The Effects of CW-FIT on Preschool Behavior Utah Multi-Tiered System of Supports and Effective...

The Effects of CW-FIT on Preschool BehaviorUtah Multi-Tiered System of Supports and Effective Practices ConferenceJune 18, 2014

KRYSTINE JOLSTEAD, ED.S. CANDIDATE

PAUL CALDARELLA, PH.D.

LESL IE WILL IAMS, ED.S.

BLAKE HANSEN, PH.D.

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

Overview• Overview of the Grant

• Preschool Behavior Concerns

• Present Study

• Implementation of CW-FIT

• Results

• Implications

CW-FIT: IES Goal 3 Grant• University of Kansas, Brigham Young University, Vanderbilt University

• 4 years, 18 schools, 144 classrooms, 2880 children

• Multiple geographic areas, low SES populations

• Implemented by school teachers

CW-FIT in Utah

• Year 1 – one school in Nebo School District

• Year 2 – three schools in Alpine School District

• Year 3 – two schools in Provo School District

• Year 4 – one school in ? district

Behavioral Issues and Positive Behavior Support• 33% of preschool children exhibit disruptive behaviors

• Preschool expulsion rates are three times as high as K-12 rates

• Prevention and early intervention are critical

• Few studies investigate preschool behavior in naturalistic, whole class settings

• Positive Behavior Support (PBS) – teach and reinforce desired behavior, extinguish unwanted behavior

• PBS has been shown to be effective in classrooms, including preschools

Praise

• Creates positive teacher-student relationship

• Fewer disruptions, increased engagement

• Teachers can be trained to praise.

Social Skills Training

• Negative correlation between social skills and problem behavior

• Skills should be modeled and expectations taught

• Pre-teaching social skills is important.

Group Contingencies• Three types:

• Dependent – reward of all based on behavior of one or few

• Independent – reward based on individual behavior

• Interdependent - reward of group based on all within group

• Teaches students how behavior affects others

• One example: The Good Behavior Game

Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT)

• Interdependent group contingency program

• Minimize reinforcement of inappropriate behaviors, maximize reinforcement of appropriate

• Whole class and individual target students

• Shown effective with K-7, not yet tested with preschoolers

Previous Published CW-FIT Studies

Wills et al., 2010◦ 16 elementary school classrooms in Kansas◦ Increased teacher attention to appropriate behavior◦ Decreased student disruptive behavior and increased on-task behaviorKamps et al., 2011◦ 6 elementary school classrooms in Kansas; students at-risk for EBD◦ Decreased disruptive behavior and increased on-task behaviorWills et al., 2014◦ 1 first grade classroom; implemented across instructional periods◦ Similar positive effects on student and teacher behavior◦ Call for additional studies across other grade levels

Research Questions1. Are preschool teachers able to implement CW-FIT with fidelity?

2. Does the implementation of CW-FIT in a preschool classroom

result in increased teacher praise to reprimand ratios?

3. Does the implementation of CW-FIT in a preschool classroom

result in increased levels of group on-task behavior within the

classroom?

4. Do preschool teachers believe CW-FIT is socially valid?

Methods• Design: single-subject multiple baseline with embedded reversals

• Participants and Setting◦ 2 Title I schools◦ 4 preschool classrooms◦ 3 teachers

Preschool DemographicsTable 1Preschool Student Demographics

Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Classroom 3 Classroom 4 N % N % N % N %Males 9 69 8 57 7 50 10 71

Females 4 31 6 43 7 50 4 29

ELL 7 54 10 71 6 43 5 36

Caucasian 4 31 2 14 6 43 7 50

Hispanic 8 62 12 86 8 57 6 43

African American 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

Total 13 100 14 100 14 100 14 100

Measurement Observations

◦ Group on-task (paper and pencil)◦ 20 minutes◦ Praise, reprimands, points recorded

Social validity questionnaire – teachers and students Interobserver agreement

◦ Trained observers with at least 90% accuracy◦ 28.13% of observations

CW-FIT Main Components• Lessons

• Teams

• Goals & Points

• Rewards

• PRAISE!

