Owens, Julie Sarno; Coles, Erika K.; Evans, Steven W.; Himawan, Lina K.; Girio-Herrera, Erin; Holdaway, Alex S.; Zoromski, Allison K.; Schamberg, Terah; Schulte, Ann (2017). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580848
Reviewed: May 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Global competence in classroom management (modified Student Behavior-Teacher Response Observation Rating System, SBTR) |
Daily report cards with multi-component consultation vs. Daily report cards with performance feedback |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.19 |
6.90 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 50% | |
| White | 50% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
This study was conducted in 8 elementary schools (5 in Ohio and 3 in Florida) with teachers of students from kindergarten through grade 5.
Fifty-eight teachers participated in the study and 31 teachers were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 27 teachers were randomly assigned to the comparison group. Fifteen teachers remained in the study through the end of the intervention. Participating teachers were mostly female (93%); and non-Hispanic, White (50%), or Hispanic/Latino of any race (45%). Each teacher identified one student in their classroom who met criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or was at risk for ADHD to participate in the study. These students were mostly male (78%) and Hispanic/Latino (53%).
Teachers participated in an intervention to help them develop skills to manage disruptive behavior in their classrooms. Teachers used daily report cards to record and monitor students' success in meeting specific behavior performance goals, working with a facilitator trained in the intervention to identify the specific performance goals for a disruptive student in each classroom. Facilitators coached teachers in biweekly sessions to help them address students’ problematic behaviors using motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy informed approaches. These approaches focused on the beliefs of individual teachers and attempted to elicit a teachers’ desire to change their approach to students’ disruptive behavior to be more effective. During biweekly feedback sessions, facilitators coached teachers on strategies for problem solving to address barriers to student learning, reviewed the target student’s progress on the daily report card, and provided performance feedback to teachers using the motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy informed approaches. Teachers received 6 biweekly feedback sessions for 38 minutes each, on average.
Teachers used the same daily report cards and while the structure of the coaching was similar, the feedback sessions did not include the motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy informed approaches used in the intervention condition. During biweekly feedback sessions, facilitators coached teachers on problem solving for disruptive behavior and provided brief performance feedback focused on reviewing the teacher’s use of classroom management strategies. Teachers received 6 biweekly feedback sessions for 23 minutes each, on average.
Intervention and comparison group teachers participated in a 3-hour workshop conducted by study investigators on best practices in classroom management and the use of daily report cards for students with behavioral issues. In both the intervention and comparison group, a facilitator interviewed teachers about their classroom management style and assisted teachers in identifying behavioral performance goals for the daily report cards. Facilitators received a 3-day training and practice sessions. Facilitators received performance feedback in weekly sessions with their supervisor based on videotaped sessions of their biweekly feedback sessions with teachers.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube