Hendrickson praise

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 32, No. 4, 2009

Forty Years Later — The Value of Praise,
Ignoring, and Rules for Preschoolers at Risk for
Behavior Disorders
Peggy P. Hester
Old Dominion University
Jo M. Hendrickson
University of Iowa
Robert A. Gable
Old Dominion University
Abstract
The pivotal role of teachers in establishing positive, supportive, inclusive
learning environments based on the implementation of empirically-supported
teaching strategies (IDEA, 1997,' 2004: NCLB, 2002) is uncontestable.
Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to find classrooms characterized by teacher
reprimands for inappropriate behavior, coercive interchanges between
teachers and children, and limited use of positive teacher feedback. This
suggests a need for teachers to implement scientifically supported strategies
for promoting positive social and academic growth of young children at risk
for behavioral disorders. In the context of a multi-tiered approach to positive
behavior supports, we decided to revisit three classroom-level interventions
strategies for which there is longitudinal evidence regarding their efficacy —
namely, praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules. Each is discussed,
along with guidelines for use by classroom teachers with the goal to improve
teacher-child relationships, build positive learning communities, and manage
difficult behaviors.

A mong public school teachers who abandon the profession due
to dissatisfaction with teaching as a career, the primary reason is
• classroom behavior problems (National Center for Education Statistics,
2002). Unfortunately, discipline problems are commonplace in many
schools, and the majority of these problems emanate from behavior
patterns established during the early childhood years (Webster-
Stratton, 2000). Although estimates vary, approximately 3-6% of the
school-age population is in need of special education services because
of emotional/behavioral problems (Kaufïman & Landrum, 2009).

Peggy Hester, PhD, Child Study Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529;
e-mail: phester@odu.edu.

Pages 513-535

514 HESTER, HENDRICKSON and GABLE

Research further indicates that between 7 to 25% of young children
demonstrate externalizing behavior disorders (Loeber, Burke, Lahey,
Winters, & Zera, 2000). According to Webster-Stratton (1997), 50% of
preschoolers with behavior problems are later identified for special
education services. In general, poor social-emotional adjustment is
associated with later academic problems (Loeber, 1990; Markowitz
et al., 2006). Children with challenging behavior receive less support,
nurturing, and positive feedback than other children (Raver & Knitzer,
2002; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993). Finally, both teachers and students
tend to reject children who exhibit challenging behavior (Kendziora,
2004).
Children who begin their schooling with a repertoire of behav-
iors that are appropriate to the classroom are more likely to be success-
ful learners (Conroy, Hendrickson, & Hester, 2004; Sugai & Horner,
2006). Yet, despite empirical evidence of successful early interventions
for young children at risk for or with behavior problems (e.g., McEvoy
& Welker, 2000; Strain & Timm, 2001, Webster-Stratton, 2000), it is not
uncommon to find classrooms characterized by teacher reprimands
for inappropriate behavior (Van Acker, 2004), coercive interchanges
between teachers and children (Kern, White, & Gresham, 2007; Shores
et al., 1993), and limited use of positive teacher feedback (Sugai &
Horner, 2006). This underscores the need for teachers to have the skills
necessary to promote positive pupil classroom behavior (Kenziora,
2004).
Researchers (e.g.. Dodge; 1993; Kaiser & Hester, 1997) have long
emphasized the importance of quality early childhood education that
is determined, to a large extent, by the nature of teacher-pupil interac-
tions (DeKruif, McWilliam,. Ridley, & Wakely, 2000). That is, quality
instruction stems not only from the content of the curriculum, but also
the process of teaching, that is, how teachers teach a curriculum and
how they interact with children (DeKruif et al., 2000; Pianta, 2006).
This conceptualization highlights the pivotal role of teachers of young
children with challenging behaviors and the goal of establishing
positive, supportive, inclusive learning environments that stem from
empirically-supported teaching strategies (IDEA, 1997, 2004: NCLB,
2002). With the current emphasis on a multi-tiered approach to posi-
tive behavior supports (Sugai & Horner, 2006), we decided to revisit
classroom-level interventions strategies for which there is longitudi-
nal evidence regarding their efficacy—namely, praise, planned ignoring,
and classroom rules.
Three of the most widely researched strategies for supporting
positive, adaptive behavior of young children are praise, planned ig-
noring, and classroom rules. These strategies were first researched and

FORTY YEARS LATER 515

recommended over forty years ago (e.g., Becker, Madsen, Arnold, &
Thomas; 1967; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas; 1968; Zimmerman & Zim-
merman, 1962). Notwithstanding empirical support, not all teachers
make regular use of these strategies. Arguably, establishing positive
learning communities, fostering children's academic and social learn-
ing, and managing the difficult behaviors of young children are more
critical today than forty years ago. With the great range of diversity
that characterizes present day classrooms, these goals remain elusive
without teacher understanding of how to competently implement the
basic strategies of praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules. In
the following discussion, we examine and highlight the circumstances
under which praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules are most
likely to have a positive influence on the classroom community and
individual children, discuss factors that can negatively impact out-
comes, and provide examples related to implementation. To be suc-
cessful, it is essential that preschool teachers of children at risk for
emotional and behavioral disorders be well versed on the proper use
and potential pitfalls of these three basic strategies.
Praise
Simply put, praise is a verbal statement that follows (and some-
time temporally overlaps) a target behavior. The general intent is to
provide positive feedback, encourage, and support the occurrence of
the target behavior (e.g., sharing, accurate performance, sticking to a
task). T^hus, when praise is well-timed and appropriate to the child,
the task, and the situation, the target behavior is likely to be strength-
ened and occur again at a future time. Beginning with empirical stud-
ies by Zimmerman and Zimmerman (1962), Becker, Madsen, Arnold,
and Thomas (1967), and Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1967), the use
of teacher praise has been associated with increases in children's cor-
rect responses, level of task engagement, and frequency of appropri-
ate behavior. The effectiveness of praise is grounded in the applied
behavior analysis principle of positive reinforcement which states that
a consequence (in this case, praise) that immediately follows a behav-
ior results in the strengthening of that behavior and that the person
(e.g., the child) is more likely to engage in that behavior again in the
future (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). Conversely,
if the target behavior decreases, the variables associated with praise
may need to be reexamined and/or altered to increase its effective-
ness. As noted, over the years praise continues to be identified as a
key strategy in promoting positive teacher-child relationships and
establishing supportive learning environments (Gable, Hester, Rock,
& Hughes, 2009; Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007; Walker, Colvin, &


