Lead Feature

Back to Basics
Rules, Praise, Ignoring, and Reprimands Revisited
ROBERT A. GABLE, PEGGY H. HESTER, MARCIA L. ROCK, AND KIMBERLY G. HUGHES

Research begun in the 1960s provided the impetus for teacher educators to urge classroom teachers to establish
classroom rules, deliver high rates of verbal/nonverbal praise, and, whenever possible, to ignore minor student
provocations. In that there have been significant advances in the knowledge of what constitutes effective classroom
management, a review of past-to-present literature was conducted to determine whether it is time to alter the think-
ing about one or more of these basic behavioral strategies. The research conducted over the years supports the
basic tenets of these strategies, but with some important caveats. Finally, there are several newer strategies that
warrant attention.

Keywords: interventions; behavior, classroom; management; behavior

S ome 40 years ago, researchers began a series of

studies on classroom rules, teacher praise, planned
ignoring, and verbal reprimands. Among the most widely
were (a) teacher praise and attention, (b) verbal praise,
(c) classroom rules and expectations, (d) ignoring,
(e) extinction, (f) inappropriate behavior, (g) reprimands,
cited studies were those conducted by Zimmerman and (h) positive feedback, and (i) recruiting positive atten-
Zimmerman (1962); Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and tion. In all, approximately 50 different sources were
Thomas (1967); and Madsen, Becker, and Thomas examined, including empirical studies, literature reviews,
(1968). The results of these studies have served as the position papers, and textbooks.
basis for the preparation of generations of classroom In what follows, the relationship among the following
teachers who work with children and adolescents with classroom practices is discussed: rules, praise, ignoring,
learning and behavior disabilities. Recent legislation and reprimands. The circumstances under which one or
mandates that school personnel make use of only those more of these strategies are most likely to have a positive
strategies for which there is strong empirical support influence on student behavior were examined. The con-
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, ditions under which one or more of these practices may
1997; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement not be effective or may even have a deleterious effect on
Act, 2004; No Child Left Behind, 2002). For that rea- student behavior is detailed. Changes in thinking that
son, it was time to revisit the classroom use of rules, have occurred over time, including the emergent strate-
praise, ignoring, and reprimands. gies of contingent instruction and precorrection are high-
A review of the accumulated literature was conducted lighted. Finally, the accumulated literature on rules,
to determine how past-to-present research might inform praise, ignoring, and reprimands is summarized, and
current classroom management practices in general and suggested ways are provided that school personnel might
special education. The review of the literature included
Intervention in School and Clinic, Volume 44 Number 4, March 2009 195-205
general education, special education, and psychology, DOI: 10.1177/1053451208328831 © 2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
from the 1960s to the present. The key search words http://isc.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

195
196 Intervention in School and Clinic

increase the positive effects of these longstanding class- examples and nonexamples and affords the teacher an
room management practices. opportunity to clarify the qualities that distinguish accept-
able and unacceptable behavior. It also is essential that
teachers explain to their students the positive conse-
Classroom Rules quences for rule-following and the negative consequences
for rule-violating behavior (Burden, 2006; Kerr & Nelson,
2006).
Teacher educators have long advocated that school
Some authorities encourage teachers to solicit student
personnel establish a set of basic rules with which to cre-
input when developing the rules and get student com-
ate a safe, orderly, and productive classroom. Classroom
mitment to follow them (e.g., signing a written agree-
rules are explicit statements that define behavior expecta-
ment; Burden, 2006; Maag, 2004). For example, the
tions and that help to establish a predictable teaching and
teacher might highlight for the class (e.g., verbally
learning environment (Grossman, 2004; Kerr & Nelson,
“walk through” the day) the major activities and solicit
2006; Madsen et al., 1968). Classroom rules can be put in
from students their thoughts about what acceptable or
one of two general categories: organization rules and
appropriate behavior would look and sound like. The
learning rules (Performance Learning Systems, 2007).
teacher might draw three columns on the board; the first
The former spell out behavioral boundaries for students,
column would contain the major activities, the second,
offer predictability, and ensure a safe and disciplined
desired behavior, and the third column, a checkmark if
classroom environment (Van Acker, 2007); whereas, the
a rule should apply. Experience has shown that students
latter support students’ success in learning academic con-
sometimes suggest consequences that are overly harsh
tent. Both sets of rules encourage students to accept
and/or rules that are not enforceable. The teacher may
increased responsibility for their own behavior.
need to guide discussion in a way that (a) minimizes the
number of rules and (b) the magnitude of the conse-
quences for infractions. Once the teacher has taught
Effective Use of Rules students the rules and checked for understanding, it is
useful to periodically introduce booster training ses-
Gone are the long lists of classroom rules that enumer- sions in which rules are reviewed and students practice
ate an inordinate number of behaviors teacher deem unac- acceptable behavior. Teachers should self-monitor the
ceptable (eg, no running, no talking, no wearing hats, no fidelity with which they enforce classroom rules by
leaving your seat). Today, there is general agreement that keeping a simple running record of their actions.
teachers should have relatively few classroom rules (ie,
four–five rules), stated positively and age-appropriately
(eg, keep hands and feet to yourself, listen quietly while Gaining Cooperation and
others are talking, raise your hand to speak, and follow Enforcing Rules
directions the first time; Burden, 2006; Grossman, 2004;
Kerr & Nelson, 2006; Maag, 2004; Scheuermann & Hall, Experience suggests that student compliance and dis-
2008 ). In addition, there is general consensus that class- ruptive classroom behavior co-vary inversely. That is,
room rules should be necessary, reasonable, easy to increased compliance usually leads to a reduction in the
understand, and enforceable (Burden, 2006; Grossman, incidence of problem behavior (Parrish, 1986). Some
2004; Kerr & Nelson, 2006). While some authors assert authorities suggest that teacher requests for rule com-
that classroom rules should be differentiated according to pliance should be specific, delivered within 3 feet of the
the specific situation (Kerr & Nelson, 2006; Maag, 2004), student, and only after establishing eye contact (Shores,
others argue that rules should be far-reaching enough to Gunter, & Jack, 1993; Van Hourten, Nau, MacKenzie-
cover multiple classroom situations and more general Keating, Sameoto, & Colavecchia, 1982). Others con-
than those regulations that address routine classroom tend that requests for eye contact should be reserved
activities (Smith & Rivera, 1993). In either case, students for teacher delivery of positive reinforcement. However,
should be taught, situationally and systematically, to given an increasingly diverse student population and
comply with classroom rules. Paine, Radicchi, Rosellini, growing recognition of disparate cultural norms, there is
Deutchman, and Darch (1983) suggested that instruction good reason to question the present-day relevance of past
take place daily and that it be brief (ie, 3–5 min). Teacher practices (Cartledge & Loe, 2001; Gable, Hendrickson,
modeling is a proven effective way to introduce multiple Tonelson, & Van Acker, 2002).
 Gable et al. / Back to Basics 197

