1. The Effects of CW-FIT on Preschool Behavior Utah Multi-Tiered System of Supports and Effective Practices Conference June 18, 2014 KRYSTINE JOLSTEAD, ED.S. CANDIDATE PAUL CALDARELLA, PH.D. LESLIE WILLIAMS, ED.S. BLAKE HANSEN, PH.D. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

2. Overview Overview of the Grant Preschool Behavior Concerns Present Study Implementation of CW-FIT Results Implications

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Praise Creates positive teacher-student relationship Fewer disruptions, increased engagement Teachers can be trained to praise.

7. Social Skills Training Negative correlation between social skills and problem behavior Skills should be modeled and expectations taught Pre-teaching social skills is important.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 behavior Kamps et al., 2011 ◦6 elementary school classrooms in Kansas; students at-risk for EBD ◦Decreased disruptive behavior and increased on-task behavior Wills 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

11. Research Questions 1.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?

12. Methods Design: single-subject multiple baseline with embedded reversals Participants and Setting ◦2 Title I schools ◦4 preschool classrooms ◦3 teachers

13. Preschool Demographics Table 1 Preschool Student Demographics Classroom 1Classroom 2Classroom 3Classroom 4 N%N%N%N% Males 9698577501071 Females 431643750429 ELL 7541071643536 Caucasian 431214643750 Hispanic 8621286857643 African American 18000000 Pacific Islander 00000017 Total13100141001410014100

14. 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

16. CW-FIT Main Components Lessons Teams Goals & Points Rewards PRAISE!

17. 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

18. Standard Skills

19. Additional Skills

20. 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

21. 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 POINTS DATE:REWARD:GOAL: TEAMS:123456 POINTS : 1. How to gain teacher attention 2. Following directions 3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

22. Game Chart CW-FIT GAME POINTS DATE:REWARD:GOAL: TEAMS:123456 POINTS: 1. How to gain teacher attention 2. Following directions 3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

23. Game Chart CW-FIT GAME POINTS DATE:REWARD:GOAL: TEAMS:123456 POINTS: 1. How to gain teacher attention 2. Following directions 3. Ignoring inappropriate behaviors

24. Praise o To students for using social skills o That is behavior-specific o To prompt and reinforce good behavior o When timer sounds and throughout lesson o Focuses on groups and individuals, especially those with challenging behavior CW-FIT Main Components

25. Examples of Praise BEHAVIOR SPECIFICGENERAL 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!”

26. CW-FIT Main Components Rewards for Good Behavior o Given at end of class to all groups who met goal o Tangible or nontangible o Reinforcing to students o Feasible for teachers

27. Examples of Rewards Tangible o Snack o Stickers o Pencils o Erasers o Show & Tell ticket Non-tangible o Extra read-aloud o Simple games o You-tube dance video o Art project o Extra recess time o Shoes off o Limbo o Snowball fight

28. CW-FIT in Preschool Video goes here

29. Results: Classroom 1

30. Results: Classroom 2

31. Results: Classroom 3

32. Results: Classroom 4

33. Results: Overall On-Task

34. Results: Overall Praise

35. Fidelity Checklist

36. 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 chart o Using timer at appropriate intervals o Awarding teams for the use of sklls o 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%)

37. Social Validity TEACHER 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. Thank you! Questions? Krystine Jolstead krystinejolstead@gmail.com Paul Caldarella paul_caldarella@byu.edu Leslie Williams leslie_williams@byu.edu Blake Hansen blake_hansen@byu.edu

41. References Barrish, 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

42. References LeGray, 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/