Evidence base practice

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vpsf20

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth

ISSN: 1045-988X (Print) 1940-4387 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing: A High School Case Study on Classroom Behavior

Todd Haydon & Stephen D. Kroeger

To cite this article: Todd Haydon & Stephen D. Kroeger (2016) Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing: A High School Case Study on Classroom Behavior, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60:1, 70-78, DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2014.977213

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.977213

Published online: 21 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1425

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing: A High School Case Study on Classroom Behavior

TODD HAYDON and STEPHEN D. KROEGER

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

One proactive approach to increasing student engagement in schools is implementing Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) strategies. PBIS focuses on prevention and concentrates on quality-of-life issues that include improved academic achievement, enhanced social competence, and safe learning and teaching environments. This study is a replication of a study that investigated the combination of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing. The purpose of the study was to decrease student problem behavior, reduce transition time, and support maintenance of the intervention in the setting. Results show that active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing decreased student problem behavior, decreased the duration of transitions in two instructional periods, and the intervention was maintained in the setting. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.

Keywords: active supervision, explicit timing, Positive Behavior Intervention and Support, precorrection, urban education

Positive classroom management practices with a primary emphasis on forms of positive reinforcement have been dis- cussed in the literature (Ahearn, 2010; Beaman, & Wheldall, 2000; Van Houten, Nau, MacKenzie-Keating, Sameoto, & Colavecchia, 1982). Furthermore, proactive classroom man- agement strategies such as active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing have been linked to positive student out- comes, including increased student academic engagement and decreased disruptive behavior, and transition time (Bohanon, 2008; De Pry, & Sugai, 2002; Franzen, & Kamps, 2008; Haydon, DeGreg, Maheady, & Hunter, 2012; Kazdin & Klock, 1973; Warren et al., 2003). Systematic classwide interventions that are efficient and comprehensive allow teachers to attend to the needs of the entire classroom while preventing further behavioral problems from occurring.

A strong evidence base has shown that teacher reprimands increase disruptive behaviors (Beaman, & Wheldall, 2000; Madsen, Becker, Thomas, Koser, & Plager, 1968; Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007; Thomas, Becker, & Armstrong, 1968; Van Houten et al., 1982). One solution to reduce negative responses such as reprimands is for teachers to implement positive practices for managing unwanted classroom behav- ior (Sidman, 2001). The combination of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing is one such positive practice.

The present study is a demonstration of the effective use of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing and contributes to the existing knowledge base in several ways. The results of the study demonstrate that teachers can be trained to learn the intervention in a short amount of time (i.e., 30 min) and implement the intervention package with a high degree of treatment adherence. In addition, the results of the study provide more evidence of the successful imple- mentation of the intervention by using a novel classroom set- ting (a ninth-grade co-taught classroom), a different school setting (urban setting) and using a new content domain (English and social studies).

Active Supervision

De Pry and Sugai (2002) defined a flexible four-step process of active supervision, including (a) moving among students with a special focus on problem areas, (b) scanning the envi- ronment to look for both appropriate and inappropriate behavior, (c) interacting with a variety of students (e.g., hav- ing conversations, providing precorrections, teaching appro- priate behaviors), and (d) providing frequent positive comments for observed appropriate behaviors. Johnson- Gros, Lyons, and Griffin (2008) included additional compo- nents of active supervision such as (a) arriving at the class- room on time, (b) remaining in the setting throughout the entire transition period, (c) moving toward groups of congre- gating students in the classroom or hallway, and (d) physi- cally escorting students throughout the entire transition. Closely related to active supervision is the use of a precorrec- tion procedure to support positive behaviors.

Address correspondence to Todd Haydon, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, ML 0022 Teachers College, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Preventing School Failure, 60(1), 70–78, 2016 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1045-988X print / 1940-4387 online DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2014.977213

Precorrection

The use of precorrection procedures provides the kind of prompting needed to move effectively from one activity to another within a classroom, or from one place to another (i.e., classrooms to cafeterias, entering or leaving a school building). Johnson-Gros, Lyons, and Griffin (2008) defined precorrection as an antecedent intervention that reduces pre- dictable problem behaviors and increases appropriate replacement behaviors through the daily review and reminders of specific rules before being released into that set- ting (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997). The objective of precorrection is to cue the student to engage in a more appro- priate behavior before the problem behavior ever occurs (Johnson-Gros et al., 2008; Lewis, Colvin, & Sugai, 2000). In addition to precorrection, monitoring the time needed to transition through the use of establishing a time limit (i.e., explicit timing) can be a supportive procedure.