Ramsey, 1999). To be effective, there are a number of guidelines for
making the most of this time-honored strategy. In the following sec-
tion we discuss critical factors that impact the effectiveness of praise.
These include (a) contingency, (b) immediacy, (c) consistency, (d) ef-
fect on the behavior, (e) proximity, (f ) specificity, (g) opportunities to
respond, and (h) characteristics of the consequence. In addition, we
discuss collateral effects that can result when implementing the use
of praise.
Contingency
The relationship between a target behavior and a praise state-
ment is known as the contingency. When the target behavior occurs,
it should predictably be followed by teacher praise. The use of con-
tingent praise has strong empirical support (Stormont et al., 2007;
Strain & Joseph, 2004). By way of example, if the teacher praises the
child each time the child is behaving appropriately (e.g., answering a
question correctly, attending to a task, or positively interacting with a
peer), she is praising contingent on the target behavior. The temporal
relationship between the behavior and the praise statement (reinforc-
er) is the contingency.
Praise that is delivered contingent on the occurrence of a target
behavior can also have collateral effects. For example, Jennifer is noto-
riously possessive, and developing her cooperative behavior (specifi-
cally sharing) is a priority goal identified by both her mother and her
teacher. One afternoon Jennifer is playing at a table with play dough,
and although she rarely allows other children the use of materials in
her possession, Jennifer hands the oval cookie cutter to Scott. Jenni-
fer's teacher takes advantage of the moment to use supportive praise.
"Jennifer, it's very nice of you to share the cookie cutter with Scott."
After which, Jennifer smiles broadly, her eyes twinkle, and she hands
another cookie cutter to Scott. In turn, the teacher is reinforced for
her alertness, for observing the sharing behavior, for briefiy stopping
what she was doing, and for praising Jennifer. The teacher then makes
a mental note to email Jennifer's mom, and says, "Jennifer, I know
your mom will be very proud that you shared today! I can't wait to
tell her." The simple act of contingently applying praise not only ap-
pears to reinforce Jennifer because she shared a second cookie cutter
with Scott, but also has the collateral benefit of reinforcing an array of
other positive behavior support strategies (e.g., positive communica-
tion with family).
Immediacy
For praise to be effective, it should occur immediately after the
behavior occurs, especially if the praise is delivered for a behavior


that the child has not yet mastered. Immediate praise that emphasizes
the correctness of a task (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) helps to keep the
focus on the target behavior. If praise is delayed, there is the potential
for unexpected collateral effects. For example, Mr. Johnson is care-
ful to say, "Good job," each time after Devon raises his hand, but he
begins to notice that Devon has stopped raising his hand. When Mr.
Johnson talks to the paraprofessional about this, he is surprised when
the paraprofessional says that she actually thought Mr. Johnson had
been praising "coloring," not "hand-raising." Although the Mr. John-
son is glad Devon was not disruptive, he realizes that his praise was
delayed and he was reinforcing "work" behavior and not the target
behavior of "hand-raising." The teacher recognizes that he needs to
praise Devon immediately after raising his hand or while Devon has
his hand raised.
Co7isistency
Children are more successful when behavior supports are con-
sistently applied (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Systematically delivered
praise is one of the important positive behavior support strategies
at the teacher's disposal, especially when teaching a new skill or be-
havior (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). If praise is unpredictable, that is,
sometimes a behavior is praiseworthy and sometimes it is not, confu-
sion can arise.
It is not uncommon for teachers to overestimate their use of
praise. Teachers may believe that they use praise appropriately and
often, yet in spite of their eftorts, the same students continue to misbe-
have. These kinds of teacher statements are supported by the empiri-
cal literature (see Anderson & Hendrickson, 2007; Shores et al., 1993)
which documents a discrepancy between teacher perceptions of their
use of a variety of teaching strategies and their actual classroom use
of those strategies. For example, rates of praise in classrooms for stu-
dents with behavioral disorders reportedly range from 1.2 to 4.5 per
hour for each student, while the ratio of reprimands to praise state-
ments is 3:1 (Sutherland, « Wehby, 2001). It is unlikely that the teach-
&
ers in this study would believe that they were providing three times
the rate of reprimands to praise, but perception and classroom reality
often do not coincide. In fact, use of reprimands is highly predict-
able in teacher interactions with low performing students (Van Acker,
Grant, & Henry 1996).
The principles of applied behavior analysis are clear—consis-
tent praise (reinforcement) each time the appropriate behavior occurs
is best when teaching a new behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 2009).
Therefore, it is vital for teachers to be aware of the fact that there may


be a disconnect between what they intend to do in classrooms and
what they actually do. Self-check procedures for intervention fidel-
ity (e.g., via occasional video tapings, peer coaching) can improve the
likelihood that teachers will consistently engage in supportive teach-
ing behaviors such as praise (Gable et al, 2009). Once a behavior is
established (or learned), that behavior can be maintained by the judi-
cious use of intermittent praise (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr &
Nelson, 2010) and new behaviors can be identified for more frequent
praise.
Though it is irrational to expect a teacher with a classroom full of
children to praise a single child each and every time a target behavior
occurs during the entire day, consistent praise remains a key element
in teaching a new behavior. The solution is simple. It begins by iden-
tifying a critical skill or behavior for a child that needs to be increased
and the activity or time period that will provide the greatest oppor-
tunity for success. Once a child's target behavior increases and main-
tains during this shorted time period, the teacher can maintain the
target behavior during this time period with intermittent praise, and
select another time period or activity in which to praise consistently.
Ejfed on the Behavior
Despite empirical evidence on the effectiveness of praise in in-
creasing positive student behavior, praise certainly is not a positive
reinforcer for every student or a given student every time (Brophy,
1981). To determine the utility of praise, the teacher must observe its
effect on the child's behavior (Brophy, 1981). The observant teacher
will note that praise is positive for one student but negative for another
(Ollendick & Shapiro, 1984). If the child continues the task for which
he is praised, smiles, and looks pleased, it is likely that praise is being
applied effectively. On the other hand, if a child stops engaging in the
target behavior, initiates inappropriate behavior, and scowls and talks
back, it is likely that praise is not the preferred intervention.
The effect of praise on a child's behavior also is related to the
child's developmental level (Spiker, Hebbeler, & Mallik, 2005) and
stage of learning (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002) with
regard to the behavior or skill of interest. If a child is very competent in
a particular skill, praise may actually worsen the child's performance
(Kast & Connor, 1988). Moreover, praising children in front of their
peers can be counterproductive if those children view teacher praise
as embarrassing (Brophy, 1998; Long & Morse, 1996) or do not want to
be singled out for recognition by the teacher (Feldman, 2003). In addi-
tion, praise can have a contradictory effect because some children do
not have the desire to please their teachers. To enhance the reinforcing


value of teacher praise with these children, it is advisable to deliver
praise in situations in which the child is engaged in highly preferred
activities. In any case, it is essential for teachers to monitor the effect
of praise statements on children's performance. As we have empha-
sized, effective praise statements are those statements that maintain
or increase a child's positive involvement in the learning community.
Finally, it is important to note that the use of praise does not negate
the importance of direct instruction of academic skill deficits and the
use of positive and/or corrective feedback on specific aspects of task
performance.
Proximity
Generally speaking, close proximity is especially advantageous
when praising a child (Feldman, 2003; Shores et al., 1993). First, close
proximity enables the teacher to be sure that he or she has the stu-
dent's attention and that the teacher can observe any immediate sub-
tle responses that the child might make (e.g., smile, physical tension).
Second, the teacher can somewhat 'block' competing environmental
stimuli (e.g., noise level, visual distractions) and ensure the student
recognizes the positive intent of the praise statement. Third, the teach-
er can establish proximity by joining in an ongoing activity, moving to
the child's location or by asking the child to come to him for a private
conversation.
On the other hand, close proximity to the child may not always
be possible, and generally speaking, it is better to praise than to miss
an opportunity. Group praise is an option in such situations, and
the teacher can identify two or more children by name as part of the
group praise (e.g., "This team is doing a great job of taking turns. Jer-
emy, Dakota, and Alison, thanks for throwing the ball to others!"). If
the teacher wants to praise a small or large group of children (e.g.,
"Gators, you are all doing a good job picking up the toys!"), she will
necessarily be closer to some children than others. For children for
whom teacher praise is not yet reinforcing, group praise can be a first
step strategy the teacher uses to establish his praise as rewarding to
the child.
Praise may be made even more salient and take on reinforcing
properties by pairing it repeatedly with a primary reinforcer (e.g.,
pairing praise with access to a favorite toy or activity). Moreover, the
use of group contingencies can foster increased peer interactions and
interdependence others (McCarty, Griffin, Apolloni, & Shores, 1977).
Specificity
Early researchers (Becker et al., 1967; Zimmerman & Zimmer-
man, 1962) advocated the use of praise statements following positive


behaviors and correct responding, and early childhood programs
implementing best practices were filled with teacher echoes of "Good
boy" and "Good girl." Although this basic approach may be effec-
tive in increasing the frequency of child behavior, its overall utility as
a positive behavior support strategy is limited. Excessive, redundant
use of any praise statement can potentially render it non-reinforcing
(Alberto & Troutman, 2009). In fact, the unexpected consequence
may be that such utterances begin to trigger inappropriate behavior
in some children as the statements themselves become aversive to
the listener. The collateral chain of events might include the teacher's
perception that she tried praise and it did not work, that difficult-to-
manage children do not belong in her classroom, or that it is better to
not interact with certain children in order to avoid any escalation of
negative behavior.
Praise that specifically describes the behavior that the teacher is
trying to develop is less likely to become redundant or aversive to the
child and more likely to be effective than statements such as "good
job" (Feldman, 2003). Statements that contain specific task-related in-.
formation are more effective than general praise (Hattie & Timperley,
2007; Stormont et al., 2007). Specific praise includes such statements
as "Megan, thanks for walking to the pencil sharpener," "Lu, you are
playing quietly with your friend, Kena," and "You paint beautifully,
Ricco. I love all of those colors." These types of statements are espe-
cially beneficial for the child learning a new skill or a student who
may be anxious about performing a skill or particular behavior. Final-
ly, precise praise has the potential collateral impact of allowing other
children to understand teacher and classroom expectations that may
be unclear to them (Gable et al, 2009).
Opportunities to Respond
Sutherland, Wehby, and Yoder (2002) found there was a sig-
nificant correlation between teacher praise and opportunities to re-
spond to academic requests in a sample of students with emotional
and behavioral disorders. Teachers with high rates of praise provided
students with many opportunities to respond. Conversely, teachers
with low rates of praise gave students fewer response opportunities,
thereby decreasing the overall learning rate and the overall rate of
positive teacher-child interactions. An effective way for teachers to
improve their rate of praise to children is to design instructional se-
quences that allow students frequent opportunities to respond (and to
respond correctly). Proactively increasing the number of response op-
portunities creates more chances for successful student performance,
and more instances for teacher praise (Sutherland et al., 2002), as well