Notwithstanding conventional wisdom, simply estab- violator (i.e., three or more times). Among the most com-
lishing a set of classroom rules does not guarantee posi- mon violations is the failure to comply with a teacher
tive outcomes. For example, teacher failure to impose request (Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997). The reason
some kind of consequences for every violation renders for a student’s failure to comply may be a function of the
rules ineffective (Madsen et al., 1968). Students are more following: (a) a skill deficit (the student does not possess
likely to follow classroom rules if they believe that teach- the skill); (b) performance deficit (the student possesses
ers are cognizant of compliant versus noncompliant the skill but sees no reason to engage in it); or, (c) a self-
behavior (Kounin, 1970). Uncertainty regarding teacher control performance deficit (the student possesses the skill
expectations can unwittingly cause students to engage in but is unable to deal with competing forces—anger, frus-
unacceptable behavior (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, tration, fatigue; e.g., Gresham, Van, & Cook, 2006; Van
1999). Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that incon- Acker, 2007). Each of these sources of noncompliant
sistent enforcement of classroom rules is a major source behavior necessitates a different intervention. Given the
of teacher/pupil conflict. Therefore, to reduce the proba- increasingly diverse student population and the relatively
bility of future misbehavior, teachers should monitor complex nature of rules and expectations it is not surpris-
students’ rule-abiding behavior and be prepared to inter- ing that many teachers find it difficult to make good use of
vene to address repeated violations (Grossman, 2004). classroom rules.
Most teachers can attest to the fact that some students
repeatedly violate classroom rules. For these students,
researchers suggest that teachers introduce strategies
designed with a two-fold purpose: (a) to decrease the The Overlapping Relationship
likely future occurrence of the behavior and (b) to Between Rules, Expectations,
increase the probability that a more acceptable behavior and Behavioral Routines
will occur. This can be accomplished in various ways.
For example, teachers can remove social or environ- Today, there is growing sentiment that rules are
mental events that trigger behavior problems (eg, stu- largely compliance-driven in that they do not serve a
dent placement close to an antagonistic classmate or in skill-building function. Accordingly, authorities encour-
a high traffic area of the classroom) and introduce age teachers to put emphasis on classroom expectations
events that signal students to engage in more appropri- and use rules as supporting guidelines that teach stu-
ate behavior (eg, nonverbal teacher cues to prompt rule- dents what exactly constitutes appropriate behavior.
following behavior). It is important for school personnel Table 1 illustrates how specific rules are used to support
to adhere to the fair-pair rule (White & Haring, 1980) broader behavioral expectations. Rather than serving a
and introduce one strategy to decrease problem behav- purely regulatory function, expectations are a way to
ior and another strategy to teach an appropriate substi- define appropriate classroom behavior (Bear, 2005) and
tute for it. to build cohesion among students (Henley, 2006). In
According to Neff and colleagues, teachers who that teacher expectations will vary (eg, participation in
include do and don’t requests are able to increase sub- a cooperative learning activity versus transition from
stantially the rate at which students comply with class- one classroom to another), each set of expectations
room rules (Neff, Shafer, Egel, Cataldo, & Parrish, should be taught separately to students, and later be
1983). Rhode, Jensen, and Reavis (1992) suggested the publicly posted and reviewed on a regular basis.
use of precision requests to increase student compliance. Behavioral routines or classroom procedures provide
Precision requests consist of (a) the student’s name, (b) the daily infrastructure that support rules and expecta-
a precise description of the required behavior, (c) use of tions, while minimizing student confusion and teacher
a polite and unemotional tone, and (d) a wait time of at disorganization (Burden, 2006; Henley, 2006). Peterson
least 5 seconds for the student to comply (eg, “Joanna, (1992) maintained that a “routine implements an action
stop please—it is disrespectful to pull down artwork designed to achieve a specific outcome as efficiently as
displayed on the wall.” “Be responsible by keeping your possible” (p. 62). Among the most common behavioral
hands and feet to yourself. Do it now, please.”). routines are those that relate to (a) student use of the
Although not all authorities encourage teachers to identify restroom, (b) conduct at assemblies, (c) classroom tran-
the student’s motivation to misbehave (Grossman, 2004; sitions, and (d) going to the cafeteria. Teachers have
Lane, Gresham, & O’Shaughnessy, 2002), it probably is used both graphic organizers and scaffolding strategies
important to do so for any student who is a chronic rule to clarify for students expected behavior and to help
198 Intervention in School and Clinic

