1. Introduction 2. Check In Check Out (CICO)

Adapting and Implementing Check In Check Out to Support Students’ Learning Skills in School Anna-Maria Hintz & Michael Paal

Universität Siegen (Germany), Lehrstuhl: Erziehungswissenschaft mit dem Schwerpunkt Förderpädagogik („Lernen“ sowie „Emotionale und soziale Entwicklung“)

2. Check In Check Out (CICO): Overview and Current State of Research

1. Introduction • Changing process in German school system  Transformation into the direction of inclusive schooling  Cultural and linguistically diversity increases (e.g., due to flight and migration)

• Major concerns of (esp. general ed.) teachers regarding inclusive schooling; e.g., addressing challenging student behavior adequately (e.g., Hintz, Paal, Urton, Krull, Hennemann, & Wilbert, 2015)



Necessity of effective and feasible cultural sensitive concepts (e.g., Sugai, O'Keeffe, & Fallon, 2012)



Taking into account different prerequisites (social-emotional as well as academic) of culturally and linguistically diverse students

• Developed based on a long history of research on behavior report cards (e.g., Davies & McLaughlin, 1989; Schumaker, Hovell, & Sherman, 1977) • Targeted intervention for students, who  get in trouble during school day due to their (attention-seeking) behavior (e.g., tardiness, disruptive behavior, etc.)  do not respond to primary prevention but do not demonstrate dangerous patterns of problem behavior

• Goals

• Implementation and evaluation of the effects of CICO on  Self-management skills

− Students: like the appreciation of their positive behavior through adults

 Majority of studies used a single-subject design (n = 15) − Strongest effects for participants whose problem behavior was maintained by access to attention

 Increase contingent adult feedback,  Enhance the daily structure for students throughout school day,

− 4 high quality studies with this focus

 Improve feedback to families about student behavior

− Tau-U = 0.46 - 0.89

1. Check In before school start (person A) Check In

2. Check In and Out before and after each lesson (responsible teachers) Check In before each lesson

Exchanging of CICO form “How are you?“ “What is going on today?“ “Did you prepare everything?“ “What is your aim for today?“ Points the student wants to reach are circled

 Student gives teacher CICO form  “How are you?“  Teacher makes plan for today’s lesson transparent, points out specific differences

Check Out after each lesson    

Aim

5. Sample

De-escalation of potential conflicts  Giving hints on possible helping strategies  Let student start into school day in a good mood 

• Two 12 year old sixth-graders of a lower secondary school (Realschule) in the rural area of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) Patrick Nils

 often unreliable

− Teachers: low effort intervention (1 minute per check)

 Main results from high quality studies (n = 6):

 Increase antecedent prompts for appropriate behavior,

     

 Disruptive behavior

 gets easily frustrated during class work

 High social validity of CICO

3. CICO-Cycle

• Adaption of CICO for the school context of Germany

 shows disruptive behavior during class

 Based on data of 108 individuals (66 in single-subject studies; 42 in group study)

4. Purpose

 misses high amount content due to being unfocused

• Current literature review (n = 16) by Wolfe et al. (2015)

 class representative  often unfocused during class  displays high rates of disruptive behavior  seeking attention

(of other students and teacher)

• Both students at risk of not being transferred to 7th grade due to their low academic performance

CICO Cycle

Aim

Feedback and reflection on behavior  Giving hints on possible helping strategies  Let student start into the break in a good mood 

4. Check In at home (parents) Check In

3. Check Out at the end of school day (person A) Check Out

Showing CICO form to get it signed “How are you?“ “How was your day?“ Short talk with reflection If necessary thinking about, how things could have turned out better  Emphasizing positive behavior and interactions  Appreciation of effort     

Necessary Resources for Check In Check Out Adult person, who

Aim

Positive feedback about student‘s behavior  Giving hints regarding possible helping strategies through parents  Appreciation of positive student interaction 

 is familiar with CICO and available during daily CICO times  has a good and positive relation to the student  works organized and reliable

Materials needed

 specified CICO-forms (fitting student‘s needs, daily structure)  chart to visualize individual development over time (daily check out)  optional: material / social reinforcers

Figure 1. Check In Check Out cycle across a school day with involving the students‘ parents.

6. Design, Variables, Data Analyses

Short reflection on behavior regarding different aspects on CICO form If necessary, talking about how it could have turned out better Emphasizing positive behavior and interactions Filling in CICO form

       

“How are you?“ “How was your day?“ Short talk about the single lessons and phases of the school day If necessary talking about how it could have turned out better Emphasizing positive behavior and interactions Filling in CICO form Adding points that where earned over the day to data graph If part of the plan and enough points were earned, (material) reinforcement

Aim

Feedback and reflection on behavior  Giving hints on possible helping strategies  Let student leave school day in a good mood 

8. Results: Observed Disruptive Behavior

• Design  AB-design (for each participant) combined with a pre- and posttest of the Strength & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Klasen, Woerner, Rothenberger, & Goodman, 2003)

• Dependent variables  Number of observed disruptive behavior in class during A- and Bphases (via partial interval recording)  Points earned during CICO intervention  SDQ-scores (pre- and posttest scores of the teacher and parent version)

• Data analyses

Figure 5. Nils‘ observed disruptive behavior during baseline und intervention phase (implementation of Check In Check Out).

