enhancing academic instruction with a total group contingency intervention: eagle game billie jo...
TRANSCRIPT
Enhancing Academic Instruction with a Total Group Contingency
Intervention: EAGLE Game
Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSPUniversity of Texas at San Antonio
[email protected] Network Webinar
November 1, 2013
This research was conducted as part of Dr. Billie Jo Rodriguez’s dissertation and is not related to the PAX GBG©.
OVERVIEW
Background History of group contingencies including the
good behavior game What is the EAGLE Game?
An Overview of Implementation Common Challenges & Modifications
Integrating with an Academic Intervention Rodriguez & Anderson (in press) (kindergarten
literacy intervention) An evaluation of EAGLE Game in Pre-K classroom
(Rodriguez & Reis, in prep)
2
INTEGRATING BEHAVIOR SUPPORTS WITH ACADEMIC INTERVENTION
Enhancing responsive instructional practices to maximize benefits of interventions Even the “best” intervention can be ineffective if the
interventionist doesn’t have adequate skills in supporting student learning behaviors
Fidelity of implementation may focus solely on delivering the “program components” rather than considering the overall “quality” of implementation
Often students with academic difficulties have concomitant behavioral concerns (McIntosh et al., 2006; Reid & Patterson, 1991; Stewart et al., 2007) At minimum, students with academic difficulties are at risk for
developing behavioral concerns Student problem behavior can interfere with learning &
instruction Quality of instructional delivery
RATIONALE FOR EARLY INTERVENTION Prevent development of more serious problems
Learning & social behavior trajectories are established early (Kazdin, 1987; Walker et al., 1996)
Student problem behavior can interfere with learning & instruction Quality of instructional delivery
Academic deficits and established routines of problem behavior may co-occur or develop sequentially
(Lane et al., 2007; McIntosh et al., 2006)
Skill Deficits
Limited access to natural reinforcers (e.g. academic success, teacher attention)
Problem Behavior
Escape academic tasks
WHOLE GROUP CONTINGENCIES (WGC) Students work together toward a common goal
Independent, Dependent, Interdependent Well-supported by research (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969; Christ & Christ, 2006;
Kamps et al., 2011; Ling Hawkins, & Weber, 2011; McKissick et al., 2010; Murphy et al., 2007; Pappas, Skinner, & Skinner, 2000; Stage & Quiroz, 1997)
Advantages Improve student social and academic behaviors
academic engagement, on task, work completion, instructional time, reduced disruption
Facilitates peer interactions & support Time effective Increase likelihood any single student’s behavior will be exposed to
reinforcement contingency Disadvantages
Often define inappropriate behaviors & use response cost Focus on reducing problem behavior may result in retribution of
misbehaving student, particularly in competition Students lose interest
Earn reward too quickly, criterion too difficult, reward not desired Teachers may struggle to implement consistently or feel intervention is
cumbersome
TGBG HISTORY Developed in 1960s, with many variations
primarily as a classroom-wide behavior management approach (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Tingstrom et al., 2006; Bradshaw et al., 2009)
Evidence of effectiveness Decreases in discipline problems
Aggression, disruption Increase in learning Improved long term trajectories for students
Decreased dropout rate and likelihood of alcohol/substance abuse
Implemented in a variety of school settings Academic, PE, library, Recess; Elementary & middle
schools Well-received by teachers and students Not a "curriculum" but an "application" of PBS
6
EAGLE GAME
Engaging All Group Learners Everyday
PURPOSE OF THE EAGLE GAME
Increase student academic and social success without decreasing instructional learning time
Founded on the idea that many students are likely to engage in the behaviors we pay attention (Partin et al., 2010) Provides structure to teach, acknowledge, and support
appropriate "learning" behaviors Provides structure to minimize attention for problem
behaviors, disruptive to learning
Conceptualized as a Tier 2 (“yellow”) intervention Implemented similarly across groups of students In routines where students benefit from additional
support
PURPOSE OF THE EAGLE GAME (CON’T)
Addresses disadvantages of other Whole Group Contingency interventions Focus on appropriate behavior Expectations linked to universal behavior supports
(SWPBS) Use of unknown criterion to reach reward Each group works as a team (no competition) Specific praise for appropriate behavior
Maintains advantages of Whole Group Contingency interventions Implemented similarly across groups of students In routines where students benefit from additional
support
OVERVIEW OF EAGLE GAME ELEMENTS
Materials (page 3) Tally chart Magic number envelope Rewards (e.g., mystery prize, “being the teacher”)
Setting Clear Expectations Linked to SWPBS (pg 4-5) List your School-wide expectations Develop Specific expectations linked to SWPBS
10
PAIR & SHARE
Why do we want to focus on teaching what we want students to do vs teaching what not to do?
