Vol. 5(1) June, 2016

Effects of Teacher Praise on Attending Behaviors and Academic Achievement of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities

Andrew M. Markelz M. Ed, & Jonte C. Taylor Ph.D. The Pennsylvania State University

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders exhibit high levels of inappropriate behaviors. As a consequence, engagement in class as well as academic progress suffers. A review of the literature was conducted to examine the effects of teacher praise on attending behaviors and academic achievement of students with emotional disabilities. Results of ten studies meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. Findings suggest teacher praise positively affected attending behaviors with increases in on-task behaviors and decreases in disruptive behaviors. A relationship between teacher praise and academic achievement could not be established due to confounding variables; however, a relationship between teacher praise and student age emerged. Teacher praise affected attending behaviors of younger participants more than older participants. Limitations, teaching implications and future research are discussed. Keywords: Teacher Praise, Teacher Attention, Emotional Disturbance, Behavioral Disability

Students with emotional and Whitaker & Votel, 1995). Research suggests behavioral disorders (EBD) exhibit that students’ aggressive, disruptive, and disproportionately high levels of defiant behaviors minimize instructional inappropriate behavior (Landrum, time, disrupt the learning of all students, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003). Students threaten safety, challenge teachers, and are with EBD develop patterns of antisocial detrimental to students’ own chances for behavior, demonstrate difficulties in success (Walker et al., 2003). interpersonal relationships, have limited Students with EBD are often, cooperative behavior skills, interact less therefore, placed in more restrictive frequently with their peers, use coercive settings, such as self-contained classrooms. tactics to control and manipulate others, and The emotional support classroom teacher have a well-developed capacity for and assistants are faced with daily and emotional outbursts and confrontation prolonged contact with students who (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2003; regularly exhibit behaviors that teachers find THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 2 aversive (Kerr & Zigmond, 1986; Walker & students in the mid-risk group twice as often Rankin, 1983), which can lead to detrimental as they praised them, whereas the ratio of effects for students’ academic gains and reprimands to praise increased to almost classroom morale. It is suggested that four to one for students in the high-risk teacher escape and avoidance behaviors group. may lead to a curriculum of "non- Nelson and Roberts (2000) found instruction" in which student behavior that students with behavioral difficulties systematically shapes teacher behaviors to received lower rates of praise and at least six engage in ineffective instruction or to attend times more reprimands than their normally more to students' inappropriate behaviors functioning peers. The authors’ findings than to appropriate behaviors (Gunter, stand in stark contrast to the suggested ratio Denny, Jack, Shores, & Nelson, 1993). of praise statements to reprimands ranging Reprimands and Praise from 3:1 (Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993; Often times, the reciprocal Sprick, 1981) to 4:1 (Walker, Colvin, & interaction taking place between teachers Ramsey, 1995). According to Heward (2003) and students with EBD is known as the natural contingencies of a typical Patterson’s “coercive interaction cycle” classroom discourage frequent teacher (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992), which praise and strengthen reprimanding states that once aversive behaviors are behavior. When a child is disrupting the directed at a person, the receiving person class, the teacher will often reprimand the responds with behaviors more aversive to student resulting in immediate cessation of the initial person. A cycle of negative the disruptive behavior. The teacher’s behaviors then perpetuates itself resulting in reprimanding behavior has been negatively an environment not conducive to academic reinforced. By contrast, when a teacher or social growth. praises a student for working on-task, the During direct observations from 20 student will continue to work on-task and classrooms for students with EBD, more than there is no immediate consequence to 20% of the observed time teachers and reinforce the teacher’s praising behavior. students were involved in negative Although praising the on-task student may interactions; positive interactions accounted increase the frequency of that on-task for less than 5% of the observed time (Jack behavior, no immediate consequence occurs et al., 1996). Van Acker, Grant, and Henry to reinforce the teacher’s praising behavior. (1996) described interaction patterns Praise as Reinforcer between 206 students identified as at-risk Praise as a reinforcer has intuitive for aggression and their teachers. Through appeal, however, research shows an intense teacher reports and peer nomination depth and debate about it. Delin and measures, student participants were further Baumeister (1994) claim that praise has divided into mid-risk and high-risk groups. several effects. The first effect is a cognitive According to the results, praise was response to praise. A praising comment delivered on an infrequent basis, with refers to something about the praisee and students in the mid-risk group receiving therefore, will direct attention to the praise at a mean rate of 1.4 per hour, praisee. The second effect is an emotional whereas students in the high-risk group outcome resulting from praise. The obvious received praise at a mean rate of 1.2 per outcome is likely to be a feeling of positive hour. Furthermore, teachers reprimanded affect, such as pleasure, pride, or joy. Praise THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 3

conveys that one has surpassed some known as behavior-specific praise (BSP). noteworthy evaluative standard. Positive Willingham (2006) noted that BSP should be affect may also result from enjoying a sincere, meaning that the child has done pleasant interpersonal contact. The third something praiseworthy. Furthermore, the effect is motivational. As previously content of BSP should express mentioned, if praise brings about positive congratulations (rather than express a wish affect for the praisee, people will pursue of something else the child should do). The things for which they are praised. target of BSP should not be an attribute of All forms of teacher praise, however, the child, but rather an attribute of the are not necessarily reinforcing to the child's behavior. An attribute of the child is behaviors of all students and in all situations considered fixed and unchangeable and, (Brophy, 1981). For example, older students therefore, out of his or her control. Praising may respond differently (Brophy) or have a behavior or the process the child used different preferences for types of teacher encourages the child to consider praise than younger students (Elwell & praiseworthy behaviors as under his or her Tiberio, 1994). In addition, students with control. more deviant forms of school behaviors, Purpose with long histories of negative forms of Researchers know that students attention from adults at school, may diagnosed with EBD display high levels of respond adversely to occasional expressions inappropriate behaviors which are of approval from teachers (Wehby et al., detrimental to academic progress. Through 1995). research, BSP has been identified and is Effective Praise considered a positive reinforcement, Research suggests a difference however, BSP remains at alarmingly low between effective praise and non-effective levels of usage in classrooms, especially of praise (Delin & Baumeister, 1994; Heward, students with EBD. The purpose of this 2003). The presumed effectiveness of praise literature review is to analyze the is ultimately grounded in the applied effectiveness of teacher praise on students behavior analysis principle of positive with EBD. To understand praise’s reinforcement which states that a effectiveness, this literature review will consequence (in this case, praise) that analyze; (a) has BSP been utilized in research immediately follows a behavior results in the on students with EBD? (b) What are the strengthening of that behavior and that the effects of teacher praise on attending person (e.g., the student) is more likely to behaviors of students with EBD? (c) What engage in that behavior again in the future are the effects of teacher praise on academic (Hester, Hendrickson, & Gable, 2009). achievement of students with EBD? and (d) Dunkin and Biddle (1974) reviewed Is there a relationship between the the literature and concluded that teacher effectiveness of praise and student age? praise can function more effectively as a reinforcer if it is specific to the student’s Methods behavior. Brophy (1981) also concluded that Studies reported in this review were effective praise is contingent on the targeted located through Education Resources behavior and specifies particulars of the Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, behavior that is to be reinforced. Praise that ProQuest Education Journals, and Google is contingent on a targeted behavior is scholar databases for references addressing THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 4 teacher praise and students with attending and/or disruptive behaviors. It emotional/behavioral disorders. Descriptors was not until more recent studies that the used to identify articles were as follows: diagnosis of EBD was included in participant teacher praise, teacher attention, EBD, SBD, description (Dufrene, Lestremau, & Zoder- and emotional disturbance. In addition, Martell, 2014; Sutherland, Wehby, & ancestral searches were conducted from Copeland, 2000). Severe behavior disorder identified studies that met inclusion criteria. (SBD) was the diagnosis term in one study Ancestral searches of two relevant reviews (Gunter & Jack, 1993). Older studies used of literature were conducted (Martin, more subjective terms such as, “dawdled”, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehby, 2010; “deviant”, or “great-deal of non-attending Sutherland, 2000). behavior” to describe participants (Becker, Inclusion criteria were studies with Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967; Broden, the independent variable being teacher Bruce, Mitchell, Carter, & Hall, 1970; Hall, praise and dependent variables being Lund, & Jackson, 1968). Studies with these attending behavior, academic achievement, terms were included in this literature review or terms similar in definition. Teacher praise because other inclusion criteria were met can have multiple definitions, however, for and emotional and behavioral disorders this review, teacher praise is defined as: the were not as frequently diagnosed, yet the expression of approval or admiration for manifesting behaviors were present. someone with a verbal interaction. Teacher Although a decrease in disruptive attention was also included as a descriptor behaviors is not equivalent to an increase in due to the fact that some of the identified attending behavior, studies meeting studies dated back to the 1960s and teacher inclusion criteria and measuring disruptive praise and attention were used behaviors as the dependent variable were interchangeably. No historical range cutoff included (Becker et al., 1967; Dufrene et al., was set due to the body of research on 2014; Gunter & Jack, 1993; Hall et al., 1968). teacher praise and students with EBD As a result, ten studies (see Table 1) met beginning in the 1960s. Additional inclusion inclusion criteria and were included in this criteria were that participants were literature review. Results are reported in diagnosed with an emotional/behavioral terms used in individual studies. disability, or displayed extreme non- Table 1 General Information from studies meeting inclusionary criteria

Reference Subject(s) Setting Independent Variable(s) Dependent Results Variable(s) Becker et al. 10 Elementary Elementary school Explicit rules “Deviant” behaviors Average “deviant” (1967) students (7-10 General education Ignore negative behaviors behaviors across years old) Praise attending subjects decreased “Problem behaviors behaviors” Behavior specific praise Hall, Lund & 6 Elementary Two elementary Praise/attention to Attending behavior Average attending Jackson students schools Low SES attending behavior 1 Subject (disruptive behaviors increased (1968) Disruptive or General education Not behavior specific behavior) Disruptive behavior of “dawdled” praise subject decreased Broden et al. 2 Second grade Elementary school Praise/attention to Attending behavior Attending behaviors (1970) students Low SES General attending behavior increased Disruptive/non- education Ignore non-attending attending behavior. Not behavior behaviors specific praise Kirby & 1 Male (13 years Elementary school Praise/feedback at Attending behavior Attending behaviors Shields old) “Great deal” General education increased intervals. Math accuracy increased Math (1972) of non-attending Not behavior specific accuracy increased behaviors praise Luiselli & 1 Male (10 years Elementary school Praise/feedback at Attending behavior Attending behaviors Downing old) Specific Resource room increased intervals through math increased (1980) Learning Disability Behavior specific praise completion rate Non-attending behavior Gable & 1 Male/1 female Private special Praise after academic Oral reading rate Reading rate increased Shores (10-11 years old) education school accuracy Behavior specific Correct/error rate Accuracy increase (1980) Learning/behavior praise Errors decreased disabled THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 6

McLaughlin 10 Elementary Elementary school Praise/attention Not Math Accuracy Math accuracy (1982) students Self-contained Behavior specific praise Praise frequency increased (8 – 12 years old) classroom Praise rates increased Behaviorally Handicapped Gunter & 2 Male students Middle and Praise for attending Disruptive behaviors Disruptive behaviors Jack (1993) (12 and 6 years elementary behaviors Ignore decreased old) SBD schools. Self- disruptive behaviors Not contained for behavior specific praise students with SBD Sutherland, 7 Male/2 female Public middle Behavior specific praise On-task behaviors On-task behaviors Wehby & students (10-11 school increased Copeland years old) EBD 5th Grade self- (2000) contained for students with EBD Dufrene et 9 Students (9-11 Alternative School Behavior Specific Praise Disruptive behaviors Disruptive behaviors al. (2014) years old), 7 decreased Students (7-9 years old) Variety of disabilities

Note. SBD = Severe behavior disorder; EBD = Emotional behavior disorder; SES = Social Economic Status

Results Three reviewed studies lacked details Participants about teacher praise and its consistent Participants ranged in ages from 6 implementation (Broden et al., 1970; Gunter years old to 13 years old. Six studies & Jack, 1993; Hall et al., 1968). One of these provided gender information (Broden et al., studies described the independent variable 1970; Gable & Shores, 1980; Gunter & Jack, as, “The teacher attended to the child, 1993; Kirby & Shields, 1972; Luiselli & moved to his desk, made some verbal Downing, 1980; Sutherland et al., 2000). comment, gave him a pat on the shoulder, or Male participants constituted 82% of the like” (Hall et al,. 1968, p. 2). Another participants in those six studies. Four studies study defined the independent variable as, were conducted in general education “The teacher was then asked to begin settings (Becker et al., 1967; Broden et al., attending to and praising” (Broden et al., 1970; Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Kirby & 1970, p. 200). Shields, 1972). One study was conducted in Six reviewed studies had multiple a resource room (Luiselli & Downing, 1980). independent variables (Becker et al., 1967; Two studies were conducted in self- Broden et al., 1970; Gunter & Jack, 1993; Hall contained classrooms for students with et al., 1968; Kirby & Shields, 1972; Luiselli & SBD/EBD (Gunter & Jack, 1993; Sutherland Downing, 1980). In addition to teacher et al., 2000). Two studies were conducted in praise, corrective feedback was provided in alternative school settings (Dufrene et al., two studies (Kirby & Shields, 1972; Luiselli & 2014; Gable & Shores, 1980). Downing, 1980). In two studies, praising Independent Variable attending behaviors while in conjunction Behavior specific praise was ignoring disruptive behaviors occurred implemented by teachers and (Broden et al., 1970; Gunter & Jack, 1993). experimenters in five reviewed studies One study implemented teacher praise and (Becker et al., 1967; Dufrene et al., 2014; proximity (Hall et al., 1968), while one study Luiselli & Downing, 1980; Gable & Shores, applied teacher praise for attending 1980; Sutherland et al., 2000). Examples of behaviors, ignoring disruptive behaviors and behavior specific praise included, “I like the re-teaching of explicit classroom rules way you are working quietly” (Becker et al., (Becker et al., 1967). 