Establishing Rules and Procedures

AlterHaydon2017

PLEASE FOCUS ON PRIMARY GRADES K-2 Below are the two scoring rubrics for the following two separate sections of you CMP & P:

1. CMPP: Establishing Rules/ Expectations

2. CMPP: Establishing Routines and Procedures NOTE: Each section of this Critical Task should be a minimum of 1 page and a maximum of 1 page..

Please adhere to this limit, so that your final compiled paper in manageable. Please use your own peer reviewed sources or those in the RESOURCE MODULE to cite peer reviewed support for your thoughts and statements in APA style. Each section of this assignment must have multiple cited research sources. Establishing Rules/Expectations FL-FEAP-2013.2.a.2.b The management plan clearly articulates 4-6 classroom rules and standards of behavior appropriate for the given grade level/subject area. All rules/expectations developed according to best practice guidelines. Cite support sources in APA Style. There are minor errors in the work, but the candidate is likely to self-correct over time. There is at least one major error in the work which shows a lack of understanding of the concept. Establishing Routines & Procedures FL-FEAP-2013.2.a.2.a The plan includes a detailed desсrіption of 3 procedures/routines and explanation of how the teacher candidate plans to teach the procedures. Cite support sources in APA Style. There are minor errors in the work, but the candidate is likely to self-correct over time. There is at least one major error in the work which shows a lack of understanding of the concept. Format and Conventions All assignment components are included. Assigned format is observed. Writing is clear, coherent, and concise, with few or no grammatical or mechanical errors. Uses support sources and cites in APA Style. Includes a List of References in APA. There are minor errors in the work, but the candidate is likely to self-correct over time. There is at least one major error in the work which shows a lack of understanding of the concept.

See discussions, stats, and author profil

for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315628091

Characteristics of Effective Classroom Rules: A Review of the

Literature

Article in Teacher Education and Special Education The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children · March 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0888406417700962

CITATIONS

30
READS

23,843

2 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special issue View project

Opportunities to Respond View project

Todd Haydon

University of Cincinnati

48 PUBLICATIONS 817 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315628091_Characteristics_of_Effective_Classroom_Rules_A_Review_of_the_Literature?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Special-issue?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Opportunities-to-Respond?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Todd-Haydon?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/The_University_Hospital-UC_Health?enrichId=rgreq-aca612f08000b78a7198104310e1fa19-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMxNTYyODA5MTtBUzo1NDEzNTUwNzc5MDIzMzZAMTUwNjA4MDUxNjkzNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417700962

Teacher Education and Special Education
1 –14
© 2017 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0888406417700962
journals.sagepub.com/home/t

Article

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 aca-
demic outcomes and teachers’ self-efficacy,
attrition, and burnout (Algozzine, Wang, & Vio-
lette, 2011; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Kokkinos,
Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005).

Low teacher job satisfaction has been iden-
tified 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 Educa-
tion Statistics indicated that student discipline
problems were the second most frequently
cited reason after salary for teacher dissatis-
faction (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). In fact,
10% of surveyed teachers, who left the field,

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

1Saint Mary’s College of California, Moraga, CA, USA
2University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:
Peter Alter, Saint Mary’s College of California, P.O. Box
4350, Moraga, CA 94575, USA.
Email: pja3@stmarys-ca.edu

Characteristics of Effective
Classroom Rules: A Review
of the Literature

Peter Alter1 and Todd Haydon2

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

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

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/tes

mailto:pja3@stmarys-ca.edu

2 Teacher Education and Special Education

left because of school discipline issues (Inger-
soll & Smith, 2003). Other investigations
reveal similar findings, as student behavior
remains one of the top three concerns for leav-
ing the profession (Gonzalez, Brown, & Slate,
2008). Considering the importance of effec-
tive classroom management for teacher reten-
tion and students’ academic achievement
(Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994), it is logi-
cal 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. Further-
more, in their review, programs tended to
emphasize reactive behavior reduction pro-
cedures. 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 train-
ing” (p. 107). To begin to address this gap, it
is imperative to compare the practices that
are being recommended in teacher prepara-
tion with what has been established through
empirical research. This information is most
likely to be communicated in classroom
management textbooks and practitioner-ori-
ented articles. Implementing classroom
rules is a common recommendation as a
foundation for effective classroom manage-
ment in both of these sources; this is logical
as they are relatively simple to implement
and focus on preventing challenging behav-
iors before they occur.

