The purpose of this study was to explore upper elementary reading classes in a low socio-economic area to determine the effects frequent praise, both academically and socially, have on the zone of proximal development in reading (ZPD[subscript RL], Renaissance Learning, 2006). A causal-comparative study was utilized by observing two groups of teachers with less than three years' experience. The study was based on a sample of Mississippi third through sixth grade reading teachers within one district. The control group was locally traditionally trained teachers (LTTT) and the experimental group was Teach for America (2007) teachers (TFAT). Only one TFAT participant met the requirements set forth by Hart and Risley (2003) of offering a ratio of at least 6:1 positive to negative quality feedbacks (QF) as measured by "Observing Pupils and Teachers in Classrooms" ("OPTIC", Merret & Wheldall, 1986). All others performed as indicated in prior research, about equal positive and negative responses after second grade (Heller & White, 1975; Merrett & Wheldall, 1986). As a group, TFAT were more positive, but were also more negative. Dependent variables of the study were "Standardized Test of Assessment in Reading" ("S.T.A.R.", Renaissance Learning, 2006) and "ThinkLink" (Discovery Learning, 2008). The "Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition" ("MCT"[subscript 2], MS Department of Education. 2008) was used for beginning reading proficiency levels. Homogeneity of variances was not met; therefore, the researcher conducted a Kruskal-Wallis Test and found there were no significant differences in reading gains in Hypothesis One for which the researcher tested the effects of type of teacher, reading proficiency, and level of praise on "S.T.A.R." ZPD[subscript RL] reading gains. There was a significant difference in "ThinkLink" posttest scores by proficiency and level of praise, but not by type of teacher. The researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis for Hypothesis One. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis for proficiency and level of praise for Hypothesis Two, but failed to reject that type of teacher had an effect on "ThinkLink" posttest scores. There was no significant difference between LTTT and TFAT ZPD[subscript RL] "S.T.A.R." gains or "ThinkLink" posttest scores. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis for Hypothesis Three. There was a significant difference between LTTT and TFAT in the frequency of TPP (total positive praises both academically and socially). Implications of the study indicate that providing frequent amounts of praise during reading was not a successful intervention during this study. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]