as the likelihood of enhancing a teacher's sense of self-efficacy. More-
over, a higher rate of positive teacher-child interaction is likely to im-
prove the teacher's view of a student's learning potential and his or
her place in the classroom learning community.
Characteristics of the Consequence
According to behavioral theory, for a reinforcer (e.g., praise) to
be effective, the child whose behavior is to be sustained or changed
must be in a relative state of deprivation in relation to that reinforcer
(Alberto & Troutman, 2009). Therefore, the effectiveness of praise is
diminished if the same statement is used repeatedly (Brophy, 1981;
Kast & Connor, 1988). When a child perceives teacher praise as insin-
cere (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Brophy, 1998) and intended to
manipulate the child into behaving in a certain way, praise can actu-
ally undermine the child's intrinsic motivation (Kast & Connor) and
enjoyment of the task or activity. Once a child has acquired a skill, for
example, and the teacher continues to praise him every time he sits up
straight, waits in line appropriately, or listens attentively, praise may
become irrelevant (Brophy, 1988).
Intuitively and empirically, we know that praise that is enthu-
siastic is more likely to retain its reinforcing value (Filcheck, McNeil,
& Herschell, 2001). Furthermore, praise must be matched to the in-
dividual child's behavior and performance level (Hattie, 1993; Sugai
& Horner, 2006). Praise statements become more effective if they are
novel and vary. They should be appropriate to a child's age, specific to
the target behavior, and take into account a child's likes, dislikes, and
past performance. What works for one child will not necessarily be
appropriate for another child. Although many praise statements are
likely to be similar across settings for young children at risk for behav-
ior disorders, it is especially important that teachers get to know each
child, build a positive relationship, and identify praise statements that
best suit that child.
To summarize, teachers and childcare workers of young chil-
dren at risk for behavior disorders have a powerful tool in the form
of teacher praise. Teacher praise is a well-documented strategy which
can enhance children's behavior, positively impact teacher-child rela-
tionships, and promote teachers' sense of self-efficacy. To be effective,
however, praise must be delivered with attention to its immediate im-
pact on the child's behavior. Strategies for maintaining the reinforcing
quality of praise include applying praise contingently, immediately,
and consistently. It is also advisable to use specific praise and be in
close proximity to the child when using praise. Finally, by planning
lessons that provide multiple opportunities for children to respond.


teachers give themselves increased opportunities to praise and chil-
dren have increased opportunities to practice and acquire important
skills.
Teacher Use of Planned Ignoring
According to Spira and Fischel (2005), around age four, there is
a substantial increase in a child's ability to direct his or her attention
and to function in more formal, structured settings. In addition, chil-
dren are developing more self-regulatory behavior. Planned ignor-
ing, used correctly, can assist the child in discriminating between ap-
propriate and inappropriate behavior. To employ planned ignoring as
a means of reducing minor disruptive or inappropriate behaviors, the
teacher must first confirm the assumption that teacher/adult attention
is reinforcing to the child. Planned ignoring basically is an extinction
procedure designed to weaken, decrease, or eliminate a behavior by
abruptly withdrawing or terminating the reinforcer that is maintain-
ing the behavior (Sheuermann & Hall, 2008). For example, when the
teacher does not aftend to the "whining" behavior of a child, it signals
to the child that whining will not gain the teacher's attention (Alberto
& Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). If the teacher says, "Remem-
ber, use your words," prior to turning away from the whining child,
the teacher will have modeled an appropriate alternative for the child.
Thereafter, combining attention for the appropriate tone of voice and
use of words, paired with systematic planned ignoring should result
in the weakening or cessation of the target behavior (Ryan, Sanders,
Katsiyannis, & Yell, 2007). One must be ever mindful, however, that
extinction means removing the reinforcer that is maintaining the be-
havior. Ignoring a target behavior will only decrease behavior if at-
tention is the reinforcer (Alberto & Troutman). To illustrate, if a child
takes a toy out of the classroom and the teacher ignores this behavior,
ignoring is unlikely to cause the behavior of taking toys to weaken
because, in this case, the function of the behavior is to obtain the toy,
not to gain teacher attention.
As in our discussion of eftective use of praise, we will examine
factors that are as critical in the eftective implementation of planned
ignoring. These factors parallel the principles needed to successfully
use praise, including (a) pairing planned ignoring with reinforcement
strategies, (b) contingency, (c) immediacy, (d) consistency, (e) specific-
ity, (f) characteristics of planned ignoring, and (g) the eftect on the
behavior.
Pairing Planned Ignoring with Reinforcement Strategies
Any time a procedure is implemented.to reduce an inappro-
priate behavior, the empirical literature supports the simultaneous


implementation of a procedure for reinforcing an appropriate incom-
patible or alternative positive behavior to replace the undesirable
behavior (Ryan et al., 2007). As noted earlier, this dualistic approach
should be helpful to the young child who is developing self-regula-
tory abilities. Walker, Ramsey, and Gresham (2003) also contend that
without instruction on how to behave, children's behavior problems
will persist. This is especially true when using an extinction proce-
dure. For instance, in the whining example, ignoring whining in a
preschool classroom generally means not talking to, looking at, or in-
teracting with the child while the child is whining. Then, contingent
on the cessation of whining for a predetermined amount of time (e.g.,
3-5 seconds), the teacher attends to the alternative quiet, non-whining
behavior by looking at, talking to, and praising the child (e.g., "I like
that quiet, quiet sound") or by attending to the child when he uses an
appropriate tone of voice (e.g., "You are using your words! How can
I help you?").
Contingency
As in the use of praise, contingency, immediacy, and consistency
are essential elements when using planned ignoring. Specifically, ig-
noring an inappropriate behavior means that the teacher ignores the
target behavior whenever the child first begins to exhibit that behavior.
Then, contingent on the cessation of the behavior, the teacher praises
the child for an appropriate behavior that replaces the behavior being
ignored. For example, when Katie calls out saying, "Ask me! Ask me!"
the teacher turns away from Katie and calls on another child who is
sitting quietly with his hand raised. Later, when the teacher asks an-
other question, she notices Katie raises her hand without calling out
to be recognized and she immediately calls on her and praises her for
waiting quietly.
Immediacy
To insure that the connection between the negative target be-
havior and teacher ignoring is clear to the child, planned ignoring
should occur immediately upon the occurrence of the behavior that
the teacher plans to ignore. Thus, a general rule for the teacher is to be
quick to ignore inappropriate behavior and quick to praise the desired
replacement behavior.
Consistency
Teachers often complain that ignoring does not work, when in
actuality teachers are implementing planned ignoring inappropriate-
ly. Teachers may believe they are being consistent, yet from time to


time they may attend, inadvertently, to the target behavior. This inter-
mittent attention, even a glance or facial expression, may reinforce the
very behavior the teacher is trying to eliminate. Unfortunately, these
intermittent slips translate into intermittent reinforcement of the child's
behavior, and intermittently reinforced behavior is the most difficult
to decrease (Witt, VanDerHeyden, & Gilbertson, 2006). Moreover, if
teachers attend to an inappropriate behavior occasionally, children are
likely to continue to engage in that behavior, even if teacher attention
is negative (e.g., "Stop talking, JJ."). Consistency and immediacy are
critical to successful implementation of planned ignoring procedures
(Sugai & Horner, 2006). Teachers who chose to use planned ignoring
must be cognizant of the possible unanticipated strengthening of a
target behavior if they do not carefully and consistently ignore.
Specificity
We know that when teachers increase their use of specific and
contingent praise, improvement occurs in student behavior and aca-
demic skills (Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000). This is especially
true when teachers are reinforcing children for appropriate behaviors
as alternatives to the behavior being ignored. To reiterate, specifically
describing the desirable and undesirable behavior can help the child
distinguish between what is unacceptable and what is expected be-
havior. For example, teachers need to tell children exactly what they
are praising and which inappropriate behaviors they will not pay at-
tention to (e.g., "Jerome, if you talk out in class today, I will not pay at-
tention or call on you. When you raise your hand and sit quietly, I will
call on you."). Specifically describing the desirable and undesirable
behavior can help the child distinguish between what is unacceptable
and what is expected behavior.
Characteristics of the Consequence
In an extinction procedure, there is the assumption that by with-
holding reinforcement, the inappropriate behavior of the child will
weaken or cease. However, there are times that the inappropriate
behavior of a child is being reinforced in other ways—by the child's
classroom peers, the pleasure the student gets from the behavior it-
self, or the opportunity to escape from an undesirable activity or task
(Brunhill, 2005; Gable et al., 2009). Thus, teachers must be observant
and attempt to determine the function of the child's behavior (Craw-
ford, Brockel, Schauss, & Mittenberger, 1992). In other words, what
is the purpose of the child's behavior? Does the behavior function to
gain social attention? Is the behavior self-reinforcing? Does the be-
havior enable the child to avoid or escape an undesirable situation?


Does the child gain access to a desired object through the behavior?
If the teacher consistently, immediately, and contingently ignores the
inappropriate behavior, and likewise, praises all instances of an alter-
native appropriate replacement behavior and the inappropriate be-
havior continues, it is likely that attention from the teacher is not the
reinforcer in effect. In these instances, the teacher could continue to
ignore, but the child's behavior would not decrease.
Effect on the Behavior
Extinction is a procedure that reduces behavior by abruptly with-
drawing or terminating the maintaining reinforcer for that behavior
(Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). There are, however, a number of
side effects to extinction that must be understood if one uses planned
ignoring as a strategy to reduce or eliminate a behavior maintained
by teacher attention. In an extinction strategy, when a teacher begins
to systematically ignore an inappropriate behavior by withholding
reinforcement (again, assuming that teacher praise and attention are
the reinforcers maintaining the inappropriate behavior), then, based
on behavioral theory, the inappropriate behavior often increases be-
fore it begins to weaken (O'Leary, Becker Evans, « i Saudargas, 1969).
S
This increase in inappropriate behavior is expected. The child is now
trying harder than before to get the teacher's attention. If the teacher
continues to immediately and consistently ignore the child's behavior,
the inappropriate behavior will ultimately subside. However, many
teachers find it difficult to continue to ignore when the child's behav-
ior escalates. It is reassuring to know that an escalation in the child's
behavior confirms the likelihood that teacher attention is the motiva-
tion behind the behavior. On the other hand, if a teacher cannot toler-
ate an increase in the problem behavior, even on a temporary basis,
then planned ignoring is not an appropriate strategy. If the teacher is
uncomfortable with the possible trajectory of the child's behavior, it is
likely that he will be less consistent in the implementation of planned
ignoring. As we have discussed, inconsistent ignoring may result in
intermittent reinforcement of the behavior and make the behavior
even more resistant to intervention (Witt et al., 2006).
Planned ignoring is an effective strategy with young preschool
children with challenging behavior provided the teacher adheres to
the basic principles of contingency, immediacy, consistency, and speci-
ficity, and employs planned ignoring with behaviors that are main-
tained by teacher attention. Equally important, the teacher should
reinforce appropriate replacement behaviors in conjunction with the
use of planned ignoring.