Classroom rules are defined as the state-
ments that teachers present to describe
acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Within multitiered systems of support such
as School-Wide Positive Behavior Interven-
tions and Supports (SW-PBIS), the establish-
ment 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 specifi-
cally 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 con-
stitute 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 rep-
resent a social contract established between the
teacher and the students. In fact, their creation
and implementation are the first and second rec-
ommendations in the article titled “20 Ways to
Be Proactive in Managing Classroom Behav-
ior” (Babkie, 2006). In highlighting the impor-
tance of classroom rules, Bicard (2000) also
described them as cost-effective in that they are
very easily implemented and focus on the pre-
vention 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, litera-
ture 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 recom-
mendations. The purpose of this article is first
to examine the recommendations for effec-
tive classroom rules as they appear in non-
empirical based textbooks and other available
secondary sources. Second, the empirical lit-
erature will be examined to determine whether
the identified recommended features of effec-
tive classroom rules are supported by a
research-based foundation. The summative

Alter and Haydon 3

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 recommenda-
tions are given to teachers, especially preser-
vice teachers in terms of effective classroom
management.

Method

The research question is,

Research Question 1: What characteris-
tics of classroom rules have been demon-
strated through empirical research? A
three-step review process was used to com-
plete this analysis.

First, both empirical and nonempirical
studies were located through the use of five
databases: Academic Search Complete, Edu-
cational 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 fol-
lowing 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 con-
text 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 pro-
cess-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 sepa-
rated 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 class-
room rules must be described with specificity.
Simply identifying classroom rules as impor-
tant for classroom management was not suf-
ficient for the purpose of this review. An
archival search of journal articles and mono-
graphs discussing classroom rules was under-
taken, along with eight classroom management
textbooks citing original research. This pro-
cess resulted in 11 secondary sources, in addi-
tion to the eight textbooks, including literature
reviews, commissioned reports, program
descriptions, and practitioner-oriented arti-
cles, 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 collabora-
tively with students, (c) stated positively, (d)
specific in nature (e) posted publicly, (f)
taught to students, and (g) clearly tied to posi-
tive and negative consequences. A final com-
ponent to the search process of this review of
effective practices was to conduct an archival
search of all research cited in the nonempiri-
cal 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 stu-
dent behavior as the dependent variable or it
was a descriptive study that examined a num-
ber of classrooms and focused on the use of

4 Teacher Education and Special Education

classroom rules in the context of classroom
and behavior management. This entire pro-
cess 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 interde-
pendent 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 perfor-
mance. 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 manage-
ment (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 effec-
tive classroom managers (Emmer, Evertson,
& Anderson, 1980; Evertson & Emmer,
1982). A series of observations of both groups
were then conducted to identify salient differ-
ences in how these classrooms established
and implemented classroom rules.

Three studies are best described as imple-
menting a series of interventions in stages. In
other words, these studies introduced class-
room rules, measured the effects, and then
combined that intervention with increased
structure, increased feedback, ignoring, and
group and individual contingencies (Green-

wood, Hops, Delquadri, & Guild, 1974; Mad-
sen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; O’Leary,
Becker, Evans, & Saudargas, 1969). Because
the series began with classroom management
strategies, that intervention could be evalu-
ated alone—prior to the addition of subse-
quent interventions. A fourth study compared
classroom rules and active teaching in one
classroom with a classroom syllabus and stu-
dent achievement assessment or a student
self-monitoring system in two other class-
rooms (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 compo-
nent 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 oth-
ers 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 par-
ticipants of the study varied, in terms of focus-
ing on teachers or students, as six studies
focused on multiple teachers and their class-
rooms observing a range of 27 to 51 class-
rooms, while four others focused on one or
two classrooms. The remaining five studies
focused on individual students identified as
demonstrating challenging behaviors in class-
rooms 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.

