Project Activities
This project used an iterative process to develop MOSAIC and examine its feasibility in elementary school classrooms (grades K-5). A cyclical process of feedback, implementation, observation, and revision occurred with teachers who implemented each MOSAIC component sequentially. While conducting this iterative process in the second year, the team collected data about the peer relationships and academic functioning of students in these teachers’ classrooms to identify core strategies to prioritize in the pilot study. For the pilot study, the team conducted a randomized pilot study to evaluate the impact of MOSAIC on students’ behaviors, academic performance, and peer relationships. Finally, they collected additional data from teachers about implementation of strategies for use in completing the MOSAIC intervention manual.
Structured Abstract
Setting
This study took place in elementary schools in British Columbia (Canada) and in Ohio.
Sample
The sample was composed of general education teachers of grades K-5 and their students. In the first year, eight teachers participated. Next, 14 teachers and 194 students (51 of whom were selected by the teacher for having elevated ADHD symptoms and poor peer relationships) from these classrooms participated. For the randomized pilot study, 34 teachers and 558 students (134 of whom had elevated ADHD symptoms and poor peer relationships) from these classrooms participated. In the final year, additional data were collected from 33 teachers.
MOSAIC included four components, each of which had universal aspects for the whole class and targeted aspects for students with elevated ADHD symptoms and poor peer relationships. The first three components addressed the peer group factors of social devaluation, exclusionary behavior, and reputational bias, and the fourth addressed the target children’s problem behavior. Component A, positive teacher-child relationships, addressed social devaluation through teachers modeling for peers that children are worthy of liking by having warm, one-on-one interactions with target children. Component B, encourage inclusiveness, addressed exclusionary behavior by having teachers assign collaborative activities in which children must work together to succeed, while explicitly instructing children to treat each other with kindness (and reinforcing this behavior). Component C, highlight strengths, addressed reputational bias through teachers’ use of awards to publicly identify children’s genuine strengths that are unrelated to their behavior problems and are valued by their peer group (for example, great rapper). Component D, behavioral management, directly addressed target students’ behavior problems by having teachers use evidence-based behavioral management approaches to reduce disruptive behaviors and increase prosocial behaviors.
Research design and methods
The team used an iterative process in the first 2 years to develop MOSAIC. First, the team refined and further developed MOSAIC by incorporating feedback from a small group of teachers. A cyclical process took place in which the team: (a) held a meeting with a teacher during which one component of the MOSAIC intervention was emphasized and feedback was solicited about how this component might realistically be implemented, (b) observed the teacher implementing the selected component over a period of approximately 4 weeks, (c) conducted a follow-up meeting to solicit teacher feedback about the component, and (d) revised that component in the manual. The team repeated this process for each of the four MOSAIC components with each teacher. A similar process was used the following year, except teachers implemented the full MOSAIC program. In addition, the team collected preliminary data regarding the potential impact of MOSAIC strategies on students’ social and academic functioning. Next, the research team conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in which teachers served as the unit of randomization and students were nested within teachers. Teachers were randomized to receive MOSAIC or be in the control group. The social and academic functioning of students was assessed over the course of the school year. In the final year, the team collected additional data from teachers, including those who implemented MOSAIC in the pilot study and those new to the intervention, on implementation and sustainability that was used to complete the MOSAIC intervention manual.
Control condition
In the control condition, teachers and their students received business-as-usual instruction, services, and professional development.
Key measures
Children’s peer relationships were assessed via peer sociometric nominations and teacher ratings. Academic functioning was assessed via the Academic Performance Rating Scale (teacher report on students’ accuracy and completion of work) and quarterly grades. The ADHD School Observation Code was used to assess academic engagement, and teachers provided ratings of academic motivation, engagement, and interpersonal factors that support academic achievement on the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. Teacher and parent ratings on the Child Symptom Inventory-4th edition and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire were used to assess reduction in ADHD symptoms and other problem behaviors. A researcher-developed checklist of teacher practices covering all four components of MOSAIC was used to assess implementation integrity; both teacher self-reports and independent observations of implementation integrity were obtained. Teachers self-reported their satisfaction with and feasibility of the MOSAIC strategies.
Data analytic strategy
Qualitative data analysis techniques were used for teacher feedback and descriptive analyses of implementation integrity in the first year. The following year, dependent samples t-tests were used to estimate the effect sizes for changes in peer and academic functioning over the school year on each measure. In addition, regressions were used to examine associations between the amount of MOSAIC strategy use and student outcomes and the research team conducted an initial examination of whether improvements in peer relationships mediated improvements in academic functioning. Data from the pilot study were analyzed using mixed effect models for nested data to examine group mean differences and rates of change during the intervention on social and academic measures. The team conducted analyses in both the identified sample at risk for ADHD and in the classroom peers of the identified sample. Qualitative data analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data from the final year on teachers’ sustainment of MOSAIC strategies.
Key outcomes
The main findings of this project, as reported by the principal investigator, are as follows:
- In MOSAIC classrooms compared to typical practice, teachers reported their students at risk for ADHD, and the students in the class as a whole, to have better social and academic competence.
- In MOSAIC classrooms compared to typical practice, children at risk for ADHD self-reported more positive teacher-student relationships, but classroom peers judged these children more negatively.
- Teachers reported high satisfaction with and feasibility of the MOSAIC strategies and demonstrated strong implementation integrity of the strategies.
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Project contributors
Products and publications
Study registration:
Publications:
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
Related projects
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