TABLE 1
Rules and Expectations Matrix

Hall Cafeteria Recess

Expectations Rules Rules Rules

Be safe Walk facing forward. Hold tray with two hands. Use equipment safely.
Stay to the right except when Keep all food to self without sharing. Follow game rules.
directed otherwise.
Be prepared Have planner signed. Have lunch money ready. Put on outerware and be in line on time.
Be respectful Keep hands, feet, and objects Keep hands, feet, and objects to self. Keep hands, feet and objects to self.
to self. Face forward, and keep the line moving. Use polite language and respectful tone of
Use voices quietly. voice.

Figure 1. Behavioral routines/procedures.

establish behavioral routines (Bear, 2005; Rock, 2004). management strategy to the importance of the particular
Figure 1 contains an example of a graphic organizer to behavior. Mirroring previous practices, schools have
teach students expected procedures when walking in the begun to explicitly teach students what is expected of
hallway. As can be seen, the graphic organizer contains them not only in the classroom, but also on a schoolwide
a mnemonic to increase student understanding and basis and to acknowledge appropriate behavior in ways
retention. Last, there may be some classroom activities that are valued by the students (Bullock & Gable, 2003;
that are relatively low intensity and can be addressed by Sugai & Lewis, 1999).
means of cues and verbal/nonverbal teacher prompts.
Low frequency or low intensity behavior such as an
occasional comment to a classmate probably does not Teacher Use of Classroom Praise
warrant anything more than a verbal or nonverbal prompt.
In all, classroom rules, expectations, and behavioral rou- The second of the overlapping strategies is praise.
tines afford teachers an opportunity to manage predictable Researchers have long been interested in teacher use of
classroom behavior and to align the complexity of the classroom praise and its influence on both academic and
 Gable et al. / Back to Basics 199

TABLE 2 TABLE 3
More Effective vs. Less Effective Teacher Praise Scaffolding Praise
Less Effective Praise Scaffolding Step Example Praise Statement
More Effective Praise Statements Statements
Teacher models praise “Excellent class! Everyone is really
“Excellent job listening and following “Good Job!” on-task today in reading.”
directions the first time.” “Super!” Class engages in group praise “Everyone give yourself a pat on
“Your eyes are on me and your mouth is quiet. the back or kiss your brain!”
Thank you for showing me you are ready to Partners share praise “Turn to a neighbor and tell him or
learn.” her how great he or she is doing
“Wow, you are a working machine today. You “Great Work!” being ready to learn during
completed your math work correctly before reading.”
the end of class.” Student self-praises “Whisper to yourself how well you
“Way to go! Finding ways to include everyone’s “Terrific!” did following my directions to
ideas helps all members of your cooperative practice smooth blending.”
learning group feel like they are important.”

