31310.1177/0271121411404440Fox et al.

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Coaching Early Childhood Special

31(3) 178­–192
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.

Educators to Implement a sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0271121411404440
http://tecse.sagepub.com
Comprehensive Model for Promoting
Young Children’s Social Competence

Lise Fox1, Mary Hemmeter1, Patricia Snyder1,

Denise Perez Binder1, and Shelley Clarke1

Abstract
Growing evidence suggests the importance of practitioners implementing promotion, prevention, and intervention practices
to foster children’s social-emotional competence and address challenging behavior within schools. Limited research exists,
however, on how to support teachers of school-age children to implement with fidelity comprehensive frameworks that
organize promotion, prevention, and intervention practices, and even fewer studies have examined implementation within
early childhood classrooms. In this study, three teachers were trained and coached to implement promotion, prevention, and
intervention practices related to the Teaching Pyramid Model. Findings from the present single-subject multiple probe across
teachers’ experimental study offer evidence of a functional relationship between training and coaching and implementation
of practices associated with the model. Results are discussed with respect to challenges related to supporting teachers
to implement with fidelity a complex and comprehensive array of evidence-based practices and the critical importance of
coaching.

Keywords
teachers, personnel, competence, social, early education programs

Social-emotional competence has been recognized as critical
for children’s early school adjustment and readiness for
school (La Paro & Pianta, 2000; McClelland, Morrison, &
Holmes, 2000; Raver & Knitzer, 2002). Fantuzzo and col-
leagues (2007) described social-emotional competence as a
multidimensional construct that includes constellations of
skills associated with self-regulation, self-concept, self-
efficacy, and prosocial behavior toward adults and peers.
Children enrolled in early childhood classrooms typically
demonstrate a range of skills that reflect their social-
emotional competence, and their needs for social and behav-
ior supports vary. Some children are learning complex
social skills and acquiring advanced emotional competen-
cies, whereas children who have never been in early educa-
tion and care settings or are making adjustments to these
settings are learning skills to help them establish new social
relationships and navigate unfamiliar social contexts. Other
children exhibit challenging behaviors that likely relate to
skill deficits associated with social-emotional competence.
Early learning practitioners have reported that they are chal-
lenged by how to support children with the most significant
social, emotional, and behavioral needs, while also providing
a developmentally appropriate and supportive learning con-
text for those children whose social-emotional needs are less
intense (Arnold, McWilliams, & Arnold, 1998; Hemmeter,
Corso, & Cheatham, 2006).
The Teaching Pyramid Model (Hemmeter, Ostrosky, &
Fox, 2006; Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003)
was designed as a promotion, prevention, and intervention
framework to organize and guide decision making about the
implementation of practices that have been demonstrated to
support the social, emotional, and behavioral development
of young children (Fox, Carta, Stain, Dunlap, & Hemmeter,
2010). As shown in Figure 1, the Teaching Pyramid Model
includes universal promotion practices appropriate for all
1
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lise Fox, Division of Applied Research and Educational Support,
13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., University of South Florida, Tampa,
FL 33612, USA
E-mail: fox@fmhi.usf.edu

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Fox et al. 179
Intensive
Interventions
Targeted Social
Emotional Supports
High Quality Supportive
Environments
Nurturing and Responsive Caregiving
Relationships
Figure 1. Teaching pyramid model for promoting social emotional development and addressing challenging behavior.
children, secondary preventive interventions for children
who might benefit from targeted social-emotional sup-
ports, and tertiary individualized interventions for children
with significant social skill deficits or persistent challeng-
ing behavior.
Universal practices are organized under two levels in the
Teaching Pyramid Model and have been identified as founda-
tional for promoting the social-emotional development of
young children and preventing challenging behavior: (a) nur-
turing and responsive caregiving relationships and (b) high-
quality supportive environments. Practices associated with
the first-level emanate from a substantial body of empirical
evidence that suggests nurturing and responsive relationships
are pivotal to young children’s development and learning
(Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Shonkoff & Phillips,
2000). Moreover, establishing collaborative relationships
with families is essential to the provision of an effective
program (Dunlap et al., 2006; Turnbull, Blue-Banning,
Turbiville, & Park, 1999). With respect to the second level,
high-quality and supportive environments are recognized as
a foundation for early development and learning in the
Teaching Pyramid Model. This second level of universal
promotion highlights the provision of a predictable and sup-
portive learning environment and teaching interactions that
maximize the engagement of children within classroom
activities and routines (Fox et al., 2010; Snyder, McLaughlin,
& Denney, 2011).
Secondary prevention within the Teaching Pyramid Model
focuses on the provision of targeted social-emotional supports.
Targeted social-emotional supports include explicit instruction
focused on social skills (e.g., identifying and expressing
emotions, social problem solving, and friendship skills) and
regulating emotions (e.g., Strain & Joseph, 2006; Webster-
Stratton & Reid, 2003). Targeted supports are offered to
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Tertiary Intervention
Secondary Prevention
Universal Promotion
children who need additional guidance or intervention
beyond that offered to all children. Social skills curricula
might be implemented systematically with some children
as part of secondary prevention in the Teaching Pyramid
Model (Joseph & Strain, 2003).
Tertiary interventions within the Teaching Pyramid
Model are individualized for children with persistent social-
competence skill deficits and challenging behavior. To inform
decision making about which individualized interventions
are used with which children and under what circumstances,
a team is convened to collect data. The team determines the
nature and function of the social skill delays or problem
behavior to develop an individualized behavior support plan,
implement the plan with fidelity, and conduct ongoing mon-
itoring of child progress and revise the plan, if needed (Fox
& Hemmeter, 2009; Hemmeter, Ostrosky, et al., 2006). The
individualized behavior support plan includes prevention
strategies to address “triggers” for challenging behavior,
replacement skills that are alternatives to the challenging
behavior, and strategies to reduce the occurrence of chal-
lenging behaviors (Fox et al., 2010; Snyder, Hemmeter,
Artman, Kinder, & Pasia, 2011).
The Teaching Pyramid Model and associated practices
were identified and selected for inclusion in the model based
on a review of the research on classroom-based promotion
and intervention practices that have been associated with posi-
tive social-emotional outcomes and decreases in challenging
behavior (e.g., Dunlap et al, 2006; Howes & Hamilton, 1993;
Walker et al., 1998; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond,
2004). An extensive review of the literature resulted in the
identification of a set of practices that were aligned to the
various levels of the Teaching Pyramid Model to ensure
that a comprehensive framework could be described and
operationalized (Hemmeter, Ostrosky, et al., 2006). Table 1
180 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)

