JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1989, 8, 162-169

Effects of Specific Verbal Praise on Off-Task Behavior of Second-Grade Students in Physical Education

Hans van der Mars Arizona State University

The effects of specific verbal praise by an experienced male physical educa- tion specialist on off-task behavior of three second-grade students were studied. A multiple baseline research design across subjects was used to assess the intervention, consisting of teacher praise aimed at the subjects' class con- duct and motor skill performance. To ensure that (a) the intervention would be implemented, and (b) that the praise would be contingent upon appropri- ate student conduct and skill performance, audio-cues were provided by way of prerecorded cues on microcassettes. Two boys and one girl in a second- grade class served as subjects. Off-task behavior and teacher praise data were collected from videotapes of 15 regular physical education classes. Results showed that the baseline levels of off-task levels were reduced significantly after introduction of the intervention for each subject. Specific verbal praise was effective in reducing off-task behavior of second-grade students in physical education.

A variety of experimental research studies across a number of settings and subjects has shown that increased attention in the form of praise andlor approval reduced students' off-task behaviors (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967; Cossairt, Hall, & Hopkins, 1973; Fox & Shapiro, 1978; Hall, Lund, &Jackson, 1968; Kazdin & Klock, 1973; Kazdin, Silverman, & Sittler, 1975; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; Marlowe, Madsen, Bowen, Reardon, & Logue, 1978; Thomas, Becker, & Armstrong, 1968; Warner, Miller, & Cohen, 1977).

Despite this established effectiveness in the management of student behavior in classrooms (O'Leary & O'Leary, 1977), use of verbal praise has remained surprisingly low. For example, in first-grade classes Anderson, Evertson, and Brophy (1979) found that only about 10% of all correct academic responses were followed by teacher praise. In those same classes praise for general conduct was virtually nonexistent. Data from other projects support these findings (Brophy, Evertson, Anderson, Baum, & Crawford, 1976; Heller & White, 1975; Thomas, Presland, Grant, & Glynn, 1978). Furthermore, White (1975) found that, partic- ularly beyond second grade, verbal approval rates decreased markedly.

Request reprints from Hans van der Mars, Department of Health and Physical Edu- cation, Rm. 138, P.E. Building West, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0404.

EFFECTS OF VERBAL PRAISE 163

It is quite possible that praise has not found its way into classroom instruc- tion because of its inappropriate andlor inaccurate use. In a careful analysis of the various functions of teacher praise, Brophy (1981) indicated that (a) the strength of praise as reinforcement is weak at best, once children pass through the first few grade levels, (b) when used too much it will take the teacher away from other instructional duties, and (c) most praise given is "infrequent, noncontingent, global rather than specific, and determined more by the students' personal qualities or teachers' perceptions of students' need for praise than by the quality of student conduct or achievement" @. 8). Consequently praise does not produce the desired results (i.e., increased appropriate student behavior), and thus teachers are not reinforced for using praise.

Descriptive data from research on teaching in physical education have shown that physical education specialists react largely by trying to correct students' skill performance and generally respond to their inappropriate conduct with nags and desists (Cheffers & Mancini, 1978; Fishman & Tobey, 1978; Quarterman, 1977; Stewart, 1980). Currently there is substantial evidence that (preservice) physical education teachers' use of positive interactions with students can be increased, both with regard to students' motor skill performance and their overall class con- duct (Cusimano, 1987; Siedentop, 198 1 ; van der Mars, 1987, 1988). However, the relationship of praise to students' off-task behavior levels has remained un- studied. The present study focused on the effects of verbal praise on the off-task behavior of three second-grade students in physical education classes.

Methods and Procedures Subjects and Setting

The subjects for this study were two boys and one girl who were enrolled in the same second-grade class. Physical education classes were held twice a week and lasted 30 minutes. The three students had been identified by the teacher as being frequently off-task, primarily through inattentiveness, inappropriate use of equipment, talkouts, interaction with other students during teacher instructions, not completing transitional tasks, and not following directions provided.

The 15 classes used for this study were all held indoors. Class size was 14 students and included no special needs students. The teacher volunteering for this project had 5 years of teaching experience and wore a wireless microphone so verbal behavior could be recorded accurately. Classes were videotaped for subsequent data collection. Both teacher and students had been videotaped be- fore on a regular basis, thus it was assumed that the presence of videotape equip- ment would not produce extraneous variability in their behavior.

Target Behavior and Intervention

The Academic Learning Time-Physical Education Version 2 observation system (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982) was used to collect the students' off-task behavior. This system includes a category for student off-task behavior with the following definition:

The student is either not engaged in an activity (s)he should be engaged in or is engaged in an activity other than the one (s)he should be engaged in- behavior disruptions, misbehavior, and general behavior such as talking when

Van Der MARS

a teacher is explaining a skill, fighting, disrupting a drill through inappropri- ate behavior. (p. 14)

Off-task behavior data were collected using interval recording with a dsec non- continuous observation control (i.e., the alternating of "observe" and "record" intervals).

The intervention consisted of increasing the teacher's positive reaction (i.e., praise) to the target subjects' overall class conduct and skill performance. To ensure that the teacher would in fact react to the three target subjects more fre- quently in a positive way, and that this praise would be specific and contingent, prerecorded audio-cues were provided to the teacher by way of a microcassette recorder (Panasonic RN-130). The cues served primarily as reminders for the teacher and were recorded at a mean rate of 1.70 per minute, with the highest total rate per lesson never more than 2 per minute (see Table 1).

The recorder was worn in a small pouch strapped to the waistbelt that carried the wireless microphone. A mini-earphone was attached to the recorder, allowing only the teacher to hear the cues. To assess procedural reliability (i.e., the degree to which the intervention actually was implemented), data on the teacher's use of verbal praise were collected using event recording. Each occur- rence of verbal praise directed at a target subject was noted by recording the time of occurrence as dislayed on a running stopwatch that was superimposed on the videotape records of each class.

Research Design

A multiple baseline research design across subjects was used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). In this design the start of the intervention with each subject is staggered over time. The intervention was started with different subjects during the 7th, 9th, and 13th sessions. Experimental control is demonstrated when the changes in each subject's behavior pattern oc- cur only after an intervention has been introduced. Generalization across sub- jects is established primarily through replication of a study. However, the multiple baseline research design does allow for an assessment of behavior change general- ization (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). Generalizability is established if and when the desired behavior change is achieved repeatedly across all subjects.

Table 1

Cue Rates for Each Individual Subject During Intervention

Sessions Subjects cued Cue ratea Total ratea

aPer minute- .. .

EFFECTS OF VERBAL PRAISE 165

Reliability

Two baseline phase and two intervention phase class periods for each sub- ject were selected at random and reanalyzed by an independent observer to de- termine interobserver agreement (IOA). The scored-interval method (Hawkins & Dotson, 1975) for calculating IOA on the off-task behavior data produced percentages ranging from 88.2 to 94.0%. Agreement percentages for the verbal praise data were calculated using the formula "smaller frequency divided by larger frequency multiplied by 100." The resulting percentages ranged from 92.3 to 100%.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed through visual analysis of graphically plotted data using evaluative criteria suggested by Parsonson and Baer (1978). They included base- line stability, overlap of data between phases, change in level from baseline to intervention condition, and trends across and within experimental conditions.

Results

Results for the degree to which the intervention was actually implemented (i.e., procedural reliability) are shown in Table 2. Across all subjects, the amount of verbal praise increased during the intervention phase. The difference from base- line to intervention levels decreased from Subject 1 through Subject 3. This de- crease can be attributed in part to the fact that the intervention demanded the teacher to start spreading his verbal praise to more than one student as the study progressed.

The results of the intervention effects are shown in Figure 1. Subject 1 showed a variable baseline with a decreasing trend and a mean off-task percent- age of 30.1 %. During intervention, when praised more frequently for being on- task, off-task behavior decreased to a mean of 12.4% and showed a stable trend with less variability. Subject 2's increasing off-task behavior, as shown by the upward trend, averaged 24.2% during baseline conditions. After intervention was started, off-task behavior was sharply reduced to a mean of 10.6%. The off-task behavior pattern of Subject 3 showed a stable baseline with a mean of 25.4%. Increased specific praise during intervention produced a significant reduction in off-task behavior (M=9.9%).

Table 2

Rate of Praise Across Subjects During Baseline and Intervention Conditions

Subject Baseline (SD) Intenrention (SD) Increase (010)

Van Der MARS

I I

BASELINE I VERBAL PRAISE 1 S. 1 I ! t - - - - - t - TREND LINES.

SESSIONS

Figure 1 - Percent of off-task behavior across subjects during baseline and inter- vention conditions.

The efficiency of the intervention can be found in the changes in level between the final baseline session and initial intervention session. Across all three subjects, off-task behavior dropped immediately when praise was provided more often. Off-task behavior for all three subjects was exhibited predominantly dur- ing instructional and managerial portions of the lessons (see Table 3). The three subjects were off-task between 26.5 and 39.4% of the intervals coded as instruc- tional and managerial in context during baseline conditions. During the interven- tion phase this percentage range was lowered to 9.3-15.4%.

