# data[].attributes.headline
Differentiating Instruction in Social Studies

# data[].attributes.subject
Differentiating Instruction in Social Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tiered Lessons - Differentiating Instruction in Social Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Differentiating Instruction in Social Studies

# data[].attributes.headline
Tiered Lesson Plans - a Manageable Way to Differentiate Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Tiered Lesson Plans - a Manageable Way to Differentiate Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News, email and search are just the beginning. Discover more every day. Find your yodel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tiered Lessons: One Way to Differentiate Mathematics Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Tiered Lessons: One Way to Differentiate Mathematics Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tiered Lessons: One Way to Differentiate Mathematics Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is about differentiation. Due to the broad range of academic needs among students, teachers find themselves in a dilemma. The Burris Laboratory School outlines how teachers can reach all the students in their classrooms when they are academically diverse, have special needs, are ESL learners or have some combination of any or all of these factors.

# data[].attributes.headline
CHECK-IN/CHECK-OUT: A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION AND COMPONENT ANALYSIS

# data[].attributes.subject
CHECK-IN/CHECK-OUT: A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION AND COMPONENT ANALYSIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Setting and Participants

The study took place in a suburban elementary school (K-5) located in the Pacific Northwest. During the 2006-2007 school year, 72% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch services. The school had been implementing schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) for approximately 5 years. In this school, the Tier 1 component of SWPBS was fully in place (as measured by the Schoolwide Evaluation Tool; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001) and consisted of (a) behavioral expectations (be safe, be respectful, be responsible) that had been operationally defined for specific settings and explicitly taught to all students, (b) a schoolwide token economy for prosocial behavior, and (c) a continuum of consequences for rule violations (e.g., reteaching, office referral). The school had been implementing CICO as a Tier 2 intervention for 2 years. Students exposed to CICO (including participants in this study) continued to participate in all aspects of the Tier 1 intervention. Students were selected to participate in the study if (a) they had from two to five office discipline referrals and the school's SWPBS team believed that CICO would be a good fit, or (b) they were nominated for CICO by a teacher.

Kyle was a second-grade Caucasian student who qualified for special education services under the category of specific learning disability in reading. In addition, he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (combined type) and was taking methylphenidate (levels remained constant throughout the study). He received 50% of his reading instruction in a general education setting, with the remaining time spent in small-group instruction in a resource room setting. He had been referred to the study by his classroom teacher due to disruptive behavior (talking to peers during large-group instruction, making noises, being out of seat).

Mike was a fifth-grade Caucasian student who received all instruction in a general education setting. Although he did not qualify for special education, he received additional small-group reading instruction from an assistant (in his large-group reading class). He had been referred by his teacher due to disruptive behavior (talking to peers during instruction, being out of seat) and failure to complete assignments.

Nick was a fifth-grade Latino student who qualified for special education services under the category of speech and language impairment. He had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (combined type) and was taking amphetamine and dextroamphetamine (dosages remained constant throughout the study). He received all academic instruction in the general education setting. He had been referred to the study by his classroom teacher due to disruptive and off-task classroom behavior, including being out of seat and talking to peers when independent work was expected.

Paul was a fifth-grade Caucasian student. He qualified for special education under the category of specific learning disability in reading. He received small-group reading instruction from the special education teacher, but all other instruction was delivered in the general education setting. He had been referred to the study by his teacher because of disruption and noncompliance, including talking to peers when the expectation was to be quiet, making inappropriate noises (tapping pencil on desk, humming), and refusing to complete independent work assignments.

Design and Procedure

A functional assessment was conducted first. Next, a reversal design was used to assess effects of CICO on problem behavior and academic engagement. The component analysis of CICO began when a participant had earned 80% or more of possible points for 15 consecutive days and, for at least 5 days, an 80% or greater reduction was observed in problem behavior relative to the last three baseline points.

