effectiveness of a computer-based professional...

Effectiveness of a Computer-Based Professional Development Program

to Improve School Playground Safety

Lynne Swartz, MPH, CHES

Randy Sprick, PhD.

Ann Glang, PhD.

Oregon Center for Applied Science

Eugene, Oregon

Funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health

Grant # DA013358

https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/genericStatus.do?actionRole=nonPI&applID=6727502&uhf-token=1Meky6QwaXjQcBt0pQ%2FMX25SJzg%3D

Abstract

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that over 200,000 children every

year are admitted to emergency rooms due to playground related injuries sustained at school. The

National Association for Playground Safety recommends not only improving surface materials

and equipment, but also improving adult supervision of children while at play. There are limited

empirical studies in the literature that have examined the impact of a comprehensive training

program to improve playground safety by improving supervisor knowledge and attitudes. The

purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive, stand-alone interactive

multimedia computer-based training program for elementary school faculty to implement a

school-wide behavior management program for playground environments. To do this, a

randomized control trial comparing the experiences of playground supervisors, students, and

staff from schools in a large urban school district was carried out. School was both the unit of

randomization and the unit of analysis. The comparisons were measured by pre, post and

follow-up assessments conducted by the investigators. Results suggest significant positive

differences due to treatment in knowledge, beliefs and attitudes for playground supervisors,

students, and staff.

Introduction

An important part of the fundamental mission of education is to promote healthy and safe

behaviors among students at school. Yet, each year over four million children and adolescents

are injured at school (CDC/Division of Adolescents and School Health, 2007). Specifically,

incidents on the playground are a major contributor to the growing number of injuries at school.

Sadly, each year emergency rooms treat more than 200,000 children under the age of fourteen

for playground related injuries (Tinsworth & McDonald, 2001). Children ages 5-9 have higher

rates of emergency room visits for playground injuries than any other age group (Phelan,

Khoury, Kalkwarf and Lanphear, 2001).

Amid growing concerns about student health and safety on the playground, the Centers

for Disease Control (CDC) created the National Program for Playground Safety in 2000. The

National Program for Playground Safety developed three major recommendations for improving

student safety on the playground: 1) improve adult supervision of children on playgrounds; 2)

provide education about safe and age-appropriate use of equipment; 3) improve the quality and

maintenance of equipment and surfaces (Hudson, Mack, & Thompson, 2000). In 2001, CDC

created the School Guidelines to Prevent Unintentional Injuries and Violence (CDC, 2001) and

included a recommendation for staff development to prevent injuries. Recent research suggests

that the most promising means to reduce playground injuries is through increased quantity and

quality of playground supervision by adults (Schwebel, 2006). Schwebel (2006) identified six

different ways that supervision likely prevents injuries: (a) Supervisors repetitively teach

children playground rules; (b) supervisors recognize and stop children's dangerous behavior; (c)

supervisors prevent children from behaving impulsively; (d) the presence of a supervisor causes

children to behave differently; (e) supervisors change children's attribution of risk; and (f)

supervisors have influence as modelers and persuaders of safe behavior (p. 135). Yet, on

America’s schoolyards the quality and quantity of supervision is lacking.

Historically, the majority of schools have not provided playground supervisors with

training in appropriate playground supervision methods (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995;

Frost & Jacobs, 1995). Further, on many school playgrounds, it is not uncommon for the adult-

to-student ratio to exceed 1:150 (Bruya & Bruya, 2000). Thus, playground supervisors often

find themselves in the position of monitoring large numbers of children in unstructured and

unsafe settings with little or no training.

A review of the literature from the last fifteen years provides little information or insight

as to the level of systematic ongoing training regularly provided for school playground

supervisors. However documentation was found reporting the number of injuries to students on

playgrounds and the concerns expressed by school nurses associations as to the lack of training

for playground supervisors as a contributing factor (Schwebel, 2006; Hudson, Olson &

Thompson, 2008). Additional publications were found alerting districts to concerns regarding

their liability resulting from inadequate training of playground supervisors; however these

publications gave no data on the status of current training practices (Bossenmeyer, 2009).

Although there have been a number of studies documenting the impact of equipment and

surface safety standards on injury rates (e.g., Tinsworth & McDonald, 2001), empirically

validated interventions to improve adult supervision are limited. Given the national attention to

the problems associated with inadequate playground supervision, this lack of information about

what works is noteworthy. If school personnel want to promote a positive and safe climate for

the whole school, the vision must include the playground.

Positive Behavior Supports

The use of positive behavior supports (PBS) in the management of problem behavior may

provide some needed solutions for improving the quality of supervision on the playground

(Sugai & Horner, 2006). PBS is a team-based school-wide approach to facilitate student success

and positive behavior. Eddy, Reid, and Fetrow (2000) conducted a randomized control trial

evaluation of a school-wide behavior modification program that included a comprehensive

playground intervention. Results demonstrated that the program reduced rates of antisocial

behaviors related to delinquency, with the strongest effects occurring in children with high rates

of problem behaviors. Smith and Sugai (1998) reported that when playground supervisors

implemented systematic supervision techniques (e.g., active supervision, behavioral instruction,

and contingent reinforcement), problem behaviors on the playground were significantly reduced.

In their study in a rural elementary school, there was a reduction in problem playground

behaviors of approximately 400% to 450% across the three grade levels included in the study

(i.e., 4th - 6th grades), with the most significant reduction in the lowest grade level. Currently,

however, most teachers report that they are not well prepared to effectively manage behavior,

especially in less structured areas such as the playground (Public Agenda, 2004).

Professional development for improving playground supervision is currently hampered

by the lack of cost effective and evidenced-based practices. As schools face mounting pressure to

implement research-based professional development programs (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act,

2001; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004), Wilson and Berne (2001) suggest

exploring models using technology to deliver staff training.

Technology and Professional Development

Video and computer-based training methods are attractive alternatives or additions to

face-to-face training approaches and considered more cost effective. These methods are

attractive because training can be offered with fidelity to individuals at convenient times, can

present real-life training information, and can model recommended behaviors. Video is

particularly useful for teaching behavioral skills, providing modeling of subtle skills and allow

opportunities for discriminating pro-social behavior. However, linear video alone brings with it

certain inefficiencies. In most cases, a consultant trainer is needed in conjunction with the linear

video, adding cost and logistical demands that may limit the utility of the training. Further

linear video cannot give immediate feedback to the user, an important component of effective

instructional design. Also, a linear video approach cannot tailor information to a viewer’s

experience or training needs, and consequently may present material that is already known or of

little interest.

The drawbacks to the linear video approach can be addressed by using a computer-based

or Interactive Multimedia (IMM) approach to deliver professional development. IMM training

programs link video with computer-assisted instruction (Fotheringham & Owen, 2000; Noell &

Glasgow, 1999). The technology retains the advantages of video and has been shown to be

effective for training educators (Sariscsany & Pettigrew, 1997) and health care professionals

(Carr, Reznick, & Brown, 1999; Clark et al., 2000; Marescaux et al., 2000; Michas & Berry,

2000; Niewijk & Weijts, 1997; Opat, Cohen, Bailey, & Abramson, 2000; Potomkova, Mihal, &

Cihalik, 2006; Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006; Savage & Goodyer, 2003; Silverman, Holmes,

Kimmel, & Branas, 2003; Stefanich & Cruz-Neira, 1999; Ursino, Tasto, Nguyen, Cunningham,

& Merril, 1999).

Advantages of IMM

There are three key advantages to using IMM as a professional development program.

First, mastery can be verified via on-screen assessments and results are immediately available to

the user. This also allows for a criterion-referenced assessment of topic mastery, with the

capability to ―branch‖ users back for review of material not fully understood. Flat text pages and

linear video do not have this capability. Second, IMM training programs are time-efficient

because the user only addresses subject matter and sees material that is personally relevant or

selected. Also, since the computer system can store a record of each trainee’s system-use, an

individual can return repeatedly to resume training at the point where the previous session ended.

A final advantage of the IMM format is that it can be very simple to use. Voice-over narration

lets the user hear messages and assessment questions as they are printed on the screen.

Responses may be delivered via a single key-stroke or the click of a mouse on highly graphic

icons or ―answer buttons.‖

An IMM professional development program for playground management

On the Playground: Guide to Playground Management training program (NB: from now

on referred to as On the Playground) is based on the foundational work of Dr. Randall Sprick

emphasizing a schoolwide approach using the principles of positive behavior supports (Sprick,

1990; Sprick, Garrison, & Howard, 2002; Sprick, Sprick, & Garrison, 1993). Designed as a

stand-alone computer-based training program using video examples from real playgrounds, On

the Playground can be implemented by a school team without the need of an expert trainer;

given the computer-based platform it can be used to train new personnel or review and refresh

veteran personnel’s skill sets. The initial content for the IMM version of On the Playground

program was obtained from a linear video-based staff-training program in playground

supervision (Sprick, 1990). Content was updated using current research in positive behavior

supports, behavior change theory, and new safety information about playgrounds; detailed

interview data was collected from principals and playground supervisors and used to refine

content, create video examples, and develop the user-friendly navigation format of the program

for a beta IMM version (Glang, Sprick, Swartz, & Clark, 2003). The program is designed to

increase the knowledge and influence attitudes of key stakeholders so that they are more

proactive in creating a positive and safe environment on the playground.

Along with grounding in positive behavior support, the underlying assumptions for the

design of On the Playground are drawn from the Expanded Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen,

1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1979, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and Social Learning Theory

(Bandura, 1977, 1997). The Expanded Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that knowledge and

attitudes influence behavior. Specifically, the intention to engage in the desired behaviors is

derived from the combination of a positive attitude (or set of attitudes) towards the behavior, the

confidence that one can successfully carry out the behavior (i.e., self-efficacy), and the

normative expectation of such behaviors by one’s peers. (i.e., perceived norms of other

playground supervisors) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1979, 1980). In Social Learning Theory, the concept

of self-efficacy is defined as "the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior

required to produce the outcomes" (Bandura, 1977, 1997). According to Bandura (1977, 1997), a

change in one's belief about his/her ability to successfully execute a given behavior will mediate

the initiation and maintenance of change in that behavior. Increasing skills to perform the

behavior (e.g., to initiate a conversation) and gaining control of environmental barriers (e.g., rude

children, busy schedules) can influence the potential for a positive outcome. Supportive video

testimonials and language can also positively impact self-efficacy (Bandura 1977, 1997).

Fundamentally, the goal of the On the Playground program is to influence the behavior

of playground supervisors in implementing effective behavior management strategies on the

playground and also to change specific factors that are derived directly from the basic constructs

of this theoretical model: beliefs and outcome evaluations, attitudes, self-efficacy, perceived

norms, skills, and intentions. Specifically, in addition to increasing knowledge of effective

behavior management strategies, the professional development program for playground

supervisors focused on improving: (a) self-reported application of knowledge, (b) beliefs and

attitudes towards using effective communication strategies and initiating monitoring practices,

(c) perceptions of peer norms regarding the use of behavior management techniques; (d)

behavioral intentions to implement; and (e) self-efficacy to implement effective practices.

Research Question

Using randomly assigned elementary schools, do stakeholders who participated in On the

Playground significantly increase their knowledge and attitudes about playground safety when

compared to stakeholders in control schools?

Methods

Participants

One of the largest and fastest growing districts in the nation agreed to participate in the

study. The district is comprised of features associated with both urban and rural districts. It

includes a diverse student body with a range of economic groups. Because the weather and

climate conditions allow for students to participate in outdoor play for over 80% of the school

year, schools are built with large play and outside recreation areas. For the purposes of this study

only elementary schools (K-5) were invited to participate. Eligibility criteria for school

participation included: (1) the school was not currently using a playground management training

program, (2) the administrators agreed to complete online assessments, (3) a staff person would

be assigned to act as a liaison with the research team for conducting in-class assessments, and (4)

all playground supervisors were available for training. Thirty-two elementary schools met the

criteria and agreed to participate. For the purpose of this study, the unit of randomization was

the school itself; schools were randomly assigned to either treatment or control condition. All

information about participants was collected after random assignment. All internal review board

and district requirements regarding to human subject research were met. Datasets consisted of 16

treatment and 16 control schools and included playground supervisors, teachers and

administrators, with some attrition. The student dataset was comprised of 14 treatment schools

and 16 control schools. Specifically, one control condition school failed to return posttest data on

students, staff and the final administrator survey. A treatment school dropped out from the study

after completing baseline measures for administrators, playground supervisors and teachers.

Lastly, another two treatment schools did not return any student surveys.

Participant Characteristics

Since the study examined responses of stakeholders who participated in the treatment

condition compared to responses of stakeholders in control condition, participant characteristics

are described for control and treatment conditions for each group of stakeholders: playground

supervisors, students, administrators, and teachers.

Playground Supervisors. A total of 430 playground supervisors participated in the study:

200 in Treatment and 230 in Control. Characteristics of the playground supervisors in the control

and treatment groups are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the

control and treatment groups. For the whole population, there were more women (85.8%) than

men (14.2%), with the majority of playground supervisors between the ages of 26 and 55

(74.2%). The majority of playground supervisors identified as White (70.9%). The majority of

playground supervisors reported that they had been a supervisor for more than 10 years (23.2%)

and 63.3% of the supervisors reported that they had had no formal training as a playground

supervisor. The majority (64.4%) had at least a college degree.

Table 1. Characteristics of Playground Supervisors

Characteristics of Playground

Supervisors

Treatment Control Total

n % n % n %

Gender Female 173 46.5 196 53.1 369 85.8

Male 27 44.3 34 55.7 61 14.2

Age 18-25 17 8.5 24 10.4 41 9.5

26-39 83 41.5 82 35.7 165 38.4

40-55 73 36.5 81 35.2 154 35.8

Over 55 19 9.5 30 13 49 11.4

Declined to

answer

8 4 13 5.7 21 4.9

Race White 148 74 157 68.3 305 70.9

Minority 49 24.5 70 30.4 119 27.7

Declined to

answer

3 1.5 3 1.3 6 1.4

Length of time as Less than one 34 17 51 22.2 85 19.8

a supervisor year

1-2 years 29 14.5 38 16.5 67 15.6

2-5 years 41 20.5 47 20.4 88 20.5

5-10 years 43 21.5 40 17.4 83 19.3

More than ten

years

49 24.5 51 22.2 10 23.2

Declined to

answer

4 2 3 1.3 7 1.6

Previous

playground

supervisor

training

No 117 58.5 155 67.4 272 63.3

Yes, with a

curriculum

46 23 46 20 92 21

On the job 29 14.5 27 11.7 56 13

Declined to

answer

8 4 2 .9 10 2.3

Level of

Education

High School or

less

27 13.5 35 15.2 62 14.4

Some college 41 20.5 42 18.3 83 19.3

College degree

or beyond

131 65.5 146 63.5 277 64.4

Declined to

answer

1 .5 7 3 8 1.9

Students. Most playground injuries occur to children between the ages 5-9 (Phelan et al.,

2001). Because some ability to read would be involved in assessing students, third grade

students were selected as the targeted student group. All third grade students within each school

were included in the sample, resulting in a total of 662 third grade students participants: 309 in

the treatment group and 353 in the control group. Characteristics of the students in the control

and treatment groups are presented in Table 2 and 3. There were no significant differences

between the control and treatment groups. For the third grade population across the entire study

(in both control and treatment groups), there were slightly more boys (53%) than girls (47%).

The race/ethnicity mix of the students consisted of 28% White, 28% Hispanic, 16% African

American, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% American Indian, and 14% listed as Other.

Table 2. Demographics of third grade students by gender

Treatment Control

Boys 48% 54.7%

Girls 46% 44.3%

Data missing 6% 1%

Table 3. Demographics of children by race/ethnicity

% Treatment % Control

African American 13.8 14.7

American Indian 6.5 5.2

Asian/Pacific

Islander

9.1 6.5

Caucasian 27.5 21.5

Hispanic 18.5 32.2

Mixed/Other 14.5 18.6

Data Missing 10.1 1.3

School Level Administrators. A total of 32 administrators participated in the study:

sixteen in the Treatment Group and sixteen in the Control Group. Characteristics of

Administrators between control and treatment groups are displayed in Table 4. The majority of

administrators were women (81.3%) and White (78.1%). Most administrators were principals

(68.7%) and had more than 6 years of experience (62.5%). Slightly more than half of the

administrators stated that they provided training for their staff (56.3%) in playground

supervision.

Table 4. Characteristics of Administrators

Treatment Control Total

n % n % n %

Gender Female 13 81.3 13 81.3 26 81.3

Male 3 18.7 3 18.7 6 18.7

Race/Ethnicity White 13 81.3 12 75 25 78.1

Minority 3 18.7 3 18.7 6 18.7

Declined to

answer

0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1

Job Title Principal 11 68.7 11 68.7 22 68.7

Assistant

Principal

4 25 4 25 8 25

Other 1 6.3 1 6.3 2 6.3

Declined to

answer

0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1

Length of time as

an administrator

Less than one

year

0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1

1-2 years 3 18.7 1 6.3 4 12.5

3-5 years 3 18.7 4 25 7 21.9

6-10 years 5 31.3 6 37.4 11 34.4

More than 10

years

5 31.3 4 24 9 28.1

Provide training

for supervisors

No 7 43.7 7 43.7 14 43.7

Yes 9 56.3 9 56.3 18 56.3

Staff. A total of 1,132 staff members, 562 (49.6%) in the control group and 570 (50.4%)

in treatment group, participated in the pretest phase. In the post-test phase a total of 690 staff

members participated, 337 (48.8%) in the control group and 353 (51.2%) in the treatment group.

This group consisted of general school staff attending regular staff meetings and included

teachers and other allied professionals.

Leadership Team. A total of sixty leadership team members participated in the pretest

phase and twenty-five participated in the post-test phase. The leadership team component was

only a part of the treatment condition. Therefore, no control data are available for the leadership

team. Leadership teams were created by intervention administrators.

Measurement

Unique surveys were constructed for administrators, teachers, playground supervisors,

students, and leadership team members (See Appendix A-E for samples of all survey

instruments). Each survey question was reviewed to make certain that the standards for creating

good questions were met (e.g., clear wording, alignment to survey purpose, appropriateness for

the stakeholder group, and sequenced in a logical order). The following measures were selected,

adapted, or developed; then field-tested and standardized for each stakeholder group prior to

implementation in this study:

Playground Supervisor Knowledge and Attitude Test. Test items were designed by

content area experts and field-tested prior to this research study. After field-testing, items were

selected by content experts based on item performance and alignment to content. A pre-test,

post-test, and follow-up test was constructed for the playground supervisors. The Playground

Supervisor Knowledge and Attitude Test had a total of 66 items. The knowledge component of

pretest consisted of seven multiple choice items; the attitude and beliefs component consisted of

47 items using a five point Likert scale; the response style section consisted of 12 items on a

seven point Likert scale. The post-test contained the same items as the pretest; the follow-up test

contained the same knowledge and attitude items with additional questions regarding program

satisfaction for the treatment group only.

Student Knowledge of Playground Rules and Perception of Playground Safety

Assessment. Assessment items were designed by content area experts and field-tested prior to

this research study. After field-testing, items were selected by content experts based on item

performance and alignment to content. A pre-test and post test was constructed appropriate for

third grade students. The knowledge component of pretest consisted of three open response

items; the attitude component consisted of ten items using a four point Likert rating scale. The

post-test contained the same items as the pretest. The Likert rating scale format was designed

using a four point range of ―smiley-face‖ to ―sad-face‖ icons to accommodate students with

different skill sets. If needed, teachers were allowed to orally read the questions to the students,

but students needed to determine their answer to the question by marking the appropriate

―smiley-face‖ icon (See Figure 1 for an example of a student question and icon).

Figure 1. Example of Student Survey Question

I feel safe on the playground.

Staff perception surveys Two widely regarded survey instruments used in the field of

positive behavior supports were adapted to assess : Perceptions of Playground Safety (Sprick,

Garrison, & Howard, 2002) and Understanding Your Role in Playground Safety (Sprick, et al.,

2002). These surveys consist of a total of 15 questions using a five point Likert scale.

Participants are asked how much they agree or disagree with key statements. Sample items

include: ―It is easy for students to make friends on the playground‖ and ―Adults on the

playground treat the students respectfully.‖

Program Satisfaction. Program satisfaction was measured with 5 questions using a five

point Likert scale and 10 open-ended response items. Questions such as the following were used:

What did you like best about the program?; What did you like least?; On a scale of 1-5, How

easy was the program to use?

Fidelity of Implementation. Fidelity of program implementation was assessed using the

EBS Self-Assessment Survey version 2.0 (Sugai, Horner & Todd, 2003). There are 27 items with

three different types of responses available: in place, partially in place, and not in place. The

participant indicated the level of implementation (in place, partially in place, or not in place) for

each question. Questions such as the following were used: School has comprehensive written

rules for the playground; Playground supervisors consistently model positive and respectful

interaction with students; Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous situations.

Schedule of administration for each measure by group is outlined in Table 5.

Table 5. Schedule of administration

T: Treatment Condition; C: Control Condition

Participant

Group

Measure Pretest

(T1)

Posttest

(T2)

Follow-up

(T3)

Playground

Supervisors Knowledge and

Attitudes of

Playground

Supervision

Program Satisfaction

Survey

TC TC (at 30

days)

TC (at 75

days)

T (at 75

days)

School Staff Perceptions of

Playground Safety

(Sprick, Garrison, &

Howard, 2002)

Understanding Your

Role (Sprick et al.,

2002)

TC

TC

TC (at 75

days)

TC (at 75

days)

Students

Knowledge of

Playground Rules

Perceptions of

Playground Safety


Howard, 2002)

TC

TC

TC (at 30

days)

TC (at 30

days)

School level

Administrators

Perceptions of

Playground Safety

(Sprick et al., 2002)

Fidelity of

Implementation

TC TC (at 30

days)

TC (at 60

days)

T

Leadership

team Fidelity of

Implementation


T (at 45

days)

T (at 45

days)

T (at 75

days)

T (at 75

days)

Procedures and Design

The evaluation of the On the Playground program consisted of a randomized trial with

schools assigned to treatment or control conditions. The multi-component intervention involved

unique procedures for each group of stakeholders.

Playground supervisors. Research staff set up each school’s computer lab for playground

supervisors to attend the computer-delivered training session at any time throughout the day.

During the session, playground supervisors were provided informed consent; administered a

paper and pencil pretest (T1); and given access to either the treatment or control materials.

Playground supervisors at the treatment schools viewed On the Playground, while playground

supervisors at the control schools viewed a linear video, S.A.F.E. Playgrounds, from the National

Program for Playground Safety (1998). Both programs were approximately 15 minutes in

length. Playground supervisors were assessed immediately after completing either the treatment

or control program (T2) and a follow up survey T3) was administered approximately 75 days

after the post-test.

School staff. At both treatment and control schools, a school administrator (principal or

vice principal) administered pre-tests (T1) to staff at each school prior to the initiation of any

study activities. The same surveys were administered approximately 75 days later (T2). The

surveys were completed anonymously, as part of each school's staff development efforts, and not

individually tracked between T1 and T2.

Students. Classroom teachers administered paper-pencil assessments to a sample of third

grade students at both control and treatment schools at pretest (T1). Student responses were

tracked for each participant for analysis. The student assessment post-test (T2) was

administered 30 days after end of the supervisor’s training program.

Administrators. Control and treatment administrators were assessed at T1. They were

also assessed 30 days (T2) after completion of T1 and at 60 days after T1 (T3). All assessments

were delivered online via the Internet.

Leadership team. In the treatment group only, a leadership team was formed to

implement the playground program. This group was assessed at 45 days after the administrator

received the program and again at 75 days after the administrator received the program.

All participant populations were tracked and prompted via email, voicemail or posted mail if

their materials were not returned in a timely manner.

Materials

Treatment Condition Materials

Schools in the treatment group used On the Playground, a comprehensive program to

help schools create and implement a school-wide approach to promote prosocial behaviors and

prevent misbehaviors. On the Playground consists of three separate components; each

component has its own CD-ROM. The components are briefly described below, for complete

description of the technical requirements and skill contents see Appendix F and G.

Playground Supervisor’s Toolkit. This video-rich CD-ROM is a self-paced training

program designed to help playground supervisors learn strategies that will (1) prevent

misbehaviors on the playground and (2) manage misbehaviors more effectively. The highly

interactive content is organized into segments that address the most common problems,

presented via vignettes. Thus, supervisors can select the issues most important/problematic to

them. In addition to prevention and management of common problems, a core set of

management skills is taught, including establishing relationships with students, effective

scanning and monitoring, and effective and respectful corrections

Planning Team’s Toolkit. Designed for a team of school administrators, teachers and

supervisors, this CD-ROM advocates best practices for school-wide playground policy planning

and implementation. Using data and policies provided by the administrator (see above), this

program assists and directs the team in examining their playground program in areas such as

playground scheduling and mixes of students, staffing and training, and creating policies that

work for their individual school. The program is organized into a series of meetings with

agendas and assignments that help lead the team through the creation of a comprehensive plan

for their school, and communicating the plan to staff, students and parents.

Administrators Toolkit. This text-based CD-ROM is directed towards the building-level

administrator or principal who is responsible for creating and staffing the playground program

for their school. This program is organized in five steps, including creating a school-wide

playground policy, creating a planning team, assessing their school’s playground facilities and

policies and creating a training program for playground supervisors. There is additional

information about liability, record-keeping, and tips for dealing with common misbehaviors.

Control Condition Materials

S.A.F.E. Playgrounds, a video program from the National Program for Playground Safety

(1998), was used for the control condition. This widely used video program runs approximately

15 minutes and covers the importance of Supervision, Age-appropriate design, Falls to surfaces,

and Equipment maintenance.

Results

Results are summarized in Table 6.

Playground Supervisors

Three outcome measures were analyzed to determine the impact of the On the

Playground program on playground supervisors. Results showed that all three of the outcome

measures, supervisor knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy, increased significantly in the

treatment group in comparison to the control group. A mixed design, analysis of variance was

conducted in which the effects of time of measurement, experimental condition, and their

interaction on supervisor beliefs, self-efficacy, and knowledge were examined. For supervisor

beliefs, there were significant differences in belief over time (F [2, 398] = 42.92, p < .001) and

for the main effect of condition (F [1, 199] = 3.97, p = .048). The interaction of time and

condition was statistically significant, F (1, 398) = 19.78, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared

indicated that about 9% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the

condition by time interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was

no significant difference between the groups at time one, but there were significant mean

differences at time two (4.21 vs. 3.99) and time three (4.19 vs. 4.05).

There were also significant differences in self-efficacy over time (F [2, 462] = 84.77, p <

.001), but not for the main effect of condition. The interaction of time and condition was

statistically significant, F (1, 462) = 13.87, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared indicated that

about 5.7% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the condition by time

interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was no significant

difference between the groups at time one, but there were significant mean differences across

condition at posttest (T2) (4.29 vs. 4.07) and follow-up (T3) (4.27 vs. 4.13).

Results from the pretest to posttest comparisons of supervisor knowledge showed

significant differences in knowledge over time (F [1, 328] = 30.75, p < .001) and for the main

effect of condition (F [1, 328] = 4.85, p = .028). The interaction of time and condition was

statistically significant, F (1, 328) = 16.68, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared indicated that

about 4.8% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the condition by time

interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was no significant

difference between the groups at pretest, but there were significant mean differences at posttest

(.530 vs. .440). When follow-up (T3) data were analyzed, both the effects of time of

measurement (F (2, 390) = 9.44, p < .001) and the effect of condition were found significant (F

(1, 195) = 9.025, p = .003), but the interaction of time and condition on supervisor knowledge

only approached significance (F (2, 390) = 2.80, p = .062). There were significant mean

differences across condition at follow-up (T3) (.495 vs. .448).

Students

A three-level, Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used in which three times of

measurement were nested within each student within each school. Across both groups and all

three occasions the average rating of safety was 3.62 (4.0 was unsafe). However, there was a

significant interaction of condition with time of measurement, t(1,438) = -3.70, p < .001, which

indicated that where a significant difference between the treatment group and control group

which the averages masked. Specifically, over time, students in the treatment group viewed their

playground was less unsafe (i.e., ratings were lower on the ―unsafe scale‖) in comparison to the

views of the control group about their playground.

A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the effects of time of

measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on student knowledge were

examined. Both the main effect of time (F [2, 632] = 3.51, p = .030) and the main effect of

condition (F [1, 316] = 5.06, p = .025) were statistically significant. The interaction of time and

condition was not statistically significant, F (2, 632) = .829, p = .437. While there was no

significant difference across condition in mean student knowledge at pretest or posttest (1.62 vs.

1.45 and 1.72 vs. 1.62), the mean student knowledge was significantly different across condition

at follow-up (1.85 vs. 1.56).

Staff

Two staff outcome measures were analyzed, staff perceptions of safety and staff

understanding of their role. A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the

effects of time of measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on both outcome

measures were examined. For staff perceptions of safety, both the main effect of time (F [1, 26]

= 8.28, p = .008) and the main effect of condition (F [1, 26] = 4.95, p = .035) were statistically

significant. The interaction of time and condition was not statistically significant, F (1, 26) =

1.26, p = .273. While there was no change in mean perception of safety in the control group

from pretest to posttest over time (3.81 vs. 3.94), the mean perception of safety did improve

significantly for the treatment group (3.94 vs. 4.25).

Results from the mixed design, analysis of variance on staff role understanding showed

that neither the main effect of time (F [1, 26] = 3.86, p = .060) nor the main effect of condition (F

[1, 26] = 2.36, p = .136) was statistically significant. The interaction of time and condition was

statistically significant, F (1, 26) = 4.74, p = .039, η2 = .15. While there was no change in mean

role understanding in the control group over time (3.77 vs. 3.75), mean role understanding

increased significantly for the treatment group (3.83 vs. 4.26).

Administrators

A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the effects of time of

measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on administrator measures were

examined. No significant effects were found on any of the outcome measures.

Program Satisfaction (Supervisors and Leadership team only)

When asked how useful the program was, 66.7% of the supervisors responded somewhat

useful (41.5%) or extremely useful (18.7%). When asked how difficult the program was to use,

60.8% responded somewhat easy (26.3%) or extremely easy (34.5%). When asked about how

successfully the program provided information and strategies for correcting misbehaviors, of

those who responded, 62.6% indicated that the program was moderately successful (31.3%) or

highly successful (31.3%). The majority of supervisors thought the program was successful,

with comments such as ―… watching the situations on the computer and learning how to deal

with situations has helped me more on the playground. I'm more aware & can correct

misbehaviors better.‖

The Leadership Teams also found the program to be useful, 34.5% stating they found the

program somewhat useful and 25.9% responding that they found the program extremely useful.

Roughly 48% found the program to be somewhat or extremely easy to use, with none reporting

that they found the program difficult to use. Sixty two percent of those who responded on

Leadership teams reported that the program was moderately or highly successful in meeting the

goal of creating a comprehensive school wide playground program, and 72.5% thought the

program was either moderately or highly successful in providing information for correcting

student misbehavior.

Table 6. Program results

Participant

Group

Measure Time x

condition

p-value

Time x

condition

eta squared

Playground

Supervisors Supervisor beliefs

Supervisor self-

efficacy

Supervisor knowledge

<.001

<.001

<.001

.09

.057

.048

School Staff Perceptions of

Playground Safety

Understanding Your

Role

.237

.039

---

.15

Students

Perceptions of

Playground Safety


Howard, 2002)

Knowledge of

Playground Rules

<.001

.437

NA

---

School level

Administrators

Perceptions of

Playground Safety

(Sprick et al., 2002)

Fidelity of

Implementation

.349

.999

---

---

Discussion and Implications

As a comprehensive school-wide playground program, On the Playground showed

promising results. Compared to playground supervisors at control condition schools, treatment

group playground supervisors showed significant changes in attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy,

and pre-to-post knowledge of effective behavior management practices on the playground.