Discussion and Conclusion

The reliability of the intervention was demonstrated in that the subjects' baseline patterns of off-task behavior did not change until the intervention was started. Once targeted, off-task levels dropped quickly and consistently. There- fore it was concluded that verbal praise was effective in reducing off-task be- havior of second-grade students in physical education. This conclusion is tied in to the types of off-task behaviors exhibited by the subjects. For the types of behaviors exhibited, verbal approval through praise was powerful enough to at least reduce off-task behavior to more tolerable levels. More severe behaviors such as physical violence most likely would require more powerful interventions.

f LL61 'uewa~nb f 8L61 'Laq0.L %' f 8L61 'lul3mH '8 s~a333~3) sUo3 -$a q3nasa~ anyld113sap lagma q8noq umoys sy .slsy.?pads uoye3npa @~!sIlyd pa3uauadxa pue a~!nou qoq 103 p3~3 S! aspld 30 asn anpasa aq tq 8upp211 3gpads 'mooism13 m@al tq ase3 aq s! sa 'laq alv319tq ppo~ s8mptqg

-asp~d asn Qan.y~a@ 01 MO~ uo aseq a8pal~ouy pgos alom e 01 pea1 ppoqs Jopmpq aspd ,slaq3eq 8mpunoms ~xquo:, aq 30 %mpmslapun lam13 v .qap aq u! , 'asrou,, JO 'salqepa 8tqpuno~uo:, jo ptzalsu! Lpws 30 salqermn ~ofm stz papm%x am am)3nrls 8tqdno.B pue 'uogmo~ laq3w '&-old 'uogume se y~ns saIqe!mn ptvxaluo3 jr ~3p.g alom anoid Ilem asp~d raq3eq jo ean aq u! woga q3nasa~ anyle3gdal awnd '(9861 'I@H '!~pmb~aa 'poo~uaa~f) fog61 'auo3 78 lasod) snq y3nasar &mud e may aylzur pue pmasal a8ueq3 ~o!neqaq 30 ur@al aq loyeqaq ~uapws pue 1aq3m uo saIqe!mn @nlxquo:, 30 sl3ajJa aq azdpue 4p~an3 01 apm uaaq stzq uo!~epuawwo~a~ au

.so!neqaq Iuapws uo aspld q!~ads 30 sl3aga ayl tq alol a h~d os@ Am alqepa sg 'snq~ 'lo!neqaq allryldo~ddetq aq a]eumua) 01 mapnls aq lo3 snpqs angeupp3s!p e aq aqy8~ pmmpdar aq apyold 01 Iuap -tus aq 01 lasop %u!aom 30 1% aldw!s aq ~eq pa~ou osp Ilay~ 'slalaw L moy uan18 asoq wq lorneyaq qeydo~ddetq 8q3npa~ u! anpaaa alom a.xaM lalaw 1 moy uay8 spmqlda~ 1eq punoj (2861) e~33anelo3 pue 'oloams '8qeay -a!zuay3e~ 'ne~ 'ua~no~ ue~ 'a~ouuaqpng '(8861 'oueuqsn3 sm~ lap wn) 1uapms a 01 lasop sqwaJ Jaq3ea1 e uaqM laMoI s! loroyneqaq qsv-go luap -nls leq aleaptq uoyle3npa p3rsIlqd tq elap p!$z '1anaMoH .L~aa~sua~xa pa!ptus uaaq IOU sey loyeqaq qaq uo s~uaptus 01 hyryold ~aq3ealjo 13a33a au

'loyneyaq ysq-go aq 8tq3npa.r tq a101 e pahld uoguaue tq aseamq slaw aq 3eq aq HaM Ilem I! snm 'uoguaue paseam -q S~N-II~~SUO:, aspd pamal3q aq ll?yl maas ppo~ v 'ssq3 awes aq tq sluap -us liuam 01 uoy~uaue l!aq pea~ds 01 pa3loj an slay~iea~ leq uanlf) 'quaptus ~a8.m 01 &wold pue uoyluaue iay3ea1 aq ppo~ sa~dmexa OML .sqnsal aq 01 pa~nqyuo:, anq lZmn aspd 30 ssamld aq 8ufpunoms sa~q-A @nlxquo3 laylo '~ana~oH 'a1qq.m ~uapuadapq hmyd aq st! pmas asp~d 3gyds

.pano~dde pue palxdxa layma1 qaq 1ey~ 03 se quapws )a%m aq 03 sa8essaw nap papyold suoyl3ea~ s'ray3eal aq 30 h!3gpads au 'Ilpua8 -u!luomou pams uaaq aneq 1q8p.n leq ,, 'qof poo~), , 3paua8 aq VIM sluaptus la8.m avo) 8q3ea.1 nroy upgal a aIqe sa~ laq3eq a= -13npuo3 ssel3 Wlano ,s$uapnls le palsqp asoq Il~mp3ymd 'aspld aq jo h!3gpads aq Ilq papp seM pazrnry3 lornqaq ,sluaprus aq q3g~ qq~ hprdei aq 'anyepds @noqw

(as) uo!iua~eiu~ (as) ~U!I==EI iae!qns

suo!a!puq uoisuaruaaul pus aullassg 6u!rna swa!qns ssoray au!l a6palmoun JOPW

saafqng pus 8uaauw leraua~ Gupng ~slpl-~o slelua8ul jo suaarad usaw

8 a19e1

168 Van Der MARS

Stewart, 1980), physical educators predominantly correct, nag, or desist students to reduce inappropriate conduct. Proper training in the contingent use of specif- ic, genuine praise could help change this behavior pattern.

