Prompts vs. Cues in Classroom Management – Supporting Independence, Not Dependence

Introduction

It’s the end of a lesson, and students are wrapping up their work. One student, let’s call him Miguel, sits motionless at his desk. His pencil hasn’t moved in five minutes. The teacher, noticing his inaction, leans over and gives him a gentle verbal reminder: "Miguel, you need to start writing." A few minutes later, he remains frozen. Another prompt follows. "Miguel, remember, you need to get started on your work." This cycle continues daily. Miguel never initiates the task on his own, and each lesson ends the same way—with an exasperated teacher and a student who has become dependent on prompts. The issue isn’t that Miguel is incapable of doing the work, but that he has learned he doesn’t need to initiate—his teacher will always step in. This is prompt dependence in action.

As someone who became a K-12 teacher in the U.S. long after my autism diagnosis, I entered the field with a different perspective than many of my peers. My own experiences as an autistic person meant I was hyper-aware of how rigid classroom management systems can stifle rather than support learning. The common guidance for new teachers is steeped in behaviourist doctrine, prioritising control, compliance, and the use of external reinforcements and token economies to modify student behaviour. In my early years of teaching, my attempts to push back on these methods were met with stern warnings—”You're a new teacher. Know your place and do as you're told.” Even now, during instructional rounds when administrators visit my classroom, they often remark that they don’t see the ‘traditional’ methods of classroom management. And they won’t.

My classroom isn’t designed to look like others because my neurotype and neuroqueerness shape how I teach. My class exists because of the other classes—it is a refuge from behaviourism. The traditional behaviourist approach relies heavily on prompts to control student behaviour. However, research shows that overuse of prompts fosters dependence, rather than teaching students to self-initiate and self-regulate. In contrast, cues encourage autonomy and self-regulation, making them far more appropriate for IEP supports and neurodivergent students.

The dominance of prompts in classroom management stems from their roots in behaviourism, a model that emphasises immediate compliance rather than long-term autonomy. But compliance is not the same as learning, nor is it a reliable measure of student growth. Cues, by contrast, function as supports rather than controls, offering students the structure they need while still allowing them to develop independent skills. Research suggests that cues are preferable in student supports, as they reduce dependence and encourage generalisation of skills across contexts. In a world where education is still dominated by rigid systems of control, we must rethink our approach. The goal should not be to make students compliant—but to empower them to act independently.

The Role of Prompts in Behaviorism and Classroom Management

Prompts are a fundamental tool in behaviourist classroom management, used as direct interventions to initiate or control student behaviour. They come in various forms—verbal, physical, gestural, or pictorial—and are often structured around specific reinforcement techniques. Research by Clark et al. (2012) highlights how prompts are designed to elicit immediate responses, following clear rules to shape behaviour. However, whilst prompts may be effective in the short term, their overuse creates an unintended consequence: prompt dependence. When students become accustomed to external prompts directing their every action, they struggle to act independently, requiring constant intervention to complete even routine tasks.

This dependence is well-documented in research. Alberto & Sharpton (1987) found that excessive prompting diminishes a student’s ability to develop self-initiated behaviours. Consider a classroom where a teacher consistently tells students to raise their hands before speaking. If this prompting is never faded, students may never internalise the expectation; they will always wait for an external prompt rather than recognising the appropriate moment to participate on their own. Instead of fostering autonomy, the student learns to wait for permission to engage, reinforcing a passive role in their own learning.

The prevalence of prompts in classroom management is largely due to the prioritisation of immediate compliance over long-term autonomy. Many behaviourist strategies equate success with obedience, measuring classroom management effectiveness by how quickly students follow directions rather than how independently they can apply what they have learned. This leads to an over-reliance on prompts, particularly in environments that favour rigid control over student-led engagement. Whilst prompting may appear to improve classroom order, it does so at the cost of student agency, creating learners who respond to external cues rather than developing the internal motivation and skills necessary for true independence.

Cues as an Alternative – Encouraging Independence and Self-Regulation

Cues offer a stark contrast to prompts, providing subtle, indirect support rather than direct commands. Unlike prompts, which require explicit fading to avoid dependence, cues are designed to encourage students to self-monitor and self-regulate. Research by Kagan & Tippins (1991) highlights the role of cues in helping students adjust their behaviour without external control. These can take many forms—a sticky note on a student’s desk reminding them to check their work, a teacher making eye contact to signal that it's time to quiet down, or a shift in lighting to indicate a transition. Rather than compelling compliance, cues function as guides, allowing students to develop the ability to interpret and respond independently.

One of the key advantages of cues is their ability to promote autonomy and generalisation across different environments. Colyer & Collins (1996) found that cues help students transfer learned behaviours more effectively than prompts, which must be systematically faded to prevent dependence. For example, a student who learns to transition between activities using a classroom timer rather than waiting for a verbal directive is far more likely to generalise that skill to other contexts—whether at home, in future classrooms, or in work settings. The shift from “I wait until my teacher tells me to stop” to “I see the timer and know what to do” is a fundamental step towards true independence.

In my own practice, I lean heavily on Self-Regulation Strategy Development (SRSD), often modelling my own thought process aloud for students—narrating why I am doing what I’m doing so they can begin to internalise those strategies themselves. Thinking aloud not only demystifies the learning process but also serves as a natural cue, helping students develop metacognition and self-directed problem-solving skills. By shifting from directive prompting to strategic cueing, I am not merely managing behaviour—I am building the conditions for students to manage themselves.

Why Cues Are Better for IEP-Based Supports, Especially for Autistic Students

Cues are particularly effective for students with IEP-based supports, especially autistic students, because they encourage self-monitoring and autonomy rather than external control. Research by Hrydowy & Martin (1984) found that cues are a better fit for IEP accommodations, as they support students in recognising and adjusting their own behaviours without needing direct intervention. Colyer & Collins (1996) further highlight how cues allow autistic students to generalise behaviours more naturally, a challenge that traditional prompting systems often fail to address. Whilst prompts keep students locked into specific task-dependent interactions, cues allow them to transfer skills across contexts, reducing their reliance on external support.

The risk of prompt dependence is particularly harmful for autistic students, as it undermines self-advocacy and self-regulation. Shapiro & Klein (1980) found that training students to recognise cues rather than rely on prompts leads to long-term independence, allowing them to navigate tasks on their own. Consider the difference between a student who waits for a teacher’s verbal reminder to begin their work versus one who checks a visual schedule and initiates the task independently. The first student becomes reliant on an external directive; the second learns to self-initiate and regulate their own actions.

Much of this comes down to how we frame the classroom experience—are we designing it around the teacher’s need for compliance, or the student’s need for autonomy? In my own teaching, I centre the classroom experience (UX) around the student, avoiding compliance-based techniques in favour of supportive structures that empower students to take control of their own learning. This shift isn’t just philosophical—it’s functional. Autistic students, in particular, benefit from environments that prioritise predictability, agency, and clarity. Cues, rather than prompts, align with this approach by reducing dependence, encouraging self-monitoring, and reinforcing intrinsic motivation.

When we treat the classroom as a user experience, we shift the focus away from top-down control and instead create a space where students learn how to function independently, rather than how to comply. The goal should never be to make students dependent on teacher intervention to function. Instead, we should be designing environments where students feel capable, confident, and in control of their own learning process—which is precisely what cues allow them to do.

A Balanced Approach: The "Least Intrusive" Model

A balanced approach to classroom management requires a shift away from over-reliance on prompts and towards a “least intrusive” model that prioritises cues. Research by Clark et al. (2012) suggests that teachers should begin with the least intrusive intervention possible—such as a cue—and only increase to more direct prompts if absolutely necessary. This approach ensures that students are given the opportunity to self-regulate first, rather than immediately being directed into compliance. For example, rather than verbally telling a student to turn in their paper, a teacher might flash a colour-coded card to indicate that it is time to submit work. This subtle shift moves the responsibility onto the student, reinforcing independent task completion rather than passive obedience.

One of the key strategies for reducing prompt dependence is fading prompts effectively, ensuring they are used only for initial skill-building before transitioning to cues. Shapiro & Klein (1980) found that gradually reducing verbal cues leads to more independent student behaviours, as students learn to self-initiate tasks without needing external direction. A well-structured prompt-fading process might begin with hand-over-hand guidance for a new skill, followed by a gestural cue, and eventually transitioning to student-initiated action. By fading prompts in this structured way, students gain confidence in their ability to navigate learning tasks independently, rather than waiting for constant reinforcement.

Ultimately, this “system of least prompts” aligns with the broader goal of creating classrooms that support autonomy rather than control. The fewer intrusive interventions students require, the more they are able to develop internal regulation and self-monitoring skills—which is the ultimate measure of effective teaching. Rather than training students to respond to external compliance cues, we should be equipping them with the tools to engage with learning in a way that is self-directed, meaningful, and sustainable beyond the classroom.

Next Steps for Educators

Some of the most frustrating moments in professional development sessions are when I sit through training designed with the same behaviourist methodology I actively resist in my classroom. The facilitator stands at the front, leading us through the session as though we were students, modelling the very techniques they expect us to use. Directions are given, followed by a prompt, a wait, and then another prompt. If no one speaks up fast enough, they either cold-call someone or answer their own question. Compliance is reinforced through praise and reward systems—participation points, stickers, or the ever-dreaded “raise your hand if you agree” moment. There is an unspoken expectation that we, as professionals, should respond in a manner that validates the facilitator’s methods, rather than engaging in genuine dialogue. I sit there, my autistic system on high alert, feeling the pressure of a room that expects compliance rather than critical engagement.

