Classroom Management Systems to Address Student Disruptive Behavior

Abstract

Classroom management systems (CMS) are class-wide strategies that teachers use to keep students on task, attentive, and academically engaged. This review provides teachers an overview of eight effective and socially valid CMSs that are aligned with school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports (SWPBIS). The goal is to provide teachers with a guide whereby they can easily implement any of these CMSs in their classrooms. Figures are provided to describe the training procedures, implementation steps, materials needed, data collection, progress monitoring, treatment integrity, variations to the original procedures, and existing supportive research.

Keywords

classroom management positive behavior intervention

Classroom management is the collection of strategies teachers use to keep students on task, attentive, and academically productive. General education teachers often have students with differing academic skills and behavioral needs (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). It is crucial for teachers to be knowledgeable of evidenced-based, classroom management systems (CMSs) because effectively managing student behavior is related to positive academic and behavioral student outcomes.

Unfortunately, teachers often report that they are not adequately trained to manage student behavior (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Westling, 2010) and that managing student behavior is one of the most challenging aspects of their jobs (Reinke et al., 2011). This is particularly concerning considering that teachers who are inadequately trained in behavior management may be more inclined to prematurely leave the field (Bettini et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Ingersoll, 2001). Of the teachers who decided to leave the field of teaching, approximately 25% identified student discipline as a contributing factor (Ingersoll, 2001). Therefore, informing educators how to effectively use empirically based and socially valid classroom management strategies is likely to help retain high-quality teachers and positively affect student academic and behavioral outcomes.

In a review of the literature, Riden et al. (2021) found that a number of evidence-based practices exist for teachers to implement with students who require behavioral interventions. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of existing CMSs that can be implemented by teachers to prevent or address class-wide behavioral issues. Most school psychologists should be equipped with the knowledge to train teachers in successful implementation of each CMS. An overview of each procedure is provided, as well as a for each intervention that describes the training procedures, implementation steps, materials needed, data collection, progress monitoring, treatment integrity, and existing research. In addition, variations to the original protocols are described, allowing flexibility in implementation across settings, participants, and behaviors. The variations in CMS implementation involve simple changes to evaluate effectiveness and broaden the literature base by demonstrating the robust nature of some of the CMSs.

The eight CMSs selected are the Caterpillar Game, Classroom Password, Color Wheel, Good Behavior Game, Mystery Motivator, On-Task in a Box, Quiet Classroom Game, and Tootling. The CMSs selected for this article were identified from an on-going larger systematic review examining classroom management research. To be included in the systematic review, each CMS met the following inclusion criteria: (a) existing research supported its use, (b) system included include two or more evidence-based techniques, (c) studies examined student class-wide behavior as a dependent variable (i.e., outcome measure), (d) system was used in the general education setting with all students in the classroom, (e) intervention steps are available in the literature, (f) system was implemented or directed by the teacher, (g) practicing teachers rated the system as socially valid (Dart et al., 2012), and (h) system aligned with school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports (SWPBIS) standards.

Caterpillar Game

The Caterpillar Game (see Figure 1) is a classroom-wide positive behavior intervention that aims to decrease students’ disruptive behavior while increasing teacher’s use of behavior-specific praise (BSP; Floress et al., 2017, Floress & Jacoby, 2017). A caterpillar poster is hung in the classroom, and the teacher reviews at least one classroom behavior expectation or rule (i.e., mindful to focus on any expectation or rule he or she would like to see improved). Then during whole-class instruction, the teacher moves a butterfly token up the “caterpillar” when students exhibit appropriate behavior while also providing BSP for the appropriate behaviors. To implement the Caterpillar Game correctly, the teacher must deliver three BSP statements per 10 min. Although a strong emphasis is placed on moving the token up, the teacher can move the token down if a student breaks an established classroom rule. If this happens, the teacher reminds the student of the established rule immediately following the infraction. When the token reaches the top of the caterpillar, all students earn a quick reward activity (e.g., Eye Spy or Simon Says; Floress & Jacoby, 2017). The Caterpillar Game has been implemented in preschool through second-grade classrooms with results supporting declines in student disruptive behavior and increases in teachers’ use of BSP (Floress & Jacoby, 2017; Floress et al., 2017).

Figure 1.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Caterpillar Game.

Classroom Password

The Classroom Password (see Figure 2) is a class-wide intervention that uses interdependent group contingency that has been employed in seventh- and eighth-grade classrooms when students have difficulty following instructions at the start of class (Dart et al., 2016). Within the first 15 min of class, the teacher explains the intervention to the students and provides the daily password. The password is not too obvious (e.g., Mississippi), nor is it so common it is difficult to track (e.g., in). The teacher explains they will say the password a specific number of times (undisclosed to the students) throughout the intervention period. The students are provided with recording forms that include a single row of empty boxes. Students are instructed to mark the box when they hear the teacher say the password of the day. Next, the teacher determines the frequency in which they will use the password, and sets a MotivAider (Behavioral Dynamics, Inc., 2020) to prompt them when to incorporate the password into their regular instruction. Teachers are encouraged to use the password as seamlessly as possible, so the password is not easily detected. All students who recorded the frequency correctly are entered into a drawing to earn a reward (e.g., access to computer, candy, homework pass). Of the students entered into the raffle, up to five are randomly selected to split the reward. This method was used to discourage sharing frequency information (Dart et al., 2016).

Figure 2.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Classroom Password.

Color Wheel

The Color Wheel (see Figures 3 and 4) is a classroom management tool designed to reduce inappropriate behaviors and help students efficiently transition from one activity to another (Blondin et al., 2012; Fudge et al., 2008, Watson et al., 2016). The Color Wheel includes three sets of expectations displayed on color-coded (i.e., green, red, yellow) poster boards that are hung in the classroom. Expectations vary in the level of restriction based on each of the colors.

Figure 3.

An example of behavioral expectations for the Color Wheel intervention.

Figure 4.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Color Wheel.

To implement the intervention, the teacher reviews the procedures and rules with the students, including activities for each color. The teacher then sets the Color Wheel to indicate the behavioral expectations in place for the current activity. During each condition, the teacher uses frequent BSP (e.g., “Nice job following the Green Color Wheel rules.”). This intervention has been used in second-grade classes to address transition behaviors, and in fourth-grade classrooms with additional expectations targeting cooperative learning (Blondin et al., 2012; Fudge et al., 2008).

Good Behavior Game

The Good Behavior Game (see Figure 5) is a classroom management tool that employs an interdependent group contingency (Tingstrom et al., 2006). There are decades of research in support of the Good Behavior Game and its variants (e.g., Donaldson et al., 2011; Elswick & Casey, 2011; Lannie & McCurdy, 2007; Mitchell et al., 2015; R. A. Wright & McCurdy, 2012) for kindergarten through high school classrooms. The primary purpose of the Good Behavior Game is to decrease class-wide disruptive behavior. In the original format, teachers divide the students into teams, identify target inappropriate behaviors to decrease, and assign tallies to each team when students demonstrate an inappropriate target behavior. In this version, the aim is for student teams to receive the fewest tallies.

Figure 5.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Good Behavior Game.

Recent Good Behavior Game studies focus on awarding teams points for appropriate behaviors, thereby aligning its procedures with the positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS) framework. Furthermore, a comparison of the original game and those targeting appropriate behavior demonstrate both versions are effective in reducing disruptive behavior (R. A. Wright & McCurdy, 2012). For both versions, a criterion is set and all teams who meet the criterion earn a predetermined reward.

Mystery Motivator

The Mystery Motivator (see Figure 6) uses a variable schedule of reinforcement to motivate students (e.g., Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014; Kraemer et al., 2012). To implement the Mystery Motivator, a chart is developed displaying the days of the week (e.g., five boxes) or month, and the days when students can earn a reward are randomly selected. On the days when the Mystery Motivator will be implemented, the teacher uses an invisible ink pen to draw an “M” in the box or draws an “M” with regular ink and covers all boxes with a slip of paper that can easily be removed. The chart is placed in a location in the classroom visible to all students. At the end of each day or designated period of time that students have met the behavioral goal(s), the contents of the square are revealed. If an “M” is present, the students are rewarded with an item or activity selected by the teacher. If an “M” is not present, the students do not receive an item or activity reward but are given praise for meeting their behavior goals and told they will have an opportunity to play Mystery Motivator again the following school day.

Figure 6.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Mystery Motivator.

On-Task in a Box

On-Task in a Box (Jenson & Sprick, 2014, see Figure 7) is part of the Tough Kid series (Jenson et al., 1995). It is a manualized intervention kit that provides on-task training for school-age children meeting thresholds for frequency of off-task behaviors in the classroom setting. This intervention aims to increase students’ on-task behavior and can be implemented with one student, two students, or class-wide (Battaglia et al., 2015; King et al., 2014, 2016). When using On-Task in a Box, students watch a training video with animated characters and learn what it means to be on-task and off-task. They also watch the video to learn how to self-record on-task and off-task behaviors using a MotivAider and/or teacher prompts to cue self-monitoring. Next, students watch a peer modeling video and practice recording the on-task behaviors of the peer in the video. Students mark an X on the form for on-task and a dash for off-task. Last, students are provided a target level of on-task behavior and informed of a reward for meeting the target. Students self-monitor their own behavior when cued by the MotivAider or their teacher. Rewards are given to those who reach the target. The teacher checks the forms of a few students to make sure they are recording correctly (Battaglia et al., 2015).

Figure 7.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for On-Task in a Box.

Quiet Classroom Game

The Quiet Classroom Game (see Figure 8) combines an interdependent group contingency and use of a decibel (dB) meter to increase academically engaged behavior, decrease disruptive behavior, and decrease classroom noise level (Radley et al., 2016). The Quiet Classroom Game includes three components. First, teachers review behavior expectations, and students are informed they can earn a reward for meeting a noise-level goal (i.e., 5 dB below their median noise level at baseline). Students are aware that noise levels will be checked periodically via a dB meter installed on an iPad. The teacher uses a MotivAider to cue them to check the classroom noise level. The teacher delivers praise when the class meets the noise-level goal (e.g., “Class, because you were sitting quietly, we made our noise-level goal!”) or corrective feedback (e.g., “Class, we didn’t meet our goal, but we’ll have another chance. To meet your goal, you must all be sitting quietly and doing your work”) when the goal is not met. Last, students receive a teacher-approved reward contingent on meeting the noise-level goal a certain number of times (e.g., five of seven checks). If the classroom noise-level goal is not met, the students have additional opportunities to meet their goal and the behavioral expectations needed to meet the goal are reviewed (Chapman et al., 2021). This intervention has been used in elementary classrooms during group instruction and student-directed centers (Radley et al., 2016) and in middle school classrooms during independent work and partner/group work (Chapman et al., 2021).

Figure 8.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for the Quiet Classroom Game.

Tootling

Another classroom management strategy for elementary through high school grades is Tootling (e.g., Cihak et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2015; Lum et al., 2019; McHugh et al., 2016; Morrison & Jones, 2007; Skinner et al., 2000, see Figure 9). The word “tootling” is a play on “tooting your own horn” and its meaning is the opposite of tattling (Skinner et al., 2000, p. 265), as its aim is to increase student prosocial behaviors by reporting positive peer behavior (rather than inappropriate behavior; McHugh et al., 2016). Tootling is a peer-mediated intervention where students anonymously report their peers’ prosocial behavior. The goal is to positively affect students’ class-wide disruptive and academically engaged behavior (Lum et al., 2019; however, evidence suggests tootling increases the behaviors students report (e.g., complimenting peers; S. Wright et al., 2021), which further demonstrates the versatility of this intervention.

Figure 9.

An overview of training, implementation, materials, data, and variations for Tootling.

To implement Tootling, first, the teacher uses a script to train students. The script provides examples of correct and incorrect “positive comments.” A correct positive comment is a prosocial behavior exhibited by a peer, then written on a slip of paper (e.g., “Maibel helped Emmie pick up the crayons that fell,” or “Trey waited quietly to be called on.”). Then, students submit examples of their own and receive feedback to ensure understanding. Next, the teacher demonstrates how to submit the slip (i.e., write tootle on left side and students’ own name on right side, then tear the slip in half and submit each into correct container). The teacher sets a criterion for the number of tootles that need to be written collectively across all students. If the predetermined criterion is reached, all students earn access to a reward regardless of whether they submitted or received a tootle. The intervention is considered successful if the number of tootles increases while disruptive behavior decreases.

Conclusion

The included interventions provide teachers with feasible and practical strategies for decreasing disruptive behavior and improving classroom management. They require only a few materials and can be implemented without additional personnel. Improvements in classroom management have potential to not only increase student academic outcomes but also increase teacher longevity. Multiple interventions were provided to give teachers the ability to select a CMS that best suits their unique classroom needs, as well as options for varying each intervention.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The second author created the Caterpillar Game that is discussed in this manuscript.

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.

ORCID iD

Kimberly A. Zoder-Martell

References

Battaglia

A. A.

Radley

K. C.

Ness

E. J.

(2015). Evaluating the effects of on-task in a box as a class-wide intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 52(8), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21858

Behavioral Dynamics, Inc. (2020). MotivAider.

Bettini

Cumming

M. M.

O’Brien

K. M.

Brunsting

N. C.

Ragunathan

Sutton

Chopra

(2020). Predicting special educators’ intent to continue teaching students with emotional or behavioral disorders in self-contained settings. Exceptional Children, 86, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919873556

Billingsley

B. S.

Bettini

(2019). Special education teacher attrition research: A systematic literature review. Review of Educational Research, 89, 697–744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495

Blondin

Skinner

Parkhurst

Wood

Snyder

(2012). Enhancing on-task behavior in fourth-grade students using a modified color wheel system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643756

Chapman

B. N.

Drevon

D. D.

Jasper

A. D.

(2021). The impact of the quiet classroom game on on-task behavior and classroom noise level in three middle school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09444-3

Cihak

D. F.

Kirk

E. R.

Boon

R. T.

(2009). Effects of classwide positive peer “tootling” to reduce the disruptive classroom behaviors of elementary students with and without disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9091-8

Darling-Hammond

Wei

R. C.

Andree

Richardson

Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

Dart

E. H.

Cook

C. R.

Collins

T. A.

Gresham

F. M.

Chenier

J. S.

(2012). Test driving interventions to increase treatment integrity and student outcomes. School Psychology Review, 41(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087500

10.