References

Anderson, L.M., Evertson, C.M., & Brophy, J.E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223.

Barlow, D.H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.

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

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

Brophy, J.E., Evertson, C.M., Anderson, L.M., Baum, M., & Crawford, J. (1976). Student amibute study. A prelimina~~ report: Austin: R&D Center for Teacher Edu- cation, University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 799)

Cheffers, J.T.F., & Mancini, V.H. (1978). Teacher-student interaction. In W.G. Anderson & G.T. Barrette (Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes @p. 39-50). Monograph I. Newtown, CT: Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Cossairt, A., Hall, R.V., & Hopkins, B.L. (1973). The effects of experimenter's instruc- tions, feedback, and praise on teacher praise and student attending behavior. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6 , 89-100.

Cusirnano, B.E. (1987). Effects of self-assessment and goal setting on verbal behavior of elementary physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa- tion, 6 , 166-173.

Fishman, S., & Tobey, C. (1978). Augmented feedback of physical education teachers. In W.G. Anderson & G.T. Barrette (Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes @p. 51-62). Monograph I. Newtown, CT: Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice.

Foster, S.L., & Cone, J.D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 313-338.

Fox, R.M., & Shapiro, S.T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: A nonexclusionary timeout procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 125-136.

Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J.C., & Hall, R.V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W.L. Heward, T.E. Heron, D.S. Hill, & J. Trap- Porter (Eds.), Foncs on behavior analysis in education @p. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Hall, R.V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Jouml of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1-12.

Hawkins, R., & Dotson, V. (1975). Reliability scores thafdelude: An Alice in Wonderland trip through the misleading characteristics in observer agreement scores in interval recording. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis:

application-(pp. 359-376)F-En@ewood Cliffs, NJ: b n t i c

EFFECTS OF VERBAL PRAISE 169

Heller, M., & White, M. (1975). Rates of teacher verbal approval and disapproval to higher and lower ability classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 796-800.

Kazdin, A.E., & Klock, J. (1973). The effects of nonverbal teacher approval on student attentive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 643-654.

Kazdin, A.E., Silverman, N.A., & Sittler, J.1. (1975). The use of prompts to enhance vicarious effects of nonverbal approval. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 8, 279-286.

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

Marlowe, R.H., Madsen, C.H., Bowen, C.E., Reardon, R.C., & Logue, P.E. (1978). Severe classroom behavior: Teachers or counsellors. Jouml of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 53-66.

O'Leary, K., & O'Leary, S. (1977). Classroom management: The successful use of behavior modifccation. New York: Pergamon.

Parsonson, B.S., & Baer, D.M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. In T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Single subject research: Strategies for evaluating change (pp. 101-165). New York: Academic press.

Quarterman, J. (1977). A descriptive analysis of physical education teaching in the ele- mentary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Siedentop, D. (1981). The Ohio State University supervision research program summary report. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (Introductory issue), pp. 30-38.

Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic learning time-physical education coding manual-1982 raised edition. Columbus: School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, The Ohio State University.

Stewart, M. (1980). Teaching behavior of physical education teachers in the natural en- vironment. College Student Journal, 14, 76-82.

Thomas, D.R., Becker, W.C., & Armstrong, M. (1968). Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher's behavior. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 35-45.

Thomas, J., Presland, I., Grant, M., & Glyrm, T. (1978). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in grade-7 classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 91-94.

van der Mars, H. (1987). Effects of audiocueing on teacher verbal praise of students' managerial and transitional task performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Edu- cation, 6 , 157-165.

van der Mars, H. (1988). The effects of audio-cueing on selected teaching behaviors of an experienced elementary physical education specialist. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8 , 64-72.

van der Mars, H., & Cusimano, B.E. (1988, May). l%e fleas of differential teacher proximity on student off-task behavior in a physical education setting: A single sub- ject analysis. Paper presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis 14th Annual Convention, Philadelphia.

Van Houten, R., Nau, P.A., MacKenzie-Keating, S.E., Sarneoto, D., & Colavecchia, B. (1982). An analysis of some variables influencing the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 65-83.

Warner, S.P., Miller, F.D., & Cohen, M.W. (1977). Relative effectiveness of teacher attention and the "good behavior game'' in m-ing disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 737.

White, M.A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8 , 367-372.