Classroom Rules
Over the years, classroom rules have established standards for
student safety, classroom order, and decorum (Kerr & Nelson, 2010;
Van Acker, 2007). The general consensus is that classroom rules should
be few, easy to understand, positively stated, and enforceable (Hem-
meter, 2007; Gable et al., 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). In addition, posi-
tive social and self-regulatory behaviors that are associated with aca-
demic success (Spira & Fischel, 2005) can be promoted and sustained
with systematic application of classroom rules.
Classroom rules that cover multiple situations and address rou-
tine classroom activities are most parsimonious. Examples of simple
rules that can be generalized across preschool settings and activities
are rules such as "Be safe. Be responsible. Be respectful." These kinds
of rules are suited to many teaching-learning contexts. Most educa-
tors recognize that rules ofi^er predictability in the classroom environ-
ment (Van Acker, 2007), and are, therefore, an important element of
any behavior management plan. Furthermore, rules can, and should
be, used to encourage students to accept increased responsibility for
their own behavior. Each set of formal expectations (i.e., classroom
and school-wide rules) should be carefully taught to children and,
thereafter, publicly posted, reviewed, and practiced on a regular ba-
sis.
Some educators (Burden, 2006; Maag, 2004) advocate hav-
ing children help to develop the rules. Children can be creative and
knowledgeable in their ideas regarding rule development and conse-
quences for rule violation. When children participate, they are more
likely to be vested in the rules; however, the teacher will need to guide
students in discussing potential rules and the consequences for infrac-
tions as children tend to suggest consequences that are too harsh or
cannot be enforced (Gable et al., 2009).
Teachers frequently mistake the development, discussion, and
posting of rules as sufficient for effectively implementing them. Also,
it is a mistake to assume that young children know and will remember
what the each rule means from day to day. Children need to be system-
atically taught how to comply with each classroom rule. Appropriate,
rule-following behavior needs to be modeled and the consequences of
misbehavior demonstrated (e.g.. Burden, 2006; Kerr & Nelson, 2006)
until it is clear that the children truly understand the meaning of each
rule. Paine and colleagues (Paine, Radicchi, Rosellini, Deutchman, &
Darch, 1983) suggest that rules should be reviewed daily, using no
more than 3-5 minutes. Graphic organizers and scaftolding strategies
may be helpful in clarifying expected behavior and establishing class-
room routines (Bear, 2005; Rock, 2004). By reviewing the rules daily.

FORTY YEARS LATER . 527

the rules will be fresh in the children's minds and teachers will be
more likely to implement them consistently.
Though evidence suggests that increased compliance usually
leads to a reduction in the incidence of problem behavior (Parrish,
1986), establishing rules does not guarantee positive outcomes. As
with praise and planned ignoring, contingency, immediacy, consis-
tency, specificity, characteristics of the consequence, and eftect on the
behavior are all factors that can contribute to rule compliance and a
safe and productive learning environment.
Contingency, Immediacy, and Consistency
When a child complies with a classroom rule, the teacher should
reinforce that child for adhering to a classroom rule. It can be a simple
praise statement (e.g., "Susan, you are sitting up straight. I can tell you
are ready to leai-n."). Likewise, upon the occurrence of a rule infrac-
tion, the teacher must follow through with the consequence for break-
ing that rule (Kerr & Nelson, 2010). It may be appropriate to ignore
a minor infraction and praise a child who is exhibiting compliance;
then, contingent on the child exhibiting the appropriate behavior, the
child should be reinforced for compliance. The negative consequence
of an infraction may be the removal of one of the tokens the child was
earning for extra computer time. What is important is that there are
predetermined consequences for rule compliance and rule infractions
and these are delivered contingent on the child exhibiting the identi-
fied behaviors. Coupled with contingency is the need for consequenc-
es to be delivered immediately after the occurrence of the behavior.
There are two aspects to eftective use of rules, that is, teachers must
be careful to provide positive consequences immediately upon the oc-
currence of the appropriate behavior, as well as quickly implementing
the planned consequence for rule infractions.
As with any classroom-level intervention, teachers have to be
consistent in the imposition of a previously identified consequence,
for every violation. Failure to do so renders rules ineftective (Madsein
et al, 1968). Inconsistent enforcement of classroom rules represents
a major source of teacher-pupil confiict (Gable et al, 2009). This sug-
gests that teachers should monitor students' rule abiding behavior, re-
inforce appropriate rule-following, and address (repeated) violations
as they occur (Grossman, 2004).
Specificity
Rhode, Jensen, and Reavis (1992) suggest the use of precision re-
quests to increase student compliance. Precision requests consist of the
student's name; a precise description of the required behavior; use of


a polite and unemotional tone; and a wait time of at least five seconds
for the student to comply (Rhode et al.). Children need to know exact-
ly what they are being praised for and/or need to do more appropri-
ately. For example, to praise specific rule compliance, a teacher might
say, "Olivia, I like the way you listened while Michael was talking.
You were being respectful of others." Likewise, if Olivia talks out, the
teacher could give a reminder, "Olivia, remember to be respectful by
listening to Michael when he is talking." This provides the appropri-
ate strategy for compliance. When Olivia remains quiet, she should be
praised, even if she was prompted to comply.
Characteristics ofthe Consequence
When there is a rule infraction, the teacher might initially pro-
vide a reminder of the rule, "Remember to 'Be safe'." If the child im-
mediately begins to walk instead of run, the teacher should praise
compliance—"You remembered to walk instead of run. It shows you
are being safe." However, after a second reminder, the teacher might
need to model the appropriate behavior and have the child imitate
that behavior, praising compliance (as well as implementing a strat-
egy for rule infraction). The consequence for rule compliance has to be
as strong as, if not more powerful, than the consequence of noncom-
pliance (Lewis & Sugai, 1996). Remember, too, that if a rule infraction
is reinforced by teacher attention, a verbal redirection or reprimand
would not be effective; rather it would serve to increase the very be-
havior the teacher is seeking to eliminate. This will be discussed in
greater detail in the following section.
Effect on the Behavior
Students are more likely to follow classroom rules if they be-
lieve that teachers are cognizant of compliant versus non-compliant
behavior (Kounin, 1970). Researchers suggest that teachers introduce
strategies designed with a two-fold purpose: (a) to decrease the likely
future occurrence of the behavior and (b) to increase the probabili-
ty that a more acceptable behavior will occur (www.pbis.org, 2005).
School personnel need to adhere to the "fair-pair" rule (White & Har-
ing, 1980) and introduce ohe strategy to decrease problem behavior
and another strategy to teach an appropriate substitute behavior. For
example, praise for compliance (e.g., "Devon and Shanieka, the two of
you have really worked hard to build that tower.-Give me a high five
for being respectful.") is more likely to increase respectful play than
waiting until the teacher sees misbehavior and comments on it (e.g.,
"Devon and Shanieka, stop grabbing blocks from one another.").
The effect on the child's behavior determines whether or not the


intervention strategy is effective. The reason for a child's failure to
comply may be a fianction of (a) a skill deficit (the child does not pos-
sess the skill); (b) a performance deficit (the child possesses the skill,
but does not engage in it); or (c) a self-control performance deficit (the
child possesses the skill, but is unable to overcome competing forc-
es—anger, frustration, fatigue) (e.g., Gresham, Van, & Cook, 2006; Van
Acker, 2007). If rule compliance is not increasing, then it is impera-
tive for the teacher to ascertain, "What can I do differently to increase
rule compliance?" There are a number of questions to consider: Why
is the child not complying? Does the child understand what the rule
means and know how to comply with the rule? Does the child know
the rule, but refuses to comply? Do I need to implement an interven-
tion designed to teach the child ways to exercise self-control over his
behavior? Am I, as the teacher, being consistent in my consequences
to compliance and non-compliance? Do I have an appropriate rein-
forcer for compliance? Are there other factors that are maintaining
non-compliance (e.g., children in the classroom laughing at the child
for rule infractions)? While it may not always be necessary to identify
a student's motivation to misbehave (cf. Grossman, 2004; Lane, Gresh-
am, & O'Shaughnessy, 2002), it probably is important to do so for any
student who violates a rule three or more times (Gable et al., 2009).
Concluding Remarks
Programs for young children have changed significantly over
the past forty years. Today, the typical preschool and elementary class-
room serves an increasingly more heterogeneous group of children.
The rapid growth in cultural and linguistic diversity of the school age
population, coupled with recent legislative mandates (IDEA, 1997,
2004; NCLB, 2001) impact dramatically the demands upon and re-
sponsibilities of classroom teachers (Bagby Rudd, & Woods, 2005).
Youngsters enrolled in a given classroom today have a range of abili-
ties and present a range of challenges unseen a few decades ago. These
realities, along with increased behavioral challenges in the classroom,
contribute to the high attrition rate among teachers and negative long-
term outcomes for many children. Although there is no simple solu-
tion to resolving children's behavioral disorders, we do know teachers
play a pivotal role in the young child's social emotional development
and educational achievement. In light of the current emphasis on
evidenced-based practices (NCLB), we reviewed critically three ba-
sic, readily available strategies that have withstood the test of time in
terms of empirical support. Each the strategies we discussed reflect
classroom-level interventions that can be an integral part of school-
wide positive behavioral supports (Scheuermann & Hall, 2008). There


is compelling evidence that these strategies can have a positive effect
on child behavior and skill acquisition, contribute to enhancing the
relationship between the child and the teacher, and collaterally may
impact the teacher's sense of self-efficacy. Used appropriately and ju-
diciously, praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules can form the
basis of a safe, predictable learning community in which children of
varying backgrounds, abilities, and needs can be successful learners.
Notwithstanding the efficacy of praise, planned ignoring, and
classroom rules when implemented effectively in the classroom, there
remain a number of variables that require increased examination. For
instance, researchers need to delineate and verify the precise attri-
butes of these strategies that are the most essential in increasing and
supporting positive teacher-child interactions. Moreover, researchers
need to identify the types of supports that teachers need to effectively
use these strategies. In addition, there is a need for professional devel-
opment programs to include these support strategies in their teacher
training programs by providing future teachers with not only with
the theoretical foundation, but also the skills required for successful
implementation in the classroom. Child learning and behavior are im-
bedded in the teacher-child interaction and only when we begin to
focus on both the supports that children need to enhance learning and
positive behavior and the supports that teachers need to learn, im-
plement, and sustain the effective implementation of evidence based
strategies will we begin to see on a daily basis the types of high quality
teacher interactions that we advocate.
References
Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Anderson, L. F., & Hendrickson, J. M. (2007). Early-career EBD teacher
knowledge, ratings of competency importance, and observed
use of instruction and management competencies. Education
and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 43-65.
Bear, G. (2005). Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting
misbehavior. Boston. Pearson AUyn and Bacon.
Becker, W. C, Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., & Thomas, D. R. (1967).
The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reduc-
ing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education,
1, 287-307.
Bagby, J. H., Rudd, L. D., & Woods, M. (2005). The effects of socio-
economic diversity on the language, cognitive and social-
emotional development of children from low-income back-
grounds. Early Child Development and Care, 375(5), 395-405.


Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P A. (1988). Children's preference
for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,134-141.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 51, 5-32.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-18.
Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management: Creating a successful K-12
learning community. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Conroy, M. A., Hendrickson, J. M., & Hester, P P (2004). Early iden-
tification and prevention of emotional and behavioral disor-
ders. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. Mathur (Eds.),
Handbook of research in behavioral disorders (pp. 199-215). NY:
Guilford Publications.
Crawford, J., Brockel, B., Schauss, S., & Mittenberger, R. M. (1992).
A comparison of methods for the functional assessment of
Stereotypie behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 17,77-86.
De Kruif, R.E.L., McWilliam, R. A., Ridley, S. M., & Wakely, M. B.
(2000). Classification of teachers' interaction behaviors in ear-
ly childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
25(2), 247-268.
Dodge, K. A. (1993). The future of research on the treatment of con-
duct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 311-319.
Feldman, S. (2003). The place for praise. Teaching PreK-8, 5, 6.
Filcheck, H., McNeil, C , & Herschell, A. (2001). Types of verbal feed-
back that aftect compliance and general behavior in disrup-
tive and typical children. Child Study Journal, 31, 225-248.
Gable, R. A., Hester, P P, Rock, M., & Hughes, K. (2009). Back to ba-
sics—Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Inter-
vention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 195-205.
Gresham, F., M., Van, M. B., & Cook, C. R. (2006). Social skills training
for teaching replacement behaviors: Remediating acquisition
deficits in at risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 363-377.
Grossman, H. (2004). Classroom behavior management for diverse and
inclusive schools. (3rd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Education Research, 77(1), 81-112.


Hemmeter, M. L. (October, 2007). Program wide approaches to behavior
support in early childhood settings. CCBD International Confer-
ence on Behavior Disorders. Dallas, TX.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, P.L. 105-17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L.
108-446.
Kaiser, A. P., & Hester, P. P. (1997). Prevention of conduct disorders
through early intervention: A social-communicative perspec-
tive. Behavioral Disorders, 22(3) 117-130.
Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and age difterences in response to
informational and controlling feedback. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 514-523.
Kauftman, J. M., & Landrum, T. L. (2008). Characteristics of emotional
and behavioral disorders of children and youth. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Kendziora, K. T. (2004). Early intervention for emotional and behav-
ioral disorders. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, &c S. Mathur
(Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders
(pp. 327-351). NY: Guilford Publications.
Kern, L., White, G. P., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Educating students
with behavioral challenges. Principal, 86(4), 56-59.
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies for addressing behavior
problems in the classroom. (6th Ed.). Columbus OH: Merrill.
Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & O'Shaughnessy, T. E. (2001). Interven-
tions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disor-
ders. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis
of teacher and peer aftention and the use of assessment-based
intervention to improve pro-social behavior, journal of Behav-
ioral Education, 6, 6-24.
Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., Lahey, B. B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000).
Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: A review of the
past 10 years. Part 1. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 39,1468-1484.
Long, N., & Morse, W. (1996). Conflict in the classroom: The education of
at-risk and troubled students. Austin, TX: Pro-ED.
Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications
to practical applications. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thompson Learning.
Madsen, C. M., Becker, W. C, & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise.


and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,139-150.
Markowitz, J., Carlson, E., Frey, W., Riley, J., Shimshak, A., Heinzen,
H., et al. (2006). Preschoolers' characteristics, services, and results:
Wave 1 overview report from the pre-elementary education longitu-
dinal study (PEELS). Rockville, MD: Westat.
McCarty, T., Griffin, S., Appolloni, T., & Shores, R. (1977). Increased
peer-teaching with group-oriented contingencies for arithme-
tic performance in behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 313.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic fail-
ure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 8{3), 130-140.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing
survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, pub-
lic charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary
schools.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL. 107-110.
O'Leary, K. A., Becker, W. C, Evans, M. B., & Saudargas, R. A. (1969).
A token reinforcement program in a public school. A replica-
tion and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 2, 3-13. .
Ollendick, T. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). An examination of vicarious
reinforcement processes in children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 37, 78-91.
Paine, S. C, Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. C, Deutchman, L., « Darch, C. B.
&
(1983). Structuring your classroom for academic success. Cham-
paign, IL: Research Press.
Parrish, J. (1986). Experimental analysis of response covariation among
compliant and inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 19, 241-254.
Pianta, R. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between
children and teachers: Implications for research and practice.
In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom
Management: Research, Practice, & Contemporary Issues (pp. 685-
710). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pianta, R. C, La Paro, K. M., Payne, C, Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002).
The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teach-
er, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The
Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225-238.


Raver, C, & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells poli-
cymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional school
readiness among three- and four-year old children. New York, NY:
National Center for Children in Poverty.
Rhode, G., Jensen, W. R., & Reavis, K. (1992). The tough kid book: Prac-
tical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Rock, M. (2004). Graphic orgariizers: Tools to build behavioral literacy
and foster eiriotional competency. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 40,10-37.
Ryan, J. B., Sanders, S., Katsiyannis, & Yell, M. I. (2007). Using time-
out effectively in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children,
39(4), 60-67.
Scheuermann, B. K., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Positive behavioral supports for
the classroom. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Shores, R. E., Gunter, P L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom manage-
ment strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behav-
ioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.
Spiker, D., Hebbeler, K., & Mallik, S. (2005) Developing and imple-
menting early intervention programs for children with estab-
lished disabilities. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental
systems approach to early intervention (pp. 305-350). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Spira, E. G., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention,
hyperactivity, and impulsivity on social and academic devel-
opment: A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46{7), 755-773.
Stormont, M., Smith, S. C, & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implemen-
tation of precorrection and praise statements in Head Start
classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of
positive behavioral support.- Journal of Behavioral Education,
16, 280-290.
Strain, P. S., & Timm, M. A. (2001). Remediation and prevention of
aggression: An evaluation of the RIP program over a quarter
century. Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 297-313.
Strain, P. S., & Joseph, G. E. (2004). A not so good job with "good job":
A response to Kohn 2001. Journal of Positive Behavioral Inter-
ventions, 6 (1), 55-60.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising approach for expand-
ing and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support.
School Psychology Review, 35, 2, 245-259.


Sutherland, K., & Wehby, J. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation of
teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotion-
al and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education,
35(3), 161-171.
Sutherland, K., Wehby, J., & Yoder, P. (2002). Examination of the re-
lationship between teacher praise and opportunities for stu-
dents with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(1), 5-14.
Van Acker, R. (February, 2007). Strategies for dealing with classroom ag-
gression. Paper presented at the Working Forum of the Coun-
cil for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Las Vegas, NV.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1999). Antisocial behavior
in schools: Strategies and best practices. (2'"' ed.). Pacific Grove:
Brookes/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior
at school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thompson Learning.
Webster-Stratton, C (1997). Early intervention for families of preschool
children with conduct problems. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The ef-
fectiveness of early interventions (pp. 429-453). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Webster-Stratton, C. (2000). Oppositional-defiant and conduct-disor-
dered children. In M. Hersen & R. T. Ammerman (Eds.), Ad-
vanced abnormal child psychology (2"'' ed.) (pp. 387-412). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching: A multimedia
training package. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Witt, J., VanDerHeyden, A., & Gilbertson, D. (2006). Troubleshoot-
ing behavioral interventions: A systematic process for find-
ing and eliminating problems. School Psychology Review, 33(3),
363-383.
Zimmerman, E. H., & Zimmerman, J. (1962). The alteration of behav-
ior in an elementary classroom. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 5, 50-60.

Hendrickson praise

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Hendrickson praise

Ähnlich wie Hendrickson praise (20)

Mehr von Emma Grice

Mehr von Emma Grice (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Hendrickson praise