Functional Assessment

The functional assessment consisted of a teacher interview and observations. The interview was conducted using a revised version of the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff ( Anderson & Borgmeier, 2007). After the interview, three 10-min observations were conducted in the context (e.g., oral reading) in which problem behavior was reported to occur most frequently. During observations, data were collected using 5-s partial-interval recording. Data were collected on problem behavior, adult attention (verbal or physical interaction), task avoidance (removal of task or lack of engagement), and peer attention (verbal or physical interaction).

Baseline and Training in CICO

During baseline, teachers were instructed to conduct their class and manage student behavior as they usually did. Because the Tier 1 schoolwide intervention was in place throughout the study, participants may have received formal acknowledgment for meeting school expectations and office referrals for violations of school rules.

Prior to starting the CICO program, each participant attended two 30-min training sessions with the CICO coordinator and the first author. These sessions focused on (a) teaching the child the routines of the CICO program, (b) providing examples and nonexamples of desired behaviors, and (c) practice checking in and checking out in a specific location. Students were also told how they could earn their weekly points and how their goals were set.

Check-in/Check-out

Check-in/check-out consisted of a morning meeting with the CICO coordinator, periodic feedback meetings with the participant's teacher, an afternoon meeting with the coordinator, and home feedback. The CICO coordinator, who was a special education teacher employed by the school, was responsible for introducing students to CICO, reviewing the process with teachers when a student started the intervention, entering data into the schoolwide data system, and meeting with the school's SWPBS team on alternate weeks to review CICO data and to monitor progress of all participants. In addition, the coordinator conducted brief morning check-in and afternoon check-out with all participants.

Each morning before school started, students had a brief (approximately 2 min) check-in with the coordinator at the school. Students received their daily point card, turned in the previous day's parent report form, and engaged in a short, positive interaction with the CICO coordinator. The CICO daily point card was a piece of cardstock paper (4 in. by 5 in.) that showed five opportunities for the student to receive feedback and earn points for appropriate behavior: check-in, morning, noon, afternoon, and check-out. Points for morning check-in and afternoon check-out were awarded by the CICO coordinator. The teachers determined the specific times for morning, noon, and afternoon feedback sessions based on natural transitions during the day (e.g., before reading started, after recess, before lunch, after math), and feedback was based on student behavior during the time period since the last feedback session. For example, the afternoon feedback session focused on behavior that had occurred since the noon feedback session rather than the entire day. During each feedback session, the teacher awarded participants up to three points for emitting behaviors congruent with each of the schoolwide expectations (i.e., be safe, be respectful, and be responsible). Points were assigned using a 3-point scale (1  =  student had a hard time, 2  =  student did okay, 3  =  student did great). Therefore, students could earn up to 9 points per feedback session, for a total of 45 points each day. Each student's goal was to earn at least 80% of possible points each day (this was the standard goal for all students in the school). Study participants were told the minimum number of points they needed to earn each day (to reach 80% of points), because the total points possible varied across phases. In this school, students on CICO earned tangible and intangible rewards each week based on the number of points accumulated during prior weeks. The point value for items ranged from relatively small (e.g., 10 points for a pencil, 20 points for a notepad) to large (e.g., 100 points for 5-min additional recess, 300 points for lunch with a favorite adult such as the principal). Because the number of points possible for study participants varied, points toward rewards were based on the percentage of possible points earned each day (10 points for earning 100% of the possible points, 9 points for 90%, and 8 points for 80%).

Teachers were not given instructions on how to respond to problem behavior or to specific instances of prosocial behavior; the intervention focused entirely on use of the point card to provide feedback at set points and the awarding of points contingent on meeting school expectations. All teachers attended a training session on implementation of CICO at the start of the school year, and the coordinator met individually with teachers and reviewed the intervention whenever a teacher's student began CICO.

At the end of the day (typically 5 to 10 min prior to dismissal) the student walked to the specified check-out location (e.g., the counselor's office) and gave the daily report card to the coordinator. The coordinator recorded the number of points earned, completed a parent report, and provided feedback to the student regarding the student's points. If the student earned 80% or more of the possible points, the coordinator provided praise. If the student earned less than 80% of points, the coordinator provided neutral feedback (e.g., "What can you do to meet the goal tomorrow?").