Dart

E. H.

Radley

K. C.

Battaglia

A. A.

Dadakhodjaeva

Bates

K. E.

Wright

S. J.

(2016). The classroom password: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 53(4), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21911

11.

Donaldson

J. M.

Vollmer

T. R.

Krous

Downs

Berard

K. P.

(2011). An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605

12.

Elswick

Casey

L. B.

(2011). The Good Behavior Game is no longer just an effective intervention for students: An examination of the reciprocal effects on teacher behaviors. Beyond Behavior, 21(1), 36–47.

13.

Floress

M. T.

Jacoby

A. L.

(2017). The caterpillar game: A SW-PBIS aligned classroom management system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 33(1), 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2016.1229706

14.

Floress

M. T.

Rock

A. L.

HaileMariam

(2017). The caterpillar game: A classroom management system. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22000

15.

Fudge

D. L.

Skinner

C. H.

Williams

J. L.

Cowden

Clark

Bliss

S. L.

(2008). Increasing on-task behavior in every student in a second-grade classroom during transitions: Validating the color wheel system. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.003

16.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), P.L. 108-446.

17.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499

18.

Jenson

W. R.

m Rhode

Reavis

H. K.

(1995). The tough kid tool box. Sopris West.

19.

Jenson

W. R.

Sprick

(2014). On-task in a box. Pacific Northwest.

20.

King

Radley

K. C.

Jenson

W. R.

Clark

O’Neill

R. E.

(2014). Utilization of video modeling combined with self-monitoring to increase rates of on-task behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 29(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1379

21.

King

Radley

K. C.

Jenson

W. R.

O’Neill

R. E.

(2016). On-task in a box: An evaluation of a package-ready intervention for increasing levels of on-task behavior and academic performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000162

22.

Kowalewicz

E. A.

Coffee

(2014). Mystery motivator: A Tier 1 classroom behavioral intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000030

23.

Kraemer

E. E.

Davies

S. C.

Arndt

K. J.

Hunley

(2012). A comparison of the Mystery Motivator and the Get’Em On Task interventions for off-task behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 163–175.

24.

Lambert

A. M.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Sterling

H. E.

Dufrene

B. A.

Lynne

(2015). Effects of tootling on classwide disruptive and appropriate behavior of upper-elementary students. Behavior Modification, 39(3), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514566506

25.

Lannie

A. L.

McCurdy

B. L.

(2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0002

26.

Lum

J. D. K.

Radley

K. C.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Dufrene

B. A.

Olmi

D. J.

Wright

S. J.

(2019). Tootling with randomized independent group contingency to improve high school classwide behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718792663

27.

McHugh

M. B.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Radley

K. C.

Barry

C. T.

Walker

K. M.

(2016). Effects of tootling on classwide and individual disruptive and academically engaged behavior of lower elementary students. Behavioral Interventions, 31(4), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1447

28.

Mitchell

R. R.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Dufrene

B. A.

Ford

W. B.

Sterling

H. E.

(2015). The effects of the good behavior game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0063.1

29.

Morrison

J. Q.

Jones

K. M.

(2007). The effects of positive peer reporting as a class-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9005-y

30.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L., No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).

31.

Radley

K. C.

Dart

E. H.

O’Handley

R. D.

(2016). The quiet classroom game: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement and reduce disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-1.93-108

32.

Reinke

W. M.

Stormont

Herman

K. C.

Puri

Goel

(2011). Supporting children’s mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022714

33.

Riden

B. S.

Kumm

Maggin

(2021). Evidence-based behavior management for students with or at risk of EBD: A mega review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 43(4), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211047947

34.

Skinner

C. H.

Cashwell

T. H.

Skinner

A. L.

(2000). Increasing tootling: The effects of peer-monitored group contingency program on students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 37(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200005)37:3<263::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-C

35.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Wilczynski

S. M.

(2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30(2), 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503261165

36.

Watson

T. L.

Skinner

C. H.

Skinner

S. C.

Aspiranti

K. B.

Moore

Coleman

(2016). Preventing disruptive behavior via classroom management: Validating the color wheel system in kindergarten classrooms. Behavior Modification, 40(4), 518–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515626890

37.

Westling

D. L.

(2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327466

38.

Wright

R. A.

McCurdy

B. L.

(2012). Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711421008

39.

Wright

Skinner

Kirkpatrick

B. A.

Daniels

Moore

Crewdson

(2021). Using tootling to enhance first-grade students’ use of a social skill: Evaluating the catching compliments game. Education and Treatment of Children, 44, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00039-1