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.