Reading Assignment

Whether teaching in a general educa- tion classroom or in a specialized pro- gram for students with special needs, teachers face a variety of classroom behaviors that can detract from the learning process. At times, they may spend so much time with a few stu- dents who exhibit disruptive and off- task behaviors that they are less avail- able for academic instruction with all students.

The research literature provides numerous examples of effective teach- ing strategies that can help teachers address problem behavior in their classrooms. These strategies include manipulating antecedents (i.e., environ- mental factors that are likely to increase a behavior), such as increas- ing opportunities to respond to aca- demic requests (OTRs), and manipulat- ing consequences (i.e., environmental factors that maintain behaviors), such as providing contingent praise. Unfor- tunately, some teachers are not skilled at employing these effective teaching tools in their classrooms. Consider the case scenarios “A Classroom That Works” and “A Classroom With Chal- lenges.”

Creating a Positive Climate Through Classwide Interventions

Classrooms are dynamic environments in which teachers and students engage in ongoing reciprocal interactions throughout the school day. As indicat- ed in both case scenarios, classes that include classwide effective intervention practices are likely to have positive teacher–student interactions and to promote student learning and engage- ment while minimizing problem behav- iors. However, when classwide inter- ventions are missing from a classroom, teacher–student interactions are likely to become reactively negative (and per- haps even coercive). Such interactions interfere with learning and create a chaotic and aversive classroom atmos- phere.

Classwide interventions are a group of research-based effective teaching strategies used positively and preven- tively to promote and reinforce social and behavioral competence in students while minimizing problem behaviors (Farmer et al., 2006). Classwide inter- ventions do not represent a single type

of intervention; instead, they include a combination of effective behavior man- agement practices that have a long his- tory in our field, such as using contin- gent and frequent praise, providing OTRs, and applying classroom rules.

Classwide Interventions: Universal Classroom Tools for Effective Instruction Teachers should consider the following classwide interventions when imple- menting positive behavior supports:

• Using close supervision and moni- toring.

• Establishing and teaching classroom rules.

• Increasing OTRs.

• Increasing contingent praise.

• Providing feedback and error correc- tion and monitoring progress.

• Implementing the good behavior game (GBG).

Close Supervision and Monitoring

Close supervision and monitoring gen- erally means that the teacher has active, frequent, and regular engage-

24 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

T E A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

on a l C h il d re

n ,

V o l. 4

0, N

o .

6, p

p .

24 -3

0. C

o p yr

ig h t

20 08

C E C

.

Classwide Interventions

Effective Instruction Makes a Difference

Maureen A. Conroy

Kevin S. Sutherland

Angela L. Snyder

Samantha Marsh

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

ment with students. These engage- ments may include placing students close to the teacher, scanning and moving frequently, initiating and recip- rocating purposeful interactions, and providing opportunities for direct instruction and feedback (Colvin, Sugai, & Patching, 1993). When teach- ers are in proximity to students and monitor students’ learning and behav- ior, they can prevent problem behav- iors before they occur and can redirect them before they escalate. For example, when a teacher is near a student who is becoming frustrated and is struggling with a task, the teacher can intervene quickly and provide academic and behavior supports before a problem behavior occurs.

Implementing close supervision and monitoring may require developing a plan in collaboration with other adults or paraprofessionals in the classroom. For example, a classroom teacher may implement a zone-monitoring and supervision plan during an instruction- al time when many students need assistance and engage in problem behaviors. With a zone-monitoring

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN � JULY/AUG 2008 25

plan, adults in the classroom are at strategic locations throughout the class- room, and each of them monitors a small number of students. This system

enables adults to closely supervise and monitor students and facilitates stu- dents’ access to teacher assistance.

Considerable evidence supports the use of close supervision and monitoring as a classwide intervention. For exam- ple, research has documented that close

supervision and monitoring result in decreases in disruptive behavior across various educational settings, including

classroom instruction (DePry & Sugai, 2002); recess (Lewis, Powers, Kelk, & Newcomer, 2002); and transition time (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997).