Feedback was provided to the parent via a daily home report that indicated whether or not the student earned 80% or more of points. Space was provided for comments from the coordinator, and parents were asked to sign the form. Parents were encouraged to provide incentives at home when their child had a good day and to refrain from delivering punitive consequences if their child did not earn 80% or more of points; however, no data were collected to determine whether this occurred.

Component Analysis

Participants continued to meet with the CICO coordinator at morning check-in and afternoon check-out. To assess the relative contribution of teacher feedback, we systematically removed feedback meetings. First, noon feedback was removed; students continued to receive feedback once in the morning and again in the afternoon. Next, morning feedback was removed; students now received feedback only in the afternoon. Finally, the afternoon feedback session was removed. This necessarily involved removal of the point card in the classroom setting because students no longer checked in with teachers to review the point card. Students continued to meet with the coordinator at the beginning and end of each day, and points were earned only for checking in and out; point delivery was not contingent on behavior during the school day. In the final phase of the analysis, when the point card was removed, students earned 100% of points simply by attending the morning and afternoon meetings with the coordinator.

Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement

Data were collected on problem behavior, academic engagement, and the percentage of points earned. Problem behavior included disruption, out of seat or location, noncompliance, and verbal or physical interaction. Disruption was defined as making inappropriate noises, talking out of turn, and using objects in a manner for which they were not designed (e.g., banging the desk, slamming a book). Out of seat or location was defined as the student's buttocks not in contact with the seat when the expectation was to be seated or not in the location he was supposed to be in. Noncompliance was defined as verbally refusing to follow an adult direction or simply not completing the request within 10 s, and negative verbal or physical interactions were defined as hitting, kicking, pinching, throwing objects at a person, or making a derogatory comment about or towards another individual. Data were collected on academic engagement, because all teachers stated that problem behaviors were interfering with the child's engagement during instruction; decisions about phase changes, however, were based on levels of problem behavior.

Academic engagement was defined as following teacher requests within 10 s, having eyes oriented toward teacher or relevant materials for the task, and working on in-class assignments. Data were collected using pen and paper across 15-min observations using a 5-s partial-interval system. Observations were conducted 3 to 5 days per week during academic activities that were suggested by the functional assessment to be when problem behavior most often occurred. These activities were large-group reading for Kyle, independent math work for Mike and Nick, and any independent work for Paul.

The school's CICO coordinator tracked points earned by all students on the program. The coordinator calculated the percentage of possible points earned by a student each day by dividing the number of points earned by the number of points possible. In addition, the percentage of days in which the student met his goal was calculated by dividing the numbers of days the goal was met by the total number of days. It should be noted that we asked teachers to continue to complete the point card (but not to review it with students) during all phases of the component analysis so we could assess the percentage of points awarded throughout the study.

Interobserver agreement was assessed by having two independent observers simultaneously collect data during 32% of observations across all four participants. Agreement was calculated by dividing the number of intervals in which both observers agreed a response did or did not occur by the number of total intervals and multiplying by 100%. For problem behavior, agreement coefficients were 97% (range, 91% to 100%) for Kyle, 95% (range, 89% to 100%) for Mike, 91% (range, 90% to 100%) for Nick, and 93% (range, 89% to 100%) for Paul. For academic engagement, agreement coefficients were 94% (range, 89% to 97%) for Kyle, 90% (range, 89% to 95%) for Mike, 95% (range, 90% to 100%) for Nick, and 90% (range, 89% to 93%) for Paul.