nonacademic behavior (Gable, Hendrickson, Young, Contrucci, Delia, Adelinis, & Gold, 1999; Walker et al.,
Shores, & Stowitscek, 1983; Gunter & Denny, 1998; 1999).
Lampi, Fenty, & Beaunae, 2005; Sutherland & Wehby, Brophy (1981) argued that praise is not always syn-
2001). Praise consists of verbal or written statements onymous with positive reinforcement. He asserted that
that acknowledge a desired student behavior and is its function is determined by the relationship between
manifested in several different ways. While not without verbal and nonverbal aspects of teacher behavior, the
its critics (Larrivee, 2002), use of contingent praise has context in which the interaction occurs and, most impor-
strong empirical support (Strain & Joseph, 2004). tantly, the actual effect it has on pupil behavior. Although
not widely researched, there also may be age- and gender-
related dimensions of teacher praise. For example, Miller
Effective Use of Praise and Hom (1997) reported that older students view class-
mates who receive praise (and little negative feedback)
Praise statements usually draw attention to a correct as less capable, which is opposite the opinion held by
answer (e.g., “Yes, 20 20 40”) or include feedback on younger children. Burnett (2001) suggested that younger
student behavior, such as “great job … super reading” children would rather receive ability feedback and that
(Gunter & Reed, 1996). However, behavior-specific, con- female students prefer attention for effort more than
tingent feedback in which the teacher describes precisely male students do. Last, in some cases, teacher classroom
the behavior usually is more effective (Feldman, 2003; praise may be counterproductive when a student does not
Weinstein, 2003). Although not common practice (Kalis, wish to please the teacher (Feldman, 2003).
Vannest, & Parker, 2007), the teacher might say, “I really The classroom behavior problems of some students
like the way Johnny is standing quietly in line.” Table 2 are the result of long-standing coercive interactions (eg,
offers additional examples of effective teacher praise student complies with teacher request simply to termi-
statements. Table 3 illustrates a scaffolding strategy for nate a highly aversive exchange, student confronts
teacher praise. teacher and the teacher backs-off), which can make
Among myriad reasons for teachers to use praise is the positive interventions, including the use of praise, less
fact that it can promote a more positive relationship effective (Walker et al., 1999). It also is important to
between teacher and student, and in turn, a more sup- recognize that, for some students, teacher attention even
portive learning environment (Shores et al., 1993; Walker in the form of disapproval is better than no attention at
et al., 1999). Researchers also have shown that the power all (Alberto & Troutman, 2006; Madsen et al., 1968).
of praise increases when it is delivered in close physical One proactive option is to increase a student’s opportu-
proximity to the student and in a manner acceptable to nity to respond and respond correctly (at least 75%),
the student (e.g., verbal or nonverbal, public or private; which results in higher rates of academic engagement
Burnett, 2001; Feldman, 2003; Lampi et al., 2005). Last, and, in turn, an increased opportunity for teachers to
while tangible rewards should be used sparingly (Bear, acknowledge successful student performance (Sutherland,
2005), for students with a history of gaining attention by Wehby, & Yoder, 2002). Another significant by-product
misbehaving, it may be necessary to pair verbal praise of this approach is the increased probability that teach-
with more tangible reinforcement (Piazza, Bowman, ers will come to view students more positively and
200 Intervention in School and Clinic

focus less on their negative behavior (Sutherland et al., Given the documented positive effects of teacher praise,
in press). Strategies that teachers can use to increase the it is puzzling why so many teachers make little use of it
use of praise include: peer coaching, self-monitoring, (Gable et al., 1983; Gunter & Denny, 1998; Shores et al.,
and self-evaluation (Kalis et al., 2007). Peer coaching 1993; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Sutherland et al., 2002).
usually consists of systematic classroom observation There are several possible explanations. First, in both the
(ie, use of tally sheet) by another teacher and a subse- popular press and the professional literature, critics have
quent sharing of information. The observer may record raised questions about the legitimacy of classroom praise
the number of opportunities that students have to respond (Larrivee, 2002). Second, the climate of the workplace
and, in turn, receive positive feedback. Teachers can use does not always support the use of evidence-based prac-
a hand-held counter or simply transfer a penny from one tices such as teacher praise (Gable, 2004). Finally, some
pocket to another for each praise statement as a way to teachers may not feel comfortable routinely acknowledg-
monitor their verbal behavior (Kalis et al., 2007). Finally, ing positive pupil behavior. Even so, there is absolutely no
Gunter and Reed (1996) developed a protocol that reason to believe that praise is either controlling or has a
teachers can use to conduct a functional assessment of detrimental effect on children (Kratochwill & Stoiber,
their teaching behavior. Teachers videotaped instruction 2000). In fact, there is a compelling body of empirical
and then self-evaluated various discrete behaviors, evidence regarding its positive impact on both academic
including praise. Gunter and Reed reported that teachers and nonacademic behavior (Lampi et al., 2005; Shores
could reliably self-evaluate their instruction and make et al., 1993; Sutherland et al., 2002; Walker et al., 1999).
adjustments that led to positive changes in teaching
behavior. Teacher Use of Planned Ignoring

Student Recruitment of Teacher Praise The third management strategy is planned ignoring.
There are various ways teachers can deal with class-
Another way to increase the rate of teacher praise is to room misbehavior, including ignoring inappropriate stu-
teach students how to recruit it. Classroom researchers dent behavior. Planned ignoring is a form of extinction
have shown that students can be taught ways to gain designed to weaken, decrease, or eliminate a behavior
teacher attention and praise that can trigger inactive (Sheuermann & Hall, 2008). For example, when the
teacher “contingencies of reinforcement” (Alber & teacher ignores call-outs (i.e., does not attend to verbal
Heward, 2000). That is, student recruitment efforts (e.g., misbehavior), the intent is to signal to the student that
“See, I completed the assignment”) can motivate teachers inappropriate behavior will not lead to desired outcomes
to praise student behavior. Likewise, students have long (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).
been taught to engage in various kinds of teacher pleasing
behavior to evoke a more positive teacher response (e.g.,
establish and maintain eye contact, nod occasionally) Effective Use of Planned Ignoring
(Graubard, Rosenberg, & Miller, 1965).
In all, use of classroom praise is a multidirectional In introducing an extinction strategy, Sheuermann and
strategy. Teachers can deliver contingent praise, and Hall (2008) suggested that teachers explain to students
students can be taught to solicit it (Alber & Heward, that when a target behavior occurs there will be no teacher
2000). Numerous studies highlight the positive influ- response. The underlying assumption is that by withhold-
ence of contingent praise and the fact that praise usually ing reinforcement, the student will cease to engage in the
works best in combination with other strategies, includ- target behavior. In some instances, that is what happens.
ing increased student opportunities to respond correctly However, in other cases, inappropriate student behavior is
(Sutherland et al., 2002) as well as teacher physical positively reinforced by classroom peers (e.g., classmates
proximity (Gunter, Shores, Jack, Rasmussen, & Flowers, encourage a peer to call out or otherwise disrupt instruc-
1995; Shores et al., 1993). Most teachers express a pref- tion), the behavior itself is reinforcing to the student (e.g.,
erence for strategies that do not demand a great deal of student gets pleasure and satisfaction from exercising con-
time (Elliott, Witt, Galvin, & Peterson, 1984; Witt, trol over a situation), or the behavior is escape-motivated
1986)—praise is just that. Contingent praise requires (e.g., aversive teacher-pupil interactions; Burnhill, 2005).
virtually no teacher preparation and can be applied In these instances, ignoring student behavior is likely to
effectively to a wide range of academic and nonaca- have little or no appreciable effect. Interventions that focus
demic behavior. on the source of the inappropriate behavior will be more
 Gable et al. / Back to Basics 201

