SMART TEAM (FORMERLY SMART TALK).
The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) was a multi-­‐year, school-­‐based intervention that used a risk-­‐reduction and skill-­‐development strategy to improve outcomes for participating children and youths. The program was guided theoretically by the social development model, which hypothesizes that youths who are provided with opportunities for greater involvement with their schools and families, who develop the competency or skills they need for fuller participation with their schools and families, and for whom skillful participation is constantly reinforced, ultimately develop strong bonds with their families and schools. Program Description Target Population Distributor Goals/Mission/Target outcomes Delivery Agents Intervention Strategies Material purchases Staff development Middle school Learning Multi-­‐Systems • Increase repertoire of nonviolent conflict resolution strategies; • Increase knowledge about what triggers anger; • Increase confidence in ability to use nonviolent strategies; • Increase intentions to use nonviolent strategies in the future; • Decrease incidents of violent behavior • Increase acts of pro-­‐social behavior Computer-­‐based instruction with no third-­‐party intervention Independent assignments possibly followed by in-­‐class discussion or role-­‐playing of the information and situations presented. Software package requires a Macintosh computer with 68020 CPU or higher, 1.5 MB of RAM, 7.5 MB hard drive space, and a system 7.0 or newer CD-­‐ROM. A Windows version of the program is in development. Time is needed to establish protocols for using the software. Technical support staff must install and test the software. Time should also be scheduled for classroom teachers to review software to plan how to link the program with the regular curriculum.
Research Study 1.
Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T. (1998) A Computer-­‐Based Violence Prevention for Young Adolescents: Pilot Study. Adolescence. 33: 785-­‐95. Sample
size
Comparison Longitudinal
group
Change
Assessment
Statistical
Publication
test of
Significance
Adequate No Pretest/posttest Statistical Peer comparison design but no tests and reviewed
group
delayed significance posttest
reported
Implementation Scientific
Quality
Implementation Unacceptable
assessed Research Questions •
How does the program impact the following: • Knowledge of nonviolent strategies • Self-­‐knowledge about what triggers student’s anger • Self-­‐efficacy concerning confidence in the ability to use non-­‐violent strategies • Intentions to use non-­‐violent strategies • Decrease violent and increase pro-­‐social behaviors Methods • For four weeks, 81 seventh-­‐grade students had access to program in a lab setting. • Pre-­‐test administered before program began and post-­‐test administered four weeks later when program ended. • Measured were the following: • Knowledge – declarative knowledge about conflict management terms and principles • Self-­‐knowledge – knowledge of how certain behavior triggers conflict • Pro-­‐social behavior – including helping others and name calling. • Intentions – intention to use non-­‐violent strategies. • Confidence – confidence using nonviolent strategies to handle conflicts • Trouble behavior – number of times a student got in trouble at home, at school or in the community. • Students perception of the program – including whether the computers were easy to use, whether the program was fun, whether they learned a lot and whether they would recommend the program to a friend. Result • Students who participated in the program showed the following significant increases at post-­‐test compared to pre-­‐test: • Knowledge about conflict management terms and principles. • Self-­‐knowledge about what behaviors trigger conflict • The number of students who understood that fighting escalated conflict increased from 43% to 77% The number of students who felt that talking would de-­‐escalate conflict increased from 27% to 75% Pro-­‐social behavior • The number of students who reported helping another student increased from 15% to 30% • Students who name-­‐called decreased from 45% to 23%. Intentions • Students who reported that in order to negotiate a conflict, rules should first be established increased from 10% to 67% • Students who reported that resolving a conflict should include exploring a variety of solutions increased from 44% to 78%. Confidence – No significant findings Trouble behavior • The number of students who reported never getting in trouble at home increased from 13% to 32% • The number of students who reported never getting in trouble in school increased from 33% to 44% • The number of students who reported never getting in trouble in the community increased from 6% to 54%. Reaction to the program • 89% reported it was easy to use • 91% reported that it was fun • 68% reported that they learned a lot • 79% reported they would suggest the program to a friend. •
•
•
•
•
•
Additional Information Contact Information To learn more about implementation, contact: Brad Oltrogge (800) 362-­‐7323 Oltrogge@LMSsite.com To learn more about research, contact: Kris Bosworth, Ph.D. (520) 626-­‐4964 boswortk@u.arizona.edu References Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T. (1998) A Computer-­‐Based Violence Prevention for Young Adolescents: Pilot Study. Adolescence. 33: 785-­‐95. Outcomes Smart Team/ Smart Talk 1998 delinquency Smart Team/ Smart Talk 1998 Smart Team/ Smart Talk Risk Behavior General misbehavior Confidence in No impact using non-­‐violent strategies General social-­‐
emotional Problem-­‐solving skills 1998 Intentions to use Positive impact non-­‐violent strategies General social-­‐
emotional Problem-­‐solving skills Smart Team/ Smart Talk 1998 Knowledge about Positive impact conflict management General social-­‐
emotional Problem-­‐solving skills Smart Team/ Smart Talk 1998 Self-­‐knowledge Positive impact about how certain behaviors trigger conflict General social-­‐
emotional Problem-­‐solving skills Smart Team/ Smart Talk 1998 Pro-­‐social behavior Pro-­‐social competencies Pro-­‐social behaviors and attitudes Positive impact Positive impact