1 / 76

Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms

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. Objective & Overview.

harriet-valdez
Télécharger la présentation

Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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., 2000 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  8. Ervin 1998 Study Results Used with permission of author LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  10. Results: Morrison & Jones, 2006 Used with permission of author LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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-8th grade • Age range: 4-16 years of age LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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? LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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? LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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: 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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 child’s bx • Daily PPR session for 5 minutes • Reward genuine praise with tally (50 marks= pizza party) • Post treatment measures • Peer ratings and status LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  21. Results : Overall Social Interactions in Both Settings Overall Interactions at Recess Overall Interactions In Class

  22. Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Class Target Child Initiated Peer Initiated

  23. Results: Initiated Social Interactions in Recess Target Child Initiated Peer Initiated

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  25. Results Continued • IOA • 94.53% Class • 88.66% Recess • 40% of Sessions • Tx Integrity • 93.75% • 33.3% of Sessions LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  27. Discussion • Mechanism of effect: whose behavior changed? • Mixed results • Monique • David • More research • Maximize collateral effects LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  28. STUDY: 2 A Treatment Component Analysis in Positive Peer Reporting for Socially Withdrawn Children LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 child’s condition/behavior problem, but encouraged readers to interpret tentatively. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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? LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  33. 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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  34. 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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  37. 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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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%) LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  42. Results Joey Baseline Teller Recipient Percent Positive Social Interactions Observations LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  43. Results Jill LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  44. Results Jeremy Recipient LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 child’s and his/her classmates’ behavior LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  48. Conclusions • Recipient = active ingredient in the intervention. • What about targeting classwide disruptions? LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

  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 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY llibster@gmail.com

More Related