Enhancing Academic Instruction with a Total Group Contingency Intervention: EAGLE Game Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSP University of Texas at San Antonio billiejo.rodriguez@utsa.edu NWPBIS 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) Escape academic tasks Problem Behavior 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 Step 2: What does it mean in your class/group? Ready to learn Step 3: What does it look like? Be Responsible 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 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 daily 15 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 delivered 19 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 20 next day/lesson. 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 nonacademic 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 Average ERI & Game Implementation Before & After Game Training 100% Game Percent Fidelity of Implementation 90% Game 80% 70% Baseline 60% 50% 40% 96% 94% 83% 30% 20% Baseline 10% 7% 0% ERI Implementation Fidelity Game Implementation Fidelity Treatment Fidelity Mean Implementation of ERI & Game Before & After Game Training 100 90 80 Percent Fidelity of Implementation 70 60 50 40 Baseline 30 Intervention 20 10 0 Game Game Game Game TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI Game Amy Barbara Candice Deborah Natasha Percent of 10-Second Intervals with Student Problem Behavior Game 28 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 Game 31 Weekly Mean Nonsense Word Fluency Scores by Group Game 32 Opportunities to Respond All instructional assistants improved their average rate of OTR from baseline to Game Average OTR per Minute 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% 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 Will EAGLE Game increase instructor praise? (Partin et al., 2010) Specific teaching instructors to provide specific praise Increased positive feedback, decreased corrective feedback Improved consistency in implementation of ERI (OTR & Fidelity) 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 Percent'of'Intervals' Student'Problem'Behavior'&'Fidelity'of'EAGLE'Game' Implementa1on' Observa1on'Day' 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) Adult's goal is to provide specific praise 1x every 2 minutes Knowing magic number Group praise, use “praise around”, or individual students to get others refocused Students worked as a team receive immediate (daily) rewards Questions? Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSP University of Texas at San Antonio billiejo.rodriguez@utsa.edu NWPBIS Webinar November 1, 2013 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.