It's Time to Reduce Prompt Dependence
For every prompt dependent student there has been a prompt dependent teacher
In analysing the data from a recent RtI Tier 2 intervention I designed and ran at my school, I saw clear signs of prompt dependence. The students performed well on single-skill, well-structured exercises, showing they had grasped the mechanics of what was being taught. But when asked to apply those same skills in a real context—without direct teacher intervention—they froze. They knew what to do, how to do it, and why it was important… but only if I first prompted them through each step. This, right here, is prompt dependence in action.
If you’ve never encountered the term, you might be wondering—what exactly is prompt dependence? Simply put, it’s when a person needs a prompt to initiate a skill or activity they have already mastered. This isn’t about reminding someone to clean their room or complete a routine task. This is a student waiting to be told to do something they already know how to do—something they’ve demonstrated successfully before—because they’ve learned that the next step doesn’t happen until an adult says so. They’re capable, but they’ve been conditioned to wait for direction rather than act on their own.
To be clear, not all prompts are bad. Everyone needs prompts when learning something new—even teachers. You should have seen how much prompting I needed last week at a Systema Instructor Workshop, trying to coordinate dynamic movement techniques with bodily recoil (it was a disaster). Prompts serve a purpose when someone is in the process of acquiring a skill. The issue arises when prompts aren’t faded, and students become reliant on them long after mastery. That’s when prompting shifts from support to a crutch, and students become unable—or unwilling—to take independent action.
So why is prompt dependence a problem? Because teachers won’t always be there. We aren’t preparing students for a world where they have a teacher beside them at every step, reminding them what to do. The goal is for students to function without us. If we allow prompt dependence to persist, we’re creating long-term reliance on external cues, rather than helping students build internal self-regulation. Consider basic developmental milestones—tasks that children master in early years and carry with them into adulthood. Now imagine a teenager who still needs to be told each step of managing a simple daily task. That might sound extreme, but it’s the same principle—if we fail to fade prompts and build autonomy, we create a system where students expect external direction instead of developing self-initiation.
How do we prevent and reduce prompt dependence? The first step is recognising that it’s deeply embedded in how classrooms are structured. Given that behaviourist methodology has shaped so much of classroom management—from Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) to broader school-wide compliance models—it’s no surprise that prompt-heavy teaching is the norm. Understanding how prompting functions within these systems helps us unravel its impact and replace it with better strategies.
This means being intentional about fading prompts from the very start. Too often, lesson planning focuses only on skill acquisition—getting students to succeed at something new. But what happens after they succeed? Mastery isn’t the end goal—independence is. If we don’t plan for how we will fade supports, we risk keeping students stuck in a cycle of waiting for permission to act rather than acting on their own.
For example, teaching a student to say “thank you” when someone does something nice for them is great. But if they only say it after a teacher prompts with “What do you say when…?”, the skill isn’t actually internalised. The goal should be for students to recognise the natural cue—someone doing something kind—and respond on their own. This is where cue-based strategies come in, supporting students in recognising when and how to apply their skills without requiring an external directive.
If we want students to become truly independent, we have to design our teaching from the start with that independence in mind. That means shifting away from prompt-heavy intervention and instead creating learning environments where cues and self-regulation take priority. It’s not just about reducing prompts—it’s about structuring the classroom in a way that students don’t need them in the first place.
Use Least to Most Prompts When Needed
If you are going to use prompts as part of your instruction, start with the least intrusive prompts. These will be the easiest to fade.
Least to Most prompts will go in this order:
Natural Cue/Independence - there is always something that will show your student it is time to engage in his new skill. If you student does the skill to the natural cue in the environment without any help from you they are now independent. Thus, for our student that we taught to say thank you when someone has done something for them, the natural cue is the action done for them.
Visual - this includes pictures and text prompts. These are great because the student doesn’t need us around for these to work.
Gestural - pointing, motioning, eye contact, etc.
Indirect Verbal - e.g., hinting. Saying something like, “What do you need next?”
Direct Verbal - e.g., directly telling the student what to do. Saying something like “Go check your schedule.”
Model - e.g., showing the student exactly what to do by doing it yourself.
Partial Physical - e.g., touching the student or physically moving their body to engage in part of the response. For partial physical prompting you may just get the motion started. For example, you move the child’s hand to the pencil but let them pick it up and use it.
Full Physical - e.g., touching the student or physically moving their body to engage in the complete response. For example, you help them finish the entire task.
If you're going to incorporate any of these strategies into your teaching, start with the least restrictive option first and see if the student can engage successfully. If they struggle, only then increase the level of support. Too often, we assume students need more prompting than they actually do, which can inadvertently create reliance on teacher direction rather than fostering self-regulation. When we start with minimal intervention, we’re already closer to not needing prompts at all—and that’s exactly where we want to be. The goal isn’t just to fade prompts but to avoid unnecessary ones in the first place by embedding cues and structured independence into the learning environment.
Visual Supports as Cues, Not Just Decorations
Classroom visuals are everywhere—so much so that many modern classrooms look like a laminator exploded inside them. And it’s not because teachers have a deep aesthetic appreciation for Boardmaker symbols. Too often, visuals are used for decoration, compliance, or to appease administrators, rather than serving a real functional purpose for students. But when used intentionally, visuals are one of the most effective ways to replace prompts with cues.
A well-placed schedule, checklist, or icon system can serve as a reference point for students to engage in tasks independently, without needing a teacher to verbally prompt them through each step. The difference between a visual cue and a visual prompt lies in who controls its use—if a student can self-reference and act, it’s a cue. If they still look to the teacher to confirm what to do, it’s a prompt that hasn’t been fully faded yet. The goal is to ensure that visuals serve the student, not the teacher—reinforcing self-direction rather than passive following of instructions.
Reinforcement, Shaping, and Supporting Self-Initiation
For students who have experienced years of prompt-heavy instruction, shifting towards cue-based learning may take time. That’s where reinforcement and shaping come in. The key isn’t to reward perfect execution but to celebrate self-initiation, even when it’s imperfect. If a student is learning to write their name and only picks up the pencil, that’s still progress. The focus should be on reinforcing their attempt to engage independently, then shaping their response incrementally rather than waiting for the final product to be perfect.
Shaping isn’t about micromanaging each step—it’s about recognising small victories and building confidence in self-directed action. If we only provide reinforcement when a student completes every part of a task exactly as expected, we risk reinforcing perfectionism and hesitation, rather than self-initiated learning. Instead, by supporting effort and risk-taking, we reinforce independence as a process rather than a fixed outcome.
Final Thoughts: Recognising and Undoing Behaviourist Overreach
If we’re going to unravel the impact of behaviourist teaching, we have to first recognise where it has infiltrated our classrooms, our schools, and our teacher training programs. Prompt-heavy instruction didn’t just happen by accident—it’s the result of decades of behaviourist methodology shaping the way teachers are trained to “manage” students rather than support them. Look around. Observe how many students wait for a directive before taking action. Now that you know what to look for, you’ll likely see just how pervasive prompt dependence has become.
And if we can see it, we can fix it. No guilt, no shame—just a commitment to doing better. The goal isn’t simply to remove prompts but to replace them with cues that empower students to take ownership of their own learning. It’s time to shift from managing behaviour to designing learning spaces where students don’t need to be managed at all.