The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate early childhood lead teachers' perspectives of time out, including their attitudes and beliefs, and the practice of time out in their classrooms. The study sought to detail the practice of time out, to investigate teachers' perceptions of time out, and to gain further understanding into teachers' choices regarding time out use. These objectives were achieved with the use of a comprehensive, written survey directed to 151 lead preschool teachers at 18 randomly selected preschool programs within Hamilton County, Ohio. Written discipline policies from 9 preschool programs included in the survey sample were also analyzed as they related to the use of time out. Fifty completed surveys were returned representing a well-balanced sample of lead teachers across multiple demographic variables.Results indicated that 66% of teachers were using time out and there were not any distinguishable differences among the variables collected between those teachers who used time out and those who did not. Teachers' time out practices included verbal or visual warnings for children, discussion, and redirection. Teachers defined time out as an action, as a period of time, and as a place. 63% of teachers did not perceive time out as punishment; nonetheless 55% perceived that time out had the potential to be harmful to young children. The majority of teachers using time out did so because they perceived that the child learned through time out, but other teachers indicated that young children were not able to comprehend time out. Some teachers used time out due to the perceived social and emotional benefits for the child while other teachers perceived time out to be detrimental to children's social and emotional development. Teachers also indicated that they used time out to maintain control of children.Teachers who used time out were influenced by experience, education, program policies, and because time out is a form of discipline. Interestingly, these same factors influenced other teachers to not use time out. The majority of the teachers who chose not to use time out were influenced by other methods available for classroom or behavior management. / Department of Elementary Education

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 1998. / Title from document title page. "December, 1998." Document formatted into pages; contains xiii, 117 p. : ill. (some col.) Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 111-117).

Thesis (M.A.)--West Virginia University, 1999. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains [vi], 101 p. : ill. (some col.) Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-64).

Thesis (M.A.)--West Virginia University, 2000. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vi, 34 p. : ill. Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 100-102).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 2004. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains v, 111 p. : ill. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-76).

Rehabilitation Centres receive both children in need of protection and youths who have committed a criminal offence. In all cases, the Centre's mandate is to help them readjust to society. In pursuing this mandate, educators resort to measures of seclusion, time-out or withdrawal, whether for therapeutic or disciplinary reasons. All of these measures, however one wishes to call them, may be effected through confinement. The children are thus liable to be locked into their own room, into a specially designed time-out room or into a seclusion room, the time of confinement lasting anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Some rehabilitation programs, calling for measures such as time-out or withdrawal, currently allow for the possibility of confining a child in a locked room for some twenty hours a day, for several consecutive days. / From a legal standpoint, confinement may constitute a form of therapy, or it may constitute a disciplinary measure. Depending on the reason for its implementation, seclusion therefore falls under different legal provisions. Yet in all cases, seclusion remains a coercive measure with a strong punitive component. It would therefore be logical for all confinement measures to be governed by the same set of legal rules. Furthermore, the framework provided by health services legislation, which is based on consent to treatment, does not properly account for such measures. Regulating the disciplinary powers of educators, especially their power to lock up children in closed rooms, would be an approach better suited to the actual needs of children.

No description available.