Behavioral Interventions that Fit Teachers’ Schedules “Meeting the Challenge” Behavior Conference David Hulac, Ph. D., NCSP April 7, 2014 What do we want to talk about today? 1) Brief Introduction to behaviorism 2) Basic principles of good classroom management (mostly reminders) 3) Techniques for working with problematic class-wide behaviors Anatomy of Behavior Evidence Based Practices in Classroom Management 1. Maximize structure in your classroom. 2. Post, teach, review, monitor, and reinforce a small number of positively stated expectations. 3. Actively engage students in observable ways. 4. Establish a continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior. 5. Establish a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior. (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2007) Maximizing classroom structure 1. Maximize structure in the classroom. • Develop Predictable Routines • Teacher routines: volunteers, communications, movement, planning, grading, etc. • Student routines: personal needs, transitions, working in groups, independent work, instruction, getting, materials, homework, etc. • Design environment to (a) elicit appropriate behavior and (b) minimize crowding and distraction: • • • • Arrange furniture to allow easy traffic flow. Ensure adequate supervision of all areas. Designate staff & student areas. Seating arrangements (groups, carpet, etc.) (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2007) Developing and teaching routines “Most effective managers spend considerable time during the first several weeks helping students learn how to behave in their classrooms. They had carefully thought out procedures for getting assistance, contacting the teacher, lining-up, turning work in, and standards for conduct during seatwork, group work and whole class activities.” Emmer and Evertson, 1981 Procedures • Methods for accomplishing daily routines • What are the two broad categories for instruction? Procedures • Methods for accomplishing daily routines • Include instructional periods • Include transition periods Overcorrection • Positive practice From the Safe and Civil Schools Series Sprick et al., 2010. A few other things to think about Classroom density • As density increases: • Attention decreases • Social withdrawl increases • Aggression, dissatisfaction & anxiousness increase • Performance is most pronounced in complex activities McKee & Witt, 1990 Lighting • VERY limited evidence. • Some research suggests that natural light may decrease behavior problems. Classroom arrangement • More disruption in rows (though ideal for lecturing). • More on-task comments in circles • Clusters may result in greater on task behavior Always include an attention getting signal • Both vocal and visual. Image from thepositiveclassroom.org Targeting transitions Strategies to Promote Classwide Engagement 17 Transitions: • 1-2 hours per day may be spent transitioning (Sainto & Lyon, 1983; Schmit et al., 2000) • Number of inappropriate behaviors may be reduced if transitions are made more efficient (Fudge et al., 2007) 18 Materials In seat In seat Desk clear Raise hand to speak Use inside voice to share with others Respect others No talking Hands and feet to self No handraising Hands ready to work Eyes on teacher Hands and feet to self Eyes on teacher/speaker Raise hand to leave seat 19 Procedures • Red used when transitioning from one classroom activity to another • Teacher provides 2-min and 30-sec warning before moving CW to red • Once CW moved, provide directions for next activity • After providing instructions, turn CW to yellow or green to elicit questions regarding instructions 20 Timely Transitions Game Developed by Campbell and Skinner • Develop, teach, and post transition rules • Class earns group reward if transition time equal to or less than randomly drawn criterion • 5 transitions selected and stopwatch used to measure amount of time during which students misbehaved • End of day: select one transition period and transition criterion • If below criterion, class earns one letter toward prize (e.g., P-A-RT-Y) 21 2. Post, Teach, Review, Monitor, and reinforce a small number of positively stated expectations. • In general, teachers are very good about posting rules and expectations Establish Behavioral Expectations / Rules • A small number (i.e., 3-5) of positively stated rules. Tell students what we want them to do, rather than telling them what we do not want them to do. • Publicly post the rules. • Should match SW Expectations Prompt or Remind Students of the Rule • Provide students with visual prompts (e.g., posters, illustrations, etc). • Use pre-corrections, which include (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997). • “better managers were also more careful monitors of student behavior and dealt with inappropriate behavior when it occurred, more quickly than did less effective managers. “ p. 345 Emmer and Evertson, 1981 Monitor Students’ Behavior in Natural Context • Active Supervision (Colvin, Sugai, Good, Lee, 1997): • Move around • Look around (Scan) • Interact with students • Provide reinforcement and specific praise to students who are following rules. • Catch errors early and provide specific, corrective feedback to students who are not following rules. (Think about how you would correct an academic error.) 3. Actively engage students in observable ways. Provide high rates of opportunities to respond – Vary individual v. group responding – Increase participatory instruction Consider various observable ways to engage students – Written responses – Writing on individual white boards – Choral responding – Gestures – Other: ____________ Opportunity to respond • When students can frequently give answers to questions, their engagement increases. • • • • Instructional talk Positive prompts Wait time Balance of positive to negative feedback Source: Tressel, 2008 Instructional Talk • The teacher engages in short lessons, and then provides an opportunity to practice. • Demonstrations, discussions etc. Source: Tressel, 2008 Positive prompt • Directed requests for action or response • Recommend 3 to 4 opportunities per minute for a class • Ensure each student has a chance to respond • Prompt choral responses Source: Tressel, 2008 Wait time • Allow > 3 s for students to think of the correct answers. Source: Tressel, 2008 Response Cards • Students • write-on boards to answer teacher questions, • cover answer by drawing board to chest, • simultaneously revealing when instructed by teacher • Shown to increase participation and response accuracy (Narayan et al., 1990; Gardner et al., 1994), as well as student behavior 32 Christle & Schuster (2003) • Folded manila folder inside plastic sheet protector + dry-erase marker + felt for eraser • Data collected on 5 students who represented range of student behavior 33 2 Meta-Analyses of Response Cards • Randolph (2005): included 289 cases across 12 SCD studies (majority theses/dissertations) • Off-task behavior decreased by 42% • 82% of students preferred RCs to hand raising • Randolph (2007): 16 SCD and 2 group design studies published since 2003 • Off-task behavior decreased by 34% • No differences in ESs between write-on and pre-printer response cards 34 4. Establish a continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior. • Specific and Contingent Praise • Group Contingencies • Token Economies Specific and Contingent Praise • Praise should be… • …contingent: occur immediately following desired behavior • …specific: tell learner exactly what they are doing correctly and continue to do in the future •) • “Good job” (not very specific) • “I like how you are showing me active listening by having quiet hands and feet and eyes on me” (specific Group Contingencies (Litow and Pumroy, 1975) • Three types: • “One for all” (Dependent Group Contingency) • “To each his/her own” (Independent Group Contingency) • “All for one” (Interdependent Group-Oriented Contingency) Dependent Group Contingency Williamson, Campbell-Whatley, & Lo, 2009 • 6 HS SPED students (10th grade) • Teacher modeled & student rehearsed on-task behaviors • Teacher used 5-min MTS to record on-task/off-task • One student’s name was pulled from a jar • If that unnamed student met the criteria (4/5 +’s), whole class received reward Independent: Token Economy • Procedures (Kazdin, 1977) • Teacher identifies 1-3 disruptive behaviors to be reduced (or appropriate behaviors to be increased) • Teacher provides positive tangible reinforcement (tokens/tickets) when students perform appropriate behaviors • Students may exchange tokens for rewards/prizes • EX. candy, dolls, comics, pencils, etc 40 Modifications • Add response cost • Whenever student performs undesirable (disruptive) behavior, teacher removes a token (Filcheck et al., 2004 ; Wasserman & Vogrin, 1979) • Students keep track of points (McLaughlin & Malaby, 1972) • Teacher instructs student to add/deduct points from own chart on desk • System-wide K-6 (Boegli & Wasik, 1978) • Tokens could be earned throughout day, distributed by principal, teachers, librarian, custodial staff • Others? 