Enhancing Academic Instruction with a Total Group Contingency

Intervention: EAGLE Game

Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSPUniversity of Texas at San Antonio

billiejo.rodriguez@utsa.eduNWPBIS 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)

Problem Behavior

Escape academic tasks

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 Be Responsible

Step 2: What does it mean in your class/group? Ready to learn

Step 3: What does it look like? 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

If you are not sure what it looks

like to meet expectations, it's

likely your students will be

unsure, too!

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 daily15

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 delivered19

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 next day/lesson.

20

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 non-academic 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

ERI Implementation Fidelity Game Implementation Fidelity0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

83%

7%

94% 96%

Baseline

Baseline

Game

Game

Average ERI & Game Implementation Before & After Game Training

Perc

ent

Fidelit

y o

f Im

ple

menta

tion

Treatment Fidelity

TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERI TGBG ERIAmy Barbara Candice Deborah Natasha

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BaselineIntervention

Per

cent

Fid

elity

of

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Game

Mean Implementation of ERI & Game Before & After Game Training

Game

Game

Game

Game

28

Percent of 10-Second Intervals with Student Problem BehaviorGame

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

31

Game

32

Weekly Mean Nonsense Word Fluency Scores by Group Game

Opportunities to Respond

All instructional assistants improved their average rate of OTR from baseline to Game

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%

Average OTR per Minute

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

Improved consistency in implementation of ERI (OTR & Fidelity)

Will EAGLE Game increase instructor praise? (Partin et al., 2010)

Specific teaching instructors to provide specific praise Increased positive feedback, decreased corrective feedback

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

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) Knowing magic number

Adult's goal is to provide specific praise 1x every 2 minutes Group praise, use “praise around”, or individual students to get

others refocused

Students worked as a team receive immediate (daily) rewards

Billie Jo Rodriguez, Ph.D., NCSPUniversity of Texas at San Antonio

billiejo.rodriguez@utsa.eduNWPBIS Webinar

November 1, 2013

Questions?

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.