Students in the treatment condition showed enhanced perceptions of playground safety and

improved knowledge at follow-up compared to controls. Additionally, staff had a better

understanding of their role on the playground, suggesting that implemented changes were

effective in improving staff’s comprehension of the impact of their behavior on playground

supervisory tasks. Although the program showed no changes in administrator knowledge,

attitude or intention, this could be due to the relatively short period of time (roughly 90 days)

administrators had to implement the program; another assessment at the end of the school year

may have revealed more effects in this group.

User satisfaction among the treatment group was high among the groups of school staff

that used the CD-ROM program. The number of positive comments suggested that this approach

and content was a viable intervention format for public elementary schools. In terms of external

validity, it is notable that we made every attempt to evaluate this program as it would be

implemented without extensive involvement and oversight by a research staff. For example, the

treatment groups were sent the program and asked to implement the intervention as they would

any other school policy or initiative, rather than the researchers implementing the intervention

via workshops and presentations. This is suggestive that a non-traditional computer-based

intervention can have an impact in school trainings.

Limitations

All survey research shares the limitation that the information collected depends upon the

validity of the reports of respondents. Some schools dropped out due to the rigors of the

evaluation protocols and the number of populations and assessments required of each

participating school. However, given the size of the evaluation sample, we consider the rate of

attrition to be minimal. It is also important to note that these results may not generalize to other

geographic regions and community settings.

Finally, it is recommended for future studies that standardized definitions and data

collection systems for capturing playground injury and discipline referral data be implemented as

part of the research design, so that trends in student playground behavior outcomes can be

measured with the implementation of the professional development training program.

Appendices

Appendix A

Playground Supervisor’s Survey

1. If a child breaks a rule and argues about the consequences, the best way to deal with it

is to:

1. restate the rule

2. enforce the consequences in the same way for each student

3. make sure that your consequences are relative to the needs of each child d) b and c only[[

4. a and b only

5. b and c only

2. What is the best ratio of positive feedback to give student who have misbehaved?

1. 3 positives to 1 correcting comment



4. 0 - it’s best to be stern for the next few days after a misbehavior to let them know you

mean business.

3. A student is coming down the slide while 3 others are lined up waiting a turn. Sean

starts to climb up the slide the wrong way, hoping to avoid the line. Which of these

responses is the most effective?

1. ―Sean, you know better than that. Please stand over here (indicating a spot away from the

equipment) and watch the others. Then you can have your turn.‖

2. ―Sean, please get down. Going the wrong way is unsafe. Stand over here (indicating a

spot away from the equipment) and watch the others take turns.‖

3. ―Sean, remember the rule: Only one person on the equipment at a time. Someone could

get hurt—like you! Nicole was just about to come down the slide and she could knock

you over. I’d like you to stand over here (indicating a spot away from the equipment)

and wait for a moment while the others take turns. You’ll get a chance to use the slide

the right way in just a minute.‖

4. An effective brief delay on the playground should last approximately:

1. 2-3 minutes

2. 30 seconds-1 minute

3. Until the child has calmed down.

5. Positive practice is most useful when:

1. The student doesn’t seem to understand the rule

2. The time out area is full

3. Behavior is more willful, or if it’s a reoccurrence

4. The student seems to be seeking attention

6. An effective timeout on the playground should last approximately:

1. 2-3 minutes

2. 5 minutes

3. 10 minutes

7. When you see a child being bullied it is extremely important to:

1. Stand back and allow time for the students to work out the situation for themselves.

2. Respond immediately and, with a respectful tone, tell the bully that this behavior will not

be tolerated and follow up with appropriate consequences.

3. Step in immediately and aggressively to stop bullying behavior.

4. Comfort the victim.

8. How effective do you think this written referral would be?

―Hannah has been a major troublemaker the past few weeks. She has been throwing paper

almost every day. I keep asking her to stop but she doesn’t listen. Today when I asked walk

with me to talk about it, she freaked out and yelled at me and then she stormed off. You deal

with her – I don’t need this.‖

1. Very effective

2. Slightly effective

3. Neither effective nor ineffective

4. Slightly ineffective

5. Very ineffective

9. If the kids are playing well, I don‘t have to enforce all the playground rules all the

time.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Neither Agree or Disagree

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

10. I know the protocol to handle aggressive behaviors on my playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

11. I know the protocol to handle bullying or threatening behaviors on my playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

12. I know the protocol to handle fighting on my playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

13. At every recess, it is important to remind the kids who frequently misbehave that you

are on to their tricks.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

14. If I‘m too calm when addressing student misbehavior, the students won‘t listen to me.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

15. I shouldn‘t need to re-teach and re-enforce school expectations and rules on the

playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

16. It is OK to stand with other adults during the playground as long as the students are

being watched.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

17. Sometimes it‘s OK to be sarcastic when correcting a child‘s behavior

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

18. I need to be aware if other supervisors need my help on the playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

19. It is essential to restate the rule with a child that is arguing with me about a

misbehavior.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

20. Kids can‘t always be expected to follow my directions.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

21. Unless I see it happening, I don‘t worry much about bullying on the playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

22. Unless I see it happening, I don‘t worry much about fighting on the playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

23. Knowing and greeting students on the playground is not that important in preventing

problem behaviors.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

24. On the playground, I think it is important to allow kids to work out their issues and for

me to interfere as little as possible

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

25. It is important to speak to each child with respect, even if they are very annoying or

ignoring me.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

26. It is important to enforce playground rules relative to the situation and child involved.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

27. I can‘t do much to prevent bullying on the playground.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little



5. Disagree a lot

28. How appropriate is using ―stay with the supervisor‖ as a discipline strategy for

students who are overly dependent?

1. Very appropriate

2. Somewhat appropriate

3. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate

4. Somewhat inappropriate

5. Very inappropriate

29. How confident are you that you could always restate the rule and give a consequence

when a child argues with you?

1. Not at all confident

2. A little confident

3. Neither

4. Moderately confident

5. Very confident

30. How confident are you that you could always intervene every single time you see a rule

violation on the playground?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

31. How confident are you that you could always give students who often misbehave a

fresh start at each recess?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

32. How confident are you that you could always monitor the vast majority of students in

your playground?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

33. How confident are you that you could always calmly handle a child who is

misbehaving?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

34. How confident are you that you could always act immediately if a child was

misbehaving on the playground?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

35. How confident are you that you could always speak respectfully when dealing with a

child who is misbehaving on the playground?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

36. How confident are you that you know all the rules for your playground?



3. Neither


5. Very confident

Please think about the past 7 days. How often have you:

37. Arrived on the playground before the students arrive.

1. Every recess

2. most of the recesses

3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

38. Intentionally met students in a welcoming and positive manner as they entered the

playground.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

39. Known the area you were assigned to supervise and the general rules and specific rules

for games and equipment.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

40. Scanned (looked around) at all students in the area, not just looking at one area or in

one direction.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

41. Looked occasionally into other supervisors‘ areas to see if assistance is needed.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

42. Circulated through your assigned area and avoided talking with other adults on the

playground.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

43. When interacting with a student (e.g., correcting misbehavior), positioned the student

so that you could continue to supervise—that is, so that the student‘s back is to the

group and you are facing the group.

1. Every recess


3. some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

44. Made a positive connection with each student who has had difficulty in the past, within

the first five minute of entering the play area.

1. Every recess

2. Most of the recesses

3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never


45. Stayed in ―problem‖ areas so that students were aware that you are monitoring.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

46. Stepped in immediately at the onset of any potential problem.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

47. Praised and greeted students more often than you corrected misbehavior.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

48. Given students specific, descriptive praise that was age appropriate.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

49. Thanked students for following the rules.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

50. Corrected student misbehavior consistently (i.e. from student-to-student and from day

to day).

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never


51. Used a professional tone with students.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

52. Responded to student misbehavior in as unemotional a manner as possible.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

53. Used a supportive stance (i.e., off to one side, not directly in front) when talking to

individual students.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

54. Corrected misbehavior in a way that avoids publicly humiliating the student.

1. Every recess


3. Some of the time

4. Rarely

5. Never

At one time or another, all children do things that are ―wrong‖ or that their playground

supervisors and teachers don‘t like. Playground supervisors and teachers have different

ways or styles of dealing with these types of problems.

Below are some styles of how a supervisor might react to different problems. For each one, please

circle the number that best describes your style.

55. When a student misbehaves…

I raise my voice or

yell

I speak to the

student calmly

56. When I give fair threat or warning…

I often don‘t carry

it out

I always do what I

said

57. When I am upset or under stress…

I am picky and on

the student‘s back

I am no more

picky than usual


I usually get into a

long argument

with the student

I don‘t get into an

argument

59. When a student does something I don‘t like…

I do something

about it every time

it happens

I often let it go

60. When there is a problem with a student…

things build up

and I do things I

don‘t mean to

things don‘t get

out of hand

61. When a student doesn‘t do what I asked…

I often let it go I take some kind of

action

62. If saying ‗no‘ doesn‘t work…

I take some other

kind of action

I offer the student

an incentive to

behave


I handle it

without getting

upset

I get so frustrated

or angry the

student can see

I‘m upset

64. When I say a student can‘t do something…

I let the student do

it anyway

I stick to what I

said

65. When a student does something I don‘t like, I say mean or sarcastic things, or call the

student names…

never or rarely most of the time

66. If a student gets upset when I say ‗no‘…

I back down

and give in to the

student

I stick to what I

said

END OF SURVEY – Please return by mail in the envelope provided. Thank you!

Appendix B

Student Survey

On the Playground – 3rd

Grade Student Survey – Pretest #__________

IMPORTANT: DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS SURVEY, but we would like you to tell

us about yourself and our school. Thank you for helping us to make our school a better place.

I am a boy girl

I am African American American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic White Other

Think about how safe you feel in our school. Circle the face that best tells us how you feel

about each question.

1. I feel safe on the playground.

2. I feel safe in the restrooms during recess.

3. It is easy for students to make friends on the playground.

4. Students treat each other respectfully on the playground.

5. Students at this school treat the adults on the playground with respect.

6. The adults on the playground treat students respectfully.

7. The adults on the playground treat students fairly.

8. If I have a problem I can’t solve on my own, I know I can go to an adult at

this school (e.g., teacher, counselor, or principal) for help.

9. I have been taught the rules and how I’m supposed to act when on the playground.

10. I have been taught the rules and how I’m supposed to properly use the playground

equipment.

Name or describe (3) three big rules of the playground at our school.

1._________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2.____________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

3._________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!

Appendix C


Thank you for your time in responding to this survey to provide data that will help your school to

create a stronger and safer program on the playground.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT put your name on this survey, but do tell us your individual opinions.

School Name__________________________

Please identify your role in your school:

Administrator Teacher Teacher Assistant Classified

Student Counselor Parent Other________________

I am regularly scheduled to supervise a recess period Yes No

Please respond to each question by either circling a response that most closely identifies your

opinion, or by supplying personal comments.

1. How useful was the program?

5 4 3 2 1

Extremely useful Somewhat useful Neither Not very useful Not useful

at all

2. If this program was useful, in what ways was it useful?

3. How easy or difficult was this program to use?

5 4 3 2 1

Extremely easy Some what easy Neither easy nor difficult Some what difficult Extremely

difficult difficult

4. What did you like best about the program?

5. What did you like least about the program?

6. Was there anything you found to be confusing?

7. Was there any information that you felt should be included in the program but was not?

8. Were there any subjects that you would like to know more about?

9. What would make the program better for other users?

10 Is there anything else that you could tell us about using this program?

11. Did you experience any difficulties with the computer while using the program?

Please describe.

12. The leadership team did most of its work from a computer located in a(n):

5 4 3 2 1

conference room classroom home library other__________

13. One of the primary goals of the Playground Supervision program was to provide a

method of creating a comprehensive school wide playground program.

How successful was the program in meeting this goal?

5 4 3 2 1

Highly Moderately Neutral Somewhat Not at all

14. Another goal of the program was to provide information and to practice strategies to

use for correcting student misbehavior. How successful was the program in meeting

this goal?

5 4 3 2

1

Highly Moderately Neutral Somewhat

Not at all

15. Will you recommend continuing implementation of this program at your school? Why

or why not?

16. Please use this space to add anything else you think we should know about this or other

playground training programs.

Appendix D

Fidelity of the Implementation

Put a in the box that best describes the level of implementation at your school.

Current Status

Feature

In

Place

Partially

in Place

Not in

Place

1. A team exists for behavior support planning & problem

solving.

2. The team is representative of our school.

3. The Level of Structure for our playground has been

identified.

4. Problematic areas of our playground have been identified.

5. Hazards on the playground have been identified.

6. Playground equipment is safe and well-maintained.

7. Organizational issues for the playground such as

scheduling, routes and grade level mix have been

analyzed.

8. Playground policies are informed by data collected from

staff.

9. Playground policies are informed by behavioral and

injury data collected from students.

10. Playground policies are informed by data collected from

parents.

11. School has comprehensive written rules for the

playground.

12. Playground rules reflect existing district policies.

13. Students can identify three playground rules.

14. School has formal strategies for informing families about

expected student behaviors at school.

15. Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous

situations.

16. Teachers use specific methods to actively teach expected

behaviors on the playground.

17. Playground supervisors have a written copy of job

expectations.

18. Playground supervisors have received training in positive

behavioral management for the playground.

19. Playground supervisors work as a team with other

supervisors.

20. Playground supervisors consistently model positive and

respectful interaction with students.

21. Playground supervisors actively supervise (circulate,

scan, and consistently enforce rules) on the playground.

22. Planning and intervention activities on the playground are

documented.

23. The playground is regularly observed and monitored by

team or administrator.

24. Data on problem behavior incidents on the playground

are collected and summarized within an on-going system.

25. Data on playground injuries are collected and

summarized within an on-going system.

26. Staff and students are rewarded for positive change and

growth.

27. Staff is informed of new playground policies and

structures.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!

Appendix E

Administrator’s Survey

Hello and welcome!

You are invited to participate in our Administrator's Survey for our program:

On the Playground: A Guide to Playground Management.

In this survey, you will be asked to answer questions about your school. It will take

approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

It is very important for us to learn your opinions. Your participation in this study is completely

voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel

uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point.

Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported

only in the aggregate.

If you decline to answer to a question, please type "n/a" in the text box, or choose the answer

response of "decline to answer".

If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact the

Playground Project staff, or Janet Clay at 1-888-349-5472 or by email to____________

Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on

the Continue button below

1. Enter your school name:

2. Your job title:

Principal

Assistant Principal

Decline to answer

Other

3. Gender:

Male

Female

Decline to answer

4. Your Race or Ethnicity. Please choose all that apply:

African American

American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

White/Caucasian

Decline to answer

Other

5. How many years have you been a school administrator?

6. How many years have you been at your current school?

7. Do you currently have any type of playground management team in place?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

8. Do you provide training for playground supervisors on how to supervise?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

9. Do you have written playground rules in place?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

10. Does your staff teach lessons about playground rules to students?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

11. Do you specifically track discipline referrals related to the playground?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

12. Do you periodically review your playground policies and practices?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

12a.Have you reviewed your playground policies or practices in the last 2-3 years?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

13. On average, how many recesses do you schedule each day?

14. Approximate number of students on the playground during an average recess:

15. Are there mixes of students (ages and grade levels) during recess?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

16. Briefly explain how students at your school are mixed for recess:

17. Do you know the ratio of supervisors to students on your playground?

Yes

No

Decline to answer

17a. Do you know the ratio of supervisors to students on your playground?

Kindergarten

1st Grade

2nd

Grade

3rd

Grade

4th

Grade

5th

Grade

18. For the previous year 2004-2005, how many students were referred to your office each week

regarding their problem playground behavior?

19. For the previous year 2004-2005, how many playground-related injuries required a school

office or nurse visit each week?

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

20. Our playground's equipment and activities are adequate.

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to

Agree Disagree answer

21. The size of our playground relative to the number of students at any given time is adequate.



22. The number of current play structures on our playground is adequate.



23. The condition of current playground equipment and grounds is safe.



Now we would like to ask you about your students.


24. Students feel safe on the playground.



25. Students feel safe in the restrooms during recess.



26. It is easy for students to make friends on the playground.



27. Students treat each other respectfully on the playground.



28. Students treat adults respectfully on the playground.



29. Adults on the playground treat students respectfully.



30. Adults on the playground treat students fairly.




31. If students have a problem they can’t solve on their own, they know they can go to a staff

member (e.g., teacher, counselor, principal) for help.



32. Students are taught the rules and expectations for playground behavior.



33. Students are taught the rules and expectations for proper use of the playground equipment.



34. There is good communication between teaching staff, playground supervisors and building

administrators regarding playground issues and problems.



35. I have a clear understanding regarding my role in dealing with playground issues and

problems (e.g., what to do if a student chronically misbehaves on the playground).



Appendix F

On the Playground: User’s Guide

Introduction

On the Playground is a comprehensive multimedia program that guides schools through the steps

of planning and implementing policies designed to create a positive playground environment.

This six CD set includes specific instructions to the administrator charged with initiating the

program (Administrator’s Toolkit), a page-by-page ―facilitator‖ for the Playground Planning

Team (Planning Team’s Toolkit), and a self-guided curriculum using video demonstration

vignettes to teach your playground supervisors effective behavior modification techniques

(Supervisor’s Toolkit). You will find four copies of the Supervisor’s Toolkit CD to accommodate

multiple users.

To accommodate a variety of learning styles, this binder contains printed materials directly from

the CDs. You will find a hard copy of each of the data collection tools we offer, as well as the

entire content from the Planning Team’s Toolkit and the Administrator’s Toolkit CDs. The

Supervisor’s section of the binder contains the one-page overview for each of the 14 common

playground misbehaviors covered, as well as other reference materials found on that CD.

Anticipated outcomes from implementing the On the Playground steps include:

Reduction of unnecessary disciplinary referrals

Increased staff coordination and consistency in dealing with severe behavior problems

Improved school climate

Enhanced school safety

Improved staff communication and coordination when managing student behaviors

Increased positive interactions between staff and students

Improved staff skills in effective supervision and positive behavior support

To Get Started

The Administrator’s Toolkit asks the administrator to gather general data about your school. By

answering a series of questions about demographics, your playground’s physical environment,

and rate of playground problems, this CD will suggest which ―Level of Structure‖ your school

might use for optimum effectiveness of the program. The Administrator’s Toolkit also contains

data collection tools that can be used by the Planning Team, and a list of reports and policy

documents the team might need. The Administrator’s Toolkit should take about 40 minutes to

complete (not including the time it may take to gather the data and documents).

Forming the Team

Playground supervisors know better than anyone what recess is like and where the problems are.

Teachers understand the types of playground issues that lead to lost class time and can suggest

grade-appropriate lesson plans. Administrators are accountable when playground problems lead

to emotional or physical injuries. So, together, these multiple perspectives will lead to a richer,

more creative, and effective Playground Planning Team.

Typically, the team will consist of at least four, but no more than nine, members. How many

team members you choose is dependent on the size of your school and it’s ―Level of Structure.‖

Your Playground Planning Team will assist with:

Collecting and analyzing information about your playground and about playground

policies

Revising current playground procedures and rules, and creating new ones

Designing student lessons on how to behave on the playground

Facilitating the training of playground supervisors

Championing the cause

Training the Playground Supervisors

The Planning Team will coordinate with the playground supervisors to create the best and most

efficient way to use the Supervisor’s Toolkit CD. This CD, with its video examples of common

behavior problems, and its expanded sections on effective behavior management strategies, is a

self-contained tool to start training your supervisors. The Supervisor’s Toolkit teaches ways to

enforce rules, increase safety, reinforce responsible behavior, and promote a positive school

culture. Depending on the needs of your school, the program can be used to train supervisors

individually or in groups. When using it in a group setting, the video segments work well as

springboards to discussion.

Launching the Program

Launching a new program on a specific date can give the program more power and create

dramatic results. The Planning Team CD will encourage the team to create a schoolwide event,

like an assembly or a poster contest to signal the kick-off of the new playground rules and

policies.

Using the Program (Technical Information)

Step 1. To run the program, insert the program into your CD-ROM drive and close the tray.

Step 2. The program should auto-launch. If it does not do so, then it may be that this feature is

disabled on your computer. To launch the program manually, open the window showing the

contents of your CD-ROM and double-click on the ―exe‖ file. (Each CD has its own ―exe‖ file

name. For example, look for ―PlaygrndTm.exe‖ on the Planning Team’s Toolkit CD.) Depending

upon your Windows operating system, you can also find the contents of your CD-ROM by

opening "My Computer."

Note: The program will open and make use of Internet Explorer (IE), however you do not need

to be connected to the Internet to run the CD. If you have never launched (used) IE, the first time

IE launches it will launch the "Internet Connection Wizard". Even if you have no modem or no

network card, you still must attempt to complete the wizard's instructions for Windows to

configure IE correctly. In such a case, even if the wizard fails, you will then be able to use IE to

run the CD.

Note: Using the browser allows you to increase or decrease the size of the window as is

convenient for you. For the best effect, however, click on the "maximize" button in the upper

right corner of the window so you can view any buttons, etc. that appear at the bottom of the

screen. (This program was designed to be viewed on a monitor having a resolution of 800 x 600

or higher. To optimize screen size, you may also want to set your monitor to a higher resolution.)

System Requirements

* Windows XP HOME Edition/XP Professional/2000/ME/98SE

* Internet Explorer (IE) web browser version 5.5 or newer with JavaScript and cookies enabled

(no internet connection required)

* Windows Media Player version 7.01 or newer; version 8 or 9 preferred

*Adobe Acrobat Reader

* Multimedia PC with a Pentium III or higher processor

* 900 MHz or faster processor

* 512 Megabytes RAM or higher; 256 Megabytes minimum

* 10x CD-ROM recommended; 24x or faster CD-ROM drive preferred

* Windows-compatible sound card and headphones or speakers

* Monitor resolution set at 800 x 600 or higher

* Video card with 16 bit ('high') color

* Super VGA display

* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Appendix G

Contents of On the Playground Program

Supervisor Toolkit Leadership Team Toolkit Administrator Toolkit

Dealing with Common

Problems

Arguing/not taking

responsibility

Whining and tattling

Not following

playground rules

Not following

supervisor directions

Dangerous or

aggressive behavior

Minor misbehavior

Loner/isolated child

Clingy child

Cliques and gangs

Harassing others

Bullying, threatening

Fighting

Arguing with other

kids

Kids with chronic

problems

What's your style?

Supervisor Toolkit

Prevention of

playground problems

Best practices for

corrections

Correction Strategies

Dealing with

emergencies

Your Supervisor Job

Description

Understanding Your

Liability

General Liability

Issues

The Importance of

Recordkeeping

Welcome to New Team

Members

Recess, Why Bother?

How to Implement

Your Role

Efficiency and

Productivity

Liability Overview

Collect and Analyze Data

Why Bother with Data?

Retrieve Accessible Data

Data Sources

Organize the Playground for

Success

Mapping Your Playground

Emergency Procedures

Physical Safety Hazards

Scheduling

Classroom Transitioning

Supervisory Coverage

Develop a Supervisor Job

Description

Training Playground

Supervisors

Supervisor CD Overview

Tools, Calendars, and

Recordkeeping

Design responsible

playground behavior

lessons

Sample Lesson Plans

Your Playground

Handbook

Understanding Your Liability

General Liability Issues

The Importance of

Recordkeeping

Calendars

Forms and Workbooks

Resources and Helpful

Articles

Program Overview and Pre-

planning

Roles and Responsibilities

Why Train?

Why Have Recess?

Road Blocks to Success

Planning for Action

Create Your Profile

Level of Structure

Forming a Team

Why bother with a

Planning Team?

Suggestions for Forming

the Team

Overview of the Team's

Responsibilities.

Setting a Timeline

Training Supervisors

Supervisor CD Overview

Setting up a Training

Program

Monitoring/Reviewing

Understanding your Liability

General Liability Issues

The Importance of

Recordkeeping

Administrator's Tool Box

Common misbehaviors and

successful management

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1979). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and

review of empirical research. Psychological Review, 888-918.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.

Birnbaum, A. S., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P.J., Murray, D.M., Perry, C. L. & Forster, J.L.

(2003). School functioning and violent behavior among young adolescents: A

contextual analysis. Health Education Research, 18 (3), 389-403.

Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational research. New York: Longman.

Bossenmeyer, M. (2009). Playground liability: Accident or Injury. Retrieved December

28, 2009, from http://www.peacefulplaygrounds.com/playground-liability-

accident-or-injury.htm

Bruya, L., & Bruya, L. (2000). Risk Factor One: Supervision on a Safe Playground.

The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71, (3),20.

Carr, M. M., Reznick, R. K. & Brown, D. H. (1999). Comparison of computer-assisted

instruction and seminar instruction to acquire psychomotor and cognitive

knowledge of epistaxis management. Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery,

121(4), 430-434.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control. (NCIPC) (2007). National Program for Playground Safety. Washington,

D.C.: Health and Human Services, Division of Adolescents and School Health,

CDC. Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/index.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Health Guidelines to Prevent

Unintentional Injuries and Violence (2001). Retrieved December 28, 2009 from

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5022a1.htm

Clark, L. J., Watson, J., Cobbe, S. M., Reeve, W., Swann, I. J. & MacFarlane, P. W.

(2000). CPR ’98: a practical multimedia computer-based guide to

cardiopulmonary resuscitation for medical students. Resuscitation, 44(2), 109-117

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D.W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in

early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process.

Child Development, 66, 139-151.

Danseco ER, Miller TR, Spicer RS. Incidence and costs of 1987--1994 childhood

injuries: demographic breakdowns. Pediatrics 2000;105(2). Retrieved December

28, 2009 from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/105/2/e27

Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An elementary school-based prevention

program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence:

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Journal of Emotional &

Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 165-176.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction

to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fotheringham, M.J. & Owen, N. (2000). Interactive health communication in preventive

medicine. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19 (2), 111 – 112.

Frost, J., & Jacobs, P. J. (1995). Play deprivation: A factor in juvenile violence.

Dimensions of Early Childhood. 23, (3), 14-20.

Glang, A., Gersten, R., & Singer, G. (1990). Computer-assisted video instruction in

training rehabilitation paraprofessionals. Journal of Special Education

Technology, 10 (3), 137-146.

Glang, A. Sprick, R. Swartz, L. & Clark, (2003). On the playground: A guide to

playground management [CD-ROM]. Eugene, OR: Oregon Center for Applied

Science.

Harshfield, J.B. (1996). Liability issues of using volunteers in public schools. National

Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80, 581, 61-65.

Hudson, S., Mack, M., & Thompson, D. (2000). How safe are America's playgrounds?

Cedar Falls, IA: National Program for Playground Safety.

Hudson, S., Olson, H., & Thompson, D. (2008). The Journal of School Nursing, 24(3),

138-144.

Marescaux, J., Soler, L. Mutter, D., Leroy, J., Vix, M., Koehl. C., et al. (2000). Virtual

university applied to telesurgery: from teleducation to telemanipulation. Studies in

Health Technology and Informatics, 70, 195-201.

Michas, I. C. & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a Procedural Task: Effectiveness of

Multimedia Presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555-575.

National Program for Playground Safety. (1998). S.A.F.E. Playgrounds videotape

program. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.

Niewijk, A. H. & Weijts, W. B. (1997). Effects of a multi-media course on urinary

incontinence. Patient Education and Counseling, 30(1), 95-103.

Noell, J. & Glasgow, R. E. (1999). Interactive technology applications for behavioral

counseling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 17 (4), 269-274.

Opat, A. J., Cohen, M. M., Bailey, M. J. & Abramson, M. J. (2000). A clinical trial of the

Buteyko Breathing Technique in asthma as taught by a video. Journal of Asthma:

Official Journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma, 37(7), 557-564.

Phelan, K. J., Khoury, J., Kalkwarf, H. J., & Lanphear, B.P. (2001). Trends and patterns

of playground injuries in United States children and adolescents. Ambulatory

Pediatrics,1 (4), 227–33

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and

development. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 51-67.

Potomkova, J., Mihal, V., & Cihalik, C. (2006). Web-based instruction and its impact on

the learning activity of medical students: a review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ

Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub, 150(2), 357–361

Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public

schools foster the common good? Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from

http://www.publicagenda.org/articles/teaching-interrupted

Public Law 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Ruiz, J., Mintzer, M., & Leipzig, R. (2006). The impact of E-learning in medical

education. Academic Medicine, 81, 207-212.

Sariscsany, M. J. & Pettigrew, F. (1997). Effectiveness of Interactive Video Instruction

on Teacher's Classroom Management Declarative Knowledge. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 16 (2), 229-240.

Savage, I. & Goodyer, L. (2003) Providing information on metered dose inhaler

technique: is multimedia as effective as print? Family Practice, 20(5), 552-557.

Schwebel, D.C. (2006). Safety on the playground: Mechanisms through which adult

supervision might prevent child playground injury. Journal of Clinical

Psychology in Medical Settings, 13 (2), 135-143.

School Health Guidelines to Prevent Unintentional Injuries and Violence. Morbidity &

Mortality Weekly Report December 7, 2001;50(RR–22); 1–74.

Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S. & Branas, C. (2002). Computer games may be

good for your health. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 16(2), 80-

85.

Sprick, R. S. (1990). Playground discipline: Positive techniques for recess supervision.

(Video program). Eugene, OR: Teaching Strategies.

Sprick, R.S., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (2002). Foundations: A positive approach to

school-wide discipline. Eugene, OR: Northwest Publishing.

Sprick, R.S., Sprick, M. S., & Garrison, M. (1993). Interventions: Collaborative planning

for students at-risk. Longmont, CO: Sporis West.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/104897/?p=41da8b262a0542fb9c86c0c18635ded9&pi=0

http://www.springerlink.com/content/104897/?p=41da8b262a0542fb9c86c0c18635ded9&pi=0

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n03172jm213k/?p=41da8b262a0542fb9c86c0c18635ded9&pi=0

Stefanich, L., & Cruz-Niera, C. (1999). A virtual surgical simulator for the lower limbs.

Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, 35, 141-145

Sugai, G., Horner, R. & Todd, A. (2003). EBS Self Assessment Survey version 2.0.

Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon.

Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2006). A Promising Approach for Expanding and Sustaining

School-wide Positive Behavior Support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245-

259.

Tinsworth, D, & McDonald, J. (2001). Special Study: Injuries and Deaths Associated

with Children’s Playground Equipment. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission.

Todd, A., Haugen, L. Anderson, K., & Spriggs, M. (2002). Teaching recess: Low cost

efforts producing effective results. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,

4,(1), 46-52.

Ursino, M., Tasto. J. L., Nguyen, B. H., Cunningham, R. & Merril, G. L. (1999).

CathSim: an intravascular catheterization simulator on a PC. Studies in Health

Technology and Informatics, 62, 360-366.

Walker, H.M., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J.R., Bricker, D., &

Kaufman, M.J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior

patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and

Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.

Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (2001). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional

knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional

development. In D. Boesel (Ed.), Continuing professional development.

Washington, D.C.: OERI, U.S. Dept. of Ed.

effectiveness of a computer-based professional...

Documents