41 Potential concerns • Children differ in their preferences for reinforcer dimensions • • • • Quality: time coloring vs. stickers Rate: how often tokens are delivered Delay of reinforcement: how often tokens can be exchanged Necessary response effort: how difficult it is to earn rewards • Temporal discounting (Ainslie, 1974): rewards lose value as latency to receipt increases • Concerns regarding use of edible reinforcement Independent group contingency (Brantley et al., 1993) • 25 4th grade students in general education class • Identified 3 prosocial expectations: pay attention and finish your work, get your teacher’s permission before you say something, stay in your seat without touching others • Class divided into 45-min intervals Place check next to student name on chart if student exhibited 2 or more prosocial behaviors during interval • Initial criterion = 5/7 checks on 4/5 days Interdependent: Good Behavior Game • Procedures (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) • • • • • • Students divided into teams Compete for rewards/privileges (daily and weekly) Identify what periods will play game Clearly define rules (inappropriate/appropriate behaviors) If break rule, receive a mark on the board Team with fewest marks or if both teams < 5 marks wins (decrease marks as weeks go on) • If maintain <20 marks/week, extra privilege 44 Population/Setting • A variety of settings from Kindergarten (Donaldson, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011) through 9th grade (Kleinman & Saigh, 2011) in NYC public schools. • Gen ed (e.g., Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) • Transitional classes (students with low achievement and highly disruptive behaviors; Johnson et al., 1978) • Specials (i.e., during library; Fishbein & Wasik, 1981) 45 Modifications Mystery rewards • Used successfully in preschool (Murphy et al., 2007) and elementary settings (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007; Wright & McCurdy, 2012) • Post positive expectations • If all students in class/team meet criterion (e.g., 5 of fewer checks), group gets a mystery prize 46 Modifications Focus on the positive • Give points for following rules-rather than a mark for breaking a rule (Tanol et al., 2010) • Resulted in lower levels of rule violations • Preferred by teachers • Caught Being Good Game (Wright & McCurdy, 2012) • Assign points if all team members on-task 47 Modifications: Lunchroom McCurdy et al. (2009) Fabiano et al. (2008) • Lunchroom rules explicitly taught • Class receives tick mark for rule infraction • Total # of infractions recorded at end of lunch • Criterion announced on Monday and classes below criterion received prize • Each class receives 6 lottery tickets • One ticket taken away for each rule violation • Remaining tickets go into drawing for class reward Modifications • Exclude students from team points • Modified that if one team member was responsible for a certain number of points, they would not be counted as part of the team that day (Hegerle et al., 1979) • If one person got >4 marks/day, team could vote to exclude that person; person missed opportunity to participate if team won that week-worked in isolation (timeout) for next day to study alone (Medland & Stachnik, 1972) • Others? 49 Classwide Self-Management Strategies to Promote Classwide Engagement 50 What are “Self-Management” interventions? Selection / definition of target behavior Determination of performance goals, comparing actual performance to goals, monitoring performance over time Most often combined in a package Delivering instructional prompt(s), observing / recording behavior Selection and administration of primary reinforcers, administration of secondary reinforcers (e.g., tokens) Types of Self-Monitoring Event-based • Frequency count of inappropriate verbalizations (Cavalier, Ferreti, & Hodges, 1997) • Instances of speaking during class (Gottman & McFall, 1972) Time-based • Was I paying attention? (AmatoZech, Hoff, & Doepke, 2006) • Are you working? (Dalton, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 1979) 52 Independent Contingency: Kern et al (1994) • Elementary students in self-contained classroom taught to rate ontask behavior and one individualized behavior • Bell sounds according to VI 5-min schedule • Consultant compares responses with student during initial training • Points awarded based on student ratings, which could be redeemed for privileges or items Interdependent Contingency: Chafouleas, Hagermoser Sanetti, Jaffery, and Fallon (2012) • Setting: Three 8th grade classrooms • Participants: 57 students • Students rated themselves at end of day using 0-10 DBR-SIS scale on: • Preparedness • Engagement • Homework completion • Compared ratings with teacher (bonus points possible) 54 Chafouleas et al. (2012) • Interdependent group contingency • Each teacher divided her class into four to six teams of 3-5 students • Average points were calculated for each team • Students tracked their progress with team graphs • Updated, and reviewed at the beginning of each class • All teams with a cumulative score that met or exceeded the predetermined criterion earned a reinforcer 55 Dependent Contingency: Briesch, Hemphill, and Daniels (2013) • Setting: Two 7th grade Pre-Algebra classes taught by the same instructor • Participants: • Class 1: 20 students (9 male and 11 female) • Class 2: 25 students (12 male and 13 female) • Target behaviors: • “SLANT” (Sit up straight, Lean forward, Ask questions, Nod your head, Track the speaker) 56 Briesch et al. (2013) • An audible tone occurred every 10-15 minutes on a VI schedule • Each students rated his “SLANT” following the tone by displaying his thumb up, down, or sideways • Thumbs up: Met all expectations • Thumbs down: Did not meet any expectations • Thumbs sideways: Met some but not all of the expectations 57 Briesch et al. (2013) • The classroom teacher rated the behavior of the students sitting at one randomly-selected table following the tone • The class received one point for every match between the students’ and the teacher’s ratings • Up to 3 points were possible per interval (3 students at a table x 1 point each) • Class received a small tangible reward if they maintained an average of 80% accuracy in their ratings for the week 58 Briesch et al. (2013) • Class 1 30 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Week 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Baseline 20 Intervention 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 0 3 • PND = 83% 40 0 % Intervals Engaged • SMD = 1.93 50 10 • Class 2 • Intervention: M = 92%, 60 20 • PND = 71% • Baseline: M = 77% (SD = 7.76) 70 2 • SMD = 1.77 80 1 • Intervention: M = 89% 90 % Intervals Engaged • Baseline: M = 78% (SD = 6.04) 100 Day 59 5. Establish a continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior. • Quick error corrections and redirect to appropriate behavior • Differential Reinforcement • Planned ignoring • Response Cost • Time out from reinforcement Teaching ignoring • Expect an extinction burst. • Easily implemented by a teacher. • HOWEVER . . . Picture from http://humanhumor.files.wordpress.com What if a student’s behavior is motivated by peer attention? Group ignore • Rewarding all other students for ignoring. • Requires a specific practice section. Source: Hulac & Benson, 2010 References • Barrish, H.H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M.M. (1969, Summer). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119-124. • Briesch, A. M., Hemphill, E. M., & Daniels, B. (2013). Check your SLANT: Use of self-management as a classwide intervention. School Psychology Forum. • Campbell, S., & Skinner, C. (2004, December). Combining explicit timing with an interdependent group contingency program to decrease transition times: An investigation of the Timely Transitions Game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 11. • Chafouleas, S. M., Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., Jaffery, R., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). An evaluation of a classwide intervention package involving self-management and a group contingency on classroom behavior of middle school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(1), 34-57. • Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., & Lee, Y-Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(4), 344-363. • Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., Burrows-MacLean, L., Coles, E. K., Chacko, A., Wymbs, B. T. et al. (2007). The single and combined effects of multiple intensities of behavior modification and methylphenidate for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a classroom setting. School Psychology Review, 36(2), 195-216. • Fabiano, G. A., & Pelham, W. E. (2003). Improving the effectiveness of classroom intervention for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A case study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 122-128. • Hulac, D. M., & Benson, N. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behavior. Intervention in the School and Clinic, 45(4), 257-262. • Hulac, D., M., Terrell, J., Vining, O., & Bernstein, J. (2011). Behavioral interventions in the schools: A response to intervention guidebook. New York: Routledge. • Kounin, J. S. (1970).Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. • Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(3), 341-347. • Matheson, A.D., & Shriver, M.D. (2005). Training teachers to give effective commands: Effects on student compliance and academic behaviors. School Psychology Review, 34, 202-219. • Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., Glassenbury, M., Lang, R., & Didden, R. (2013). Increasing on-task behavior in students in a regular classroom: Effectiveness of a self-management procedure using a tactile prompt. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 22(4), 302-311. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9180-6 • Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, & Merrill (2008). The Classroom Check-up: A classwide consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37, 315-332. • Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D. & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for Research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), pp. 351-380. • Sutherland, K. S. & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 113-121.