The PEF model is based on a comprehensive body of research related to teaching social competency skills, reducing disruptive behavior and creating a positive learning environment. Significant research themes include:

PEF defines violence as acts of aggression intendedt to cause pain or discomfort to others, either directly (from bullying and fighting to a disrespectful tone and name calling) or indirectly (as in theft or vandalism). This definition reflects the fact that violent behaviors such as these disrupt the learning environment and make schools unsafe places (LeBlanc, Lacey, & Mulder, 1998). This definition is also based on research regarding violent behaviors indicating that interpersonal peer violence is stable throughout development (Farrington, 1991; Olweus, 1984; Patterson, 1982). Indeed, children who have been found to display violent behaviors during elementary school are more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system and to display violence later in life (Cairns & Cairns, 1991; Eron, 1987; Farrington; Olweus, 1991). Thus, it is the responsibility of educators to be attuned to both the direct and indirect forms of violent behavior noted in elementary schools that later escalate into more severe violence in high schools (LeBlanc, Lacey, & Mulder, 1998).

The PEF model is not merely a single-component intervention; it reflects a a set of life skills and an attitude to be taught and practiced over time. Meta-analysis research has shown that multimodal, structured social skills training programs are the most successful approaches for positively affecting youth behavior and for reducing youth aggression and delinquency (Lipsey, 1992; Lipsey & Wilson, 1993).

The PEF model is informed by the competency model of child social development (Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, O’Donnel, Abbot and Day, 1992). This concept shifts the focus from what is “wrong” with youth to what can be done to facilitate their healthy development. A well-implemented PEF program promotes the protective factors deemed necessary to mitigate the effects of risk: caring and support, high expectations, and opportunities for meaningful success (Bernard, 1991).

The content and process of the PEF model is based on research that proves resiliency can be fostered in youth. Resiliency is the ability to bounce back from life’s inevitable stresses. Resilient individuals display these attributes:

1. Social competence: empathy, caring, communication skills, etc.
2. Problem-solving: ability to think reflectively and flexibly to attempt alternate solutions to both cognitive and social problems
3. Autonomy: having a sense of one’s own identity, acting independently, exerting some control over one’s environment
4. Sense of purpose and future: healthy expectancies, goal directedness, and persistence. (Bernard, 1991)

PEF’s teaching methodology draws on social learning theory stating that children learn through modeling, practice and reinforcement (Bandura, 1997). The teacher is key because s/he facilitates the process by which students hone their social competency skills. More specifically, this methodology includes five techniques:

1. Model skills such as reflective listening, I-Statements and problem-solving on an regular basis.
2. Teach skills by promoting basic understanding and recognition of the skills as well as providing an opportunity to practice the skills in low-stress situations.
3. Coach students by supporting their efforts to translate mental knowledge into practical application, and providing feedback regarding their efforts.
4. Encourage students to use skills appropriately by providing brief prompts and reminders. Reinforce students’ efforts through praise and recognition of intrinsic rewards.
5. Export students’ skill proficiency by involving them in opportunities for meaningful participation such as service learning projects or mentoring less-experienced students.

Process Goals and Progress Feedback
Research shows that teachers help instill in students self-efficacy, achievement and long-term strategy by giving them a process goal of learning a strategy and providing feedback as they learn the strategy (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). The teaching process described above reflects this strategy.

Research indicates that age-appropriate programming helps promote the effectiveness of student instruction (Arends, 1998; Burden & Byrd, 1999; Posner, 1995). The PEF model provides a different social competency/conflict resolution curricula for each accademic level from Pre-K through 8th grade, plus a unique component for grades 9–12. While the scope and sequence of essential components are consistent throughout the entire series, each curriculum features age-appropriate content and skills. In addition to ensuring that students master skills in a developmentally progressive manner, the new and relevant lessons each year help maintain long-term student interest and buy-in.

To promote long-term use of pro-social skills, violence prevention programs should begin at an early age and continue over the course of multiple years (Hawkins, Von Cleve & Catalano, 1991; Zigler, Taussing & Black, 1992; Tolan & Guerra, 1994). The PEF model meets this need by providing dozens of new lessons in each curriculum. This promotes effective long-term violence prevention education.

Many of the aspects that measure school climate, respect, a sense of community and continuous growth of social competency skills, are integral to the PEF model. Cultivating student social competency helps reduce behavioral disruptions to the learning environment and thus improving school safety and climate (LeBlanc, Lacey, & Mulder, 1998).

In addition to promoting a positive school climate, a successfully implemented PEF model can also contribute to (1) improvements in order and discipline, (2) development of a caring community, and (3) opportunities for students to demonstrate responsibility (Grossman et al., 1997; LeBlanc, Lacey, & Mulder, 1998; LeBlanc, 1996; Speirs, 1994). These findings correlate with the findings from the research on effective schools. Not only do these outcomes help create more effective schools, but they also have positive effects on student learning (Arends, 1998; Joyce, Hersh, & Hartoonian, 1993).