Classroom Rules

The development and implementation of classroom rules is another universal classwide intervention that influences the learning environment for all stu- dents. Classroom rules serve as behav- ioral expectations that create an organ- ized and productive learning environ- ment for students and teachers by pro- moting appropriate classroom behav- iors. Without classroom rules, such problem behaviors as aggression and disruption are more likely (Walker, Col- vin, & Ramsey, 1995). Research has indicated that effective teachers do the following:

• Establish rules for expected behav- ior at the beginning of the year.

• Systematically teach the rules to the students.

• Monitor and reward students’ com- pliance with the rules.

• Consistently apply consequences to rule violations (Anderson, Evertson, & Emmer, 1980; Evertson & Emmer, 1982).

Opportunities to Respond (OTRs)

Increasing instructional pacing through OTRs is a questioning, prompting, or cueing technique that begins a learn- ing trial (e.g., “What number comes after 10?”). This technique helps increase the number of active child responses, which in turn can result in increases in correct responses and engagement of all students in the classroom (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984). Although OTRs vary in type and characteristics (e.g., choral responses, individual responses, and visual or auditory cuing), all types of OTRs generally include the following components:

• Increasing rates of teacher instruc- tional talk that includes repeated verbal, visual, or verbal and visual types of prompts for responding.

• Presenting information in a manner that increases student correct

26 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Case Scenario: A Classroom That Works

Collaboration between special and general education teachers in the class- room can be beneficial to students with and without special needs, especially when the collaboration works seamlessly. Ms. Harman and Ms. Easley teach in an urban elementary school. At the beginning of the school year, they worked collaboratively with their students to develop classroom rules that both special and general education students could follow and to identify spe- cific procedures, such as turning in homework and lining up to go to lunch, for regular classroom activities. In addition, they spent a significant amount of time praising their students not just for work done correctly but also for good attempts.

Ms. Harman and Ms. Easley, who continuously sought ways to improve their teaching and help their students learn, took part in an applied research project that facilitated positive changes in their instructional language and methods. They incorporated a group behavior management system called the good behavior game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolfe, 1969) into their instructional time.

Ms. Hammond and Ms. Easley audiotaped an instructional lesson and graphed the numbers of opportunities to respond (OTRs) that they provided, as well as the number of times that they praised their students during the lesson. Through this self-evaluation of their instructional language, they developed a greater awareness of the frequency with which they provided their students with OTRs to instructional requests and of the frequency of their praise statements. Using these self-management procedures enabled Ms. Harman and Ms. Easley to increase the number of OTRs from only 10 per 15 minutes to almost 6 per minute, approximating the recommendations of the Council for Exceptional Children (1987). This change in the OTR rate encouraged student engagement and led to decreased undesirable behavior. In addition, the teachers increased their rate of praise from only 2 per 15 minutes to almost 1 per minute, resulting in further improvements in the behavior of the students. Making small changes in the ways that they instructed their students and rewarding their students more often for work attempted resulted in an improved positive classroom atmosphere and an increase in students’ effort.

Classroom rules serve as behavioral expectations that create an organized and productive learning environment for students and

teachers by promoting appropriate classroom behaviors.

responding (e.g., “This is an A. What letter is this?”).

• Implementing individualized instructional modifications appropri- ate for the students’ level of func- tioning, along with frequent checks for understanding and accuracy.

• Using repeated instructional prompting that incorporates wait time to allow students to respond.

• Providing corrective feedback, error correction, and progress monitoring (Stichter & Lewis, 2006).

When researchers increase rates of OTR, they have found increases in on- task student behavior and in correct responses, as well as fewer disruptive behaviors by students (Brophy & Good, 1986; Carnine, 1976; Greenwood et al., 1984; Sutherland, Gunter, & Alder, 2003). Students who are engaged in learning are less likely to demonstrate problem behaviors (Sutherland et al.) and more likely to engage in active and correct responses (Sutherland & Snyder, 2007).

Contingent Praise

“Catch ’em being good” is a familiar strategy to most teachers. Although many teachers are aware of the power- ful effects of praise, they often under- use it. Fortunately, training can help teachers learn to use praise as a rein- forcer. Praise is a generalized reinforcer and has a rich research base that demonstrates its effectiveness in increasing social and behavioral com- petence in students (Alber, Heward, & Hippler, 1999; Sutherland, 2000). Effective praise is specific and contin- gent (Sutherland). Specific praise occurs when the teacher specifies the target behavior reinforced within the praise statement (e.g., “Good, you stayed in your seat during the entire reading session”). Praise is contingent when it is a consequence for a specific expected behavior, such as completing an assigned task, following a teacher’s instruction, or engaging in appropriate social behavior.

Researchers have found that when teachers increase their use of specific and contingent praise, improvement

occurs in the number of correct responses by students, task engage- ment, words read correctly per minute, problems completed, and student engagement (Kirby & Shields, 1972; Luiselli & Downing, 1980; Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000). In general, teachers should offer praise statements more often than corrective statements. For example, Good and Grouws (1977) recommend that teachers strive to achieve and maintain a ratio of 4 or 5 positive statements to 1 corrective statement.

Feedback, Error Correction, and Progress Monitoring

Providing students with feedback rela- tive to their behavior and performance level is another important classwide intervention. When used effectively, feedback should

• Help students learn the correct response in a timely way.

• Be specific to students’ skill and knowledge levels.

• Occur following a student error (i.e., error correction).

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN � JULY/AUG 2008 27

Case Scenario: A Classroom With Challenges Ms. Walters taught 12 students, whose grade levels ranged from second grade to fifth grade, in an urban elementary school. The students had a variety of disabilities—for example, emotional disorders (ED), learning disabilities (LD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

As a group, these students presented many classroom challenges. Each day, Ms. Walters greeted her students by saying “Good morning, class,” only to be confronted by disruptive student talk, papers flying at her, and stu- dents who were not in their assigned seats. Along with her paraprofessional, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Walters spent the first 45 minutes of every day just trying to get her students to sit down, hand in their homework, and attend to lan- guage arts, the first lesson of the day. She had very few doable procedures in place for daily tasks, and most of the students regularly ignored classroom rules. Ms. Walters had assigned students to small groups on the basis of their skill levels; however, she spent a tremendous amount of time correcting disruptive students, who would provoke others. Needless to say, she was frustrated and often raised her voice at her students in an effort to persuade them to pay attention to her. She knew that what she was doing was not working, but she and her students were caught in a negative, coercive inter- action cycle.

Discouraged and ready to quit before she had even finished her first year, Ms. Walters agreed to have a behavioral consultant come into her classroom to help her with classroom management. The consultant worked with Ms. Walters to arrange her classroom so that all students could see her and the blackboard. The consultant and Ms. Walters developed procedures for enter- ing the classroom in the morning (e.g., routines for putting away backpacks and homework), and Ms. Walters distributed students with disruptive behav- ior across the small groups in the classroom. As a reward for good behavior, she assigned a “daily leader” to each group for the next day.

The consultant also trained the paraprofessional to step in when Ms. Walters was having difficulty with a particular student and engage other stu- dents in small-group or individualized work so that Ms. Walters was not responsible for the whole class. After Ms. Walters received this support, her teaching strategies improved, and she felt and looked more competent and effective in her ability to manage her students’ behavior and promote their learning. Students responded to her effective teaching practices; and as a result, they were more engaged. Although more growth was necessary, the classwide atmosphere improved, and everyone had hope for a better school year.

Error correction procedures begin with the teacher’s providing a correc- tive model (e.g., “Remember that to determine the area of a square or rec- tangle, multiply length times width”). This corrective model precedes the student’s correct response, which the student should base on the teacher’s model (e.g., “If the length of a rectan- gle is 5 feet and its width is 4 feet, I multiply length by width to obtain a result of 20 square feet.”). Corrective feedback should accompany continu- ous monitoring of the student’s aca- demic and/or social behavior perform- ance (e.g., curriculum-based measure- ment), as well as accurate and consis- tently presented instruction and inter- ventions (i.e., fidelity of implementa- tion).

Effective feedback can take many forms (e.g., answering questions, checking seatwork, and responding directly), and researchers have linked it positively to student engagement and achievement (Fisher et al., 1980). Similarly, when teachers use error cor- rection, increases occur in academic performance (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993; Barbetta & Heward, 1993) and correct responses (Bangert- Downs, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991).

Good Behavior Game (GBG)

The GBG is a group contingency designed to

• Improve the teacher’s ability to define tasks, set rules, and disci- pline students.

• Reduce disruptive, aggressive, off- task, and shy behaviors in elemen- tary-age children.

