Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A.

Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms
Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A. Louisiana State University Discussant: Kevin Jones, Ph.D. Louisiana State University-Shreveport

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com
Objective & Overview Our goal is for attendees to understand the research and applications of Positive Peer Reporting as a general education intervention Introduction Study 1: Generalization of PPR in Gen Ed settings Study 2: Component analysis of PPR Study 3: Classwide PPR on disruption Conclusion Discussion and Questions What it looks like, how its done, efficacy Variations and applications 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Introduction What is Positive Peer Reporting (PPR)? Peer-mediated, behavior analytic intervention Group contingencies Social skills: increase positive interactions, decrease inappropriate behavior DVs: Peer interactions, Social status, inappropriate behaviors Populations: rejected, neglected, socially isolated, behaviorally disruptive -disruptive behavior, on task/off task behavior, inappropriate behavior Classwide Hoff - negative interactions Grieger - kaufman- aggressive Skinner & cashwell- number of reports Morrison- critical events- high intensity, disruptive behaviors Hofstayder- on task interval as a proxy for disruptive social All three types of group contigencies has been used Targeted level usually dependent/interdepent Classwide typically interdependent 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

What PPR looks like? Students are trained to praise and report prosocial behavior Students are chosen to be “Star of the Day” or “MVP of the Day” Peers observe “Star of the Day” throughout the day for prosocial behavior End of the day reporting session: peers praise “Star of the Day” on prosocial behavior for points toward a reward Uses an group contingency 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

How it works? Alters social ecology Opposite of tattling (Skinner, Neddenriep, Robinsion, Ervin, & Jones, 2002) For the target student and classmate Works across the day: students can report & reinforce any behavior that occurs throughout the day Increases performance of desired skills (Skinner et al., 2002) Classification of social skill deficits (Gresham, 1981, 2002) Acquisition Performance -(Typically) thought to work across settings throughout the whole day, b/c students can report and therby reinforce any behavior that occurs throught the day Harness power of peers- whole classroom of peers vs. 1 teacher Aquisiton and performance Aquistion means lack the knowledge to peform the skil, or know when apropirate to use the skill- must be taught.This is what traditional social skills interventions look like More commonly Performance deficit means have knowledge, but not motivated to perform skill freqenently enough,more common according to competing bx Most of learning of social skills and apporpiate behavior occurs infomally through ncidental learning- they perform a behavior skill is shaped via Feedback from peers, With a performance deficit, not motivated to exhbit the desired bx freq enough to contact reinforcment. So, the aim of ppr is to use positive peer attention to increase motivation to perform the desired behavior 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Some Practical Benefits of PPR
Peers as change agents Low cost, easy to implement Generalizes across settings Produces socially valid outcomes Small changes in acceptance within a short time (Morrison & Jones, 2006; Bowers et al 2000) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Previous Research Residential treatment centers School at Boys Town (Ervin et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2000) Bowers et al. 1999, 2000, 2008) Special education (Hoff & Ronk, 2006) General ed (Ervin et al., 1998; Moroz & Jones, 2002) Classwide (Grieger et al., 1976 & Hoff & Ronk, 2006, Morrison & Jones, 2006, Hoffstadter et al., 2009) Tootling (Cashwell et al., 2001; Skinner et al., 2000 Residental treatment centers rejected, middle school students high rates of negative interactions (aggressie) In Ervin 96- girl- increased low levels of pos, decreased high levels, improved peer acceptence Jones, replicated with 3 students same school- increased amount of cooperative statements during groupwork- over that of comparison peers Series of studies at boys town 0adolsencent and pre adolescent living in family teaching model group home Replicated findings from middlce school- highly rejected children. Reported during family intervals, reduced negative interactions, increased positive. Bowers 2008 is a little different- used DBRS at home and school to measure gen and maiteinces, with the PPR taking place in the home setting. Special ed- Hoff and ronk - used ppr in a special ed classroom for kids with cogn disablitles -first for 1 std, then for whole class.. Gen ed- Ervin et al 1998 was replication of Ervin 96- deomonstrated efficacy with first grader in a gen ed setting Measrued in class -At baseline, high rates of both pos and neg-following intervention, pos intx increased and negative intx dramaticaly decreased, very limited change in social acceptence- no change in rating, only gained one place in ranking Moraz and jones Three socially with drawn girls in gen ed classrooms- with low rates of interaction using a b a design Measured at social involvement at recess- all three girls increased levels- during intervention phase… one mantained in withdrawal phase (problem for int validity, but actually this is what you want! Another application is classwide Discuss Morrisoin and jones, Tottling- private reporting, class wide, and DV is peer praise-- 28 fourth grade AA students, teacher passes out cards, collects at tend of the day, reports the number of tootles at the start of the next day. Cashwell replication study 17 AA second grade students 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Ervin Study Results Used with permission of author 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Previous Research Residential treatment centers School at Boys Town (Ervin et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2000 Bowers et al. 1999, 2000, 2008) Special education (Hoff & Ronk, 2006) General ed (Ervin et al., 1998; Moroz & Jones, 2002) Classwide (Grieger et al., 1976 & Hoff & Ronk, 2006, Morrison & Jones, 2006, Hoffstadter et al., 2009) Tootling (Cashwell et al., 2001; Skinner et al., 2000) Another application is classwide Discuss Morrisoin and jones, Tottling- private reporting, class wide, and DV is peer praise-- 28 fourth grade AA students, teacher passes out cards, collects at tend of the day, reports the number of tootles at the start of the next day. Cashwell replication study 17 AA second grade students 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 9

Results: Morrison & Jones, 2006
Make a note on how much time is saved when we go from 9 to 3 events and 12 to 6 events 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY Used with permission of author

Facts and Findings Number of studies: 14 PPR: 12 Targeted: 10 Classwide: 4 Tootling: 2 Settings Special Ed: 2 Classwide Gen Ed: 7 Targeted: 3 School in Residential Treatment Center: 2 Gen ed:1 Special Ed: 1 Population Total N: 22 individual students and 8 Classrooms Grades: Pre-K-8th grade Age range: 4-16 years of age 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Facts and Findings, cont.
Outcomes variables: Interactions (Positive , negative, neutral) Social Acceptance Ratings Prosocial reports Problem behavior Social Involvement Compliance Cooperative Play Cooperative Statements On task behavior 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Facts and Findings, cont.
Results Increased positive social interactions, social acceptance, cooperative play, cooperative statements, social involvement, social skills, on task behavior, prosocial reports Mixed results on inappropriate behavior and negative interactions Effects were seen in settings other than where the actual reporting took place High treatment acceptability 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

STUDY: 1 The Efficacy of Positive Peer Reporting with Low-Status Students in General Education Classrooms : A generalization study

Goal of This Study Replicate results of previous gen ed studies of PPR Replicate generalization across settings findings Improve understanding of the social interactions Who initiates interaction? Replicate results of previous gen ed studies of PPR: only two studies of ppr as selective intervention in gen ed setting 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Hypotheses PPR will increase overall positive social interactions, decrease negative and neutral interactions These findings will generalize to recess Pattern in terms of initiation of interaction? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Methods Participants 3 elementary students in general education Monique: 2nd grade AA girl: roams at recess, gets in fight & fairly interactive in class David: 1st grade AA boy: keeps to self at recess, no interaction, painfully shy Jamal: 2nd grade AA boy: follows students without interacting at recess, not in sync in class Identified as neglected or rejected using Coie et al. (1982) procedure 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Methods Setting: 3 elementary school gen ed classrooms in EBR Materials What Is Praise? activity Sociometrics: positive and negative nomination and rating form Class reinforcement chart 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Methods IV: Positive Peer Reporting implemented in class DVs: Sociometrics: Peer status Peer ranking Social interactions Measured during class and on the playground Quality of interactions Positive, negative, neutral interactions Who initiated the interaction? Design: Non-concurrent multiple baseline across subjects 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Procedure Pretreatment measures Peer ratings and status BL Social interactions: measured in class, recess Treatment Training: What is praise? What is positive social bx? Explain PPR procedure, group rewards Implement PPR Start of the day: Remind class to observe target child’s bx Daily PPR session for 5 minutes Reward genuine praise with tally (50 marks= pizza party) Post treatment measures Coie & Dodge, 1982 Positive and Negative nominations Use Coie & Dodge (1982) procedure to determine Social preference Social impact LM LK Standardize scores to determine status Rating Rate each classmate 1-5 Likert “How much do you want to play with ______” 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results : Overall Social Interactions in Both Settings
Overall Interactions In Class Overall Interactions at Recess 3/4/2010

Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Class
Target Child Initiated Peer Initiated 3/4/2010

Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Recess
Target Child Initiated Peer Initiated 3/4/2010

Results: Sociometric Changes
Social status Two participants changed from neglected to “other” Increased in positive nominations Social ranking 1 increased 1 decreased 1 no change 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results Continued IOA 94.53% Class 88.66% Recess 40% of Sessions Tx Integrity 93.75% 33.3% of Sessions 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Discussion Efficacy Effective for two of three participants Worked different ways Monique David Jamal Prior learning history? Acquisition deficit? Competing problem bx? Generalization Results evident across setting Supports previous research (Bowers et al., 2008, Ervin et al, 1998) Monique: reduced negative interactions at both class and recess, increased positive in recess David: increased positive interactions in both class and recess: surprising that it happened more in class Generalization Results evident across setting for those it worked for This was expected, but not formally addressed in a school setting-by assessing in both settings, and 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Discussion Mechanism of effect: whose behavior changed? Mixed results Monique David More research Maximize collateral effects Monique - In class, no change in positive, but for negative, equally initiated at baseline- after treatment 5/6 obs, neither initiated … collatoral effects… and in recess, monique initiated the majority of neg interactions…. Its her bx that predominetly changed- increase in pos, neg to zero levels David_ across class and recesss, very low levels of inteaction in class, or at recess, and after implementation, peer initiated pos increased at both- but David began to iniate a little in class- changing peers behavior 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

STUDY: 2 A Treatment Component Analysis in Positive Peer Reporting for Socially Withdrawn Children 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Rationale One limitation in PPR is the minimal amount of research that examines the differential benefit of being in the recipient or teller conditions, or if both conditions contribute to a stronger effect. One study by Bowers et al. (2009), took an initial look at this and determined that it depends on the child’s condition/behavior problem, but encouraged readers to interpret tentatively. 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Why Components Analysis?
Weisz and Kazdin (2003) state that once it is known that a specific intervention works, research should begin to focus on the causal mechanisms in order to better understand how to deliver these components and eliminate components with little or no effect. Knowing which condition serves different populations better allows the researcher to implement the most time and cost efficient yet effective treatment 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Teller vs. Recipient Teller Gaining a token for the class may override aversiveness of being a part of a social interaction. Gaining a token accesses peer attention which may function as a positive reinforcer. Recipient Classmates not allowing for escape, reducing aversiveness. Peer attention in sessions functions as a positive reinforcer, so the child will engage in more positive behaviors to access that attention. 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Research Questions Evaluate the treatment components of a PPR intervention for socially withdrawn students. Does one condition in PPR have a stronger treatment effect on positive social interactions on the playground and social status? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Participants Three 1st - 4rd graders found to be socially withdrawn through a multiple gating procedure 1) Teacher nominations “the consistent display (across situations and over time) of all forms of solitary behavior when encountering familiar and/or unfamiliar peers” (Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993) Isolation “from” the peer group 2) Sociometric Rating Peer rating less than 2 3) Direct Observations 85% alone 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Measures Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales (SSIS) Pre/post “multi-rater assessment of the perceived frequency and importance of a student’s social behaviors.” Social skills, problem behaviors, academic competence 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Measures Dependent Variable Percent positive/negative/neutral social interaction on the playground 15 s momentary time sampling procedure Observed daily for the length of the intervention (if possible) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Procedure In homeroom on the first day of the intervention the teacher announced that the class was now participating in the “Good ‘Beehavior’ Game” and by playing the class has the opportunity to earn prizes and a pizza party. 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Procedure The teacher then described the process ‘Drawing’ of recipient (King/Queen Bee) each week, be observant of the recipient’s positive behaviors (helping a friend, sharing, etc) Teacher called on students at the end of the day to mention these behaviors (worker bee) Every student was given the opportunity to respond every day (target was called on if he/she was a worker bee) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Procedure For each genuine comment, a token was placed in the “bee hive” 30 tokens resulted in a small reward from the experimenter (once a week) 130 tokens resulted in a pizza party for the class (the end of the intervention) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Treatment Integrity/Acceptability
Experimenter or graduate students monitored intervention daily, integrity was 100% Teachers filled out an IRP-15 at the end of the intervention. (Acceptable in their class) Target children filled out their own acceptability form (all would be King/Queen Bee again) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Experimental Design Non-concurrent Multiple Baseline Recipient and teller conditions Two children start as recipients, one starts as teller. Visual inspection and feasibility of intervention determined when to move into the next condition 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

IOA 51% of all observations 47% Joey, 45% Jill, 68% Jeremy Joey M=96% (range, 86%-100%) Jill M=94% (range, 82%-100%) Jeremy M=94% (range, 86%-100%) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results Joey Baseline Teller Recipient Percent Positive Social Interactions Observations 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results Jill 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results Jeremy Recipient 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Results More positive social interactions were seen when the target children were recipients relative to when they were in baseline and when they were tellers. The teller condition had a minimal effect on positive social interactions for each child relative to baseline. 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Discussion Why being the recipient worked When the child was a recipient, peers sought out interactions with him, even molding their play into games or activities that the recipient enjoyed or going out of their way to notice something nice. The contingency in place had an effect on both the child’s and his/her classmates’ behavior 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Discussion Why being the teller did not work as well In the teller condition, even if the target student did not have a comment (which happened the first couple of days of the teller phase for 2/3), the class still earned enough tokens in that day to make the ultimate goal reachable. The reinforcing power of earning a token for the class did not override the aversiveness of interacting with peers or behaving differently from normal 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Conclusions Recipient = active ingredient in the intervention. What about targeting classwide disruptions? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Study 3: Comparing Public and Private Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms

Disruptive Behavior Effects of disruptive behavior in the classroom Student (Fergusson & Horwood, 1995; Lane, 1999; Kazdin, 1981; Trzesniewski, 2006) Future academic problems Social skills deficits Later delinquency Teacher (Gottfredson et al., 1993) Poor student-teacher relationship Teacher referrals Lack of instruction delivered Peers (Finn et al., 1995) Lack of instruction received Increase in disruption 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Rationale Limited research on PPR as a classwide intervention and none have evaluated disruption PPR and Tootling are effective classwide interventions but both with limitations PPR: negative interactions and high-intensity maladaptive behavior only Tootling: number of prosocial reports only No research comparing public and private reporting features of PPR and Tootling on behavior 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Research Question Are there differential effects of public and private reporting on classroom disruptive behavior when using an interdependent group contingency during a classwide PPR intervention? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Participants & Setting
Three 3rd grade general education classrooms referred for disruptive behavior Data was collected during classroom instruction or small group activities when high rates of disruption were reported 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Data Collection Disruptive behavior was recorded during baseline and alternating treatments phase 10-s partial interval recording system Starting student and direction was randomly selected each day Each observation session was three rotations around the class 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Data Collection, cont. Direct behavior rating scale of students’ positive interactions Intervention acceptability ratings IRP-15 for both PPR conditions CIRP for all conditions Acceptability: 21 or greater Treatment Integrity Teachers were given a checklist containing steps for both interventions implemented Researcher collected data using same checklist If treatment integrity fell below 80%, teacher was re-trained on one or all of the steps 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Operational Definitions
Disruptive behaviors: Off-task Out of seat Talking out of turn Aggression Property Destruction On-task: Any behavior that was not included in any of the disruptive behavior definitions was considered on-task Exception Breaks/transitional periods: short periods of time when the teacher was not instructing the class or the student was not assigned independent seat work 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Praise Training Two 15-min training sessions First session: Students learned how to verbally report prosocial statements What is Praise? and Examples of Praise posters were displayed (Wright, 2007) Second session: Students learned to write prosocial statements on index cards Class voted on class reward Corrective feedback and praise was delivered for statements until each student generated an example 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Public PPR (RED DAY) Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen
Keep an eye on the “Stars of the Day” At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to praise the “Stars of the Day” for positive behavior Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal You must raise your hand if you want a chance to praise your classmates Praise should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen Goal: 10 correct praise reports Prize: The RED token=Extra recess on the next Red Day 3/4/2010

Private PPR (BLUE DAY) Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen
Keep an eye on the “Stars of the Day” At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to write cards on positive behavior seen from each “Star of the Day” Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal Praise card should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen Goal: 10 correctly written index cards Prize: The BLUE token=Extra recess time on the next Blue Day 3/4/2010

Procedural changes Praise reports had to include “who,” “what,” and “when” Non-descriptive comments: “Susie was being good” Selection of “stars” changed from the beginning of the day to immediately before PPR session “Stars” became unknown instead of known 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Classroom A 3/4/2010

Classroom B 3/4/2010

Classroom C 3/4/2010

Results IOA 82-100% Treatment Integrity Public PPR: 90-98% Private PPR: % Acceptability Ratings IRP-15 Classroom A: both interventions were highly acceptable Classroom C: both interventions were unacceptable CIRP All conditions rated highly acceptable, no differentiation DBR Positive interactions were rated as somewhat true for all conditions for Classroom A 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Discussion Similar to previous studies Negative interactions remained the same as baseline (Hoff & Ronk, 2006) Mixed results and minor reductions (Morrison & Jones, 2006) High student acceptability for classwide PPR (Hoffstadter et al., 2009) Dissimilar to previous studies Intervention rating was unacceptable for one teacher (Ervin et al., 1996; Hofstadter et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2000, Moroz & Jones, 2002) DBR data reports prosocial bx was occurring during all conditions (no inverse relationship) Different DV with broader definition 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Possible Explanations
Opens door for how to research classroom disruptions Tier 1 Interventions normally not evaluated over 13 days, results after 30 days? Intervention acceptable, ensure teacher that effects may not be immediately noticed 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Recap Study 1 – Efficacy, generalization, who initiated? Result Worked with 2/3, generalized across settings, different initiators Limitations & Future Directions Initiation definition When not effective? Assess for acquisition vs performance deficit 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Recap Study 2 – Active Treatment Components Result Being the recipient of a PPR intervention aided with increasing social interactions on the playground. Limitations Children show satiation effects (find it harder to find positive things) at the end of two weeks. Using stability as a criterion to change phases. 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Recap Study 3 – Classwide peer praise’s effects on disruptions? Result Peer praise did not have an effect on disruptions Limitations Negative side effects of interdependent group contingencies (Kelshaw-Levering, Sterling-Turner, Henry & Skinner 2000) Effects of PPR on disruption not evaluated alone Proactive reinforcement strategy vs. reactive strategies Classwide PPR is a non-function based intervention Increased awareness of negative behavior or lack of positive behavior Emotional behavior from peers and target student Fabrication of praise statements Possible solutions Randomize target behaviors, reinforcers, group contingencies Use independent group contingency Public PPR on disruption to rule out carry over effects and intermittent control conditions Private PPR on negative interactions Difficult to overcome school culture Threat to internal validity Reactive strategies may reinforce problem behavior May not be effective for all students Teacher attention DRA component 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Conclusions Future Questions and Research in PPR (who needs a thesis or dissertation?) 1) Generalization and Maintenance 2) Classwide Inappropriate Behavior 3) What kids are most likely for it to work for and for it not to work for? 4) Do the reporting sessions always need to be at the end of the day? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Conclusions Future Questions and Research in PPR 5) Randomized Clinical Trial? 6) Being able to document what works for who? 7) Performance vs. Acquisition 8) Active Teller Condition 9) How long does the target need to be the recipient? 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Take Home PPR is an acceptable and effective intervention Tier 1 Increases pro-social interactions, disruptions tentative Tier 2 Socially withdrawn, low status students Generalize across settings at school Recipient more so than teller 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Take Home For who does it work for? Low status/withdrawn Negative Interactions Entire classrooms Teachers and practitioners Easy and fun! ‘Forces’ teachers and students to notice positivity ‘Forces’ teachers and students to use skills not normally utilized Can be used as a preventative or reactive intervention 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Handout: PPR Tips and Tricks
3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Thanks Keri Menesses Evan Dart Tai Collins Katherine Hunter Emily Patty Sarah Landry Katie Core Amanda Stavis Frank Gresham, PhD Clay Cook, PhD 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Questions? (Positive Peer Reports?)
3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback