Forty years later--the value of praise, ignoring, and rules for preschoolers at risk for behavior disorders.

Abstract

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

**********

Among public school teachers who abandon the profession due to dissatisfaction with teaching as a career, the primary reason is classroom behavior problems (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Unfortunately, discipline problems are commonplace in many schools, and the majority of these problems emanate from behavior patterns established during the early childhood years (Webster-Stratton, 2000). Although estimates vary, approximately 3-6% of the school-age population is in need of special education services because of emotional/behavioral problems (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009). Research further indicates that between 7 to 25% of young children demonstrate externalizing behavior disorders (Loeber, Burke, Lahey, Winters, & Zera, 2000). According to Webster-Stratton (1997), 50% of preschoolers with behavior problems are later identified for special education services. In general, poor social-emotional adjustment is associated with later academic problems (Loeber, 1990; Markowitz et al., 2006). Children with challenging behavior receive less support, nurturing, and positive feedback than other children (Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993). Finally, both teachers and students tend to reject children who exhibit challenging behavior (Kendziora, 2004).

Children who begin their schooling with a repertoire of behaviors that are appropriate to the classroom are more likely to be successful learners (Conroy, Hendrickson, & Hester, 2004; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Yet, despite empirical evidence of successful early interventions for young children at risk for or with behavior problems (e.g., McEvoy & Welker, 2000; Strain & Timm, 2001, Webster-Stratton, 2000), it is not uncommon to find classrooms characterized by teacher reprimands for inappropriate behavior (Van Acker, 2004), coercive interchanges between teachers and children (Kern, White, & Gresham, 2007; Shores et al., 1993), and limited use of positive teacher feedback (Sugai & Horner, 2006). This underscores the need for teachers to have the skills necessary to promote positive pupil classroom behavior (Kenziora, 2004).

Researchers (e.g., Dodge; 1993; Kaiser & Hester, 1997) have long emphasized the importance of quality early childhood education that is determined, to a large extent, by the nature of teacher-pupil interactions (DeKruif, McWilliam, Ridley, & Wakely, 2000). That is, quality instruction stems not only from the content of the curriculum, but also the process of teaching, that is, how teachers teach a curriculum and how they interact with children (DeKruif et al., 2000; Pianta, 2006). This conceptualization highlights the pivotal role of teachers of young children with challenging behaviors and the goal of establishing positive, supportive, inclusive learning environments that stem from empirically-supported teaching strategies (IDEA, 1997, 2004: NCLB, 2002). With the current emphasis on a multi-tiered approach to positive behavior supports (Sugai & Horner, 2006), we decided to revisit classroom-level interventions strategies for which there is longitudinal evidence regarding their efficacy--namely, praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules.

Three of the most widely researched strategies for supporting positive, adaptive behavior of young children are praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules. These strategies were first researched and recommended over forty years ago (e.g., Becker, Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas; 1967; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas; 1968; Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). Notwithstanding empirical support, not all teachers make regular use of these strategies. Arguably, establishing positive learning communities, fostering children's academic and social learning, and managing the difficult behaviors of young children are more critical today than forty years ago. With the great range of diversity that characterizes present day classrooms, these goals remain elusive without teacher understanding of how to competently implement the basic strategies of praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules. In the following discussion, we examine and highlight the circumstances under which praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules are most likely to have a positive influence on the classroom community and individual children, discuss factors that can negatively impact outcomes, and provide examples related to implementation. To be successful, it is essential that preschool teachers of children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders be well versed on the proper use and potential pitfalls of these three basic strategies.

Praise

Simply put, praise is a verbal statement that follows (and sometime temporally overlaps) a target behavior. The general intent is to provide positive feedback, encourage, and support the occurrence of the target behavior (e.g., sharing, accurate performance, sticking to a task). Thus, when praise is well-timed and appropriate to the child, the task, and the situation, the target behavior is likely to be strengthened and occur again at a future time. Beginning with empirical studies by Zimmerman and Zimmerman (1962), Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas (1967), and Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1967), the use of teacher praise has been associated with increases in children's correct responses, level of task engagement, and frequency of appropriate behavior. The effectiveness of praise is grounded in the applied behavior analysis principle of positive reinforcement which states that a consequence (in this case, praise) that immediately follows a behavior results in the strengthening of that behavior and that the person (e.g., the child) is more likely to engage in that behavior again in the future (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). Conversely, if the target behavior decreases, the variables associated with praise may need to be reexamined and/or altered to increase its effectiveness. As noted, over the years praise continues to be identified as a key strategy in promoting positive teacher-child relationships and establishing supportive learning environments (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009; Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1999). To be effective, there are a number of guidelines for making the most of this time-honored strategy. In the following section we discuss critical factors that impact the effectiveness of praise. These include (a) contingency, (b) immediacy, (c) consistency, (d) effect on the behavior, (e) proximity, (f) specificity, (g) opportunities to respond, and (h) characteristics of the consequence. In addition, we discuss collateral effects that can result when implementing the use of praise.