Fidelity of Implementation

Fidelity of implementation was measured on 27% of the days that the students participated in CICO. Experimenters observed the morning check-in and afternoon check-out and classroom feedback sessions. The observers completed a 12-item checklist that rated the presence of the following key features of CICO: (a) The student checked in with the adult, (b) the staff member provided the daily point card, (c) the staff member provided a prompt for the student to be successful that day, (d) the student turned in the home report, (e) the student approached the teacher to receive feedback, (f) the teacher assigned points to the student, (g) the teacher provided verbal feedback regarding the student's behavior, (h) the student checked out with the adult, (i) the student presented the completed card to the adult, (j) the staff member added up and recorded total points, (k) the staff member provided verbal feedback regarding the student's behavior, and (l) the staff member completed the parent report and handed it to the student.

Interobserver agreement was assessed for 25% of fidelity observations. Agreement was calculated by dividing the total number of items that were scored the same by the total number of total items and multiplying by 100%. Agreement averaged 97% (range, 91% to 100%). Across participants, fidelity was high, with an average of 97% (range, 83% to 100%).

Social Validity and Contextual Fit

Teachers' perceptions of student problem behavior and contextual fit were assessed once or twice per week throughout the study using a 2-item questionnaire. The first question asked teachers to rate the target student's problem behavior compared to other students in the class using a 5-point Likert scale (1  =  much better than other students, 5  =  much worse than other students). The second item asked teachers to rate the amount of effort put into managing student behavior compared to other students in the class (1  =  little or no effort, 5  =  tremendous effort).

Contextual fit was assessed during the initial CICO phase and at the completion of the study via the teacher-completed Contextual Fit Questionnaire ( Horner, Salantine, & Albin, 2003) This questionnaire assessed the teachers' perceptions of the ease of implementation, amount of effort needed to implement the intervention, and whether the effects of the intervention were worth the effort.

Results of the functional assessment observations are depicted in . We calculated the conditional probability that a given consequence occurred during the same or subsequent 5-s interval of the problem behavior by dividing the number of intervals that problem behavior was followed by a given consequence in the same or next interval divided by the total number of intervals scored with problem behavior. For all participants, a greater proportion of problem behavior was followed by adult attention than by escape from task or peer attention. This suggested that the behavior was maintained, at least in part, by adult attention.

Intervals scored with problem behavior are depicted in for all participants. Intervals scored with academic engagement are shown in . In all figures, phases of the component analysis are labeled by the number of feedback sessions students had with teachers. Kyle emitted problem behavior during an average of 37% of intervals during baseline. After implementation of CICO, an immediate reduction of problem behavior was observed, with problem behavior occurring in an average of 12% of intervals. After a brief return to baseline to assess functional control, CICO was reinstated, resulting in an immediate decrease in problem behavior. Both the noon and morning feedback sessions were removed successfully, such that Kyle received teacher feedback only in the afternoon. Unfortunately, we were not able to assess whether CICO could be faded completely, because the academic year ended for summer vacation.

Mike exhibited problem behavior during an average of 28% of intervals during baseline. Implementation of CICO resulted in an immediate decrease in problem behavior ( M  =  11%). A brief return to baseline was implemented to assess functional control; however, due to the intensity of his behavior and teacher request, the reversal was limited to two data points. After the return to CICO, problem behavior again occurred in relatively few intervals. The noon and morning feedback sessions were removed successfully. Slight increases in problem behavior were observed when Mike no longer received teacher feedback. Thus, his teacher was concerned that Mike would "revert to his old ways" and requested that the point card and the afternoon feedback be reinstituted.

Problem behavior for Nick occurred during an average of 28% of intervals during baseline. Problem behavior decreased immediately after implementation of CICO ( M  =  8%). Following a brief return to baseline (shortened due to teacher request), CICO was reinstated, and problem behavior immediately decreased and remained low as feedback sessions were removed sequentially. Nick's teacher requested that the point card and afternoon feedback session be reinstituted because she was concerned that he "couldn't succeed" without it. Problem behavior continued to occur infrequently thereafter.

Problem behavior for Paul was variable during baseline, occurring in 23% of intervals on average. Although some variability remained after introduction of CICO, an overall reduction in problem behavior was observed ( M  =  16%). Following a short return to baseline, CICO was again associated with a decrease in problem behavior ( M  =  8%), and the noon, morning, and afternoon feedback sessions were removed successfully. As with the other participants, Paul's teacher worried that his problem behavior would increase if the feedback remained withdrawn; thus the afternoon feedback session plus point card were reinstituted.

For all participants, implementation of CICO resulted in increases in academic engagement (), which was maintained as the teacher removed feedback sessions systematically. During CICO, the average percentage of points earned was 84% for Kyle, 82% for Mike, 90% for Nick, and 86% for Paul. When the noon and morning feedback sessions were removed, participants continued to earn a high percentage of points (above 84% for each participant). A slight reduction in points earned was observed when the final feedback session was removed ( M s  =  79% for Mike, 83% for Nick, and 72% for Paul). Because participants continued to earn points for checking in and out, this degradation in points awarded occurred in the classroom, suggesting that teachers may have noted some deterioration in student behavior.

During baseline, the average teacher rating of participant problem behavior compared to other students in the class was 3.5 (1  =  much better than other students, 5  =  much worse than other students). When CICO was implemented, the rating decreased to an average of 2.1, indicating that the participants' behavior was perceived to be similar to or better than typical peers. The average rating continued to remain low during the first and second fading phases. During the third fading phase, the average teacher rating increased a bit ( M  =  2.7) but still remained well below ratings provided during baseline. The teachers' perceived effort of managing student behavior also decreased when CICO was implemented. Teachers' mean rating of effort was 3.7 (1  =  little or no effort, 5  =  tremendous effort) during baseline, 2.1 during CICO, and 1.6 during the first two fading phases. However, mean ratings of effort returned to 3.7 during the third fading phase. Teachers rated the contextual fit of CICO as high during the initial implementation of CICO ( M  =  98%) as well as at the completion of the study (100% for all participants).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CHECK-IN/CHECK-OUT: A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION AND COMPONENT ANALYSIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Setting and Participants The study took place in a suburban elementary school (K-5) located in the Pacific Northwest. During the 2006-2007 school year, 72% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch services. The school had been implementing schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) for approximately 5 years.

# data[].attributes.body
Written by a retired high school teacher and worth the time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Delicate Dance for Any Teacher

Here's how Sandy, a preservice 6th grade teacher, and her cooperating teacher handled a disruptive student Sandy faced:

The boy, who was mature for his age, was having trouble settling down to work and was being quite disruptive. After subtle attempts to quell the disruption, Sandy spoke directly to the boy. As she was speaking to him, he stood up and stared at her aggressively, and became verbally abusive. She asked him to leave and as he left, he made an obscene gesture and a sexually explicit comment. She was taken aback, but she knew she had to respond. She looked around the room at the other students, who were suddenly silent. They were unsure what was going to happen and looked to her as the teacher to see what she would do. Sandy immediately escorted the student to the door and turned him over to her cooperating teacher, who had been working with a small group outside the classroom. Sandy then went back to the class, took a deep breath, and restarted the lesson. Sandy reacted instinctively and she handled the situation appropriately for several reasons:

She dealt immediately with the challenging student.

She established that she was the teacher, was capable, and was in charge, even though a student teacher.

She reassured the rest of the students that they were in a safe environment after the unsettling outburst and challenge to authority.

How did the Liz, the cooperating teacher, handle the disruptive student?

She took the student to the office where the student remained until a parent conference could be held. At the parent conference the behavior was described, the student had an opportunity to respond, and some in-school suspension was assigned. The student returned to class after a reasonable period and the relationship between the teacher and student was preserved.

When she works with disruptive students, she does what she describes as a "delicate dance," which requires balance. She doesn't want these students to believe they can never be accepted or valued by her again. She wants them to know that she believes they can still be successful in class, but that their behavior has crossed the line and must be addressed. She achieves balance by applying understanding and discipline according to circumstances and the student. And she always addresses the student's behavior, not the student:

You did this...It is not acceptable for these reasons...And here is the consequence and the time frame for that consequence...And here's what happens after that.

Setting the Tone of Teacher-Student Interactions

When a student misbehaves, the teacher-student interactions need not become adversarial. Here are some practices teachers can use to set the appropriate tone:

Communicate clearly with the student, using understandable vocabulary.

Be firm and direct.

Use your tone and voice carefully. Don't get angry or emotional.

Be rational and objective.

Always provide a time to listen to the student.

Ignore trivial denials.

Dealing With Student Who Threaten

At times a teacher may encounter a truly threatening student. The school should have clear procedures in place for these situations.

Inexperienced teachers should take classes or talk with other teachers to learn the skills necessary to work with difficult students. Otherwise, they may find themselves in power struggles, with control issues, and reacting emotionally.

Typical Behaviors of the Young Adolescent
Most of the student behavior in a middle school classroom is the result of their developmental growth. Here are some behaviors that are typical of the young adolescent:

They are impulsive.

Because of brain growth spurts, they cannot sufficiently edit thoughts, things they say, and things they do.

They are searching for and testing the "boundaries" of those they know.

They are seeking adult acceptance while experimenting with independence from adults.

Well-prepared teachers know the developmental issues of their students. They respond to negative student behavior in ways that communicate that the teacher is in control, that there are parameters for acceptable behavior, that the classroom is safe, and that individual relationships with students will always be positive and supportive.

About the Author

Pete Lorain, author of articles on middle schooling and other education issues, currently works under private contract. Prior to retirement, he served as a high school teacher, counselor, and administrator; middle school principal and director at the district level; director of human resources; and president of National Middle School Association from 1996 to 1997. Revised 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's how Sandy, a preservice 6th grade teacher, and her cooperating teacher handled a disruptive student Sandy faced: The boy, who was mature for his age, was having trouble settling down to work and was being quite disruptive. After subtle attempts to quell the disruption, Sandy spoke directly to the boy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Classroom Management That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Every Teacher

# data[].attributes.subject
Classroom Management That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Every Teacher

# data[].attributes.body
It is another one of the books that I found in our school media center. Over the years they have expanded the books for teachers, that we can check out. This one has some great ideas.

# data[].attributes.headline
An ASCD Study Guide for Managing Diverse Classrooms: How to Build on Students' Cultural Strengths

# data[].attributes.subject
An ASCD Study Guide for Managing Diverse Classrooms: How to Build on Students' Cultural Strengths

# data[].attributes.body
A review of this book can be found on-line at the ASCD website.

# data[].attributes.body
This book is by PhD. C.M. Charles has examples of classroom discipline methods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective.

# data[].attributes.subject
Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Managing Adolescent Behavior A multiyear, Multischool Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Managing Adolescent Behavior A multiyear, Multischool Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Is School-Wide Positive Behavior Support an Evidence-Based Practice 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is School-Wide Positive Behavior Support an Evidence-Based Practice 

# data[].attributes.body
This is a research summary of many research based or evidence-based research reports. It is a nice quick read but its real treasure is leading you to many more resources on the subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
Synthesis of Research on Classroom Management

# data[].attributes.subject
Synthesis of Research on Classroom Management

# data[].attributes.body
An older article but with some timeless management strategies. Maybe some of our teachers read this back in the day

# data[].attributes.body
Straight Ahead – basic terms, vocabulary, and recall of

facts.

Uphill – everything in Straight Ahead, limited reading for understanding, limited problem solving, and limited writing responses.

Mountainous – reading outside material for understanding, complex problems, and extended writing responses.

# data[].attributes.body
How will using tiered lessons based on student ability level affect students’ assessment scores?

# data[].attributes.body
To improve the assessment scores of students in Economics at Skyline High School in the first two units of class during the first trimester in the school year 2013-14. The first two units in the Economics class are as follows: Unit 1 Economic Fundamentals and Unit 2 How Markets Work.