Table 1. Practices Assessed by the Teaching Pyramid Classrooms (TPOT; Hemmeter, Fox, & Snyder, 2008), data
Observation Tool from three studies (Artman 2010; Hemmeter, Snyder, et al.,
2009; Hemmeter, Snyder, & Fox, 2010) have shown that, on
Level Practice topics average, teachers were implementing less than 40% of the
Nurturing and •  Supporting children’s play practices included on the TPOT without training and sup-
responsive •  Responding to child conversations port. Moreover, the practices that the teachers were imple-
relationships •  Support communication of children with menting were not consistently associated with any particular
special needs level of the Teaching Pyramid Model. These data suggest
•  Positive feedback and encouragement of that rather than implementing comprehensive promotion,
appropriate behavior
prevention, and intervention practices to support the needs
•  Build relationships with children
High-quality •  Adequate materials
of all children (universal), some children (targeted), and a
supportive •  Defined play centers few children (individualized), practitioners often implement
environments •  Balanced schedule (large and small strategies to address the challenging behaviors of young
group) children for whom they have the most persistent concerns.
•  Structured transitions Recent data also suggest that implementation of universal
•  Individualized instructions for children practices, such as precorrection and descriptive praise, or
who need support secondary practices, such as targeted social skills training,
•  Teach and promote small number of rules
•  Design activities that are engaging to
might be effective in certain circumstances to promote posi-
children tive behavior or prevent challenging behaviors reducing the
•  Provide clear directions need for individualized tertiary interventions (Fullerton,
Social emotional •  Teach children to identify and express Conroy, & Correa, 2009; Hemmeter, Snyder, Kinder, &
teaching emotions Artman, 2011; Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007; Webster-
strategies •  Teach and support self-regulation Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008).
•  Teach and support strategies for handling Limited research exists related to which professional
anger and disappointment
development strategies hold promise for supporting teachers
•  Teach and support social problem solving
•  Teach and support cooperative to implement with fidelity practices associated with compre-
responding hensive frameworks, such as the Teaching Pyramid Model.
•  Teach and support friendship skills A recent systematic review of the literature identified
•  Teach and support collaboration with 21 empirical studies that focused on the effects of profes-
peers sional development on early childhood practitioners’ use of
Individualized •  Convene a team to develop interventions strategies, practices, or comprehensive approaches for address-
interventions •  Collect data to determine nature of ing children’s social-emotional competence (Artman, 2010).
problem behavior
Across these studies, none focused on the impacts of pro-
•  Develop individualized behavior support
strategies fessional development for supporting early learning practi-
•  Implement behavior support plan with tioners to implement, with fidelity, promotion, prevention,
consistency and intervention practices associated with comprehensive
•  Conduct ongoing monitoring of child frameworks. The majority of the studies focused on training
progress teachers to use a specific targeted social-emotional teaching
•  Revise plan as needed curriculum (e.g., Domitrovich, Gest, Jones, Gill, & Derousie,
•  Partner with families and colleagues in
2010) or to use a specific strategy (e.g., descriptive praise
plan implementation
or precorrection; Fullerton et al., 2009; Hemmeter, Snyder,
Kinder, et al., 2011; Stormont et al., 2007). A need exists for
additional research focused on identifying promising profes-
shows an overview of the practices associated with each sional development practices that support teachers to imple-
level of the Teaching Pyramid Model. ment, with fidelity, practices associated with comprehensive
Although the field has recognized the need for compre- promotion, prevention, and intervention frameworks.
hensive promotion, prevention, and intervention, decision- Early childhood professional development research sug-
making frameworks’, such as the Teaching Pyramid Model, gests that professional development focused on supporting
evidence to date suggests that these comprehensive frame- teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices should
works are challenging to implement in preschool settings be (a) cohesive and focused on a practice or set of practices,
without training and support (VanDerHeyden & Snyder, (b) implemented collaboratively with the teacher, (c) grounded
2006). With respect to the implementation of the practices in the teachers’ practice, and (d) linked to desired outcomes
associated with the Teaching Pyramid Model as measured (McGee, 2008; Pianta, 2006; Snyder et al., 2011; Snyder &
using the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for Preschool Wolfe, 2008; Zaslow, Tout, Halle, Whittaker, & Lavelle, 2010).

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Fox et al. 181
The provision of instructional coaching with a systematic
performance feedback component has been identified as a
promising professional development strategy that can be
anchored in early childhood practice contexts to support
implementation of evidence-based practices (Hemmeter,
Snyder, Snell, & Fox, 2010; Snyder et al., 2011). Performance
feedback is defined as information presented to individuals
about the quantity or quality of their past performance (Crow
& Snyder, 1998; Prue & Fairbank, 1981). In the context of
instructional coaching, it involves providing the teacher with
feedback about her implementation of practices using data
gathered during observations of the teacher implementing
the practices in the classroom context.
A number of studies have used performance feedback,
either in isolation or as a component of a professional devel-
opment intervention, to support teachers’ use of practices
related to supporting children’s engagement, language,
or preacademic skills (e.g., Casey & McWilliam, 2008;
Cotnoir-Bichelman, Thompson, McKerchar, & Haremza,
2006; Hsieh, Hemmeter, McCollum, & Ostrosky, 2009;
Kaiser, Ostrosky, & Alpert, 1993). In addition, recent studies
have examined the use of performance feedback to support
teachers’ use of practices for promoting children’s social,
emotional, and behavioral outcomes (Barton & Wolery, 2007;
Fullerton et al., 2009; Hemmeter, Snyder, Kinder, et al., 2011;
Stormont et al., 2007). In each of these studies, workshops
or brief training sessions were followed by observations in
classrooms and the provision of performance feedback to
support teachers’ use of evidence-based practices, including
descriptive praise, precorrections, and verbal expansions.
Targeted observations focused on implementation of the
targeted practice were conducted, and data from the obser-
vations were used to provide teachers with performance
feedback. Across these studies, the brief professional
development intervention, which included performance
feedback, resulted in increases in teachers’ use of the tar-
geted practices.
The studies described above have demonstrated that the
provision of performance feedback is likely to be a key or
“active” ingredient of professional development interven-
tions that include a coaching or follow-up support component
focused on supporting teachers’ implementation of empiri-
cally supported practices in their classrooms. Nevertheless,
research to date is limited with respect to demonstrating
whether professional development that includes instruc-
tional coaching with a performance feedback component is
effective for supporting teachers to implement sets of prac-
tices associated with comprehensive promotion, preven-
tion, and intervention models, such as the Teaching Pyramid
Model.
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the
effects of a multicomponent professional development inter-
vention that included training, implementation guides, class-
room materials, and instructional coaching with performance
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
feedback on teachers’ use of practices associated with a frame-
work for addressing children’s social-emotional development
and challenging behavior. Specifically, this study addressed
the following research question: Will a multicomponent pro-
fessional development intervention be effective for support-
ing teacher’s use of practices associated with three levels
of the Teaching Pyramid Model during ongoing classroom
activities? This research question will be examined by deter-
mining if there is a functional relationship between imple-
mentation of a multicomponent professional development
intervention and preschool teachers’ use of practices dur-
ing ongoing classroom activities that are associated with
the Teaching Pyramid Model.
Method
Participants and Setting
The study enrolled early childhood special education (ECSE)
teachers who were interested in receiving training and support
on the implementation of practices for promoting young
children’s social-emotional competence and addressing
challenging behavior. Three teachers who taught in inclu-
sive public school classrooms for preschool children par-
ticipated in the study. Their classrooms were located on
three different elementary school campuses within the same
school district, followed a full-day schedule, and enrolled
both children with disabilities and children participating in
the state-supported voluntary preschool program. Each class-
room had children with and without disabilities and was
staffed by one lead teacher and one paraprofessional.
Teachers. Teacher A was a 37-year-old woman with a mas-
ter’s degree in ECSE who identified her race as White. At the
time of the study, Teacher A had 16 years of teaching experi-
ence. The classroom enrolled 10 children (ages 3–5 years)
with individualized educational programs (IEPs) and 6 stu-
dents who did not have IEPs. At the time of enrollment in the
study, Teacher A identified two children as having intensive
behavior (tertiary intervention) support needs. Teacher B was
a 35-year-old female with a bachelor’s degree in elementary
education and 12 years of experience in early education who
identified her race as White. Her past experience included
teaching in a classroom and 2 years of service as a curricu-
lum specialist who consulted with and supported other ECSE
teachers. Her classroom enrolled 16 students, 9 students
with IEPs and 7 who were not receiving special education
services. In this classroom, no child was identified by the
teacher as having intensive behavior support needs. Teacher
C was a 60-year-old woman with a bachelor’s degree in
ECSE and 32 years of teaching experience who identified
her race as White. Her classroom enrolled 18 students,
including 9 students with IEPs and 9 children who were not
receiving special education services. Teacher C identified
2 children as having intensive behavior support needs.
182 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)
Procedures
The teachers were recruited for the study during a brief
presentation on the Teaching Pyramid Model. Trainers con-
ducting the presentation asked for volunteers who might be
interested in learning how to implement the model within
their classrooms by receiving in-classroom coaching to
support implementation. The criteria for participation were
that the teacher was teaching in an inclusive classroom, was
not participating in any other research project, and was not a
1st-year teacher. In addition, teacher participation was subject
to principal and preschool coordinator approval.
Each teacher who agreed to participate then attended a
3-day training workshop on Teaching Pyramid Model imple-
mentation and received coaching sessions that included per-
formance feedback to support their implementation of the
practices associated with the model. Following baseline data
collection, each teacher attended the workshop series with
teachers from another school district who were not involved
in the present study.
The workshop series was delivered by trainers familiar
with the Teaching Pyramid Model and its implementation
(i.e., two authors of the present study). Workshop scripts were
used to ensure that each workshop series was structured and
delivered consistently by the workshop trainers. During
the workshop series, trainers presented an overview of the
Teaching Pyramid Model and systematic instruction on each
level of the Teaching Pyramid Model and associated prac-
tices. The workshop began with a self-assessment activity
where practices related to a level of the Teaching Pyramid
Model were listed, and participants were asked to reflect on
their current strengths and needs related to implementation.
After the self-assessment was completed, the trainers pro-
vided instruction on the practices with examples of imple-
mentation depicted in videos or within photos of materials
or classrooms. Brief case study activities also were used to
support teachers in understanding how to use the Teaching
Pyramid Model practices within typical classroom situa-
tions. Following the instructional activities for each level
of the Teaching Pyramid Model, the teacher was provided
with classroom materials (e.g., puppets, children’s books,
and emotions posters) to assist in the implementation of the
practices related to that level and then was asked to plan
what practices she would like to target initially for imple-
mentation. Each teacher was also provided with an imple-
mentation guide and a companion CD-ROM offering the
list of practices, guidance for implementation, video exam-
ples of the practices, and reproducible materials for use in
the classroom.
After the workshop series, a coach worked with the
teacher to support her implementation of Teaching Pyramid
Model practices in the classroom. One of the trainers who
provided the workshop served as the coach for all teachers
in the study. She had a master’s degree in special education,
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
5 years of teaching experience in early childhood and ECSE
classrooms, and had worked 6 years as a training and tech-
nical assistance provider in the area of behavior support and
interventions.
Each instructional coaching session involved goal setting
and action planning around priority areas of implementation
and a classroom observation followed by the provision of
performance feedback related to the observation, and coach-
ing sessions occurred twice a week and continued until the
teacher met criterion levels of implementation. Criterion
levels were set as the implementation of 80% of Teaching
Pyramid Model practices as measured by the TPOT
(Hemmeter, Fox et al., 2008) and no more than 1 of 16 indi-
cators designated on the TPOT as “red flags.”
The coaching observations ranged from 30 to 90 min
followed by a 30-min debriefing session, which was sched-
uled at a time when children were not in the classroom.
Coaching sessions were centered on the implementation of
practices identified in an action plan developed by the
teacher and coach. The action plan was informed by what
the teacher wanted to address as identified in the training
workshops with guidance from the coach who was informed
by the baseline observations of teacher implementation of
the Teaching Pyramid practices reflected on the TPOT.
During observations and with the teacher’s permission, the
coach could model strategies identified on the plan, give ver-
bal or gestural feedback, or work one-on-one with an indi-
vidual child during observations. During debriefing sessions,
the coach would use strategies such as descriptive perfor-
mance feedback on classroom practices that were targeted
for implementation (e.g., “I saw you using the visual sched-
ule for transition, the children were following your direc-
tions and transitioned more quickly today.”), suggestions
for improving implementation of practices, and goal setting
and action planning related to practices to be implemented
during the next observation session. The coach would refer
to the implementation guides as a resource for materials or
supports for the teacher and would offer to make additional
materials (e.g., visual schedules and choice boards) for the
teacher to use when needed. Debriefing sessions also offered
an opportunity for the teacher to pose questions and receive
assistance related to the support of individual children
and the design of strategies for the instruction of social-
emotional skills or the need for an individualized behavior
support plan.
Dependent Measures
The primary dependent measure in the study was the imple-
mentation of practices associated with the Teaching Pyramid
Model. Fidelity of implementation was measured through
the use of the TPOT (Hemmeter, Fox, et al., 2008). The
TPOT is a rating scale that is completed by observing prac-
tices implemented during a 2-hr classroom observation and
Fox et al. 183
Table 2. Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool Items and Scoring
Number of
Item type indicators
Environmental   7 Observed or not
Instructional practices: schedules and  67
routines, transitions, conversations
with children, promoting engagement,
behavior expectations, providing
direction, responding to problem
behavior, teaching social emotional
Instructional practices with interview  32
option: teaching emotion, teaching
problem solving, supporting friendship,
and classroom teaming
Instructional practices—interview only:  19
supporting children with persistent
problem behavior, family involvement,
family supporting social-emotional
Red flag  16
Total items 141
by evaluating teachers’ responses to structured interview
questions related to the Teaching Pyramid Model practices.
Observations are conducted during routine indoor classroom
activities and are scheduled to occur so that the observer is
present during three targeted activities, including a teacher-
directed large group activity, centers or a free-play activity,
and a transition activity. The TPOT includes 141 indicators
organized under four sections: a binary checklist (i.e., yes/no)
of 7 indicators that relate to the presence of environmental
or structural features of the classroom that are associated
with high-quality learning environments; 67 indicator items
linked to the implementation of the Teaching Pyramid Model
instructional practices (e.g., providing support for the
active engagement of all children and teaching children
behavior expectations) that are scored as observed or not
observed; 32 indicators that can be scored from observation
or interview as they are practices that are not expected to be
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Scoring Sample indicators
•  Learning centers have clear boundaries
observed •  Materials in all centers are adequate to
support the number of children allowed to play
Observed or not •  Teacher-directed activities are shorter than 20 min
observed •  Teacher only continues with a specific teacher-
directed activity when the majority of children
are actively engaged and interested
•  Teacher structures activities or opportunities
for children to work together
•  Teacher helps children review their use of the
skill (i.e., taught social skill) either individually
or in groups
Yes/no based on •  Teacher uses a variety of strategies to teach
teacher report children about emotion words
in interview or •  Teacher uses a variety of strategies to teach
through observation children how to respond to other children’s
emotions
Yes/No based on •  Teacher initiates the functional assessment
teacher report in process for children who have persistent
interview challenging behavior
•  Teacher provides families with information
on the importance of social emotional
development
•  Teacher gives families practical strategies that
they can use during everyday routines and
activities to support their children’s social-
emotional development and prosocial behavior
Observed or not •  During group activities, many children are not
observed engaged
•  Children are threatened with an impending
negative consequence that will occur if
problem behavior persists
•  Teacher complains about other team members
and notes difficulty in their relationships
 
implemented on a daily basis (e.g., teaching problem solving
in a large group activity); 19 indicators that are only scored
based on teacher report as they represent teacher practice that
occurs outside of the classroom (e.g., if a functional assess-
ment process would be triggered by a child with persistent
challenging behavior); and a binary (i.e., yes/no) checklist of
16 “red flag” indicators that are teaching practices or class-
room issues that are detrimental to the promotion of social
skills or effective behavior interventions and require immedi-
ate and focused attention during model implementation (e.g.,
teacher reprimands children for expressing their emotions).
In all, 118 of the 141 indicators are organized under 15
items that focus on key instructional practices, such as
“schedules and routines” or “teaching children to express
emotions.” The numbers of indicators organized within
each of the 15 items ranges from 4 to 10. Table 2 shows
sample indicators from the TPOT instrument.1
184 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)
Preliminary investigations that focused on the psychomet-
ric integrity of TPOT scores have demonstrated promising
results related to measurement dependability and concurrent
validity (Hemmeter, Fox, et al., 2008). To examine measure-
ment dependability, a generalizability theory study (G-study;
Shavelson & Webb, 1991) was conducted in 50 preschool
classrooms not involved in the Teaching Pyramid Model
implementation. Trained observers completed the TPOT
during their observations in these classrooms on three occa-
sions. Two raters were present in each classroom on each
occasion and completed a separate TPOT. Results of the
G-study showed minimal error variance (i.e., 5%) attributed
to occasions and raters and the generalizability coefficient
was .97. With respect to concurrent score validity, trained
observers completed the Classroom Assessment Scoring
System (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) during
a 2-hr observation in the same 50 classrooms. The Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients between total TPOT
scores and composite domain scores for the CLASS based on
data obtained in the 50 classrooms were .79 for emotional
support, .76 for classroom organization, and .83 for instruc-
tional support.
The TPOT provides a mechanism to measure the teacher’s
repertoire of teaching practices that might be needed to meet
the full range of children’s social and emotional instructional
needs within an inclusive classroom. As a more global class-
room assessment, it is not designed to track the frequency
with which a particular instructional strategy might be used
or the implementation of individualized behavior support
procedures. The TPOT is an instrument that can be used to
assess the teachers’ capacity to implement practices asso-
ciated with each level of the Teaching Pyramid Model
(i.e., nurturing and responsive relationships, high-quality
supportive environments, social-emotional teaching strategies,
and individualized interventions).
At the end of the study, data collectors asked teachers to
complete a short questionnaire composed of 15 items (rated
on a 6-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
and to respond to a series of eight interview questions. The
questionnaire and interview were used to gather information
from teachers about their participation in the study, the ele-
ments they found helpful, and their perspectives about the
Teaching Pyramid Model.
Design and Data Collection
The implementation of the Teaching Pyramid Model was
evaluated using a single-subject multiple probe experi-
mental design across three classroom teachers (Horner &
Baer, 1978).
Baseline. For each teacher, the study began with concur-
rent baseline measures of their implementation of practices
associated with the Teaching Pyramid Model as reflected
on the TPOT. Teachers received no instruction during
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
baseline. Baseline observations were conducted in each
teacher’s classroom for each of the three targeted activi-
ties (i.e., teacher-directed large group activity, centers or a
free-play activity, and a transition activity) during a 2-hr
time frame, and interviews with teachers related to TPOT
observations were conducted following the observations.
The teacher did not receive any information on the Teaching
Pyramid Model or interact with the coach during baseline.
Intervention. The intervention phase of the study (work-
shops followed by coaching with performance feedback) was
lagged across teachers. As noted earlier, each teacher partici-
pated in a workshop series with other teachers not involved in
the present study. Coaching in the teachers’ classroom began
within 3 working days following the teacher’s participation
in the training workshop. Data collectors were kept naïve to
the phases of the study and were scheduled to conduct obser-
vations using the TPOT during times when the coach was
not present in the classroom. TPOT observations were sched-
uled to occur 3 days per week with the interview portion
of the TPOT conducted once per week. The score derived
from the weekly interview was used with the session obser-
vation scores to determine the total TPOT practices imple-
mentation score for each of the sessions that occurred during
that week.
Coaching sessions were conducted as described in the
procedures until teachers met criterion (i.e., 3 sessions with
80% or above of practices and 0–1 red flags). Scores on the
TPOT provided data related to teaching practices and red
flags associated with the Teaching Pyramid Model imple-
mentation across the phases of the study and permitted the
analysis of level, trend, and variability to inform decisions
about phase changes.
Follow-up. Follow-up observations were implemented for
teachers who met criterion for implementation. No coaching
was provided to teachers during the follow-up phase.
Three data collectors were trained to conduct observations
using the TPOT. A fourth data collector conducted reliability
observations. All data collectors had a bachelor’s degree and
experience working in early childhood classrooms. Data
collectors were trained to a minimum of 80% interobserver
agreement (IOA) with an expert standard for the TPOT
observation measure prior to the beginning of formal data
collection. Training involved using videotapes of classrooms
to learn how to score specific TPOT indicators, and then
observations in classrooms and interviews with teachers to
score the TPOT. Training continued until data collectors were
able to obtain IOA at or above 80% with the TPOT trainer’s
scores for three consecutive training sessions. Once in vivo
data collection began, a second observer conducted simulta-
neous reliability observations for a minimum of 30% of
all observations across all conditions. During observations,
data collectors were positioned in an area of the classroom
conducive to observing teachers and children across the tar-
geted activities but remaining as unobtrusive as possible.
Fox et al. 185
During reliability sessions, a team of two observers com-
pleted the TPOT in each classroom as well as being present
during the TPOT interview. Based on the observation and
the interviews, the observers independently scored all TPOT
indicators. Reliability was then calculated at the indicator
level by comparing the observers’ scores and using the fol-
lowing formula: agreements over agreements plus disagree-
ments and multiplied by 100. The same calculations were
used for the red flag indicators. An agreement was scored
when both observers scored the same response on each
TPOT indicator (i.e., “yes” or “no” or “observed” or “not
observed”).
To ensure IOA of dependent measures, a second observer
was present for 52% of the sessions for Teacher A, 48% of
the sessions for Teacher B, and 43% of the sessions for
Teacher C for all observation and interview sessions across
conditions. Overall, IOA for the TPOT exceeded 80% across
all three participating classroom teachers. Mean percentage
IOA totals were 83% for Teacher A (range = 66%–98%), 88%
for Teacher B (range = 80%–96%), and 81% for Teacher C
(range = 73%–93%). Total agreement for red flags was 91%
for Teacher A (range = 75%–100%), 96% for Teacher B
(range = 75%–100%), and 84% for Teacher C (range =
63%–100%).
Results
The percentage of TPOT indicators implemented by teachers
during classroom routines is shown in Figure 2. In general,
these data demonstrate the impact of the professional devel-
opment intervention (i.e., workshops, materials, implemen-
tation guides, and coaching with performance feedback) on
the implementation of the Teaching Pyramid Model practices
as measured by the TPOT. Baseline levels of implementation
for all three teachers were lower than implementation levels
following the professional development intervention. Two
of the teachers reached established criterion levels follow-
ing the intervention and moved into a follow-up phase dur-
ing which coaching was no longer provided.
In Figure 2, the baseline data for Teacher A show a decreas-
ing trend related to implementation of Teaching Pyramid
Model practices as measured by the TPOT. Workshops
followed by coaching resulted in an immediate increase in
implementation with an increasing trend toward criterion
for implementation (i.e., 80% of indicators and 0–1 red
flags). Teacher A received coaching focused primarily on the
classroom preventive practices of well-planned transitions,
visual schedules, and implementing classroom expectations
and rules. Once those practices were established, the coach
assisted her with how to teach emotional literacy, friendship
skills, and anger management strategies (i.e., practices from
the social-emotional teaching level). The coach also sup-
ported the teacher in the process of developing assessment-
based individualized behavior support plans to address the
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
persistent challenging behavior of two children within the
classroom. Coaching continued for 11 sessions until Teacher
A met criterion at which point coaching was discontinued.
During the follow-up phase, Teacher A maintained imple-
mentation at the criterion level.
The baseline data for Teacher B document that her imple-
mentation of the Teaching Pyramid Model practices as mea-
sured by the TPOT was higher than Teacher A and just below
the established implementation criterion level. The coaching
support for Teacher B was primarily focused on her imple-
mentation of social-emotional teaching strategies and the pro-
vision of individualized intervention. This teacher received
guidance during early coaching sessions, however, on how
to implement a few preventive practices (e.g., visual schedule,
posted expectations, and rules). She immediately responded
to this guidance, and the remaining coaching sessions focused
on her implementation of social-emotional teaching strate-
gies. Workshops and coaching resulted in a modest shift in
level with implementation criterion met after six coaching
sessions. After coaching was withdrawn, Teacher B was able
to maintain implementation at the established criterion level.
During baseline, Teacher C was implementing Teaching
Pyramid Model practices reflected in TPOT indicators at
levels similar to Teacher A. A break in baseline observations
occurred when the teacher left the state due to the death of a
parent. Teacher C struggled with practices associated with
each level of the Teaching Pyramid Model. While respon-
sive interactions were her strongest set of practices during
baseline, implementation was low (i.e., average of 44% of
practices). Her coaching support primarily focused on
establishing those key practices not implemented from the
classroom preventive practices level (visual schedule, struc-
tured transitions, expectations and rules, balanced scheduled,
and promoting child engagement) and the implementation of
social–emotional teaching strategies. When intervention
(i.e., participation in workshop series followed by coach-
ing) was introduced, Teacher C showed an immediate but
modest change in level in her implementation of the Teaching
Pyramid Model practices. Her implementation improved
within the intervention phase to a mean of 59%, but she did
not reach the established criterion of 80% of TPOT indica-
tors across three sessions before the school year and study
ended. Teacher C received a total of 14 coaching sessions.
In Table 3, we show an analysis of each teacher’s progress
in addressing the 16 TPOT indicators that were scored as
red flags. These indicators represent teacher behaviors or
practices that are counterproductive to the promotion of
social-emotional competence and the prevention of challeng-
ing behavior, and the goal is to reduce the number of red
flags to zero. Teacher A had a mean of 6.3 (range = 3–8) red
flags during the baseline period that were reduced to a
mean of 2 and range of 1–3 during the intervention phase.
The mean number of red flags during follow-up for Teacher
A averaged .3 (range = 0–1). In two observations, 1 red flag
186 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)