Contingency

The relationship between a target behavior and a praise statement is known as the contingency. When the target behavior occurs, it should predictably be followed by teacher praise. The use of contingent praise has strong empirical support (Stormont et al., 2007; Strain & Joseph, 2004). By way of example, if the teacher praises the child each time the child is behaving appropriately (e.g., answering a question correctly, attending to a task, or positively interacting with a peer), she is praising contingent on the target behavior. The temporal relationship between the behavior and the praise statement (reinforcer) is the contingency.

Praise that is delivered contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior can also have collateral effects. For example, Jennifer is notoriously possessive, and developing her cooperative behavior (specifically sharing) is a priority goal identified by both her mother and her teacher. One afternoon Jennifer is playing at a table with play dough, and although she rarely allows other children the use of materials in her possession, Jennifer hands the oval cookie cutter to Scott. Jennifer's teacher takes advantage of the moment to use supportive praise. "Jennifer, it's very nice of you to share the cookie cutter with Scott." After which, Jennifer smiles broadly, her eyes twinkle, and she hands another cookie cutter to Scott. In turn, the teacher is reinforced for her alertness, for observing the sharing behavior, for briefly stopping what she was doing, and for praising Jennifer. The teacher then makes a mental note to email Jennifer's mom, and says, "Jennifer, I know your mom will be very proud that you shared today! I can't wait to tell her." The simple act of contingently applying praise not only appears to reinforce Jennifer because she shared a second cookie cutter with Scott, but also has the collateral benefit of reinforcing an array of other positive behavior support strategies (e.g., positive communication with family).

Immediacy

For praise to be effective, it should occur immediately after the behavior occurs, especially if the praise is delivered for a behavior that the child has not yet mastered. Immediate praise that emphasizes the correctness of a task (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) helps to keep the focus on the target behavior. If praise is delayed, there is the potential for unexpected collateral effects. For example, Mr. Johnson is careful to say, "Good job," each time after Devon raises his hand, but he begins to notice that Devon has stopped raising his hand. When Mr. Johnson talks to the paraprofessional about this, he is surprised when the paraprofessional says that she actually thought Mr. Johnson had been praising "coloring," not "hand-raising." Although the Mr. Johnson is glad Devon was not disruptive, he realizes that his praise was delayed and he was reinforcing "work" behavior and not the target behavior of "hand-raising." The teacher recognizes that he needs to praise Devon immediately after raising his hand or while Devon has his hand raised.

Consistency

Children are more successful when behavior supports are consistently applied (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Systematically delivered praise is one of the important positive behavior support strategies at the teacher's disposal, especially when teaching a new skill or behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). If praise is unpredictable, that is, sometimes a behavior is praiseworthy and sometimes it is not, confusion can arise.

It is not uncommon for teachers to overestimate their use of praise. Teachers may believe that they use praise appropriately and often, yet in spite of their efforts, the same students continue to misbehave. These kinds of teacher statements are supported by the empirical literature (see Anderson & Hendrickson, 2007; Shores et al., 1993) which documents a discrepancy between teacher perceptions of their use of a variety of teaching strategies and their actual classroom use of those strategies. For example, rates of praise in classrooms for students with behavioral disorders reportedly range from 1.2 to 4.5 per hour for each student, while the ratio of reprimands to praise statements is 3:1 (Sutherland, & Wehby, 2001). It is unlikely that the teachers in this study would believe that they were providing three times the rate of reprimands to praise, but perception and classroom reality often do not coincide. In fact, use of reprimands is highly predictable in teacher interactions with low performing students (Van Acker, Grant, & Henry, 1996).

The principles of applied behavior analysis are clear--consistent praise (reinforcement) each time the appropriate behavior occurs is best when teaching a new behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). Therefore, it is vital for teachers to be aware of the fact that there may be a disconnect between what they intend to do in classrooms and what they actually do. Self-check procedures for intervention fidelity (e.g., via occasional video tapings, peer coaching) can improve the likelihood that teachers will consistently engage in supportive teaching behaviors such as praise (Gable et al., 2009). Once a behavior is established (or learned), that behavior can be maintained by the judicious use of intermittent praise (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010) and new behaviors can be identified for more frequent praise.

Though it is irrational to expect a teacher with a classroom full of children to praise a single child each and every time a target behavior occurs during the entire day, consistent praise remains a key element in teaching a new behavior. The solution is simple. It begins by identifying a critical skill or behavior for a child that needs to be increased and the activity or time period that will provide the greatest opportunity for success. Once a child's target behavior increases and maintains during this shorted time period, the teacher can maintain the target behavior during this time period with intermittent praise, and select another time period or activity in which to praise consistently.

Effect on the Behavior

Despite empirical evidence on the effectiveness of praise in increasing positive student behavior, praise certainly is not a positive reinforcer for every student or a given student every time (Brophy, 1981). To determine the utility of praise, the teacher must observe its effect on the child's behavior (Brophy, 1981). The observant teacher will note that praise is positive for one student but negative for another (Ollendick & Shapiro, 1984). If the child continues the task for which he is praised, smiles, and looks pleased, it is likely that praise is being applied effectively. On the other hand, if a child stops engaging in the target behavior, initiates inappropriate behavior, and scowls and talks back, it is likely that praise is not the preferred intervention.

The effect of praise on a child's behavior also is related to the child's developmental level (Spiker, Hebbeler, & Mallik, 2005) and stage of learning (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002) with regard to the behavior or skill of interest. If a child is very competent in a particular skill, praise may actually worsen the child's performance (Kast & Connor, 1988). Moreover, praising children in front of their peers can be counterproductive if those children view teacher praise as embarrassing (Brophy, 1998; Long & Morse, 1996) or do not want to be singled out for recognition by the teacher (Feldman, 2003). In addition, praise can have a contradictory effect because some children do not have the desire to please their teachers. To enhance the reinforcing value of teacher praise with these children, it is advisable to deliver praise in situations in which the child is engaged in highly preferred activities. In any case, it is essential for teachers to monitor the effect of praise statements on children's performance. As we have emphasized, effective praise statements are those statements that maintain or increase a child's positive involvement in the learning community. Finally, it is important to note that the use of praise does not negate the importance of direct instruction of academic skill deficits and the use of positive and/or corrective feedback on specific aspects of task performance.

Proximity

Generally speaking, close proximity is especially advantageous when praising a child (Feldman, 2003; Shores et al., 1993). First, close proximity enables the teacher to be sure that he or she has the student's attention and that the teacher can observe any immediate subtle responses that the child might make (e.g., smile, physical tension). Second, the teacher can somewhat 'block' competing environmental stimuli (e.g., noise level, visual distractions) and ensure the student recognizes the positive intent of the praise statement. Third, the teacher can establish proximity by joining in an ongoing activity, moving to the child's location or by asking the child to come to him for a private conversation.

On the other hand, close proximity to the child may not always be possible, and generally speaking, it is better to praise than to miss an opportunity. Group praise is an option in such situations, and the teacher can identify two or more children by name as part of the group praise (e.g., "This team is doing a great job of taking turns. Jeremy, Dakota, and Alison, thanks for throwing the ball to others!"). If the teacher wants to praise a small or large group of children (e.g., "Gators, you are all doing a good job picking up the toys!"), she will necessarily be closer to some children than others. For children for whom teacher praise is not yet reinforcing, group praise can be a first step strategy the teacher uses to establish his praise as rewarding to the child.

Praise may be made even more salient and take on reinforcing properties by pairing it repeatedly with a primary reinforcer (e.g., pairing praise with access to a favorite toy or activity). Moreover, the use of group contingencies can foster increased peer interactions and interdependence others (McCarty, Griffin, Apolloni, & Shores, 1977).

Specificity

Early researchers (Becker et al., 1967; Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962) advocated the use of praise statements following positive behaviors and correct responding, and early childhood programs implementing best practices were filled with teacher echoes of "Good boy" and "Good girl." Although this basic approach may be effective in increasing the frequency of child behavior, its overall utility as a positive behavior support strategy is limited. Excessive, redundant use of any praise statement can potentially render it non-reinforcing (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). In fact, the unexpected consequence may be that such utterances begin to trigger inappropriate behavior in some children as the statements themselves become aversive to the listener. The collateral chain of events might include the teacher's perception that she tried praise and it did not work, that difficult-to-manage children do not belong in her classroom, or that it is better to not interact with certain children in order to avoid any escalation of negative behavior.

Praise that specifically describes the behavior that the teacher is trying to develop is less likely to become redundant or aversive to the child and more likely to be effective than statements such as "good job" (Feldman, 2003). Statements that contain specific task-related information are more effective than general praise (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Stormont et al., 2007). Specific praise includes such statements as "Megan, thanks for walking to the pencil sharpener," "Lu, you are playing quietly with your friend, Kena," and "You paint beautifully, Ricco. I love all of those colors." These types of statements are especially beneficial for the child learning a new skill or a student who may be anxious about performing a skill or particular behavior. Finally, precise praise has the potential collateral impact of allowing other children to understand teacher and classroom expectations that may be unclear to them (Gable et al., 2009).

Opportunities to Respond

Sutherland, Wehby, and Yoder (2002) found there was a significant correlation between teacher praise and opportunities to respond to academic requests in a sample of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Teachers with high rates of praise provided students with many opportunities to respond. Conversely, teachers with low rates of praise gave students fewer response opportunities, thereby decreasing the overall learning rate and the overall rate of positive teacher-child interactions. An effective way for teachers to improve their rate of praise to children is to design instructional sequences that allow students frequent opportunities to respond (and to respond correctly). Proactively increasing the number of response opportunities creates more chances for successful student performance, and more instances for teacher praise (Sutherland et al., 2002), as well as the likelihood of enhancing a teacher's sense of self-efficacy. Moreover, a higher rate of positive teacher-child interaction is likely to improve the teacher's view of a student's learning potential and his or her place in the classroom learning community.

Characteristics of the Consequence

According to behavioral theory, for a reinforcer (e.g., praise) to be effective, the child whose behavior is to be sustained or changed must be in a relative state of deprivation in relation to that reinforcer (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). Therefore, the effectiveness of praise is diminished if the same statement is used repeatedly (Brophy, 1981; Kast & Connor, 1988). When a child perceives teacher praise as insincere (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Brophy, 1998) and intended to manipulate the child into behaving in a certain way, praise can actually undermine the child's intrinsic motivation (Kast & Connor) and enjoyment of the task or activity. Once a child has acquired a skill, for example, and the teacher continues to praise him every time he sits up straight, waits in line appropriately, or listens attentively, praise may become irrelevant (Brophy, 1988).