• Promote good behavior by reward- ing teams that do not exceed mal- adaptive behavior standards.

The teacher begins the GBG by assign- ing each student in the class to a team and selecting team leaders. The teacher and students read and review the class- room rules, and the teacher informs students that each rule violation results immediately in a check mark on the blackboard next to the team’s name. In addition, the teacher tells the students that he or she will state the rule that a

student has violated, identify the stu- dent who has violated the rule, and praise the other teams for adhering to the rules. At the end of an instructional session, the teacher and students review the number of check marks per team, repeat the preset criteria for win- ning the game, and announce the win- ning team or teams. Team leaders then hand out rewards to winning team members (e.g., stamps, stickers, or “I did it” badges), and the nonwinning teams must stay in their seats and con- tinue to engage in their lesson. Because teams try to beat the preset limit, more than one—or even all— teams can win.

Researchers initially associated the GBG with reduced rates of out-of-seat and talking-out behaviors of fourth-

grade students (Barrish et al., 1969). Over the next 35 years, this finding led to a line of research that has docu- mented the effectiveness of the GBG with students of varying ages and dis- abilities across many different settings. For example, Dolan and colleagues (1993) examined the effect of the GBG on first graders’ disruptive classroom behaviors and found that teacher rat- ings of aggressive and shy behavior were significantly lower in the spring of the first grade than in the fall. In sum, the GBG is a good example of a classwide intervention that can have an effect on the behavior—and ulti- mately, on the learning—of many stu- dents.

Where Do You Begin? Steps for Creating a Positive Classroom Atmosphere Creating a positive classroom environ- ment through implementing classwide interventions does not solve all class-

room problem behaviors overnight. As illustrated in the classroom of Ms. Harman and Ms. Easley in “Case Scenario: A Classroom That Works,” implementing these effective teaching practices requires up-front planning and ongoing problem solving. In addi- tion, teachers must implement these practices efficiently and correctly (i.e., with fidelity) and individualize the practices to make them appropriate for unique aspects of their classrooms. For example, classroom rules may vary from classroom to classroom, depend- ing on the expectations and ability lev- els of the students. Similarly, the teacher may implement close supervi- sion and monitoring differently depending on the classroom size and layout. Like other behavior support

strategies, implementing classwide interventions requires ongoing moni- toring and evaluation of the use and effectiveness of these strategies. Thus, teachers will want to monitor their implementation of targeted classwide strategies and student outcomes. Ms. Harman and Ms. Easley demonstrated that collecting data on their own teaching behaviors helped them improve their skills. Additionally, by collecting data on their students’ behavior, they obtained enough evi- dence to know that the practices were working.

Finally, as illustrated by the exam- ple of Ms. Walters in “Case Scenario: A Classroom With Challenges,” teachers sometimes need a person outside their classroom to teach them classwide interventions and help them discover how to implement these strategies in their classrooms. Teachers may want to begin by assessing their current use of classwide interventions (see Table 1)

28 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

When teachers systematically implement classwide interventions, teacher–student interactions become more

positive, students are more engaged, and teachers are able to focus on teaching appropriate behaviors.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN � JULY/AUG 2008 29

Table 1. Universal Classwide Interventions

Classwide Interventions

What Are You Currently Doing? What Do You Want to Change to Improve Your Instruction?

Close supervision and monitoring

Are students in proximity to you?

Can you visually monitor all the students in your classroom?

Do you actively engage with your students?

Do students in your classroom have quick and efficient access to teacher assistance?

Is the adult–student ratio sufficient to provide close supervision and monitoring?

During which instructional time will you implement closer supervision and monitoring?

What staff will you involve in close supervision and monitoring?

How will you implement close supervision and monitoring?

How will you monitor the effectiveness of close supervision and monitoring?

Classroom rules

Do you have classroom rules?

Did you develop your classroom rules in collaboration with your students?

Do your students know the classroom rules, and are they able to perform them?

Do you communicate classroom rules to your students in an effective and efficient manner?

Do adults in the classroom contingently and regularly provide reinforcement to students for adhering to the rules?

Do you apply consequences consistently when students break classroom rules?

Do you and your students implement the classroom rules effectively?

Do you need to rewrite or adapt your classroom rules?

How will you communicate your classroom rules to your students?