Figure 4. Patrick‘s observed disruptive behavior during baseline und intervention phase (implementation of Check In Check Out).

 Single case data analyzed visually (based on What Works Clearinghouse Standards; What Works Clearinghouse, 2013) and statistically (calculation

9. Results: Targeted and Reached CICO Points

of non-overlap indices using SCAN-package for R (Wilbert, 2016)

 SDQ-scores, and CICO-points analyzed descriptively

7. Materials

Figure 6. Patrick‘s development regarding targeted and reached CICO points.

Figure 7. Nils‘ development regarding targeted and reached CICO points.

10. Results: Comparison of Pre-and Posttest SDQ-Scores Patrick’s SDQ-Scores

Emotional Symptoms Conduct Problems Hyperactivity/Inattention Peer Relationship Problems Overall Difficulties Score Prosocial Behavior

Figure 2. Adapted Check In Check Out behavior card (for original version, see Filter et. al, 2007).

Figure 3. Partial interval recording sheet used to record students‘ disruptive behavior.

Teacher t1 0 5 8 1 14 4

Teacher t2 0 5 5 1 11 4

Parent t1 5 5 4 1 15 7

Parent t2 -

Figure 8. Patrick‘s pre- and posttest scores of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Klasen, Woerner, Rothenberger, & Goodman, 2003).

11. Discussion Overall positive effects of CICO for both students: • Observed disruptive behavior (A- to B-phase)  high decrease of off-task behavior for both • Points on CICO form (B-phase)  positive development for both • Teacher’s SDQ-scores (t1 to t2)  positive development in the area of hyperactivity (decrease) for both  Nils: increase in prosocial behavior

• Conclusion: CICO is a feasible approach to reduce students’ off-task behavior during class and improve students’ self-management skills • Limitations: no assessment of treatment integrity, inter-observer reliability, social validity on student, teacher and parent level • Further steps: conducting studies with high quality designs for different grade levels and school settings of adapted versions of CICO

Nils’ SDQ-Scores

Emotional Symptoms Conduct Problems Hyperactivity/Inattention Peer Relationship Problems Overall Difficulties Score Prosocial Behavior

Teacher t1 0 4 9 1 14 5

0 4 5 1 10 6

Parent t1 4 6 8 1 19 7

Parent t2 2 4 7 0 13 7

Figure 9. Nils‘ pre- and posttest scores of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Klasen, Woerner, Rothenberger, & Goodman, 2003).

References 1.

Teacher t2

Davies, D. E., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1989). Effects of a daily report card on disruptive behavior in primary students. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 13(2), 173-181. 2. Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/ Check out. A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 69–84. 3. Hintz, A. M., Krull, J., & Paal, M. (2016). Individualisierte Förderung sozial-emotionaler Kompetenzen im Übergangssystem durch den Einsatz von "Check in Check out" als pädagogische Maßnahme der sekundären Prävention. Die Berufsbildende Schule, 68(4), 128-139. 4. Hintz, A. M., Paal, M., Urton, K., Krull, J., Hennemann, T., & Wilbert, J. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of opportunities and threats concerning inclusive schooling in Germany at an early stage of inclusion - Analyses of a Mixed Methodology Approach. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 14(3), 357-374. 5. Klasen, H., Woerner, W., Rothenberger, A., & Goodman, R. (2003). Die deutsche Fassung des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) - Übersicht und Bewertung erster Validierungs- und Normierungsbefunde. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 52(7), 491–502. 6. Schumaker, J. B., Hovell, M. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1977). An analysis of daily report cards and parent-managed privileges in the improvement of adolescents' classroom performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(3), 449–464. 7. Sugai, G., O'Keeffe, B. V., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). A contextual consideration of culture and School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(4), 197–208. 8. Wilbert, J. (2016). Package ‘scan’. Single-case data analyses for single and multiple AB designs. Retrieved from http://www.unipotsdam.de/inklusion/inklusionspaedagogik/wilbert/projekte/single-case-data-analysis-with-r.html 9. Wolfe, K., Pyle, D., Charlton, C. T., Sabey, C. V., Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2016). A systematic review of the empirical support for Check-In Check-Out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 74–88. 10. U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov

Contact Anna-Maria Hintz & Michael Paal Universität Siegen Erziehungswissenschaft mit dem Schwerpunkt Förderpädagogik (‚Lernen‘ sowie ‚Soziale und Emotionale Entwicklung‘) Wilhelm-von-Humboldt-Platz 15 57068 Siegen (Germany) Email: [email protected] [email protected]