Intuitively and empirically, we know that praise that is enthusiastic is more likely to retain its reinforcing value (Filcheck, McNeil, & Herschell, 2001). Furthermore, praise must be matched to the individual child's behavior and performance level (Hattie, 1993; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Praise statements become more effective if they are novel and vary. They should be appropriate to a child's age, specific to the target behavior, and take into account a child's likes, dislikes, and past performance. What works for one child will not necessarily be appropriate for another child. Although many praise statements are likely to be similar across settings for young children at risk for behavior disorders, it is especially important that teachers get to know each child, build a positive relationship, and identify praise statements that best suit that child.

To summarize, teachers and childcare workers of young children at risk for behavior disorders have a powerful tool in the form of teacher praise. Teacher praise is a well-documented strategy which can enhance children's behavior, positively impact teacher-child relationships, and promote teachers' sense of self-efficacy To be effective, however, praise must be delivered with attention to its immediate impact on the child's behavior. Strategies for maintaining the reinforcing quality of praise include applying praise contingently, immediately, and consistently. It is also advisable to use specific praise and be in close proximity to the child when using praise. Finally, by planning lessons that provide multiple opportunities for children to respond, teachers give themselves increased opportunities to praise and children have increased opportunities to practice and acquire important skills.

Teacher Use of Planned Ignoring

According to Spira and Fischel (2005), around age four, there is a substantial increase in a child's ability to direct his or her attention and to function in more formal, structured settings. In addition, children are developing more self-regulatory behavior. Planned ignoring, used correctly, can assist the child in discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. To employ planned ignoring as a means of reducing minor disruptive or inappropriate behaviors, the teacher must first confirm the assumption that teacher/adult attention is reinforcing to the child. Planned ignoring basically is an extinction procedure designed to weaken, decrease, or eliminate a behavior by abruptly withdrawing or terminating the reinforcer that is maintaining the behavior (Sheuermann & Hall, 2008). For example, when the teacher does not attend to the "whining" behavior of a child, it signals to the child that whining will not gain the teacher's attention (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). If the teacher says, "Remember, use your words," prior to turning away from the whining child, the teacher will have modeled an appropriate alternative for the child. Thereafter, combining attention for the appropriate tone of voice and use of words, paired with systematic planned ignoring should result in the weakening or cessation of the target behavior (Ryan, Sanders, Katsiyannis, & Yell, 2007). One must be ever mindful, however, that extinction means removing the reinforcer that is maintaining the behavior. Ignoring a target behavior will only decrease behavior if attention is the reinforcer (Alberto & Troutman). To illustrate, if a child takes a toy out of the classroom and the teacher ignores this behavior, ignoring is unlikely to cause the behavior of taking toys to weaken because, in this case, the function of the behavior is to obtain the toy, not to gain teacher attention.

As in our discussion of effective use of praise, we will examine factors that are as critical in the effective implementation of planned ignoring. These factors parallel the principles needed to successfully use praise, including (a) pairing planned ignoring with reinforcement strategies, (b) contingency, (c) immediacy, (d) consistency, (e) specificity, (f) characteristics of planned ignoring, and (g) the effect on the behavior.

Pairing Planned Ignoring with Reinforcement Strategies

Any time a procedure is implemented to reduce an inappropriate behavior, the empirical literature supports the simultaneous implementation of a procedure for reinforcing an appropriate incompatible or alternative positive behavior to replace the undesirable behavior (Ryan et al., 2007). As noted earlier, this dualistic approach should be helpful to the young child who is developing self-regulatory abilities. Walker, Ramsey, and Gresham (2003) also contend that without instruction on how to behave, children's behavior problems will persist. This is especially true when using an extinction procedure. For instance, in the whining example, ignoring whining in a preschool classroom generally means not talking to, looking at, or interacting with the child while the child is whining. Then, contingent on the cessation of whining for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 3-5 seconds), the teacher attends to the alternative quiet, non-whining behavior by looking at, talking to, and praising the child (e.g., "I like that quiet, quiet sound") or by attending to the child when he uses an appropriate tone of voice (e.g., "You are using your words! How can I help you?").

Contingency

As in the use of praise, contingency, immediacy, and consistency are essential elements when using planned ignoring. Specifically, ignoring an inappropriate behavior means that the teacher ignores the target behavior whenever the child first begins to exhibit that behavior. Then, contingent on the cessation of the behavior, the teacher praises the child for an appropriate behavior that replaces the behavior being ignored. For example, when Katie calls out saying, "Ask me! Ask me!" the teacher turns away from Katie and calls on another child who is sitting quietly with his hand raised. Later, when the teacher asks another question, she notices Katie raises her hand without calling out to be recognized and she immediately calls on her and praises her for waiting quietly.

Immediacy

To insure that the connection between the negative target behavior and teacher ignoring is clear to the child, planned ignoring should occur immediately upon the occurrence of the behavior that the teacher plans to ignore. Thus, a general rule for the teacher is to be quick to ignore inappropriate behavior and quick to praise the desired replacement behavior.

Consistency

Teachers often complain that ignoring does not work, when in actuality teachers are implementing planned ignoring inappropriately. Teachers may believe they are being consistent, yet from time to time they may attend, inadvertently, to the target behavior. This intermittent attention, even a glance or facial expression, may reinforce the very behavior the teacher is trying to eliminate. Unfortunately, these intermittent slips translate into intermittent reinforcement of the child's behavior, and intermittently reinforced behavior is the most difficult to decrease (Witt, VanDerHeyden, & Gilbertson, 2006). Moreover, if teachers attend to an inappropriate behavior occasionally, children are likely to continue to engage in that behavior, even if teacher attention is negative (e.g., "Stop talking, JJ."). Consistency and immediacy are critical to successful implementation of planned ignoring procedures (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Teachers who chose to use planned ignoring must be cognizant of the possible unanticipated strengthening of a target behavior if they do not carefully and consistently ignore.

Specificity

We know that when teachers increase their use of specific and contingent praise, improvement occurs in student behavior and academic skills (Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000). This is especially true when teachers are reinforcing children for appropriate behaviors as alternatives to the behavior being ignored. To reiterate, specifically describing the desirable and undesirable behavior can help the child distinguish between what is unacceptable and what is expected behavior. For example, teachers need to tell children exactly what they are praising and which inappropriate behaviors they will not pay attention to (e.g., "Jerome, if you talk out in class today, J will not pay attention or call on you. When you raise your hand and sit quietly, I will call on you."). Specifically describing the desirable and undesirable behavior can help the child distinguish between what is unacceptable and what is expected behavior.

Characteristics of the Consequence

In an extinction procedure, there is the assumption that by withholding reinforcement, the inappropriate behavior of the child will weaken or cease. However, there are times that the inappropriate behavior of a child is being reinforced in other ways--by the child's classroom peers, the pleasure the student gets from the behavior itself, or the opportunity to escape from an undesirable activity or task (Brunhill, 2005; Gable et al., 2009). Thus, teachers must be observant and attempt to determine the function of the child's behavior (Crawford, Brockel, Schauss, & Mittenberger, 1992). In other words, what is the purpose of the child's behavior? Does the behavior function to gain social attention? Is the behavior self-reinforcing? Does the behavior enable the child to avoid or escape an undesirable situation? Does the child gain access to a desired object through the behavior? If the teacher consistently, immediately, and contingently ignores the inappropriate behavior, and likewise, praises all instances of an alternative appropriate replacement behavior and the inappropriate behavior continues, it is likely that attention from the teacher is not the reinforcer in effect. In these instances, the teacher could continue to ignore, but the child's behavior would not decrease.

Effect on the Behavior

Extinction is a procedure that reduces behavior by abruptly withdrawing or terminating the maintaining reinforcer for that behavior (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). There are, however, a number of side effects to extinction that must be understood if one uses planned ignoring as a strategy to reduce or eliminate a behavior maintained by teacher attention. In an extinction strategy, when a teacher begins to systematically ignore an inappropriate behavior by withholding reinforcement (again, assuming that teacher praise and attention are the reinforcers maintaining the inappropriate behavior), then, based on behavioral theory, the inappropriate behavior often increases before it begins to weaken (O'Leary, Becker Evans, & Saudargas, 1969). This increase in inappropriate behavior is expected. The child is now trying harder than before to get the teacher's attention. If the teacher continues to immediately and consistently ignore the child's behavior, the inappropriate behavior will ultimately subside. However, many teachers find it difficult to continue to ignore when the child's behavior escalates. It is reassuring to know that an escalation in the child's behavior confirms the likelihood that teacher attention is the motivation behind the behavior. On the other hand, if a teacher cannot tolerate an increase in the problem behavior, even on a temporary basis, then planned ignoring is not an appropriate strategy. If the teacher is uncomfortable with the possible trajectory of the child's behavior, it is likely that he will be less consistent in the implementation of planned ignoring. As we have discussed, inconsistent ignoring may result in intermittent reinforcement of the behavior and make the behavior even more resistant to intervention (Witt et al., 2006).

Planned ignoring is an effective strategy with young preschool children with challenging behavior provided the teacher adheres to the basic principles of contingency, immediacy, consistency, and specificity, and employs planned ignoring with behaviors that are maintained by teacher attention. Equally important, the teacher should reinforce appropriate replacement behaviors in conjunction with the use of planned ignoring.

Classroom Rules

Over the years, classroom rules have established standards for student safety, classroom order, and decorum (Kerr & Nelson, 2010; Van Acker, 2007). The general consensus is that classroom rules should be few, easy to understand, positively stated, and enforceable (Hem-meter, 2007; Gable et al., 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010). In addition, positive social and self-regulatory behaviors that are associated with academic success (Spira & Fischel, 2005) can be promoted and sustained with systematic application of classroom rules.

Classroom rules that cover multiple situations and address routine classroom activities are most parsimonious. Examples of simple rules that can be generalized across preschool settings and activities are rules such as "Be safe. Be responsible. Be respectful." These kinds of rules are suited to many teaching-learning contexts. Most educators recognize that rules offer predictability in the classroom environment (Van Acker, 2007), and are, therefore, an important element of any behavior management plan. Furthermore, rules can, and should be, used to encourage students to accept increased responsibility for their own behavior. Each set of formal expectations (i.e., classroom and school-wide rules) should be carefully taught to children and, thereafter, publicly posted, reviewed, and practiced on a regular basis.

Some educators (Burden, 2006; Maag, 2004) advocate having children help to develop the rules. Children can be creative and knowledgeable in their ideas regarding rule development and consequences for rule violation. When children participate, they are more likely to be vested in the rules; however, the teacher will need to guide students in discussing potential rules and the consequences for infractions as children tend to suggest consequences that are too harsh or cannot be enforced (Gable et al., 2009).

Teachers frequently mistake the development, discussion, and posting of rules as sufficient for effectively implementing them. Also, it is a mistake to assume that young children know and will remember what the each rule means from day to day. Children need to be systematically taught how to comply with each classroom rule. Appropriate, rule-following behavior needs to be modeled and the consequences of misbehavior demonstrated (e.g., Burden, 2006; Kerr & Nelson, 2006) until it is clear that the children truly understand the meaning of each rule. Paine and colleagues (Paine, Radicchi, Rosellini, Deutchman, & Darch, 1983) suggest that rules should be reviewed daily, using no more than 3-5 minutes. Graphic organizers and scaffolding strategies may be helpful in clarifying expected behavior and establishing classroom routines (Bear, 2005; Rock, 2004). By reviewing the rules daily, the rules will be fresh in the children's minds and teachers will be more likely to implement them consistently.

Though evidence suggests that increased compliance usually leads to a reduction in the incidence of problem behavior (Parrish, 1986), establishing rules does not guarantee positive outcomes. As with praise and planned ignoring, contingency, immediacy, consistency, specificity, characteristics of the consequence, and effect on the behavior are all factors that can contribute to rule compliance and a safe and productive learning environment.

Contingency, Immediacy, and Consistency

When a child complies with a classroom rule, the teacher should reinforce that child for adhering to a classroom rule. It can be a simple praise statement (e.g., "Susan, you are sitting up straight. I can tell you are ready to learn."). Likewise, upon the occurrence of a rule infraction, the teacher must follow through with the consequence for breaking that rule (Kerr & Nelson, 2010). It may be appropriate to ignore a minor infraction and praise a child who is exhibiting compliance; then, contingent on the child exhibiting the appropriate behavior, the child should be reinforced for compliance. The negative consequence of an infraction may be the removal of one of the tokens the child was earning for extra computer time. What is important is that there are predetermined consequences for rule compliance and rule infractions and these are delivered contingent on the child exhibiting the identified behaviors. Coupled with contingency is the need for consequences to be delivered immediately after the occurrence of the behavior. There are two aspects to effective use of rules, that is, teachers must be careful to provide positive consequences immediately upon the occurrence of the appropriate behavior, as well as quickly implementing the planned consequence for rule infractions.

As with any classroom-level intervention, teachers have to be consistent in the imposition of a previously identified consequence for every violation. Failure to do so renders rules ineffective (Madsen et al., 1968). Inconsistent enforcement of classroom rules represents a major source of teacher-pupil conflict (Gable et al., 2009). This suggests that teachers should monitor students' rule abiding behavior, reinforce appropriate rule-following, and address (repeated) violations as they occur (Grossman, 2004).

Specificity

Rhode, Jensen, and Reavis (1992) suggest the use of precision requests to increase student compliance. Precision requests consist of the student's name; a precise description of the required behavior; use of a polite and unemotional tone; and a wait time of at least five seconds for the student to comply (Rhode et al.). Children need to know exactly what they are being praised for and/or need to do more appropriately. For example, to praise specific rule compliance, a teacher might say, "Olivia, I like the way you listened while Michael was talking. You were being respectful of others." Likewise, if Olivia talks out, the teacher could give a reminder, "Olivia, remember to be respectful by listening to Michael when he is talking." This provides the appropriate strategy for compliance. When Olivia remains quiet, she should be praised, even if she was prompted to comply.

Characteristics of the Consequence

When there is a rule infraction, the teacher might initially provide a reminder of the rule, "Remember to 'Be safe'." If the child immediately begins to walk instead of run, the teacher should praise compliance--"You remembered to walk instead of run. It shows you are being safe." However, after a second reminder, the teacher might need to model the appropriate behavior and have the child imitate that behavior, praising compliance (as well as implementing a strategy for rule infraction). The consequence for rule compliance has to be as strong as, if not more powerful, than the consequence of noncompliance (Lewis & Sugai, 1996). Remember, too, that if a rule infraction is reinforced by teacher attention, a verbal redirection or reprimand would not be effective; rather it would serve to increase the very behavior the teacher is seeking to eliminate. This will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Effect on the Behavior

Students are more likely to follow classroom rules if they believe that teachers are cognizant of compliant versus non-compliant behavior (Kounin, 1970). Researchers suggest that teachers introduce strategies designed with a two-fold purpose: (a) to decrease the likely future occurrence of the behavior and (b) to increase the probability that a more acceptable behavior will occur (www.pbis.org, 2005). School personnel need to adhere to the "fair-pair" rule (White & Haring, 1980) and introduce one strategy to decrease problem behavior and another strategy to teach an appropriate substitute behavior. For example, praise for compliance (e.g., "Devon and Shanieka, the two of you have really worked hard to build that tower. Give me a high five for being respectful.") is more likely to increase respectful play than waiting until the teacher sees misbehavior and comments on it (e.g., "Devon and Shanieka, stop grabbing blocks from one another.").