effective (e.g., teacher behavior, curricular demands/ is, reprimands (e.g., “Stop talking—now!”) can lead to
expectations; Burnhill, 2005). the cessation of student misbehavior, if only temporarily
Notwithstanding its strong theoretical underpinnings, (Alber & Heward, 2000). Another problem is that teach-
planned ignoring can be a difficult strategy to implement ers who rely on coercive strategies may unintentionally
consistently. In addition, ignoring the student can exacer- pay more attention to a student’s misbehavior and
bate the problem by increasing the frequency or magnitude engage in increasingly more coercive interactions, which
of inappropriate student behavior (Madsen et el., 1968). may reinforce the very behavior they wish to extinguish
Past research suggests that praising appropriate behavior (Alberto & Troutman 2006; Madsen et al., 1968; Shores
and ignoring inappropriate behavior sometimes increases et al., 1993).
the disruptive behavior of certain students (O’Leary, There is ample evidence that teacher threats, nags, or
Becker, Evans, & Saudargas, 1969). Understandably, it reprimands can increase the probability that students
might be disconcerting to the teacher to witness an increase will engage in escape-motivated behavior (e.g., defiant
rather than decrease in the problem behavior. Two points acts, noncompliance with teacher requests; Shores et al.,
are worth emphasizing. First, an increase in problem 1993). Yet another reason to avoid negative teacher
behavior concomitant to the teacher beginning to ignore a responses is that they alienate students, undermine the
particular behavior may reflect the fact that teacher atten- integrity of the teacher/pupil relationship, and often
tion is the motivation behind the behavior and the student exacerbate an already difficult situation. Last, critical
simply is trying harder to illicit it. The second point is that teacher comments are highly correlated with subsequent
the increase usually is temporary especially if the teacher student verbal or physical aggression (Van Acker, Grant,
reinforces alternative or incompatible student behavior. & Henry, 1996).
Finally, lapses in teacher ignoring of inappropriate behav-
ior can serve as intermittent reinforcement that makes it
more resistant to extinction (Witt, VanDerHeyden, &
Effective Use of Reprimands
Gilbertson, 2006).
The accumulated research on planned ignoring is some-
If teachers believe strongly that a mild reprimand is
what equivocal. There are instances in which planned
appropriate, researchers maintain that private, quiet rep-
ignoring will produce positive changes in pupil behavior.
rimands are more effective than loud reprimands deliv-
However, inappropriate student behavior often serves mul-
ered in front of an entire class (O’Leary, Kaufman,
tiple functions (e.g., attention getting, task avoidance) and
Kass, & Drabman, 1970). Reprimands should be brief
there are multiple controlling factors that may further
as opposed to lengthy (Abramowitz, O’Leary, &
diminish the impact of ignoring. Today, many experts
Futtersak, 1988). Furthermore, a reminder regarding the
encourage teachers to focus not only on what the behavior
expected behavior should accompany a teacher repri-
of the most challenging students looks like (i.e., form), but
mand. While some experts advise that teachers maintain
also to identify the reason(s) the students engage in the
a ratio of praise-to-nags of at least of 4:1 or 3:1 (Kalis
behavior (i.e., function) and to use that knowledge to
et al., 2007; Shores et al., 1993), there is growing sup-
develop a plan of intervention (Lane et al., 2002).
port for more proactive strategies.

Teacher Use of Nag Statements

and Verbal Reprimands The Shift From Reactive to
Proactive Classroom Management
For various reasons, some teachers do not make use
of positive strategies such as contingent praise. Instead, Several authorities urge teachers to resist the tempta-
they resort to coercion to deal with inappropriate student tion to use reprimands and to substitute contingent instruc-
behavior, such as threats, nags, and/or reprimands tion, which is one way to communicate to a student what
(Shores et al., 1993; Van Acker, 2007). Teacher threats, behavior to start rather than point out only the behavior
nags, or verbal reprimands can have a more immediate to stop (Curran, 2006 [IRIS Center]). Contingent instruc-
impact on student behavior than praise statements. That tions are specific teacher directions for students to stop
202 Intervention in School and Clinic