SETTING CLEAR EXPECTATIONS
Step 1: State SW Expectation Be Responsible
Step 2: What does it mean in your class/group? Ready to learn
Step 3: What does it look like? Eyes & ears on me, square in chair, hands to self,
talking in turn Step 4: Examples & non-examples
Examples: raising hand (or thumbs up) quietly, looking at teacher, hands in lap
Non-examples: raising hand & blurting out (or waving around), hand tapping pencil, talking to neighbor
If you are not sure what it looks
like to meet expectations, it's
likely your students will be
unsure, too!
Expectations focus on what to do vs. what not to do.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & REWARDS (PAGE 6)
May be especially important for students who struggle academically and do not regularly access the "success" of learning
Be excited & creative! Have a wide range Maximize "instructional/academic" rewards &
games Consider how long the reward will take
typically no more than 2-3 minutes (unless instructional)
May get student input May or may not include "tangibles" Mix them up!
14
EAGLE GAME PROCEDURES
Each day Group is a “team” Teach/review expectations to get EAGLE smiley points Smiley face points earned for meeting expectations Smileys paired with specific, verbal praise
Telling students specifically what you like serves: as a prompt for other students who may need redirection as a reminder of what students should be doing as meaningful feedback (students know what you like vs.
"good job" syndrome) Points meeting or exceeding magic number exchanged
for game, small prizes daily15
INTRODUCING EAGLE GAME (PAGE 9 OR 13) Sample script provided Introduce EAGLE Game & Tally Chart Teach expectations (to earn smiley points)
Link to SW Expectations What does it look like in your class/group? What are examples & non examples? Provide smiley points as you teach for students
who are displaying appropriate behavior. During teaching recognize and specifically
correct mistakes (with neutral tone). Tell students what they should do.
Brief review of response to behaviors disruptive to learning
17
INTRODUCING EAGLE GAME (CON'T)
Teach "magic" number Students don't know if they've met the goal, so
they will keep working even if exceeding Magic numbers are a "goal" for the teacher to
provide specific, positive feedback paired with points
Aim for 1x every 2 minutes (30 min group = magic numbers ranging 10-15)
Consider long-term rewards Younger students need more immediate, regular Older students may be able to work longer for larger
rewards
Prizes 18
PLAYING EAGLE GAME (PAGE 11 OR 15)
Place tally chart on table Review expectations for earning smiley points Pair points with specific praise
Approximately once every 2 minutes Acknowledge when whole group is meeting
expectations as well as when an individual student does well
Determine if students met "magic" number About 3 minutes before end of group Consider your reward (or how far you got in the
lesson) Note on tally chart if students met goal and the
reward delivered19
WHAT IF STUDENTS DON'T WIN EAGLE GAME?
Most groups will experience a time or two of not meeting a goal. Ask yourself: Is this really my fault? Did I forget to give points and
praise regularly even though the student did really well? Are there other variables that made this a difficult day?
Can I plan ahead better for this type of variable next time?
Did the students just have a rough day? Do I have one student who is consistently struggling
more than the others? Spend the last few minutes reviewing expectations
& how to "win" TGBG tomorrow (instead of doing reward).
Spend more time reviewing/re-teaching expectations the next day/lesson.
20
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT & COMMON CHALLENGES
Implementation coach or accountability partner Like a weight loss or exercise program--
accountability and support of a partner goes a long way.
