Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey...

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

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

3/4/2010 2LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Ervin 1998 Study Results


[email protected]

Used with permission of author

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)


[email protected]

Results: Morrison & Jones, 2006

Used with permission of author


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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?


[email protected]

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?


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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

3/4/2010LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

[email protected] 18

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Results : Overall Social Interactions in Both SettingsOverall Interactions In Class

3/4/2010 21

Overall Interactions at Recess

Results: Initiated Social Interactions in ClassTarget Child Initiated Peer Initiated

3/4/2010 22

Results: Initiated Social Interactions in RecessTarget Child Initiated Peer Initiated

3/4/2010 23

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


[email protected]

Results Continued

• IOA

– 94.53% Class– 88.66% Recess– 40% of Sessions

• Tx Integrity

– 93.75%

– 33.3% of Sessions


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

Discussion

• Mechanism of effect: whose behavior changed?– Mixed results

• Monique• David

– More research• Maximize collateral effects


[email protected]

STUDY: 2

A Treatment Component Analysis in Positive Peer Reporting for Socially Withdrawn

Children


[email protected]

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.


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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.


[email protected]

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?


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

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.


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

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)


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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%)


[email protected]

Results JoeyBaseline RecipientTeller

Observations3/4/2010 42

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY [email protected]

Results Jill


[email protected]

Results JeremyRecipient


[email protected]

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.


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Conclusions

• Recipient = active ingredient in the intervention.

• What about targeting classwide disruptions?


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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?


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Operational Definitions• Disruptive behaviors:

Q Off-taskQ Out of seatQ Talking out of turn Q AggressionQ Property Destruction

• On-task:

Q Any behavior that was not included in any of the disruptive behavior definitions was considered on-task

Q 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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Public PPR (RED DAY)Public PPR (RED DAY)1. Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen2. 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 goal5. You must raise your hand if you want a chance to

praise your classmates6. Praise should include WHO and WHAT positive

behavior was seen7. Goal: 10 correct praise reports8. Prize: The RED token=Extra recess on the next Red

Day

1. Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen2. 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 goal5. You must raise your hand if you want a chance to

praise your classmates6. Praise should include WHO and WHAT positive

behavior was seen7. Goal: 10 correct praise reports8. Prize: The RED token=Extra recess on the next Red

Day3/4/2010 58

Private PPR (BLUE DAY)Private PPR (BLUE DAY)1. Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen2. 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 cards7. Prize: The BLUE token=Extra recess time on the

next Blue Day

1. Three “Stars of the Day” will be chosen2. 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 cards7. Prize: The BLUE token=Extra recess time on the

next Blue Day3/4/2010 59

Procedural changes

• Praise reports had to include “who,” “what,” and “when”Q Non-descriptive comments: “Susie was being

good”

• Selection of “stars” changed from the beginning of the day to immediately before PPR sessionQ “Stars” became unknown instead of known


[email protected]

Classroom A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

Per

cen

t o

f In

terv

als

wit

h D

isru

pti

ve

Beh

av

ior

Known Stars Unknown Stars

Control

Private

Public

BL

Classroom A

Sessions3/4/2010 61

Classroom B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

Per

cen

t o

f In

terv

als

wit

h D

isru

pti

ve

Beh

av

iorr

Sessions

Classroom B

BL Known Stars Unknown Stars

Control

Private

Public

3/4/2010 62

Classroom C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15

Percen

t of I

nte

rvals

w

ith

Dis

ru

pti

ve B

eh

avio

r

Sessions

Classroom C

Unknown Stars

ControlPrivate

Public

BL

3/4/2010 63

Results• IOA

– 82-100%• Treatment Integrity

– Public PPR: 90-98%– Private PPR: 80-100%

• 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


[email protected]

Discussion• Similar to previous studies

Q Negative interactions remained the same as baseline (Hoff & Ronk, 2006)

Q Mixed results and minor reductions (Morrison & Jones, 2006)

Q 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


[email protected]

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



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


[email protected]

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.



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


[email protected]

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?


[email protected]

Conclusions

• Future Questions and Research in PPR5) 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?



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


[email protected]

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


[email protected]

Handout: PPR Tips and Tricks



Thanks

• Keri Menesses

• Evan Dart

• Tai Collins

• Katherine Hunter

• Emily Patty

• Sarah Landry

• Katie Core

• Amanda Stavis

• Frank Gresham, PhD

• Clay Cook, PhD



Questions?(Positive Peer Reports?)



Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey...

Documents

Transcript of Applications of Positive Peer Reporting in General Education Classrooms Lisa Libster, M.A. Jeffrey...