engaging in inappropriate behavior and to start engaging 2. Asking the student to engage in a more appropriate
response (“How can you show respect and still get your
in a more appropriate alternative response (Curran, 2006 point across?”).
[IRIS Center]). Connolly, Dowd, Criste, Nelson, and 3. Ensuring that the student has ample opportunity to prac-
Tobias (1995) described contingent instruction as a cou- tice and be reinforced for engaging in a more acceptable
pling request, by which teachers address both inappropri- behavior. In either case, teacher precorrection decreases
the likely future occurrence of the inappropriate behavior
ate (i.e., calling out) and desired behavior (i.e., raising (Lampi et al., 2005).
your hand). In using this strategy, teachers should pause
briefly between the initial request for a student to cease Precorrection statements should be given before stu-
an inappropriate behavior and the subsequent request for dents engage in an activity that may precipitate problem
the student to engage in the correct behavior. It is espe- behavior, which also serves to increase greater student
cially important that teachers point out to the student the self-regulation (Colvin et al., 1993; Van Acker, 2007).
benefit of engaging in more acceptable behavior (e.g., However, error correction is useful only to the extent
remain part of classroom activity, proceed to cafeteria that the student is able to engage in the desired response
with classmates; Brophy, 1998). or the teacher is willing to teach it directly and system-
In the past, the majority of classroom management atically. As with any intervention, the effectiveness of
strategies focused on consequent or reactive events precorrection is relative to the power of competing con-
(Gable, Bullock, & Evans, 2006). At one time, 90% of textual forces (e.g., amount of encouragement class-
teachers’ disciplinary responses consisted of some kind mates give a student to act-up; Van Acker, 2007).
of negative consequences or punishment (Colvin, Sugai,
& Patching, 1993). However, in recent years, attention
has shifted from consequent events to antecedent events Conclusions Regarding the Use
and the use of preventative classroom interventions. One of Rules, Praise, Ignoring,
such strategy is precorrection. Precorrection is a proac- and Reprimands
tive strategy that allows teachers to look at possible
antecedent events and analyze the contextual basis for The accumulated evidence shows that rules, praise,
inappropriate student behavior (Crosby, Jolievette, & ignoring, and reprimands continue to represent sound
Patterson, 2006). For example, Colvin et al. (1993) classroom management strategies, but with several cave-
devised a precorrective strategy to deal with predictable ats. First, experts assert that teachers should limit the
classroom behavior problems. The focus is on (a) manip- number of rules to those that can be enforced consist-
ulating contextually based classroom antecedents of ently and concentrate, rather, on behavioral expecta-
inappropriate pupil behavior, (b) establishing an accept- tions. Second, those classroom expectations should be
able level of classroom conduct, (c) using behavioral taught directly and systematically, and students should
rehearsal to teach students positive behaviors, (d) and have ample opportunity to engage in the behavior and
teacher use of cues, prompts, and positive reinforcement receive positive teacher feedback. Third, teacher feed-
of appropriate student behavior. back should include a clear message regarding both
Precorrection begins with teacher identification of a start and stop behaviors (Van Acker, 2007), whereas,
potentially difficult situation, both the context in which low intensity behavior may be addressed best through
the behavior occurs and the behavior itself. Next, the teacher cues and prompts (e.g., “Class, remember to...”).
teacher (a) delineates the expected behavior, (b) modi- Fourth, many authorities no longer view praise as a
fies the context in which the behavior is to occur, (c) stand-alone strategy; rather, they suggest that teachers
provides multiple opportunities for students to practice pair praise with physical proximity and increased oppor-
the expected behavior, (d) delivers positive reinforce- tunities for students to respond correctly. This recom-
ment to students who engage in the expected behavior, mendation is predicated on the so-called spread effect
and (e) gives reminders to students regarding the that stems from the use of multiple evidence-based prac-
expected behavior before the opportunity arises to tices. Finally, if teachers choose to use planned ignor-
engage in the behavior (Colvin et al., 1993). Similarly, ing, it should be coupled with differential reinforcement
Lewis (2004) advocated an error correction strategy that of incompatible behavior to increase the level of accept-
is comprised of three parts: able student behavior (Scheuermann & Hall, 2008).
In the review, it was found that, over time there has
1. Signaling the student that an error has occurred (refer to a
particular rule; “We respect others and that means no put been a marked increase in the importance attached to
downs.”). antecedent strategies, such as contingent instruction and
 Gable et al. / Back to Basics 203