Figure 2. Implementation of teaching pyramid practices.

Table 3. Number of Red Flags Observed prepared for activities before the children arrive at the
activity” and “emotions are not generally discussed in the
Baseline Coaching Follow-up
classroom.”
Teacher M (range) M (range) M (range) Teacher B had a mean of 3.4 (range = 3–5) red flags dur-
ing the baseline period. Red flags were reduced during the
A 6.3 (3–8) 2 (1–3) 0.3 (0–1)
intervention phase to a mean of 2.1 (range = 1–4), and only
B 3.4 (3–5) 2.1(1–4) 0.2 (0–1)
two occurrences of a red flag were observed (i.e., teacher
C 5.7 (4–10) 2.1 (0–5)  
asks for removal of children with persistent challenging
Note: Teacher C did not move into the follow-up phase. behavior from the classroom) during follow-up.
Teacher C had a mean of 5.7 (range = 4–10) red flags
was noted although the red flag observed differed across during baseline. The average number of red flags observed
observations. These were as follows: “Teachers are not during the intervention phase decreased to 2.1 (range = 0–5).

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Fox et al. 187

Table 4. Percentage of TPOT Practices Implemented at of these practices during intervention averaged 78% (range =
Teaching Pyramid Model Levels 72%–82%). During follow-up, her implementation of prac-
tices averaged 94% (range = 90%–97%). TPOT scores
Baseline Coaching Follow-up
showed Teacher C was implementing some practices associ-
Pyramid level Teacher M (range) M (range) M (range) ated with nurturing and responsive interactions during base-
line (mean = 44%, range = 23%–56%) and slightly more
Nurturing and A 58 (33–74) 74 (62–97) 94 (90–97) during intervention (mean = 67%, range = 44%–82%).
responsive B 70 (51–82) 78 (72–82) 94 (90–97) Forty indicators on the TPOT were associated with the
relationships
C 44 (23–56) 67 (44–82) NA high-quality supportive environments level of the Teaching
High quality A 32 (25–38) 61 (55–93) 85 (80–90) Pyramid Model. As shown in Table 4, TPOT data for Teacher
supportive A on the implementation of these practices show low levels
B 68 (58–85) 69 (60–73) 80 (75–85)
environments  during baseline with a mean of 32% (range 25%–38%).
C 33 (28–50) 63 (55–70) NA During the intervention phase, this teacher demonstrated
Social A 31 (13–50) 29 (0–63) 61 (25–75) improved implementation of these practices (mean = 61%,
emotional B 13 (0–38) 41 (0–75) 63 (50–88) range = 55%–93%). Follow-up implementation of these
teaching practices increased, on average, to 85% (range = 80%–90%).
C 3 (0–13) 32 (13–63) NA
Teacher B was implementing practices associated with this
Individualized A 26 (0–57) 43 (0–86) 65 (43–86)
level of the Teaching Pyramid Model, on average, at 68%
interventions B 45 (0–100) 64 (43–86) 86 (86–86) (range = 58%–85%) during baseline. Her implementation of
C 13 (0–29) 14 (0–29) NA these practices was similar to baseline during the interven-
Note: Teacher C did not move to follow-up phase. tion phase (mean = 69%, range = 60%–73%) but improved
during follow-up (mean = 80%, range = 75%–85%). On
average, Teacher C was observed to be implementing only
This teacher did not move into the follow-up condition. At 33% of supportive environmental practices during baseline
the end of the study, the red flags that continued to persist (range = 28%–50%). During the intervention phase, her
during TPOT observations were “children are reprimanded implementation of these practices improved, on average, to
for engaging in problem behavior,” “emotions are generally 63%, with a range from 55% to 70%.
not discussed in the classroom,” and “teacher’s guidance or The third level of Teaching Pyramid Model practices
focus around relationships is on adult–child interactions.” relate to social–emotional teaching strategies. This level of
The red flag indicators that were common to all the teachers the Teaching Pyramid Model was measured in the present
in the study included having children arrive at an activity, study by examining the implementation of 35 social-
although the teacher was still preparing materials and not dis- emotional teaching practice indicators on the TPOT. The
cussing emotions in the classroom. Teacher C also had red data for Teacher A showed low implementation of social–
flags that reflected her lack of proficiency in the adoption of a emotional teaching strategies during baseline (mean = 31%,
prevention framework for addressing challenging behavior. range = 13%–50%) with similar levels during coaching
Table 4 shows teacher implementation of Teaching (mean = 29%, range = 0%–63%) and increases during
Pyramid Model practices reflected on the TPOT for each follow-up to a mean of 61% (range = 25%–75%). The obser-
level associated with the Teaching Pyramid Model. The data vations of Teacher B indicated very low implementation
shown in the table were derived by summing the number of of social–emotional teaching strategies in baseline with a
TPOT indicators related to each Teaching Pyramid Model mean of 13% (range = 0%–38%) and then improvement
level that were scored as “yes” or “observed” and then cal- during coaching to a mean of 41% (range = 0%–75%) that
culating the percentage of indicators implemented by each generally maintained during follow-up (mean = 63%,
teacher in each level. range = 50%–88%). Teacher C was implementing very few
Thirty-nine indicators on the TPOT were associated of the social-emotional teaching strategies with a mean of
with the nurturing and responsive relationships level of the 3% during baseline (range = 0%–13%), and she improved
Teaching Pyramid Model. During baseline, Teacher A was with coaching to a mean of 32% (range = 13%–63%).
observed to implement, on average, 58 % (range = 33%– The final level of the Teaching Pyramid Model reflected
74%) of practices related to nurturing and responsive rela- on the TPOT includes 11 indicators related to the implemen-
tionships with an increase to an average of 74% (range = tation of practices that demonstrate a teachers’ capacity to
62%–97%) during intervention and 94% of the practices individualize (e.g., teacher individualizes instruction on
during follow-up (range = 90%–97%). Teacher B was emotions based on children’s developmental needs). Table 4
observed to implement a large number of nurturing and shows that Teacher A was implementing only 26% of these
responsive interaction practices on the TPOT during base- practices during baseline (range = 0%–57%) with an improve-
line with a mean of 70% (range = 51%–82%). Implementation ment during coaching to a mean of 43% (range = 0%–86%)