The effect on the child's behavior determines whether or not the intervention strategy is effective. The reason for a child's failure to comply may be a function of (a) a skill deficit (the child does not possess the skill); (b) a performance deficit (the child possesses the skill, but does not engage in it); or (c) a self-control performance deficit (the child possesses the skill, but is unable to overcome competing forces--anger, frustration, fatigue) (e.g., Gresham, Van, & Cook, 2006; Van Acker, 2007). If rule compliance is not increasing, then it is imperative for the teacher to ascertain, "What can I do differently to increase rule compliance?" There are a number of questions to consider: Why is the child not complying? Does the child understand what the rule means and know how to comply with the rule? Does the child know the rule, but refuses to comply? Do I need to implement an intervention designed to teach the child ways to exercise self-control over his behavior? Am I, as the teacher, being consistent in my consequences to compliance and non-compliance? Do I have an appropriate rein-forcer for compliance? Are there other factors that are maintaining non-compliance (e.g., children in the classroom laughing at the child for rule infractions)? While it may not always be necessary to identify a student's motivation to misbehave (cf. Grossman, 2004; Lane, Gresham, & O'Shaughnessy, 2002), it probably is important to do so for any student who violates a rule three or more times (Gable et al., 2009).

Concluding Remarks

Programs for young children have changed significantly over the past forty years. Today, the typical preschool and elementary classroom serves an increasingly more heterogeneous group of children. The rapid growth in cultural and linguistic diversity of the school age population, coupled with recent legislative mandates (IDEA, 1997, 2004; NCLB, 2001) impact dramatically the demands upon and responsibilities of classroom teachers (Bagby, Rudd, & Woods, 2005). Youngsters enrolled in a given classroom today have a range of abilities and present a range of challenges unseen a few decades ago. These realities, along with increased behavioral challenges in the classroom, contribute to the high attrition rate among teachers and negative long-term outcomes for many children. Although there is no simple solution to resolving children's behavioral disorders, we do know teachers play a pivotal role in the young child's social emotional development and educational achievement. In light of the current emphasis on evidenced-based practices (NCLB), we reviewed critically three basic, readily available strategies that have withstood the test of time in terms of empirical support. Each the strategies we discussed reflect classroom-level interventions that can be an integral part of school-wide positive behavioral supports (Scheuermann & Hall, 2008). There is compelling evidence that these strategies can have a positive effect on child behavior and skill acquisition, contribute to enhancing the relationship between the child and the teacher, and collaterally may impact the teacher's sense of self-efficacy. Used appropriately and judiciously, praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules can form the basis of a safe, predictable learning community in which children of varying backgrounds, abilities, and needs can be successful learners.

Notwithstanding the efficacy of praise, planned ignoring, and classroom rules when implemented effectively in the classroom, there remain a number of variables that require increased examination. For instance, researchers need to delineate and verify the precise attributes of these strategies that are the most essential in increasing and supporting positive teacher-child interactions. Moreover, researchers need to identify the types of supports that teachers need to effectively use these strategies. In addition, there is a need for professional development programs to include these support strategies in their teacher training programs by providing future teachers with not only with the theoretical foundation, but also the skills required for successful implementation in the classroom. Child learning and behavior are imbedded in the teacher-child interaction and only when we begin to focus on both the supports that children need to enhance learning and positive behavior and the supports that teachers need to learn, implement, and sustain the effective implementation of evidence based strategies will we begin to see on a daily basis the types of high quality teacher interactions that we advocate.

References

Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

Anderson, L. F., & Hendrickson, J. M. (2007). Early-career EBD teacher knowledge, ratings of competency importance, and observed use of instruction and management competencies. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 43-65.

Bear, G. (2005). Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting misbehavior. Boston. Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Becker, W. C, Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., & Thomas, D. R. (1967). The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education, 1, 287-307.

Bagby, J. H., Rudd, L. D., & Woods, M. (2005). The effects of socioeconomic diversity on the language, cognitive and social-emotional development of children from low-income backgrounds. Early Child Development and Care, 175(5), 395-405.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 134-141.

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32.

Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-18.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management: Creating a successful K-12 learning community. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Conroy, M. A., Hendrickson, J. M., & Hester, P. P. (2004). Early identification and prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in behavioral disorders (pp. 199-215). NY: Guilford Publications.

Crawford, J., Brockel, B., Schauss, S., & Mittenberger, R. M. (1992). A comparison of methods for the functional assessment of stereotypic behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 77-86.

