Running Head: INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS

The Effects of Increasing Positive Interactions

in a 1st Grade Classroom

Chris Reid

University of Alaska Southeast

ED626 Spring 2019

April 30, 2019

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 2


Abstract

This qualitative inquiry case study examines the change of behavior when implementing a

proactive and positive behavior support system using Foundations (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich,

2014). I collected data over a three-week period during the spring semester 2019. The research

came from my first grade class. I recorded daily the number of students who had misbehaviors

such as interfering with teacher lesson, disruptive talking, clowning, harassing classmates, verbal

insults, rudeness to teacher, and defiance. I also documented three target students in how they

evaluated their daily goal. The results from the data showed a decrease in classroom disruptions

and off task students. I used the teaching manual Foundations to learn how to implement more

“positive to corrective interactions” with students.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 3


Introduction

I am a first grade teacher in southcentral Alaska. I teach in a multicultural, Title 1 (low

income) school. Ten different nationalities are represented in my classroom. Half of my students

speak, or have parents who speak, a different home language. A handful of my students are the

first generation to be born in the United States of America (USA), and a few of my students were

born outside of the USA. While this cultural diversity lends to a colorful and exciting classroom,

it presents challenges regarding cultural beliefs in both parenting styles and discipline styles.

Where young boys in some cultures do not show the same respect to women as they show to

men, they have to learn that respecting women is an important USA value. Where some

parenting styles believe in harsh discipline, I want students to know that we all make mistakes

and that there are other ways to approach discipline. When a child has made a poor choice, we

should ask, “What could you do now that would be helpful?” (Bailey, 2015, p. 183). Parents

have the highest influence on their children, and teachers have the next highest influence (Spark,

Spark, and Rich, 2014, p. 9).

Review of the Literature

There are as many different teaching styles as there are classroom management

techniques. Research shows classroom management is easier when teachers have more positive

to corrective interactions with their students. The purpose of this literature review was to

research studies on the effect of increasing positive interactions in the classroom in order to

decrease classroom disruptions and off task students. A positive interaction occurs when a

teacher uses praise techniques to encourage and inform the student that they are presently

meeting expectations, therefore the student being on task. This literature review has four themes:

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 4


praise characteristics, praise training, avoiding criticism in the classroom, and positive to

corrective interactions.

Praise Characteristics

One type of positive interaction with students is using praise; however, there are different

types of praise. Skipper & Douglas’s (2012) study states that some types of praise have a

positive influence on learning while others have a negative influence. Skipper distinguishes

between comments that are aimed at evaluating a person’s traits or the persons as a whole (e.g.

‘You are a clever girl’), which is general praise. The person’s effort or strategies (e.g., ‘You

found a good way to do it’) is described as behavior-specific praise. Research reveals that these

two types of praise have different effects on classroom behavior. Behavior-specific praise can

effectively decrease students’ inappropriate behavior because it highlights the expected behavior

(Floress, Berlinghof, Rader, & Riedesel, 2017). In addition to teachers using behavior-specific

praise, when teachers begin to ignore disruptive behaviors, off task behavior declines because

students learn to recognize which behaviors receive attention, and which do not (Floress,

Jenkins, Reinke, & McKown, 2018). Unfortunately, research by Thompson, Marchant,

Anderson, Prater, & Gibb, (2012) states, “Significant evidence indicates that teachers rarely use

praise effectively in the classroom” (p. 522). Praise training is vital for equipping teachers to use

this powerful tool correctly.

Praise Training

Using praise to build positive interactions with students must be learned and practiced. A

study by Cook, Coco, Zhang, Fiat, Duong, Renshaw, Long & Frank (2018) showed teachers who

received initial training on positive interactions had positive results at first; however, teachers did

not continue the practice. Teachers reverted back to redirecting rather than persisting in the

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 5


increase of positive interactions. The study suggests that some of the discrepancy may be from

teachers not having follow-up training after the initial training. Also, some of the teachers picked

by their principals attended the mandatory training rather than volunteering. Researchers

theorized that without teacher support, nor teacher interest, teachers defaulted to their original

training and philosophies in behavior management (Coffee & Kratochwill, 2013). Therefore,

Coffee & Kratochwill recommended follow-up training and support for teachers, along with

further research on the subject.

Floress, Beschta, Meyer & Reinke (2017) suggests the same results as Coffee &

Kratochwill’s (2013) research. They speculate the reason teachers had difficulty implementing

evidence-based research was because teachers: 1) lacked proper training, 2) had difficulty

maintaining the skill after the training, and 3) required more intensive training. The authors

conclude, “…[I]n many ways, the art and science of facilitating and sustaining a change in

teachers’ intervention behaviors still remains a mystery (p. 2).”

Avoiding the Criticism Trap

Along with increasing positive interactions with students, teachers are also encouraged to

avoid using criticism in the classroom. When students behave well, teachers do not focus on

behavior management. In a chaos free classroom, teachers think about the lesson, time

management, and clarification. A teacher’s reprimand prompts most students’ to listen.

However, a student who is starved for attention, learns that misbehave pays off with immediate

attention. (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich, 2014). The cycle of criticism begins when teachers feel

frustrated with disruptions. Teachers do not fall into the criticism trap because they do not care.

However, studies shown that teachers generally rely on negative feedback strategies to convey

disappointment in student behavior. Students who exhibited more problem behaviors received

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 6


more negative attention. (Sprouls, Mathur, & Upreti, 2015). An article by Perle (2018) states,

“It is not uncommon for teachers to regress to derogatory talk and reprimands in response to

student disruptive behavior.” The author further expresses the importance of the teacher

remaining calm, controlled, and positive to best encourage appropriate behavior from the

difficult child. Rather than getting mad, Perle encourages teachers to use a positive strategy like

the “when, then” concept. For example, “when you finish your assignment, then you can play for

5 minutes.”

Criticism strains the classroom atmosphere. “Even a single instance of social rejection or

exclusion can undermine well-being. Criticism leads to lower self-esteem, self-defeating

behavior, decreased prosocial behavior, and aggression” (Cook, Coco, Zhang, Fiat, Duong,

Renshaw, Long, & Frank, 2018, p. 228). The only escape from the criticism trap is to increase

positive interactions with the student when they are behaving responsibly (Sprick et al. 2014).

Positive to Corrective Interactions

Researchers state that correctives are not bad or wrong (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich, 2014).

Students do need correction. However, providing more attention to positive behavior motivates

students to behave responsibly. The positive to corrective interactions is measured with a ratio

called “ratios of positive interactions.” For example, a ratio of 5:1 means those five positive

interactions were given for every one corrective interaction.

“Research has suggested that teachers can initiate positive exchanges by clearly

communicating high expectations for student success to all students, and providing frequent

positive feedback to students, which allows them to recognize their behavioral and academic

success” (Sprouls, Mathur, & Upreti, 2015, p. 154). Initiating positive interactions effectively

decreases student disruptive behavior. Some research suggests that an optimal rate, that is likely

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 7


to influence student behavior, is yet to be determined (Floress & Berlingholf, Rader, & Riedesel,

2017). For example, research by Sprouls et al. (2015) showed that their participating teachers

initially averaged a 1:1 ratios of positive to corrective interactions (RPI). After teachers received

training in RPI, their ratio went to 3:1. More current research sets a higher bar, stating a ratio of

5:1 is a better goal for teachers to reach (Cook, Coco, Zhang, Fiat, Duong, Rensha, Long, &

Frank, 2018).

The literature reviewed in this study encompassed four themes for positive interactions in

the classroom in order to decrease classroom disruptions and off task students. First, a teacher’s

behavior-specific praise to a student is counted as a positive interaction. Second, teachers need

both initial training and follow-up training on the difference between positive and corrective

interactions in order for it to be successful in the classroom. Third, teachers must avoid criticism

when addressing a misbehaving student. Lastly, for optimum behavior, teachers are encouraged

to boost their positive to corrective ratios to 5:1.

Theoretical Framework

Research has shown that with effective training methods, teachers who increase their

general praise to behavior-specific praise can decrease classroom disruptions and off task

students. “When students are explicitly taught what behaviors to demonstrate at school, and

teachers positively reinforce these behaviors (e.g., praise), students are more likely to

demonstrate appropriate behaviors and thus experience social and behavior success (Floress,

Jenkins, Reinke, & McKown, 2018).” Some researchers believe that teachers should strive to

give more behavior-specific praise than general praise. Bailey said that general praise is

counterproductive (2015). She explains, “Praising children only for successfully, completed

tasks teaches them that effort doesn’t matter, only accomplishments matter.” Everyone makes

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 8


inappropriate choices. Bailey encourages teachers to help children focus on their problem and the

correction with positive interactions like, “You can do it. You did it! I knew you could.”

One study recommend teachers to “always pay at least three times more frequent

attention to every student when the student is meeting expectations than when the student is

behaving inappropriately (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich, 2014). Sprick et al. (2014) states that teachers

who do not overly strive to be positive digress into the pattern of paying 3 to 15 times more

attention to misbehavior than to positive behavior.

Research Question

The purpose of this study was to discover if increasing positive interactions with my

students changed the behavior problems in my 1st grade class. Previous observers recorded me as

having an average of two positives for every corrective. This study occurred in a Title 1 school in

Southcentral Alaska. My specific question was, “Does increasing positive interactions decrease

off task and disruptive behavior in my 1st grade classroom?”

Project Design

In this study of increasing positive interactions, I took a qualitative approach examining a

real world situation, without manipulating it. This study was action research because I used the

book Foundations: A proactive & positive behavior support system to increase my knowledge on

positive to corrective interactions (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich 2014). Module C of Foundations had

four tasks to practice. The first task was to understand positive and corrective interactions. The

second task defined how to increase positive interactions. The third task was fine-tuning positive

and corrective interactions. Lastly, the author discussed how to continuously increase ratios of

positive to corrective interactions. My goal was to increase my positive to corrective interactions

to a ratio of 5:1.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 9


Participants

This study was conducted with all the 1st graders in my classroom. Although all students

received increased praise and positive interactions, three students were targeted for the Daily

Goal Setting. Two of the target students were males and the other was a female. At the time of

the research the two males were 6 years old and the female was 7 years old. All three students

were often disruptive and off task throughout the day, especially during group instruction. They

are identified as Chuck, Abraham, and Ryan. None of the three students had an Individual

Education Plan (IEP), nor had they been identified as having any learning disabilities.

Observations

Observations, to count the ration of positive to corrective interactions, were to occur

randomly and intermittently from March 4-29, 2019 using the Classroom Climate Feedback

Form (Appendix A). Each observation was to be 8-10 minutes. The observers were to be Ms.

Shook, Ms. Besh, and/or Ms. Teekle-O. All three worked at the school, and each was

experienced in collecting data during classroom observations. However, I received only one

observation the first week, which meant I needed to make a change to my original plan. The idea

for the change came while reading the first lesson of the Foundations resource manual, (Sprick,

Sprick, & Rich, 2014pg. 53). It recommended videoing myself while teaching a lesson. I began

videoing some of my lessons during week 2 of my data collection period.

Daily Goal Setting

Each morning, after the pledge, the entire school said our guidelines for success,

“Fairview Eagles SOAR by striving to succeed, owning our attitudes, acting responsibly, and

respecting everyone” (Bailey, 2011 & Sprick, 2014). A poster with the school guidelines hung in

our classroom (Appendix B). Because we were working on behavior, I used this poster to help

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 10


my students set a daily behavior goal. After each student had picked one of the four goals, they

clothes-pinned their name to one of the four guidelines printed on the poster. At the end of the

day, the students moved their clothespin to either “I did it!,” “Almost,” or “Tomorrow is new

day,” (See Appendix B). “I did it!” meant that the goal was met. “Almost” meant that the goal

was partly met. “Tomorrow is a new day,” meant that the goal was not made, and that tomorrow

they could try again, because we are always trying to succeed.

With each of my three target students I asked if they had met their goal. If I did not agree

with their assessment, I asked them to reflect of the day’s events. Later, I made comments in my

field notes regarding their reflections.

Field Notes

Along with documenting target students’ daily goals, the field notes were also completed

twice daily, right after students went to lunch/recess and again at end of school day. Field notes

included date, quick notes on the right side of the notebook, and a reflection on the left side of

the notebook. The main purpose of the field notes was to track the number of students having

behavior issues each day, and to determine whether behaviors and off task students decreased as

I increased positive to corrective interactions.

Results

The purpose of this research was to see if increasing positive interactions would decrease

behaviors and off task students in my 1st grade class. Internal validity for this study was

accomplished through triangulation, the analysis of multiple sources of qualitative data (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016). A narrative analysis of observations, student goals, and field notes was

conducted. This study was done using action research, because action research allowed me to

work simultaneously towards both knowledge and change (O’Leary, 2017).

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 11


One third of the way through this study, I realized I needed to change the wording of my

research focus. Originally, I used the term behavior-specific praise as my main tool to decrease

off task students and classroom disruptions. However, through my action research, I learned that

I needed to incorporate a variety of positive interactions with my students and not just behavior-

specific praise. As I read and studied Task 2: Increasing positive interactions from the workbook

Foundations, I learned several new ways to make positive interactions with my students (Sprick,

Sprick, & Rich. 2014, pg. 55-62). I picked eight of the strategies to work on during the rest of my

research. They were:

• After a corrective interaction, remind myself to deliver at least three positive interactions

• Each student does a crazy handshake, their choice, with me in the morning

• Post a list of on task students on the whiteboard

• Make two positive phone calls or text messages a week

• Praise one student, then another for similar behavior

• 10x2: to spend 10 days in a row, for 2 minute, a day with 1 behavior student.

• Conduct individual conferences, especially with my three focus students

Along with behavior-specific praise, the incorporation of these eight strategies propelled me

toward more positive interactions with my students.

Task 3 was on fine-tuning positive and corrective interactions. It explained how I would

adjust to my own style of positive interactions over time. Task 4 explained how to work on ratios

of positive interactions continuously. It explained that I should not fear sounding phony to my

students because my effort to deliver positives would “probably benefit students and not do any

harm (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich. 2014, pg. 63). I was off to good start, but challenges were around

the corner.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 12


Observations

Although I was disappointed to not have my lessons observed, the situation forced me to

come up with an alternative plan. Using my iPad, I made videos of me teaching nine different

lessons during the last two weeks of my data collection. Previous to this research, I had not been

trained on how to count positive and corrective interactions. I used the Foundations resource

manual and the video series that comes with it to learn the process (Sprick, Sprick, & Rich, 2014,

pg. 53). I used the video series to first learn the process and then to practice counting and

recognizing the difference between positive and corrective interactions. A positive and a

corrective interaction depend on what the student is doing at the time of the interactions. It does

not matter what words the teacher uses, nor the teacher’s tone of voice. If the student is on task,

the interaction is positive. If the student is off task, the interaction is a correction.

Roughly 12 hours were spent viewing and collecting data from my videos. Positive to

corrective interactions were documented on the bottom of the Classroom Climate Feedback

Form (Appendix A). This same form has a portion for collecting the number of on task students.

Unfortunately, I was not able to collect that data because my vantage point on the videos did not

allow me to see all students present.

Originally my ratios of interactions, when collected by someone else, were 2:1. My goal

during this study was to more than double my ratio to 5:1. However, when I documented my

own ratios, without being watched by another person, my average was 1:1. Only once out of nine

videos did I reach a 2:1 ratio of positive to corrective interactions.

The videos also revealed that many of my behavior students were often on task for

periods of up to 10 minutes without me giving them a behavior-specific praise. One of my target

students was much more wiggly and off task than I realized. Occasionally, I noticed some of my

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 13


quiet students being off task, which had gone unobserved while teaching. Other observations

from the videos were that I said, “now” too often, I did not stand or sit up straight: I did not smile

enough.

Field Notes

Data collected from field notes on the three target students also showed some

improvement in classroom behaviors. Chuck had five disruptive days the first week, zero the

second, and one the last week. Abraham had three disruptive days the first week, one the second,

and zero the third week. Ryan did not improve as well as the other two target students. She had

two disruptive days the first week, four the second week, and 3 the last week.

Overall, the average number of disruptive students per day during the first week of data

collection was 5.5. During the second week, the average number of disruptive students per day

decreased to 3.75. The final week of data collection, an average 2.8 per day, was nearly half of

week one. Data clearly indicates the number of disruptive students per week decreased during

the three-week study.

Daily Goal Setting

Beginning with week one, students set a goal each day by moving their named clothespin

to one of the four goals: Strive to succeed, Own my attitude, Act responsibly, or Respect

everyone. At the end of the school day, students moved their clothespin to one of the following: I

did it!, Almost, or Tomorrow is a new day. Every student set a daily goal each day; however, I

only kept data on the three target students.

I had anticipated that my target students would have less disruptive behaviors as I

increased my positive interactions, and this was true. However, there was an unexpected

surprise. During the first week, most often the target students thought they did better at reaching

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 14


their goal than I thought they did. For example, when they thought “I did it!,” I thought they

should have put their clothespin on “Almost.” When they thought they “Almost” made their

goal, I thought they should have picked “Tomorrow is a new day.” A couple of days into the first

week, I began reflecting with them on their day and their assessment choice. I continued this

conversation with them throughout weeks two and three. Data from the first week showed that I

agreed with their first choice 45% of the time, 77% of the time the second week, and 90% of the

time the third week. Clearly, our perspectives began to merge.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to discover if increasing positive interactions with my

students changed the behavior problems in my classroom. My specific question was, “Does

increasing positive interactions decrease off task and disruptive behavior in my 1st grade

classroom?”

My initial expectations, as I increased my positive interactions, were that I would have

fewer disruptions and off task students. I also expected to increase my ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 positive

to corrective interactions while teaching whole group lessons. I was surprised when my ratio

only increased to 2:1. Regardless, at the end of the research, my data showed that I was having

less disruptive behavior in the classroom. Even though I had not increased my ratio to 5:1 during

whole group lessons, I had increased the number of positive interactions in my classroom. My

initial research stated that positive interactions needed to be learned then continually practiced

(Cook, Coco, Zhang, Fiat, Duong, Renshaw, Long, & Frank, 2018). That is what I began during

this study. With practice, I believed my goal could be reached.

Initial data results for the Student Goal Setting surprised me. During the first week of

data collection, my target students evaluated their behavior as better than my assessment.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 15


Because of this, during the second week of data collection, each one of the three target students

and I had a short discussion about their day and conferenced with them concerning whether their

goal was reached or not. By the start of the third week, their goal assessment usually agreed with

my assessment. I was excited to see their new understanding of what it meant for them to either

reach their goal, almost reached their goal, or knowing that tomorrow was a new day in which to

try again. The target students were learning what it meant to make and to reach a behavior goal.

As I implemented more positive interactions with my students, I felt a closer connection

to them. I believe they felt it too. We continued to have difficult moments, but recovery came

quicker. For example, I had a student who used extreme negative behavior to get both adult and

peer attention. The end of the school day was most difficult for him. He often upturned desks

and/or chairs for attention. However, his behavior improved after I began more positive

interactions with him. One day he was leaving a few minutes early with his grandma. Before he

left, he walked around our busy room saying good-bye to different groups of students, which he

was not in the habit of doing. When I realized what was happening, I followed him out of the

classroom and said, “Hey buddy, have a good weekend!” He ran back and gave me a hug, which

he had never done before. As he was running back to his grandma (yes, running in the hall), I

had an incredible desire to sing out, “I think I love you…” so I did. He smiled and waved. Those

few minutes added up to a lot of positive interactions with that little guy.

Conclusion

My research question was, “Does increasing positive interactions decrease off task and

disruptive behavior in my 1st grade classroom?” The answer to my question was yes. At the end

of the research, I was having fewer off task students and disruptive behaviors. However, I had

not reach my goal of 5:1 positive to corrective interactions. The difference is that I had only

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 16


videoed myself teaching whole group lessons in reading and math. I was only counting positive

to corrective interactions from these videos. I was not counting the extra positives interactions

before lesson started, during seatwork, or even at the end of the day. However, because I had

increased more positive interactions throughout the day, it made a positive difference in the

behavior of my class.

From the beginning of the study, I had practiced incorporating eight new types of positive

interactions with my students. The following five are strategies I felt comfortable with, and will

continue using in my practice:

• Gave three positives after every corrective

• Texted two to three parents positive messages each week

• Mailed postcards to students with encouraging notes

• Listed on task students on the whiteboard

• Gave each student a crazy handshake every morning

Sharing these ideas for positive interactions, along with my data results, is important for

my school because many teachers have struggled with behaviors and off task students. Like me,

most teachers in our building continue striving to reach a ratio of 5:1. Ongoing professional

training would likely be beneficial.

My own practice had improved because I began viewing behavior problems as own

problem and not the students’ problem. Without teaching my expectations, I should not have

expected the students to know them. If I wanted my students to raise their hand rather than blurt,

I needed to clearly teach this expectation. If I wanted my students to walk rather than run, I

needed to demonstrate and enforce this expectation.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 17


Going forward, I will continue to incorporate positive interactions with my students. I

will teach procedures and expectations. Practicing these new interactions with my students had

improved our relationships, created a more positive classroom environment. Learning

opportunities had increased for all; for my students, and for myself.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 18


References

Bailey, B. A. (2011). Managing emotional mayhem: The five steps for self-regulation. Oviedo,

FL: Loving Guidence, Inc.

Coffee, G., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2013). Examining teacher use of praise taught during

behavioral consultation. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 23(1), 1–

35. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1080/10474412.2013.757150

Cook, C. R., Coco, S., Zhang, Y., Fiat, A. E., Duong, M. T., Renshaw, T. L., Long A. C.

& Frank, S. (2018). Cultivating positive teacher-student relationships. School Psychology

Review, 47(3), 226–243. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.17105/SPR-2017-

0025.V47-3

Floress, M. T., Beschta, S. L., Meyer, K. L., & Reinke, W. M. (2017). Praise research

trends and future directions. Behavioral Disorders, 43(1), 227–243. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1177/0198742917704648

Floress, M. T., Berlinghof, J. R., Rader, R. A., & Riedesel, E. K. (2017). Preschool

teachers’ use of praise in general, at-risk, and special education classrooms. Psychology

in the Schools, 54(5), 519–531. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1002/pits.22014

Floress, M. T., Jenkins, L. N., Reinke, W. M., & McKown, L. (2018). General education

teachers’ natural rates of praise. Behavioral Disorders, 43(4), 411–422. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1177/0198742917709472

Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation 4th

ed. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

O’Leary, Z. (2017). Doing your research project 3rd ed. Sage. Los Angeles, CA.

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 19


Perle, J. G. (2018). Teacher-Provided Positive Attending to Improve Student Behavior.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 204–212. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1177/0040059918757954

Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2012). Is no praise good praise? Effects of Positive

Feedback. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 327–339. Retrieved from

https://egan.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir

ect=true&db=eric&AN=EJ965789&login.asp&site=ehost-live

Sprick, R., Sprick J., & Rich, P. (2014). Foundations: A proactive & positive behavior support

system. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing.

Sprouls, K., Mathur, S. R., & Upreti, G. (2015). Is positive feedback a forgotten

classroom practice? Preventing School Failure, 59(3), 153–160. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1080/1045988X.2013.876958

Thompson, M. T., Marchant, M., Anderson, D., Prater, M. A., & Gibb, G. (2012). Effects of

Tiered Training on General Educators’ Use of Specific Praise. Education & Treatment of

Children, 35(4), 521–546. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1353/etc.2012.0032

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 20


Appendix A

Classroom Climate Feedback Form

Adapted and modified from Sprick, Sprick, & Rich (2014)

INCREASING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS 21


Appendix B

SOAR Poster