CW-FIT Main Components

Social Skills Lessons

◦ Social skills instruction

◦ Taught explicitly with rationale

◦ Define, model, role-play, feedback, practice

◦ Precorrects– reminder of expectations each day

Standard Skills

Additional Skills

CW-FIT Main Components• Class-wide Teams

o Class teams of 3-6 students

o Each student must be on-task for the team to earn points

CW-FIT Main Components

• Goals, Timer, and Points

o Daily point goal set

o Points awarded every 2-4 minutes, at the beep

o Praise for use of social skills CW-FIT GAME POINTSDATE: REWARD: GOAL:TEAMS: 1 2 3 4 5 6

POINTS:           

1. How to gain teacher attention2. Following directions3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

Game Chart

CW-FIT GAME POINTSDATE: REWARD: GOAL:

TEAMS: 1 2 3 4 5 6

POINTS:           

1. How to gain teacher attention

2. Following directions

3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

6/18/14 Sticker 5

Game Chart

CW-FIT GAME POINTSDATE: REWARD: GOAL:

TEAMS: 1 2 3 4 5 6

POINTS:           

1. How to gain teacher attention

2. Following directions

3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

6/18/14 Sticker 5

• Praiseo To students for using social skillso That is behavior-specifico To prompt and reinforce good behavioro When timer sounds and throughout lessono Focuses on groups and individuals, especially those with

challenging behavior

CW-FIT Main Components

Examples of PraiseBEHAVIOR SPECIFIC GENERAL PRAISE

“I like the way you are sitting straight and tall, I know you’re ready to learn!”

“Excellent job getting your materials ready, this helps us move forward with the lesson!”

“Excellent job listening and following directions the first time.”

“Your eyes are on me and your mouth is quiet. Thank you for being ready to learn.”

"Way to go! You asked for help and followed the steps to complete your math work before the end of class!”

“Good job!”

“Way to go!”

“Excellent!”

“Awesome!”

“Well done!”

CW-FIT Main Components• Rewards for Good Behavioro Given at end of class to all groups who met goalo Tangible or nontangibleo Reinforcing to studentso Feasible for teachers

Examples of Rewards Tangibleo Snacko Stickerso Pencilso Eraserso Show & Tell ticket

Non-tangibleo Extra read-aloudo Simple gameso You-tube dance videoo Art projecto Extra recess timeo Shoes offo Limboo Snowball fight

CW-FIT in Preschool Video goes here

Results: Classroom 1

1 2 3 4 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On Task

BaselineCW-FITReversal

Session

Perc

ent o

n ta

sk p

er 3

0 se

cond

inte

rval

change in seating arrangment

1 2 3 4 50

10

20

30

40

50

Praise

Praise_BasePraise_CW-FITPraise_Reversal

Session

Num

ber o

f pra

ise co

mm

ents

to in

divi

dual

&

grou

p

Results: Classroom 2

1 3 5 7 9 110

102030405060708090

100

On Task

BaselineCW-FITReversal

Session

Perc

ent o

n ta

sk p

er 3

0 se

cond

inte

rval

1 4 7 1005

101520253035404550

Praise

Praise_BasePraise_CW-FITPraise_Reversal

Session

Num

ber o

f pra

ise co

mm

ents

to in

-di

vidu

als a

nd g

roup

Results: Classroom 3

1 2 3 4 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On Task

BaselineCW-FITReversal

Session

Perc

ent o

n ta

sk p

er 3

0 se

cond

inte

rval

s

1 2 3 4 505

101520253035404550

Praise

Praise _BasePraise_CW-FITPraise_Reversal

Session

Num

ber o

f pra

ise co

men

ts to

indi

vidu

als a

nd

grou

p

Results: Classroom 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

102030405060708090

100

On Task

BaselineCW-FITReversal

Session

Perc

ent o

n ta

sk p

er 3

0 se

cond

inte

rval

s

1 2 3 4 5 6 705

101520253035404550

Praise

Praise_BasePraise_CW-FITPraise_Reversal

SessionNum

ber o

f pra

ise co

mm

ents

to in

divi

d-ua

ls an

d gr

oup

Results: Overall On-Task

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Class-wide On-Task Average

Pre Post

Perc

ent o

f Cla

ss O

n-Ta

sk

Results: Overall Praise

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Teacher Praise Statements

Pre Post

Prai

se p

er 2

0 M

in. I

nter

val

Fidelity Checklist

Fidelity• Teachers were able to implement the procedures with 93.4%

fidelity• Overall quality ratings averaged 92.25%• High fidelity (100%):

o Displaying posters and game charto Using timer at appropriate intervalso Awarding teams for the use of skllso Giving frequent praise and points

• Lower Fidelity:• Precorrects at beginning of sessions (89.4%)• Giving an immediate reward (40.4%)• If reward not immediate, announced and given later same day

(98%)

Social ValidityTEACHER

Likes• Less talking out• Get more done• More chances for teacher praise

Dislikes• Difficulties with teamwork• Keeping flow of instruction

STUDENT

Likes• Team points• Fun• Prizes

Dislikes• When people are on their own teams• Team members get mad when don’t

listen• Timer

Limitations• Same teacher taught AM and PM classes at one school

• Possible reactivity from having observers in classroom

• Small sample size

• Limited diversity of teachers and students

• Only implemented in Title I preschools

• No measurement of generalization or maintenance

• No measurement of effects on student academics

• Need for replication in more preschools

Implications• Simple, effective class-wide management system

• Group contingencies work as early as preschool

• Flexible to fit teachers’ needs

• Increased on-task engagement

• Decreased disruptive behaviors

• Promising results for preschool implementation

• Other

Thank you!

Questions?

Krystine Jolsteadkrystinejolstead@gmail.com

Paul Caldarellapaul_caldarella@byu.edu

Leslie Williams

leslie_williams@byu.edu

Blake Hansenblake_hansen@byu.edu

ReferencesBarrish, E. E., 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, 1969(2), 119-124. doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior support to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(2), 68-79. doi: 10.1177/0271121410372676

Carter, D. R., & Pool, J. L. (2012). Appropriate social behavior: Teaching expectations to young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 315-321. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0516-y

Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of positive behavior support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 143-155. doi: 10.1177/02711214040240030201

Fullerton, E. K., Conroy, M. A., & Correa, V. I. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ use of specific praise statements with young children at risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34(3), 118-135. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/behavioraldisorders/

Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergartners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center.

Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 583-601. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications

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. doi:10.1177/1098300711398935

ReferencesLeGray, M. W., Dufrene, B. A., Mercer, S., Olmi, D. J., & Sterling, H. (2013). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in center-

based classrooms: Evaluation of pre-teaching the alternative behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 85-102. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9170-8

Poduska, J. M., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Brown, C. H., Ialongo, N. S., & Toyinbo, P. (2007). Impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-based behavior intervention, on young adult service use for problems with emotions, behavior, or drugs or alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S29-S44. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.10.009

Renshaw, T. L., Young, K. R., Caldarella, P., & Christensen, L. (2008, November). Can school-wide positive behavior support be an evidence-based practice? Paper presented at the Teacher Educators for Children with Behavioral Disorders Conference, Tempe, AZ.

Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Harder, V. S., Otten, L., Bilenberg, N., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2011). International comparisons of behavioral and emotional problems in preschool children: Parents’ reports from 24 societies. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(3), 456-467. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.563472

Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise statements in Head Start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 280-290. doi: 10.1007/s10864-007-9040-3

Wills, H. P., Kamps, D., Hansen, B., Conklin, C., Bellinger, S., Neaderhiser, J., & Nsubuga, B. (2010). The classwide function-based intervention team program. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 164-171. doi:10.1080/10459880903496230

Wright, R. (2008). An examination of the good behavior game and behavior specific praise statements on student and teacher behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/