Improving Teacher Fidelity when Implementing PBS Procedures:

Coaching to Build Sustainability in our Schools

Keri S. Bethune, Ph.D., BCBA-DJames Madison University

Introduction

• Research has shown that the prevalence of challenging behaviors is higher among individuals with disabilities compared to challenging behaviors of their typically developing peers (Sigafoos, Arthur, & O’Reilly, 2003).• More specifically, individuals with autism spectrum

disorders (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) are more likely to exhibit self-injurious behavior and stereotypic behaviors than individuals with ID alone (Rojahn et al., 2010).

Introduction

• Some of the negatives effects of challenging behavior for students include

(a)failure to reach their academic potential,(b)increased school suspensions and increased school

absences,(c)higher rates of peer rejection accompanied by a lack

of an appropriate social network,(d)disruption of other students’ learning, and(e)an increase in the time required for planning from

the entire educational team which negatively impacts the time teachers can spend on academic planning (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2006).

Introduction

• FBAs and resulting function-based interventions have been more successful in reducing challenging behaviors than non-function-based interventions (Filter & Horner, 2009; Mustian, 2010; Umbreit et al., 2007). • Although conducting FBAs and implementing

function-based interventions are effective in reducing challenging behavior among students with disabilities, and are federally mandated, many school personnel fail to implement this process with the fidelity needed to achieve successful outcomes (Blood & Neel, 2007; Scott, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005).

Introduction

• Coaching is when an initial training occurs and afterwards an expert in the targeted area provides individualized feedback and support to help teachers implement and sustain the new teaching behaviors (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).

• The purpose is to increase teachers’ accuracy when implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).

• Throughout the coaching process, the expert prompts the teacher to use the targeted teaching behavior in an actual teaching situation and provides immediate feedback on his or her performance (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).

Introduction

• Coaching can be divided into a number of types including supervisory coaching, side-by-side coaching, and bug-in-ear coaching.

• Side-by-side coaching is when an expert, but not a direct supervisor, observes the teacher implementing the target practice, provides feedback in vivo, and may even model the practice with the students while the teacher observes (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).

Introduction

• Coaching has been used to increase teachers’ accuracy when implementing evidence based practices (EBPs) and to have promising results towards improved student achievement (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).• Coaching has been effective in increasing teacher accuracy

in implementation of • classwide positive behavior supports (PBS; Filcheck, McNeil, Greco, &

Bernard, 2004), • reading interventions (Jager, Reezigt, & Creemers, 2002; Kohler, Ezell, &

Paluselli, 1999; Linguaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Morgan et al., 1994),

• explicit math instruction (Kretlow, Cooke, & Wood, 2011; Kretlow, Wood, & Cooke, 2011), and

• teacher praise in an RTI model (Myers, Simonsen, & Sugai, 2011).

Coaching Teachers on Function-Based Interventions

Introduction

Purpose of the Study

• To evaluate the effects of coaching on special education teachers’ implementation of function-based interventions with students with severe disabilities

Research Questions

• What are the effects of coaching on special education teachers’ accuracy of implementation of function-based interventions?

• What is the effect of coaching on teachers’ ability to generalize a function-based intervention (developed using the same process) to a second identified challenging behavior and/or setting with their students?

Research Questions

• To what extent do students’ challenging behaviors decrease and replacement behaviors increase as teachers implement function-based interventions with increasing fidelity?

• Do teachers and administrators find the use of coaching appropriate and efficient?

Method

• Participants & Setting• Elementary school in rural county in the

southeastern US• 4 teacher/student pairs • Student inclusion criteria • received special education services• displayed challenging behavior that interfered

with participation in school activities

Method

• Participants & Setting• Teacher inclusion criteria • Held a current North Carolina teaching license in

special education• Taught at least one student receiving special

education services• Agreed to attend a one day workshop on FBA• Had not previously been involved in a

coaching/mentoring program• Was not a Board Certified Behavior Analyst or a

Board Certified Associate Behavior Analyst

Method

Demographic InformationTeacher Student Age Disability Problem Behavior

Mrs. Yacht

Susan 4 trisomy 9 mosaicism

taking glasses off

Mrs. Williams

Karla 8 Down syndrome

noncompliance

Mr. Carlisle

Michael 5 autism tantrum

Mrs. Green

Jack 10 autism off task behavior

Method

• Dependent Measures• Teachers• Percent accuracy of teacher implementation of the

function-based intervention as measured by the procedural fidelity checklist

• Students• Students’ problem behavior (frequency or percent

interval)• Students’ replacement behavior (frequency or percent

interval)• Social Validity Questionnaire

Method

Research Design•Teachers - delayed multiple baseline across participants• Delayed multiple was used because of practical difficulties

encountered after the beginning of student data collection• Delayed multiple baselines use the same experimental logic as

standard multiple baselines with the exception that participants enter the baseline phase in a staggered fashion (Cooper et al., 2007)• Note: Although the terms are sometimes used synonymously,

the delayed multiple baseline used in this study is not the same as a non-concurrent multiple baseline as described by Watson and Workman (1981) and Gast (2010)

