What statistical test was used in Nelson et al., (2010)?
esolutions
what_statistical_test_q1.pdf
Using Teacher-Written Praise Notes to Promote a Positive Environment
in a Middle School
Julie A. Peterson Nelson, Benjamin J. Young, Ellie L. Young, and Gregory Cox
ABSTRACT: Teachers in 1 middle school learned about the positive effects of writing praise notes to students, which is 1 component of a positive behavior support. The authors intended for this pro- cedure to promote a positive school environment and reinforce the appropriate use of social skills. Also, the authors instructed the teachers to use a direct instruction model to teach social skills lessons during 1st-period classes and praise students when they effectively demonstrated these skills. The authors analyzed the data to determine whether students receiving praise notes were less likely to receive an office discipline referral (ODR). The data revealed a significant negative correlation between the number of praise notes and number of ODRs that students received, indicat- ing that as praise notes increased, the rate of ODRs decreased. The authors provide several hypotheses for this relation.
KEYWORDS: positive behavior support, praise, schoolwide inter- vention, teacher-written praise
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLWIDE MANAGEMENT of disrup-
tive behaviors is an ongoing national concern (Lewis &
Sugai, 1999; Scott, 2001; Turnbull et al., 2002). School vio-
lence, discipline, and safety have been among the top con-
cerns for U.S. educators (American Federation of Teachers,
1995–1996; Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1998; U.S. Department
of Education, 1995, 2005). When addressing students with
problem behaviors, many schools continue to rely on puni-
tive strategies (e.g., office or administrative disciplinary
interventions, suspensions, expulsions) that do little to cre-
ate a safe and positive educational environment (Lewis &
Garrison-Harrell, 1999). These types of interventions tend
to be reactionary rather than preventive and proactive.
In addition, these types of responses do little to teach
new behaviors or to increase the likelihood that positive
replacement behaviors would be used in the future (Knoff,
2003). Punitive disciplinary measures can certainly be one
approach to behavior management, but if punishment is
the only approach used, student behaviors are unlikely to
change over the long term. When administrators and other
school adults intentionally seek opportunities to build and
strengthen adult–youth relationships, they may actually be
decreasing the likelihood that students will act out in the
future (Young, Black, Marchant, Mitchem, & West, 2000).
To meet educational goals, educators must do more than
merely prevent antisocial behaviors; they must increase proso-
cial behaviors (Winette & Winkler, 1972). Unfortunately,
schools in the United States continue to encourage punish-
ment for problem behaviors (Noguera, 2003), which, in the
absence of a positive schoolwide system of support, has been
associated with increased aggression, vandalism, tardiness,
truancy, and dropouts (Mayer & Sulzer-Azeroff, 1991). Other
researchers have suggested that reinforcing positive behaviors
rather than punishing inappropriate behaviors is an effective
behavior-management system (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey,
1995). Hence, creating a positive school environment requires
emphasizing preventive and positive measures rather than
punitive procedures (Mitchem, Young, & West, 2000).
Research has empirically shown that one effective positive
behavior-management strategy is teacher praise (Lewis &
Bullock, 2004). Other research has identified a functional
relation between teacher praise and student behavior. Spe-
cifically, when teachers praise appropriate behavior, dis-
ruptive behavior decreases (Madsen, Becker, & Thomas,
1968). Further research has shown that praise deliv-
ered appropriately increases students’ on-task behavior
(Ferguson & Houghton, 1992), classroom motivation
(Thomas, 1991), and academic success (Sutherland &
119
This study was funded in part by U.S. Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H324C030124. Benjamin J. Young and Ellie L. Young contributed equally to this article. Address correspondence to Julie A. Peterson Nelson, Psychol- ogy Department, 1030 SWKT Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, [email protected]. Copyright © 2010 Heldref Publications
120 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2
Wehby, 2001). In addition, praise has been widely recom-
mended as effective in providing encouragement to the
student, building self-esteem, and promoting closer rela-
tionships between teachers and students (Brophy, 1981).
Teacher praise appears to have several meaningful out-
comes that contribute to increased positive behaviors. How-
ever, few researchers have explored the use of written
praise, especially as it relates to students’ use of social
skills. In addition, the connection between written praise
and a decrease in negative behaviors that lead to office
disciplinary action has not been explored, especially among
early adolescent youth. Hence, this article addresses how
a specific positive behavioral intervention (i.e., written
teacher praise) can be a useful strategy for junior high or
middle school teachers and administrators to improve the
school climate, possibly influencing problem behaviors and
lowering rates of office disciplinary referrals (ODRs).
Positive Behavior Support (PBS)
PBS has been widely adopted to create positive behav-
ioral expectations, teach appropriate behaviors, and man-
age problem behaviors (Scott, 2001), and its use for
affecting students’ behaviors and school climate is well
documented (Sugai, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker
et al., 1996). PBS is a team-based system designed to
facilitate student success by using evidence-based inter-
ventions and preventive strategies at a schoolwide, class-
room, or individual level. The PBS model creates positive
behavioral expectations for students, makes these positive
expectations explicit, and communicates them widely. For
example, students recognize and can articulate the expecta-
tion that, while at school, they must behave in a respectful,
safe, and caring way. This positive expectation is empha-
sized in schoolwide efforts rather than on the behaviors
that students should not do. The behaviors are explicitly taught through direct instruction of social skills (Lewis &
Sugai, 1999).
Direct instruction of social skills teaches students the
behavioral expectations of the school community. Just as
a student could be expected to successfully complete a
long division math problem only after specific and directed
instruction in long division, students who have had direct
instruction in social skills are more likely to enact those
skills, thereby meeting the expectations of the adults in the
school. When the student displays the newly learned social
skill, peers and adults should respond positively, thereby
reinforcing the desirable behavior (Gresham, 1998; Lewis,
Chard, & Scott, 1994; Lewis & Sugai, 1996; Lipsey, 1991;
Mayer, 1995; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Sugai &
Horner, 1994; Sugai & Lewis, 1996; Walker et al., 1996).
Teacher praise should be coupled with social skills training
to reinforce such skills by specifically praising the students
for their positive behavior, thus increasing the possibility
of the students’ using the skill in the future. Understanding
how written praise notes may influence disruptive behav-
iors, as measured by ODR, would add to the understanding
of effective components of the PBS model.
ODR
ODRs have historically been used as an index of student
behavior for guiding and developing schoolwide programs
and interventions (Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997;
Sugai, Sprague, Homer, & Walker, 2000; Tobin & Sugai,
1999; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996, 2000). The following
three purposes for using ODR data have been identified:
(a) as a guide in the development or selection of specific
environmentally appropriate interventions (e.g., if a sig-
nificant number of ODRs are being written for disruptive
lunchroom behavior, interventions need to focus on teach-
ing positive behaviors in the lunchroom), (b) as an outcome
measure to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, and
(c) as a screening procedure to identify students who may
benefit from targeted interventions (Nelson, Benner, Reid,
Epstein, & Currin, 2002).
ODR data continue to have practical and empirical
uses. On a practical level, ODRs are used to manage and
monitor students with problematic behaviors. These data
are easily obtained and monitored in most schools. ODRs
can also be used to consider progress toward solving
situational concerns (e.g., disruptive lunchroom behav-
ior). On an empirical level, ODRs have been related to
poor student outcomes such as school failure and juvenile
delinquency (Shinn, Ramsey, Walker, Stieber, & O’Neill,
1987; Sprague et al., 2001; Tobin & Sugai, 1999; Walker,
Shinn, O’Neill, & Ramsey, 1987; Walker & Stieber, 1998;
Walker, Stieber, Ramsey, & O’Neill, 1990). However,
other research has indicated that ODR data for individual
students have been much less predictive of poor outcomes
than teacher ratings or direct observation (Walker et al.,
1990) and that a teacher’s use of such data may be influ-
enced by a variety of variables such as classroom manage-
ment, discipline policies, and teacher tolerance (Sugai
et al., 2000; Wright & Dusek, 1998). Additional research
has compared ODR data with teachers’ ratings on the
Teacher Report Form (Auchenbach, 1991) and found that
the use of ODR records failed to identify many students
whom teachers rated as meeting borderline or clinical cut-
off scores for students at risk for emotional and behavioral
disorders (Nelson et al., 2002).
Although the use of ODR records is one way of mea-
suring outcomes of schoolwide PBS interventions, these
records measure negative and ineffective behaviors rather
than positive replacement behaviors that are being taught
and reinforced. Creating a way to measure the socially
appropriate behaviors of youth as they demonstrate their
mastery of social skills and other positive behaviors could
Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 121
be a meaningful and important component of evaluating
intervention outcomes. In addition, carefully reviewing
praise note data (e.g., frequency, content, distribution) may
be an alternative means of documenting progress toward
PBS goals.
