Recommendations for Classroom
by research and what characteristics are the
Rules
recommendations of experts. This, in turn,
can guide what evidence-based recommenda- The additional inclusion criterion for this set
tions are given to teachers, especially preser- of articles was that the characteristics of class-
vice teachers in terms of effective classroom room rules must be described with specificity.
management. Simply identifying classroom rules as impor-
tant for classroom management was not suf-
ficient for the purpose of this review. An
Method archival search of journal articles and mono-
The research question is, graphs discussing classroom rules was under-
taken, along with eight classroom management
Research Question 1: What characteris- textbooks citing original research. This pro-
tics of classroom rules have been demon- cess resulted in 11 secondary sources, in addi-
strated through empirical research? A tion to the eight textbooks, including literature
three-step review process was used to com- reviews, commissioned reports, program
plete this analysis. descriptions, and practitioner-oriented arti-
cles, providing a generally agreed-upon set of
First, both empirical and nonempirical key features associated with the effective use
studies were located through the use of five of classroom rules. If, at least, 50% (10) of the
databases: Academic Search Complete, Edu- articles and classroom management textbooks
cational Resources Information Center identified something as a characteristic of
(ERIC), Proquest, PsycInfo and PsycArticles, effective classroom rules, then it was included
and Web of Science. The following keywords in the review. Seven general key features were
were used in the search: rules, classroom, consistently identified, recommending that
behavior, and management. Additional effective classroom rules be: (a) relatively
searches replaced the word rules with the fol- small in total number, (b) created collabora-
lowing terms: expectations, guidelines, tively with students, (c) stated positively, (d)
norms, and policies. Second, articles that met specific in nature (e) posted publicly, (f)
the following initial criteria were included: (a) taught to students, and (g) clearly tied to posi-
the article described the use of classroom tive and negative consequences. A final com-
rules for behavior management, (b) the con- ponent to the search process of this review of
text of the article was a K-12 school effective practices was to conduct an archival
classroom(s), and (c) the study occurred in the search of all research cited in the nonempiri-
last 50 years (1965-2015). This extended time cal articles to determine whether there are any
frame was used to include three frequently remaining empirical studies to be included in
cited, seminal articles studying classroom the review.
rules that were conducted in the mid-to-late
1960s and represent the beginning of the pro-
Review of Empirical Studies of
cess-product research in classrooms. Articles
that focused on a single specific behavior Classroom Rules
(e.g., the use of cell phones) or specific types For empirical studies, the additional criteria
of specialized classrooms (e.g., science lab, applied for inclusion in this review: Either the
music class) were excluded. Third, the articles study must have examined the use of general
that met these initial criteria were then sepa- classroom rules as an intervention and stu-
rated into nonempirical articles and empirical dent behavior as the dependent variable or it
studies, and additional inclusion criteria were was a descriptive study that examined a num-
applied for both groups. ber of classrooms and focused on the use of
4 Teacher Education and Special Education

classroom rules in the context of classroom wood, Hops, Delquadri, & Guild, 1974; Mad-
and behavior management. This entire pro- sen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; O’Leary,
cess resulted in 15 studies being identified for Becker, Evans, & Saudargas, 1969). Because
inclusion in this review. One final exclusion the series began with classroom management
decision was made. Articles that focused on strategies, that intervention could be evalu-
the Good Behavior Game (GBG) were ated alone—prior to the addition of subse-
excluded from the review for three reasons. quent interventions. A fourth study compared
First, while rules that are similar to classroom classroom rules and active teaching in one
rules are implemented with the GBG, in its classroom with a classroom syllabus and stu-
most widely applied form, there is an interde- dent achievement assessment or a student
pendent group contingency component self-monitoring system in two other class-
(Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, rooms (Johnson, Stoner, & Green, 1996).
2006). That is, the reward is based on small The nine remaining studies used classroom
group performance as opposed to general rules as part of a packaged intervention. The
classroom behavior or individual perfor- number of other components to the package
mance. Second, within the context of the intervention ranged from one other compo-
GBG, the rules are presented as “rules of the nent such as a student monitoring system or a
game” rather than classroom rules that are token economy (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004;
applied consistently throughout the school Rosenberg, 1986) to four other components
day. Third, published literature reviews have that included the use of precision requests,
already examined the impact of the GBG as a teacher movement, mystery motivators, and
specific intervention for classroom manage- response cost (De Martini-Scully, Bray, &
ment (see Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Kehle, 2000; Musser, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson,
Muething, & Vega, 2014). 2001). The lengths of the studies also varied
with some studies lasting only 3 weeks to oth-
ers lasting an entire school year. The average
General Study Characteristics length of study is approximately 3 months.
The 15 articles that met inclusion criteria However, this is only an estimate as some
demonstrated a wide selection in terms of studies did not specify exact dates but used
basic characteristics, including study design, phrases such as “the beginning (or end) of the
length of the study, and participant type (i.e., a school year” or omitted the length of time of
focus on teachers or students). In terms of the study entirely. Finally, the identified par-
design, two of the studies are best described as ticipants of the study varied, in terms of focus-
descriptive because researchers initiated no ing on teachers or students, as six studies
intervention. Rather, preliminary observations focused on multiple teachers and their class-
established two groups of teachers as more rooms observing a range of 27 to 51 class-
effective classroom managers and less effec- rooms, while four others focused on one or
tive classroom managers (Emmer, Evertson, two classrooms. The remaining five studies
& Anderson, 1980; Evertson & Emmer, focused on individual students identified as
1982). A series of observations of both groups demonstrating challenging behaviors in class-
were then conducted to identify salient differ- rooms with a range of three to seven students
ences in how these classrooms established as participants in the study.
and implemented classroom rules.
Three studies are best described as imple-
Demographics of Selected Studies
menting a series of interventions in stages. In
other words, these studies introduced class- All the studies included in the literature
room rules, measured the effects, and then review focused on either the elementary level
combined that intervention with increased (N = 10) or the middle school level (N = 5).
structure, increased feedback, ignoring, and There were no studies that evaluated the use
group and individual contingencies (Green- of classroom rules at the high school level.
Alter and Haydon 5

Minimal demographic data were reported for cited a research presentation by Howard and
the larger multiclassroom studies that focused Norris (1994) that found an average of 5.6
on the teachers. For the five studies that classroom rules when investigating two
focused on individual students, the age range large school systems; however, they also note
was from 6 years to 10 years with an average that there is no definitive answer as to how
age of 8.07 years (when only grade level was many rules are sufficient. Other recommen-
reported, it was converted as Kindergarten—6 dations favor the application of a formula
years old and second grade—8 years old). including “at least three appropriate-behavior
Only two studies specifically addressed stu- rules for every inappropriate-behavior rule”
dents in special education. Musser and col- (Zirpoli, 2016, p. 311) or establish up to
leagues (2001) intervened for three students three classroom rules for every broadly
identified as having serious emotional distur- worded behavior expectation (Scott, Ander-
bance (SED) and Lohrman and Talerico inter- son, & Alter, 2011).
vened in a classroom of 10 students with eight
students identified as having a specific learn- Empirical evidence for smaller number of
ing disability (SLD) and two students identi- rules. Within the articles included in this lit-
fied as having an intellectual disability (ID). erature review that reported the number of
rules, the number ranged from two to nine,
with an average of 4.67 rules. However, four
Results of the studies, those completed by Evertson
The seven identified features of effective and colleagues, did not specify the total num-
classroom rules are detailed below, each fol- ber of rules used in different classrooms.
lowed immediately by the empirical evidence Rather, they noted, in their comparison of
identified from the review of effective prac- more and less effective behavior managers,
tices. Table 1 presents the 15 empirical studies the number of rules teachers had varied widely
and their information on each of the seven and that the number of classroom rules used
characteristics recommended for effective did not discriminate between more and less
classroom rules. effective behavior managers.

Number of Rules Created Collaboratively With

Having the appropriate number of classroom
Students
rules is commonly identified as an important A number of secondary sources recommend
feature of effective rules. Whereas the rec- soliciting and integrating student input when
ommendations from secondary sources vary creating classroom rules. Jones and Jones
in terms of specifying the optimal number of (2016) outlined a multistep iterative process
rules, there is broad consensus that a smaller in which student feedback is gathered,
number is better than a larger number. For recorded, discussed and then set as the class-
example, Alberto and Troutman (2013) and room rules for the year. Kerr and Nelson
Kerr and Nelson (2010) simply recom- (2010) provided a less detailed explanation on
mended having as few rules as possible. developing rules but suggested that they “are
Similiarly, Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, more likely to be followed than those that are
Myers, and Sugai (2008) recommended “a autocratic” (p. 207). Burden (2006) and Maag
small number” (p. 358). Other recommenda- (2004) made similar recommendations as did
tions include three to five (Kostewicz, Ruhl, Bicard (2000), recommending an initial
& Kubina, 2008), four to five (Gable et al., framework of rules as a start and then solicit-
2009; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993), no ing input for collaborative construction. Con-
more than five (Babkie, 2006), no more than versely, Alberto and Troutman (2013)
six (Smith, 2004), and no more than seven recommend against having students play a
(Maag, 2004). Malone and Tietjens (2000) role in creating classroom rules.
6
Table 1. Characteristics of Classroom Rules.

Tied to positive
Number of Created Stated Specific or Taught to and/or negative
Study rules collaboratively positively general Posted publicly students consequences
De Martini-Scully, Bray, and Kehle 5 No No Specific Yes Yes Yes
(2000)
Emmer, Evertson, and Anderson Not Specified In some instances but Not Not Not Specified Yes Yes
(1980) not all Specified Specified
Evertson and Emmer (1982) Not Specified No No Both Some classes (stated, Yes Yes
written or posted)
Evertson, Emmer, Sanford, and Not Specified No Not Not Not specified Yes Yes
Clements (1983) Specified Specified
Evertson (1989) Not Specified No Not Not Yes Yes Yes
Specified Specified
Greenwood, Hops, Delquadri, and 6 No Yes Specific Yes Yes Yes
Guild (1974)
Johnson, Stoner, and Green (1996) 4 or 5 per No Yes Both Given as a handout Yes Yes
class
Lohrmann and Talerico (2004) 3 No Yes Specific No Yes Yes
Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1968) 5-6 Recommended but Yes (when Specific Yes Yes Yes
not described possible)
McNamara, Harrop, and Owen 3 No No Specific Yes Yes Yes
(1987)
McNamara, Evans, and Hill (1986) 5 No No Specific Yes and printed as a Yes Yes
handout
Musser, Bray, Kehle, and Jenson 5 No No Specific Posted on students’ Yes Yes
(2001) desks
Närhi, Kiiski, Peitso, and Savolainen 2 No Not Specific No Yes Yes
(2015) Specified
O’Leary, Becker, Evans, and 9 No No Specific Yes Yes Yes
Saudargas (1969)
Rosenberg (1986) 3 No No Specific Yes Yes Yes
Alter and Haydon 7

Empirical evidence for collaboratively developed to demonstrate how rules could be phrased
rules. Only Madsen and colleagues (1968) positively. Seven studies used a combination
suggested that the teachers in their study for- of positively and negatively stated rules. In
mulate rules with the class, and no description each of these, only one or two of the rules was
as to that process is described. The remaining stated negatively, with the majority of the list
studies included in this review did not directly describing desired behaviors. Finally, four of
involve students in creating the rules. How- the studies did not specify whether rules were
ever, in their descriptive study, Emmer and stated positively. However, Evertson and
colleagues (1980) noted that for more effec- Emmer (1982) used gum chewing as an exam-
tive classroom managers, “In some cases but ple, suggesting that rules may have been
not always, pupils were asked to suggest stated both positively and negatively.
rules” (p. 225). In the remaining studies, the
rules were either created by the teacher or cre-
ated collaboratively between the teachers and
Specific in Nature
researchers. In addition to stating rules positively, recom-
mendations for the phrasing of rules are also
somewhat equivocal. Classroom management
Stated Positively
textbooks recommend the use of specific and
Using wording that describes desired behav- observable rules. However, Simonsen et al.
iors rather than undesired behaviors when cre- (2008) stated that expectations should be
ating rules is a frequent recommendation in the broad enough to include all desired behaviors
secondary literature. However, how important and presented “Be Safe, Be Responsible, Be
and to what extent teachers should follow this Respectful” (p. 358) as an example. Other
recommendation remains equivocal within resources identify a distinction between
both the secondary sources and the empirical expectations and rules and recommend
research. In a selection of classroom manage- extrapolating specific rules from more broadly
ment textbooks, both Kerr and Nelson (2010) stated (and often schoolwide) global expecta-
and Scott et al. (2011) stated that rules should tions (Kerr & Nelson, 2010; Reinke et al.,
be stated positively to describe appropriate and 2013; Scott et al., 2011). Smith (2004) used
desired behaviors. Similarly in other journal different terminology but made a similar rec-
articles, the same suggestion is made (Bicard, ommendation. This textbook refers to these
2000; Gable, Hester, Rock & Hughes, 2009; broader expectations as “principles” and rec-
Hester, Hendrickson, & Gable, 2009; Simon- ommends far more specificity for classroom
sen et al., 2008). Zirpoli (2016), and Alberto rules by warning against rules that are worded
and Troutman (2013) suggested that rules morally rather than behaviorally (e.g., Respect
should be stated positively whenever possible. and Responsibility, Our Classroom Commu-
Furthermore, Alberto and Troutman expound nity, A Safe Place to Learn).
on this by concluding that “keep your saliva in
your mouth” lacked the impact and pellucid Empirical evidence for rule specificity. Ten of the
clarity of “don’t spit” (p. 407). articles included in this review provided spe-
cific classroom rules as part of their interven-
Empirical evidence for stating rules posi- tion, two articles had rules that were both
tively. Within the identified studies, four specific and general, and three articles did not
authors used only positively stated rules, provide enough information to determine how
although one of those, Madsen et al. (1968), the rules were phrased. From the 10 articles
included only that rules were stated positively that listed rules (the descriptive and experi-
when possible. In the directions to participat- mental studies associated with Evertson and
ing teachers, Madsen et al. provided the colleagues did not), the majority could be
example “‘Sit quietly while working’ rather organized around four major themes: (a) com-
than, ‘Don’t talk to your neighbors” (p. 144) pliance with adults, (b) managing verbal
8 Teacher Education and Special Education