Alter and Haydon 5

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 stu-
dents in special education. Musser and col-
leagues (2001) intervened for three students
identified as having serious emotional distur-
bance (SED) and Lohrman and Talerico inter-
vened in a classroom of 10 students with eight
students identified as having a specific learn-
ing disability (SLD) and two students identi-
fied as having an intellectual disability (ID).

Resul

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

Number of Rules

Having the appropriate number of classroom
rules is commonly identified as an important
feature of effective rules. Whereas the rec-
ommendations 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 recom-
mended having as few rules as possible.
Similiarly, Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch,
Myers, and Sugai (2008) recommended “a
small number” (p. 358). Other recommenda-
tions 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 recommen-
dations 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, Ander-
son, & Alter, 2011).

Empirical evidence for smaller number of
rules. Within the articles included in this lit-
erature 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 num-
ber 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 class-
room 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 solicit-
ing input for collaborative construction. Con-
versely, Alberto and Troutman (2013)
recommend against having students play a
role in creating classroom rules.

T
a
b

le
1

ha
ra

ct
er

is
ti
cs

o
f
C

la
ss

o
m

R
ul

es
.

St
ud

y
N

um
be

r
o
f

ru
le

s
C

re
at

co
lla

bo
ra

ti
ve

ly
St

at
ed

si
ti
ve

ly
Sp

ec
ifi

o
r

ge
ne

ra
l

Po
st

ed
p

ub
lic

ly
T

au
gh

t
to

ud
en

T
ie

d
to

p
o
si

ti
ve

d/
o
r

ne
ga

ti
ve

ns
eq

ue
nc

D
e

M
ar

ti
ni

-S
cu

lly
, B

ra
y,

a
nd

K
eh

(2
00

0)
5

N
o

Sp
ec

ifi
c

Y
es

Y
es
Y
es

Em
m

er
, E

ve
rt

so
n,

a
nd

A
nd

er
so

98
0)

o
t

Sp
ec

ifi
ed

In
s

o
m

e
in

st
an

ce
s

bu
t

no
t

al
l

N
o
t

Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
Y
es
Y
es

Ev
er

ts
o
n

an
d

Em
m

er
(

19
82

)
N

o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
N
o

B
o
th

So
m

e
cl

as
se

s
(s

ta
te

w
ri

tt
en

o
r

po
st

ed
)

Y
es
Y
es
Ev
er

ts
o
n,

E
m

m
er

, S
an

fo
rd

, a
nd

le
m

en
ts

(
19

83
)

N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
t

sp
ec

ifi
ed
Y
es
Y
es
Ev
er
ts
o
n

(1
98

9)
N

o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es

G
re

en
w

o
o
d,

H
o
ps

, D
el

qu
ad

ri
, a

G
ui

ld
(

19
74

)
6

N
o
Y
es
Sp
ec
ifi
c
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es

Jo
hn

so
n,

S
to

ne
r,

a
nd

G
re

en
(

19
96

)
4

o
r

5
pe

r
cl

as
s

N
o
Y
es
B
o
th

G
iv

en
a

s
a

ha
nd

o
ut

Y
es
Y
es

Lo
hr

m
an

n
an

d
T

al
er

ic
o
(

20
04

)
3

N
o
Y
es
Sp
ec
ifi
c
N
o
Y
es
Y
es

M
ad

se
n,

B
ec

ke
r,

a
nd

T
ho

m
as

(
19

68
)

5-
6

R
ec

o
m

m
en

de
d

bu
t
no
t

de
sc

ri
be

d
Y

es
(

w
he

n
po

ss
ib

le
)

