Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit Timing: A High School Case Study on Classroom Behavior

Abstract

One proactive approach to increasing student engagement in schools is implementing Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) strategies. PBIS focuses on prevention and concentrates on quality-of-life issues that include improved academic achievement, enhanced social competence, and safe learning and teaching environments. This study is a replication of a study that investigated the combination of active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing. The purpose of the study was to decrease student problem behavior, reduce transition time, and support maintenance of the intervention in the setting. Results show that active supervision, precorrection, and explicit timing decreased student problem behavior, decreased the duration of transitions in two instructional periods, and the intervention was maintained in the setting. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.

Active Supervision: Preventing Behavioral Problems Before They Occur

“…Furthermore, the most effective method of prevention is to set students up to be successful, creating a momentum for continued positive behavior as a replacement for misbehavior (Scott, 2016). One of the teacher strategies associated with decreases in student misbehavior is the teacher's active supervision of the instructional environment (Haydon & Kroeger, 2016).…”

A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Active Supervision in Pre-K–12 Settings

“…The current review identified seven single-case Note. Due to fewer than three data points within a phase, the following A-B contrasts were dropped from aggregate WC-LRR calculations: De Pry and Sugai 2002and Haydon and Kroeger (2016). Abs = absolute coding; BC-SMD = between-case standardized mean difference (Hedges, Pustejovsky, & Shadish, 2012, 2013 design studies that (a) were experimental, (b) reported at least one student-level outcome, and (c) took place with student(s) in a K-12 traditional school setting.…”

An Evidence-Based Review and Meta-Analysis of Active Supervision

“…Again, the Q-statistic was significant and I 2 was 90%, indicating that a moderator analysis may be necessary. Unfortunately, a moderator analysis could not be conducted because too Colvin, Sugai, Good, and Lee (1997) Meets standards with reservations Strong DePry and Sugai 2002Does not meet Haydon and Kroeger (2015) Does not meet Haydon, DeGreg, Maheady, and Hunter (2012) Does not meet Jeffrey (2005) aMeets standards without reservations Strong Johnson-Gros, Lyons, and Griffith (2008) Does not meet Lewis, Colvin, and Sugai (2000) Does not meet Lyons (2006) a,b Does not meet McClain (2008) aMeets standards with reservations No evidence Patterson (2000) a and Patterson and van der Mars (2008) Does not meet Schuldheisz and van der Mars (2001) Does not meet Scherer 2017Meets standards with reservations Moderate…”

“…The use of active supervision as a Tier-1 support can benefit all students and can prevent behavioral challenges for those with and at risk for EBD (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). For example, researchers noted a reduction in the following problematic or disruptive behaviors as a result of active supervision: pushing, shouting, and throwing objects (Haydon & Kroeger, 2015); office discipline referrals (ODRs) for tardiness (Johnson-Gros, Lyons, & Griffith, 2008); hands on others and threats (Lewis et al, 2000); physical aggression (Lyons, 2006); and noncompliance with playground rules (Scherer, 2017). However, whether active supervision can in fact be considered an evidence-based practice remains unclear.…”