De Kruif, R.E.L., McWilliam, R. A., Ridley, S. M, & Wakely, M. B. (2000). Classification of teachers' interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 75(2), 247-268.

Dodge, K. A. (1993). The future of research on the treatment of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 311-319.

Feldman, S. (2003). The place for praise. Teaching PreK-8, 5, 6.

Filcheck, H. McNeil, C, & Herschell, A. (2001). Types of verbal feedback that affect compliance and general behavior in disruptive and typical children. Child Study Journal, 31, 225-248.

Gable, R. A., Hester, P. P., Rock, M., & Hughes, K. (2009). Back to basics--Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 195-205.

Gresham, F., M., Van, M. B., & Cook, C. R. (2006). Social skills training for teaching replacement behaviors: Remediating acquisition deficits in at risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 363-377.

Grossman, H. (2004). Classroom behavior management for diverse and inclusive schools. (3rd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hemmeter, M. L. (October, 2007). Program wide approaches to behavior support in early childhood settings. CCBD International Conference on Behavior Disorders. Dallas, TX.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, P.L. 105-17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446.

Kaiser, A. P., & Hester, P. P. (1997). Prevention of conduct disorders through early intervention: A social-communicative perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 22(3) 117-130.

Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and age differences in response to informational and controlling feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 514-523.

Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. L. (2008). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Kendziora, K. T. (2004). Early intervention for emotional and behavioral disorders. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 327-351). NY: Guilford Publications.

Kern, L., White, G. P., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Educating students with behavioral challenges. Principal, 86(4), 56-59.

Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom. (6th Ed.). Columbus OH: Merrill.

Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & O'Shaughnessy, T. E. (2001). Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assessment-based intervention to improve pro-social behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 6-24.

Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., Lahey, B. B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, Part 1. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1468-1484.

Long, N., & Morse, W. (1996). Conflict in the classroom: The education of at-risk and troubled students. Austin, TX: Pro-ED.

Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning.

Madsen, C. M., Becker, W. C, & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,139-150.

Markowitz, J., Carlson, E., Prey, W., Riley, J., Shimshak, A., Heinzen, H., et al. (2006). Preschoolers' characteristics, services, and results: Wave 1 overview report from the pre-elementary education longitudinal study (PEELS). Rockville, MD: Westat.

McCarty, T., Griffin, S., Appolloni, T., & Shores, R. (1977). Increased peer-teaching with group-oriented contingencies for arithmetic performance in behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 313.

McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 130-140.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110.

O'Leary, K. A., Becker, W. C, Evans, M. B., & Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school. A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13.

Ollendick, T. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). An examination of vicarious reinforcement processes in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 78-91.

Paine, S. C, Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. C, Deutchman, L., & Darch, C. B. (1983). Structuring your classroom for academic success. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Parrish, J. (1986). Experimental analysis of response covariation among compliant and inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 241-254.

Pianta, R. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: Implications for research and practice. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, & Contemporary Issues (pp. 685-710). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pianta, R. C, La Paro, K. M., Payne, C, Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225-238.

Raver, C, & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three-and four-year old children. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty.

Rhode, G., Jensen, W. R., & Reavis, K. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Rock, M. (2004). Graphic organizers: Tools to build behavioral literacy and foster emotional competency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 10-37.

Ryan, J. B., Sanders, S., Katsiyannis, & Yell, M. I. (2007). Using timeout effectively in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(4), 60-67.

Scheuermann, B. K., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Positive behavioral supports for the classroom. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.

Spiker, D., Hebbeler, K., & Mallik, S. (2005) Developing and implementing early intervention programs for children with established disabilities. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 305-350). Baltimore: Brookes.

Spira, E. G., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity on social and academic development: A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(7), 755-773.

Stormont, M, Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise statements in Head Start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavioral support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 280-290.

Strain, P. S., & Timm, M. A. (2001). Remediation and prevention of aggression: An evaluation of the RIP program over a quarter century. Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 297-313.

Strain, P. S., & Joseph, G. E. (2004). A not so good job with "good job": A response to Kohn 2001. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 6 (1), 55-60.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 2, 245-259.

Sutherland, K., & Wehby, J. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation of teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 35(3), 161-171.

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(1), 5-14.

Van Acker, R. (February, 2007). Strategies for dealing with classroom aggression. Paper presented at the Working Forum of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Las Vegas, NV.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1999). Antisocial behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brookes/Cole.

Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior at school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1997). Early intervention for families of preschool children with conduct problems. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early interventions (pp. 429-453). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Webster-Stratton, C. (2000). Oppositional-defiant and conduct-disordered children. In M. Hersen & R. T. Ammerman (Eds.), Advanced abnormal child psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 387-412). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching: A multimedia training package. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Witt, J., VanDerHeyden, A., & Gilbertson, D. (2006). Troubleshooting behavioral interventions: A systematic process for finding and eliminating problems. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 363-383.

Zimmerman, E. H., & Zimmerman, J. (1962). The alteration of behavior in an elementary classroom. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 50-60.

Peggy P. Hester

Old Dominion University 

Jo M. Hendrickson

University of Iowa 

Robert A. Gable

Old Dominion University

Peggy Hester, PhD, Child Study Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529; e-mail: [e-mail].