Middle school classroom management: A randomized control trial of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams for Middle Schools (CW-FIT MS)
Wills, H. P., Caldarella, P., Williams, L., Fleming, K., & Chen, P. Y. (2021). Journal of Behavioral Education, 1-23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10864-021-09455-0.
-
examining629Students, grades6-8
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group on-task behavior |
Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
81.80 |
42.10 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On-Task Behavior (Student) |
Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (i.e., students with disabilities or developmental delays);
|
79.70 |
43.50 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Disruptive behaviors |
Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (students with disabilities or developmental delays);
|
1.60 |
6.30 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher Praise (Combination of Individual and Group) |
Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.65 |
1.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Teacher Reprimand (Combination of Individual and Group) |
Class-wide function-related intervention teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.90 |
6.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
20% English language learners -
Female: 15%
Male: 85% -
Rural, Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest, West
-
Race Asian 3% Black 16% Native American 1% Other or unknown 25% Pacific Islander 2% Two or more races 5% White 48% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Other or unknown 75% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 63% Other or unknown 37%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in 28 middle school classrooms in five Title I schools in urban and interurban communities in the the Midwestern and Western United States. Teachers and their entire classrooms participated in the study, including two to three individual students from each class who were identified as at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders.
Study sample
There were 629 students enrolled across the participating classrooms (325 intervention, 304 comparison). Forty-nine percent of the students were White, 25 percent were Hispanic, 16 percent were Black, 3 percent were Asian, 2 percent were Pacific Islander, 1 percent were American Indian, and 5 percent were multi-race. Of the 70 participating students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, 33 percent were in sixth grade, 28 percent in seventh grade, and 39 percent in eighth grade. The average age was 12 years. Most students were male (85%) while 15 percent were female. Most students (80%) spoke English in the home, 14 percent had an IEP, and 6 percent had a 504 plan. Teachers were 71 percent female and 29 percent male, and almost 90 percent were White. The average teacher age was 35 years. All teachers had bachelor’s degrees, six had also completed master’s degrees, and one had an education specialist degree. Teachers had an average of 7 years of teaching experience. Characteristics of the full study sample were not reported.
Intervention Group
Class-wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) was developed as a multi-tiered intervention for elementary classrooms. Tier 1 consists of multiple evidence-based classroom management practices including (a) explicit teaching and posting of classroom rules, (b) pre-correction, (c) group contingency, (d) acknowledgement (e.g., behavior-specific praise), (e) planned ignoring of inappropriate behaviors, and (f) differential reinforcement of appropriate behaviors. A version of the CW-FIT intervention (called CW-FIT MS) was evaluated for middle school. Tier 1 interventions are the same as those in the elementary school version, and minor modifications were made in the implementation of some practices (e.g., ways to teach classroom rules, number of lessons, and frequency of acknowledgement) and the length of training and coaching for teachers based on the feedback from focus groups. Generally, teachers retained their current seating assignments and at-risk students were distributed across groups. The teacher explained that all students on a team would be working together to earn points by following the expectations and being on task. An audible timer sounded every 5 minutes, signaling the teacher to evaluate class performance. A team earned a point if all the students were on task and following the expectations when the timer sounded. A chart was displayed on which the teacher would set a daily goal and record points earned by teams. Each team worked toward the daily goal to achieve a predetermined reward that was also indicated on the chart.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition conducted business as usual.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers were trained by research staff in CW-FIT MS during one 60-min session at each school. Trainers detailed the intervention components (e.g., classroom behavior expectation lessons, pre-corrects, and group contingency with teams, use of timer, points, and rewards) and showed video clips of CW-FIT MS implementation. Training emphasized understanding expectations, collaborating with students regarding those expectations, and giving behavior-specific praise. Teachers received handouts of the presentation and a copy of a procedural fidelity form to refer to as needed in implementation. Trainers gave teachers time during the training to practice using CW-FIT MS components. As intervention teachers began implementing CW-FIT MS in their classrooms, trainers offered coaching and modeling as needed until teachers implemented procedures with at least 85 percent fidelity. After the expectation lessons had been taught and the teacher was able to implement procedures with fidelity, the intervention phase began. Teachers were compensated $250.00 for their time spent outside of class for training and assessments.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).