1967, p. 292), “Great job working on your Dependent Variables math worksheet” (Dufrene et al., 2014, p. Attending behaviors 571), and “Lisa, that is a wonderful example Four studies measured attending of how to enter a group” (Sutherland et al., behavior using momentary time-sampling 2000, p. 4). procedures (Broden et al., 1970; Hall et al., One reviewed study implemented 1968; Kirby & Shields, 1972; Sutherland et general praise statements by the al., 2000). Examples of operationalizing experimenter as the independent variable attending behaviors were, “Orientation by (Kirby & Shields, 1972). The study was the target student(s) toward the appropriate measuring academic achievement and, object or person” (Sutherland et al., 2000, p. therefore, teacher praise was contingent on 4) and “Looking at or writing on the assigned academic accuracy. Examples of general page, looking at the teacher or experimenter praise statements included, “Good work”, or when appropriate” (Kirby & Shields, 1980, “Excellent job” (Kirby & Shields, 1972, p. 81). p.81). Across these four studies, attending behaviors increased with implementation of THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 8 independent variables. The greatest reported a negative relationship between increase in percentage of attending behavior independent variable and disruptive occurred in Broden et al. (1970), where two behaviors. One study saw a complete second grade boys were given praise and elimination of disruptive behaviors in a six attention for attending behaviors. At year old participant diagnosed with severe baseline conditions, the boys were attending behavior disorder (Gunter & Jack, 1993). In at 31% and 33%. Both boys attending the study, a fixed interval schedule of three behaviors increased to 71% and 74% during minutes was used to deliver praise the final intervention phase. Results were statements for attending behaviors. During similar in other studies measuring an baseline conditions, the participant was increase in attending behavior as a displaying .32 disruptive behaviors per percentage. Hall and colleagues’ (1968) minute. The participant had complete results showed a mean increase of 36.1% in extinction of disruptive behaviors during the attending behavior across six participants. last four days of intervention. The second Kirby and Shields (1972) had an increase of participant in this study did not show as 46% for one participant. Across nine significant of results, nevertheless, a 40% participants in a self-contained classroom reduction in disruptive behaviors was for students with EBD, Sutherland et al. recorded. (2000) measured an average increase of Another substantial result was 36.9% in attending behaviors after the recorded in the study by Hall et al., (1968). increase of behavior specific praise The first-grade participant had a mean rate statements. of 7% disruptive behaviors during baseline. One study in this review measured During reinforcement 1 (attention to attending behavior through math problem attending behavior and ignore disruptive completion rate during a 35 minute work behavior), reversal, and reinforcement 2, the period (Luiselli & Downing, 1980). During participant’s disruptive behavior decreased baseline, the participant had a multiplication to a final mean rate of 0.25%, demonstrating problem mean completion rate of 13 a 96% total decrease in disruptive behaviors. problems correct. During treatment, when Negative trends are similar when praise and feedback was given after the looking at group average decreases in completion of a designated number of disruptive behaviors. One class of nine self- problems, the participant’s mean contained students at an alternative school completion rate rose to 56 problems. After saw a decrease of 26% in disruptive reversal, then reinstatement, the behaviors per minute, while a second class participant’s average number of problems of seven students saw a 73% drop in completed correctly increased to 60. disruptive behaviors per minute (Dufrene et Disruptive behaviors al., 2014). Four studies in this review measured Academic achievement effects of teacher praise on disruptive Three studies measured effects of behaviors as the dependent variable. praise through correct multiplication Disruptive behaviors included problem completion (Kirby & Shields, 1972; noncompliance, yelling, out-of-seat, and off- Luiselli & Downing, 1980; McLaughlin, 1982). task (Dufrene et al., 2014) and making noise, Interventions consisted of praising and getting out of seat, or talking to other providing feedback after completing a set students (Hall et al., 1968). Each study number of problems throughout each THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 9 session. Increasing trends were graphed in participant was a 12 year old boy diagnosed two studies. One participant had a 206% with a severe behavior disorder, and the increase in math academic accuracy (Kirby & second was a 6 year old boy diagnosed with Shields), while the other increased by over a severe behavior disorder. While being 450% (Luiselli & Downing). The study by praised at three minute intervals for McLaughlin measured percent correct as a attending behavior, the 12 year old’s class with an ABAB reversal design with a disruptive behavior dropped 40% and the 6 strong functional relation between phases year old’s disruptive behavior dropped 100% and through maintenance. giving a deferential of 60%. Although Becker Gable and Shores (1980) studied the et al. (1967) had ten participants, only data effects of teacher praise on oral reading of for six participants were measureable in two participants (10 year old boy and 11 year regards to effects of teacher praise across old girl) in a special education school for age range. Results are mixed in that all students with learning/behavior disabilities. participants (ages 7-10 years old) had During treatment, a reinforcement schedule relatively similar decreases (50%) in of verbal praise was applied contingent upon disruptive behaviors. correct responses only. After treatment 1, The most recent study (Dufrene et reversal, and treatment 2, student 1 had an al., 2014) measured effects of behavior increase of 40% in correct words per minute specific praise on disruptive behaviors with while mean error rate decreased 61%. two classrooms as participants. One class Student 2 had similar results with an consisted of nine students aged 9-13 years increase of 30% in correct words per minute old, while another class consisted of seven and a mean error rate decrease of 83%. It students aged 7-9 years old. Results showed was noted in this study that both both classes recorded a drop in disruptive participants were approaching proficiency behaviors. The class of older students levels in oral reading before the dropped 26% in disruptive behaviors. The intervention. class of younger students dropped 73% in Age and Praise disruptive behaviors. It should be noted that A relationship between teacher the teacher of the younger class increased praise and age of participants was evident as her praise statements nearly twice as much the effects of teacher praise on attending as the teacher of the older class. behavior and academic accuracy were analyzed. Four studies in this review Discussion measured effects of teacher praise with The purpose of this literature review participants varying in age (Becker et al., was to analyze the effects of teacher praise 1967; Dufrene et al., 2014; Gable & Shore, on students with EBD; specifically (a) has BSP 1980; Gunter & Jack, 1993). Gable and been utilized in research with students with Shores measured effects of teacher praise EBD? (b) What are the effects of teacher on oral reading with a 10 year old girl and an praise on attending behaviors of students 11 year old boy. Academic accuracy with EBD? (c) What are the effects of teacher increased for both students, however, the praise on academic achievement of students younger student had a greater increase in with EBD? and (d) Is there a relation correct words per minute by a 10% margin. between the effectiveness of praise and Gunter and Jack also compared two student age? participants of varying ages. The first Utilizing Behavior Specific Praise THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 10

The literature on the effectiveness of studies, disruptive behaviors did decrease BSP is continually building, and its during treatment. implementation in research with students Based on research about praise as a with EBD is evident by the utilization of BSP reinforcer (Willingham, 2006), one can infer in four of the latest five studies included in that teacher praise was a positive this review. The increase in usage of BSP reinforcement amongst recipients. Drawing coincides with Dunkin and Biddle’s (1974) attention to attending behaviors reinforced review of literature on praise, which those behaviors and effort put in by identified the importance of BSP. In addition, participants to be on-task was rewarded. the most recent studies (Dufrene et al., The same principle is applicable to studies 2014; Sutherland et al., 2000) reference that resulted in decreases in disruptive previous literature (e.g., Brophy, 1981) on behaviors. Even though disruptive behaviors the effectiveness of BSP and highlight its were measured, praise was given when the importance in classrooms of students with participants were on-task, which EBD. strengthened on-task behaviors. It is The increased use of BSP in the misleading to say teacher praise decreased literature is encouraging, nevertheless, a disruptive behaviors in these studies, controlled study on BSP vs non-BSP as however, increases in attending behaviors independent variables has not been could have created a differential conducted with students having EBD. reinforcement of incompatible behaviors to Sutherland and colleagues (2000) measured disruption which brought about the an increase of on-task behaviors with measured decreases. increased use of BSP. Non-BSP, however, The relation between teacher praise was not controlled and also increased during and behavior within reviewed studies must observation sessions which makes be assessed with caution, however, as attributing the increase in on-task behavior threats to validity are present. Four studies solely to BSP problematic. Sutherland and measuring change in behavior had multiple colleagues underscore the necessity of treatment interference (Becker et al., 1967; future research isolating BSP vs non-BSP as Broden et al., 1970; Gunter & Jack, 1993; Hall independent variables to establish more et al., 1968). In addition to providing teacher reliable relationships. praise, the teacher was designated to ignore Praise and Attending Behaviors disruptive behaviors (Becker et al., 1967; When analyzing effects of teacher Broden et al., 1970; Gunter & Jack, 1993), praise on behavior of students with EBD, which is suggested to be an effective results indicate a positive relation with on- strategy in eliminating disruptive behaviors task behavior and a negative relation with by itself (Kern, Benson, & Clemons, 2009), disruptive behaviors. Results were not as use proximity (Hall et al., 1968), and significant in studies that measured behavior reinforce classroom rules (Becker et al., changes in groups (Becker et al., 1967; 1967). Dufrene et al., 2014). Muted results, It becomes more difficult to directly however, would be expected when relate the effects of teacher praise on aggregating multiple individual behaviors student behaviors in these studies, however, into a group mean, as explained by the results are consistent with studies included measure of central tendency. Even with in this review that had more reliable central tendency occurring in these two methodological designs with teacher praise THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 11

solely as the independent variable (Dufrene an effective practice with teacher praise et al., 2014; Sutherland et al., 2000). eliminates the possibility of drawing any Considering converging evidence, results reliable inferences about teacher praise from this review point to a functional alone. Both studies also had internal validity relation between teacher praise and threats of maturation. An ascending slope is students’ attending behaviors which is calculable from baseline, through treatment, encouraging in that a relatively simple reversal, and treatment 2. During the intervention can produce gains in behavioral experiment in Kirby and Shields the performance for students with EBD. participant was given a math worksheet with Praise and Academic Achievement 20 problems. Even with problems A positive relation is indicated in the randomized, the automaticity that comes four studies measuring effects of teacher with performing the same task over and over praise on academic achievement (Gable & could lead to maturation. In addition, math Shores, 1980; Kirby & Shields, 1972; Luiselli problems were single-digit multiplication & Downing, 1980; McLaughlin, 1982). Large which, with a limited number of problems, increases in academic performance after would have to be recycled throughout implementation of independent variables in worksheets. Repetitive practice would also these studies then large decreases during lead to multiplication fact acquisition and reversal suggest that participants had increase the correct answers per minute control over their academic output. One rate. does not gain then lose academic proficiency Praise and Age in such variability. It is evident with Consistent with previous research participants that it was a matter of “I won’t” (Brophy, 1981; Wehby et al., 1995), a perform the academic task rather than “I difference in the effectiveness of teacher can’t”. It appears teacher praise provided praise was apparent among younger motivation to increase math fact completion students and older students. Results from rate and correct words per minute in individual studies with participants varying reading. The awareness of one’s success or in age suggest that praise had greater effect accomplishments has been identified as a on younger participants. powerful reinforcer (Vargas, 2013). Timely Even though praise is a positive teacher praise may have allowed the reinforcement, the greater effect of teacher participants to become aware of their praise on younger students may be successes during the activity, positively explained by the fact that the classroom is a reinforcing their efforts on the task at hand. dynamic environment with countless Internal and external validity threats contingencies taking place. Older students in two of these studies, though, challenges will have more complex social dynamics than the analysis of the relation between teacher younger students. Attention that verbal praise and academic achievement (Kirby & praise provides, therefore, may be received Shields, 1972; Luiselli & Downing, 1980). more as a positive punishment than a Both studies had multiple treatment threats positive reinforcement, especially if that with the implementation of teacher praise student is shy and finds public attention and corrective feedback as independent aversive. Older students may also wish to variables. The literature on effectiveness of avoid being singled out or seen as “over- corrective feedback is extensive (Lysakowski achieving” amongst their peers. It is not & Walberg, 1982), therefore, the coupling of necessarily the function of praise, then, that THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 12 is more effective with younger students, would benefit from if answered in future rather, it might be the medium in delivering research. If praise is a positive praise that is causing discrepancies in its reinforcement, yet the method in delivering effectiveness amongst age groups. praise is the cause of a discrepancy in Generalization of the relation effectiveness across age groups, then future between teacher praise and age of research should control for participant age participants, however, of these results and identify different strategies to deliver should be taken with caution. Included teacher praise. studies did not isolate age of participants as The 21st century is continually independent variables, therefore, relations providing technological answers and the between praise and participant ages are delivery of teacher praise may be one of its inferred. beneficiaries. Individual or group texts may be a more discreet and effective way of Implications praising older