Everything about these sessions sets me off. The pacing is rigid, allowing no space for processing time. The expectation of immediate verbal participation is inaccessible, favouring quick, surface-level engagement over deep reflection. And the structure itself mirrors the very behaviourist approaches I reject in my own classroom—where students are controlled rather than supported, their engagement monitored and managed through extrinsic reinforcements. I find myself questioning, If this is what professional development looks like, how many of my colleagues take this approach straight into their classrooms?

This disconnect in philosophy is precisely why I have moved away from prompt-heavy teaching and towards cue-based support systems that foster autonomy. Rather than managing students through a cycle of directives and reinforcements, I design my classroom with the student’s user experience in mind—a space that doesn’t demand compliance but instead provides tools for self-regulation and independence. This shift requires reflection, and for educators making this transition, key questions emerge: Am I overusing prompts in my teaching? How can I introduce cues to help students self-monitor? What systems can I put in place to encourage student independence?

The answer lies in small but intentional shifts. One of the most effective ways to reduce reliance on prompts is to begin with visual or environmental cues before resorting to verbal directives. In my classroom, I integrate colour-coded organisation within our Learning Management System (LMS) to support self-initiation and task management. Each subject or task type is assigned a specific colour-coded folder, making it easy for students to visually distinguish between assignments. Additionally, I utilise the assignment function, which seamlessly syncs with the calendar feature, allowing students to track deadlines and upcoming work at a glance. Rather than relying on verbal reminders, students can customise their own notifications based on what works best for them—whether through automatic alerts, scheduled check-ins, or personalised reminders. This system shifts the responsibility onto the student, reinforcing self-regulation whilst reducing the need for constant teacher prompting.

By embedding self-management tools directly into the platforms my students already use, I create a structure that meets them where they are—on their devices—rather than imposing external controls. Features like timers, assignment calendars, and structured routines within the LMS allow students to manage their own workload without relying on constant teacher intervention. These tools provide the necessary scaffolding for organisation and time management, but in a way that students can customise and internalise rather than passively receive. The goal isn’t to remove structure—it’s to build a seamless, student-centred system that empowers them to take ownership of their learning, rather than waiting for an adult to tell them what to do at every step.

If professional development were designed with this same user-centred philosophy, it would look entirely different. Instead of facilitators dictating engagement through a rigid sequence of predetermined prompts, sessions would be structured to offer meaningful cues, allowing educators to interact at their own pace, in ways that suit their cognitive and professional needs. Just as my students navigate their learning through self-directed tools embedded in their devices, teachers should be given the same autonomy in professional learning—engaging when, where, and how it is most meaningful to them. We would never expect professionals to thrive in an environment where they are merely managed—we expect them to be capable of self-directing their own growth. And if we expect that for ourselves, shouldn’t we also expect it for our students?

Final thoughts …

Rethinking classroom management requires a shift away from behaviourist control strategies and towards student-centred supports that prioritise autonomy. Whilst prompts remain a common feature of traditional classroom management, their overuse fosters prompt dependence, leaving students reliant on external direction rather than developing the skills to self-initiate and self-regulate. In contrast, cues are subtle, embedded within the learning environment, and empower students to take ownership of their actions. Research consistently shows that fading prompts and shifting towards cues leads to greater independence, particularly for neurodivergent learners, who benefit from structured but flexible systems that allow them to engage on their own terms.

For educators, this means challenging the deeply ingrained assumptions of behaviourist classroom management—the idea that control and compliance equate to success. Instead of relying on prompt-heavy interventions, we must be intentional in fading prompts and replacing them with cues that reinforce self-monitoring and autonomy. Prioritising cues means creating a learning environment that supports rather than controls, giving students the tools to navigate their education without constant adult intervention. If we want students to develop independence, we must ensure that our teaching practices actively support it, rather than reinforcing dependence under the guise of structure.

References

Alberto, P., & Sharpton, W. (1987). Prompting strategies that promote student self-management. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 19(4), 54-57.

Clark, J. L., Lechner, M., & Simmons, K. (2012). Using prompts to initiate behavior. Poster presentation.

Colyer, S. P., & Collins, B. C. (1996). Using natural cues within prompt levels to teach the next dollar strategy to students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30(3), 305-318.

Hrydowy, E. R., & Martin, G. (1984). Training elementary students to prompt teacher praise. Research study.

Kagan, D., & Tippins, D. (1991). Helping student teachers attend to student cues. The Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 343-356.

Shapiro, E., & Klein, R. (1980). Self-management of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. Behavior Modification, 4(1), 83-97.