Explicit Timing

A good proportion of instructional time can be lost when the amount of transition time in a classroom is not carefully monitored (Haydon et al., 2012). The use of an explicit tim- ing procedure may provide the kind of monitoring needed to move from one activity to another or from one place to another. For example, Campbell and Skinner (2004) investi- gated a sixth-grade teacher’s implementation of an explicit timing procedure to reduce transition time between classes in a rural public school. A digital stopwatch was used to mea- sure transition times, and a chart was drawn to record the date and spaces to record the number of seconds taken in a given transition. The procedure included informing the stu- dents that it was time to perform the given transition activity such as lining up or waiting for students to be quiet and seated at their desks. Explicit timing procedures were taught to the class and practiced. Daily public posting of the amount of transition time was recorded on a chart. Immediately after the implementation of the intervention, students showed a substantial decline in the average amount of time taken for transitions.

Haydon and colleagues (2012) used an ABCBC with- drawal single-case design to compare the effects of the combi- nation of active supervision and precorrection with and without an explicit timing procedure on the number of teacher redirections and number of minutes during transition before a seventh-grade health science class. The baseline phase (A) lasted nearly 2 weeks; during this phase, the teacher typically responded to inappropriate behavior by using con- sequences. The first intervention phase (B) lasted nearly 3 weeks. In this phase, the teacher implemented active supervi- sion and precorrection. The second intervention phase (C) lasted 1 week. Here, the teacher implemented a combination of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing. The teacher used a digital timer and placed the timer on an over- head projector and reminded the students they had 2 min to be seated at their desks and then be ready to start the first classroom activity. The return to the second (B) phase lasted nearly 2 weeks and the reintroduction of the second (C) phase

also lasted 2 weeks. In addition, the researchers used a main- tenance check 8 days after the second intervention phase. Results indicated that the teacher had fewer redirections and decreases in the number of minutes of transition time when active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing were in place. The present study is a replication of Haydon and col- leagues’ (2012) study. The following are the primary ques- tions that guided this research:

1. What is the effect of active supervision, precorrection, explicit timing procedure on the level of student problem behavior?

2. What is the effect of active supervision, precorrection, explicit timing on the duration of transition?

Method

Setting and Participants

This study was conducted at an urban high school (Grades 9–10) with an average daily attendance of 517 students. The high school was located in a large school district in a Mid- western U.S. state and had programs focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The school had a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support initiative with a leadership team comprising an administrator and teachers from various grade levels (Rhodes, Stevens, & Hemmings, 2011).

Proficiency test results on the Local Report Card for the school included 9th- and 10th-grade reading, writing, mathe- matics, science, and social studies achievement. With the state requirement being 75%, 10th-grade results included 82% on reading, 89% on writing, 70.3% on mathematics, 55.2% on science, and 65.1% on social studies. The student population in the school was Black non-Hispanic (86%), mul- tiracial (3.4%), and White non-Hispanic (9.4%). Eighty-four percent of the students received free or reduced-price lunch, and 26% were identified with disabilities. The student popula- tion in the classroom in which the study took place was 100% Black non-Hispanic.

As part of ongoing consultation with the local university the high school’s ninth-grade team contacted the first and sec- ond author to help with transitions. Observation data con- firmed the need to positively support student transitions from the hallway to learning tasks, and transition was especially problematic after the return from lunch. The remaining teachers on the team indicated that they did not need assis- tance with transitions and observational data verified their perception.

Three teachers participated in this study. The lead teacher had 21 years of teaching experience in the school district and was certified by the National Board for Professional Teach- ing Standards in English language arts. The co-teacher had 13 years of teaching experience in the district and was certi- fied in secondary social studies. The student teacher was in his second and final year of obtaining a master’s degree in secondary education. The lead teacher, co-teacher, and the student teacher shared the responsibility of planning

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing 71

instruction. The teachers co-taught two subjects (history and English) in an interdisciplinary fashion in 200-min blocks. Each subject had 60 students in one large room.

Response Definitions and Measurement

The primary dependent variable for this study was the fre- quency of student problem behaviors. Problem behavior was defined as any event in which a student was observed push- ing, shouting, throwing, and/or whistling (Colvin et al., 1997). Pushing was defined as any time a student used his or her arm or body to make physical contact with another stu- dent, resulting in that student being unbalanced or moved. Shouting was defined as any occurrence in which a single stu- dent’s voice could be heard noticeably above the normal con- versation level present in the classroom. Throwing was defined as any time a student picked up and tossed an object (i.e., pencil, book or other objects) at other students. Last, whistling was tallied if the production of short, high-pitched sound by means of carefully controlling a stream of air flow- ing through a small hole of one’s lips was heard.

