View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of School-Based Personnel Delivered Coaching and Performance Feedback on Elementary Teachers' Use of Behavior Specific Praise

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of School-Based Personnel Delivered Coaching and Performance Feedback on Elementary Teachers' Use of Behavior Specific Praise
Language: English
Authors: Kaci Ellis, Nicholas A. Gage, Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage, Carla Schmidt, Holly Lane, Ann Serpahine
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(6):1852-1861.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Coaching (Performance), Performance, Feedback (Response), Elementary School Teachers, Positive Reinforcement, Classroom Techniques, School Personnel, Teacher Behavior, Resource Teachers, Visual Aids
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23436
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: Performance feedback has been shown to improve teachers' classroom management skills. Typically, a researcher provides the performance feedback, not school-based personnel. Therefore, we investigated the effects of performance feedback on classroom management skills when the feedback is delivered by school-based personnel. We used a concurrent multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher on four teachers' use of behavior specific praise. One White behavior support teacher, two White teachers, and two Black teachers, all with more than 5 years of teaching experience participated in the study. We used visual analysis and Tau-U single-case design effect sizes to evaluate the multiple baseline design. Results indicate a functional relation between visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher and teachers' increased use of behavior specific praise The results suggest that school-based personnel can be trained in data collection, brief coaching sessions, and implementation of visual performance feedback to support teachers in increasing their use of behavior-specific praise. This study provides evidence that school-based personnel can help teachers increase their use of BSP during instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1470541
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFcUO8oKglzlLPpcBMtLJPHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMX47O-SSqo6Y7gKvwIBEICBm3s9FvVava6DVMLm59Z_trqFWb5My1k-6vQzS6PlSjFQ89gcUA6mClCygHOW7s1_WU45MR7xwusLl-MdcjcNaSVOSYh4XxrYgRxrtrte2Ah65VQCTd6JqUXbgrj4ELN_OnVHNSMtffAC-VTkL2e8q5TMGSXy_UuudMgQEYHs-7MwrWVAte3px8Jxieh20tlprMs_c8PwcVfBwjvJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184952461;pis01jun.25;2025May07.05:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184952461-1">The Impact of School‐Based Personnel Delivered Coaching and Performance Feedback on Elementary Teachers' Use of Behavior Specific Praise </title> <sbt id="AN0184952461-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Performance feedback has been shown to improve teachers' classroom management skills. Typically, a researcher provides the performance feedback, not school‐based personnel. Therefore, we investigated the effects of performance feedback on classroom management skills when the feedback is delivered by school‐based personnel. We used a concurrent multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher on four teachers' use of behavior specific praise. One White behavior support teacher, two White teachers, and two Black teachers, all with more than 5 years of teaching experience participated in the study. We used visual analysis and Tau‐U single‐case design effect sizes to evaluate the multiple baseline design. Results indicate a functional relation between visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher and teachers' increased use of behavior specific praise The results suggest that school‐based personnel can be trained in data collection, brief coaching sessions, and implementation of visual performance feedback to support teachers in increasing their use of behavior‐specific praise. This study provides evidence that school‐based personnel can help teachers increase their use of BSP during instruction.</p> <p>Summary: Behavior‐specific praise is an evidence‐based classroom management strategy.School‐based personnel can be trained in data collection, brief coaching sessions, and implementation of visual performance feedback to support teachers in increasing their use of behavior‐specific praise.All teachers increased their use of behavior‐specific praise following visual perf</p> <p>Effective classroom management practices implemented by teachers are essential for students to have the opportunity to learn (Downs et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]). Teachers' classroom management skills (CMS) influence the emotional and behavioral interactions that occur throughout the school day (Garwood and Vernon‐Feagans [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]). These interactions, cultivated by the teacher, have positive impacts on student outcomes, particularly increased engagement and decreased disruptive behaviors (Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]). Given the positive impacts teachers' classroom management skills have on student behavior, research has identified critical features of classroom management (Simonsen et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). However, what remains unclear is the best approach for increasing in‐service teachers' use of evidence‐based classroom management skills. Research suggests that performance feedback, particularly visual performance feedback, can increase teachers use of CMS (e.g., Grasley‐Boy et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]). However, in all prior research, the performance feedback was delivered by the researchers. Therefore, we explored the effects of visual performance feedback on CMS when delivered by school‐based personnel. In this study, the school‐based personnel were behavior resource teachers based on their role to provide behavior support to teachers on behalf of building administration.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-3">Classroom Management Skills</hd> <p>Simonsen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]) identified 20 evidence‐based CMS organized within five classroom management practices: (a) maximize structure and establish predictable routines, (b) post, teach, review, monitor, and reinforce three to five positively stated expectations, (c) actively engage students in observable ways, (d) establish a continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior, and (e) establish a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior. Among the 20 CMS, a few are considered universal, meaning that they should be implemented consistently during all instructional activities for all students. These universal CMS include individual and group opportunities to respond (OTR; MacSuga‐Gage and Simonsen [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]), praise and behavior specific praise (BSP; Royer et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]), error correction, and prompting expectations (Scott et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although research suggests teachers should use all the universal CMS during instruction, they are not consistently implemented. Scott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]) collected over 12,000 classroom observations measuring CMS use and found that during whole group instruction, teachers deliver an average of 0.70 OTR per minute, 0.13 positive feedbacks per minute, and 0.01 error corrections per minute. These rates are far below recommended use. Research suggests that teachers should deliver approximately 3.00 OTR per minute (Stichter et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), 0.40 BSP statements per minute (Royer et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]), and maintain a 4 to 1 ratio of positive to negative feedback (Caldarella et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]) during whole group academic instruction. Thus, there is a need for classroom management professional development to increase teachers' use of these skills.</p> <p>Teachers report feeling underprepared when it comes to classroom management (Christofferson and Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]). If teachers do receive professional development, it typically involves a one‐time learning opportunity without any follow‐up training or coaching (Greenberg et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]). In response to this, Simonsen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]) suggested using a multi‐tiered system for professional development (MTS‐PD) model to provide teachers with universal professional development and then increased levels of support, including performance feedback, based on teachers' use of CMS. This model consists of three tiers of differentiated professional development support, with a consistent review of teacher needs. Tier 1 of the model consists of school‐wide professional development on a single skill followed by teacher self‐monitoring and self‐reporting skill use. Teachers are identified for Tier 2 support based on screening teachers' use of the classroom management skills and receive follow‐up targeted professional development using performance feedback. Those who continue to need support receive Tier 3 interventions which consist of more intensive follow‐up professional development (e.g., live modeling, increased dosage of performance feedback, self‐monitoring tools, additional coaching sessions). In this study, we focus on establishing additional evidence that Tier 2 of the MTS‐PD model can successfully increase teachers CMS, with an emphasis on visual performance feedback during Tier 2.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-4">Visual Performance Feedback</hd> <p>Much of the research on the MTS‐PD model has found that teachers increase their use of classroom management skills when visual performance feedback is delivered (Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]; Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]; Grasley‐Boy et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]). Yet, in all these studies, the researchers provided the training and the performance feedback. What remains unclear is if the MTS‐PD model with visual performance feedback can be delivered by school‐based personnel. In this study, we examined this issue by addressing the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) What are the effects of training and coaching on a behavior resource teacher's (BRT) fidelity in implementing visual performance feedback?; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) How accurate is the BRT at collecting frequency counts of BSP that is used for visual performance feedback?; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) What are the effects of visual performance feedback provided by a BRT on teachers' use of BSP? We hypothesized that coaching and visual performance feedback would increase teachers' use of BSP based on prior research. Additionally, we hypothesized that the BRT could successfully implement the coaching and performance feedback with support from the research team.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-6">Participants</hd> <p>Recruitment of a school, the BRT, and teacher participants began after University Institutional Review Board approval was received. All participants completed informed consent and all study procedures described to all participants. This study took place in a Title‐1 elementary school in a midsized school district in a southeastern state in the U.S. The school served 639 students in grades kindergarten through 5th and had 56 classroom teachers. First, we recruited the school's BRT through an in‐person meeting where we described the study procedures. Then, we asked the principal to identify general education teachers in grades kindergarten through 2nd who showed difficulty in classroom management skills that were not receiving coaching support from district personnel. We used principal identification to align with district professional development procedures. Following principal identification, the first author met with each teacher to go over the study procedures. We explicitly described during brief meetings with each identified teacher that their participation would in no way be used as an evaluative measure and that their principal would not see any of their individual study data. No information about the principal was collected by the research team.</p> <p>According to the district's website, the BRT is responsible for improving school‐wide behavior to maximize instructional time by supporting teachers through behavior intervention and positive discipline strategies. The BRT, Ms. Waltham (a pseudonym), identified as a 44‐year‐old, White, female who had been in this role for 1 year. Teacher 1, Ms. Geller, identified as a 34‐year‐old, Black, female who has taught third grade for all 8 years of her teaching career. Teacher 2, Ms. Buffay, identified as a 56‐year‐old, White, female who taught Kindergarten for 1 year out of her ten‐year teaching career. Teacher 3, Ms. Green, identified as a 34‐year‐old, White, and other gender. They had 10 years of teaching experience. Teacher 4, Ms. Janice, identified as a 48‐year‐old, Black, female with 26 years' experience teaching first grade. Table 1 includes the number of years of teaching experience, current grade(s) taught, certification(s), route to certification, race, gender, and age for all participants. All classrooms were typical elementary settings, with chairs and tables, an open rug area for large group instruction, a table for small group work, and instructional materials throughout the classrooms.