Compliance Strategies



One of the issues teachers regularly discuss are students who are non-compliant in the classroom.  These students have a tremendous impact on classroom dynamics and outcomes for other students and can be frustrating for all the people involved.  So what do we do?  The biggest impact that teachers can have with students who are non-compliant typically occur when a relationship has been developed between the teacher and the student.  This however can take many months if not years to develop.  Here are a few tips from Vanderbilt University to apply to your classroom management policies:

Tip Sheet: Compliance Strategies

Rationale
The use of positive behavior supports (PBS) is mandated by federal law (IDEA, 2004). Within PBS, there are three tiers of support with corresponding goals and activities:
(Lewis & Sugai, 1999)
o   Tier 1 - Prevent academic and behavior problems: school wide academic & behavior interventions;
o   Tier 2 - Prevent the development of more serious problems and improve problem behavior: target interventions for students not responding to Tier 1;
o   Tier 3 - Decrease impact of antisocial behavior on a student’s daily functioning: develop individualized intervention to meet the unique needs of student.
Using effective compliance strategies can facilitate the goals at all three tiers of PBS, especially at Tiers 1 and 2.

Give Effective Commands

Definition of Noncompliance: There are four types of noncompliance (Walker et al., 2004)
·         Passive noncompliance: student simply does not to perform requested behavior but is not overtly noncompliant (simply ignores directive – not angry or hostile).
·         Simple refusal: student acknowledge the direction but indicates via words or gestures that he/she does not intend to comply – not angry unless command persists or there are adult attempts to force the issues.
·         Direct defiance: student displays hostility, anger, overt resistance and attempts to intimidate.
·         Negotiation: student attempts to bargain, compromise; proposes alternative solutions.
By addressing noncompliance at the early stage, teachers can prevent the escalation of more serious behaviors.

Strategies (Walker et al., 2004)
·         Only give as many commands as needed (decreased compliance occurs with increases in the number of commands given)
·         Obtain student attention and eye contact
·         Use more “initiating: (or “start”) commands versus “terminating (or “stop”) commands
·         Deliver one directive or command at a time – for tasks with multiple steps, give a separate command for each step
·         Use clear, concise, and specific language (“alpha” commands)
·         Allow time for student to comply
·         Only give the command two times – if not followed after second time, provide consequence for noncompliance
·         Give direction from a distance of three feet.
·         Use a matter-of-fact and nonemotional tone of voice (do not yell, plead or threaten)
·         Reinforce compliance!
Literature to support the use of effective commands (Neef et al., 1983; Walker, 1995; Walker, et al., 2004; Walker & Walker, 1991)


Use Precision Requests

Definition: A method for delivering teacher directions to prompt compliance and consistently follow up noncompliance (Jenson & Reavis, 1997).

Steps (Jenson, & Reavis, 1997)
1)      1st request for compliance using “Please"  and characteristics of effective commands
I use the technique of "thanking the student"  rather than starting with the "Please"  You have to find your own method that works for you.  
2)      Wait 5 seconds – if there is compliance: REINFORCE!
3)      Noncompliance: Repeat request using signal words: You need to …”
4)      Compliance: REINFORCE!
5)      Noncompliance: mild preplanned negative consequence (e.g., loss of opportunity to earn token for that time period)

Evidence: DeMartini-Scully et al., 2000; Kehle et al., 2000; Mackay et al., 2001; Musser et al., 2001; Neville & Jenson, 1984
Note: Consider using Precision Requests in combination with other strategies as part of a multicomponent intervention (e.g., Kehle et al., 2000)


Engage in Active Supervision

Definition – “those behaviors displayed by supervisors designed to encourage more appropriate student behavior and to discourage rule violations" (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 2000; p. 110)

Implementation (Lewis, et al., 2000)
·         Monitor large, common areas (e.g., gym, hallway, playground)
·         Move and interact with students
·         Scan: correct inappropriate behavior and reinforce appropriate behavior

Evidence: Colvin et al., 1997; De Pry & Sugai, 2002; Lewis et al., 2000; Schuldheisz & van der Mars, 2001

Offer Choices

Definition: Offering a student two or more options and allowing student to independently select an options

·         Choice can provide students an opportunity to have control over their environments
·         Choice can be used to encourage and support appropriate behaviors and academic growth in a variety of ways for students without disabilities and with high incidence and severe disabilities:
o   Choice of routine activity and steps within activity (Dibley & Lim, 1999)
o   Choice of academic task (Dunlap et al., 1994) 
o   Choice of task sequence for students with EBD (Jolivette et al., 2001)
o   Choice of math intervention for general education students  (Carson & Eckert, 2003)
o   Choice of task and reinforcement for students with severe disabilities (Cosden et al., 1995)
·         Also see Morgan (2006) for classroom application.

Evidence: see above


Use High Probability Request Sequence (HPRS)

Definition (Oliver & Skinner, 2003):
·         The presentation of a series of directions that a student is likely to perform  (i.e., high-p command) delivered immediately before a request that a student is less likely to perform (i.e., low-p command)
o   “High-p” teacher commands  = 80% or better compliance
o   “Low-p” teacher commands = 40-50% or less
·         Using a series of high-p requests to build behavioral momentum in order to increase the probability of compliance with the low-p request
·         The high probability request sequence establishes a learning history

Steps (Davis, 1995)
1)      Deliver a series of three to five high-p commands at a rapid pace
2)      Provide praise for each performance of the high-p command
3)      Deliver a low-p command
4)      Provide praise for the performance of the low-p request

Example: A teacher can ask a student to give me five, touch your nose, clap your hands (high-p commands) just before directing the student to get out her textbook (low-p command).

Evidence:
Demonstrated effectiveness across academic settings (inclusion and special education classrooms) and across different disabilities, including students with severe disabilities as well as young children without disabilities (e.g., Lee, 2005; Davis et al., 1993; Davis & Brady, 1994; Davis & Reichle, 1996; Jung et al., 2008; Wehby & Hollahan, 2000).


References

Carson, P. M., & Eckert, T. L. (2003). An experimental analysis of mathematics instructional
components: Examining the effects of student- selected versus empirically selected interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 35-54.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., III, & Lee, Y-Y. (1997). Using active supervision and
precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344-361.

Cosden, M., Gannon, C., & Haring, T. G. (1995). Teacher-control versus student-control over
choice of tasks and reinforcement for students with severe behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 11-27.

Davis, C. A. (1995). Peer as behavior change agents for preschoolers with behavioral disorders.
         Preventing School Failure, 39(4), 4-9.

Davis, C. A., & Brady, M. P. (1993). Expanding the utility of behavioral momentum with young
         children: Where we’ve been, where we need to go. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 211-
         223.

Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Hamilton, R., McEvoy, M. A., & Williams, R. E. (1994). Effects of
         high-probability requests on the social interactions of young children with severe
         disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 619-637.

Davis, C. A., & Reichle, J. (1996).Variant and invariant high probability requests: Increasing
appropriate behaviors in children with emotional-behavioral disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 471–482.

De Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce
         disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149–156.

De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor
behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255-264.

Dunlap, G., DePerezel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Suzanne, W., White, R., et al. (1994). Choice
making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.

Dunlap, G., DePerezel. M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Suzanne, W., White, R., et al. (1994). Choice
making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.

Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1997). Contracting to enhance motivation. In H. K. Reavis et al.,
(Eds.), Best practices: Behavioral and educational strategies for teachers (pp. 65-71). Longmont, CA: Sopris West.

Jolivette, K., Wehby, J., Canale, J., & Massey, N. G. (2001). Effects of choice-making
opportunities on the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 131-145.

Jung, S., Sainato, D. M., & Davis, C. A. (2008). Using high-probability request
         sequences to increase social interactions in young children with autism, Journal of Early
         Intervention, 30(3), 163-187.

Kehle, T. M., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L., & Jenson, W. R. (2000). A multi-component
         intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 474-481.

Lee. D. L. (2005). A quantitative synthesis of applied research on behavioral momentum.
         Exceptionality. 13. 141-154.

Lewis, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active supervision on
the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 109-121.

Mackay, S., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K., & Derby K. M. (2001). The use of precision requests
         to decrease noncompliance in the home and neighborhood: A case study. Child and Family
         Behavior Therapy, 23(3), 41-50.

Morgan, P. (2006). Increasing task engagement using preference or choice-making: Some
         behavioral and methodological factors affecting Their efficacy as classroom interventions.
         Remedial and Special Education 27(3), 176-187. 

Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors
in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of School Psychology Review, 30, 294-304.

Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001).  Employing precision requests
and antecedent strategies to educe disruptive behavior in students with social and emotional disorders:  A replication.  School Psychology Review. 30, 294-304.

Neef, N. A., Shafer, M. S., Egel, A. L., Cataldo, M. F., & Parrish, J. M. (1983). The class
         specific effects of compliance training with “do” and “don’t” requests: Analogue
         analysis and classroom application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 81-99.

Neville, M. H., & Jenson, W. R. (1984). Precision commands and the “Sure I Will” program: A
quick and efficient compliance training sequence. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 6, 61-65.

Oliver, R. & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Applying behavioral momentum to increase
         compliance: Why Mrs. H. RRReved up the elementary students with the Hokey-Pokey.
         Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 75-94.

Schuldheisz, J.M., & van der Mars, H. (2001). Active supervision and students' physical activity in
         middle school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 75-90.

Walker, H. M. (1995). The acting out child: Coping with classroom disruption. Longmont, CA:
         Sopris West.

Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E.,  & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidenced-
         based practices (2nd ed.). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 

Walker, H, M., & Walker, J, (1991). Coping with noncompliance in the classroom: A positive
         approach for teachers. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wehby, J, H., & Hollahan, M. S. (2000). Effects of" high-probability requests on the latency to
         initiate academic tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33. 259-262.

Yeager, C., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1995). Use of a time-out ribbon and precision requests to
improve child compliance in the classroom: A case study. Child and Family Therapy, 17(4), 1-10.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Non-Compliant Behavior

Discipline vs. Punishment

Contingency Mapping