Good Behavior Game in Houston:
A Partnership to Support Research from
Effectiveness through Implementation
Jeanne Poduska
American Institutes for Research
Penn State Prevention Center Seminar Series
September 29 2010
The Good Behavior Game
• GBG (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolfe, 1969)
• At least 18 short-duration, non-randomized trials
followed and described positive results
• These led to the developmental
epidemiologically-based randomized field trials
in Baltimore to test GBG (effectiveness trials)
– 3 led by Kellam at JHU and then AIR testing GBG alone and
in combination with other components
– 4th led by Ialongo at JHU testing integration of GBG and
PATHS
2
Goals of GBG
• Provide teachers a classroom-based method to
socialize children into the role of student
• Help children work together to create a positive
learning environment
• Reduce classroom aggressive, disruptive behavior
to enhance classroom teaching and learning
• Prevent school failure, drug abuse, delinquency,
and other problem outcomes
3
Core Elements in Moving
GBG into Practice
• Governance structure to support teachers’
practices over time and scaling up practices
• Professional development across multiple
levels of the school district
• Monitoring of practices over time
– Teacher practices
– Practices of individuals across the multi-level
structure
4
Sustaining and Scaling-Up School-Based
Prevention Programs with Fidelity
• Challenges for School-Based Prevention Programs
– Maintaining a clear vision and mission
– Multiple initiatives, competing priorities
– Lack of governance structures to support sustainability and
scaling-up
• Strengths of School Districts
– Data Systems
– Prevention is a natural fit
Considerations for
Type 2 Translational Research
• Interventions and the support system for interventions
• Monitoring fidelity to both intervention and support
system
• Multi-level contextual factors (Domitrivich et al, 2008)
• Stages of work—adoption through maintenance
• Theories of individual level change and of
organizational change (Lewin, 1947; 1952)
• Partnerships between institutions, broader community,
researchers
Leavitt, 1965; Owens, 2004
7
Scaling-Up Prevention Services (NIDA)
Specific Aims
1. Develop partnership model between school
district, community, and researchers
2. Ensure relevance, feasibility, and acceptability of
intervention, measures, design
3. Determine community factors that impede or aid
program implementation
R21 DA024370
Theoretical Model & Technical Steps in Building
Community and Institution Partnerships
• Analyze the social/political context
• Learn the vision and understand the challenges and
priorities
• Identify mutual self-interests within and across the
leadership
• Fit the research program interests into the vision of
the leadership
• Work through trust issues
• Request ad hoc oversight from community
• Kellam & Branch, 1971; Kellam, 2000; Israel et al.,
2005
Good Behavior Game Professional
Development Study Team
American Institutes for Research
Houston Independent School District
Principal Investigator
Core Team
– Jeanne Poduska
Intervention Chief
– Judith Littman
Assessment and Analysis
– Anja Kurki, Jeanette Moses, Megan
Lebow, Delphinia Brown
Center Coordinator
– Matt Malouf
University of South Florida
– Wei Wang
University of Miami
– Hendricks Brown
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Chief Academic Officer
Elementary Curriculum & Instruction
Early Childhood Education
Research and Evaluation
Multilingual Education
Student Support Services
Professional Development
Harris County Department of Education
GBG Coaches
– Debra Anderson, Patricia Morales, Sharon
Taylor
Houston Federation of Teachers
– Zeph Capo
Support: IES R305A090446
Aims of the IES GBG PD Study
To understand the professional development teachers need to
learn, implement, and sustain the Good Behavior Game (GBG)
in their classroom with fidelity
1. To test the impact of GBG under various models of
professional development
2. To explore multi-level factors that influence teachers’
implementation of GBG and GBG impact
3. To assess the financial costs of delivering GBG under
different models of professional development
Extended Aims
1. To examine teacher practices and GBG impact as a
function of a set of multilevel contextual factors during
the first year teachers are trained—Implementation
Stage
2. To examine teacher practices and GBG impact….for two
consecutive years when research support removed—
Sustainability Stage
3. To study adaptation of GBG practice as teachers use
GBG for two consecutive years of the Sustainability
Stage
Under funding consideration by NIDA
Study Design
• 20 schools/3 first grade classrooms in each school
• Within each school first graders are assigned to
classrooms to create a balance for comparison
• Within each school teachers are assigned to an
intervention condition in Fall 2010
– GBG Basic
– GBG with Coach
– Standard Classroom
• Follow teachers over time
Professional Development Models
GBG
Basic
GBG w
Coach
Fall 2010: Initial training: two-day group-based
X
X
January 2011: Booster training: one-day groupbased
X
X
Training Calendar
Oct 2010-Dec 2010: GBG coach provides support
to teachers 90 minutes bi-weekly
X
Jan-June 2011: GBG coach provides support to
teacher differentiated by teacher need
X
Sept 2011 teachers continue to use GBG
X
Standard
Classroom
X
Sept 2012: Initial training: two-day group-based
X
Jan 2013: Booster training: one-day group-based
X
Multi-Level Training and Support
Teachers
– Initial GBG Training: 2-day group-based
– Booster Session: 1-day group-based
– Supported by Coach: In-classroom
observing, modeling, mentoring
• Professional development based on teacher
practices/fidelity checklist
• Sept-Dec: 90 minutes bi-weekly
• Jan-June: Differentiated by teacher need
15
Multi-Level Training and Support, cont.
• Local GBG Coaches
– Participate in group-based teacher trainings
(Initial GBG Training and Booster Session)
– Coach Training: 1-day on coaching practices
– Implementation Audits: Trainer visits classrooms
– Weekly professional development by phone
• School Teams and District
– Readiness
– On-going monitoring and support
Monitoring and Mentoring Feedback Loop
Monitoring
Data from
Monitoring
Teacher
Practices
and
Support to
Teachers
Effective
Mentoring
Chief Academic
Officer
Core Team
Area Academic Officers
& GBG Trainers
GBG Coaches / Principals
Mentoring
Measurement Framework
•
•
•
•
Student Outcomes
Teacher Practices
Implementation of GBG and Coaching
Factors Influencing GBG Impact and GBG
Implementation:
–
–
–
–
Student
Classroom
Teacher
Principal/School
• Cost of the Strategies
Timing of Data Collection Activities
Measures
Fall
Jan
May
Classroom Observations of Student Behavior and
Teacher Practices
X
X
X
Teacher Interviews of Student Behavior
X
X
Teacher and Principal Surveys
X
X
Measures of Fidelity of GBG and Coaching
School Records
Over school year
X
Conceptual Model for Moving
GBG into General Practice
Structures to Support
Research and Sustainability
Role of a
Community and Institution Board
• Establish vision and priorities
• Examine/critique/approve/support proposed programs
• Communicate constituents’ concerns, values, priorities,
and acceptable language to program leaders
• Communicate program needs to constituent leaders
• Continually assess absent constituencies
• Work toward institutionalizing programs
Mapping the
Social/Political
Context: Houston
Preceptor:
American
Leadership
Forum
Federal & National Level
State Level
Governor’s
Office
Local Community
Parent Groups
Dept of ED:
Safe & Drug Free
Schools
Safe Schools/
Healthy Students
IES
Local
Foundations
Criminal and
Juvenile
Justice
Schools
of ED: UH
Legislators
Deans:
Schools of Ed
Health & Human
Services
City/County
Commission for
Children
National
Teachers’
Unions:
AFT, NEA
School Districts
Teachers’
Unions
Independent
School Districts
Harris County
Board of Ed
Business:
Greater Houston
Partnership
State Dept of Ed
Local
Programs
National
Institutes
of Health:
NIDA,
NICHD.
NIMH
NAACP
Mental
Health
District
Attorney
Media
General
Assembly
National Foundations:
RWJ, WT Grant, Spencer,
Annie E Casey
SAMHSA
Support: NIDA R21 DA024370
Core Team
Linking Pins
– Chief Academic Officer
– Elementary Curriculum &
Instruction
– Early Childhood Education
– Research and Evaluation
– Multilingual Education
– Student Support Services
– Professional Development
– AIR staff
Charge
• Monitor progress—review data
• Problem solve
• Consider issues related to
sustainability
Schools Committee
Partnerships
Principals of participating schools, central
office staff, and AIR
Communication
Day to day decisions
Reflection
Feedback loop re feasibility, applicability, and
relevance of work
Community Institution Board
• Who should be invited to join—difference
perspectives of HISD, HFT, AIR
Establishing Mutual Self-Interest
Supports the Research Endeavor
• Maintaining vision across changes of leadership in district
• Design
– IES: random assignment of students
– Implementation: Wait-list, Run-in designs
• Longitudinal follow-up of students
• Sustainability—readiness for district, school teams
• Fidelity and adaptation
____
Two additional grants have been submitted building
on this work: one from AIR; one from HISD
27
Considerations
• Role as researcher/advocate of
program
• Monitoring fidelity, processes, and
outcomes over time
• Measurement: thick/thin
28
Contact
Jeanne Poduska
AIR, Center for Integrating Education &
Prevention Research in Schools
300 E Lombard St Suite 1020 Baltimore MD 21202
jpoduska@air.org
410-347-8553