</p> <p>1 Table Participant Demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Characteristic</th><th><p>Ms. Geller Teacher 1</p></th><th><p>Ms. Buffay Teacher 2</p></th><th><p>Ms. Green Teacher 3</p></th><th><p>Ms. Janice Teacher 4</p></th><th><p>Ms. Waltham BRT</p></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Other</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>34</td><td>56</td><td>34</td><td>48</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>Black</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>Black</td><td>White</td></tr><tr><td>Current Grade Level</td><td>3rd</td><td>K</td><td>5th</td><td>1st</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Number of Years in Current Role</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>26</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total Years of Teaching Experience</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>26</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Highest Degree Held</td><td>Bachelors</td><td>Bachelors</td><td>Masters</td><td>EducationSpecialist</td><td>Masters</td></tr><tr><td>Area of Certification</td><td>Prekindergarten/Primary Education</td><td>Temporary Elementary Education, Certification, VPK Director Endorsement</td><td>English, Elementary Education, ESOL, Reading</td><td>Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, English, ESOL, Prekindergarten/Primary Education, Reading</td><td>Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, ESOL, Reading</td></tr><tr><td>Route to Certification</td><td>Teacher Education Program</td><td>Teacher Education Program</td><td>Teacher Education Program</td><td>Teacher Education Program</td><td>Teacher Education Program</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: ESOL, English speakers of other language; K, kindergarten; VPK, voluntary prekindergarten.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-7">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-8">Direct Observation Measurement System</hd> <p>We used the Student Classroom Observation and Analysis (SCOA) application on Apple iPhones and iPads to collect all direct observation data. Specifically, we used SCOA to measure frequency counts (i.e., event recording) of behavior specific praise. BSP was operationally defined as a positive, verbal statement contingent upon the desired behavior that communicates to a student(s) explicitly what they did correctly. For example, "Excellent job raising your hand" or "Thank you for pushing in your chair" are examples of BSP. BSP was counted when directed at individual students and when directed at groups of students or the whole class.</p> <p>Ms. Waltham, the BRT, and the data collectors were trained in setting up SCOA and were provided with additional instructional videos for setting up and using the application. SCOA is a customizable direct observation‐focused app designed to collect teacher and student behaviors, including classroom management skills. SCOA was developed in 2012 as part of Project Academic and Behavioral Response to Intervention (ABRI) at the University of Louisville College of Education and Human Development (Frey [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]). SCOA can collect both frequency and duration data for pre‐set and user‐defined behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-9">Social Validity</hd> <p>After data collection ended, the teachers, BRT, and principal were asked via email to complete a survey based on the Intervention Rating Profile‐15 and the Response‐to‐Intervention Approach to Increasing Desired Teacher Behavior Acceptability Questionnaires (Martens et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]; Diane M. Myers et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]). The measures included Likert items and open‐ended response questions. The surveys were delivered electronically using Qualtrics. We included the principal's social validity to capture administrator perspectives for future scale‐up.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-10">Direct Observations</hd> <p>15‐min observations were conducted three times a week by the primary data collectors and twice a week by Ms. Waltham during whole group instruction. Whole group instruction was defined as any time most students in a classroom are expected to participate in an activity in which the teacher is providing direct instruction in academic content. Teachers selected the 15‐min observation window. Ms. Geller was observed during math instruction and Ms. Buffay, Ms. Janice, and Ms. Green were observed during reading instruction. The expectations were the same for both the data collectors and Ms. Waltham with regard to how observations were conducted. Specifically, observers quietly entered the classroom, collected the data during the observation time, did not interrupt instruction, and did not interact with students or teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-11">Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>Five doctoral students, four in special education and one in school psychology, served as the primary data collectors and were trained before data collection began. Data collectors received a 1‐h in‐person training and then were required to independently code videos of classroom instruction. Each data collector had to reach at least 80% agreement with the first author's coding for three practice videos before being approved to begin data collection. Total count interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by the agreements plus disagreements for at least 20% of all observations in each phase.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-12">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-13">BRT Training</hd> <p>Before data collection began, Ms. Waltham participated in an entire coaching session with the first author so that she would be able to replicate the coaching session with the teachers. The coaching session occurred at the school and included an introduction to BSP, operational definition, examples, non‐examples, modeling, and rehearsal, replicating the approach used by Gage et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]), Gage et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]), and Grasley‐Boy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]). Ms. Waltham practiced collecting a frequency count of BSP in SCOA, how to input scores from SCOA into Google Sheets, and how to graph the frequency counts during the training with the first author. Then, the first author reviewed the template for visual performance feedback emails. Finally, the first author provided Ms. Waltham with a procedural fidelity checklist for teacher coaching sessions and a script for the coaching sessions that could be used for future reference. The coaching session occurred once before baseline data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-14">Baseline Phase</hd> <p>During baseline data collection the primary data collectors and Ms. Waltham observed teacher behavior and measured the frequency of BSP. The primary data collectors then completed a procedural fidelity checklist via Qualtrics that included examples of teacher behaviors, missed opportunities for teacher behaviors, and a notes section. As originally designed, Ms. Waltham was to complete a procedural fidelity checklist. Ms. Waltham shared after the first week of baseline data collection that the checklist was not realistic to complete due to lack of time and therefore did not complete it for the entirety of the study. After receiving the emailed data from SCOA from the primary data collectors, the first author entered all teacher data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and used this to make all experimental design decisions. At least five baseline data points were collected for each teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-15">Decision‐Rule for Intervention to Begin</hd> <p>Ms. Geller was the first to receive intervention based on stable baseline data. Intervention then began for Ms. Buffay once Ms. Geller had been in the intervention phase for a minimum of three data points and had an increasing slope and level towards the goal of six BSP statements in 15 min. Due to Ms. Buffay and Ms. Green having higher rates of BSP consistently above the goal line, intervention for the next teacher began when there were a minimum of three data points and an increasing slope and more stability in level was reached.