Content uploaded by Saul Axelrod
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Saul Axelrod on Oct 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
INCREASING TEACHERS’USE OF A 1:1
PRAISE-TO-BEHAVIOR CORRECTION RATIO TO
DECREASE STUDENT DISRUPTION IN GENERAL
EDUCATION CLASSROOMS
Jeffrey Pisacreta
1
, Matthew Tincani
1
*, James E. Connell
2
and Saul Axelrod
1
1
Temple University, 1801 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
2
University of Pennsylvania, 3451 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Contingent, behavior-specific praise is universally recommended as an effective tool to increase students’
academic achievement and proscocial behavior. Despite this recommendation, little research has examined
the effects of training teachers to increase their praise-to-behavior correction ratio in classroom settings.
This study evaluated the effects of training teachers to provide a 1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior correction
to decrease student disruption in three general-education classrooms. Three urban middle-school general-
teachers who exhibited very low rates of praise participated in the study. Teachers received training,
including modeling and performance feedback, to achieve a 1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior correction ad-
ministered within a multiple-baseline across participants design. Results demonstrated that (a) the teachers
were able to achieve and maintain a 1:1 praise-to-behavior correction ratio; (b) a reduction in student disrup-
tion coincided with teachers’use of a 1:1 praise-to-behavior correction ration; and (c) two teachers
evidenced moderate levels of generalization to classrooms where no training took place. Implications for
practitioners and future research are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Discipline issues are cited as one of the top concerns of school personnel. In one
study, more than 40% of teachers reported that challenging behavior interfered with
their teaching (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000), and student misbehav-
ior is positively related to higher levels of teacher stress and burnout (Clunies-Ross,
Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Keiper & Busselle, 1996; Kokkinos, 2007; Lewis, 1999).
For students, behavior problems often lead to academic failure (Morrison, Anthony,
Storino, & Dillon, 2001) and dropout (Stearns & Glennie, 2006). This pattern is no
more evident than with students from minority groups who are disproportionately
classified in special education for disciplinary reasons, resulting in marginalization
and unequal educational outcomes (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Brayboy, Castagno, &
Maughan, 2007). The negative consequences associated with student discipline
*Correspondence to: Matthew Tincani, College of Education, Special Education Program, Temple University,
1801 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122. E-mail: tincani@temple.edu
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behavioral Interventions
Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.341
problems, particularly among minority students in low socioeconomic status com-
munities, underscore the need for teachers to implement effective classroom
management practices.
Teacher praise is universally recommended as an effective tool to increase stu-
dents’academic achievement and prosocial behavior in the classroom (Henley,
2010; Kerr & Nelson, 2010; Lee & Axelrod, 2005; Wheeler & Richey, 2010). This
recommendation is supported by long-standing research that demonstrates a positive
relationship between teachers’use of contingent, behavior-specific praise and stu-
dents’appropriate behavior (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009). At the same
time, teachers are admonished to minimize their use of reprimand and other punish-
ment techniques in response to discipline problems (Wheeler & Richey, 2010) and to
combine reprimands with praise for appropriate behavior (Lee & Axelrod, 2005).
Thus, a high ratio of praise-to-behavior correction is regarded as best practice within
the classroom management literature.
The rationale for training teachers to maintain a high ratio of praise-to-behavior
correction is supported by two key research findings. First, classrooms in which teach-
ers use higher rates of reprimand and other reactive strategies tend to have higher
rates of student misbehavior (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Stichter et al., 2009). Al-
though this research is correlational, it suggests that teachers’reprimands may
function as positive reinforcement in the form of attention for students’problem
responses, thus contributing to a higher level of disruption, overall. In contrast, higher
rates of teacher praise are positively related to opportunity to respond among teachers
(Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002) and intrinsic motivation among students
(Cameron & Pierce, 1994). Second, without specific training, teachers tend to over-
use reprimand and underuse praise as classroom management techniques (Gable
et al., 2009). Maag (2001) speculates that teachers rely on reprimands to maintain
classroom discipline because of strong cultural forces within education that support
punishment, lack of knowledge about effective management techniques, and failure
to take advantage of positive reinforcement as a natural principle of behavior.
Sutherland and Wehby (2001) showed that teachers implemented low rates of verbal
praise and high rates of reprimand until they participated in a self-evaluation inter-
vention involving audio recording of teaching sessions, measurement of praise
statements, and goal setting to increase student praise. Their findings highlight the
utility of consultation strategies, including performance feedback, to increase
teachers’use of contingent praise and other positive management procedures.
Varying recommendations exist on the optimal ratio of praise-to-behavior correc-
tion in the classroom. For instance, Trussell (2008) suggested that ‘a ratio of 4:1
positive to negative feedback has an optimal effect on student learning and behavior’
(p. 184), whereas Sugai (2008) recommended a ratio of 6–8 positive to 1 negative
adult-student interactions. Despite the apparent benefits of maximizing teachers’
244 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
contingent, behavior-specific praise and minimizing their behavior corrections, little
research has examined the effects of training teachers to provide a specific ratio of
praise-to-behavior correction within the classroom setting. Rathel, Drasgow, and
Christle (2008) examined the effects of performance feedback on increasing two
pre-service teachers’ratios of positive-to-negative communication behaviors with stu-
dents with emotional and behavioral disorders in classroom settings. One teacher
increased her ratio of positive-to-negative communications from a range of 0:1 to
1:1 during baseline to a range of 7:1 to 20:1 with performance feedback; however,
the other teacher did not increase her low ratio of positive-to-negative communica-
tions beyond baseline levels, ranging from 0:1 to 6:1. Moreover, these authors did
not examine the relationship between increased ratios of praise-to-negative state-
ments and corresponding changes in student performance. Therefore, the effective
ratio of praise-to-behavior correction for classroom settings is unknown.
Despite the apparent benefits of increasing teachers’praise-to-behavior correction
ratio, there is little empirical evidence to support the efficacy of training teachers to
implement a specific ratio (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008).
Although ratios such as 4:1 (Trussell, 2008) and 6–8:1 (Sugai, 2008) have been
recommended, these relatively high ratios might be difficult to achieve for struggling
teachers who use very little praise. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate
the effects of training, including modeling and performance feedback (Noell, Witt,
Gilbertson, Ranier, & Freeland, 1997; Noell et al., 2005) to increase general edu-
cation teachers’praise-to-behavior correction ratio in the classroom. Student
disruptive behavior was also recorded to evaluate the effects, if any, of increasing
teachers’ratio of praise-to-correction on student misbehavior in the classroom. A
1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior correction was targeted because baseline levels indi-
cated that teacher participants implemented close to zero levels of contingent praise
during baseline; therefore, it was thought that a 1:1 ratio was most realistic and
achievable. Three specific research questions were addressed: (a) Can teachers main-
tain a ratio of 1:1 praise-to-behavior correction with training and performance
feedback? (b) Is a 1:1 ratio sufficient to decrease student disruptive behavior in the
general education classroom? (c) Do any increases in teachers’use of a 1:1 ratio gen-
eralize to classrooms where no training occurs?
METHOD
Setting and Participants
The study was conducted in an urban middle school in a low socioeconomic area
in the mid-Atlantic region of USA. The school served 1200 students in grades six
245Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
through eight. Approximately 50% of the school’s population was White, 31% was
African American, 18% was Hispanic, 1% was Asian, and 1% was Native American.
All classrooms where the study took place were general-education classrooms with
approximately 15-20 students in each class. Prior to the study, the first author was
hired as a consultant to help the school implement classroom-wide and school-wide
behavior-support procedures.
Three teachers were recruited to participate in the study. Each teacher expressed
concerns about high rates of disruptive behavior in his or her classroom and requested
consultation with the first author to assist with strategies to reduce disruptive behav-
ior. Each teacher was asked to identify two class periods where the most challenging
behavior occurred. The classroom with the most disruptive behavior was the training
setting for the study. The classroom with the second most disruptive behavior was the
generalization setting for the study. Participants gave written consent to participate in
the research in accordance with the university’s Institutional Board of Review. Partic-
ipant characteristics, including grades taught, subject areas, and years of experience,
are shown in Table 1.
Dependent Variables
The first author served as the primary data collector for all conditions of the study.
Throughout the study, data were collected three to five times per week in the training
setting during normal academic periods, specifically mathematics (Teacher 1),
science (Teacher 2), and literacy (Teacher 3). Data were collected in the generaliza-
tion setting two times per week during the same academic periods.
Three target behaviors were recorded in the study—student disruptive behavior,
teacher praise, and teacher behavior correction. A partial-interval recording system
was used to record the occurrence of student disruptive behavior. Observation ses-
sions were 20 min in duration, divided into 15 s intervals, which resulted in a total
of 80 intervals for each session. Teacher praise and behavior correction were
recorded as a frequency count during each session. Operational definitions of the
three dependent variables were as follows:
Table 1. Characteristics of teacher participants.
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3
Grade 6 8 7
Subject Mathematics Science Literacy
Years of experience 2.5 2.5 11
Tenure status Non-tenured Non-tenured Tenured
Race White White White
Sex Male Male Female
246 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Student Disruptive Behavior
Teachers were interviewed prior to the study to identify classroom problem behav-
iors of concern. Consequently, student disruptive behavior was defined as any
statement or action by a student that interfered with ongoing classroom activities or
teacher demands (e.g., calling out during instruction, off-topic talking with another
student, walking around the classroom without permission, leaving his or her seat
without permission, throwing materials). Excluded from the definition were passive,
off-task behaviors, such as staring out the window or quietly playing with instruc-
tional materials in a non-academic fashion. Disruptive behavior was defined
broadly to encompass the varying topographies of problem behavior that occurred
across the three classrooms.
Teacher Praise
Teacher praise was defined as a comment that indicated approval of students for
following the classroom rules, for example, ‘Thank you for being prepared by open-
ing your book to page 34.’Teacher praise was given contingently for either academic
or social behavior. Teacher praise was given to both individual students and groups
of students who were following the classroom rules.
Teacher Behavior Correction
Teacher behavior correction was defined as any verbal comment given by the
teacher for students to stop engaging in disruptive behavior or for not following class-
room rules, for example, ‘SHHH! Please show the class respect by being quiet and
completing your work.’Behavior correction was given to both individual students
and groups of students.
Interobserver Agreement
Two observers, including the first author, conducted interobserver agreement
(IOA) data collection for 22% of observation sessions across all conditions of the
study, including training and generalization settings. Prior to collecting IOA data,
the first and second observers conducted practice observations of students and
teachers in non-experimental classrooms until reaching an IOA of at least 90%.
IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by agreements plus dis-
agreements and multiplying by 100. The mean IOA for student disruption was
92% (range, 83–98%); for teacher praise statements, it was 87% (range, 83–100%);
and for teacher behavior correction, it was 79% (range, 70–91%).
247Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Procedures
Baseline
In baseline, academic instruction in mathematics (Teacher 1), science (Teacher 2),
and literacy (Teacher 3) occurred as usual without intervention.
Modeling and Performance Feedback
In this condition, the first author trained teachers to implement a 1:1 ratio of praise-
to-behavior correction during instruction using the following training procedures.
First, the experimenter met with each teacher during his or her instructional prepara-
tion period to review the teacher’s baseline ratio of praise-to-behavior correction
using a bar graph created in Microsoft Excel
™
. Student disruptive behavior during
baseline was also reviewed during this meeting. The graph contained three bars that
depicted the teachers’frequency of praise, behavior correction, and students’disrup-
tive behavior. A bar graph was used because it provided a simple visual depiction of
whether the teacher was using a 1:1 ratio and allowed for the first author to draw the
teachers’attention to the relationship between praise, behavior correction, and disrup-
tive behavior. The experimenter also discussed the classroom rules with each teacher,
and collectively, they modified the wording of rules so that they were positively
stated and operationally defined. These meetings continued once per week during
both intervention conditions of the study.
Second, the experimenter modeled for teachers how and when to praise students’
appropriate behavior during daily observation sessions. This consisted of the experi-
menter walking around each teacher’s classroom and providing contingent, behavior-
specific verbal praise to students as they followed the classroom rules. Then, the exper-
imenter walked to the back of the classroom and, for 20 min, provided gestural and
verbal prompts for teachers to give contingent, behavior-specific praise students as they
exhibited appropriate behavior. At the end of the 20min, the experimenter gave positive
and corrective feedback on each teacher’s performance implementing the 1:1 ratio,
ensuring to provide positive feedback only when the teacher used descriptive praise that
was positively stated describing the appropriateness of the student’s behavior. Teachers
were encouraged to use short, firm behavior–correction statements but to maintain a 1:1
ratio by also praising students for appropriate behavior.
Performance Feedback Only
This condition was identical to the previous condition, except that no classroom
modeling was provided for teachers to implement a 1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior
248 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
correction. Performance feedback was given once per week using the graph created in
Microsoft Excel
™
as in the first condition, whereas verbal feedback in the form of
one or two brief comments about teacher’s use of the 1:1 ratio was given after each
20-min observation session.
Generalization
Data were collected on teachers’ratio of praise-to-behavior correction and students’
disruptive behavior in three classrooms where no training occurred. Academic
instruction occurred as usual without intervention. Teachers were not instructed to
change their classroom rules in the generalization setting.
Research Design
A multiple-baseline design across participants design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,
2007) was used to assess the relationship between teacher behavior, student behavior,
and training teachers to implement a 1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior correction. For
Teacher 1, the intervention was implemented when baseline ratios of praise-to-behavior
correction were stable as demonstrated by visual inspection of the graph. For Teachers 2
and 3, the intervention was implemented when baseline ratios of praise-to-behavior
correction were stable, and the previous teacher achieved at least a 1:1 ratio of praise-
to-behavior correction for four consecutive sessions.
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows teacher’s ratio of praise-to-behavior correction across baseline,
modeling and performance feedback, and feedback only conditions of the study in
the training setting. Figure 1 also depicts students’percentage of disruption across
each condition of the study in the training setting.
In baseline, Teachers 1, 2, and 3 showed very low ratios of praise-to-behavior
correction. Teacher 1 demonstrated an average ratio of 0.1:1 praise-to-behavior
correction (range, 0.06:1–0.16:1). For every praise statement, Teacher 1 exhibited,
on average, 10 behavior correction statements. Teacher 2 never praised her students
during baseline; thus, her ratio of praise-to-behavior correction was 0:1. Similarly,
Teacher 3 demonstrated an average ratio of 0.05:1 (range, 0:1–0.22:1).
With modeling and performance feedback, each teacher substantially increased his
or her ratio of praise-to-behavior correction. Teachers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated aver-
age ratios of 1.9:1 (range, 1:1–4:1), 1.2:1 (range, 1:1–1.5:1), and 1.1:1 (range, 1:1–1.3:1),
249Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
respectively. Each teacher was able to maintain a criterion ratio of at least 1:1 praise-to-
behavior correction during this condition of the study.
In the feedback only condition, Teachers 1, 2, and 3 continued to maintain higher
levels of praise-to-behavior correction in comparison with baseline. Teacher 1’s ratio
was 1.1:1 (range, 0.75:1–1.6-1), Teacher 2’s ratio was 1.2:1 (range, 1:1–1.6:1), and
Teacher 3’s ratio was 1.1:1 (range, 0.6:1–1.6:1) during this condition.
Figure 1. Teachers’ratio of praise-to-behavior correction and students’intervals of disruption across
baseline, modeling and performance feedback, and performance feedback only conditions in the training
setting.
250 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
With respect to student disruption, Figure 1 shows that students demonstrated
fairly high levels of disruptive behavior during baseline. On average, students in
Teacher 1’s class were disruptive during 40% of intervals (range, 38–43%), whereas
students in Teacher 2’s class were disruptive during 22% of intervals (range, 13–28%),
and students in Teacher 3’s class were disruptive during 30% of intervals (range,
15–50%).
When the modeling and performance feedback condition was introduced, students’
disruptive behavior decreased in all three classrooms. In Teacher 1, 2, and 3’s class-
rooms, students displayed an average of only 23% (range, 15–25%), 8% (3–12%),
and 15% (3–25%) intervals of disruption, respectively.