Summary
This descriptive research considered the use of praise
notes to evaluate PBS-focused objectives. Specifically,
we considered how instructing teachers about praise and
then reinforcing teachers’ use of praise notes to students
demonstrating competency with social skills would influ-
ence ODRs. The use of written praise notes has not been
adequately explored in the research literature, especially in
the middle or junior high school setting.
Method
Participants and Setting
Participants were 70 teachers (48 women, 22 men) and
1,809 sixth- and seventh-grade students (927 boys [51%],
882 girls [49%]; 86% Caucasian, 11% Hispanic, 1% Native
American, and 1% Pacific Islander, African American,
or Asian) at secondary schools in the western part of the
United States. Approximately 39% of these students quali-
fied for free or reduced-price lunch.
This school was in the 3rd year of implementing a school-
wide PBS model. A school planning committee—comprising
school administration, selected teachers, and representatives
from a local university—discussed concerns and devel-
oped schoolwide goals. School faculty and staff members
addressed these goals by providing social skills lessons,
instructing students on expectations for their behavior, and
agreeing to increase positive feedback to students.
Procedure
We instructed the teachers that during this study, which
was conducted across 2 consecutive school years, they were
to write praise notes to students whose behavior exempli-
fied schoolwide PBS goals. At the beginning of the school
year, as a part of a 2-day PBS training sequence, teachers
were taught how to effectively praise students. Teachers
were given blank praise notes with instructions on how to
fill them out.
Measures
Praise notes were printed in triplicate on no-carbon-
required paper. Students were given the original copy.
Teachers turned in a copy for drawings and prizes; we used
this copy for data analysis. Last, the third copy was given
to parents during parent–teacher conferences. Praise note
data (e.g., name of student, name of teacher, date, behav-
ior for which the student was praised) were entered into
a database. Fewer than 1% of notes were incomplete and
therefore eliminated from the analyses.
The names of students who had received praise notes
were entered into a weekly drawing for a candy bar, and
winners were recognized during morning announcements.
Teachers were given neither incentives to write praise notes
nor feedback regarding the notes they had written. During
the first 7 months of the intervention, rates of notes writ-
ten were somewhat low (0–2 praise notes per 100 students
per day). To increase praise note rates, teachers were given
reinforcements during the final 2 months of the school year
and throughout the 9 months of the following school year.
Teachers received gift certificates to local restaurants when
they reached benchmark numbers of notes written (e.g.,
25, 60, 100, 150). The requirements to earn gift certificates
increased slightly during the 2nd year of the study because
teachers exceeded goals from the previous year. The num-
ber of praise notes written was reported to teachers, and
praise notes were placed in a box for drawings for prizes
during faculty meetings. Teachers were also given a list of
students who had not received a praise note that year.
Data Analysis
We tracked students’ ODRs using a district-maintained
database and collected teacher-written praise notes for the
2005–2006 and 2006–2007 school years. Praise note and
ODR data were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS statisti-
cal analysis software (Version 15.0). The unit of analysis
was number of praise notes written per day per 100 stu-
dents. This measure allowed for all months to be compared
equally despite differences in number of days per month. It
was also consistent in the event of changes in student body
size. The unit of analysis for ODRs was also number of
ODRs written per 100 students per day. We used bivariate
correlations to examine the relation between total praise
notes written and number of ODRs for each month.
In addition, data were analyzed separately for a subgroup
of students who had received one or more ODRs to deter-
mine whether students with ODRs received praise notes at
the same rate as students without ODRs and to determine
whether receiving praise notes influenced ODRs to students
who had previously received one or more ODR. For these
analyses, we divided the student body into two groups: (a)
students who received at least one ODR during the study,
and (b) students who did not receive any ODRs. Students
who received praise were categorized similarly. Again, we
used bivariate correlations to examine the relation between
praise notes received and ODRs received among students in
this subgroup. To test whether students who did not receive
ODRs were praised more frequently than were students
who received at least one ODR, we used a test for differ-
ence between independent correlations. This procedure
examines whether two correlations significantly differ. For
122 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2
this analysis, we converted each correlation coefficient into a Fischer’s z and ran a z test. Figure 1 shows the number of praise notes written per 100 students per day, and Figure 2
shows the number of ODRs written per day.
Results
Over the course of this 2-year study, 14,527 praise notes
were written, and 2,143 ODRs were recorded (see Figures 1
and 2). There was a significant negative correlation between
the total number of praise notes written to the student body
and the number of ODRs for the student body (r � �.551, p � .05), indicating that, as praise notes increased, ODR rates decreased. In addition, for the subgroup of students who
received at least one ODR, there was a significant negative cor-
relation between praise notes received and number of ODRs:
As praise notes increased among students with at least one
ODR, their rates of ODR decreased (r � �.553, p � .05). Teachers wrote an average of 0.88 notes per day per 100
students during the first 7 months of the study. Praise notes
written increased 672% to an average of 5.91 notes per day
per 100 students for the remaining 2 months of the 1st year
and the entire 9 months of the 2nd school year when incen-
tives were given to teachers for writing praise notes.
Further examination of the data revealed that 28.4% of
all students received one or more ODRs during the study.
Students with ODRs received 5.2 praise notes per day per
100 students, whereas students with no ODRs received 7.5
praise notes per day per 100 students. Although students
with ODRs were praised slightly less than the rest of the
student body, praise trends for students with ODRs were
significantly correlated with praise trends for the rest of the
student body, r � .94, p � .001. A test for difference between independent correlations indicated no statistical differences
between praise trends for students with ODRs and praise
trends for the rest of the student body, indicating that all stu-
dents were praised at similar rates: z � .02, p � .05.
Discussion
The general aim of this study was to explore how teach-
ers’ use of praise notes to students demonstrating compe-
tency with social skills would influence ODRs. The results
showed that praise notes and ODRs had a significant nega-
tive correlation: As praise notes increased, rates of ODR
decreased. Hence, the data provide some evidence that
increasing teacher praise notes may have been influencing
the decrease in ODRs. However, more closely controlled
research is needed.
As with any descriptive research, the results of this study
should be considered as correlational—not causal—rela-
tions. There are several variables that could have contrib-
uted to a decrease in ODRs: Social skill instruction may
have been a sufficient intervention to decrease ODRs. Also,
ODRs may have decreased as administrators and teachers
became more skilled in responding to behaviors that led
to ODRs. It is also possible that in noticing and praising
positive student behavior, teachers may have overlooked or
become less focused on inappropriate behaviors. Although
the cause of lower ODR rates cannot be determined by this
descriptive study, it appears that teacher praise contingent
upon the use of social skills had positive outcomes for stu-
dents and for the overall school climate—reinforcing posi-
tive behaviors and decreasing rates of ODR.
Recommendations for Principals and Administrators
We implemented this intervention to reach PBS goals
and encourage the use of social skills. When several
FIGURE 1. Average number of praise notes per day per 100 students, by month.
Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 123
FIGURE 2. Average number of office disciplinary referrals per day for 100 students, by month.
important strategies were in place, teachers’ use of praise
notes increased. Teachers received specific and targeted
instruction about praise at the beginning of the school
year, including reminders that praise should be delivered
sincerely and that praise notes should reinforce specific
and directly communicated behavioral expectations. The
effectiveness of praise notes would probably have more
meaning and focus when integrated into a comprehensive
PBS model.
Toward the end of the school year, we reviewed the data
with teachers and administrators, who were then encour-
aged and reinforced for writing praise notes. Periodi-
cally, teachers who had written praise notes had their names
placed in a lottery for prizes to be given during faculty
meetings. In addition, when teachers had written 25 praise
notes, they were given a gift certificate to a local restaurant.
Certificates to higher quality restaurants were given when
the teacher had written 60, 100, and 150 praise notes. This
monitoring and public reporting seems to have been vital to
motivating and reinforcing teachers.
Teachers were made aware of those students who had not
yet received a praise note and were encouraged to watch for
positive behaviors of students who had not been recognized.
Some teachers expressed concerns that they were being
encouraged to write notes to students with behavior prob-
lems, whereas a few students with appropriate behaviors
may have been overlooked. Other teachers opined that only
exemplary students deserved the recognition. Additional
training, combined with data, addressed these concerns
and reminded teachers that the purpose of praise notes was
to reinforce the use of social skills that were being taught
weekly in the classrooms. Even students with behavior
problems showed appropriate social skills at times, and it
was appropriate to recognize their efforts. It is possible that
the praise notes written to students with a history of behav-
ior problems contributed to the decrease in the number of
ODRs. Hence, encouraging teachers to recognize specific,
positive behaviors of all students was an important compo-
nent of this project.
It was not until data on praise notes were summarized and
feedback was given to teachers that they began to recognize
and understand the effect of praise notes on student behavior
and ODRs. Summarizing the data on praise notes took a fair
amount of time and resources for counting notes, as did deter-
mining those students who had or had not received them and
monitoring which teachers had or had not been writing notes.
However, it appears that these resources were appropriately
spent because fewer ODRs were given, meaning that more
students were in the classroom and receiving instruction.
Processes for recording data were funded as part of a major
research project; however, in schools without such funding,
teachers could assign students or parent volunteers to assist or
make data gathering and analysis a project for mathematics or
statistics courses or service-learning classes if the information
was not considered confidential. In addition, teachers need to
be informed that the number of praise notes they write would
become public information in the school. Depending on fac-
tors such as administrators’ style or school culture, identifying
information about teachers’ rates of praise notes written may
need to remain confidential, although we found that providing
intermittent feedback, which included specific data regarding
the effectiveness of praise notes, increased teachers’ motiva-
tion to praise students.
Lessons Learned
Teachers and administrators implementing praise notes
as a schoolwide intervention can benefit from the lessons
learned by following these recommendations:
124 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2
1. Provide teachers with ongoing, specific instruction on
effective praise.1 Consistently encourage teachers to
write praise notes; our intervention was discussed in
faculty meetings, and teachers were reminded to deliver
praise to students using the social skills that were being
taught schoolwide. Teachers’ personal stories of how
praise notes made a positive difference were shared in
faculty meetings or in e-mails.
2. Give teachers specific feedback regarding the number of
notes written and the names of students who had and had
not received praise notes. This feedback increased teach-
ers’ awareness of their progress toward a schoolwide goal
and facilitated data-based decision making.
3. Review praise notes and ODR data with teachers to dem-
onstrate the possible effect of written praise on student
behavior and ODRs.
4. Most important, reinforce teachers for writing praise
notes. When teachers had an opportunity to earn gift cer-
tificates for praising students, the total number of praise
notes written dramatically increased.
5. This intervention seemed to be most effective and eas-
ily implemented as a component of an integrated PBS
model designed to increase students’ social skill use. The
combination of these strategies appeared to significantly
influence rates of praise notes.
Limitations and Future Research
As with any descriptive research, the findings of this
study are correlational, and causal relations should not
be assumed. Several variables may have influenced the
decrease in ODRs, such as teachers’ skills in responding
to students’ inappropriate behavior, administrators’ skills
at teaching more positive behaviors to students sent to the
office for discipline purposes, and effects of reporting data
to faculty. Moreover, teachers and administrators were
making concentrated efforts to decrease rates of ODR by
responding more positively to students as part of the PBS
model. In addition, this post hoc analysis lacked a priori
awareness of other confounding factors not controlled for
or identified before or during the research that may have
influenced the outcomes.
The results of this study may have limited generaliz-
ability to other schools. Administrators and teachers at this
school were responsive to innovative methods implemented
to achieve PBS goals. In addition, this school had limited
ethnic diversity. These contextual factors should be consid-
ered in future applications. Moreover, other PBS goals and
objectives were being implemented at this school that could
have influenced the results.
Regardless of limitations, the findings of this study are
encouraging. When teachers and administrators attended
to positive behaviors, praising students for demonstrating
social skills, students’ problem behaviors and, consequently,
ODRs decreased. This approach—which emphasizes posi-
tive and preventive measures rather than punitive and reac-
tionary measures—appears to be beneficial in creating a
more positive school environment.
NOTE
1. One Web-based article that could be used to educate teachers and administrators about the steps for delivering praise is titled High Rates of Positive Responses, available from http://www.usu .edu/teachall/text/behavior/LRBIpdfs/Hrates.pdf.
AUTHOR NOTES
Julie A. Peterson Nelson is a visiting assistant professor in the psychology department at Brigham Young University. Her research interests include gender issues in social development, praise, and sexual harassment. Ellie L. Young is an associate professor and coordinator of the school psychology program at Brigham Young University. Her research interests include gen- der and educational issues, as well as working with youth with behavioral and emotional concerns. Benjamin J. Young is in mental health counseling and is a data and technology specialist at Brigham Young University’s Positive Behavior Support Initiative. His research interests include positive psychology, early interven- tion and screening, and technology in schools. Gregory Cox is a public school superintendent currently working in a school district on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. His research interests include the practical application of educational and behavioral research to ongoing student and school improvement.
REFERENCES
American Federation of Teachers. (1995–1996). Elements of an effective discipline strategy. American Educator, 19(4), 24–27.
Auchenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher Report Form. Burlington: University of Vermont Press.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Education Research, 51, 5–32.
Elam, S. J., Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1998). 28th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 80, 41–59.
Ferguson, E., & Houghton, S. (1992). The effects of contingent teacher praise, as specified by Canter’s assertive discipline. Educational Studies, 18(1), 11–18.
Gresham, F. M. (1998). Social skills training: Should we raze, remodel, or rebuild? Behavioral Disorders, 24, 19–25.
Knoff, H. M. (2003). Character education vs. social skills training: Comparing constructs vs. behavior. Communiqué, 32(3), 39–40.
Lewis, T. J., & Bullock, L. M. (2004). Scientifically supported practices in emotional and behavioral disorders: A proposed approach and brief review of current practices. Behavioral Dis- orders, 29, 247–259.
Lewis, T. J., Chard, D., & Scott, T. (1994). Full inclusion and the education of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 277–293.
Lewis, T. J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1999). Effective behav- ior support: Designing setting specific interventions. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 38–46.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assess- ment based intervention to improve the pro-social behavior of a student in a general education setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 7–24.
Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 125
Lewis T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 24–47.
Lipsey, M. W. (1991). The effect of treatment on juvenile delin- quents: Results from meta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 131–143). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139–150.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467–478.
Mayer, G. R., & Sulzer-Azeroff, B. (1991). Interventions for vandalism. In G. Stoner, M. K. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 559–580). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Mitchem, K. J., Young, K. R., & West, R. P. (2000). Changing stu- dent, parent, and faculty perceptions: School is a positive place. Equalizing Learning Opportunities, 35, 248–262.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Reid, R. C., Epstein, M. H., & Currin, D. (2002). The convergent validity of office discipline referrals with the CBCL-TRF. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 181–197.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory Into Practice, 42, 341–350.
Peacock Hill Working Group. (1991). Problems and promises in special education and related services for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 299–313.
Scott, T. M. (2001). A schoolwide example of positive behavioral sup- port. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 3(2), 88–94.
Shinn, M. R., Ramsey, E., Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., & O’Neill, R. E. (1987). Antisocial behavior in school settings: Initial dif- ferences in an at-risk and normal population. Journal of Special Education, 21, 69–84.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspensions: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295–315.
Sprague, J. R., Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., Simonsen, B., Nishioka, V., & Wagner, L. (2001). Exploring the relationship between school discipline referrals and delinquency. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 197–206.
Sugai, G. (1998). Postmodernism and emotional and behavioral disorders: Distraction or advancement. Behavior Disorders, 23, 171–177.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assump- tions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon conference monograph (Vol. 6, pp. 102–120). Eugene: University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. (1996). Preferred and promising prac- tices for social skill instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(4), 1–16.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Homer, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline refer-
rals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline intervention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–112.
Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effect of self-evalu- ation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emo- tional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171.
Thomas, J. (1991). You’re the greatest! A few well-chosen words can work wonders in positive behavior reinforcement. Princi- pal, 71, 32–33.
Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Using sixth-grade school records to predict school violence, chronic discipline problems, and high school outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 40–53.
Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1996). Patterns in middle school discipline records. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 82–94.
Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (2000). Using discipline refer- rals to make decisions. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 106–117.
Turnbull, A., Edmondson, H., Griggs, P., Wickham, D., Sailor, W, Freeman, R. et al. (2002). A blueprint for schoolwide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 68, 377–402.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The condition of educa- tion, 1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). The condition of educa- tion, 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Walker, H. M, Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behav- ior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D. et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing anti- social behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193–256.
Walker, H. M., Shinn, M. R., O’Neill, R. E., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal assessment of the development of antisocial behavior in boys: Rationale, methodology, and first-year results. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 7–16, 27.
Walker, H. M., & Stieber, S. (1998). Teacher ratings of social skills as longitudinal predictors of long-term arrest status in a sample of at-risk males. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 222–230.
Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., Ramsey, E., & O’Neill, R. E. (1990). School behavioral profiles of arrested versus nonarrested ado- lescents. Exceptionality, 1, 249–265.
Ward, J. (1976). Behavior modification in education: An overview and model for programme implementation. Bulletin of the Brit- ish Psychological Society, 29, 257–268.
Winette, R. A., & Winkler, R. C. (1972). Current behavior modifi- cation in the classroom: Be still, be quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499–504.
Wright, J. A., & Dusek, J. B. (1998). Research into practice: Compiling school base rates for disruptive behaviors from student disciplinary referral data. School Psychology Review, 27, 138–147.
Young, K. R., Black, S., Marchant, M., Mitchem, K. J., & West, R. P. (2000, August). A teaching approach to discipline: An alter- native to punishment. Marriage and Families, 9–15.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
