Classroom rules and procedures should be carefully monitored and enforced

Rules and Procedures Overview

Guinness, K., Detrich, R., Keyworth, R. & States, J. (2020). Overview of Rules and Procedures. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/classroom-rules-procedures.

In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, educators and parents are being asked to radically shift the environment in which students learn. As students of all ages adjust to this massive change, behavioral challenges are almost inevitable. Although our overviews on classroom management focus heavily on techniques to apply in settings with many students in one space, the basic principles on which these strategies are based hold true and can be adapted for use in home or online instruction. For example, the Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2020) published a guide for creating a behavioral matrix for remote instruction. Just as behavioral matrices can identify how to exemplify universal social expectations in different school environments, the same tool can be used to align these expectations with different remote learning environments, such as breakout groups, group instruction, and one-on-one instruction.

Introduction

Rules and procedures are a critical component of governing human behavior in all levels of society, including educational settings. A multitiered system of support (MTSS) involves both proactive and reactive interventions to support appropriate behavior and discourage inappropriate behavior. Universal interventions are applied to all students, and more intensive interventions are introduced for students for whom universal interventions are not effective. Rules play an important role across tiers of MTSS, are a key element of the first tier (Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, 2013), and are included in many effective behavior management strategies such as active supervision (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997), the good behavior game (Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006), check-in/check-out (Wolfe et al., 2016), and classwide function-related intervention teams (CW-FIT; Kamps et al., 2011).

            Although establishing and implementing effective school or classroom rules may appear a straightforward process, it remains a persistent topic in classroom management textbooks and empirical research. Recommendations across these sources may be inconsistent (Alter & Haydon, 2017), but prioritizing recommendations from empirical research best aligns with using evidence-based practices. This overview summarizes research about the effects of rules on appropriate and inappropriate behavior in school settings and provides recommendations for incorporating rules effectively into a behavior management program.

What Is a Rule?

The various definitions of “rules” include “explicit statements that define behavioral expectations and that help establish a predictable teaching and learning environment” (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009, p. 196) and “statements that teachers present to describe acceptable and unacceptable behavior” (Alter & Haydon, 2017, p. 115). However, at its simplest, a rule is a statement of the relation between a signal, a behavior, and a consequence (Blakely & Schlinger, 1987). For example, after lunch (signal), classes that line up quietly (behavior) get to go out to the playground (consequence).

Research on Rules

Rules are an efficient means of changing behavior. Once students are aware of the relation between a signal, a behavior, and a consequence, they can learn what to do and what not to do before ever experiencing a consequence. One simple demonstration of the power of rules is giving meaning to an otherwise arbitrary signal. Tiger and Hanley (2004) examined whether providing rules would increase the effectiveness of using signals to indicate when a teacher was or was not available to assist students. In an initial phase of the study, the classroom teacher wore different colored floral leis to signal students about availability for help with work. A red lei meant the teacher would provide assistance when asked, and a white lei meant assistance was not available. However, the teacher did not explain to the students what each lei meant. There were minimal differences in the number of times the students requested teacher attention during this phase. Next, the teacher provided rules about what each lei color signaled. Immediately after this change, the students engaged in higher levels of requesting assistance when the red lei was worn, and lower levels of requesting assistance when the white lei was worn.

Vargo, Heal, Epperley, and Kooistra (2014) demonstrated a similar effect on hand raising in preschool classrooms. The intervention involved teaching students the following rules: When the blue card is on the board and you raise your hand, the teacher will call on you as soon as possible. When the yellow card is on the board and you raise your hand, the teacher will not call on you. After learning the rules, students raised their hands more frequently when the blue card was on the board and less frequently when the yellow card was on the board.

Torelli, Lloyd, Diekman, and Wehby (2017) expanded this line of research to elementary school classrooms. A table lamp served as the signal for whether or not the teacher was available. The teacher explained to the students how the light being on or off signaled availability or lack of availability to answer questions. The students engaged in higher levels of recruiting teacher assistance when the appropriate signal was in place and lower levels when the signal was not in place. Further, the teacher was able to alter the rule and switch the signal—if a turned-on light previously signaled availability, now a turned-off light signaled availability and a turned-on light meant the teacher was not available.

It is important to note that in each of the aforementioned studies, rules were accompanied by consistent consequences. That is, if the rule was, “I can help you if the light is on, but I cannot help you if the light is off,” the teacher consistently responded to the students in accordance with the rule.

Additional research has explored which features of a rule make it more or less effective. Braam and Malott (1990) compared the effects on preschool children of four types of rules for following directions. In general, if the students completed a task, they could select a prize from a prize box. The variations on the rule included whether or not completing the task would result in a prize, whether the prize would be immediate or delayed by 1 week, and whether or not there was a deadline for completing the task. Initially, when there were no rules or prizes delivered for following rules, the students followed only 42% of instructions. When the rule included a deadline and specified that a prize would be delivered immediately, the students followed 97% of instructions. When the rule included a deadline but not a prize, students followed only 31% of instructions. Further, when the rule included a deadline and specified that a prize would be delivered after a 1-week delay, the students followed 74% of directions, compared with following only 28% of directions when the rule did not include a deadline but specified that a prize would be delivered after a 1-week delay. 

Table 1. Average percentages of directions followed across conditions (adapted from Braam & Malott, 1990)

            These findings indicated that providing a deadline combined with an immediate prize for completing the task had the strongest influence over whether or not students followed directions.

Rule Review

Introducing rules and procedures at the beginning of the school year is an excellent starting point and one of the hallmarks of schoolwide positive behavioral supports (SWPBS). However, ongoing reminders and prompts are also crucial for ensuring continuing effectiveness of those rules (Taylor-Green et al., 1997). Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the effects of rule reminders on rule following.

Faul, Stepensky, and Simonsen (2012) evaluated the effects of verbal reminders of expectations on off-task behavior with two middle school students. The intervention involved the teacher reminding the students of three rules immediately before class. The teacher did not provide any additional prompts, praise, or other consequences for on- or off-task behavior after the initial delivery of the rules. For both participants, the verbal reminders of the rules resulted in decreased off-task behavior. Moreover, Moore et al. (2019) evaluated the effects of verbally reviewing classroom rules immediately prior to a lesson in which the rules would be in effect. Participants were three high school students with mild disabilities. Prior to the study, the classroom rules were displayed in the classroom (and remained on display throughout the study), but the teacher did not provide any reminders or prompts. On-task behavior occurred at moderate levels during this phase. In the intervention phase, at the beginning of each class the teacher read each rule, then asked students to give an example of following the rule and an example of not following the rule. The intervention resulted in increased on-task behavior for all three participants.

Faul et al. (2012) and Moore et al. (2019) evaluated rule reminders in isolation, but other research has demonstrated how rule reminders can be used in conjunction with additional intervention components such as behavior-specific praise and corrective feedback. Rosenberg (1986) examined if adding rules to an existing token economy would result in greater decreases in disruptive behavior. His study compared two conditions:

1. No rule review: The teacher briefly reminded students that they could earn tokens for following math lesson rules. If a student followed the rules during the lesson, they were notified of earning a point but was given no specific feedback. Similarly, if a student did not follow the rules during the lesson, they were notified that they did not earn a point, but no further feedback was provided.
2. Rule review: teacher asked the class if they remembered the rules for earning tokens; students raised their hands to answer individually, and then the teacher prompted the class to recite the rule in unison. During the lesson, rule following resulted in specific praise about how the student had followed the rule in addition to a point, and not following the rules resulted in additional reminders about behavioral expectations.

The students exhibited higher levels of on task behavior and lower levels of disruptive behavior when rules were reviewed and incorporated into feedback via behavior-specific praise or corrective statements. It is important to note that rules were merely one component of the effective intervention; it is unclear if the rules, specific praise, points, or combination of these elements were responsible for the change in behavior.

Rules: Part of the Intervention Package

Stating behavioral expectations is frequently the first step in implementing a behavior management strategy. In addition to treatment packages such as the good behavior game, check-in/check-out, and CW-FIT, researchers have examined the effects of rules in combination with other intervention components such as practice opportunities and feedback.

In their seminal study, Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1968) evaluated the effects on the inappropriate behavior of elementary school children of a classroom management package that included setting rules, ignoring inappropriate behavior, and praising appropriate behavior. Rules alone and rules combined with ignoring inappropriate behavior did not produce any changes in inappropriate behavior. Only when setting rules, ignoring inappropriate behavior, and praising appropriate behavior were combined did decreases in inappropriate behavior occur.

Johnson, Stoner, and Green (1996) demonstrated the effectiveness of actively teaching classroom rules. On the first day of intervention, the teacher initially spent approximately 10 minutes teaching the rules by giving examples and providing specific feedback. During each subsequent day, the teacher spent about 3 minutes reteaching one of the five rules. Throughout the class period, the teacher also provided feedback about the target rule at least three times. The intervention resulted in decreased inappropriate behavior and increased appropriate behavior.

Lohrmann and Talerico (2004) evaluated the effects of an intervention called “anchor the boat” on inappropriate behavior in a class of students with disabilities. Three behavioral expectations were defined positively (i.e., stating what to do instead of what not to do): Stay in your seat, complete your assignments, and talk when it is your turn. The teacher explained each rule and provided examples of what following the rule looked like and what violating the rule looked like. The class then engaged in a role-playing activity to practice following the rules. The teacher prepared a visual on the classroom wall of a boat and an anchor 20 inches apart. The class earned paperclips for following the classroom rules, which were added to the visual to connect the anchor to the boat. Once sufficient paperclips were earned and the anchor was connected to the boat, the students could each choose a prize from a prize box. Then the paperclips were removed and the process repeated. The intervention resulted in decreases in all three inappropriate behaviors (not staying in the seat, not completing assignments, and talking out of turn).

Rules can be critical to teaching new skills in addition to reducing inappropriate behavior. Sharpe, Brown, and Crider (1995) evaluated the effects of a social curriculum package including rules, peer monitoring, and feedback on sportsmanship and leadership in public school physical education classes. At the beginning of each physical education class, the teacher reviewed the rules including giving verbal descriptions of what following each rule looked like. The students rotated through a randomized roster so that during each class two students functioned as referees and resolved any interpersonal conflicts, and two students functioned as team captains and were responsible for team division, equipment organization, and rule reminders. At the end of each class, the teacher provided verbal and written feedback to each team based on adherence to the rules. The intervention resulted in increases in leadership and teacher-independent conflict resolution, and decreases in conflict and off-task behavior.

It is critical to note that in all of the studies discussed in this overview, when a rule specified a consequence, that consequence was delivered consistently. Applying consistent consequences is another hallmark of MTSS (Taylor-Greene et al., 1997).

Developing Effective Rules

Some social expectations are ubiquitous in American culture. Lynass, Tsai, Richman, and Cheney (2012) examined the behavioral matrices of schools implementing SWPBS across the United States. A behavioral matrix involves listing the overall school expectations, then describing the specific behaviors involved in adhering to that expectation across school settings (e.g., classroom, cafeteria, hallway). The top four social expectations observed were respect (89%), responsibility (72%), safety (64%), and learning readiness (27%). The most frequent behavioral indicators for the four expectations respectively included kind words and actions (55%), following instructions (49%), hands and feet to self (75%), and having materials prepared (65%). The authors acknowledged that the homogeneity of the expectations observed left the question of cultural differences unaddressed.

Despite this uniformity, developing a list of school or classroom rules can be a difficult task. Involving school personnel in the development of school rules is a vital first step in ensuring consistent implementation of behavior management strategies; incorporating team members in the development of behavior support plans can increase adherence to a plan compared with having a specialist develop the plan on his or her own (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006; Sanetti, Collier-Meek, Long, Kim, & Kratochwill, 2014).

Valenti and Kerr (2015) acknowledged the challenges associated with reaching a consensus on school rules and described a strategy for generating behavioral matrices with faculty input. The researchers conducted an anonymous, electronic survey to gather information about staff perceptions of school rules. The survey listed misbehaviors already included in the school’s code of conduct and additional common school misbehaviors (e.g., arriving late to class). Respondents were asked to rate each misbehavior on a scale of 1 to 5 on how important they thought it was to address the behavior. The survey results were summarized and presented at a faculty meeting with the following guidance:

• Behaviors that the faculty agreed were important should be translated into school rules.
• Behaviors that faculty agreed were not important should not be translated into school rules.
• Behaviors that faculty did not agree on should be subject to group discussion or a vote.

In addition, Alter and Haydon (2017) provided a number of recommendations for developing effective rules based on empirical literature.

• Less is more. Recommendations for the exact number of rules based on secondary sources are ambiguous, but the general consensus is that fewer rules are better. In empirical studies reviewed, the average number of rules was 4.67 (range = 2–9).
• Collaborate with students. Although the benefits of this practice have yet to be demonstrated empirically, this recommendation appears frequently in secondary sources (i.e., sources that provide suggestions about developing effective rules, but do not include experimental data).
• Keep it positive. When stating rules, say what to do whenever possible instead of what not to do.
• Be specific. Rules should identify specific environments, behaviors, and consequences. General principles such as “be respectful” can be used at a school level; a behavioral matrix can be helpful in specifying what behaviors exemplify that principle in different environments. For example, being respectful on the playground may involve different behaviors than being respectful in the classroom.
• Make it public. Post the classroom rules in a place where everyone can see them, or provide handouts to each student.
• Teach the rules. Model appropriate behavior for students, arrange opportunities for students to practice, and provide praise and corrective feedback as necessary.
• Connect rules to positive and negative consequences. Identify what will happen when rules are followed and when they are not followed.

Conclusions and Implications

Establishing clear rules about behavioral expectations is the first step in developing a comprehensive behavior management program. Although there is some consistency in school rules across the United States, reaching consensus among school staff regarding school rules can be challenging. Using a data-based strategy to gather information about behavioral priorities can facilitate the development of overarching expectations with input from school staff.

Rules can enhance the effectiveness of other behavioral interventions such as using signals to indicate teacher availability, token economies, and peer monitoring. In addition to initially teaching the rules with descriptions, rationales, and examples, providing reminders may be necessary to help students follow the rules. Rules alone are often insufficient to change behavior, but can be part of a treatment package involving additional components such as prompting, behavior-specific praise, rewards, and corrective feedback. Most importantly, rules should be thought of as the starting point for guiding student behavior. In order to be effective, rules must be accompanied by consistent consequences such as praise and rewards for rule following, and corrective consequences for rule violations.

Citations

Alter, P., & Haydon, T. (2017). Characteristics of effective classroom rules: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417700962

Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030401

Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392428

Braam, C., & Malott, R.W. (1990). “I’ll do it when the snow melts”: The effects of deadlines and delayed outcomes on rule-governed behavior in preschool children. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392848

Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2020). Creating a PBIS Behavior Teaching Matrix for Remote Instruction. University of Oregon. www.pbis.org.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., & Lee, Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(4), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088967

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(4), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208328831

Faul, A., Stepensky, K., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Effects of prompting appropriate behavior on the off-task behavior of two middle school students. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 14(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711410702

Johnson, T. C., Stoner, G., & Green, S. K. (1996). Demonstrating the experimenting society model with classwide behavior management interventions. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 199–214.

Kamps, D., Wills, H., Heitzman-Powell, L., Laylin, J., Szoke, C., Petrillo, T., & Culey, A. (2011). Class-wide function-related intervention teams: Effects of group contingency programs in urban classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(3), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711398935

Lohrmann, S. & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor the boat: A classwide intervention to reduce problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 6(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060020601

Lynass, L., Tsai, S. F., Richman, T. D., & Cheney, D. (2012). Social expectations and behavioral indicators in school-wide positive behavioral supports: A national study of behavioral matrices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711412076

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-139

Moore, T. C., Alpers, A. J., Rhyne, R., Coleman, M. B., Gordon, J. R., Daniels, S., … Park, Y. (2019). Brief prompting to improve classroom behavior: A first-pass intervention option. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718774881

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(1),39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459079

Rosenberg, M. S. (1986). Maximizing the effectiveness of structured classroom management programs: Implementing rule-review procedures with disruptive and distractible students. Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874298601100405

Sanetti, L. M. H., Collier-Meek, M. A., Long, A. C. J., Kim, J., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2014). Using implementation planning to increase teachers’ adherence to quality behavior support plans. Psychology in the Schools, 51(8), 879–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21787

Sharpe, T., Brown, M., & Crider, K. (1995). The effects of a sportsmanship curriculum intervention on generalized positive social behaviors of urban elementary school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(4), 401-416. https://doi.org/ 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-401

Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen,… Hall, S. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022849722465

Tiger, J. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2004). Developing stimulus control of preschooler mands: An analysis of schedule-correlated and contingency-specifying stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-517

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

Torelli, J. N., Lloyd, B. P., Diekman, C. A., & Wehby, J. H. (2017). Teaching stimulus control via class-wide multiple schedules of reinforcement in public elementary school classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716632878

Valenti, M. W., & Kerr, M. M. (2015). Addressing individual perspectives in the development of schoolwide rules: A data-informed process. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300714544405

Vargo, K. K., Heal, N. A., Epperley, K., & Kooistra, E. (2014). The effects of a multiple schedule plus rules on hand raising during circle time in preschool classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9199-3

Wolfe, K., Pyle, D., Charlton, C. T., Sabey, C. V., Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2016). A systematic review of the empirical support for check-in check-out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715595957

What rules and procedures will you implement in your classroom?

What is the importance of classroom procedures?

What classroom routines and procedures should be observed?

What is the most important and effective classroom management that we can implement?