Pbs Research

1,031 views
961 views

Published on

PBS researches

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,031
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Organizational Changes: (collective commitment, collegial cohesion, and collegial influence) 1) Leadership (role of principal), 2) Collaboration among teachers Pedagogical Change: 1) quality teaching, 2) positive relationship between a teacher and students
  • Pbs Research

    1. 1. School-wide Positive Behavior Support in Urban School Setting Jeong Hoon Choi ( [email_address] ) Life Span Institute, Beach Center on Disability University of Kansas
    2. 2. A systematic approach to preventing or reducing challenging behaviors, and, eventually, to enhancing quality of life for individuals and support providers PBS is…. Quality of Life Enhancement
    3. 3. School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) is a systems approach to establishing the social culture needed for schools to achieve social and academic gains while minimizing problem behavior for all students . School-wide Positive Behavior Support Data Practice Systems Outcomes
    4. 4. School-wide Positive Behavior Support Less reactive, aversive, and exclusionary More engaging, responsive, preventive, and productive
    5. 5. Typical Schools Inner-City Schools Students with 0-1 referrals Students with 2-5 referrals Students with 6-14 referrals SWPBS in KCK Kansas City, Kansas 76% 15% 9% Students with 15+ referrals 31% 28% 23% 18%
    6. 6. Whole-School Approaches to Positive Behavioral Support and Access to the General Curriculum: A Model Demonstration Project Related Grants TA Center on PBIS Kan-Ed SWPBS in KCK
    7. 7. Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools Research #1
    8. 8. Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of SW PBS by comparing three elementary schools which had different implementation periods Schools School A- 3 years of SW PBS Implementation School B- 1 year of SW PBS Implementation School C- No SW PBS Implementation Outcomes Behavior Outcomes: ODRs, Suspensions, Tardies, Absences Academic Outcomes: Reading and math standardized test scores Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    9. 9. Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    10. 10. Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools SET Score Changes in School A and B
    11. 11. MANCOVA for Absences & Tardies Main effects: ‘ Years in PBS’ - F (16, 9917.331) = 10.702, p < .01 ‘ School difference’ - F (4, 3246) = 48.18, p < .01 Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    12. 12. Repeated Measure ANOVA School B: Reduction of Tardies & Absences 2003 and 2004 School C: Reduction of Absences 2003 and 2004 Regression with dummy coded variables No pattern difference between School A and School C Difference in absences between School A and School C - T (593) = -2.478, p < .05. Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    13. 13. Academic outcomes (2000-2003) <ul><li>ANOVA </li></ul><ul><li>Significant school difference - F (2, 532) = 33.832, p < .01 </li></ul><ul><li>School A’s reading and math are significantly higher than Schools B & C </li></ul>Repeated Measure ANOVA Significant improvement of Math in School A 2000 2001 2002 2003 Improvement of Reading in School A but not significant Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    14. 14. Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    15. 15. Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Above proficiency in math 29.4% 66% 47.8% 66.7% 90% 100% Above proficiency in reading 41.6% 53.7% 64.7% 67.4% 87.5% 87.5% Unsatisfactory in math 32.4% 14.9% 20.5% 9.5% 0% 0% Unsatisfactory in reading 27.1% 22% 12.5% 8.7% 3.1% 2.4
    16. 16. Findings from the study Are ODRs and suspension reliable measure for SW PBS outcomes? <ul><li>The study didn’t include baseline year (2000) of School A </li></ul><ul><li>Schools need time to reach consensus on ODRs </li></ul><ul><li>ODRs and suspension rates from top tertiary level students </li></ul>Academic improvement needs time Student’s engagement in learning – Absences and Tardies Research #1 Longitudinal Effects of School-Wide PBS on Academic Achievement and Student Behavior in Three Urban Elementary Schools
    17. 17. The Relationship between School-Wide PBS Status and School Personnel Perceptions of the Behavior Support System Research #2
    18. 18. Research #2 The Relationship between School-Wide PBS Status and School Personnel Perceptions of the Behavior Support System <ul><li>How well do the seven components of the SET, taken together, explain the variation in each behavior support system setting on the EBSSAS? </li></ul><ul><li>Are the seven components of the SET, taken together, significantly associated with each behavior support system setting on the EBSSAS? </li></ul><ul><li>What relationship does each component of the SET have with each behavior support system setting on the EBSSAS? </li></ul><ul><li>Which components of the SET have most effect on each behavior support system setting on the EBSSAS? </li></ul><ul><li>Are the relationships of each component of the SET with each behavior support system setting on the EBSSAS statistically significant, with all other components of the SET taken into account? </li></ul>Research Questions
    19. 19. EBSSAS 219 school staff from 7 schools - 3 elementary schools - 3 middle schools - 1 high school Schools and Participants PBS implementation 3 schools: 4 th year 1 school : 3 rd year 1 school : 2 nd year 2 schools: 1 st year Research #2 The Relationship between School-Wide PBS Status and School Personnel Perceptions of the Behavior Support System
    20. 20. <ul><li>Six SET sub-categories except ‘district support’ as a set significantly associated with EBSSAS across all behavior settings. </li></ul><ul><li>SW setting in EBSSAS is explained best by the six SET sub-categories </li></ul><ul><ul><li> SW: 53% Non-classroom: 30% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> Classroom: 21% Individual: 24.4% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Management category in SET was the most powerful regressor </li></ul>Findings from Multiple Regression 1 2 3 4 6 SW Non CL CL IND Research #2 The Relationship between School-Wide PBS Status and School Personnel Perceptions of the Behavior Support System 5
    21. 21. Findings from Simple Correlation No Significant correlation between ‘District Support’ & any setting in EBSSAS Research #2 The Relationship between School-Wide PBS Status and School Personnel Perceptions of the Behavior Support System SW Non-CL CL Ind. 1 st ongoing system for rewarding ongoing system for rewarding management system for responding 2 nd Behavior expectation taught Behavior expectation taught ongoing system for rewarding management 3 rd management management system for responding behavior expectation taught
    22. 22. Effectiveness Of The Continuum Of All Levels Of SWPBS In Classroom
    23. 23. Schoolwide PBS & Students with severe or chronic impeding behavior
    24. 24. Schoolwide PBS & Students with severe or chronic impeding behavior <ul><li>Students with severe and chronic impeding behavior (i.e., students with tertiary level support needs) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Layered support within SWPBS system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis on University level  Group support  Individualized tertiary level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Issues in tertiary level support </li></ul><ul><li>1. Issues in urban, inner-city, low-income area schools </li></ul>Typical Schools Inner-City Schools Students with 0-1 referrals Students with 2-5 referrals Students with 6-14 referrals Students with 15+ referrals
    25. 25. <ul><li>Issues in tertiary level support </li></ul><ul><li>2. SW PBS is a need-based approach </li></ul><ul><li>It takes time </li></ul><ul><li>Schools need all levels of support system </li></ul><ul><li>3. Difficulty in individual level support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Skills needed (for FBA and BIPs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time consuming </li></ul></ul><ul><li> Bifurcation between general and special education </li></ul>Schoolwide PBS & Students with severe or chronic impeding behavior
    26. 26. Research Purpose and Questions <ul><li>When… </li></ul><ul><li>General educators (i.e. a classroom teacher) understand student behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experiencing functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intervention plan (BIP) development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FBA and BIP processes need to be guidelines and educational resources for all school staff to understand student's behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students in other levels of support should be able to get quick and appropriate approaches when their behavior problems become serious </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Effective classroom management reflects functions of impeding behavior and it is incorporated with individual level PBS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More effectiveness when tertiary level support is empowered by positive classroom management system and SW system </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Research Phase 1 in School A Schoolwide Evaluation Tool Data for School A
    28. 28. Research Phase 1 in School A EBSSAS Results in School A SW level Non Classroom level Classroom level Individual level
    29. 29. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Interrupted Time Series Design Intervention (Classroom) Controlled (Music Room)
    30. 30. Research Phase 2 in School A & B A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Interrupted Counterbalanced Time Series Design Music Class School A Classroom School B A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual
    31. 31. Research Phase 1 in School A Individual Support Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Behavior Intervention Plan Individual Intervention Package • Self monitoring system to check task progress • Daily behavior monitoring with individual reinforcement • Social story reading • Modification of instruction style Classroom Support • Setting classroom behavior expectations in conjunction with SW PBS expectations • Establishing group reinforcement system • Teacher training on classroom discipline and behavior support skills Teacher Training on Classroom Management • Arrangement of physical environment • Time management and challenging behavior • Preventing problem through lesson management
    32. 32. Research Phase 1 in School A Dependent Variable Percentage of intervals engaged in inappropriate behavior • out of seat • talking out • physical contact • defiance • disruptive sound with objects Data Collection 15 second partial interval recording (10 sec. observation + 5 sec. recording) for 20 minutes – Interobserver agreement 82%
    33. 33. No Intervention Baseline Individual Individual & Classroom Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom
    34. 34. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom
    35. 35. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    36. 36. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual +Classroom Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    37. 37. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Meaningful Decrease
    38. 38. Research Phase 1 in School A A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom No Meaningful Decrease
    39. 39. Research Phase 2 in School A & B A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Interrupted Counterbalanced Time Series Design Music Class School A Classroom School B A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual
    40. 40. Research Phase 2 Schoolwide Evaluation Tool Data for School B
    41. 41. Research Phase 2 EBSSAS Results in School B SW level Non Classroom level Classroom level Individual level
    42. 42. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Math Class in School B) A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom 
    43. 43. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Math Class in School B) A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    44. 44. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Math Class in School B) A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    45. 45. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Math Class in School B) A Baseline B Individual BC Individual + Classroom Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    46. 46. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Music Class in School A) A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual
    47. 47. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Music Class in School A) A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    48. 48. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Music Class in School A) A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    49. 49. Research Phase 2 in School A &B (Music Class in School A) A Baseline C Classroom CB Classroom + Individual Meaningful Decrease Meaningful Decrease
    50. 50. <ul><ul><li>Importance of Universal and Classroom Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic and effective approaches to reduce impeding behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved behavior skills from the behavior support, however, did not transfer to the different school setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Classroom support itself was a strong and effective behavior support method effectively reducing the impeding behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Importance of balanced support system (continuum of all levels of support) </li></ul><ul><li>Combination of individual support and classroom support could maximize the effectiveness of behavior support on students with chronic or severe impeding behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance of balanced support </li></ul></ul>Major Findings
    51. 51. <ul><li>Difficulties in Individual Support </li></ul><ul><li>Teacherʼs application of behavior function acquired from FBA and BIP experience did not show sufficient effectiveness on the impeding behavior reduction; however… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>it helped teachers understand and find appropriate response to the studentʼsbehavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application of SWPBS in Urban inner-city setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Early screening </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Early access to secondary and tertiary level support </li></ul></ul>Major Findings
    52. 53. Schoolwide Applications Model : SAM
    53. 54. Designing Schoolwide Systems for Student Success Academic Instruction (with fidelity measures) Behavioral Instruction (with fidelity measures) <ul><li>Level 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Tertiary Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for individual students) </li></ul><ul><li>Wraparound Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Complex Multiple Life Domain </li></ul><ul><li>Functional Behavior Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>and Behavior Intervention Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for some students: at-risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Simple Functional Behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment/Behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Group Intervention with </li></ul><ul><li>Individual Features </li></ul><ul><li>Group Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Primary (universal) </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for all students) </li></ul><ul><li>Direct Instruction of Behavioral </li></ul><ul><li>Expectation </li></ul><ul><li>Positive Acknowledgment </li></ul><ul><li>Level 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Tertiary Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for individual students) </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment Based </li></ul><ul><li>Resource Intensive </li></ul><ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for some students: at-risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Some Individualizing </li></ul><ul><li>Small Group Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>High Efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Response </li></ul>More Intensive Support Creates Numbers of Students Monitoring Student Progress Monitoring Student Progress Screen All Students RTI conceptual system for behavior instruction with general and special education integrated at all three levels <ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Primary (universal) </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>(for all students) </li></ul><ul><li>Preventive, Proactive </li></ul><ul><li>Differentiated Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Research-Validated </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum </li></ul>
    54. 56. <ul><li>Mean Intercept (Mi) </li></ul><ul><li>The average starting ELA score in 03 school year was 300.85 and standard deviation was 37.50. </li></ul><ul><li>Significant Slope </li></ul><ul><li>Ms (mean slope) = 7.25, t = 4.85, p < 0.01 </li></ul><ul><li>Significant increase in ELA from 03 to 06 school year </li></ul><ul><li>Correlation Between Intercept and Slope </li></ul><ul><li>Significant correlation between intercept and slope ( p = .007 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Significant effect of SAM rank </li></ul><ul><li>Positively with slope (  =2.65, t = 2.34, p = .02) </li></ul><ul><li>Negatively with intercept (  = -4.82, t = -4.38, p < .01) </li></ul>CST ELA Score (Cohort 1, Students N = 2637) Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) Analysis
    55. 57. Implementation Organizational Changes Pedagogical Changes Students’ Academic Development Future Research Direction Students’ Social Development

    ×