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
188 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)
and 65% (range = 43%–86%) during follow-up. Teacher B
was implementing 45% (range = 0%–100%) during base-
line with an improvement to 64% (range = 43%–86%)
during coaching and further increased her implementation
during follow-up with a consistent score of 86% implemen-
tation. Teacher C’s implementation of practices that demon-
strate her capacity to individualize interventions was low
during baseline (mean = 13%, range = 0%–29%), and no
change was observed during the coaching phase (mean =
14%, range = 0%–29%).
Data from the questionnaire and interview administered at
the end of the study reflected that teachers found the Teaching
Pyramid Model helpful. Teachers stated and reported they
would continue to implement practices associated with the
Teaching Pyramid Model in their classroom. All three teach-
ers strongly agreed that coaching was beneficial to their
implementation and they would not have implemented the
practices as easily without the support of their coach.
Discussion
Results from this study suggest a functional relationship
between the professional development intervention (i.e.,
workshops, materials, implementation guides, and coach-
ing with performance feedback) and the implementation of
promotion, prevention, and intervention practices designed
to promote the social-emotional competence of young
children and to address challenging behavior. Each teacher
who participated in the study was implementing some of
the Teaching Pyramid Model practices prior to intervention
and was unique in her level of proficiency in implementa-
tion of practices associated with the various levels of the
Teaching Pyramid Model. Teachers A and C, who had lower
overall levels of implementation during baseline showed
relatively immediate changes in level following training and
continued to improve with respect to their implementation of
Teaching Pyramid Model practices while receiving coach-
ing. Teacher B’s baseline data show her implementation of
Teaching Pyramid Model practices was close to the estab-
lished implementation criterion and she showed no imme-
diate change in level of implementation following workshop
training. She was, however, able to meet criterion after
coaching that was focused on increasing her implementation
of social-emotional teaching strategies.
Across all teachers, baseline data show the practices
associated with the prevention level of the model (social-
emotional teaching strategies) were among the practices
least likely to be implemented by the teachers prior to being
trained. Explicit instruction focused on social-emotional
skills is critical to promoting social-emotional competence,
particularly for children who exhibit challenging behavior
and social-emotional delays (Brown, Odom, & McConnell,
2008). It is interesting that this area of instruction was not
being implemented within ECSE classrooms, where it might
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
be expected that children with disabilities in this setting
would likely have social-emotional skill delays. Notably, for
two of the teachers, their implementation of practices asso-
ciated with their capacity to individualize (tertiary level of
the Teaching Pyramid Model) was higher in baseline than
practices related to teaching social-emotional skills (second-
ary level of the Teaching Pyramid Model). This finding
might be explained by systems that are in place within
school districts to ensure that individualized positive behavior
interventions and supports are provided to children served
under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Turnbull,
Wilcox, Stowe, & Turnbull, 2001). Alternatively, this finding
might be explained by the way implementation of individual-
ized or tertiary practices versus secondary or prevention prac-
tices associated with the Teaching Pyramid Model is evaluated
when using the TPOT. Scoring of indicators on the TPOT
that are associated with individualized practices primarily is
completed based on teachers’ verbal reports about her imple-
mentation provided to the TPOT data collector during the
structured interview. Scoring for indicators focused on social-
emotional teaching strategies is based on data collectors
observing implementation of practices during the TPOT
observation and teacher report.
Red flag practices persisted for each of the teachers,
although Teacher A and Teacher B reduced their red flags
to the criterion of one or fewer. The persistence of red flags
might indicate classroom practices that are difficult for
teachers to implement consistently or fluently or might sug-
gest that these red flags occur for teachers during stressful
activities or circumstances (e.g., paraprofessional is absent
or child has intense episode of challenging behavior). We
noted red flags if they occurred at all during the 2-hr observa-
tion but did not assess the density with which they occurred
during any given observation.
In the present study, teachers received a substantial dose
of coaching (i.e., two coaching sessions per week with an
observation of at least 60 min and 30 min of debriefing) that
followed 18 hr of training. As shown in Figure 2, at least
two teachers needed several weeks of coaching (10–14 total
sessions) to achieve notable increases in their implementa-
tion of practices associated with the Teaching Pyramid
Model. These data suggest that the dosage of instructional
coaching necessary to support teachers in their implementa-
tion of practices associated with a complex, comprehensive
framework, such as the Teaching Pyramid Model might be
greater than coaching focused on a single practice (e.g., use
of descriptive praise) or set of related practices (use of
descriptive praise and precorrection) . These results are
similar to other early childhood professional development
research studies that document the importance of coaching
in addition to workshop training to support modifications or
changes in teacher practices (Hsieh et al., 2009; Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009; Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, &
Justice, 2008). The intensity of support that was needed to
Fox et al. 189
achieve moderate to high levels of implementation fidelity
related to practices represented on the TPOT has important
implications for early childhood professional development
with respect to resource allocation and time and dosage of
professional development that might be needed.
An important caveat with respect to findings from the
present study is that one approach to and similar doses of
instructional coaching and performance feedback were pro-
vided to each teacher. There are a myriad of professional
development approaches that were not included in the pres-
ent study (e.g., pinpointing a specific goal for implementa-
tion proficiency, the sharing of data with teachers along
with verbal performance feedback, the use of video record-
ing of instructional sessions for use in subsequent feedback
sessions, the use of a peer coach) that might have resulted in
different implementation outcomes. In addition, teachers
who were coached were implementing the model in isolation
of a systemic, program-wide effort for Teaching Pyramid
Model adoption (Fox & Hemmeter, 2009). Other coaching
models or elements of coaching along with systemic change
efforts that have administrative support might have yielded
different findings with respect to teachers’ implementation
fidelity.
Several limitations associated with the present study are
noted. This study was conducted with three teachers from
one school district. Their implementation of practices asso-
ciated with the Teaching Pyramid Model might be associ-
ated with policies or curriculum guidance specific to that
district. Results from the present study should not be gener-
alized to other ECSE teachers or other early childhood set-
tings. We acknowledge that in the present study, a sample of
a teacher’s implementation of practices associated with the
Teaching Pyramid Model was obtained during the 2-hr
TPOT observation. Although these observations are impor-
tant for providing some information about implementation
of practices, they do not reflect the frequency or density
with which teachers used these practices or if those practices
were implemented at times other than during our observa-
tions. An additional issue with the data yielded from the
TPOT is the use of interview items to gain an understand-
ing of teacher practices that are important indicators of a
teacher’s capacity to individualize, but many of these prac-
tices are not directly observed when following the TPOT
observation and interview protocol. Given we asked teachers
the same interview questions multiple times over the course
of the study, their responses might have reflected matura-
tion in their understandings about the need to individualize
practice but not their ability to do so. Finally, it is pos-
sible that the presence of the observer influenced teacher
implementation of practices. Teachers A and B met cri-
terion during the coaching phase and continued to improve
in their implementation of TPOT practices during the
follow-up. These improvements might be due to the continued
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
presence of the observer even though coaching was with-
drawn. Alternatively, they might indicate that the number of
practices reflected on the TPOT that are implemented by
teachers will continue to increase or will persist in the absence
of coaching. One question that might be addressed in future
research is the minimal amount of coaching necessary to start
a teacher on the trajectory of improved performance and the
most efficient mechanism to provide a teacher with ongoing
support to maintain implementation fidelity.
In the present study, we did not examine child outcomes
associated with teachers’ implementation of practices asso-
ciated with the Teaching Pyramid Model. The focus of this
study was to examine systematically, relationships between
a professional development intervention that included instruc-
tional coaching with performance feedback and teachers’
implementation of practices associated with the Teaching
Pyramid Model. We were interested in evaluating whether
teachers could implement research-based teaching practices
related to promoting social emotional skills and supporting
appropriate behavior and to understand what professional
development effort might be needed to support teachers
to implement those practices with fidelity. Future research
should examine the relationship between implementation
fidelity and child outcomes. The authors of this article have
recently completed a study examining the relationship between
implementation fidelity of the Teaching Pyramid Model and
children’s social and behavioral progress (Hemmeter, Snyder,
& Fox, 2010).
The present study provides preliminary evidence about
a multicomponent professional development intervention
designed to support teachers’ implementation of Teaching
Pyramid Model practices. The intervention included training
workshops, materials, and resources to support classroom
implementation, and coaching with performance feedback.
It is one of the first investigations to examine the form and
dosage of professional development supports needed to guide
teachers to implement with fidelity a comprehensive array
of practices related to social skills and behavior (Zaslow et al.,
2010). These data are critical to local, state, and national dis-
cussions about the use of evidence-informed approaches for
the professional development of early educators and how to
mobilize resources to ensure that early educators can deliver
comprehensive interventions to children with diverse needs in
inclusive classrooms. Future research is needed to illustrate
the strategies used as part of the coaching framework in the
present study and to examine the dosage needed to ensure
that teachers reach criterion levels of implementation fidelity
and maintain these levels over time.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
190 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special
Education Research, R324A07212. No endorsement by the sup-
porting agency should be inferred.
Note
1. The Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool is available for review
by contacting the first author.
References
Arnold, D. H., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. H. (1998). Teacher dis-
cipline and child misbehavior in day care: Untangling causality
with correlational data. Developmental Psychology, 34, 276–287.
Artman, K. (2010). Effects of distance coaching on teachers’ use
of a tiered model of intervention and relationships with child
behavior and social skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Vanderbilt University. Nashville, TN.
Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2007). Evaluation of e-mail feed-
back on the verbal behaviors of pre-service teachers. Journal
of Early Intervention, 30, 55–72.
Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., & McConnell, S. R. (Eds.). (2008).
Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and
intervention (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Casey, A. M., & McWilliam, R. A. (2008). Graphical feedback to
increase teachers’ use of incidental teaching. Journal of Early
Intervention, 30, 251–268.