behaviors, (c) appropriate recruitment of the participant students’ desks, and McNa-
teacher attention, and (d) work preparedness/ mara, Evans, and Hill (1986) posted the rules
work completion. In their examination of four and provided them as a handout.
classrooms, Johnson et al. (1996) examined
the use of either four or five rules per class-
Taught to Students
room. Of the 19 total rules listed, 15 were
worded specifically (e.g., Be on time, Stay in Teaching classroom rules to students was the
your seat) and four were written generally most consistently discussed recommendation
(e.g., Be positive in your attitude toward class, across secondary sources as it was identified
Be considerate). in every single secondary source included in
the review. In an article geared for preschool
students, Hester et al. (2009) suggested
Publicly Posted reviewing rules daily using no more than 3 to
Displaying rules publicly in writing is identi- 5 minutes. Bicard (2000) suggested having
fied as a useful component for establishing student-made posters of the classroom rules,
classroom rules as it serves as a visual prompt devoting class time each day to teach the rules
for teaching and reminding students. Within for the first 2 or 3 days and then teaching them
classroom management textbooks, Scott et al. each Monday for the first month, and periodi-
(2011) recommended that rules be posted cally thereafter—especially after long school
publicly to prompt prosocial behavior. The breaks. Scott and colleagues (2011) recom-
authors also recommend using pictures to rep- mended teaching the classroom rules just like
resent words for students who cannot read and you would teach academics by: stating the
that high schoolteachers may consider giving rule, giving a rationale, giving examples and
students printed copies of the rules rather than nonexamples, and allowing students the
posting them. A number of articles make simi- opportunity to practice. Kerr and Nelson
lar recommendations for posting them pub- (2010) made a similar recommendation
licly and often in multiple locations (Bicard, including providing a rationale for each rule
2000; Malone & Tietjens, 2000; Shores et al., and allowing students to practice through
1993; Simonsen et al., 2008). Other than dis- role-plays.
playing the rules prominently for all to see,
there are no other details provided in how to Empirical evidence for teaching rules. All fif-
display the rules. teen articles identified teaching classroom
rules as part of the experimental protocol or
Empirical evidence for public posting. Ten of the an observed behavior of more effective class-
15 studies presented the classroom rules visu- room managers for the descriptive studies. In
ally to students. Three of the studies that fact, in the descriptive studies, teaching the
looked at large numbers of classrooms did not classroom rules was identified as one of the
specify whether they were publicly posted, key distinguishing factors between teachers
and one study stated that rules were communi- who are most and least effective in managing
cated by being stated, written, or posted classroom behavior (Evertson & Emmer,
(Evertson & Emmer, 1982). One study that 1982). The amount of time and the delivery
did not post the classroom rules publicly in for teaching the classroom rules varied across
classrooms was Närhi, Kiiski, Peitso, and studies and, in some instances, were not spec-
Savolainen (2015) “as a result of the practical ified. Johnson et al. (1996) had the teacher
organization of teaching in Finnish middle spend 10 minutes teaching the rules with
schools” V. Närhi (personal communication, behavior-specific feedback on the first day of
January 27, 2016). There were some slight implementation and then 3 minutes in subse-
variations on visual posting of rules: Johnson quent days to teach one rule per day for 4
et al. (1996) gave the rules as a handout to stu- days with “examples (primarily generated by
dents, Musser et al. (2001) posted the rules on the students) and behavior-specific prompts
Alter and Haydon 9

and feedback” (p. 203). Similarly, McNamara In the experimental studies, all 13 studies
and colleagues (1986) had the teachers read used various combinations of consequences.
over and discuss the rules at the beginning, Eight of the studies identify the use of praise
middle, and end of the lesson, and O’Leary or feedback indicating both positive and nega-
et al. (1969) had the teachers read the rules tive consequences. Five of the studies also
over once every morning and afternoon. In used tangible reinforcers either solely or in
four other studies, the description of the conjunction with positive specific praise.
teaching process was that teachers explicitly Although, if it is inferred that praise or atten-
taught the rules daily and explained how they tion is always provided within a token econ-
were tied to the reinforcement system. How- omy, then praise was always used in
ever, the amount of time teachers spent teach- conjunction with tangible reinforcers. The
ing and other details were not included (De tangible items ranged from dolls, comics, and
Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Lohrmann & barrettes (O’Leary et al., 1969) to candy and
Talerico, 2004; Musser et al., 2001; Rosen- fast food gift certificates (Rosenberg, 1986) to
berg, 1986) unspecified items from the “goody box”
(Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004). Finally, also in
conjunction with verbal feedback, preferred
Tied to Positive and Negative
activities were provided to students who com-
Consequences plied with classroom rules. These included
The use of consequences that reinforce rule classroom games (e.g., Heads Up 7 Up), extra
compliance and punish rule breaking is also recess (Greenwood et al., 1974), and the
frequently identified as a key characteristic of opportunity to complete puzzle worksheets
effective classroom rules. Kerr and Nelson (McNamara et al., 1986). Consequences for
(2010) specified that these consequences must rule violations were also used with six of the
go beyond threats or lectures and must have studies. Two of the studies specified the use of
consistent follow-through. Scott and col- planned ignoring (Madsen et al., 1968;
leagues (2011) recommended that the conse- O’Leary et al., 1969). Two of the studies iden-
quence be a logical fit for the rule. For tified the use of negative verbal feedback
example, if a student repeatedly calls out (McNamara et al., 1986; McNamara, Harrop,
instead of raising their hand, they might & Owen, 1987), and two of the studies used a
devote 5 minutes of recess time to practicing response cost system as to discourage rule
hand-raising behavior. Bicard (2000) and violations (De Martini-Scully et al., 2000;
Shores et al. (1993) made similar recommen- Musser et al., 2001).
dations and also encourage that the rules and Finally, for two other studies, immediate
their consequences be reviewed together dur- actions responding to challenging behaviors
ing teaching/reteaching moments. are identified as being used but not further
specified in the article (Evertson, 1989; Närhi
Empirical evidence for tying rules to conse- et al., 2015). Greenwood and colleagues
quences. All thirteen of the experimental arti- (1974) also provided teacher training to
cles included in this review specified the use increase teachers’ use of appropriate negative
of consequences tied to the identified rules, consequences and discourage specific teacher
and for the two descriptive studies, the role of consequences when responding to rule viola-
consequences tied to rules was highlighted. tions. This included “all negative physical
Emmer and colleagues (1980) noted that contact such as hitting, spanking or pulling”
teachers who were less effective at managing (p. 416).
behavior had less apparent consequences and
did not deliver them quickly enough. Evertson
Discussion
and Emmer (1982) also noted a lack of consis-
tency in the consequences that were delivered The purpose of this review of effective
for less effective managers. practices was to evaluate the evidence base
10 Teacher Education and Special Education

supporting the characteristics of effective classroom rules in terms managing behavior

classroom rules to guide teacher preparation may be more equivocal than classroom man-
in the area of classroom management. This agement textbooks and other articles would
was accomplished by comparing the recom- suggest. Although it is not surprising that all
mendations made in secondary sources such the published articles demonstrated marked
as classroom management textbooks and improvement in student behavior, the role of
other publications with empirical research classroom rules having a functional relation-
that used classroom rules as an independent ship with student behavior is less clear. For
variable or included them as an important the three studies that implemented classroom
component in widespread descriptive studies rules as a stand-alone intervention (Green-
of effective classroom management. In addi- wood et al., 1974; Madsen et al., 1968;
tion, the overall efficacy of classroom rules, O’Leary et al., 1969), all three concluded that
both as a stand-alone intervention and part of “rules alone exerted little effect on behavior”
a package intervention, was considered. Not (Madsen et al., 1968, p. 139). Johnson et al.’s
surprisingly, some characteristics of class- (1996) demonstrated greater efficacy with
room rules were implemented more consis- teaching classroom rules in one classroom
tently and seemed to be suggestive of greater rather than a syllabus/achievement assess-
levels of overall impact of the intervention ment or a student self-monitoring intervention
than others. More surprising is that some fre- in two other classrooms in terms of improving
quently recommended characteristics of student behavior. Furthermore, their findings
classroom rules lacked almost any empirical are more compelling as they replicated similar
support at all. effects with the teaching classroom rules
Finally, given the level of emphasis placed intervention in the other two classrooms.
on classroom rules within the secondary pub- However, it should be noted that their class-
lications, there is a relatively small amount of room rules intervention consisted of incorpo-
research evaluating them. This is particularly rating proactive activities emphasizing
true of research on classroom rules without classroom rules that may be different than
other interventions introduced concurrently. simply creating and posting classroom rules.
This is indicative of a dearth in the research For the remaining studies, drawing conclu-
base to support such a frequently recom- sions is more challenging as classroom rules
mended component of classroom manage- were always one part of a package intervention
ment. This review of the evidence indicates combined with as many as four other elements
that while effective characteristics of class- (De Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Musser et al.,
room rules are typically outlined with equal 2001) and always combined with some type of
emphasis in secondary literature, often in list reward/reinforcement system. However, there
form, they would be more accurately pre- are some ways to derive the relative impor-
sented on a continuum and should be pre- tance of classroom rules. McNamara and col-
sented to preservice and in-service teachers leagues (1986) noted that students’ on-task
accordingly. Thus, in future practitioner-ori- behavior was depressed during one of the
ented publications, some characteristics of teaching sessions when only the classroom
effective classroom rules would be presented rules component was implemented and the
as integral, while others would be presented seating, self-monitoring, and reward compo-
as equivocal and either disregarded or open to nents of the intervention were withheld. In
modification to suit individual classroom addition, Rosenberg (1986) concluded that
teachers. “increased levels of appropriate behavior were
dependent on the teacher-directed reviews and
the rule-specific prompts that were delivered
Effectiveness of Classroom Rules
throughout the lesson,” thus “the targeted rules
The fifteen articles included in this review and procedures were not completely internal-
indicated that the overall effectiveness of ized” (p. 247).
Alter and Haydon 11

Conclusions and conclusion would be to recommend that teach-

Recommendations ers use the number of rules that fits their class-
room the best. However, it may also be useful
According to the research reviewed, both to use existing research on the brain and work-
empirical and secondary, the two characteris- ing memory which suggests that four items is
tics of classroom rules that were most impor- the ideal number of items to be remembered
tant to their overall effectiveness were that the (Cowan, 2001). The other characteristic that
classroom rules were taught and that they was somewhat equivocal in terms of empirical
were tied to positive and/or negative conse- support was phrasing rules positively. In other
quences. The majority of the experimental words, describing behaviors that are desired
studies described how classroom rules were rather than behaviors that are not desired.
taught to students either through recitation, Whereas this recommendation from the sec-
classroom discussion, or through modeling of ondary literature is consistent both with com-
examples and nonexamples. In addition, both mon sense and more general knowledge of the
descriptive studies noted that one of the key principles of systems like SW-PBIS and
differences between more effective and less applied behavior analysis, its lack of applica-
effective classroom managers was that class- tion within the empirical research is notable.
room rules were taught to students in clear This would lead to the recommendation, stated
and effective ways. Having contingent conse- by some secondary sources, to phrase rules
quences for classroom rules was the other key positively when it makes sense in terms of clar-
characteristic of effective classroom rules. ity and comprehension by the students but that
The contingencies varied from solely rein- a dogmatic commitment to phrase every rule
forcing, solely aversive, or a combination of positively is unnecessary.
reinforcement and punishment strategies tied The final characteristic of classroom rules
to rule following and rule violating. that was recommended in some but not all of
The characteristic of posting rules publicly the secondary literature is the involvement of
or providing them as a handout was a charac- students in the formulation of rules. Only one
teristic of 11 out of 13 of the experimental of the experimental articles solicited student
studies. However, the descriptive studies feedback in the creation of the classroom rules,
noted that classroom rules were communi- and the descriptive studies noted that some
cated to students in a variety of ways for both effective classroom management teachers
more and less effective classroom managers. solicited student feedback, but not all. From an
Common sense and related research on the educational philosophy standpoint, the involve-
use of visual prompts certainly dictates that ment of students in the creation of the rules is
having rules publicly posted or communicated integral (Glasser, 1998). And while consistent
in writing as a handout would increase rule with the idea of classroom as community, there
compliance and certainly represents a mini- is no research to support its efficacy.
mal effort characteristic for the effective The value of classroom rules as a behav-
implementation of classroom rules. ior management strategy is difficult to sum-
A characteristic of classroom rules that had marize. The early research completed by
more variation within the empirical literature Greenwood et al. (1974), Madsen et al.
base was the total number of rules appropriate (1968), and O’Leary et al. (1969) provided a
for the classroom. In fact, it appears that the clear indication that classroom rules as a
inconsistency in the secondary literature mir- stand-alone intervention were not effective
rors the range of total rules in the empirical lit- in decreasing challenging behavior or
erature. The descriptive studies also noted a increasing prosocial behavior. Likely as a
wide range in the number rules even among result of these early studies, the remaining
teachers who were determined to be more experimental publications included class-
effective behavior managers. Given this lack of room rules as one component of a package
a definitive number appropriate, the summative intervention. Combining classroom rules
12 Teacher Education and Special Education

with interventions with robust previous **Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013).
research such as precision requests, token Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th
economies with and without response cost, ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
and environmental arrangements make it dif- Algozzine, R., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011).
Reexamining the relationship between aca-
ficult to discern the impact that classroom
demic achievement and social behavior.
rules specifically had on behavior. However,
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13,
logic indicates that delineating expectations 3-16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084
as classroom rules and making them part of Alter, P. J., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teacher
an overall system that also utilized routines perceptions of students’ challenging behavior.
systems of rewards and consequences can be Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4),
highly effective, and classroom-level inter- 51-69. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0040
ventions as part of SW-PBIS bear this out **Babkie, A. M. (2006). Twenty ways to be pro-
(Reinke et al., 2013). Finally, it is impossible active in managing classroom behavior.
to overstate the importance of the personal Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 184-187.
characteristics of teachers who are firm, fair, **Bicard, D. F. (2000). Using classroom rules to
construct behavior. Middle School Journal,
and consistent with their enforcement as well
31(5), 37-45. doi:10.1080/00940771.2000.11
as their ability to facilitate strong positive
494651
relationships with their students especially as **Boostrom, R. (1991). The nature and functions
the rules are being enforced. The role of con- of classroom rules. Curriculum Inquiry, 21,
sistent enforcement was a characteristic 193-216. doi:10.2307/1179942
noted by both descriptive studies especially **Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management:
when used by teachers with strong personal Creating a successful K-12 learning commu-
relationships with their students. nity (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Future research directions should clarify Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in
what characteristics of classroom rules do and short-term memory: A reconsideration of
do not have an effect on behavior separate mental storage capacity. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114. doi:10.1017/
from package interventions. In addition, dif-
S0140525X01003922
ferences between classroom rules at different
*De Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle,
age levels seem likely but this also bears T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention
investigation. This is especially true at the to reduce disruptive behaviors in gen-
high school level as there is no extant empiri- eral education students. Psychology in
cal research on the use of classroom rules in the Schools, 37, 149-156. doi:10.1002/
high school. (SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:2%3C149::
AID-PITS6%3E3.0.CO;2-K
Declaration of Conflicting Interests *Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson,
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of L. M. (1980). Effective classroom manage-
interest with respect to the research, authorship, ment at the beginning of the school year. The
and/or publication of this article. Elementary School Journal, 80, 219-231.
doi:10.1086/461192
Funding *Evertson, C. M. (1989). Improving elementary
The author(s) received no financial support for the classroom management: A school-based train-
research, authorship, and/or publication of this ing program for beginning the year. Journal of
article. Educational Research, 82, 82-90. doi:10.1080
/00220671.1989.10885935
*Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982).
References Effective management at the beginning of the
References marked with one asterisk indicate pri- school year in junior high classes. Journal of
mary empirical research included in the literature Educational Psychology, 74, 485-498.
review. References marked with two asterisks indi- *Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Sanford, J. P., &
cate secondary publications including classroom Clements, B. S. (1983). Improving classroom
management textbooks. management: An experiment in elementary
Alter and Haydon 13

classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, **Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2004). Comprehensive
84, 172-188. doi:10.1086/461354 classroom management: Creating communi-
Flower, A., McKenna, J., Bunuan, R., Muething, C., ties of support and solving problems (7th ed.).
& Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the good behav- Boston, MA: Pearson.
ior game on challenging behaviors in school Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2016). Comprehensive
settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, classroom management: Creating communi-
546-571. doi:10.3102/0034654314536781 ties of support and solving problems (11th
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., & ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
MacSuga-Gage, A. (2014). Pre-service **Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies
teacher training in classroom manage- for addressing behavior problems in the
ment: A review of state accreditation policy classroom (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Pearson.
Education and Special Education, 37, 106- Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou,
120. doi:10.1177/0888406413507002 A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher apprais-
**Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & als of student behaviors. Psychology in the
Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, Schools, 42, 79-89. doi:10.1002/pits.20031
praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. **Kostewicz, D. E., Ruhl, K. L., & Kubina, R. M.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195- (2008). Creating classroom rules for students
205. doi:10.1177/1053451208328831 with emotional and behavioral disorders: A
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory in the class- decision-making guide. Beyond Behavior,
room. New York, NY: HarperCollins. 17(3), 14-21.
Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2008). *Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor the
Teachers who left the teaching profession: boat: A classwide intervention to reduce prob-
A qualitative understanding. The Qualitative lem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior
Report, 13(1), 1-11. Interventions, 6, 113-120. doi:10.1177/10983
**Greenberg, J., Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2014). 007040060020601
Training our future teachers: Classroom man- **Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management:
agement. Washington, DC: National Council From heoretical implications to practi-
on Teacher Quality. cal applications (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
*Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Delquadri, J., & Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for *Madsen, C. H., Jr., Becker, W. C., & Thomas,
group consequences in classroom manage- D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring:
ment: A further analysis. Journal of Applied Elements of elementary classroom control.
Behavior Analysis, 7, 413-425. doi:10.1901/ Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139-
jaba.1974.7-413 150. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-139
**Hester, P. P., Hendrickson, J. M., & Gable, R. A. **Malone, B. G., & Tietjens, C. L. (2000).
(2009). Forty years later—The value of praise, Re-examination of classroom rules: The
ignoring, and rules for preschoolers at risk for need for clarity and specified behavior.
behavior disorders. Education and Treatment Special Services in the Schools, 16, 159-170.
of Children, 32, 513-535. doi:10.1300/J008v16n01_11
Howard, N. A., & Norris, M. R. (1994). Source, *McNamara, E., Evans, M., & Hill, W. (1986).
characteristics, and perceived effective- The reduction of disruptive behaviour in two
ness of classroom rules. Paper presented at secondary school classes. The British Journal
the Kentucky Grow Conference, Bellarmine of Educational Psychology, 56, 209-215.
College, Kentucky. (ERIC Document doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb02664.x
Reproduction Service ED 396855) *McNamara, E., Harrop, A., & Owen, F. (1987).
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong The effect of group oriented classroom man-
solution to the teacher shortage. Educational agement procedures on individual pupils.
Leadership, 60, 30-33. Educational Psychology, 7, 157-168.
*Johnson, T. C., Stoner, G., & Green, S. K. (1996). *Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., &
Demonstrating the experimenting society Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive
model with classwide behavior management behaviors in students with serious emotional
interventions. School Psychology Review, 25, disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30,
199-214. 294-304.
14 Teacher Education and Special Education

*Närhi, V., Kiiski, T., Peitso, S., & Savolainen, Positive Behavior Supports. Upper Saddle
H. (2015). Reducing disruptive behaviours River, NJ: Pearson.
and improving learning climates with class- **Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993).
wide positive behaviour support in middle Classroom management strategies: Are they
schools. European Journal of Special Needs setting events for coercion? Behavioral
Education, 30, 274-285. doi:10.1080/088562 Disorders, 18, 92-102.
57.2014.986913 **Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A.,
*O’Leary, K. A., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B., & Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-
Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforce- based practices in classroom management:
ment program in a public school: A replication Considerations for research to practice.
and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Education and Treatment of Children, 31,
Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13. 351-380.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special **Smith, R. (2004). Conscious classroom manage-
education teacher preparation in class- ment: Unlocking the secrets to great teach-
room management: Implication for students ing. San Rafael, CA: Conscious Teaching
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Publications.
Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188-199. Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., &
Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J. Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behavior
(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teach- game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30,
ers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and reten- 225-253. doi:10.1177/0145445503261165
tion. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 25-41. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.
**Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, (1994). What helps students learn? Synthesis
M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavior of Research, 51, 74-79.
supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: **Zirpoli, T. J. (2016). Behavior management:
Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal Applications for teachers (6th ed.). Upper
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39-50. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
doi:10.1177/1098300712459079
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2005). The Author Biographies
37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll
Peter Alter is an associate professor at Saint
of the public’s attitudes toward the pub-
Mary’s College of California. His primary research
lic schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 41-57.
interests are positive behavior support, classroom
doi:10.1177/003172170508700110
and behavior management and effective teacher
*Rosenberg, M. S. (1986). Maximizing the effec-
preparation.
tiveness of structured classroom management
programs: Implementing rule-review proce- Todd Haydon is an associate professor at the Uni-
dures with disruptive and distractible students. versity ofCincinnati. His current research interests
Behavior Disorders, 11, 239-248. are effective teaching practices, students with
**Scott, T. M., Anderson, C. M., & Alter, P. J. behavioral disorders, mindfulness, and positivebe-
(2011). Managing Classroom Behavior Using havior and supports.

View publication stats