Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A. Louisiana State.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A. Louisiana State."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 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 3/4/20102 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

3 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 3/4/20103 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

4 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 3/4/20104 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

5 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 3/4/20105 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

6 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) 3/4/20106 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

7 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., /4/20107 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

8 Ervin 1998 Study Results 3/4/20108 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY Used with permission of author

9 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) 3/4/20109 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

10 Results: Morrison & Jones, 2006 Used with permission of author 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

11 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 Classwide: 4 –School in Residential Treatment Center: 2 Gen ed:1 Special Ed: 1 Population –Total N: 22 individual students and 8 Classrooms –Grades: Pre-K-8 th grade –Age range: 4-16 years of age 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

12 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

13 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

15 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? 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

16 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

17 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: 2 nd 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

18 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 18

19 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

20 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 childs bx Daily PPR session for 5 minutes Reward genuine praise with tally (50 marks= pizza party) Post treatment measures –Peer ratings and status 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

22 Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Class Target Child Initiated Peer Initiated 3/4/201022

23 Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Recess Target Child InitiatedPeer Initiated 3/4/201023

24 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

26 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) 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

27 Discussion Mechanism of effect: whose behavior changed? –Mixed results Monique David –More research Maximize collateral effects 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

29 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 childs condition/behavior problem, but encouraged readers to interpret tentatively. 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

30 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

31 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

32 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

33 Participants Three 1 st - 4 rd 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

35 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

36 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

37 Procedure The teacher then described the process –Drawing of recipient (King/Queen Bee) each week, be observant of the recipients 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

38 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

39 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

40 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

41 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

42 Results Joey BaselineRecipientTeller Percent Positive Social Interactions Observations 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

43 Results Jill 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

44 Results Jeremy Recipient 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

45 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

46 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 childs and his/her classmates behavior 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

47 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

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

50 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

51 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

52 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

53 Participants & Setting Three 3 rd 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

54 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

55 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

56 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

57 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

58 Public PPR (RED DAY) 1.Three Stars of the Day will be chosen 2.Keep an eye on the Stars of the Day 3.At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to praise the Stars of the Day for positive behavior 4.Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal 5.You must raise your hand if you want a chance to praise your classmates 6.Praise should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen 7.Goal: 10 correct praise reports 8.Prize: The RED token=Extra recess on the next Red Day 1.Three Stars of the Day will be chosen 2.Keep an eye on the Stars of the Day 3.At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to praise the Stars of the Day for positive behavior 4.Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal 5.You must raise your hand if you want a chance to praise your classmates 6.Praise should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen 7.Goal: 10 correct praise reports 8.Prize: The RED token=Extra recess on the next Red Day 3/4/201058

59 Private PPR (BLUE DAY) 1.Three Stars of the Day will be chosen 2.Keep an eye on the Stars of the Day 3.At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to write cards on positive behavior seen from each Star of the Day 4.Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal 5.Praise card should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen 6.Goal: 10 correctly written index cards 7.Prize: The BLUE token=Extra recess time on the next Blue Day 1.Three Stars of the Day will be chosen 2.Keep an eye on the Stars of the Day 3.At the end of the day, you will have 10 minutes to write cards on positive behavior seen from each Star of the Day 4.Each star must receive a praise report before you can meet your goal 5.Praise card should include WHO and WHAT positive behavior was seen 6.Goal: 10 correctly written index cards 7.Prize: The BLUE token=Extra recess time on the next Blue Day 3/4/201059

60 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

61 Classroom A 3/4/201061

62 Classroom B 3/4/201062

63 Classroom C 3/4/201063

64 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

65 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

66 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 66

67 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

68 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 68

69 Recap Study 3 – Classwide peer praises 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 3/4/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

70 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

71 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 71

72 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

73 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/ LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

74 Handout: PPR Tips and Tricks 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 74

75 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 75

76 Questions? (Positive Peer Reports?) 3/4/2010 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 76


Download ppt "Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey Chenier, M.A. Carolyn Barahona, M.A. Louisiana State."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google