Characteristics of Effective Classroom Rules: A Review of the Literature

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 classroom behavior as a major problem in their classrooms. Verbal disruptions, noncompliance, and being off-task (i.e., disengaged) are the most frequently identified challenging behaviors, and assistance with classroom management is the most frequent request made by teachers (Alter, Walker, & Landers, 2013; Rose & Gallup, 2005). Ineffective classroom management has deleterious effects on the overall classroom environment, affecting students’ social and academic outcomes and teachers’ self-efficacy, attrition, and burnout (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005).

Low teacher job satisfaction has been identified as a factor related to teacher attrition, absenteeism, burnout, and decreased student achievement (Perrachione, Rosser, & Petersen, 2008). Nationally representative findings from the School and Staffing Survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics indicated that student discipline problems were the second most frequently cited reason after salary for teacher dissatisfaction (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). In fact, 10% of surveyed teachers, who left the field, left because of school discipline issues (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Other investigations reveal similar findings, as student behavior remains one of the top three concerns for leaving the profession (Gonzalez, Brown, & Slate, 2008). Considering the importance of effective classroom management for teacher retention and students’ academic achievement (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994), it is logical to examine the information that teachers are given in their preservice preparation and in-service trainings.

The grim state of teacher preparation in effective classroom management has been well-documented. In 2010, Oliver and Reschly described the programmatic approaches to teaching effective classroom management as inconsistent, with only seven out of 26 programs devoting an entire class to classroom management. Furthermore, in their review, programs tended to emphasize reactive behavior reduction procedures. Consistent with these findings, Freeman, Simonsen, Briere, and MacSuga-Gage (2014) also noted that “a significant gap exists between the effective classroom management research base and teacher training” (p. 107). To begin to address this gap, it is imperative to compare the practices that are being recommended in teacher preparation with what has been established through empirical research. This information is most likely to be communicated in classroom management textbooks and practitioner-oriented articles. Implementing classroom rules is a common recommendation as a foundation for effective classroom management in both of these sources; this is logical as they are relatively simple to implement and focus on preventing challenging behaviors before they occur.

Classroom rules are defined as the statements that teachers present to describe acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Within multitiered systems of support such as School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS), the establishment of enforceable rules that are taught to students is regarded as a fundamental part of this system (Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, 2013). While the classroom is not specifically discussed within the typical Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework, clear rules are one of the “basics” of effective management and an integral part of a management system that combines more globally stated expectations (e.g., “Be respectful”) as well as the routines that constitute effective functioning (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009). As noted by Alberto and Troutman (2013), all classrooms have rules but whether they are made explicit depends on the teacher.

If the classroom is described as a microcosm of society, rules provide the structure for how students see the classroom world and their place in it (Boostrom, 1991; Maag, 2004). They represent a social contract established between the teacher and the students. In fact, their creation and implementation are the first and second recommendations in the article titled “20 Ways to Be Proactive in Managing Classroom Behavior” (Babkie, 2006). In highlighting the importance of classroom rules, Bicard (2000) also described them as cost-effective in that they are very easily implemented and focus on the prevention of challenging behaviors before they occur, thus saving time, effort, and potentially resources. In a commissioned report titled “Training Our Future Teachers: Classroom Management,” Greenberg, Putman, and Walsh (2014) described classroom rules as one of the “Big Five” strategies in a list that also included routines, praise, consequences for misbehavior, and engagement.

Classroom management textbooks, literature reviews, and practitioner-based articles have devoted considerable effort to describing the characteristics of effective classroom rules. Unfortunately, this array of secondary sources has not been uniform in their recommendations. The purpose of this article is first to examine the recommendations for effective classroom rules as they appear in nonempirical based textbooks and other available secondary sources. Second, the empirical literature will be examined to determine whether the identified recommended features of effective classroom rules are supported by a research-based foundation. The summative goal is to determine what characteristics of effective classroom rules have been validated by research and what characteristics are the recommendations of experts. This, in turn, can guide what evidence-based recommendations are given to teachers, especially preservice teachers in terms of effective classroom management.

Method

The research question is,

Research Question 1: What characteristics of classroom rules have been demonstrated through empirical research? A three-step review process was used to complete this analysis.

First, both empirical and nonempirical studies were located through the use of five databases: Academic Search Complete, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Proquest, PsycInfo and PsycArticles, and Web of Science. The following keywords were used in the search: rules, classroom, behavior, and management. Additional searches replaced the word rules with the following terms: expectations, guidelines, norms, and policies. Second, articles that met the following initial criteria were included: (a) the article described the use of classroom rules for behavior management, (b) the context of the article was a K-12 school classroom(s), and (c) the study occurred in the last 50 years (1965-2015). This extended time frame was used to include three frequently cited, seminal articles studying classroom rules that were conducted in the mid-to-late 1960s and represent the beginning of the process-product research in classrooms. Articles that focused on a single specific behavior (e.g., the use of cell phones) or specific types of specialized classrooms (e.g., science lab, music class) were excluded. Third, the articles that met these initial criteria were then separated into nonempirical articles and empirical studies, and additional inclusion criteria were applied for both groups.

Review of Nonempirical Recommendations for Classroom Rules

The additional inclusion criterion for this set of articles was that the characteristics of classroom rules must be described with specificity. Simply identifying classroom rules as important for classroom management was not sufficient for the purpose of this review. An archival search of journal articles and monographs discussing classroom rules was undertaken, along with eight classroom management textbooks citing original research. This process resulted in 11 secondary sources, in addition to the eight textbooks, including literature reviews, commissioned reports, program descriptions, and practitioner-oriented articles, providing a generally agreed-upon set of key features associated with the effective use of classroom rules. If, at least, 50% (10) of the articles and classroom management textbooks identified something as a characteristic of effective classroom rules, then it was included in the review. Seven general key features were consistently identified, recommending that effective classroom rules be: (a) relatively small in total number, (b) created collaboratively with students, (c) stated positively, (d) specific in nature (e) posted publicly, (f) taught to students, and (g) clearly tied to positive and negative consequences. A final component to the search process of this review of effective practices was to conduct an archival search of all research cited in the nonempirical articles to determine whether there are any remaining empirical studies to be included in the review.

Review of Empirical Studies of Classroom Rules

For empirical studies, the additional criteria applied for inclusion in this review: Either the study must have examined the use of general classroom rules as an intervention and student behavior as the dependent variable or it was a descriptive study that examined a number of classrooms and focused on the use of classroom rules in the context of classroom and behavior management. This entire process resulted in 15 studies being identified for inclusion in this review. One final exclusion decision was made. Articles that focused on the Good Behavior Game (GBG) were excluded from the review for three reasons. First, while rules that are similar to classroom rules are implemented with the GBG, in its most widely applied form, there is an interdependent group contingency component (Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006). That is, the reward is based on small group performance as opposed to general classroom behavior or individual performance. Second, within the context of the GBG, the rules are presented as “rules of the game” rather than classroom rules that are applied consistently throughout the school day. Third, published literature reviews have already examined the impact of the GBG as a specific intervention for classroom management (see Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014).

General Study Characteristics

The 15 articles that met inclusion criteria demonstrated a wide selection in terms of basic characteristics, including study design, length of the study, and participant type (i.e., a focus on teachers or students). In terms of design, two of the studies are best described as descriptive because researchers initiated no intervention. Rather, preliminary observations established two groups of teachers as more effective classroom managers and less effective classroom managers (Emmer, Evertson, & Anderson, 1980; Evertson & Emmer, 1982). A series of observations of both groups were then conducted to identify salient differences in how these classrooms established and implemented classroom rules.

Three studies are best described as implementing a series of interventions in stages. In other words, these studies introduced classroom rules, measured the effects, and then combined that intervention with increased structure, increased feedback, ignoring, and group and individual contingencies (Greenwood, Hops, Delquadri, & Guild, 1974; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; O’Leary, Becker, Evans, & Saudargas, 1969). Because the series began with classroom management strategies, that intervention could be evaluated alone—prior to the addition of subsequent interventions. A fourth study compared classroom rules and active teaching in one classroom with a classroom syllabus and student achievement assessment or a student self-monitoring system in two other classrooms (Johnson, Stoner, & Green, 1996).

The nine remaining studies used classroom rules as part of a packaged intervention. The number of other components to the package intervention ranged from one other component such as a student monitoring system or a token economy (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004; Rosenberg, 1986) to four other components that included the use of precision requests, teacher movement, mystery motivators, and response cost (De Martini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000; Musser, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001). The lengths of the studies also varied with some studies lasting only 3 weeks to others lasting an entire school year. The average length of study is approximately 3 months. However, this is only an estimate as some studies did not specify exact dates but used phrases such as “the beginning (or end) of the school year” or omitted the length of time of the study entirely. Finally, the identified participants of the study varied, in terms of focusing on teachers or students, as six studies focused on multiple teachers and their classrooms observing a range of 27 to 51 classrooms, while four others focused on one or two classrooms. The remaining five studies focused on individual students identified as demonstrating challenging behaviors in classrooms with a range of three to seven students as participants in the study.

Demographics of Selected Studies

All the studies included in the literature review focused on either the elementary level (N = 10) or the middle school level (N = 5). There were no studies that evaluated the use of classroom rules at the high school level. Minimal demographic data were reported for the larger multiclassroom studies that focused on the teachers. For the five studies that focused on individual students, the age range was from 6 years to 10 years with an average age of 8.07 years (when only grade level was reported, it was converted as Kindergarten—6 years old and second grade—8 years old). Only two studies specifically addressed students in special education. Musser and colleagues (2001) intervened for three students identified as having serious emotional disturbance (SED) and Lohrman and Talerico intervened in a classroom of 10 students with eight students identified as having a specific learning disability (SLD) and two students identified as having an intellectual disability (ID).

Results

The seven identified features of effective classroom rules are detailed below, each followed immediately by the empirical evidence identified from the review of effective practices. Table 1 presents the 15 empirical studies and their information on each of the seven characteristics recommended for effective classroom rules.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Classroom Rules.

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

Number of Rules

Having the appropriate number of classroom rules is commonly identified as an important feature of effective rules. Whereas the recommendations from secondary sources vary in terms of specifying the optimal number of rules, there is broad consensus that a smaller number is better than a larger number. For example, Alberto and Troutman (2013) and Kerr and Nelson (2010) simply recommended having as few rules as possible. Similiarly, Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, and Sugai (2008) recommended “a small number” (p. 358). Other recommendations include three to five (Kostewicz, Ruhl, & Kubina, 2008), four to five (Gable et al., 2009; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993), no more than five (Babkie, 2006), no more than six (Smith, 2004), and no more than seven (Maag, 2004). Malone and Tietjens (2000) cited a research presentation by Howard and Norris (1994) that found an average of 5.6 classroom rules when investigating two large school systems; however, they also note that there is no definitive answer as to how many rules are sufficient. Other recommendations favor the application of a formula including “at least three appropriate-behavior rules for every inappropriate-behavior rule” (Zirpoli, 2016, p. 311) or establish up to three classroom rules for every broadly worded behavior expectation (Scott, Anderson, & Alter, 2011).

Empirical evidence for smaller number of rules

Within the articles included in this literature review that reported the number of rules, the number ranged from two to nine, with an average of 4.67 rules. However, four of the studies, those completed by Evertson and colleagues, did not specify the total number of rules used in different classrooms. Rather, they noted, in their comparison of more and less effective behavior managers, the number of rules teachers had varied widely and that the number of classroom rules used did not discriminate between more and less effective behavior managers.

Created Collaboratively With Students

A number of secondary sources recommend soliciting and integrating student input when creating classroom rules. Jones and Jones (2016) outlined a multistep iterative process in which student feedback is gathered, recorded, discussed and then set as the classroom rules for the year. Kerr and Nelson (2010) provided a less detailed explanation on developing rules but suggested that they “are more likely to be followed than those that are autocratic” (p. 207). Burden (2006) and Maag (2004) made similar recommendations as did Bicard (2000), recommending an initial framework of rules as a start and then soliciting input for collaborative construction. Conversely, Alberto and Troutman (2013) recommend against having students play a role in creating classroom rules.

Empirical evidence for collaboratively developed rules

Only Madsen and colleagues (1968) suggested that the teachers in their study formulate rules with the class, and no description as to that process is described. The remaining studies included in this review did not directly involve students in creating the rules. However, in their descriptive study, Emmer and colleagues (1980) noted that for more effective classroom managers, “In some cases but not always, pupils were asked to suggest rules” (p. 225). In the remaining studies, the rules were either created by the teacher or created collaboratively between the teachers and researchers.

Stated Positively

Using wording that describes desired behaviors rather than undesired behaviors when creating rules is a frequent recommendation in the secondary literature. However, how important and to what extent teachers should follow this recommendation remains equivocal within both the secondary sources and the empirical research. In a selection of classroom management textbooks, both Kerr and Nelson (2010) and Scott et al. (2011) stated that rules should be stated positively to describe appropriate and desired behaviors. Similarly in other journal articles, the same suggestion is made (Bicard, 2000; Gable, Hester, Rock & Hughes, 2009; Hester, Hendrickson, & Gable, 2009; Simonsen et al., 2008). Zirpoli (2016), and Alberto and Troutman (2013) suggested that rules should be stated positively whenever possible. Furthermore, Alberto and Troutman expound on this by concluding that “keep your saliva in your mouth” lacked the impact and pellucid clarity of “don’t spit” (p. 407).

Empirical evidence for stating rules positively

Within the identified studies, four authors used only positively stated rules, although one of those, Madsen et al. (1968), included only that rules were stated positively when possible. In the directions to participating teachers, Madsen et al. provided the example “‘Sit quietly while working’ rather than, ‘Don’t talk to your neighbors” (p. 144) to demonstrate how rules could be phrased positively. Seven studies used a combination of positively and negatively stated rules. In each of these, only one or two of the rules was stated negatively, with the majority of the list describing desired behaviors. Finally, four of the studies did not specify whether rules were stated positively. However, Evertson and Emmer (1982) used gum chewing as an example, suggesting that rules may have been stated both positively and negatively.

Specific in Nature

In addition to stating rules positively, recommendations for the phrasing of rules are also somewhat equivocal. Classroom management textbooks recommend the use of specific and observable rules. However, Simonsen et al. (2008) stated that expectations should be broad enough to include all desired behaviors and presented “Be Safe, Be Responsible, Be Respectful” (p. 358) as an example. Other resources identify a distinction between expectations and rules and recommend extrapolating specific rules from more broadly stated (and often schoolwide) global expectations (Kerr & Nelson, 2010; Reinke et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2011). Smith (2004) used different terminology but made a similar recommendation. This textbook refers to these broader expectations as “principles” and recommends far more specificity for classroom rules by warning against rules that are worded morally rather than behaviorally (e.g., Respect and Responsibility, Our Classroom Community, A Safe Place to Learn).

Empirical evidence for rule specificity

Ten of the articles included in this review provided specific classroom rules as part of their intervention, two articles had rules that were both specific and general, and three articles did not provide enough information to determine how the rules were phrased. From the 10 articles that listed rules (the descriptive and experimental studies associated with Evertson and colleagues did not), the majority could be organized around four major themes: (a) compliance with adults, (b) managing verbal behaviors, (c) appropriate recruitment of teacher attention, and (d) work preparedness/work completion. In their examination of four classrooms, Johnson et al. (1996) examined the use of either four or five rules per classroom. Of the 19 total rules listed, 15 were worded specifically (e.g., Be on time, Stay in your seat) and four were written generally (e.g., Be positive in your attitude toward class, Be considerate).

Publicly Posted

Displaying rules publicly in writing is identified as a useful component for establishing classroom rules as it serves as a visual prompt for teaching and reminding students. Within classroom management textbooks, Scott et al. (2011) recommended that rules be posted publicly to prompt prosocial behavior. The authors also recommend using pictures to represent words for students who cannot read and that high schoolteachers may consider giving students printed copies of the rules rather than posting them. A number of articles make similar recommendations for posting them publicly and often in multiple locations (Bicard, 2000; Malone & Tietjens, 2000; Shores et al., 1993; Simonsen et al., 2008). Other than displaying the rules prominently for all to see, there are no other details provided in how to display the rules.

Empirical evidence for public posting

Ten of the 15 studies presented the classroom rules visually to students. Three of the studies that looked at large numbers of classrooms did not specify whether they were publicly posted, and one study stated that rules were communicated by being stated, written, or posted (Evertson & Emmer, 1982). One study that did not post the classroom rules publicly in classrooms was Närhi, Kiiski, Peitso, and Savolainen (2015) “as a result of the practical organization of teaching in Finnish middle schools” V. Närhi (personal communication, January 27, 2016). There were some slight variations on visual posting of rules: Johnson et al. (1996) gave the rules as a handout to students, Musser et al. (2001) posted the rules on the participant students’ desks, and McNamara, Evans, and Hill (1986) posted the rules and provided them as a handout.

Taught to Students

Teaching classroom rules to students was the most consistently discussed recommendation across secondary sources as it was identified in every single secondary source included in the review. In an article geared for preschool students, Hester et al. (2009) suggested reviewing rules daily using no more than 3 to 5 minutes. Bicard (2000) suggested having student-made posters of the classroom rules, devoting class time each day to teach the rules for the first 2 or 3 days and then teaching them each Monday for the first month, and periodically thereafter—especially after long school breaks. Scott and colleagues (2011) recommended teaching the classroom rules just like you would teach academics by: stating the rule, giving a rationale, giving examples and nonexamples, and allowing students the opportunity to practice. Kerr and Nelson (2010) made a similar recommendation including providing a rationale for each rule and allowing students to practice through role-plays.

Empirical evidence for teaching rules

All fifteen articles identified teaching classroom rules as part of the experimental protocol or an observed behavior of more effective classroom managers for the descriptive studies. In fact, in the descriptive studies, teaching the classroom rules was identified as one of the key distinguishing factors between teachers who are most and least effective in managing classroom behavior (Evertson & Emmer, 1982). The amount of time and the delivery for teaching the classroom rules varied across studies and, in some instances, were not specified. Johnson et al. (1996) had the teacher spend 10 minutes teaching the rules with behavior-specific feedback on the first day of implementation and then 3 minutes in subsequent days to teach one rule per day for 4 days with “examples (primarily generated by the students) and behavior-specific prompts and feedback” (p. 203). Similarly, McNamara and colleagues (1986) had the teachers read over and discuss the rules at the beginning, middle, and end of the lesson, and O’Leary et al. (1969) had the teachers read the rules over once every morning and afternoon. In four other studies, the description of the teaching process was that teachers explicitly taught the rules daily and explained how they were tied to the reinforcement system. However, the amount of time teachers spent teaching and other details were not included (De Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004; Musser et al., 2001; Rosenberg, 1986)

Tied to Positive and Negative Consequences

The use of consequences that reinforce rule compliance and punish rule breaking is also frequently identified as a key characteristic of effective classroom rules. Kerr and Nelson (2010) specified that these consequences must go beyond threats or lectures and must have consistent follow-through. Scott and colleagues (2011) recommended that the consequence be a logical fit for the rule. For example, if a student repeatedly calls out instead of raising their hand, they might devote 5 minutes of recess time to practicing hand-raising behavior. Bicard (2000) and Shores et al. (1993) made similar recommendations and also encourage that the rules and their consequences be reviewed together during teaching/reteaching moments.

Empirical evidence for tying rules to consequences

All thirteen of the experimental articles included in this review specified the use of consequences tied to the identified rules, and for the two descriptive studies, the role of consequences tied to rules was highlighted. Emmer and colleagues (1980) noted that teachers who were less effective at managing behavior had less apparent consequences and did not deliver them quickly enough. Evertson and Emmer (1982) also noted a lack of consistency in the consequences that were delivered for less effective managers.

In the experimental studies, all 13 studies used various combinations of consequences. Eight of the studies identify the use of praise or feedback indicating both positive and negative consequences. Five of the studies also used tangible reinforcers either solely or in conjunction with positive specific praise. Although, if it is inferred that praise or attention is always provided within a token economy, then praise was always used in conjunction with tangible reinforcers. The tangible items ranged from dolls, comics, and barrettes (O’Leary et al., 1969) to candy and fast food gift certificates (Rosenberg, 1986) to unspecified items from the “goody box” (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004). Finally, also in conjunction with verbal feedback, preferred activities were provided to students who complied with classroom rules. These included classroom games (e.g., Heads Up 7 Up), extra recess (Greenwood et al., 1974), and the opportunity to complete puzzle worksheets (McNamara et al., 1986). Consequences for rule violations were also used with six of the studies. Two of the studies specified the use of planned ignoring (Madsen et al., 1968; O’Leary et al., 1969). Two of the studies identified the use of negative verbal feedback (McNamara et al., 1986; McNamara, Harrop, & Owen, 1987), and two of the studies used a response cost system as to discourage rule violations (De Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Musser et al., 2001).

Finally, for two other studies, immediate actions responding to challenging behaviors are identified as being used but not further specified in the article (Evertson, 1989; Närhi et al., 2015). Greenwood and colleagues (1974) also provided teacher training to increase teachers’ use of appropriate negative consequences and discourage specific teacher consequences when responding to rule violations. This included “all negative physical contact such as hitting, spanking or pulling” (p. 416).

Discussion

The purpose of this review of effective practices was to evaluate the evidence base supporting the characteristics of effective classroom rules to guide teacher preparation in the area of classroom management. This was accomplished by comparing the recommendations made in secondary sources such as classroom management textbooks and other publications with empirical research that used classroom rules as an independent variable or included them as an important component in widespread descriptive studies of effective classroom management. In addition, the overall efficacy of classroom rules, both as a stand-alone intervention and part of a package intervention, was considered. Not surprisingly, some characteristics of classroom rules were implemented more consistently and seemed to be suggestive of greater levels of overall impact of the intervention than others. More surprising is that some frequently recommended characteristics of classroom rules lacked almost any empirical support at all.

Finally, given the level of emphasis placed on classroom rules within the secondary publications, there is a relatively small amount of research evaluating them. This is particularly true of research on classroom rules without other interventions introduced concurrently. This is indicative of a dearth in the research base to support such a frequently recommended component of classroom management. This review of the evidence indicates that while effective characteristics of classroom rules are typically outlined with equal emphasis in secondary literature, often in list form, they would be more accurately presented on a continuum and should be presented to preservice and in-service teachers accordingly. Thus, in future practitioner-oriented publications, some characteristics of effective classroom rules would be presented as integral, while others would be presented as equivocal and either disregarded or open to modification to suit individual classroom teachers.

Effectiveness of Classroom Rules

The fifteen articles included in this review indicated that the overall effectiveness of classroom rules in terms managing behavior may be more equivocal than classroom management textbooks and other articles would suggest. Although it is not surprising that all the published articles demonstrated marked improvement in student behavior, the role of classroom rules having a functional relationship with student behavior is less clear. For the three studies that implemented classroom rules as a stand-alone intervention (Greenwood et al., 1974; Madsen et al., 1968; O’Leary et al., 1969), all three concluded that “rules alone exerted little effect on behavior” (Madsen et al., 1968, p. 139). Johnson et al.’s (1996) demonstrated greater efficacy with teaching classroom rules in one classroom rather than a syllabus/achievement assessment or a student self-monitoring intervention in two other classrooms in terms of improving student behavior. Furthermore, their findings are more compelling as they replicated similar effects with the teaching classroom rules intervention in the other two classrooms. However, it should be noted that their classroom rules intervention consisted of incorporating proactive activities emphasizing classroom rules that may be different than simply creating and posting classroom rules.

For the remaining studies, drawing conclusions is more challenging as classroom rules were always one part of a package intervention combined with as many as four other elements (De Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Musser et al., 2001) and always combined with some type of reward/reinforcement system. However, there are some ways to derive the relative importance of classroom rules. McNamara and colleagues (1986) noted that students’ on-task behavior was depressed during one of the teaching sessions when only the classroom rules component was implemented and the seating, self-monitoring, and reward components of the intervention were withheld. In addition, Rosenberg (1986) concluded that “increased levels of appropriate behavior were dependent on the teacher-directed reviews and the rule-specific prompts that were delivered throughout the lesson,” thus “the targeted rules and procedures were not completely internalized” (p. 247).

Conclusions and Recommendations

According to the research reviewed, both empirical and secondary, the two characteristics of classroom rules that were most important to their overall effectiveness were that the classroom rules were taught and that they were tied to positive and/or negative consequences. The majority of the experimental studies described how classroom rules were taught to students either through recitation, classroom discussion, or through modeling of examples and nonexamples. In addition, both descriptive studies noted that one of the key differences between more effective and less effective classroom managers was that classroom rules were taught to students in clear and effective ways. Having contingent consequences for classroom rules was the other key characteristic of effective classroom rules. The contingencies varied from solely reinforcing, solely aversive, or a combination of reinforcement and punishment strategies tied to rule following and rule violating.

The characteristic of posting rules publicly or providing them as a handout was a characteristic of 11 out of 13 of the experimental studies. However, the descriptive studies noted that classroom rules were communicated to students in a variety of ways for both more and less effective classroom managers. Common sense and related research on the use of visual prompts certainly dictates that having rules publicly posted or communicated in writing as a handout would increase rule compliance and certainly represents a minimal effort characteristic for the effective implementation of classroom rules.

A characteristic of classroom rules that had more variation within the empirical literature base was the total number of rules appropriate for the classroom. In fact, it appears that the inconsistency in the secondary literature mirrors the range of total rules in the empirical literature. The descriptive studies also noted a wide range in the number rules even among teachers who were determined to be more effective behavior managers. Given this lack of a definitive number appropriate, the summative conclusion would be to recommend that teachers use the number of rules that fits their classroom the best. However, it may also be useful to use existing research on the brain and working memory which suggests that four items is the ideal number of items to be remembered (Cowan, 2001). The other characteristic that was somewhat equivocal in terms of empirical support was phrasing rules positively. In other words, describing behaviors that are desired rather than behaviors that are not desired. Whereas this recommendation from the secondary literature is consistent both with common sense and more general knowledge of the principles of systems like SW-PBIS and applied behavior analysis, its lack of application within the empirical research is notable. This would lead to the recommendation, stated by some secondary sources, to phrase rules positively when it makes sense in terms of clarity and comprehension by the students but that a dogmatic commitment to phrase every rule positively is unnecessary.