Sp
ec
ifi
c
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es

M
cN

am
ar

a,
H

ar
ro

p,
a

nd
O

w
en

98
7)

3
N

o
N

o
Sp

ec
ifi

c
Y

s
Y

es
Y

es
M
cN
am
ar

a,
E

va
ns

, a
nd

H
ill

(
19

86
)

5
N

o
N
o
Sp
ec
ifi
c
Y

es
a

nd
p

ri
nt

ed
a

s
a
ha
nd
o
ut
Y
es
Y
es

M
us

se
r,

B
ra

y,
K

eh
le

, a
nd

J
en

so
n

(2
00

1)
5

N
o
N
o
Sp
ec
ifi
c
Po
st

ed
o

n
st

ud
en

ts
’

de
sk

s
Y
es
Y
es

N
är

hi
, K

iis
ki

, P
ei

ts
o
, a

nd
S

av
o
la

in
en

01
5)

2
N

o
N
o
t
Sp
ec
ifi
ed
Sp
ec
ifi
c
N
o
Y
es
Y
es

O
’L

ea
ry

, B
ec

ke
r,

E
va

ns
, a

Sa
ud

ar
ga

s
(1

96
9)

9
N

o
N
o
Sp
ec
ifi
c
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es

R
o
se

nb
er

g
(1

98
6)

3
N
o
N
o
Sp
ec
ifi
c
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es

Alter and Haydon 7

Empirical evidence for collaboratively developed
rules. Only Madsen and colleagues (1968)
suggested that the teachers in their study for-
mulate 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. How-
ever, in their descriptive study, Emmer and
colleagues (1980) noted that for more effec-
tive 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 cre-
ated collaboratively between the teachers and
researchers.

Stated Positively

Using wording that describes desired behav-
iors rather than undesired behaviors when cre-
ating 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 manage-
ment 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; Simon-
sen 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 posi-
tively. 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 participat-
ing 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 exam-
ple, suggesting that rules may have been
stated both positively and negatively.

Specific in Nature

In addition to stating rules positively, recom-
mendations 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 expecta-
tions (Kerr & Nelson, 2010; Reinke et al.,
2013; Scott et al., 2011). Smith (2004) used
different terminology but made a similar rec-
ommendation. This textbook refers to these
broader expectations as “principles” and rec-
ommends far more specificity for classroom
rules by warning against rules that are worded
morally rather than behaviorally (e.g., Respect
and Responsibility, Our Classroom Commu-
nity, A Safe Place to Learn).

Empirical evidence for rule specificity. Ten of the
articles included in this review provided spe-
cific classroom rules as part of their interven-
tion, 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 experi-
mental studies associated with Evertson and
colleagues did not), the majority could be
organized around four major themes: (a) com-
pliance with adults, (b) managing verbal

8 Teacher Education and Special Education

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 class-
room. 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 identi-
fied 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 rep-
resent 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 simi-
lar recommendations for posting them pub-
licly and often in multiple locations (Bicard,
2000; Malone & Tietjens, 2000; Shores et al.,
1993; Simonsen et al., 2008). Other than dis-
playing 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 visu-
ally 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 communi-
cated 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 stu-
dents, Musser et al. (2001) posted the rules on

the participant students’ desks, and McNa-
mara, 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 periodi-
cally thereafter—especially after long school
breaks. Scott and colleagues (2011) recom-
mended 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 fif-
teen articles identified teaching classroom
rules as part of the experimental protocol or
an observed behavior of more effective class-
room 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 spec-
ified. 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 subse-
quent days to teach one rule per day for 4
days with “examples (primarily generated by
the students) and behavior-specific prompts

Alter and Haydon 9

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. How-
ever, the amount of time teachers spent teach-
ing and other details were not included (De
Martini-Scully et al., 2000; Lohrmann &
Talerico, 2004; Musser et al., 2001; Rosen-
berg, 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 col-
leagues (2011) recommended that the conse-
quence 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 recommen-
dations and also encourage that the rules and
their consequences be reviewed together dur-
ing teaching/reteaching moments.

Empirical evidence for tying rules to conse-
quences. All thirteen of the experimental arti-
cles 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 consis-
tency 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 nega-
tive 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 atten-
tion is always provided within a token econ-
omy, 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 com-
plied 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 iden-
tified 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 viola-
tions. 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

10 Teacher Education and Special Education

supporting the characteristics of effective
classroom rules to guide teacher preparation
in the area of classroom management. This
was accomplished by comparing the recom-
mendations 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 addi-
tion, 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 class-
room rules were implemented more consis-
tently and seemed to be suggestive of greater
levels of overall impact of the intervention
than others. More surprising is that some fre-
quently 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 pub-
lications, 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 recom-
mended component of classroom manage-
ment. This review of the evidence indicates
that while effective characteristics of class-
room rules are typically outlined with equal
emphasis in secondary literature, often in list
form, they would be more accurately pre-
sented on a continuum and should be pre-
sented to preservice and in-service teachers
accordingly. Thus, in future practitioner-ori-
ented 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 man-
agement 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 relation-
ship with student behavior is less clear. For
the three studies that implemented classroom
rules as a stand-alone intervention (Green-
wood 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 assess-
ment 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 class-
room rules intervention consisted of incorpo-
rating proactive activities emphasizing
classroom rules that may be different than
simply creating and posting classroom rules.

For the remaining studies, drawing conclu-
sions 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 impor-
tance of classroom rules. McNamara and col-
leagues (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 compo-
nents 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 internal-
ized” (p. 247).

Alter and Haydon 11

Conclusions and
Recommendations

According to the research reviewed, both
empirical and secondary, the two characteris-
tics of classroom rules that were most impor-
tant to their overall effectiveness were that the
classroom rules were taught and that they
were tied to positive and/or negative conse-
quences. 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 class-
room rules were taught to students in clear
and effective ways. Having contingent conse-
quences for classroom rules was the other key
characteristic of effective classroom rules.
The contingencies varied from solely rein-
forcing, 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 charac-
teristic of 11 out of 13 of the experimental
studies. However, the descriptive studies
noted that classroom rules were communi-
cated 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 mini-
mal 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 mir-
rors the range of total rules in the empirical lit-
erature. 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 teach-
ers use the number of rules that fits their class-
room the best. However, it may also be useful
to use existing research on the brain and work-
ing 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 sec-
ondary literature is consistent both with com-
mon sense and more general knowledge of the
principles of systems like SW-PBIS and
applied behavior analysis, its lack of applica-
tion 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 clar-
ity 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 involve-
ment 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 behav-
ior management strategy is difficult to sum-
marize. 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 class-
room rules as one component of a package
intervention. Combining classroom rules

12 Teacher Education and Special Education

with interventions with robust previous
research such as precision requests, token
economies with and without response cost,
and environmental arrangements make it dif-
ficult 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 inter-
ventions 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 con-
sistent 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, dif-
ferences 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 empiri-
cal research on the use of classroom rules in
high school.

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.

References

References marked with one asterisk indicate pri-
mary empirical research included in the literature
review. References marked with two asterisks indi-
cate secondary publications including classroom
management textbooks.

**Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013).
Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Algozzine, R., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011).
Reexamining the relationship between aca-
demic achievement and social behavior.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13,
3-16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084

Alter, P. J., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (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 pro-
active 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:10.1080/00940771.2000.11
494651

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

**Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management:
Creating a successful K-12 learning commu-
nity (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Cowan, N. (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, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle,
T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention
to reduce disruptive behaviors in gen-
eral 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

*Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson,
L. M. (1980). Effective classroom manage-
ment at the beginning of the school year. The
Elementary School Journal, 80, 219-231.
doi:10.1086/461192

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

*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.

*Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Sanford, J. P., &
Clements, B. S. (1983). Improving classroom
management: An experiment in elementary

Alter and Haydon 13

classrooms. The Elementary School Journal,
84, 172-188. doi:10.1086/461354

Flower, A., McKenna, J., Bunuan, R., Muething, C.,
& Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the good behav-
ior game on challenging behaviors in school
settings. Review of Educational Research, 84,
546-571. doi:10.3102/0034654314536781

Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., &
MacSuga-Gage, A. (2014). Pre-service
teacher training in classroom manage-
ment: A review of state accreditation policy
and teacher preparation programs. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 37, 106-
120. doi:10.1177/0888406413507002

**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

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory in the class-
room. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2008).
Teachers who left the teaching profession:
A qualitative understanding. The Qualitative
Report, 13(1), 1-11.

**Greenberg, J., Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2014).
Training our future teachers: Classroom man-
agement. Washington, DC: National Council
on Teacher Quality.

*Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Delquadri, J., &
Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for
group consequences in classroom manage-
ment: A further analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 7, 413-425. doi:10.1901/
jaba.1974.7-413

**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.

Howard, N. A., & Norris, M. R. (1994). Source,
characteristics, and perceived effective-
ness of classroom rules. Paper presented at
the Kentucky Grow Conference, Bellarmine
College, Kentucky. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ED 396855)

Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong
solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60, 30-33.

*Johnson, T. C., Stoner, G., & Green, S. K. (1996).
Demonstrating the experimenting society
model with classwide behavior management
interventions. School Psychology Review, 25,
199-214.

**Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2004). Comprehensive
classroom management: Creating communi-
ties of support and solving problems (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.

Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2016). Comprehensive
classroom management: Creating communi-
ties of support and solving problems (11th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

**Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies
for addressing behavior problems in the
classroom (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou,
A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher apprais-
als of student behaviors. Psychology in the
Schools, 42, 79-89. doi:10.1002/pits.20031

**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.

*Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor the
boat: A classwide intervention to reduce prob-
lem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6, 113-120. doi:10.1177/10983
007040060020601

**Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management:
From heoretical implications to practi-
cal applications (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

*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

**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

*McNamara, E., Evans, M., & Hill, W. (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

*McNamara, E., Harrop, A., & Owen, F. (1987).
The effect of group oriented classroom man-
agement procedures on individual pupils.
Educational Psychology, 7, 157-168.

*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.

14 Teacher Education and Special Education

*Närhi, V., Kiiski, T., Peitso, S., & Savolainen,
H. (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:10.1080/088562
57.2014.986913

*O’Leary, K. A., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B., &
Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforce-
ment program in a public school: A replication
and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13.

Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special
education teacher preparation in class-
room management: Implication for students
with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188-199.

Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J.
(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teach-
ers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and reten-
tion. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 25-41.

**Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont,
M. (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

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

*Rosenberg, M. S. (1986). Maximizing the effec-
tiveness of structured classroom management
programs: Implementing rule-review proce-
dures with disruptive and distractible students.
Behavior Disorders, 11, 239-248.

**Scott, T. M., Anderson, C. M., & Alter, P. J.
(2011). Managing Classroom Behavior Using

Positive Behavior Supports. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.

**Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993).
Classroom management strategies: Are they
setting events for coercion? Behavioral
Disorders, 18, 92-102.

**Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A.,
Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-
based practices in classroom management:
Considerations for research to practice.
Education and Treatment of Children, 31,
351-380.

**Smith, R. (2004). Conscious classroom manage-
ment: Unlocking the secrets to great teach-
ing. San Rafael, CA: Conscious Teaching
Publications.

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

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.
(1994). What helps students learn? Synthesis
of Research, 51, 74-79.

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

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 Uni-
versity ofCincinnati. His current research interests
are effective teaching practices, students with
behavioral disorders, mindfulness, and positivebe-
havior and supports.

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315628091

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Establishing Rules and Procedures ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order