Method

Research Design

•Students - multiple baseline across participants’ design•Phase changes were dependent on teacher behavior

Method

General Procedures•Initial observation• General observations• Collect ABC data

•Inservice Training (workshop)• One-day, six hour inservice• First half of the day provided information regarding

function-based interventions in a PowerPoint format• Second half of the day moved to a workshop format where

the researcher worked with the participants to complete an FBA and develop function-based interventions for their paired students

Method

General Procedures• Student baseline• Data were taken on the frequency or percent intervals of

the student challenging and replacement behavior• Teachers did not start function-based interventions• 10 min sessions

• Functional Analysis• Researcher conducted a brief alternating treatments design

to confirm the hypothesis regarding the function of each student’s problem behavior• 4 sessions, five min per session

Method

General Procedures• Teacher baseline • Teachers implemented function-based

interventions during the same activity•Researcher provided no prompting or

support•10 min sessions

Method

General Procedures• Coaching• Researcher provided side-by-side coaching with

the teacher as they worked with the target student during the identified task• After coaching , the researcher observed the

teacher implementing the same task/activity and scored the teacher accuracy of implementation and student behaviors• Once teachers had a minimum of 90% accuracy for

two consecutive days no more coaching sessions were implemented.

Method

General Procedures• Generalization• Generalization was measured by observing the teacher

work with the same student during a different activity• 10 min sessions

• Maintenance • Maintenance data were collected once per week until all

participants had completed coaching, then again after two and a half weeks

• Data Analysis• Visual inspection of graphed data

Method

• Interobserver reliability was conducted on 32.2% of teacher sessions and 31.3% of student sessions distributed evenly across phases. • Averaged 100% for teachers’ accuracy of

implementation of function-based interventions• Averaged 99.7% (range 90% through 100%) for

student behavior

• Fidelity was conducted on 50% of coaching sessions and averaged 100%.

Method

• Social validity questionnaire • Teacher survey (nine questions) and psychologist

survey (eight questions) focused on• If coaching was an effective method to improve teachers’

implementation of function-based intervention• If coaching was a feasible method to improve teachers’

implementation of function-based intervention• If coaching was a socially acceptable method for

improving teachers’ implementation of function-based intervention

TeacherResults

Teacher Results

Student FA Results

Student Intervention

Results

Teacher Survey Results

Teacher Survey Results

Psychologist Survey Results

Psychologist Survey Results

Discussion

• These results support the use coaching to improve teachers implementation of function-based interventions• Functional relationship• Teachers generalized skills across activities

• All problem behavior decreased during the study; however, some decreased during teacher baseline while others did not decrease until accurate implementation• A functional relationship exists between accurate

implementation of the function-based intervention and increases in the primary replacement behaviors

Discussion

• Limitations• Experimenter was not removed from FBA

process• Use of long intervals for data recording (30s

or 1 min) could lead to over/under estimation of behavior• Need for future replication• Use of researcher as coach

Discussion

• Implications for practice• Workshop trainings alone are insufficient ,

coaching was a quick and easy way to improve teacher implementation• Schools might be able to use their high scoring

teachers as coaches• Development of an ongoing FBA team within

schools may help teachers develop and review the results of FBAs and function-based interventions

Coaching on Tier One Implementation of SWPBS

School Wide Positive Behavior Supports

School wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS) is a proactive system of behavior support that is implemented in a tiered model in many elementary, middle, and high schools (Lewis & Sugai, 1999).

Introduction

• Teachers are expected to implement the basic components of the SWPBS plan, including;

a. teaching students expected behavior, b. appropriately reinforcing expected behavior, c. discouraging problem behavior, and d. accurately recording student data according to

the SWPBS system (Lewis & Sugai, 1999).

Introduction

• Benefits of SWPBS include reduced office referrals, improved school attendance, improved academic achievement, reduced rates of dropouts, and reduced referrals for special education services (Cregor, 2008). • SWPBS plans have been shown to be more

effective that punitive and reactionary approaches to student problem behavior (Lewis & Sugai, 1999).

Introduction

• SWPBS plans are being implemented by an increasing number of school districts, with the majority of states having adopted SWPBS models as part of their systems level school improvement plans (George & Kincaid, 2008).

• A key component when implementing SWPBS is the accuracy with which the plan is implemented.

Introduction

• When examining training and implementation protocols for SWPBS, the use of SWPBS coaches is a core component to used to promote the success of the SWPBS plan (Horner, Sugai, Smolkowski, Eber, Nakasato, Todd, & Esperanza, 2009; McIntosh, Filter, Nennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2009; & Stormont & Reinke, 2012).

• Some literature has made recommendations towards coaching and SWPBS (Scott & Martinek; 2006; Stormon & Reinke, 2012; TACPBIS, 2010).

Introduction

• At this time, little research has examined the training and effectiveness of the the coaches.

• Given the increase of SWPBS implementation in schools, and the importance of coaching to the success of the SWPBS plan, the effectiveness of coaching needs to be evaluated.

Introduction

• The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of coaching on teacher’s accuracy of SWPBS implementation. • The research questions include:

a) What is the effect of coaching on teachers accuracy of implementation of a SWPBS plan?; and

b) Do teachers and coaches find the coaching process effective, socially, acceptable, cost effective, and manageable?

Method

Setting•The study took place in elementary school in a small city in the eastern US•The school had recently undergone a change to a more comprehensive SWPBS plan•They already had a PBS Team that was providing training to the school through the use of faculty meetings and analyzing the data on a monthly basis •All teachers were implementing the SWPBS plan when the study began

Method

Participants •The coach was selected from the school’s SWPBS Team• The coach was also the instructional coach for the

school

•Four teacher participants were recruited by volunteering after the entire staff was presented the opportunity at a faculty meeting • Teachers had to be licensed teachers who taught

at least one group instructional lesson per day

Method

Design•Multiple baseline across participants designData Collection•Teacher’s implementation of SWPBS by the percentage of correctly implemented steps using a SWPBS•Fidelity data was collected on coaches ability to accurately implement the coaching procedure in the form of percentage of correctly implemented steps using a coaching fidelity checklist

Method

Intervention•The coach provided two side-by-side coaching to teacher participants, including: • A pre-coaching meeting• An individual coaching session• A feedback meeting

•Each participant got two coaching sessions

Method

General Procedures•Coach training• The coach was provided with the SWPBS plan and a

written description of the side-by-side coaching process and the teacher data sheet

• The researcher and the coach met to verbally review the information

• Then, the researcher and the coach watched videos of group classroom instruction. Both scored the teachers using the data sheet, and then compared data (80% minimum was acceptable)

• Finally, the coach modeled how to coach the teachers on the video

Method

General Procedures

•Baseline• No training was provided to teachers • Teachers were observed during a

scheduled 10 min observation daily (observation times were held constant from day to day)

Method

General Procedures•Coaching• The coaching intervention consisted of

three components a)one pre-coaching meeting, b)at least one side-by side coaching

session, andc)at least one feedback meeting

Method

General Procedures•Pre Coaching Meeting:• Coach provided the teacher with specific

feedback • The coach and the teacher planned the lesson for

the side-by-side coaching session • The coach modeled selected strategies for

targeted skills (such as the steps for providing reinforcement and error correction to students)• The coach supported the teacher by asking

guiding questions and providing feedback

Method

General Procedures•Side by side coaching:a)Model appropriate reinforcement of student behavior b)Model the consequences for rule-violating behavior, including error correction c)Immediately after modeling each skill, prompt the teacher to demonstrate the same skill; d)Model ways to engage students in active student responding; e)Give specific praise to the teacher at least once per skill; f)Provide non-evaluative corrective feedback when neededg)Provide another opportunity for the teacher to implement the skill after error correction

Method

General Procedures

•Post Coaching Meeting:

• Reinforce steps correctly implemented• Review steps where errors were made

Method

Inter-observer Agreement (IOA)

•A second observer simultaneously observed at least 30% of sessions •Agreement was calculated using interval by interval method

Number of agreements x 100 Number of agreements + disagreements

Method

Procedural Fidelity•The researcher used a checklist to collect data on the extent to which the coach adhered to the prescribed steps in the coaching process •Procedural fidelity was calculated by dividing the number of steps the researcher correctly performs by total number of steps

Method

• IOA was conducted in 41.4% of sessions and averaged 91.0% (range 80% - 100%)

• Fidelity was conducted for in 33.3% of sessions and averaged 100%

Method

Social Validity•Collected to assess the impact and feasibility of the coaching•Teachers were given a written questionnaire which included open-ended and closed (i.e., Likert) items evaluating each individual enhancement and training component•Coaches were provided a questionnaire regarding the impact and feasibility of coaching

Results

Teacher survey Results

Coach survey Results

Discussion

• There is a functional relationship between coaching and teacher’s improved performance on implementation checklists

• Data remained variable for most teachers throughout the study

Discussion

Limitations

•Overlapping data points between baseline and intervention

•Variability throughout study

•Need for future replication

Discussion

Implications for practice

•Inservice trainings continue to be insufficient to train teachers to implement SWPBS procedures

•Instructional coaches may be able to serve as behavioral coaches to train teachers to implement SWPBS plans

Practical Concerns

• How do districts identify candidates for coaches?• Is side-by-side coaching the most effective

coaching procedure? • Would bug-in-ear or supervisory coaching be more

effective?

• We still need more data on coaching teachers to implement tier 1 and tier 3 interventions, and data is needed on coaching to increase fidelity of implementation of tier 2 interventions.

Questions…

•Contact Information

• Keri Bethune• bethunks@jmu.edu