How will you monitor whether the rules are working?

How will you provide positive reinforcement to students for complying with the rules?

What will you do if students do not comply?

Opportunities to respond (OTRs)

Do you use various types of OTRs in your classroom (e.g., choral, individual)?

Do you provide students with an adequate rate of OTRs?

What type of instructional delivery model do you use (direct, whole group, small group, etc.)?

Can you increase the number of OTRs for your students?

Can you “switch up” the delivery method you use to offer more OTRs?

How can you use more direct instruction?

Contingent praise

Do you regularly praise students for answering correctly?

Do you praise students for an attempt to answer, even if it is not correct?

Are you specific about what you are praising a student for (rather than simply “good girl” or “good boy”)?

Do you praise students for desirable social behavior?

Can you increase your positive interactions with your students?

Can you increase your use of specific praise statements?

Can you increase your use of contingent praise?

Can you find reasons to praise all students in your class more frequently than you reprimand them?

and systematically identifying and tar- geting specific classwide interventions for classroom application.

Final Thoughts When teachers systematically imple- ment classwide interventions, teacher– student interactions become more posi- tive, students are more engaged, and teachers are able to focus on teaching appropriate behaviors—all these result in a positive classroom environment that promotes student learning and engagement.

References Alber, S. R., Heward, W. L., & Hippler, B. J.

(1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to recruit posi- tive teacher attention. Exceptional Child- ren, 65, 253–270.

Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. (1980). Dimensions in classroom man- agement derived from recent research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12, 343–356.

Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instruc- tional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.

Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and general- ization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111–119.

Barbetta, P. M., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of geography facts by ele- mentary students with learning disabili- ties. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 217–233.

Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolfe, M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group conse- quences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.

Brophy, J. H., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., & Lee, Y. (1997). Using active supervision and pre- correction to improve transition behav-

iors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344–363.

Colvin, G. Sugai, G., & Patching, W. (1993). Precorrection: An instructional approach for managing predictable problem behav- iors. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 143–150.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1987). Academy for effective instruction: Working with mildly handicapped stu- dents. Reston, VA: Author.

DePry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Jour- nal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255–267.

Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., et al. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preven- tive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317–345.

Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the year in junior high classes. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 74, 485-498.

Farmer, T. W., Goforth, J., Hives, J., Aaron, A., Hunter, F., & Sgmatto, A. (2006). Competence enhancement behavior man- agement. Preventing School Failure, 50, 39–44.

Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieber- man (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Educa- tion.

Good, T., & Grouws, D. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 49–54.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Col- umbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Kirby, F. D., & Shields, F. (1972). Modifica- tion of arithmetic response rate and attending behavior in a seventh-grade student. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 79–84.

Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L. (2002). Reducing prob- lem behaviors on the playground: An investigation of the application of school-wide positive behavior and sup- ports. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 181–190.

Luiselli, J. K., & Downing, J. N. (1980). Improving a student’s arithmetic per-

formance using feedback and reinforce- ment procedures. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 3, 45–49.

Stichter, J., & Lewis, T. J. (2006). Classroom assessment: Targeting variables to improve instruction through a multi-level eco-behavioral model. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Clinician’s handbook of child behavioral assessment (pp. 569–586). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Sutherland, K. S. (2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and stu- dents with emotional/behavioral disor- ders. Preventing School Failure, 44, 110–115.

Sutherland, K. S., Gunter, P. L., & Alder, N. (2003). The effect of varying rates of OTR on the classroom behavior of stu- dents with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.

Sutherland, K. S., & Snyder, A. (2007). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring and self-graphing on reading fluency and classroom behavior of middle school students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 103–118.

Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Cope- land, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emo- tional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 2–8, 26.

Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. New York: Brooks/Cole.

Maureen A. Conroy (CEC VA Federation), Professor; Kevin S. Sutherland (CEC VA Federation), Associate Professor; Angela L. Snyder (CEC VA Federation), Collateral Assistant Professor; and Samantha Marsh (CEC VA Federation), Doctoral Student, Department of Special Education and Disability Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Address correspondence to Maureen A. Conroy, Department of Special Education and Disability Policy, Virginia Common- wealth University, 1015 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, VA 23284 (e-mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 24–30.

Copyright 2008 CEC.

30 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN