Rates of Common Classroom Behavior Management Strategies and Their Associations With Challenging Student Behavior in Elementary School

Literature review on Rates of Common Classroom Behavior Management Strategies and Their Associations With Challenging Student Behavior in Elementary School by Owen et al. (2017)

Citation
Owens, J. S., Holdaway, A. S., Smith, J., Evans, S. W., Himawan, L. K., Coles, E. K., Girio-Herrera, E., & Mixon, C. J. (2017). Rates of Common Classroom Behavior Management Strategies and Their Associations With Challenging Student Behavior in Elementary School. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25(3), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616630534

Introduction

Classroom behavior management is central to supporting effective learning, particularly for students with emotional and behavioral difficulties such as ADHD. Teachers frequently use strategies such as praise, commands, and responses to misbehavior, but little is known about how often these are used in real classrooms and how they relate to challenging behaviors. This study explores the frequency of common management strategies and their association with both classwide and individual student behavior.

Objectives

1. To quantify how often teachers use common classroom behavior management strategies.
   
   

2. To examine whether these strategies are associated with reductions in challenging student behaviors.
   
   

3. To identify thresholds of effective practice that can guide teacher training and classroom interventions.
   
   

Methodology

The study was conducted with 19 elementary school teachers and 155 students in grades 1 through 5, with each classroom including at least one child at risk for ADHD. Researchers used the Direct Observation of Student and Teacher Behavior (DOSTB) tool to code teacher practices and student responses during naturalistic classroom sessions. Observations focused on key strategies, including labeled and unlabeled praise, effective and ineffective commands, and teacher responses to rule violations. Data were analyzed at both the classwide level and for individual target students, allowing the researchers to identify how frequently these strategies were applied and how they related to disruptive behaviors.

Findings

• Praise was underused and often nonspecific: Teachers delivered praise to students, but the majority of it was unlabeled praise such as “good job” or “nice work.” While this may encourage students generally, it does not clearly link the praise to a specific behavior. Labeled praise, where teachers explicitly highlight what the student did correctly (e.g., “Thank you for raising your hand before speaking”), was rare. The lack of specific praise limits its effectiveness as a reinforcement tool.
  
  

• Commands were frequent but often ineffective: Teachers issued many commands, but a large proportion were ineffective, either because they were vague (“Pay attention”), repeated without follow-through, or delivered in a way that did not guide behavior. Effective commands are clear, specific, and enforceable, but these were much less common. The high rate of ineffective commands suggests that teachers may unintentionally undermine their own authority and classroom order.
  
  

• Inconsistent responses to misbehavior: One of the most striking findings was the inconsistency in teachers’ responses to rule violations. Many instances of misbehavior went unaddressed, which can reinforce and escalate disruptive patterns. When teachers failed to follow through, students were more likely to continue engaging in problem behavior.
  
  

• A critical threshold for responses: The analysis showed that when teachers responded to at least 51% of rule violations, classwide disruptive behavior was significantly reduced. This finding highlights the importance of consistency: even if not every incident is addressed, responding to just over half is enough to make a measurable difference. Falling below this threshold allowed disruptive behavior to flourish.
  
  

• Associations with student outcomes: Effective commands and labeled praise were both associated with fewer disruptive behaviors among target students, especially those identified as at risk for ADHD. This suggests that students most prone to challenging behaviors benefit the most from clear, positive, and consistent teacher practices.
  
  

• Variability across classrooms: There was wide variation among teachers in how often they used effective strategies. Some classrooms showed strong use of proactive management tools (consistent responses, effective commands, specific praise), while others leaned heavily on reactive approaches or allowed misbehavior to go unaddressed. This variability highlights a gap in training and implementation across classrooms.
  
  

Discussion

The study highlights a gap between evidence-based recommendations and classroom practice. Teachers underutilized labeled praise and consistent responses—two of the most effective behavior management strategies. Many commands given were ineffective, which undermined classroom order. The findings reinforce the importance of teacher training focused on specific praise, effective commands, and consistent follow-up. Importantly, the study’s benchmark of 51% response to rule violations provides a clear, actionable guideline for improving classroom behavior outcomes.

Conclusion

Effective classroom management is not only about using strategies but also about how often and how consistently they are applied. Labeled praise, effective commands, and consistent responses to misbehavior reduce disruptive behaviors both classwide and for at-risk students. Teachers need ongoing professional development to strengthen these practices. The study underscores that small changes in teacher behavior—particularly maintaining at least a 51% response rate to violations—can lead to meaningful improvements in classroom climate and student engagement.