Common Challenges to Avoid: Assuming students "know" expectations Giving points without the specific feedback
Giving points and feedback minimizes students trying to "check" how many points they've earned
Using the same reward too long without "mixing it up"
Spending more than 2 minutes daily on a non-academic reward
21
RESEARCH QUESTION
What are effects of implementation of the EAGLE Game integrated with Tier 2 pre-literacy instruction on: Student group behaviors
Problem behavior Academic engaged time Literacy trajectories
Instructor behaviors Will EAGLE Game increase instructor praise? (Brophy, 1981; Hall et al., 1971;
McAllister et al., 1969; Partin et al., 2010)
If reward is contingent on appropriate behavior If teaching includes points paired with specific prais
Opportunities to respond
Setting: 5 interventionists (i.e., educational assistants) delivering small group reading instruction to kindergartners with at-risk reading skills (Tier 2 supports) Program: Early Reading Intervention, 30-minutes daily support
Procedures: Assistants delivered Early Reading Intervention as they typically did and then were provided training and support in delivering EAGLE Game Training: 1-hour training focusing on the essential elements of
Game with additional emphasis on: Linking 3 group expectations to universal supports (SWPBS) Focus on positive reinforcement system (points with specific praise) Implementing “game” (“magic number”15 points needed to win) Provided weekly “check-ins” and coaching to support
implementation
Design: Single subject concurrent multiple baseline Training (and Game implementation) systematically provided to
1 group at a time
MEASUREMENT
Implementation Fidelity WGC (EAGLE Game) ERI
Student variables Group problem behavior Group academic engagement DIBELS PSF & NWF
Educational Assistant variables Praise/corrections for social behavior Opportunities to respond
24
Interventionists’ Knowledge of Game Pre & Post
25
ERI Implementation Fidelity Game Implementation Fidelity0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
83%
7%
94% 96%
Baseline
Baseline
Game
Game
Average ERI & Game Implementation Before & After Game Training
Perc
ent
Fidelit
y o
f Im
ple
menta
tion
Treatment Fidelity
TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERIAmy Barbara Candice Deborah Natasha
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BaselineIntervention
Per
cent
Fid
elity
of
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Game
Mean Implementation of ERI & Game Before & After Game Training
Game
Game
Game
Game
28
Percent of 10-Second Intervals with Student Problem BehaviorGame
Praise & Corrections Delivered
Baseline Four of five instructional assistants engaged in more
corrective than praise statements EAGLE Game
All instructional assistants provided more praise statements than corrective statements
Praise Deborah and Natasha exceeded 1 per min most
observations Amy & Candice provided approximately 1 per min Barbara provided approximately 1 per 2 min
Corrections Decreased Barbara 62%, Amy & Deborah 41%, Candice 38%, Natasha
34%
Mean Academic Engagement by Group
31
Game
32
Weekly Mean Nonsense Word Fluency Scores by Group Game
Opportunities to Respond
All instructional assistants improved their average rate of OTR from baseline to Game
Instructor Baseline Game Percent Increase
Amy 3.52 4.50 28%
Barbara 2.65 3.87 46%
Candice 2.56 3.20 25%
Deborah 2.66 3.93 48%
Natasha 4.51 6.56 45%
Average OTR per Minute
CONTEXTUAL FIT & SOCIAL VALIDITY
Contextual fit Pre average 93% Post average 95%
Social validity Instructors
High to medium-high impact Low to moderate effort
Students Liked EAGLE Game Earned rewards EAGLE Game helped them do better in reading group
WHAT HAPPENED IN CANDICE’S GROUP?
A single student “Tim” engaged in the majority of the problem behavior Tim’s pre-literacy skills were lower (winter NWF was 0,
other students scored 18-28 correct sounds/min)
Potential reasons for non-response Functional mismatch: Game provides adult/peer attention;
Tim’s behavior may have resulted in escaping tasks Tim’s low academic skills may have decreased the
regularity with which he accessed positive feedback for academic responding
Tim’s problem behaviors may have been reinforced at a higher rate than appropriate behaviors
Problem behavior required less effort to access reinforcement than did engaging in appropriate behavior
Extension of WGC Research: What did we Learn?
Is EAGLE Game effective with kindergarten children? Almost all students engaged in fewer problem behaviors
Can EAGLE Game be used in small group instruction? High social validity & contextual fit Consistent implementation with ERI academic intervention
Improved consistency in implementation of ERI (OTR & Fidelity)
Will EAGLE Game increase instructor praise? (Partin et al., 2010)
Specific teaching instructors to provide specific praise Increased positive feedback, decreased corrective feedback
Instructors provided about 3 times more specific praise for appropriate behaviors (and fewer reprimands)
Implementation variations of WGC Teams did not compete with one another Explicit linking to Tier I SWPBS intervention Focus on appropriate behavior & specific praise Magic number
36
Implications for Response to Intervention Integrating supports at Tier 2 group level maximizes
efficiency (e.g., Ervin et al., 2006; Stewart et al., 2007; Walker, 2004)
Training interventionists in academic intervention and behavior support (e.g., Greenwood et al., 1984; Partin et al., 2010; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Sutherland et al., 2000)
Use of coaching, goal setting, & self-monitoring (e.g., Alvero et al., 2001; Codding et al, 2005; Kalis et al., 2007; Noell et al., 2005; Partin et al., 2010; Sutherland et al., 2000)
Importance of progress monitoring: Tim Tim’s pre-literacy skills were lower than other students
EAGLE GAME STUDY TWO
Setting First year teacher (alternative certification) in pre-kinder
classroom with 15 students Public charter school with diverse, high risk population
No SWPBIS 83% Hispanic, 11% African American 81% of students eligible for free/reduced lunch 4 students with special education eligibility
Procedures Phase 1: Supported teacher with classroom organization Phase 2: Coach modeled EAGLE game in classsroom Phase 3: Implemented EAGLE game during settings with
high rates of problem behavior (carpet time and nap) Design
ABAB Reversal design
RESULTS
LESSONS LEARNED FROM STUDY 2
Importance of foundation for success Maximized classroom climate to extent possible but no
systems of support (without PBIS) resulted in new challenges
Teacher always implemented more praise than corrective statements during Game (typically much more corrective than praise in baseline sessions)
High contextual fit, but teacher needed more support to understand the intervention and implement it consistently Coach modeled, worked closely with the teacher
Plan for additional coaching Teacher reported having difficulty remembering to implement
game regularly and follow through with all components Consider implementing at the beginning of the year to establish
a solid routine (teacher feedback)
BIG IDEAS
Setting & teaching clear expectations linked to SWPBIS Integrating academic & social behavior supports Adults -- focusing on expected behaviors
Delivered by instructional assistants Student “success” is determined by interventionist (i.e.,
teacher, educational assistant) Knowing magic number
Adult's goal is to provide specific praise 1x every 2 minutes Group praise, use “praise around”, or individual students to get
others refocused
Students worked as a team receive immediate (daily) rewards
Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSPUniversity of Texas at San Antonio
[email protected] Webinar
November 1, 2013
Questions?
REFERENCES Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M.M. (1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on
disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
Christ, T. J., & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an Interdependent Group Contingency Mediated by an Automated Feedback Device: An Intervention across Three High School Classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 78-90.
Kamps, D., Wills, H. P., Heitzman-Powell, L., Laylin, J., Szoke, C., Petrillo, T., & Culey, A. (2011). Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams: Effects of Group Contingency Programs in Urban Classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(3), 154-167.
Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (2011). Effects of a Classwide Interdependent Group Contingency Designed to Improve the Behavior of an At-Risk Student. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(2), 103-116.
Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Redding-Rhodes, J., Phillips, A., & Welsh, M. (2007). Outcomes of a teacher-led reading intervention for elementary students at risk for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 47-70.
McCurdy, B. L., Lanine, A. L., & Barnabas, E. (2009). Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafeteria: An extension of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 39-54.
McKissick, C., Hawkins, R. O., Lentz, F. E., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010). Randomizing Multiple Contingency Components to Decrease Disruptive Behaviors and Increase Student Engagement in an Urban Second-Grade Classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944-959
McIntosh, K., Chard, D., Boland, J., & Horner, R. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 146-154.
Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007). Interdependent Group Contingency and Mystery Motivators to Reduce Preschool Disruptive Behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 53-63.
McKissick, C., Hawkins, R. O., Lentz, F. E., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010). Randomizing Multiple Contingency Components to Decrease Disruptive Behaviors and Increase Student Engagement in an Urban Second-Grade Classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944-959
Partin, T. C., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 172-178.
Reid, J. & Patterson, G. (1991). Early prevention and intervention with conduct problems: A social interactional model for the integration of research and practice. In G. Stoner, M Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems (pp. 715-740). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Stage, S. & Quiroz, D. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 333-368.
Stewart, R. M., Benner, G., Martella, R., & Marchang-Martella, N. (2007). Three-tier models of reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 239-253.
Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225-253.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M. Sprague, J., et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.
Walker, H. M. & Sprague, J. (2006). Early, evidence-based intervention with school-related behavior disorders: Key issues, continuing challenges, and promising practices. In Crocket, J. B., Gerber, M. M., Landrum, T. J. (Eds). (In press). Achieving the Radical Reform of Special Education: Essays in Honor of James M. Kauffman. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.