A Principal's Inservice Training Package for Increasing Teacher Praise

Abstract

This study examined the effects of a school principal's application of a behavioral training procedure, referred to as a Principal's Inservice Training Package, on the praise behaviors of all teachers in his school. A secondary purpose was to describe the subsequent changes in the disruptive behaviors and classwork and homework completion of selected students in each teacher's classroom. A multiple baseline design was applied across praise behaviors to demonstrate independence of these target behaviors. By sequentially applying the inservice training package to individual praise behaviors, the controlling effects of the package were shown. With the application of the inservice training package, the average rate of both specific praise and outside circle praise rose. Followup data taken one year later indicated that use of specific praise remained high, while outside circle praise remained higher than baseline. Changes in student behaviors following the introduction of the inservice training package included a decrease in disruptive behavior and an increase in work completion.Many studies have reported the effectiveness of applied behavior analysis procedures in improving both academic and social behavior in schools. However, relatively few of these studies involved the school principal as the behavior change agent. In those which did, the research dealt primarily with single subjects or groups of students. A limited number described how principals changed teacher behavior.Most applied behavior analysis research involving the principal as a change agent demonstrated the principal's direct modification of student behavior. Broden, Hall, Dunlap, and Clark (1970) reported an increase in study behavior and a decrease in disruptive behavior using a principal-applied token system and timeout procedures with children in one special education classroom. In this study a token procedure alone was successful in improving academic performance. However, one student's disruptive behavior was reduced only when a timeout procedure was added to the token system. Copeland, Brown, Axelrod, and Hall (1972) described three studies where the principal modified tardiness in one student, absenteeism in four students, and classroom disruptions of one student. Copeland, Brown, and Hall (1974) reported the positive effects of principal praise on academic achievement in two classrooms. Muller, Hasazi, Pierce, and Hasazi (1975) decreased disruptive lunchroom behavior of an entire school with a principal-mediated point system. Nau, Van Houten,

Behavior-Specific Praise in Pre-K–12 Settings: Mapping the 50-Year Knowledge Base

“…Other studies trained praise deliverers to provide BSP to the entire class or instructional group ( k = 44, 77.19%; n = 1,015; e.g., Keller, Brady, & Taylor, 2005; Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008). Three studies (5.66%; n = 868) directed praise to all students in the school, delivered by teachers (Armstrong, McNeil, & Van Houten, 1988), teachers and lunchroom staff (Wheatley et al, 2009), or peers (Teerlink et al, 2017). Three studies (5.66%) directed praise to target students and the entire class.…”

“…Three studies (5.66%) directed praise to target students and the entire class. For example, Armstrong et al (1988) trained teachers to deliver praise to targeted students; once teachers maintained stable levels of praise delivery, they were instructed to praise other students. Similarly, Duncan, Dufrene, Sterling, and Tingstrom (2013) trained teachers to deliver BSP to targeted students and then assessed generalization by seeing whether teachers delivered BSP to other students in the class without explicit generalization training (see Table 1).…”

“…The remaining studies provided coaching in groups ( k = 5, 10.00%; e.g., Reinke et al, 2007; van der Mars, 1989), dyads ( k = 2, 4.00%; Briere, Simonsen, Sugai, & Myers, 2015; Ploessl & Rock, 2014), or did not specify (i.e., Horton, 1975). Madsen et al (1968), Armstrong et al (1988), and Reinke et al (2007) provided feedback both individually and in groups.…”

“…Wright et al (2012) used a randomized control trial with delayed feedback, immediate feedback, and control groups. The most common SCRD was a multiple-baseline design ( k = 43, 75.44%), including both multiple baseline across behaviors ( k = 14, 24.56%; e.g., Armstrong et al, 1988; Rogers-Warren & Baer, 1976) and subjects ( k = 29, 50.88%; e.g., Keller et al, 2005; Reinke et al, 2008). Nine (15.79%) studies used withdrawal/reversal designs (e.g., Ploessl & Rock, 2014; Teerlink et al, 2017).…”

An analysis of general education teachers’ use of diverse praise

“…Despite the need for additional research to determine which praise characteristics are most effective, many studies have demonstrated that behavior improves after training teachers to use BSP (Armstrong, McNeil, & Van Houten, 1988;Dufrene et al, 2014;Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007). These studies confirm that BSP has a positive effect on students' behavior and for this reason BSP is often a component of preventative, universal programing that teaches and promotes appropriate student behavior (e.g., School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports [SWPBIS]).…”