precorrection. In addition, there has been growing recog- Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for
nition that positive classroom reinforcement must be teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Bear, G. (2005). Developing self-discipline and preventing and cor-
strong enough to support a plan of intervention (Deunic, recting misbehavior. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, Brank, & Penfield, 2006). Both research and expe- Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., & Thomas, D. R.
rience underscore the fact that there are times when the (1967). The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in
use of rules, praise, or ignoring is counter indicated. reducing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special
When it is obvious that rules, praise, or ignoring are not Education, 1, 287-307.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: a functional analysis. Review of
working, the best course of action is to develop a plan of
Educational Research, 51, 5-32.
intervention based on a functional behavior assessment Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.
(Alberto & Troutman, 2006; Burnhill, 2005; Kerr & Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (Eds.). (2003). School wide proactive
Nelson, 2006; Lane et al., 2002). strategies for dealing with challenging behavior. Reston, VA:
In all, the accumulated research supports the efficacy Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
of longstanding classroom management strategies con- Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management: creating a successful
K-12 learning community (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
sisting of rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands. And, Burnett, P. (2001). Elementary students’ preferences for teacher
because such tactics require neither extensive prepara- praise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 16-23.
tion nor excessive effort, it makes good sense for teach- Burnhill, G. P. (2005). Functional behavioral assessment in schools.
ers to make use of these proven-effective strategies. Intervention in the School and Clinic, 40, 131-143.
Along with the judicious use of classroom rules, contin- Cartledge, G., & Loe, S. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and social skill
instruction. Exceptionality, 9(1&2), 33-46.
gent praise, planned ignoring, and quiet reprimands,
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Patching, W. (1993). Precorrection: an
strategies, such as maximizing learning time, offering instructional approach for managing predictable problem behav-
ample opportunities for high rates of correct responding, iors. Intervention in the School and Clinic, 28, 143-150.
and monitoring of group-individual performance, allow Connolly, T., Dowd, T., Criste, A., Nelson, C., & Tobias, L. (1995).
teachers to establish a positive classroom climate con- The well-managed classroom: promoting student success through
ducive to learning. There is one final thought. A recom- social skills instruction. Boys Town, NE: Boy’s Town Press.
Crosby, S., Jolievette, K., & Patterson, D. (2006). Using precorrec-
mitment to the basic practices puts teachers one-step tion to manage inappropriate academic and social behaviors.
closer to creating a classroom environment in which all Beyond Behavior, 16, 14-17.
students are successful learners. Curran, C. M. (2006). Encouraging appropriate behavior. The IRIS
Center for Faculty Enhancement. Retrieved October 23, 2006,
from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/case_studies/ICS-005.pdf
Deunic, A. P., Smith, S. W., Brank, E. M., & Penfield, R. D. (2006).
About the Authors Classroom-based cognitive-behavioral interventions to prevent
aggression: efficacy and social validity. Journal of School
Robert A. Gable, PhD, is the Constance F. and Colgate W. Darden Professor of
Psychology, 44, 123-139.
Special Education at Old Dominion University. His current interests include
Elliot, S. N., Witt, J. C., Galvin, G. A., & Peterson, R. (1984).
function-driven interventions, evidence-based practices, and technology and
teacher preparation/distance learning. Address: Robert A. Gable, PhD, Child Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral interventions:
Study Center, Room 104, Darden College of Education, Old Dominion factors that influence teachers’ decisions. Journal of School
University, Norfolk, VA 23529; e-mail: [email protected]. Peggy H. Hester, Psychology, 22, 353-360.
PhD, is professor of special education at Old Dominion University. Her current Feldman, S. (2003). The place for praise. Teaching PreK-8, 5(6).
interests include early intervention, teacher-student interactions, and teacher Gable, R. A. (2004). Hard times and an uncertain future: issues that
preparation. Marcia L. Rock, PhD, is associate professor of special education confront the field of emotional/ behavioral disorders. Education
at the University of Alabama. Her current interests include learning strategies, and Treatment of Children, 27, 341-352.
technology and teacher preparation, and school law. Kimberly G. Hughes, MS, Gable, R. A., Bullock, L. M., & Evans, W. H. (2006). Changing
is include a doctoral student at Old Dominion University. Her interests included
perspectives on alternative schooling for children and adolescents
research design in education, technology and teacher preparation, and teacher
with challenging behavior. Preventing School Failure, 51, 5-9.
retention. After this article was written, Dr. Hughes passed away.
Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Tonelson, S. M. & Van Acker, R.
(2002). Integrating academic and nonacademic instruction for
students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and
References Treatment of Children, 25, 66-73.
Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Young, C., Shores, R. E., &
Abramowitz, A. J., O’Leary, S. G., & Futtersak, M. W. (1988). The Stowitscek, J. J. (1983). A comparison of teacher approval and
relative impact of long and short reprimands on children off-task disapproval statements across categories of exceptionalities.
behavior in the classroom. Behavior Therapy, 19, 243-247. Journal of Special Education Technology, 6, 15-22.
Alber, S., & Heward, W. (2000). Teaching students to recruit positive Graubard, P. S., Rosenberg, H., & Miller, M. B. (1965). Student appli-
attention: a review and recommendations. Journal of Behavioral cations of behavior modification to teachers and environments or
Education, 10, 177-205. ecological applications to social deviancy. Reprinted in R. Ulrich,
204 Intervention in School and Clinic