The final characteristic of classroom rules that was recommended in some but not all of the secondary literature is the involvement of students in the formulation of rules. Only one of the experimental articles solicited student feedback in the creation of the classroom rules, and the descriptive studies noted that some effective classroom management teachers solicited student feedback, but not all. From an educational philosophy standpoint, the involvement of students in the creation of the rules is integral (Glasser, 1998). And while consistent with the idea of classroom as community, there is no research to support its efficacy.

The value of classroom rules as a behavior management strategy is difficult to summarize. The early research completed by Greenwood et al. (1974), Madsen et al. (1968), and O’Leary et al. (1969) provided a clear indication that classroom rules as a stand-alone intervention were not effective in decreasing challenging behavior or increasing prosocial behavior. Likely as a result of these early studies, the remaining experimental publications included classroom rules as one component of a package intervention. Combining classroom rules with interventions with robust previous research such as precision requests, token economies with and without response cost, and environmental arrangements make it difficult to discern the impact that classroom rules specifically had on behavior. However, logic indicates that delineating expectations as classroom rules and making them part of an overall system that also utilized routines systems of rewards and consequences can be highly effective, and classroom-level interventions as part of SW-PBIS bear this out (Reinke et al., 2013). Finally, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the personal characteristics of teachers who are firm, fair, and consistent with their enforcement as well as their ability to facilitate strong positive relationships with their students especially as the rules are being enforced. The role of consistent enforcement was a characteristic noted by both descriptive studies especially when used by teachers with strong personal relationships with their students.

Future research directions should clarify what characteristics of classroom rules do and do not have an effect on behavior separate from package interventions. In addition, differences between classroom rules at different age levels seem likely but this also bears investigation. This is especially true at the high school level as there is no extant empirical research on the use of classroom rules in high school.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Peter Alter is an associate professor at Saint Mary’s College of California. His primary research interests are positive behavior support, classroom and behavior management and effective teacher preparation.

Todd Haydon is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati. His current research interests are effective teaching practices, students with behavioral disorders, mindfulness, and positive behavior and supports.

References

**Alberto

P. A.

Troutman

A. C.

(2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Algozzine

Wang

Violette

A. S.

(2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 3-16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084

Alter

P. J.

Walker

Landers

(2013). Teacher perceptions of students’ challenging behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51-69. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0040

**Babkie

A. M.

(2006). Twenty ways to be proactive in managing classroom behavior. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 184-187.

**Bicard

D. F.

(2000). Using classroom rules to construct behavior. Middle School Journal, 31(5), 37-45. doi:10.1080/00940771.2000.11494651

**Boostrom

(1991). The nature and functions of classroom rules. Curriculum Inquiry, 21, 193-216. doi:10.2307/1179942

**Burden

(2006). Classroom management: Creating a successful K-12 learning community (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Cowan

(2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01003922

*De Martini-Scully

Bray

M. A.

Kehle

T. J

. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149-156. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:2%3C149::AID-PITS6%3E3.0.CO;2-K

10.

*Emmer

E. T.

Evertson

C. M.

Anderson

L. M.

(1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal, 80, 219-231. doi:10.1086/461192

11.

*Evertson

C. M.

(1989). Improving elementary classroom management: A school-based training program for beginning the year. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 82-90. doi:10.1080/00220671.1989.10885935

12.

*Evertson

C. M.

Emmer

E. T.

(1982). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 485-498.

13.

*Evertson

C. M.

Emmer

E. T.

Sanford

J. P.

Clements

B. S.

(1983). Improving classroom management: An experiment in elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 172-188. doi:10.1086/461354

14.

Flower

McKenna

Bunuan

Muething

Vega

(2014). Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546-571. doi:10.3102/0034654314536781

15.

Freeman

Simonsen

Briere

D. E.

MacSuga-Gage

(2014). Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 106-120. doi:10.1177/0888406413507002

16.

**Gable

R. A.

Hester

P. H.

Rock

M. L.

Hughes

K. G.

(2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195-205. doi:10.1177/1053451208328831

17.

Glasser

(1998). Choice theory in the classroom. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

18.

Gonzalez

Brown

Slate

(2008). Teachers who left the teaching profession: A qualitative understanding. The Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1-11.

19.

**Greenberg

Putman

Walsh

(2014). Training our future teachers: Classroom management. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

20.

*Greenwood

C. R.

Hops

Delquadri

Guild

(1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: A further analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413-425. doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-413

21.

**Hester

P. P.

Hendrickson

J. M.

Gable

R. A.

(2009). Forty years later—The value of praise, ignoring, and rules for preschoolers at risk for behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 513-535.

22.

Howard

N. A.

Norris

M. R.

(1994). Source, characteristics, and perceived effectiveness of classroom rules. Paper presented at the Kentucky Grow Conference, Bellarmine College, Kentucky. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 396855)

23.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Smith

T. M.

(2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60, 30-33.

24.

*Johnson

T. C.

Stoner

Green

S. K.

(1996). Demonstrating the experimenting society model with classwide behavior management interventions. School Psychology Review, 25, 199-214.

25.

**Jones

Jones

(2004). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

26.

Jones

(2016). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

27.

**Kerr

M. M.

Nelson

C. M.

(2010). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

28.

Kokkinos

C. M.

Panayiotou

Davazoglou

A. M.

(2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 79-89. doi:10.1002/pits.20031

29.

**Kostewicz

D. E.

Ruhl

K. L.

Kubina

R. M.

(2008). Creating classroom rules for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A decision-making guide. Beyond Behavior, 17(3), 14-21.

30.

*Lohrmann

Talerico

(2004). Anchor the boat: A classwide intervention to reduce problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 113-120. doi:10.1177/10983007040060020601

31.

**Maag

J. W.

(2004). Behavior management: From heoretical implications to practical applications (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

32.

*Madsen

C. H.

Jr. Becker

W. C.

Thomas

D. R.

(1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139-150. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-139

33.

**Malone

B. G.

Tietjens

C. L.

(2000). Re-examination of classroom rules: The need for clarity and specified behavior. Special Services in the Schools, 16, 159-170. doi:10.1300/J008v16n01_11

34.

*McNamara

Evans

Hill

(1986). The reduction of disruptive behaviour in two secondary school classes. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 209-215. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb02664.x

35.

*McNamara

Harrop

Owen

(1987). The effect of group oriented classroom management procedures on individual pupils. Educational Psychology, 7, 157-168.

36.

*Musser

E. H.

Bray

M. A.

Kehle

T. J.

Jenson

W. R.

(2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30, 294-304.

37.

*Närhi

Kiiski

Peitso

Savolainen

(2015). Reducing disruptive behaviours and improving learning climates with class-wide positive behaviour support in middle schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30, 274-285. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.986913

38.

*O’Leary

K. A.

Becker

W. C.

Evans

M. B.

Saudargas

R. A.

(1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13.

39.

Oliver

R. M.

Reschly

D. J.

(2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implication for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188-199.

40.

Perrachione

B. A.

Rosser

V. J.

Petersen

G. J.

(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 25-41.

41.

**Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Stormont

(2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39-50. doi:10.1177/1098300712459079

42.

Rose

L. C.

Gallup

A. M.

(2005). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 41-57. doi:10.1177/003172170508700110

43.

*Rosenberg

M. S.

(1986). Maximizing the effectiveness of structured classroom management programs: Implementing rule-review procedures with disruptive and distractible students. Behavior Disorders, 11, 239-248.

44.

**Scott

T. M.

Anderson

C. M.

Alter

P. J.

(2011). Managing Classroom Behavior Using Positive Behavior Supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

45.

**Shores

R. E.

Gunter

P. L.

Jack

S. L.

(1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.

46.

**Simonsen

Fairbanks

Briesch

Myers

Sugai

(2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351-380.

47.

**Smith

(2004). Conscious classroom management: Unlocking the secrets to great teaching. San Rafael, CA: Conscious Teaching Publications.

48.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Wilczynski

S. M.

(2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225-253. doi:10.1177/0145445503261165

49.

Wang

M. C.

Haertel

G. D.

Walberg

H. J.

(1994). What helps students learn? Synthesis of Research, 51, 74-79.

50.

**Zirpoli

T. J.

(2016). Behavior management: Applications for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.