students. Internet applications The difficulties of working with that monitor and chart behavioral data are students with emotional disabilities are well exponentially advancing in capabilities and documented. Behaviors that are aggressive usability. Students are now able to actively and aversive can create negative interaction monitor their behavioral progress with cycles between students and their teachers. increases of laptops and smart boards across Results of this review indicate that teacher classrooms. Continual self-behavior praise can be an effective strategy to monitoring and the possibilities to increase increase attending behaviors of students the immediacy of teacher praise may have with EBD. Furthermore, if academic far ranging implications. Furthermore, as proficiency is present yet the student is not wearable technologies advance, teachers performing up to his or her ability, timely could wear a watch that vibrates every 3 and consistent teacher praise coupled with minutes to remind them to praise. A corrective feedback may motivate the recurrent reminder may greatly impact the student to complete the academic task. upside down ratio of praise to reprimands Additionally, how, when, and where teacher that is prevalent amongst students with EBD praise is delivered should be taken into and potentially break the negative consideration. Teachers would benefit from interaction cycles between these students knowing their students and being conscious and their teachers. The reinforcing function of how praise is being received. For example, of praise has not changed, however, knowing whether a student would enjoy the technological possibilities in the efficacy of public attention gained from verbal praise or its delivery has. whether she would rather be praised Future research should also explore discreetly can go a long ways in the the effectiveness of praise amongst students effectiveness of that praise. who refuse to perform an academic task as opposed to students who cannot. Is praising Future Research a student during an academic task more Findings of this review strengthen effective with students who obtain a certain the body of literature on the benefits of level of academic accuracy? If so, will a teacher praise on students with EBD. schedule of reinforcement of praise Questions, however, have emerged that the continually boost efficiency in academic task scientific community and practitioners completion or will desensitization impact THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 13

praise’s value? Although praise may appear monitor it, which may further elevate its as a simple reinforcement contingency, its effectiveness. As classrooms are adapting to effectiveness in the classroom is complex the 21st century, so should teacher praise. and, therefore, future research on praise should utilize the most rigorous scientific References methodological procedures. *Articles summarized in Table 1 *Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., Limitations of Studies Reviewed & Thomas, D. R. (1967). The contingent Several limitations of this review use of teacher attention and praise in should be noted. First, inferences and reducing classroom behavior problems. generalizations of results should be taken The Journal of Special Education, 1, 287- with caution as internal and external validity 307. threats of included studies made data *Broden, M., Bruce, C., Mitchell, M., Carter, analysis challenging. Second, due to the V., & Hall, R. (1970). Effects of teacher historical reach of included studies, attention on attending behavior of two operational definitions of independent and boys at adjacent desks. Journal of dependent variables are ambiguous. As a Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 205-211. result, studies may have been missed during Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A search procedures. Lastly, aggregating functional analysis. Review of individual data into groups limits inferences Educational Research, 51, 5–32. on effects of praise on individuals (Becker et Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. al., 1967; Dufrene et al, 2014; McLaughlin, (1991). The effects of severe behavior 1982). problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Summary Behavior Analysis, 24, 523-535. Even though students with Delin, C. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (1994) emotional and behavioral disorders exhibit Praise: More than just social high levels of inappropriate behaviors, ten reinforcement. Journal for the Theory of studies reviewed suggest teacher praise can Social Behavior, 24(3), 221-241. increase on-task behaviors and decrease *Dufrene, B. A., Lestremau, L., & Zoder disruptive behaviors. Confounding variables Martell, K. (2014). Direct behavioral eliminate the possibility to analyze effects of consultation: Effects on teachers’ praise teacher praise on academic achievement, and student disruptive behavior. however, coupled with corrective feedback, Psychology in the Schools, 51(6), 567- it appears task completion momentum can 580. be established for students who have Dunkin, M. & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of proficiency yet lack motivation. Results from teaching. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart this review also suggest a relation between &Winston. teacher praise effectiveness and participant Elwell, W. C., & Tiberio, J. (1994). Teacher age. Yet, future research is needed with age praise: What students want. Journal of of participants as controlled variables to Instructional Psychology, 21, 322–328. more accurately analyze this relation. Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Young, C. Research on teacher praise is not C., Shores, R. E., & Stowitschek, J. J. complete. Technological advances are (1983). A comparison of teacher bringing innovative ways to deliver and approval and disapproval statements THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 14

across categories of exceptionality. Kern, L., Benson, J. L., & Clemens, N. H. Journal of Special Education Technology, (2010). Strategies for working with 6, 15-22. severe challenging and violent behavior. *Gable, R. A., & Shores, R. E. (1980). In G. Gimple-Peacock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Comparison of procedures for Daly III, & K. W. Merrell (Eds.), Practical promoting reading proficiency of two handbook of school psychology: children with behavioral and learning Effective practices for the 21st century disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 5(2), (pp. 459–474). New York, NY: Guilford 102-107. Press. Gunter, P.L., Denny, R. K., Jack, S. L., Shores, Kerr, M. M., & Zigmond, N. (1986). What do R. E., & Nelson, C. M. (1993). Aversive high school teachers want? A study of stimuli in academic-interactions expectations and standards. Education between students with serious and Treatment of Children, 9, 239-249. emotional disturbance and their *Kirby, F. D., & Shields, F. (1972). teachers. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265- Modification of arithmetic response rate 274. and attending behavior in a seventh- *Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Lag grade student. Journal of Applied sequential analysis as a tool for Behavior Analysis, 5, 79-84. functional analysis of student disruptive Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, behavior in classrooms. Journal of J. M. (2003). What is special about Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, special education for students with 1(3), 138-149. emotional and behavioral disorders? *Hall, R., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Journal of Special Education, 37, 148– Effects on teacher attention on study 156. behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior *Luiselli, J. K., & Downing, J. N. (1980). Analysis, 1, 1-12. Improving a student’s arithmetic Hester, P. P., Hendrickson, J. M., & Gable, R. performance using feedback and A. (2009). Forty years later—The value reinforcement procedures. Education of praise, ignoring, and rules for and Treatment of Children, 3, 45-49. preschoolers at risk for behavior Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). disorders. Education and Treatment of Instructional effects of cues, Children, 32(4), 513-535. participation, and corrective feedback: Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions A quantitative synthesis. American about teaching and learning that hinder Educational Research Journal, 19(4), the effectiveness of special education. 559-572. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), McLaughlin, T. F. (1982). The effects of 186-205. teacher praise on accuracy of math Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., Denny, R. K., performance for an entire special Gunter, P. L, DeBriere, T., & DePaepe, P. education class. Behavioral Engineering, (1996). An analysis of the relationship of 7, 81-86. teachers' reported use of classroom Nelson, J., & Roberts, M. (2000). Ongoing management strategies on types of reciprocal teacher-student interactions classroom interactions. Journal of involving disruptive behaviors in general Behavioral Education, 6, 67-87. education classrooms. Journal of THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 5(1) 15

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. 27-37. M. (2003). Heading off disruptive Partin, T. C. M., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. behavior: How early intervention can M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2009). reduce defiant behavior—and win back Using teacher praise and opportunities teaching time. American Educator, to respond to promote appropriate 26(4), 6-45. student behavior. Preventing School Walker, H. M., & Rankin, R. (1983). Failure: Alternative Education for Assessing the behavioral expectations Children and Youth, 54, 172-178. and demands of less restrictive settings. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. School Psychology Review, 12, 274-284. (1992). Antisocial boys: Vol. 4. A social Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. interactional approach. Eugene, OR: (1995). A descriptive analysis of Castalia. aggressive behavior in classrooms for Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. children with emotional and behavioral (1993). Classroom management disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 87- strategies: Are they setting events for 105. coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92- Whitaker, S., & Votel, C. (1995, March). 102. Managing troubling behaviors: A Sprick, R. (1981). The solution book: A guide systems approach. Paper presented at to classroom discipline. Chicago, IL: American Council on Rural Special Science Research Associates. Education, Las Vegas, NV. Sutherland, K. S. (2000). Promoting positive Willingham, D. T. (2006). How praise can interactions between teachers and motivate—or stifle. American Educator, students with emotional/behavioral 29(4), 23-27. disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 44(3), 110-115. *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 Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 316-334. Vargas, J. S. (2013). Behavior analysis for effective teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.