T. Stachnik, & J. Marbry (Eds.). Control of human behavior: with “do” and “don’t” requests; analogue analysis and class-
behavior modification in education (pp. 421-432). Glenview, IL: room application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(1),
Scotts, Foresman and Company. 81-99.
Gresham, F. M., Van, M. B., & Cook, C. R. (2006). Social skills train- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, (2002).
ing for teaching replacement behaviors: remediating acquisition O’Leary, K. A., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B., & Saudargas, R. A.
deficits in at risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 363-377. (1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school. A
Grossman, H. (2004). Classroom behavior management for diverse replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
and inclusive schools (3rd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Analysis, 2, 3-13.
Publishers, Inc. O’Leary, K. D., Kaufman, R. E., Kass, R. E., & Drabman, R. S.
Gunter, P. L., & Denny, R. K. (1998). Trends and issues in research (1970). The effect of loud and soft reprimands on the behavior of
regarding academic instruction of students with emotional behav- disruptive students. Exceptional Children, 37, 145-155.
ioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 44-50. Paine, S. C., Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. C., Deutchman, L., & Darch,
Gunter, P. L., & Reed, T. M. (1996). Self-evaluation of instruction: a C. B. (1983). Structuring your classroom for academic success.
protocol for functional assessment of teaching behavior. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 225-230. Parrish, J. (1986). Experimental analysis of response covariation
Gunter, P. L., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Rasmussen, S. K., & Flowers, among compliant and inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Applied
J. (1995). On the move: using teacher/student proximity to improve Behavior Analysis, 19, 241-254.
students’ behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 12-14. Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place: making a learning
Henley, M. (2006). Classroom management: a proactive approach. community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Performance Learning Systems. (2007). Establishing effective rules.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. Performance Learning Plus, 32. Retrieved from http://www.plsweb.
105-17, (1997). com/resources/newsletters/enews_archives/32/2003/09/01/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Contruci, S. A., Delia, M. D., Adelinis,
Pub. L. No. 108-446, (2004). J. D., & Goh, N. L. (1999). An evaluation of the properties of
Kalis, T. M., Vannest, K., & Parker, R. (2007). Praise counts: using attention and reinforcement of destructive and appropriate behav-
self-monitoring to increase effective teaching practices. Preventing ior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 434-449.
School Failure, 51, 20-27. Rhode, G., Jensen, W. R., & Reavis, K. (1992). The tough kid book:
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2006). Strategies for managing practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO:
behavior problems in the classroom (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Sopris West.
Merrill Prentice Hall. Rock, M. (2004). Graphic organizers: tools to build behavioral lit-
Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. eracy and foster emotional competency. Intervention in School
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. and Clinic, 40, 10-37.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Empirically supported Scheuermann, B. K., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Positive behavioral sup-
interventions and school psychology. School Psychology ports for the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill
Quarterly, 15, 233-253. Prentice Hall.
Lampi, A., Fenty, N., & Beaunae, C. (2005). Making the three Ps easier: Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom man-
praise, proximity and precorrection. Beyond Behavior, 15, 8-12. agement strategies: are they setting events for coercion?
Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & O’Shaughnessy, T. E. (2002). Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.
Intervention for children with or at risk for emotional and behav- Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals
ioral Disorders. Boston: Allyon & Bacon. and suspension: disciplinary intervention in middle schools.
Larrivee, B. (2002). The potential perils of praise in a democratic Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295-315.
interactive classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 23, 77-88. Smith, D. D., & Rivera, D. M. (1993). Effective discipline (2nd ed.).
Lewis, T. (2004). In L. M. Bullock, R. A. Gable, & K. L. Melloy Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
(Eds.). Classroom-level supports for students with learning and Strain, P. S., & Joseph, G. E. (2004). A not so good job with “good
behavior problems. Effective interventions for classrooms, job”: a response to Kohn 2001. Journal of Positive Behavioral
schools, and communities—Making a difference in the lives of Interventions, 6(1), 55-60.
students with learning and behavior problems (pp. 15-18). Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. (1999). Safe schools: school wide discipline
Reston, VA: Council for children with Behavioral Disorders. practices. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral
Accessed: January 4, 2009. Disorders.
Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management: from theoretical impli- Sutherland, K. M., & Wehby, J. (2001). The effects of self-evaluation
cations to practical applications (2nd ed). Belmont, CA: on teacher behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 35, 161-171.
Madsen, C. M., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, Sutherland, K., Wehby, J., & Yoder, P. (2002). Examination of the
praise, and ignoring: elements of elementary classroom control. relationship between teacher praise and opportunities for students
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139-150. with EBD to respond to academic requests (emotional and behav-
Miller, A., & Hom, H. (1997). Conceptions of ability and the inter- ioral disorders). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
pretation of praise, blame, and material rewards. The Journal of 10, 5-14.
Experimental Education, 65, 163-177. Van Acker, R. (2007). Strategies for dealing with classroom aggres-
Neef, N. A., Shafer, M. S., Egel, A. L., Cataldo, M. F., & Parrish, sion. Paper presented at the Working Forum of the Council for
J. M. (1983). The class specific effects of compliance training Children with Behavioral Disorders. Las Vegas, NV.
 Gable et al. / Back to Basics 205

Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching: a mul-
behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and timedia training package. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Treatment of Children, 19, 316-334. Witt, J., VanDerHeyden, A., & Gilbertson, D. (2006). Trouble-
Van Houten, R., Nau, P. A., MacKenzie-Keating, S. E., Sameoto, D., shooting behavioral interventions: a systematic process for
& Colavecchia, B. (1982). An analysis of some variables influ- finding and eliminating problems. School Psychology Review,
encing the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal of Applied 33, 363-384.
Behavior Analysis, 15, 65-83. Witt, J. (1986). Teacher resistance to the use of school-based inter-
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1999). .Antisocial behav- ventions. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 37-44.
ior in schools: strategies and best practices (2nd ed.). Pacific Zimmerman, E. H., & Zimmerman, J. (1962). The alteration of
Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole. behavior in an elementary classroom. Journal of the Experimental
Weinstein, C. S. (2003). Secondary classroom management: lessons Analysis of Behavior, 5, 50-60.
for research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.