In the feedback only condition, students in the classrooms of Teacher 1 and
Teacher 2 continued to maintain low levels of disruptive behavior, 15% (range,
13–33%) and 11% (range, 5–18%), respectively. Figure 1 shows that Teacher 3’s stu-
dents initially engaged in higher levels of disruption during the feedback only
condition; however, their disruptive behavior gradually decreased after session 23
and was very low during the last two sessions of the study. Overall, Teacher 3’s stu-
dents were disruptive during an average of 18% of intervals (range, 3–30%) during
this condition. A crossover pattern is evident in which an increase in Teacher 3’s ratio
of praise-to-behavior correction coincided with a decrease in student disruption (see
Figure 1).
To evaluate the effects of modeling and performance feedback on teachers’relative
frequencies of praise and behavior correction, Figure 2 depicts teachers’average fre-
quency of praise and behavior correction across baseline, modeling and performance
feedback, and feedback only conditions in the training setting. Teacher 1 demon-
strated an average of one (range, 1) praise statements and 11 (range, 6–15)
behavior correction statements during baseline. In contrast, he demonstrated an aver-
age of four (range, 3–6) praise statements and three (range, 1–5) behavior correction
statements with modeling and performance feedback, and an average of six praise
statements (range, 4–8) and five behavior correction statements (range, 4–8) with
feedback only. Thus, as Teacher 1’s frequencies of praise increased from baseline
levels with modeling and performance feedback, his frequencies of behavior correc-
tion decreased.
Teacher 2 gave an average of 0 praise statements and 3.6 (range, 3–6) behavior
correction statements during baseline. He gave an average of 4.5 (range, 3–6) praise
statements and 3.8 (range, 3–4) behavior correction statements with modeling and
performance feedback, and an average of 4 (range, 1–5) praise statements and 3.5
(range, 1–4) behavior correction statements with feedback only. Teacher 2’s frequen-
cies of praise increased considerably with modeling and performance feedback;
however, unlike Teacher 1, his frequencies of behavior correction remained at base-
line levels throughout both intervention conditions of the study.
251Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Finally, Teacher 3 demonstrated an average of 0.5 (range, 0–1) praise statements
and 6.2 (range, 0–9) behavior correction statements during baseline. She demon-
strated an average of 7.3 (range, 6–8) praise statements and 6.5 (range, 5–8)
behavior correction statements with performance feedback and goal setting, and an
average of 7 (range, 4–10) praise statements and 6.6 (range, 5–8) behavior correction
statements with feedback only. Teacher 3’s frequencies of praise increased substan-
tially from baseline levels with modeling and performance feedback; however, like
Teacher 2, her frequencies of behavior correction remained at baseline levels
throughout the study.
GENERALIZATION
Figure 3 shows teachers’ratio of praise-to-behavior correction and students’disrup-
tive behavior in the generalization setting. Similar to the training setting, teachers
showed very low ratios of praise-to-behavior correction in baseline; Teachers 1, 2,
and 3 never praised their students during most baseline sessions. With performance
feedback and goal setting, Teachers 1 and 2 increased their use of the 1:1 ratio of
praise-to-behavior correction above baseline levels, whereas Teacher 3 did not in-
crease her ratio of praise-to-behavior correction above baseline levels. In the
feedback only condition, Teachers 1 and 2 continued to maintain higher levels of
praise-to-behavior correction, with each teacher maintaining a 1:1 ratio during the
majority of sessions. In contrast, Teacher 3 used no praise during the first two
Figure 2. Teachers’average frequency per session of praise and behavior correction in the training
setting.
252 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
sessions of the feedback only condition; however, she increased her ratio of praise-
to-behavior correction thereafter, maintaining at least a 1:1 ratio for the last five
sessions.
Baseline levels of student disruptive behavior varied across teachers in the gener-
alization setting. On average, Teacher 1 and Teacher 3’s students displayed lower
Figure 3. Teachers’ratio of praise-to-behavior correction and students’intervals of disruption in the
generalization setting.
253Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
levels of disruption in the generalization setting (22 and 7%, respectively) compared
with the intervention setting (40 and 30%, respectively). In contrast, Teacher 2’s stu-
dents displayed levels of disruption in the generalization setting (25%, on average)
that were similar to those in the intervention setting (22%, on average).
Visual inspection of Figure 3 suggests that the intervention did not produce sub-
stantial reductions in student disruptive behavior until the last several sessions of
the study. In Teacher 1 and 2’s classrooms, students’disruptive behavior remained
at levels similar to baseline during the modeling and performance feedback condition
and decreased gradually during the performance feedback only condition. In contrast,
Teacher 3’s students showed no decreases in their levels of disruptive behavior across
both of the intervention conditions. In fact, Teacher 3’s students showed slightly
higher levels of disruption across intervention conditions in the generalization setting.
To assess the effects of modeling and performance feedback on teachers’relative
frequencies of praise and behavior correction in the generalization setting, Figure 4
shows teachers’average frequency of praise and behavior correction across baseline,
modeling and performance feedback, and feedback only conditions. All three
teachers demonstrated very low average frequencies of praise during baseline in the
generalization setting and much higher average frequencies of behavior corrections
during baseline in the generalization setting. All three teachers increased their praise
statements during modeling and performance feedback and feedback only conditions,
with Teacher 1 displaying the highest average frequencies of praise, Teacher 2 the
second highest, and Teacher 3 the lowest.
Figure 4. Teachers’average frequency per session of praise and behavior correction in the generaliza-
tion setting.
254 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Teachers 1 and 2 gave higher levels of behavior corrections in baseline com-
pared with intervention conditions. Teacher 1’s average frequency of behavior
corrections increased slightly during the performance feedback and modeling con-
dition and then decreased below baseline levels in the feedback only condition. In
contrast, Teacher 2’s average frequency of behavior corrections decreased sequen-
tially across modeling and performance feedback and feedback only conditions.
Conversely, Teachers 3’s behavior corrections did not substantially decrease after
intervention. In fact, her highest levels of behavior corrections in the generalization
setting were seen in the feedback only intervention condition of the study. Impor-
tantly, all teachers gave lower levels of praise and higher levels of behavior
correction after intervention in the generalization setting than in the intervention
setting.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between teachers’train-
ing in a 1:1 praise-to-behavior correction ratio and reductions in student disruptive
behavior in three general education classrooms. Specifically, three research ques-
tions were addressed: (a) Can teachers maintain a ratio of 1:1 praise-to-behavior
correction with training and performance feedback? (b) Is a 1:1 ratio sufficient to de-
crease student disruptive behavior in the general education classroom? (c) Do any
increases in teachers’use of a 1:1 ratio generalize to classrooms where no training
occurs?
Results of the study shown in Figure 1 suggest that general-education teachers who
gave little verbal praise before the intervention were able to maintain a 1:1 ratio of
praise-to-behavior correction and that there was a functional relationship between
higher ratios of praise-to-behavior correction and reductions in student disruptive be-
havior in the training setting. These results have two important implications for best
practices in classroom management. First, despite recommendations for teachers to
implement praise-to-behavior correction ratios between 4:1 and 8:1(Sugai, 2008;
Trussell, 2008), the data demonstrate that lower ratios are sufficient to decrease stu-
dent disruption to manageable levels. Because struggling teachers with no training
in the use of contingent praise may have difficulty achieving higher ratios of
praise-to-behavior correction, these results are promising in that they show that lower
ratios may have substantial benefits. Second, the study illustrates how a relatively
brief and minimally intrusive consultation procedure can improve teachers’use of
contingent praise.
The study extends previous research demonstrating the positive effects of teacher
praise on student performance (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Gable et al., 2009; Hall,
255Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Maag, 2001; Sutherland et al., 2002). Unlike previous inves-
tigations, this study illustrates a strategy to combine praise and behavior correction in
a reasonable and achievable way (i.e., through a 1:1 ratio) to reduce students’disrup-
tive behavior.
The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate effects of training teachers
to implement a 1:1 praise-to-behavior correction ratio on student disruption;
however, the praise-to-behavior correction ratio data in Figure 1 do not permit
evaluation of changes in teachers’relative frequencies of praise and behavior
correction across conditions. Conversely, Figure 2 suggests that although
Teachers 1, 2, and 3 increased their frequencies of praise substantially from base-
line levels, all three teachers continued to issue behavior correction statements
during intervention, with Teachers 2 and 3 maintaining similar frequencies
of behavior correction across baseline and intervention conditions. Therefore,
reductions in students’disruptive behavior in the training setting after
intervention were probably a function of teachers increasing their levels of
praise.
With respect to the third research question on generalization, data in Figure 3
suggest that Teachers 1 and 2 displayed moderate generalization of the 1:1 ratio
to a classroom setting in which no training occurred; however, this did not pro-
duce substantial reductions in students’disruptive behavior. In contrast, Teacher
3 did not generalize her use of the 1:1 ratio until the last several sessions of the
study, and no reductions in students’disruptive behavior were observed in her
classroom.
Data on teachers’average frequencies of praise and behavior correction across
conditions, shown in Figure 4, indicate that Teachers 1 and 3 maintained higher
frequencies of behavior correction than praise in the generalization setting through-
out the study. Although Teacher 2 displayed higher frequencies of praise than
behavior correction after intervention, her levels of praise were substantially lower
in the generalization setting than in the intervention setting. Given lower frequencies
of praise and higher frequencies of behavior correction, it is unsurprising that
smaller reductions in student disruptive behavior were observed in the generalization
setting.
Two additional factors may account for the lack of generalization effects in the
non-training setting. First, students displayed relatively low levels of disruptive be-
havior in the generalization classrooms prior to intervention, particularly in Teacher
3’s classroom, thus limiting the likelihood of generalization effects. This finding is
important as it suggests that classroom-wide behavior management procedures may
be insufficient to entirely eliminate disruptive behavior in classrooms and that multi-
component or individualized interventions are indicated in most situations (Sugai &
Horner, 2008). Second, given differences in student characteristics across classroom
256 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
settings, some teachers may require explicit instruction (i.e., modeling and perfor-
mance feedback) on how to use behavior-specific praise in each classroom setting,
particularly in classrooms where students are not displaying high levels of disruption.
Thus, a train-and-hope strategy to promote generalization (Stokes & Baer, 1977), as
used in the current study, was insufficient to promote teachers’use of the 1:1 ratio
across settings.
LIMITATIONS
The study has three limitations that should be considered with respect to results.
First, although teachers demonstrated higher levels of praise during the intervention
conditions of the study, it is not known whether they continued to implement the
1:1 ratio after the feedback only condition was withdrawn. In the absence of mainte-
nance data, it is not possible to conclude whether the 1:1 ratio became a long-term
component of teachers’classroom management practices.
Second, although the primary components of intervention were modeling and per-
formance feedback, the first author also worked with each teacher to refine his or her
classroom rules so that they were operationally defined and positively stated. There-
fore, students’lowered levels of disruption in the training setting could be attributed,
in part, to a change in classroom rules. On the contrary, rewording the classroom
rules was necessary to occasion behaviors that could be reinforced with praise, and
thus was an essential element of the intervention. Although teachers were not given
any instruction to modify their classrooms rules in the generalization setting, Teach-
ers 1 and 2 adopted similar classroom rules in both settings; thus, behavior changes
in both the training and generalization settings could be partially attributed to this
change in rules. However, given that teachers had lower frequencies of praise and
higher frequencies of behavior correction in the generalization setting, it is unlikely
that classroom rules had much positive effect on students’disruption in the gener-
alization setting.
Finally, the agent of intervention, the first author, was a consultant hired by
the school to assist in the implementation of classroom-wide and school-wide be-
havior support. Some school systems, particularly those in low socioeconomic
status communities, may not have the resources to hire external consultants, thus
limiting the practicality of intervention. However, given the relative simplicity of
procedures, supervisory or consulting staff working within a school (e.g., school
psychologists, administrators, behavior support team members) could feasibly im-
plement modeling and performance feedback in the absence of resources for
external consultants.
257Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
FUTURE RESEARCH
The results highlight a number of areas for future research. First, the study demon-
strates that general-education teachers can learn to use a 1:1 praise-to-behavior
correction ratio; however, follow-up data were not collected to assess whether teach-
ers continued to use the 1:1 ratio after feedback was removed. Thus, future research
should address the issue of durability with this intervention, including maintenance
data collection at sufficient intervals (e.g., 3 months, 6 months) to evaluate whether
the 1:1 ratio becomes an embedded part of teachers’classroom management
practices.
Second, although the 1:1 ratio appears to be a promising technique to reduce
disruptive behavior, there are varying recommendations about optimal ratios of
praise-to-behavior correction in the literature (e.g., 4:1, 8:1). Therefore, parametric
studies to evaluate the comparative effects of both higher and lower ratios
(e.g., 4:1 versus 1:1) are warranted to determine whether higher ratios of praise
-to-behavior correction do, in fact, lead to greater reductions in problem behavior
and can be implemented and sustained by general education teachers who use very
low rates of verbal praise.
Finally, given the relative paucity of generalization effects observed in the cur-
rent study, future research is needed to determine strategies for promoting
teachers’generalized use of a 1:1 ratio of praise-to-behavior correction across
classroom settings. Such generalization strategies would need to account for
varying levels of disruptive behavior across classrooms, as was observed in this
study.
REFERENCES
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.), (2002). English language learners with special education needs:
Identification, assessment, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Brayboy, B., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all? Examining race in
education scholarship. Review of Research in Education,31, 159–194.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research,64, 363–423.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and
reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behav-
iour. Educational Psychology,28, 693–710.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd edn.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Gable, R., Hester, P., Rock, M., & Hughes, K. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and
reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic,44, 195–205.
258 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,1,1–12.
Henley, M. (2010). Classroom management: A proactive approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Keiper, R., & Busselle, K. (1996). The rural educator and stress. Rural Educator,17,18–21.
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kokkinos, C. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal
of Educational Psychology,77, 229–243.
Lee, D., & Axelrod, S. (2005). Behavior modification: Basic principles. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of
Education,3, 155–171.
Maag, J. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in
schools. Exceptional Children,67, 173–186.
Morrison, G., Anthony, S., Storino, M., & Dillon, C. (2001). An examination of the disciplinary
histories and the individual and educational characteristics of students who participate in an in-school
suspension program. Education and Treatment of Children,24, 276–93.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,”1993–94 and 1999–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Author.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Gilbertson, D. N., Ranier, D. D., & Freeland, J. T. (1997). Increasing teacher
intervention implementation in general education settings through consultation and performance
feedback. School Psychology Quarterly,12,77–88.
Noell, G., Witt, J., Slider, N. Connell, J., Gatti, L., Williams, K., et al. (2005). Treatment implementation
following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School
Psychology Review,34,87–106.
Rathel, J. M., Drasgow, E., & Christle, C. C. (2008). Effects of supervisor performance feedback on
increasing preservice teachers’positive communication behaviors with students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,16,67–77
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in
classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of
Children,31, 351–380.
Stearns, E., & Glennie, E. (2006). When and why dropouts leave high school. Youth and Society,38,
29–57.
Stichter, J., Lewis, T., Whittaker, T., Richter, M., Johnson, N., & Trussell, R. (2009). Assessing
teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies:
Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions,11,68–81.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis,10, 349–367.
Sugai, G. (2008, August). Is PBIS evidence-based? Presentation to the Illinois Leadership Forum, Rosemont,
IL. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/common/pbisresources/presentations/0808sgpbisevidencebased_IL.
ppt
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in
schools. Exceptionality,16,67–77.
Sutherland, K., & Wehby, J. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in class-
rooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education,35,
161–71.
259Praise-to-behavior correction ratio
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Sutherland, K., Wehby, J., & Yoder, P. (2002). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise
and opportunities for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders,10,5–14.
Trussell, R. P. (2008). Classroom universals to prevent problem behaviors. Intervention in School and
Clinic 43, 179–185.
Wheeler, J. J., & Richey, D. D. (2010). Behavior management: Principles and practices of positive
behavior supports (2nd edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
260 J. Pisacreta et al.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 243–260 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