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-16">Intervention Phase</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-17">Coaching</hd> <p>Ms. Waltham scheduled a brief coaching session with each teacher once she was told it was time to intervene based on the data. Ms. Waltham had to give teachers' a 48‐hour advanced notice per their teaching contract and school norms. The coaching sessions were recorded via a secure Zoom link. Ms. Waltham followed the coaching procedural checklist to (a) introduce the skill, (b) provide the operational definition, (c) provide examples and non‐examples, (d) model using a script, and (e) rehearse. Ms. Waltham provided the teacher with a graphic organizer at the start of the session as a note‐taking tool. Ms. Waltham ended each coaching session by sharing with the teacher their baseline data for BSP with a graph. Ms. Waltham led the teacher through their data and shared their frequency count of BSP. She then pointed to the goal line and re‐shared the goal of six BSP statements in 15 min (Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-18">Visual Performance Feedback</hd> <p>Ms. Waltham sent a visual performance feedback email to teachers in the intervention phase after her observations on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The email included (a) positive statement about something the teacher did well during that observation, (b) the frequency count for the observation session, (c) a reminder of the goal, (d) updated graph of the data. As designed, Ms. Waltham was intended to update the Google Sheets with observation data which would automatically update the teachers' graph. However, Ms. Waltham quickly shared that it was not feasible for her to be entering in the data into the Google Sheets. She shared that she was behind entering the required school‐level data that was included in her typical job responsibilities. We then changed the protocol to update her Google Sheets using the data she collected that was emailed from SCOA to both Ms. Waltham and the first author. We sent Ms. Waltham email templates with the updated frequency count and updated graph, and she tailored the emails to include a positive statement from her observation.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-19">Maintenance Phase</hd> <p>Ms. Geller entered the maintenance phase after she reached the target behavior goal of 6 BSP statements in 15 min for two consecutive sessions. Ms. Buffay, Ms. Green, and Ms. Janice entered the maintenance phase once their data showed an increasing trend and more stable level. These teachers were above the goal of six BSP statements after their first two observations in intervention. Once in maintenance, Ms. Waltham no longer provided visual performance feedback. The primary data collectors collected maintenance data for three observations directly following the two consecutive sessions meeting the target behavior goal. After 2 weeks the primary data collectors collected maintenance data for three observations for Ms. Geller, Ms. Buffay, and Ms. Green. Ms. Waltham conducted two observations overlapping with the primary data collectors' observations throughout the maintenance phase.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-20">Data Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-21">Visual Analysis</hd> <p>We used visual analysis to identify a functional relation between visual performance feedback and increases in CMS use, particularly teachers' rates of BSP. We focused on consistency of level, trend, and variability within each phase and the immediacy of the effect, the proportion of overlap, and replication of effect across phases (Kratochwill et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]). Each graph was visually analyzed after each data point to make decisions about additional visual performance feedback sessions and when to intervene with a teacher. This approach ensured that all decisions about training and visual performance feedback were based on the data.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-22">Effect Sizes</hd> <p>We calculated two effect sizes to supplement visual analysis. First, we used the online Tau‐U Calculator (Vannest et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]) to estimate Tau‐U (Parker et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]). Tau‐U is a non‐parametric effect size for single‐case designs that focuses on data overlap between baseline and intervention phases. First, we examined baseline trend and, when necessary, used the corrected baseline trend estimate. Then, we combined all AB phase contrasts and estimated a weighted average Tau‐U and variance of Tau. We also calculated the single‐case between‐case <emph>g</emph> effect size (Pustejovsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]), which is computationally equivalent to the standardized mean difference <emph>g</emph> used to compare groups of subjects. We used the <emph>scdhlm</emph> package (Pustejovsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]) in <emph>R</emph> (R Core Team [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]) to estimate the between‐case <emph>g</emph> effect size. Only baseline and intervention data were used for calculating effect sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-23">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-24">BRT's Fidelity of Implementation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-25">Coaching</hd> <p>e used multiple measures to evaluate the BRT's fidelity of coaching and use of visual performance feedback. Ms. Waltham met with all the teachers for one coaching session each. The coaching sessions lasted an average of 13 min. Ms. Waltham completed 100% of the steps on the procedural fidelity checklist for each coaching session. Ms. Waltham scored a 100% on the quality of implementation checklist for each coaching session which measured her interpersonal skills, collaboration, and expertise as rated by the first author using the Zoom video recordings of the coaching sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-26">Visual Performance Feedback</hd> <p>Ms. Waltham observed Ms. Geller during the intervention phase four times. Ms. Waltham sent Ms. Geller five performance feedback emails all meeting 100% procedural fidelity (i.e., positive statement about observation, frequency count for observation, a reminder of goal/statement related to the goal, attach the graph, send email to me). Three emails were sent within 12 h of the observation and one email was sent 56 h after the observation. Ms. Waltham observed Ms. Buffay six times during the intervention phase. Ms. Waltham sent Ms. Buffay six performance feedback emails meeting 100% procedural fidelity. Two emails were sent within 12 h of the observation, three emails were sent within 24 h of the observation, and one email was sent 11 days after the observation. Ms. Waltham observed Ms. Green twice during the intervention phase. Ms. Waltham sent Ms. Green two performance feedback emails meeting 100% procedural fidelity. One email was sent 24 h after the observation, and one was sent within 48 h after the observation. Ms. Waltham observed Ms. Janice four times during the intervention phase. Ms. Waltham sent Ms. Janice three visual performance feedback emails meeting 100% procedural fidelity. Three performance feedback emails were sent within 12 h of the observation. The emails from April 26th and May 10th used data that was an average of Ms. Waltham and the primary data collectors since Ms. Waltham's frequency count was not within 80% agreement for two consecutive sessions.</p> <p> <bold>Accuracy collecting data.</bold> Next, we examined the BRT's accuracy collecting the data used for visual performance feedback. We used interobserver agreement with the primary data collectors' data to answer this question. Table 2 provides the primary data collectors' IOA and Ms. Waltham's IOA across all phases for each teacher. Ms. Waltham only missed two scheduled observations. She attended a professional development training off campus 1 day and another day the school was short‐staffed, making her unable to complete the observations. During one observation in baseline, the SCOA app malfunctioned during data collection, so she was unable to report any data. Overall, Ms. Waltham was 53% accurate in collecting frequency counts of BSP.</p> <p>2 Table Primary Data Collector and Behavior Resource Teacher Interobserver Agreement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Teacher</th><th>Condition</th><th>Data Collectors</th><th>Ms. Waltham</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Ms. Geller</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>BaselineInterventionMaintenanceAverage</td><td>75%83%95%85%</td><td>25%90%43%52.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Ms. Buffay</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>BaselineInterventionMaintenanceAverage</td><td>100%93%94%96%</td><td>47%79%63%63%</td></tr><tr><td>Ms. Green</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>BaselineInterventionMaintenanceAverage</td><td>89%79%91%86%</td><td>38%77%64%60%</td></tr><tr><td>Ms. Janice</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>BaselineInterventionMaintenanceAverage</td><td>67%86%88%80%</td><td>40%35%38%</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>BaselineInterventionMaintenanceAverage</td><td>83%85%92%87%</td><td>38%70%57%53%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Ms. Waltham's IOA was calculated using the primary data collector's data</item> <item>3 Abbreviations: BSP, behavior specific praise; GP, general praise; IOA, Interobserver agreement; NF, negative feedback.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184952461-27">Visual Performance Feedback Effects on Teacher Behaviors</hd> <p>To answer the third research question, we examined the effects of visual performance feedback provided by a BRT on teachers' use of BSP. The results are presented in Figure 1. Only the primary data collectors' data was used in Figure 1. The dashed lines connect two data points that were discontinuous due to an observation not happening as scheduled (Ledford and Gast [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]). Observations were missed due to teacher absences, a field day, a field trip, a parent‐teacher conference, and district or state assessments. Based on the data, we observed a functional relation between visual performance feedback and teachers' increased use of BSP. There was an immediate level shift from baseline to intervention for all subjects. Although we saw a decreasing slope across time during intervention, the rates of BSP remained higher than during baseline and above the goal line for three of the four teachers, except for one of Ms. Janice's data points. Ms. Geller's BSP rates were higher than baseline and above the goal during maintenance probes. Below, we provide more detail for each teachers' data.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01jun25/pits23436-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23436-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Frequency of Behavior Specific Praise per condition." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-29">Ms. Geller</hd> <p>Ms. Geller had an average of 0.67 BSP statements (SD = 0.82, SE = 0.33) in baseline, increased to an average of 4.50 BSP statements (SD = 1.85, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.65) in intervention, and further increased to an average of 6 BSP statements (SD = 3.61, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.80) in maintenance.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-30">Ms. Buffay</hd> <p>Ms. Buffay had an average of 4.00 BSP statements (SD = 3.20, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.07) in baseline, which increased to an average of 16.14 BSP statements (SD = 4.38, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.65) in intervention, and had an average of 12.00 BSP statements (SD = 3.16, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.41) in maintenance.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-31">Ms. Green</hd> <p>Ms. Green had an average of 2.33 BSP (SD = 1.56, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.45) statements in baseline, increased to an average of 16.67 BSP statements (SD = 2.52, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.45) in intervention, and had an average of 9.33 BSP statements (SD = 3.39, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.38) in maintenance.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-32">Ms. Janice</hd> <p>Ms. Janice had an average of 5.35 BSP statements (SD = 4.06, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.91) in baseline, increased to an average of 11.50 BSP statements (SD = 5.54, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.26) in intervention, and had 8 BSP statements in maintenance.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-33">Effect Sizes</hd> <p>The combined Tau‐<emph>U</emph> was 0.86 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001, 95% CI [0.64,1.00]), indicating a statistically significant non‐overlap of 86% improvement from baseline to intervention for BSP for all teachers. The between‐case <emph>g</emph> was 1.66 with a variance of 0.27, suggesting that teachers' increase their use of BSP by over one and a half standard deviation units from baseline to intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-34">Social Validity</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184952461-35">Teachers</hd> <p>After data collection teachers were asked to complete a14‐item social validity survey. Based on a 5‐point Likert scale with higher scores representing more positive social validity, the mean teacher response was 3.7 (SD = 0.4). The open‐ended responses were mixed. Ms. Buffay noted, "I loved it. It was a great experience; I feel everyone should go through!" Both Ms. Green and Ms. Janice described decreases in student problem behavior since implementing higher rates of BSP. Ms. Janice noted that, "when I increased the use of BSP, more students responded and seemed to want to have their names called." However, teachers noted concerns about the coaching and emails. Ms. Green suggested "less face‐to‐face and more emails would decrease the amount of time needed for coaching sessions" as a suggestion for future implementation. Ms. Geller strongly disagreed that the visual performance feedback emails were helpful, but strongly agreed the graphs helped her reflect on her classroom management practices and somewhat agreed that visual performance feedback was beneficial for increasing her use of BSP. Ms. Green and Ms. Janice both strongly agree that they would recommend this coaching model to administrators and felt visual performance feedback was beneficial, helpful, and helped them reflect on their use of classroom management practices. Ms. Janice said, "the graphs were very helpful" and Ms. Green shared, "this experience was great, and I would highly recommend for all new teachers."</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-36">Ms. Waltham</hd> <p>Ms. Waltham completed a 14‐item social validity survey after data collection. Her mean response across items based on a 5‐point Likert scale was 4.6 (SD = 0.5). Ms. Waltham shared that her "job is unpredictable and very busy" and she does not feel she can support teachers as she would like. She reported that it was relatively easy to collect data on teachers' behaviors and somewhat agreed with the continued use of SCOA. She felt prepared to provide visual performance feedback and somewhat agreed to feel prepared as a coach to support teachers in increasing BSP. Ms. Waltham somewhat agreed with the feasibility of entering data and sending visual performance feedback email without the email template. She somewhat agreed that the coaching model did not inconvenience or negatively impact her ability to do her job. She had difficulty with having to be in a teacher's classroom at a specific day and time and felt it would be easier if she could collect data at her convenience. Ms. Waltham thought this coaching model was worth the effort and would recommend it to administrators and other BRTs. In her opinion, "this coaching model is ideal because it focused on one strategy for the teacher at a time." Overall, Ms. Waltham shared "I learned a new way to coach teachers and I'm excited to use it next year."</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-37">School Principal</hd> <p>The school principal completed a 5‐item social validity survey at the end of data collection. His mean response across items based on a 5‐point Likert scale was 5.0 (SD = 0.0). He strongly agreed that this coaching model did not negatively impact Ms. Waltham's ability to complete other job‐related responsibilities and did not negatively impact overall school operations. He reported that this coaching model is "fantastic" and that he would "implement this model in the future because it strengthens the observer and teachers being observed with little to no negative impact."</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-38">Discussion</hd> <p>Teachers need professional development to increase their use of CMS. The MTS‐PD model has shown promise, particularly the use of visual performance feedback for those who are not using a particular skill at recommended levels. Yet, to date, all the research focused on MTS‐PD and visual performance feedback has been conducted by researchers. This study extended the literature by training a school‐based BRT to lead the visual performance feedback procedures. The results of this study suggest that the BRT was able to learn how to collect data, conduct the coaching session, and send visual performance feedback. This is important as these results suggest that this approach could be successfully scaled to other schools and, potentially, other staff members, reducing the professional development burden for external trainers and increase the likelihood similar training is delivered broadly.</p> <p>Research Questions #1 and #2</p> <p>The BRT was not able to successfully input the data into Google Sheets and her IOA was low (~50% overall; 70% during intervention phases). Thus, although Ms. Waltham implemented the professional development model with fidelity, the accuracy of her own data was inconsistent. Ms. Waltham was more accurate during the intervention phases (70%), which suggests that she became more accurate the more she observed, but the accuracy dropped (53%) during the maintenance phase. This prompts questions about what influenced teachers' behavior change. Was the change in behavior the result of seeing changes in their own behavior reflected in the graphs, which may have been inaccurate, or was it simply the coaching session or email prompts? Would the BRT have benefited from performance feedback on the accuracy of her data collection? We cannot disentangle these questions from the data collected in this study but may be a topic worth further exploration in future studies.</p> <p>Research Question #3</p> <p>All teachers increased their use of BSP following visual performance feedback. There was an average increase of 9.00 BSP statements from baseline to intervention and the effect sizes supported that a large and meaningful change occurred. Prior research using comparable procedures, but delivered by researchers, have found similar results. It is encouraging that the results replicated when the BRT was the interventionist. Many teachers need classroom management professional development. Professional development should include coaching and feedback to be successful. Yet, there are not enough external trainers to meet the needs of all teachers. Therefore, the positive results highlight a real opportunity to develop, test, and scale visual performance feedback as part of an MTS‐PD model collected and delivered by school‐based personnel.</p> <p>Further, the data suggest that teachers can increase their use of BSP. Ennis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]) noted that BSP is the least intensive, but among the most impactful ways to provide feedback to students when they demonstrate appropriate behaviors. Classrooms with more BSP tend to have more positive classroom climates and less negative feedback (Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]). Thus, any approach to increase teachers' use of BSP is worth consideration as increased use of BSP correlates with more on‐task and less disruptive student behaviors (Gage et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-39">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations are important to consider when interpreting the results and implications of this study. The impacts of the Covid‐19 pandemic were felt in teacher and staff, substitute teacher, and bus driver shortages. The teacher and faculty shortages led to larger class sizes, and temporarily combined classes. The behavior resource teacher was unable to conduct observations due to the teacher and staff shortage because she was needed elsewhere. The bus driver shortages led to students not being able to come to school since their parents could not transport them to school. Observations were missed due to teacher absences, district and state testing, field trips, field day and parent teacher conferences.</p> <p>There were specific study design elements that were not implemented due to participant choice. The BRT did not complete the procedural fidelity checklists for observations, coaching sessions, or visual performance feedback emails. The BRT was trained in data entry into Google Sheets but indicated that entering data was not feasible due to time constraints. The first author entered the data for her to ensure that the graphs would be completed. The BRT did tailor the email template, but we still had to send email templates for visual performance feedback that included a picture of the graph. The emails were sent out at different times primarily due to the BRT's schedule. Future research should ensure that the emails are consistent across all participants.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-40">Implications for Future Research</hd> <p>This study provides initial evidence that school‐based personnel can implement the visual performance feedback procedures used in the MTS‐PD model. Future research should replicate this study and extend the results by including different staff roles, such as assistant principals or other teachers, and different research designs (e.g., group experimental designs). Researchers should also develop coaching models for school‐based personnel to implement visual performance feedback to determine the materials needed and how to best support implementation. Further, individual preferences could be taken into consideration when designing data collection tools and systems. For example, some personnel may prefer digital spreadsheets, while others may want more traditional paper and pencil methods.</p> <p>Future research should also continue to explore the distal effects of increased CMS on students' classroom behavior. Student behavior data should be collected using direct observations, as well as other methods (e.g., teacher or parent rating scales) to capture broad assessment of impacts. Further, other student outcomes should be considered, such as emotional and cognitive engagement, self‐efficacy, and self‐management. Future research should also analyze how students respond to varying rates of BSP, as it is possible that too much BSP may be counterproductive, or the effects may fade over time.</p> <hd id="AN0184952461-41">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>The results of this study suggest that school‐based personnel can conduct CMS coaching and visual performance feedback. In fact, as noted by the BRT, implementing visual performance feedback outside of a research study may allow for much‐needed flexibility and make the processes more practical. The BRT mentioned that the rigidity of observing the teachers on a set day of the week and time was confining and difficult to adjust her schedule. She shared that if she were able to select the observation time based on her schedule for the week the coaching model would be more feasible to implement. Further, the teachers may feel less stress since only one adult would be observing, not the BRT and the research data collectors. Overall, we believe that school personnel can successfully implement this model in their schools.</p> <ref id="AN0184952461-42"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Caldarella, P., R. A. A. Larsen, L. Williams, H. P. Wills, and J. H. Wehby. 2019. " Teacher Praise‐To‐Reprimand Ratios." Education and Treatment of Children 42, no. 4 : 447 – 468.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Christofferson, M., and A. L. Sullivan. 2015. " Preservice Teachers' Classroom Management Training: A Survey OF Self‐Reported Training Experiences, Content Coverage,and Preparedness: Classroom Management Training Study." Psychology in the Schools 52, no. 3 : 248 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21819.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Diane M. Myers, M., S. Brandi Simonsen, and S. George Sugai. 2011. " Increasing Teachers' Use of Praise With a Response‐To‐Intervention Approach." Education and Treatment of Children 34, no. 1 : 35 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Downs, K. R., P. Caldarella, R. A. A. Larsen, et al. 2019. " Teacher Praise and Reprimands: The Differential Response of Students at Risk of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders." Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 21, no. 3 : 135 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718800824.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref37" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ennis, R. P., D. J. Royer, K. L. Lane, H. M. Menzies, W. P. Oakes, and L. E. Schellman. 2018. " Behavior‐Specific Praise: An Effective, Efficient, Low‐Intensity Strategy to Support Student Success." Beyond Behavior 27, no. 3 : 134 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Frey, S. 2013. SCOA (school classroom observation and analysis): An Introduction to the Data Collection Application [Webinar]. University of Louisville College of Education and Human Development. https://vimeo.com/72281291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gage, N. A., N. M. Grasley‐Boy, and A. S. MacSuga‐Gage. 2018. " Professional Development to Increase Teacher Behavior‐Specific Praise: A Single‐Case Design Replication." Psychology in the Schools 55, no. 3 : 264 – 277. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gage, N. A., A. S. MacSuga‐Gage, and E. Crews. 2017. " Increasing Teachers' Use of Behavior‐Specific Praise Using a Multitiered System for Professional Development." Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 19, no. 4 : 239 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693568.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gage, N. A., T. Scott, R. Hirn, and A. S. MacSuga‐Gage. 2018. " The Relationship Between Teachers' Implementation of Classroom Management Practices and Student Behavior in Elementary School." Behavioral Disorders 43, no. 2 : 302 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917714809.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garwood, J. D., and L. Vernon‐Feagans. 2017. " Classroom Management Affects Literacy Development of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders." Exceptional Children 83, no. 2 : 123 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grasley‐Boy, N. M., N. A. Gage, B. Reichow, A. S. MacSuga‐Gage, and H. Lane. 2023. " A Conceptual Replication of Targeted Professional Development to Increase Teachers' Behavior‐Specific Praise." School Psychology Review 52, no. 1 : 72 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1853486.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg, J., H. Putman, and K. Walsh. 2014. " Training Our Future Teachers: Classroom Management." National Council on Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556312.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., J. H. Hitchcock, R. H. Horner, et al. 2010. Single‐Case Designs Technical Documentation. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford, J. R. and Gast, D., ed. 2018. Single Case Research Methodology: Applications in Special Education and Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacSuga‐Gage, A., and B. Simonsen. 2011. " Increasing Teacher's Use of Evidence‐Based Classroom Management Strategies Through Consultation: Overview and Case Studies." Beyond Behavior 20, no. 2 : 4 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martens, B. K., R. L. Peterson, J. C. Witt, and S. Cirone. 1986. " Teacher Perceptions of School‐Based Interventions." Exceptional Children 53, no. 3 : 213 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, R. I., K. J. Vannest, J. L. Davis, and S. B. Sauber. 2011. " Combining Non‐Overlap and Trend for Single Case Research: Tau‐U." Behavior Therapy 42 : 284 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky, J. E., M. Chen, and B. Hamilton (2016). scdhlm: A Web‐based Calculator for Between‐Case Standardized Mean Differences (Version 0.3. 1) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky, J. E., L. V. Hedges, and W. R. Shadish. 2014. " Design‐Comparable Effect Sizes in Multiple Baseline Designs: A General Modeling Framework." Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 39, no. 5 : 368 – 393. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org">www.R-project.org</ulink> /.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royer, D. J., K. L. Lane, K. D. Dunlap, and R. P. Ennis. 2019. " A Systematic Review of Teacher Delivered Behavior Specific Praise on K‐12 Student Performance." Remedial and Special Education 40, no. 2 : 112 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, T., R. Hirn, and J. Cooper. 2017. Teacher and Student Behaviors: Keys to Success in Classroom Instruction. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonsen, B., S. Fairbanks, A. Briesch, D. Myers, and G. Sugai. 2008. " Evidence‐Based Practices in Classroom Management: Considerations for Research to Practice." Education & Treatment of Children 31 : 351 – 380. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonsen, B., A. S. MacSuga‐Gage, D. E. Briere, et al. 2014. " Multitiered Support Framework for Teachers' Classroom‐Management Practices: Overview and Case Study of Building the Triangle for Teachers." Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 16 : 179 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484062.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stichter, J. P., T. J. Lewis, T. A. Whittaker, M. Richter, N. W. Johnson, and R. P. Trussell. 2009. " Assessing Teacher Use of Opportunities to Respond and Effective Classroom Management Strategies." Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 11, no. 2 : 68 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708326597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannest, K. J., R. I. Parker, O. Gonan, and T. Adiquzel. 2016. Single Case Research: Web Based Calculators for SCR Analysis. (Version 2.0) [Web‐based application]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Retrieved December 19, 2016. Available from singlecaseresearch.org.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kaci Ellis; Nicholas A. Gage; Ashley S. MacSuga‐Gage; Carla Schmidt; Holly Lane and Ann Serpahine</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1470541
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of School-Based Personnel Delivered Coaching and Performance Feedback on Elementary Teachers' Use of Behavior Specific Praise
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kaci+Ellis%22">Kaci Ellis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicholas+A%2E+Gage%22">Nicholas A. Gage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ashley+S%2E+MacSuga-Gage%22">Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carla+Schmidt%22">Carla Schmidt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holly+Lane%22">Holly Lane</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ann+Serpahine%22">Ann Serpahine</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(6):1852-1861.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Reinforcement%22">Positive Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Personnel%22">School Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resource+Teachers%22">Resource Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Aids%22">Visual Aids</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23436
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Performance feedback has been shown to improve teachers' classroom management skills. Typically, a researcher provides the performance feedback, not school-based personnel. Therefore, we investigated the effects of performance feedback on classroom management skills when the feedback is delivered by school-based personnel. We used a concurrent multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher on four teachers' use of behavior specific praise. One White behavior support teacher, two White teachers, and two Black teachers, all with more than 5 years of teaching experience participated in the study. We used visual analysis and Tau-U single-case design effect sizes to evaluate the multiple baseline design. Results indicate a functional relation between visual performance feedback provided by a school behavior resource teacher and teachers' increased use of behavior specific praise The results suggest that school-based personnel can be trained in data collection, brief coaching sessions, and implementation of visual performance feedback to support teachers in increasing their use of behavior-specific praise. This study provides evidence that school-based personnel can help teachers increase their use of BSP during instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1470541
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1470541
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23436
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 1852
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resource Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Aids
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of School-Based Personnel Delivered Coaching and Performance Feedback on Elementary Teachers' Use of Behavior Specific Praise
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kaci Ellis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nicholas A. Gage
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carla Schmidt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holly Lane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ann Serpahine
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1