Training and Supporting Teachers to Implement Effective Classroom Management Practices

Teri Lewis-Palmer

Emma Martin

University of Oregon

Collaborators

Tary Tobin Wendy Reinke Shanna Millen Kira Florence Nandita Rao Sarah Fairbanks

Educational Outcomes for Students with EBD

Generally attain unfavorable educational outcomes (US Department of Ed, 2001; Walker, et al., 1999)

– About 50% drop out of school– Earn lower grades, truancy, fail classes– Unsuccessfully employed, poor work

records– Early onset of problem behavior and low

academic engagement can lead to identification of EBD and placement in special education

Key Features of Effective Instruction

The presentation of multiple opportunities to respond

High rates of student correct academic responding

The delivery of praise to students when they are exhibiting appropriate academic behaviors

Student-Teacher Interactions

Students with or at-risk for EBD frequently engage in behaviors that impact teacher-student interactions (Gunter, et al., 1993; Sutherland, 2002)

Teachers may inadvertently contribute to problem behavior (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Gunter, et al., 1993)

Teachers spend less academic time with students (Nelson & Roberts, 2000; Stein & Davis, 2000; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002)

Monitoring Teacher Behaviors

Self-management for teachers has produced temporary increases in the use

of effective instruction strategies (Gunter, Reffel, et al., 2002; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2002; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001)

Performance feedback used for temporarily increasing staff/teacher

behavior (Mortenson & Witt, 1998; Noell, et al., 1997; Noell, et al., 2000, Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000; Witt, Noell, LaFleur, & Mortenson, 1997)

Performance Feedback

Provides information and knowledge of processes and results in an effort to promote transfer or maintenance of skills and behaviors (Arco, 1991; Fleming & Sulzer-Azarpff. 1989; Mortenson & Will, 1998)

Results in more consistent intervention effects (Green & Rein, 1991; Harchiik et al., 1992)

Context & Background

Real-time analysis of student social behavior

Direct performance feedback

Focus on pre-service and inservice teacher behaviors shown to improve student outcomes

Dependent Variables

Student variables– Disruptive behavior– Academic engagement– Correct academic responses

Teacher variables

– Praise – Reprimands– Opportunities to respond

Inservice:Participants and Design CCU Four general

education classrooms

(grades 2, 4, and 5)

Multiple baseline across classrooms

Teachers primary participants

PAR Four general

education classrooms (grades 2, 4, and 5)

Multiple baseline across students

Students primary participants

Classroom Check-up (CCU)

Components of the Classroom Check-Up

Step 1: Assess Classroom • Teacher Interview• Classroom ecology Checklist• Classroom Interaction Observation• Classroom Academic Engagement

Step 2: Feedback • Consultant provides feedback on assessment findings. • Feedback includes both protective and risk factors identified

Step 3: Menu of Options • Teacher and Consultant collaboratively develop a menu of options for intervening to create positive classroom outcomes

Step 4: Choose Intervention(s) • Teacher chooses any number of interventions to implement. • Consultant provides ongoing support in the implementation of the intervention(s).

Step 1: Assess Classroom

Teacher Interview• Build rapport• Strengths and weaknesses• Identify areas of concern

Classroom Observations• MOOSES: real-time data collection

Step 2: Feedback

Summarize observations• Identify areas of strength• Identify areas of weakness

Meet with classroom teacher

Provide both visual and verbal feedback

CCU Feedback

Opportunities to Respond

Student Accuracy Student Engagement

Step 3: Menu of Options

During Feedback Session identify potential interventions

• Potential interventions are guided by consultant’s knowledge of research

• Interventions build upon teacher strengths

Write down all potential interventions• Menu of interventions to choose from

Step 4: Choose an Intervention

Complete Menu of Interventions Identify one or two interventions from

menu• Teacher will prioritize need• Intervention tailored to teachers needs

Develop plan with teacher for implementation

Guide evaluation of treatment integrity

General v. Specific Praise

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Praise

Pre 1 Post 1 F-up 1 Pre 2 Post 2 F-up 2 Pre 3 Post 3 F-up 3 Pre 4 Post 4 F-up 4

Teachers

Specific PraiseGeneral Praise

Praise & Disruptive BehaviorClassroom 1

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Praise

Disruptions

Classroom 2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Classroom 3

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# p

er M

in

ute

Classroom 4

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67Days

Baseline

CCU

Self-monitoring

1 month Follow-up

Visual Performance FeedbackSelf-monitoring

Positive Academic Responding (PAR)

Initial training

1) Trainer discussed strategies with teacher

2) Trainer modeled how to use the strategies

3) Teacher demonstrated how s/he will use strategies

4) Trainer prompted teacher during instruction and post conference if necessary

Self-monitoring training

1) Teachers given a reminder colored card & visual prompt

2) Teachers completed daily self-evaluation form3) Teachers watched videotape of instruction and

completed the graphing forms with trainer - completed once per week

Goal = 7.0 OTR’s/min (80% of recommended rate), 0.4 rate of praise for target student

Performance feedback

Trainer met with teachers once per week to provide performance feedback on student and teacher behavior

Self-monitoring forms were reviewed (teacher rates of effective instruction strategies), performance graphs shared, strategies for increasing rates discussed

Overall Rate of Classroom Praise

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4

Teachers

Rat

e P

er M

inut

e of

Percent of Correct Academic Responses for Baseline and Post Intervention

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1A 1B 2 3A 3B 4

Target Students

Per

cent

of

Cor

rect

Aca

dem

ic

Rates of Reprimands For Target Students During Baseline and Post Intervention

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

1 2 3 4

Teachers

Rat

e P

er M

inu

te o

f R

epri

man

ds

Baseline

Post intervention

Rate of Overall Reprimands for Baseline and Post Intervention

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1 2 3 4

Teachers

Rat

e P

er M

inut

e of

Rep

rim

ands

Preservice: Pilot Procedures(Elementary SpEd students) Receive training and instruction to interpret real-

time analysis graphs

Presented with real-time analysis graphs and ongoing graphs of their instructional behaviors

Set goals based on real-time data and ongoing performance data

Progress is monitored through direct observations

Behaviors of

Interest

OTR

CAR

Praise

Feedback

Reprimand Other

Work-book

StoryReading

Word Attack

Context(duration)

(frequency)

Weekly Feedback ReportsP l e a s e R e v i e w t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t a f o r w e e k 8 ( 5 / 1 8 / 0 5 ) a n d c o m p l e t e t h e d a t a d e c i s i o n m a k i n g w o r k s h e e t . R e m e m b e r t o s h a r e y o u r g o a l s w i t h y o u r s u p e r v i s o r w h e n s / h e v i s i t s t h i s w e e k . I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e c o n t a c t E m m a . O T R 1 1 1 ( 6 / m i n . ) C A R 9 1 ( 8 2 % ) F B 1 2 P R 4 4 R P 0

O p p o r t u n i t i e s t o R e s p o n d & C o r r e c t A c a d e m i c

R e s p o n s e s

02 04 06 08 0

1 0 01 2 0

D a t e

Numb

er of

Oppo

rtunit

ies

& Res

pons

es

O T R

C A R

P r a i s e & F e e d b a c k

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

D a t e

Numb

er of

Praise

& Fe

edba

ck

Statem

ents

P R

F B

Observation Totals

Real-Time Analysis Graph(Most Recent Observation)

Graphs of Ongoing Performance

Other

Workbook

Story Reading

Word Attack

Reprimand

Praise

Feedback

CorrectAcademicResponse

OpportunityTo Respond

Time in Seconds

CorrectiveFeedback

No CorrectiveFeedback

Decision-Making Worksheet

Opportunities toRespond

Percent of CorrectAcademic Responses

Feedback

Praise:Reprimand

Oral Reading Fluency

Percent Correct Academic Responses across Participants

Percent of Correct Academic Responses acorss Participants during Performance Feedback

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Observations

Per

cen

t C

orr

ect

Aca

dem

ic

Res

po

nse

s

85% Criterion

Case Studies: Fluency & Maintenance

Percent of Correct Academic Responses acorss Participants during Performance Feedback

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Observations

Per

cen

t C

orr

ect

Aca

dem

ic

Res

po

nse

s

85% CriterionFuency-

building

Maintenance

Fluency & Maintenance:Opportunities to Respond

Opportunities to Respond

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5

Observation

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

to

Re

sp

on

d

Fluency

Maintenance

Did I establish/maintain a rate of 160 to 200 opportunities to respond over a 20 minute observation?

Fluency & Maintenance: Correct Academic Responses

Percent Correct Academic Responses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Observation

Perc

en

t C

orr

ect

Acad

em

ic

Resp

on

ses

Fluency

Maintenance

Did I establish/maintain a rate of 85% of better?

Fluency & Maintenance:Feedback

Feedback

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5

Observation

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Fluency

Maintenance

Did I provide immediate corrective feedback when student errors occurred?

Conclusion

Brief intervention plus feedback produced changes in teacher and student behavior

Future research:– Effective and efficient feedback

• Type and intensity of support• Fading• Sustainability of effects

– Systems within the school – Teacher training

• Pre-service training• New teacher support

Implications

Teacher preparation programs– Changes in supervision for pre-service

teachers– Impact on student outcomes

Administrative feedback– Changes to performance feedback

provided to in-service teachers

Next Steps

2005 – 2006 Academic Year – Randomized Control Trial– Maintenance– Generalization

pbis.org