Robert Perry Crews (51:02)
Probably not the most effective system. Then they did their teacher training where they had written in verbal instructions, they modeled the procedures, they said it only took 20 minutes. So I don't, I don't think they did a lot of role play with this. And then they kept using the class dojo, but they sort of made one avatar that everyone would use rather than all the kids having their own avatars. And they trained the teacher how to do a fixed interval of 30 seconds to do and then a 10 second limited hold. So boom. Vibrate your, your pocket, the pocket second timer vibrates. You got 10 seconds to look around. Anyone engaging in inclusive behavior gets behavior specific praise and a point. So, you know, it would only be a few kids could win points every, you know, every 30 seconds or so. And then they, you know, began the intervention. They used it across a couple different lessons where the interactions occurred. They had a poster on the wall, they changed the avatar to just their group avatar and Then they had these 15 minutes times if they won the prize, hooray, you know, positive tone, if not a neutral tone, and said, we'll try again the next time we play, play the good inclusion game. And they did 15 sessions, about two to three days per week, never more than two in a day. And then they do some social validity. They did a questionnaire for the teacher and they had a classroom discussion. I love the classroom discussion. Social validity. It's, it's fun to, if you've ever done that, it's very fun to sort of hear what kids thought. I, I've recently been in some classrooms where we're trying some trialing some good behavior games and it's always fun to ask the students, what do you think? Because most of the kids usually say things like, it's fun, I like it. And then there's usually one or two that are like, I hate this, I don't want to do it anymore. Which was kind of what the results they had in this study. But anyway, they had an ABAB withdrawal design. They followed the what we're clearinghouse single case research design criteria, which we're not going to go into all that to determine whether there was kind of an effect magnitude here. And so in our initial baseline, we saw that inclusive behavior was low, only about like 2.2 to 17% of the intervals they were scoring. They saw an increase in inclusive behavior when the good inclusion game was in place to about 40 to 62% of intervals. When the good inclusion game was withdrawn, they did see better inclusive behavior than initial baseline, but again it was lower and there was a descending trend. So it went down, it was like 8.8 to about 37.8% of intervals. So better, but again, not as good as when the GIG was in place. They saw a nice increase when the gig went back in place about to the same levels, 46 to 55% or so of intervals, but they saw a much more stable trend, so less variability. So it sort of seemed like the game was catching on and the inclusive behavior was catching on. The target pupil that they were looking at showed a very similar pattern where there were low rates of inclusive behavior at initial baseline, a slight increase in initiations with the gig, but then they saw kind of a decreasing trend. But the sustained interactions showed only an increasing trend, which could be because only so many people can initiate at a time. And if more kids were engaging with the student, well, if people are coming over and engaging with you, you don't need to initiate as much. Perhaps no real Change in initiation at the return to baseline, but a descending trend in sustained interaction. So any interactions were not happening for as long. They saw a slight increase in invitation in initiation behavior when the gig was put back in place and an increase in sustained interaction, which again, that's good. You'd love to see increases in both, but realistically, you can't always see increases in both because, you know, one student always initiating probably is also not socially appropriate. You want to have sort of a mix of who's initiating and not peers. Kind of had similar, similar patterns with, you know, as the target peer as well. The teacher behavior. This was great. Inclusive praise was pretty low and stable at the beginning. When the gig was put in place, they saw an increase in that praise. When they returned to baseline levels, though, you saw, or when they did the withdrawal, they saw a return to baseline levels in praise, which is kind of weird because you would sort of think the teacher might continue engaging in this behavior for re for reasons other than there is or is not an intervention in place. But I guess it's just like any other behavior. I always chalk up praise as one of those, like, once you learn to do it, don't you just do it more? But I suppose, I don't know why I'm surprised. That's not actually the pattern we ever see in research, which is kind of sad, but, oh well, that's just how it goes. And then a return to more behavior specific praise around those inclusive skills when the gig was back in place. And they did see an increase in the delivery of points, but over time there's kind of a drift where the points started.