Transition time within the class served as the secondary dependent variable. Transition time was defined as, after the sounding of the school bell, the number of seconds it took for all students to be seated at their desks, writing in response to a warm-up prompt, composing sentences with new vocabu- lary, sharing examples with a peer, or with eyes on their binder, materials or teacher. When all students were demon- strating these in-seat behaviors (i.e., according to the lead teacher’s expectations and criteria), the transition period was defined as over. Data were collected starting at the beginning of each observation period. Transition time was measured by using duration recording. Student problem behaviors were measured using an event recording method. Observers sys- tematically scanned the room during 20-s observation periods for 12 min, moving from left to right. Observers used event recording and indicated on their observation sheet if they observed an incident of student problem behavior during the interval. The two data collectors were seated in the side of the classroom where they had an unobstructed view of the classroom.

Teacher Training

Before the study began the lead teacher, co-teacher, and stu- dent teacher identified the major problem behaviors exhibited by the students during the two transition periods. Examples of problem behaviors included hitting, pushing, whistling, and yelling. Next, the lead teacher, co- teacher, and student teacher identified those behaviors that students should dis- play instead of problem behaviors. The first two authors, the lead teacher, co-teacher, and student teacher then developed all procedures during a 30-min morning meeting. The goal for the transition was to have a 4-min transition, starting when the time the bell rang and ending with all students dem- onstrating the defined in-seat behaviors. Each student upon entering the room was asked to be seated and have materials on the desk within 1 min; as a classroom, all students were

prompted to begin a warm-up posted on the screen and be ready to learn within 4 min. These expectations and a warm- up prompt were posted daily on a slide presentation.

Next, the first two authors trained the lead teacher, co- teacher, and student teacher on the implementation of three major components, active supervision, precorrection, and an explicit time procedure, in a 30-min training session. The intervention was modeled by the investigators during the training and questions and comments about the intervention were addressed. After the second author demonstrated the interventions, the teachers verbally indicated that they under- stood each component of the intervention and that they were satisfied with having the procedures explained verbally and the specific behaviors modeled and so the training was concluded.

Active Supervision

The first and second authors provided the lead teacher, co- teacher, and student teacher with a definition of active super- vision. In active supervision, a teacher (a) circulates around the classroom, (b) scans the classroom, (c) interacts with stu- dents, and (d) acknowledges demonstrations of expected aca- demic and social behaviors as part of instruction. The second author role-played each component of active supervision with the teachers to establish what the intervention looked like (e.g., circulating throughout the classroom from the four corners and the center of the room, visually sweeping the classroom), taking attendance, and making positive com- ments to students who were working on the assigned task.

In addition, the second author role-played a nonexample of active supervision by standing in one location of the class- room. At the request of the teachers the two researchers pro- vided a script of the behaviors to follow for accurate implementation of the intervention (see Table 1).

Precorrection

The first and second authors, along with the lead teacher, co- teacher, and student teacher, developed a precorrection pro- cedure that provided prompts and reminders when the stu- dents entered the room in the following manner: The teachers were instructed to remind students of desired behavior before entering the room as part of the precorrection strategy. Spe- cifically, they reminded the students to enter and focus, remain seated, have a pen and binder, and complete the warm-up in silence.

Explicit Timing Procedure

All three teachers were trained in the implementation of the explicit timing procedure that consisted of (a) announcing to the students when they entered the classroom that they had a 4-min time limit (“On the clock”) (b) telling the classroom they had “one minute” left to start working on the warm-up, and (c) prompting the students with statements such as “It’s time,” or “Ready to go,” to indicate the end of transition time and the start of the warm-up activity. At the end of the training the two researchers provided the lead teacher, co- teacher, and the student teacher with a script of the behaviors

72 Haydon and Kroeger

to follow for accurate implementation of the intervention (see Table 1).

Daily Data Review

Throughout the study, the researchers presented daily feed- back in the form of visual graphs and brief notes on the fre- quency of problem behaviors as well as the amount of transition time. Feedback was sent via e-mail by the second author to the lead teacher, co-teacher, and student teacher. The lead teacher, co-teacher, and student teacher acknowl- edged the receipt of the daily e-mails and were provided opportunities to respond to daily feedback via e-mail or face to face at the next observation period.

Interobserver Agreement

The second author served as primary observer and the first author, two school psychology doctoral students, or two senior undergraduate students, who had taken an applied behavior analysis class, acted as secondary observers and independently recorded data. The secondary observer also completed the treatment integrity checklist at the end of each session. During each session, there were two observers in the classroom, except during 15% of the sessions a third observer was used to calculate interobserver agreement on integrity.

All observers were blind to any phase of the study in that the place on the coding sheet to indicate the session remained blank, nor did any of the secondary observers ask what phase the study was in. The secondary observers also completed the

interobserver agreement for transition time were calculated by dividing the number of agreements, sessions where both observers were within 5 s (the time it took to observe the last student in their seat and then record that behavior) by the total number of sessions and multiplying by 100. Interob- server agreement for student problem behavior was calcu- lated using same method as the Haydon and colleagues (2012) procedure. We first divided each session into 20-s intervals and counted the number of problem behavior in each interval. We then divided the total number of agreed- upon intervals by the total number of intervals and multiplied by 100%. An agreement was counted when both observers recorded that the behavior occurred or did not occur in the same interval. This was a more rigorous method of demon- strating interobserver agreement and reduced potential bias in the data collection procedure. Interobserver agreement scores were calculated for 44.4% of the observations for each phase of the study. Interobserver agreement averaged 93.7% (range D 88.4–100%) for student problem behavior and 100% for transition time.

Across phases, the interobserver agreement percentages were calculated. During the initial baseline, interobserver agreement was 92.6% in the morning classroom and 88.4% in the afternoon classroom. During the first intervention phase, interobserver agreement was 100% in both the morning and afternoon classrooms. During the withdrawal phase, the interobserver agreement was 93.0% in the morning classroom and 95.0% in the afternoon classroom. During the second intervention phase, the interobserver agreement was 92.3% in

Table 1. Sample Script for Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing

Criteria for implementation 1. Identify major problem behaviors exhibited by students during transition periods. a. Pushing, shouting, throwing, and whistling

2. Identify positive replacement behaviors. a. Enter and focus b. Remain seated c. Must have pen and binder d. Remain silent during warm-up

3. Design procedures for the transition period. a. Determine the amount of transition time based on the number of students (4 min) b. Post expected behaviors in the classroom

4. Practice teacher behaviors before implementation. a. Active supervision: scan and interact with students b. Precorrection: remind students of expected behaviors c. Explicit timing: display a timing device that all students may see

Measure Situation Example

Active supervision As students enter the classroom. Scanning: teacher looks over the length of the area to be supervised Active supervision While students are walking

toward their desks. While students sit at their desks.

Interacting: circulating around the classroom; talking to a student or engaging a student nonverbally; smiling, signaling, prompting, acknowledging expected (on-task) behavior

Precorrection As students enter the classroom. Verbal reminders such as “Check the board for rules about how to enter class and get started”; “As you enter class, remember, we have four minutes to begin quiet work”; and “You are on the clock”

Explicit timing During the transition period. Display a timing device on a overhead projector, or PowerPoint presentation for all students to see; convey verbal reminders such as “One minute”; “It’s time”; and “Start the warm-up”

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing 73

the morning classroom and 91.0% in the afternoon class- room. During the maintenance phase, the interobserver agreement was 91.0% in the morning classroom and 90.5% in the afternoon classroom.

Procedures

Baseline

During baseline, the lead teacher, co-teacher, and student teacher typically positioned themselves in one part of the classroom (i.e., side, doorway, front, and back) and raised their voice to reprimand problem behaviors such as running, hitting, whistling, and having loud conversations. The lead teacher usually stood in the doorway and told the students to “take a seat” as they entered the classroom. Next, he took attendance from the side of the classroom while the other teacher stayed near his desk at the front of the room and the student teacher stayed near his desk at the back of the room. Classroom rules were not posted in the classroom and obser- vations indicated that the teachers did not engage in positive interactions (i.e., praise statements). Typically, as one teacher quieted the students in the front of the room, students in the back of the room began shouting, talking, and laughing.

Intervention

The lead teacher carried out the active supervision procedure while the co-teacher and student teacher carried out the pre- correction procedure. The lead teacher circulated around the entire length and four corners of the classroom, interacting with students, and reinforcing expected academic and social behaviors by saying, “This group is working well.” The other teacher and student teacher stood in the door way as students entered the classroom and reminded students of the expected behaviors. The following behaviors were listed on the slide and projected on the screen: “Enter and Focus,” “Remain Seated,” “Must Have Pen and Binder,” and “Silent Warm- Up.” These prompts were projected on the screen through- out the study and remained there for the first 15 min of each period.

In addition to taking attendance and using active supervi- sion, the lead teacher conducted the explicit timing procedure by using a stopwatch and announcing a 4-min time limit, “You are on the clock.” Next, the lead teacher informed the students, “You have one minute.” Then, he stated that there were “thirty seconds” left. Last, he provided a countdown from 10 to 1. At the end of the countdown, the teacher prompted behavior with “It’s time,” “You are working,” or “Ready to go” to indicate the end of transition time and the start of the warm-up activity.

Experimental Design

A concurrent multiple baseline across two instructional peri- ods with a brief withdrawal phase was used (Kennedy, 2005). During the brief withdrawal phase, the teachers did not use any components of the intervention package. Withdrawal constituted the removal of all active supervision, precorrec- tion features, and explicit timing procedures. Daily data

review to the teachers continued. Because of the high rate of student problem behavior, the teachers indicated that they would like to reintroduce the intervention after one session. Therefore, the intervention was reintroduced after the collec- tion of one data point.

A maintenance phase of the study was implemented to determine whether the teachers would continue to use the intervention. Approximately 3 weeks after the end of the last intervention phase, and the first day back from winter break, data were collected on students’ problem behaviors in the morning and afternoon sessions. Unannounced maintenance checks were completed once per week for 8 weeks. During maintenance, data were collected on the rate of student prob- lem behavior and the amount of transition time in observa- tion time periods (morning and afternoon) during the beginning of class. Daily data review was provided using the same procedures as in the earlier phases of the study.

Treatment Integrity

Direct measurement of the independent variable, implemen- tation of the lead teacher’s active supervision procedure (i.e., scanning, moving, interacting with students) and explicit tim- ing procedure, as well as the co-teacher and student teacher precorrection procedure was conducted as a measure of treat- ment integrity for 100.0% of the sessions of observations. In addition, during 15% of the sessions a secondary observer was used to calculate interobserver agreement on integrity. Although calculating interobserver agreement on integrity is not typically done (Yarbrough, Skinner, Lee, & Lemmons, 2004), doing so provides more support for the claim that the treatment was implemented as intended (Noell & Witt, 1998).

A checklist was used to record the occurrence or nonoc- currence of each step of the intervention package. For active supervision, the checklist included (a) moving around the four corners of the room as well as the middle of the room, (b) interacting with students (the teachers used a microphone so all verbalizations could be heard). For the explicit timing procedure, the checklist included announcing (a) 4-min time limit, (b) 1-min time limit, (c) 30-s time limit and (d) the countdown from 10 to 1. The checklist for the precorrection procedure included the step of reminding the students of the classroom rules as they entered the classroom.

Social Validity

The lead teacher, co-teacher, and a student teacher completed a nine-item social validity assessment at the end of the study. A 4-point Likert scale ranging from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) was used to determine the social validity and the teacher’s perceptions of the educational effectiveness of the interventions. Teachers rated statements using a 4- point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The rating scale consisted of four categories: (a) teach- er’s perceived ease of implementing the intervention, (b) teacher’s perceived effectiveness of the intervention, and (c) teacher’s likelihood of using the intervention in the future and (d) how likely they would recommend the intervention to other teachers.

74 Haydon and Kroeger

Results

Figure 1 displays the frequency of student problem behavior as well as the amount of transition time for both the after- noon and morning sessions.

Student Problem Behavior

Baseline (BL) data for observation period 1 (afternoon) are highly variable with a mean occurrence frequency of 18.83 (range D 4–29) in general. Following the implementation of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing (IV1), there was an immediate change in level resulting in a mean frequency of problem behavior of 3.0 (range D 0–7). The brief withdrawal phase (W) resulted in an immediate increase in student problem behavior that was followed by an immedi- ate reduction in the level of student problem behavior (mean frequency D 1.75; range D 0–3), a stable trend and little vari- ability when the intervention was reintroduced (IV2). The fre- quency of student problem behavior remained at low levels during the maintenance phase (M), thereby demonstrating the sustainability of this intervention.

Baseline data patterns for observation period 2 (morning) demonstrated an upward trend with less variability than observation period 1 (mean frequency D 7.9; range D 4–13). The initial intervention phase (IV1) resulted in an immediate change in level and a decreasing trend for student problem behavior (mean frequency D 2.4; range D 0–9). Data in the brief withdrawal phase indicated an immediate change in fre- quency for student problem behavior. The reintroduction of the intervention phase was characterized by an immediate change in level for student problem behavior with a mean fre- quency of 0.75 (range D 0 to 3), a slight decreasing trend and little variability. During the maintenance phase, the fre- quency of student problem behavior remained at low levels, thereby demonstrating the sustainability of this intervention.

Transition Time

Baseline data for observation period 1 (afternoon) indicate that mean transition time was 8 min, 54 s (range D 3 min to 12 min, 58 s). After the implementation of active supervision and precorrection, the amount of transition time was reduced to an average of 3 min, 42 s (range D 1 min to 4 min, 24 s).

Fig. 1. Frequency of student problem behavior and the amount of transition time for afternoon and morning sessions.

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing 75

The brief withdrawal phase resulted in transition time of 3 min followed by an average transition time of 2 min and 54 s (range 2 min to 4 min) when the intervention was rein- troduced. During the maintenance phase, 7 out of 8 sessions met the criteria of no more than 4 min of transition time.

Baseline data for observation period 2 (morning) indicate that mean transition time was 5 min and 56 s (range D 4 min to 8 min 43 s). After the implementation of active supervision and precorrection, the amount of transition time per session was reduced to an average of 3 min and 36 s (range D 2 min to 4 min). The brief withdrawal phase resulted in transition time of 5 min followed by an average transition time of 3 min and 24 s (range D 3 min to 4 min) when the interven- tion was reintroduced. During the maintenance phase, 7 out of 8 sessions met the criteria of no more than 4 min of transi- tion time.

Treatment Integrity

Treatment integrity data were collected for each teacher to assess the implementation of each component of the interven- tion. The lead teacher implemented the two-step active super- vision procedure as well as the four-step explicit timing procedure with 100% integrity. In addition, the co-teacher and student teacher implemented the precorrection procedure with 100% integrity.

Social Validity

One week after the collection of the last maintenance data point, the three teachers completed the social validity ques- tionnaire. Mean scores for each question were calculated by totaling each teacher’s response and dividing by three. Mean scores (M D 3.0; range D 2 to 4) on teachers’ perceived ease with the study’s procedures suggested that the three teachers implemented active supervision and the precorrection proce- dure with a fair amount of ease. In response to how effective and efficient the intervention was on reducing behavioral inci- dents all three teachers gave the highest score of 4.0. High mean scores (M D 4.0) suggested that teachers found the intervention to be very successful and that they would con- tinue to use the intervention in the future and recommend the intervention to other teachers.

Discussion

Developing clear expectations and establishing common rou- tines is an important process in any classroom, whether co- taught or in a classroom with a single instructor. Taylor- Greene and colleagues (1997) concluded that schools need to combine systems of schoolwide behavioral support, individ- ual student support, classroom behavioral strategies, and spe- cific setting procedures to address a wide range of behavioral challenges. This study aimed to systematically replicate an earlier investigation using active supervision, precorrection, and an explicating timing procedure (Haydon et al., 2012).

The findings in this study indicate that there are a few simi- larities and differences with the earlier study by Haydon and colleagues (2012). For example, the combination of active supervision, precorrection, and an explicit timing procedure were implemented in both studies. However, in the earlier study active supervision and precorrection were compared with and without an explicit timing procedure. The present study made no such comparisons. Although transition time was a dependent variable in both studies, in the earlier study teacher behavior (redirections) was a dependent variable, whereas in the present study student behavior (disruptive behavior) was the dependent variable. Both studies included a maintenance phase. However, in the present study, the maintenance phase consisted of once a week probes for 8 weeks, while the earlier study used one maintenance probe 8 days after the last data point of the intervention. In the present study, three teachers were used to implement the intervention in a large co-taught ninth-grade classroom, whereas in the earlier study the intervention was implemented with one teacher in a seventh-grade classroom.

In a classroom with fewer students a teacher could be suc- cessful implementing a similar intervention with ease. For example, a single teacher could, remind students when enter- ing the classroom of the expectations of the transition period, use active supervision while taking attendance, then give a 1- min reminder and tell students to start the warm-up activity.

The results of this study suggest that general educators with a small amount of training time (i.e., 30 min) can reduce student problem behavior and the amount of transition time by implementing a feasible intervention package consisting of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing By using the intervention the teachers were able to provide sup- ports for students during transitions by creating highly struc- tured environments (i.e., class to class and cafeteria to class). Furthermore, the teachers implemented the intervention with a high degree of treatment adherence. An indication of the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the intervention was that the positive results of the intervention were main- tained over a period of two months.

The results of this study also provide additional evidence that active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing can be effective in decreasing the amount of transition time. The decrease in transition time may be associated with an increase in academic instruction time, although the study does not provide data, anecdotal reports indicate that academic instruction occurred earlier during the intervention than dur- ing baseline. These results are noteworthy because decreased student problem behavior has been associated with increases in on-task behavior and increases in instruction time thus providing environmental supports for student learning (Clark & Linn, 2003; Harn, Linan-Thompson, & Roberts, 2008).

Another positive outcome from this study is that high social validity scores indicate that the intervention was imple- mented with ease and was perceived as being effective. The researchers hypothesized that ease of implementation may have been due to the fact that the intervention was built into the existing classroom routines. For example, the teachers were already taking attendance and there was only a slight teacher behavioral change, from leaning next to the counter

76 Haydon and Kroeger

and commenting on negative student behaviors to walking around, interacting, and commenting on positive student behaviors.

A unique feature of the present study is that the interven- tion was implemented in an urban high school setting. High school settings can provide unique challenges where it may be more difficult for teachers to engage in an array of proac- tive behavioral support procedures. High schools are complex organizations and generally have multiple administrators, large numbers of personnel and students. Other challenges at the secondary level include students struggling with expecta- tions of learning tasks, reading levels and textbook readabil- ity, including the introduction of significant levels of new vocabulary and content specific academic language (Armbruster & Anderson, 1988; Bean, Zigmond, & Hartman, 1994; Groves, 1995; Kinder, Bursuck, & Epstein, 1992).

When considering the results of this study, several limita- tions must be noted. First, the study was conducted in one ninth-grade classroom with three teachers in an urban high school. Therefore, the positive results of the intervention may be unique to this setting and may not generalize to other high schools. Furthermore, the teachers in this study self-identified the need for assistance and actively took steps to recruit uni- versity support. The fact that the teachers volunteered could have inflated the treatment adherence data. However, the positive effects of the intervention on student problem behav- ior give some indication that the intervention may be effective in other high schools. Third, because of teachers’ preferences, a full withdrawal of the intervention was not possible; thus, threats to internal validity could not be ruled out (Campbell & Skinner, 2004). Even so, data in the brief withdrawal probe indicate high rates of student problem behavior. A fourth limitation of this study was that the researchers started the intervention when student baseline problem behavior in the afternoon group was improving (see Figure 1); thus, we can- not be confident that the intervention was responsible for the improvement. A third baseline condition could have addressed this limitation and demonstrated stronger experi- mental control (Boden, Ennis, & Jolivette, 2012; Hoyle, Mar- shall, & Yell, 2011). Fifth, because the teachers knew they were being observed, the scores on the treatment integrity checklists could have been inflated (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Last, because researchers completed the checklists, potential observer effects should be noted.

Future research should include continued analyses to determine the extent to which individual components of active supervision (moving, interacting, scanning), precorrec- tion, explicit timing, and performance feedback contribute to the observed changes in student and school staff behavior. In particular, the positive and negative nature of these interac- tions should be investigated. Future research could examine the extent to which these components are necessary under various environments (e.g., classroom, hallway, cafeteria, recess). Future studies could include a more robust with- drawal phase. However, once teachers implement an effective practice they are understandably hesitant to remove it even for a short time. Future research could also investigate the effects of various components on reduced transition time and increased academic learning time.

Teachers may use active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing as one method to improve student-teacher interactions. Rather than reprimanding students, teachers can create environments where little to no reprimands are necessary. As a replacement behavior teachers can recognize positive behavior and provide feedback in the form of behav- ior specific praise statements(Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oli- ver, & Wehby, 2010). Furthermore, the combination of the strategies may also help teachers prevent serious behavior from escalating by providing reminders of classroom rules and expectations. For example, after a tough incident before class such as a fight in the hallway (as was the case in this study) teachers could provide reminders “Stay with the rou- tine” and then provide feedback, “Great recovery.”

Taken together, the present results document the feasibil- ity and effectiveness of implementing active supervision, pre- correction, and an explicit timing procedure during two transition periods in a ninth-grade classroom in an urban high school. Data indicated that student problem behaviors in the morning and afternoon sessions continued below base- line. The positive social validity ratings by teachers and sus- tained use give some indication of a good contextual fit because the teachers made only slight behavior changes to successfully implement the intervention.

Author Notes

Todd Haydon is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati. His current research interests are effective teach- ing practices, students with behavioral disorders, and positive behavior and supports.

Stephen D. Kroeger is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati. His current research interests are racial aware- ness development with prospective teachers as well as collab- oration across teacher preparation programs.

References

Ahearn, W. H. (2010). Sidman on aversive control. Behavior and Philos- ophy, 38, 149–151.

Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting “consider- ate” content area textbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 47–52.

Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000). Teachers’ use of approval and dis- approval in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 20, 431–446.

Bean, R. M., Zigmond, N., & Hartman, D. K. (1994). Adapted use of social studies textbooks in elementary classrooms: Views of class- room teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 216–226.

Boden, L. J., Ennis, R. P., & Jolivette, K. (2012). Implementing Check In/Check Out for students with intellectual disability in self-con- tained classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 32–39.

Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Ander- son-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B., . . . Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 131–145.

Campbell, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Combining precorrection with an interdependent group contingency program to decrease transition times: An investigation of the timely transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 11–27.

Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing 77

Clark, D., & Linn, M.C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 451–493.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, III, R. H., & Lee, Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344–363.

DeMeo, W. (2012). School-wide positive school culture implementation audit. Empowering Education: Consultation and Systems Support Services, LLC. Retrieved from http://empoweringeducation.net/ services/program-development-evaluation

De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor behavioral incidents in a sixth-grade gen- eral education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255–267.

Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide pos- itive behavior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 177–185.

Franzen, K., & Kamps, D. (2008). The utilization and effects of positive behavior support strategies on an urban school playground. Jour- nal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 150–161.

Groves, F. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary sci- ence textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 231–235.

Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 115–125.

Haydon, T., DeGreg, J., Maheady, L., & Hunter, W. C. (2012). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behav- iors in a middle school classroom. Journal of Evidence-Based Prac- tices for Schools, 1, 81–97.

Hoyle, C. G., Marshall, K. J., & Yell, M. L. (2011). Positive behavior supports: Tier 2 interventions in middle schools. Preventing School Failure, 55, 164–170.

Johnson-Gros, K. N., Lyons, E. A., & Griffin, J. R. (2008). Active supervision: An intervention to reduce high school tardiness. Edu- cation and Treatment of Children, 31, 39–53.

Kazdin, A. E., & Klock, J. (1973). The effect of nonverbal teacher approval on student attentive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 643–654.

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Bos- ton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kinder, D., Bursuck, W. D., & Epstein, M. H. (1992). An evaluation of history textbooks. Journal of Special Education, 25, 472–291.

Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of precorrection and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary stu- dents. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 109–121.

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139–150.

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (2001). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1, 11–25.

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D., & Colvin, G. (1995). The effects of a peer medi- ated self-evaluation procedure on the recess behavior of students with behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 117–126.

Oswald, K., Safran, S., & Johanson, G. (2005). Preventing trouble: Making schools safer places using positive behavior supports. Edu- cation and Treatment of Children, 28, 265–278.

Partin, T. C., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure, 54, 172–178.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Renihan, F. I., & Renihan, P. J. (1995). Responsive high schools: Struc- turing success for the at risk student. High School Journal, 79, 1–15.

Rhodes, V., Stevens, D., & Hemmings, A. (2011). Creating positive cul- ture in a new urban high school. High School Journal, 94, 82–94.

Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, S. H., Jackson, S., McNeill, S., Smith, T., & Jackson, B. (2002). The 1- minute explicit timing intervention: The influence of mathematics problem difficulty. Journal of Instruc- tional Psychology, 29, 305–311.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. (2011). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary con- tent? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 437–449.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teach- ing in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.

Sidman, M. (2001). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc.

Siskin, L. (1994). Realm of knowledge: Academic departments in second- ary schools. Washington, DC: Falmer.

Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implemen- tation of precorrection and praise statements in Head Start class- rooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 280–290.

Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., . . . Hall, S. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99–112.

Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., & Armstrong, M. (1968). Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher’s behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 35–45.

Van Houten, R., Nau, P.A., MacKenzie-Keating, S. E., Sameoto, D., & Colavecchia, B. (1982). An analysis of some variables influencing the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy- sis, 15, 65–83.

Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., Mccart, A., Turnbull, A. H., & Sailor, W. (2003). Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 80–91.

Yarbrough, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Lee, Y. J., & Lemmons, C. (2004). Decreasing transition times in a second grade classroom: Scientific support for the timely transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 85–107.

78 Haydon and Kroeger