Self‐management as a class‐wide intervention: An evaluation of the “Self & Match” system embedded within a dependent group contingency

Abstract

Teachers are responsible for providing an education to students of all ability levels. Recent data suggest that roughly 95% of students with a disability are receiving some form of education in their general education setting. Individuals with disabilities tend to engage in higher levels of disruptive behaviors (e.g., talking out in class, noncompliance, throwing materials) than peers without disabilities. With an increase in the number of students with disabilities receiving some form of education in their general education setting, teachers may be spending more time managing disruptive behaviors and less time teaching. Research suggests a strong relationship between classroom‐management techniques and academic achievement. These data highlight the importance of classroom‐management interventions that promote the learning of all students in the classroom. Despite the importance of classroom‐management techniques, a lack of training, as well as the feasibility of the interventions may prevent the ultimate adoption and long‐term success of effective techniques. Self‐management is a potential solution, as self‐management techniques can be easily trained and implemented.

A Systematic Review of Dependent Group Contingencies (1970–2019)

“…Past researchers used DGCs to reduce disruptive (e.g., Bulla & Frieder, 2018; Theodore et al, 2004) or problematic behaviors (Reitman et al, 2004), as well as specific topographies like talking aloud (Coleman, 1970), negative verbal statements (Hansen & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005), and verbally disrespectful behavior (Jones et al, 2008). We found these applications had higher judgments of experimental control than academic, cooperation, sportsmanship, and physical activity behavioral topographies.…”

Comparing an interdependent and dependent group contingency to increase physical activity in students during recess

“…Since group contingencies target the behaviour of individuals in a group simultaneously, it is not surprising that teachers have reported group contingencies are effective and acceptable to use with their students (Alric et al, 2007;Donaldson et al, 2018;Hartman & Gresham, 2016;Lynch et al, 2009;Theodore et al, 2001;Theodore et al, 2004). This is likely why group contingencies have been implemented in various locations within the school, such as the academic classroom (Barrish et al, 1969;Beeks & Graves, 2016;Brantley & Webster, 1993;Briesch et al, 2013;Bulla & Frieder, 2018;Caldarella et al, 2015;Christ & Christ, 2006;Clair et al, 2018;Dart et al, 2016;Foley et al, 2019;Groves & Austin, 2017;Hansen & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005;Hawkins et al, 2017;Heering & Wilder, 2006;Jones et al, 2008;Lum et al, 2019;Pokorski et al, 2019;Trevino-Maack et al, 2015;Williamson et al, 2009), gym class (Normand & Burji, 2020;Vidoni & Ward, 2006;Vidoni et al, 2012;Vidoni et al, 2014), hallway (Campbell & Skinner, 2004;Deshais et al, 2018), cafeteria (Williamson et al, 1992), and recess (Foote et al, 2017;Galbraith & Normand, 2017).…”

“…The DGC has been used to increase behaviours such as student engagement (Cariveau & Kodak, 2017); on-task behaviour (Bulla & Frieder, 2018;Heering & Wilder, 2006;Williamson et al, 2009); positive verbal statements (Hansen & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005); physical, gestural, or verbal supportive behaviour (Vidoni & Ward, 2006); mathematic estimation (Williamson et al, 1992); and even teeth cleanliness (Swain et al, 1982). It has been used to decrease behaviours such as disruptive behaviour in the classroom (Jones et al, 2008) and in the hallway (Deshais et al, 2018).…”

“…When the hero is identified, they can be revealed before the session or after the session if the hero met the criterion. Most often, the hero is unidentified (Bulla & Frieder, 2018;Vidoni et al, 2012Vidoni et al, , 2014Williamson et al, 2009) or identified only after the session if the hero met the criterion (Cariveau & Kodak, 2017;Deshais et al, 2019;Jones et al, 2008;Vidoni & Ward, 2006). This is likely because many researchers have hypothesized that identifying the hero a priori can produce unintentional detrimental side effects for the hero, especially if the group does not receive the reinforcer (Jones et al, 2008;Williamson et al, 2009).…”