Praise And Ignore¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Praise and ignore is a classroom management strategy in which the teacher systematically reinforces desired behavior with attention and specific praise while deliberately withholding attention (eye contact, verbal engagement, visible reaction) from minor, non-disruptive misbehavior. It operationalizes differential reinforcement: attention functions as a powerful consequence, so it is spent on behavior you want to see repeated rather than behavior you want to extinguish.

Design Implications¶

The strategy rests on operant principles: teacher attention reliably functions as a reinforcer for most students, so attending to misbehavior — even negatively, via reprimands — can inadvertently increase it Social learning and operant mechanisms make attention a consequential event that shapes behavior. [+M]. Effective implementation requires behavior-specific praise ("You started the problem right away — that gives you more time to check your work") rather than generic praise ("good job"), because specificity makes the reinforced behavior identifiable and repeatable [+M]. Planned ignoring works only when paired with active reinforcement of the replacement behavior; ignoring alone withholds the misbehavior's payoff but teaches nothing.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Clear, explicitly taught expectations so students know which behavior earns attention (Clear Structure)
• Behavior-specific praise delivered promptly and contingently, at a high rate relative to corrections (a praise-to-reprimand ratio of at least 4:1 is a common benchmark [+M])
• Consistency: intermittent or selective attention to misbehavior creates intermittent reinforcement, the most resistant schedule
• A decision rule for what gets ignored — behavior that is annoying but not disruptive, not behavior that is dangerous, destructive, or stops instruction

Constraints¶

• Ignoring is ineffective — and can escalate behavior — when the misbehavior is maintained by peer attention rather than teacher attention [~M]; the payoff must actually be removed
• Ineffective when the ignored behavior is too severe to be safe to ignore, or when it interferes with other students' learning
• Praise loses reinforcing value when it is vague, sarcastic, or delivered publicly to adolescents sensitive to peer perception [~M]; private or quiet praise is often more effective for older students
• Requires teacher consistency under stress; reactivity to escalation (giving in after ignoring) reinforces the escalation itself [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Group contingency versions: praising a group or table that meets the expectation, leveraging peer influence
• Nonverbal ignoring: continued teaching while moving physically near, but not attending to, the off-task student
• Praise notes / positive phone calls home: extending the same contingency beyond the classroom
• Self-monitoring adaptations: students track their own on-task behavior, shifting the reinforcement toward self-management

Target Learners¶

• Most effective in early childhood and elementary settings, where teacher attention is a high-value reinforcer [+M]
• Students with attention or behavior difficulties benefit from elevated rates of specific praise, though they often receive the least of it [+M]
• Less suited to adolescents without adaptation (public praise can function as a punisher); use private, low-key acknowledgment instead [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Prosocial and self-regulatory behavior: on-task engagement, transitions, cooperation
• Classroom climate and instructional time protection: increasing allocated learning time rather than teaching content directly
• Not a strategy for academic content objectives — it creates the conditions under which Direct Instruction and Active Learning can proceed

Instructions¶

1. Define and teach 3–5 positively stated classroom expectations; model and rehearse them (Clear Structure).
2. Identify which minor misbehaviors you will ignore (talking out, fidgeting, eye-rolling) and which require immediate response (safety, disruption of others).
3. Scan the room continuously and deliver behavior-specific praise to students meeting expectations, especially those near the misbehaving student.
4. Withhold all attention from targeted minor misbehavior — no eye contact, no verbal correction, no visible reaction — while continuing instruction.
5. Attend immediately to the student the moment they emit the desired replacement behavior, and praise it specifically.
6. Monitor your own praise-to-reprimand ratio (self-counting or a coach tallying works) and adjust.

Related Strategies¶

• Behavior-specific praise — the reinforcement half of the pairing; the component most often implemented poorly
• Planned ignoring (extinction) — the withholding half; only effective when the maintaining reinforcer is actually removed
• Group contingencies (e.g., Good Behavior Game) — a structured, game-based extension of the same differential reinforcement logic

Examples¶

• A first-grade teacher ignores a student's calling out but immediately names a nearby student who raised her hand: "Marcus waited with his hand up — that helps me hear everyone." The calling out typically extinguishes within days when the contingency is consistent.
• PAX Good Behavior Game (https://www.paxis.org) — formalizes praise-and-ignore within a team-based contingency game; multiple randomized trials show reduced disruptive behavior and improved academic outcomes.
• Positive Phone Calls Home — many MTSS/PBIS implementations (e.g., https://www.pbis.org) require a set ratio of positive contacts to corrective contacts with families, applying the same principle at the school level.

Key Sources¶

• 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(1), 351-380. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0007
• Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(1), 2–8. doi:10.1177/106342660000800101
• Cook, C. R., et al. (2017). Positive greetings at the door: Evaluation of a low-cost, high-yield proactive classroom management strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(3), 149–159. doi:10.1177/1098300717753831
• Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Sprick, R. (2011). Motivational interviewing for effective classroom management: The classroom check-up. Guilford Press.