Cotnoir-Bichelman, N. M., Thompson, R. H., McKerchar, P. M., &
Haremza, J. L. (2006). Training student teachers to reposition
infants frequently. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39,
489–494.
Crow, R., & Snyder, P. (1998). Organizational behavior manage-
ment in early intervention: Status and implications for research
and development. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-
agement, 18, 131–156.
Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Jones, D., Gill, S., & Derousie, R. M.
(2010). Implementation quality: Lessons learned in the con-
text of the Head Start REDI trial. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 25, 284–298.
Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J., Conroy, M.,
Smith, B., . . . Cathy, S. (2006). Prevention and intervention
with young children’s challenging behavior: A Summary of
current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 29–45.
Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C.,
Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions
of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness
for low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology
Review, 36, 44–62.
Fox, L., Carta, J., Stain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. L.
(2010). Response-to-intervention and the pyramid model.
Infants and Young Children, 23, 3–14.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S.
(2003). The Teaching Pyramid: A model for supporting social
competence and preventing challenging behavior in young
children. Young Children, 58, 48–52.
Fox, L., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). A program-wide model
for supporting social emotional development and address-
ing challenging behavior in early childhood settings. In
W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Hand-
book of positive behavior support (pp. 177–202.). New York,
NY: Springer.
Fullerton, E. K., Conroy, M., & Correa, V. I. (2009). Early child-
hood teachers’ use of specific praise statements with young
children at risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
34, 118–135.
Hemmeter, M. L., Corso, R., & Cheatham, G. (2006). A national
survey of early childhood educators: Training needs and strat-
egies. Paper presented at the Conference on Research Innova-
tions in Early Intervention. SanDiego, CA.
Hemmeter, M. L., Fox, L., & Snyder, P. (2008). Teaching pyramid
observation tool—Research edition. Unpublished assessment
instrument, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and
emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model
for intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 583–601.
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., & Fox, L. (2009, June). Examining
the potential efficacy of a classroom-wide model for promot-
ing social emotional development and addressing challeng-
ing behavior in preschool children (Poster Session). Fourth
Annual Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference,
Washington, DC.
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., & Fox, L. (2010, June). Examin-
ing the potential efficacy of a model for addressing social-
emotional development and challenging behavior (Poster Session).
Fifth Annual Institute of Education Sciences Research Confer-
ence, National Harbor, MD.
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Kinder, K., & Artman, K. (2011).
Impact of performance feedback delivered via electronic mail
on preschool teachers’ use of descriptive praise. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly 26, 96-109. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq
.2010.05.004 26, 96-109
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Snell, M., & Fox, L. (2010, February).
Coaching early educators: Issues in designing coaching models
and conducting research on the outcomes. Presentation at the
biannual Conference on Research Innovations in Early Interven-
tion. San Diego, CA.
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multi-probe technique:
A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experi-
ence of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher-child
relationships and children’s social competence with peers.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 15–32.
Hsieh, W., Hemmeter, M. L., McCollum, J., & Ostrosky, M. M.
(2009). Using coaching to increase preschool teachers’ use of
Fox et al. 191
emergent literacy teaching strategies. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 24, 229–247.
Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence-
based social emotional curricula for young children: An analy-
sis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 23(2), 65–76.
Kaiser, A. P., Ostrosky, M. M., & Alpert, C. L. (1993). Training
teachers to use environmental arrangement and milieu teaching.
Journal of the Association for People with Severe Handicaps,
18, 188–199.
La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting children’s
competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 443–484.
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Chil-
dren at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-
related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15,
307–329.
McGee, L. M. (2008). Early reading first and its role in defining
high-quality professional development. In A. DeBruin-Parecki
(Ed.), Effective early literacy practice: Here’s how, here’s why
(pp.123–128.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001).
Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers (Committee on
Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of profes-
sional development and coaching on early language and lit-
eracy instructional practices. American Educational Research
Journal, 46, 532–566.
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Standardized observation and professional devel-
opment: A focus on individualized implementation and practices.
In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early
childhood professional development (pp. 231–254.). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom
assessment scoring system—PreK [CLASS]. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Pianta, R., Mashburn, A., Downer, J., Hamre, B., & Justice, L.
(2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development
resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten
classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431–451.
Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981). Performance feedback in
organizational behavior management: A review. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 3(1), 1–16.
Raver, C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). What research tells policymakers
about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness
among three- and four-year-old children. New York, NY: National
Center for Children in Poverty (nccp@columbia.edu).
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory:
A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to
neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Artman, K., Kinder, K., & Pasia, C.
(2011). Characterizing key features of follow-up support in the
early childhood professional development literature. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Snyder, P., McLaughlin, T., & Denney, M. (2011). Frameworks for
guiding program focus and practices in early intervention. In
J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Series Eds.) & M. Conroy
(Section Ed.), Handbook of special education: Section XII Early
identification and intervention in exceptionality (pp. 716-730).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Snyder, P., & Wolfe, B. (2008). The big three process components
of effective professional development: Needs assessment,
evaluation, and follow-up. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, &
C. Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood
professional development: Evidence, strategies, and resources
(pp. 13–52.). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.
Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher
implementation of precorrection and praise statements in Head
Start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of
positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education,
16, 280–290.
Strain, P. S., & Joseph, G. E. (2006). You got to have friends.
Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series, 8, 1–22.
Turnbull, A. P., Blue-Banning, M., Turbiville, V., & Park, J.
(1999). From parent education to partnership education: A call
for a transformed focus. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 19, 164–171.
Turnbull, H. R., Wilcox, B. L., Stowe, M., & Turnbull, A. P.
(2001). IDEA requirements for the use of PBS: Guidelines for
responsible agencies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions, 3, 11–18.
VanDerHeyden, A., & Snyder, P. A. (2006). Integrating early inter-
vening frameworks from early childhood intervention and
school psychology to accelerate growth for young children.
School Psychology Review, 35, 519–534.
Walker, H. M., Kavanaugh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H.,
& Feil, E. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention
approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(2), 66–80.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2003). Treating conduct prob-
lems and strengthening social and emotional competence in
young children: The Dina Dinosaur treatment program. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(3), 130–143.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treat-
ing children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention
outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 105–124.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Pre-
venting conduct problems and improving school readiness:
Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training
program in high risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 49, 471–488.
Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., & Lavelle, B.
(2010). Toward the identification of features of effective
192 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(3)
professional development for early educators, Literature
review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Planning. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
About the Authors
Lise Fox, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Child and
Family Studies of the College of Behavioral and Community
Sciences at the University of South Florida. Her current
research focuses on positive behavior support, promoting the
social emotional development of young children, and support-
ing families of young children with disabilities and behavioral
challenges.
Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD, is an associate professor in the
Department of Special Education at Vanderbilt University. Her
current interests including strategies for addressing challenging
behavior and promoting social emotional competence, profes-
sional development approaches and effective instruction.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at Univ of Connecticut / Health Center / Library on May 31, 2015
Patricia Snyder, PhD, is Professor and the David Lawrence Jr.
Endowed Chair in Early Childhood Studies at the University of
Florida. Her current research focuses on the developmental and
behavioral impacts of early experiences and learning, social-
emotional foundations and embedded instruction for early learn-
ing, and ways families and practitioners support young children’s
development and learning.
Denise Perez Binder, MA, coordinates the Teaching Pyramid
Research Project at the University of South Florida. Her current
interests including working with teachers and families to increase
social-emotional competencies and decrease challenging behavior
in young children.
Shelley Clarke, MA, BCBA, is an Associate in Research in the
Department of Child and Family Studies of the College of
Behavioral and Community Sciences at the University of South
Florida. Ms. Clarke’s current research interests include positive
behavior support, early intervention, implementation fidelity, and
measures reflecting quality of life issues.
431420
271121411431420ErratumErratum
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012

Reprints and permission: http://www.

TEC31410.1177/0

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Erratum
31(4) 249
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0271121411431420
http://tec.sagepub.com

Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Perez Binder, D., & Clarke, S. (2011). Coaching early childhood special educators to
implement a comprehensive model for promoting young children’s social competence. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 31, 178-192. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0271121411404440)

In the November 2011 issue of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, on pp. 129 and 178, Mary Hemmeter should
have been listed as Mary Louise Hemmeter. In addition, on p. 178, the authors and affiliations should have been shown as
follows:

Lise Fox1, Mary Louise Hemmeter2, Patricia Snyder3, Denise Perez Binder1, and Shelley Clarke1
1
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
2
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
3
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA