班級層級功能本位介入小組方案改善國小融合班學生課堂參與行為之研究

Effects of class-wide function-related intervention teams on the engagement behaviors of elementary school students in inclusive classrooms

10.6172/BSE.202203_47(1).0002

胡倫茹(Lung-Ju Hu)；洪儷瑜(Li-Yu Hung)；陳心怡(Hsin-Yi Chen)

小學 ； 干擾行為 ； 正向行為支持 ； 班級管理 ； 班級層級功能本位介入小組 ； 融合班 ； classroom management ； CW-FIT ； disruptive behaviors ； elementary school ； inclusive classroom ； positive behavior support

特殊教育研究學刊

47卷1期（2022 / 03 / 30）

29 - 60

繁體中文

融合班級中情緒行為障礙與高危險群等特殊需求學生的挑戰和干擾行為，經常影響本身和同儕的學習，使得普通班教師在班級管理上面臨考驗。本研究旨探究「班級層級功能本位介入小組」（Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Teams，簡稱CW-FIT）方案對改善國小融合班學生課堂參與行為之成效。以北部一所國小四年級融合班全班學生與自然科教師為研究對象，另有四位學生作為第二層級（T2）之篩選對象。將CW-FIT方案運用於融合班自然課之課堂管理，分兩個層級實施，第一層級（T1）實施對象為融合班全體學生，教導教室適當行為，再透過團體增強、教師獎勵和消弱等區別性增強進行介入。T1介入後，仍有反應不佳的學生，才加上T2的自我管理。採單一受試之倒返設計，ABAB針對全班，ABCAC針對需要T2的目標學生。結果顯示，實施CW-FIT能有效提升融合班全體學生課堂參與行為，平均約有40-53%的提升量。T1對四位學生課堂參與行為能有改善，但其中一位之干擾行為改善效果未達理想，因此加以實施T2介入，結果其課堂參與行為明顯提升，平均提升量到50%，干擾行為呈現顯著且穩定的下降，平均減少約40%。教師出現讚美行為之比率也有顯著提升。不論是教師或學生，對於方案介入都給予正向回應，表示方案具社會效度。最後本研究討論CW-FIT方案如何落實於實務議題及未來研究方向，以供相關研究與教育人員參考。

Rationale: In Taiwan, approximately 90% of students with disabilities are placed in inclusive classrooms (Ministry of Education, 2020). However, those with challenging, disruptive behaviors receive less acceptance from regular education teachers and peers. Their challenging behaviors adversely impact the learning of other students and the teacher (Leu et al., 2015; Hsu & Chan, 2008). Proposed by Howard Wills in 2010, the Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) intervention is an integration of evidence-based behavioral intervention and classroom management strategies. Four major strategies were designed to be implemented in the first and second tiers of the three-tiered positive behavior support model: behavior instruction, group contingency, differential reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and self-management. CW-FIT has been studied in inclusive classrooms across different education stages with evidence of success in the United States and Taiwan. However, no study has investigated its effectiveness on challenging and appropriate behaviors of students in Taiwan. Purpose: This present study investigates the effectiveness of the CW-FIT program on inclusive classrooms, on challenging and inappropriate behaviors of students who are high-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, and on teacher behavior. Methods: This study involved a fourth-grade elementary school class and their natural science teacher in northern Taiwan. The CW-FIT program was applied to the classroom management of an inclusive natural science class. Tier 1 (T1) is a group contingency utilizing social skills training, teacher praise, and positive reinforcement to improve student behaviors for the whole class. Three good behaviors were identified by the teacher and instructed to all students in the class: follow the teacher's orders, appropriately call for attention, and avoid inappropriate behavior. If the students did not respond to T1, self-management was additionally implemented for the target students in tier 2 (T2). Four high-risk students were screened for T2 based on the results of T1. A single-subject reversal design (ABAB) was used during T1 intervention for the whole class. An ABCAC reversal design was used during T2 intervention for students who needed and received the self-management intervention. On-task behaviors of all the students in the whole class were observed for 20 s of partial interval recording. Both on-task behaviors and disruptive behaviors of four high-risk students were observed for 20 s of partial interval recording. Less than 80% of observed intervals of on-task behavior and greater than 30% of observed intervals of disruptive behavior were used as criteria to screen the four high-risk students for T2 intervention. All the students in the class were observed for 20 minutes after the first 10 minutes of the class. The numbers of teacher's praise and reprimand to students were also counted. The interobserver reliability for students' and teacher's behaviors was between 87% to 100%. Results/Findings: The major findings of this study are summarized as follows: (1) The on-task behavior of all students in the class improved by an average of 40% to 53% of observed intervals in T1. The average on-task behavior in the first intervention phase (B1) was 84% (range, 75% to 97%), and it increased after implementing T2 intervention during last seven sessions in the B1. The average on-task behavior increased to 92% (range, 88% to 95%) of observed intervals in the second intervention phase (B2). (2) The four high-risk students' on-task behaviors also improved in T1, but only three of them exhibited an improvement in disruptive behavior. One student did not improve as much as the others and met the criteria for T2 intervention. This target student, who was considered nonresponsive to T1 and referred into T2, was trained to use self-management in combination with T1 intervention in the inclusive classroom. The target student exhibited greater improvement in on-task behavior (M = 96%) and disruptive behavior (M = 4%). Thus, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of implementing CW-FIT with two-tier intervention. (3) The teacher's attention to and praise given for appropriate behaviors increased in the CW-FIT program. The teacher praised students' appropriate behavior on average every four to five minutes during the baseline period, and the praise increased to once a minute during the intervention period when implementing CW-FIT. (4) The social validity of CW-FIT was approved by both the teacher and the students, and the students reported satisfaction with the CW-FIT program. Eleven students in the class voluntarily practiced self-management during T2 intervention. They reported self-management as helpful as it was for the high-risk student noted earlier. The science teacher reported that the use of a timer helped remind her to pay attention to students' good behavior. She praised students more frequently during the study, and even did so frequently after the study. Conclusions: The effectiveness of CW-FIT was demonstrated in this inclusive classroom, with two tiers accommodating the different needs of students. All the students' on-task behavior increased, including that of the target student who required additional intervention. The results agree with the rationale of the Response to Intervention (RTI) approach that nonresponses to intervention require further intervention that is more focused on individual needs. The target student self-managed their own inappropriate behavior in addition to using the group contingency. The combination of T1 and T2 significantly decreased disruptive behavior to less than 6% and revealed the intensity of focus on the objective for the target students. The results demonstrated that CW-FIT not only improved student behavior but also teacher behavior. The teacher praised good students more frequently, but the frequency of reprimands did not decrease because the teacher avoided reprimanding students during the baseline. Therefore, the frequency of teacher's reprimand remained low. Consequently, the ratio of praises to reprimands (10:1) given by the science teacher during intervention in this study was much higher than that in the literature (4:1; Simonsen et al., 2008). Implications: The findings from this present study suggest that (1) CW-FIT programs should be introduced to teachers in inclusive classrooms, (2) learning goals of the professional development community at inclusive schools should help teachers in implementing the learning-by-doing approach, (3) and CW-FIT should be used as an RTI program to integrate early intervention with screening. Future studies can investigate other grades, subjects, and populations to generalize the findings.

1. 呂秋蓮, C.-L.,陳明終, M.-C.,孟瑛如, Y.-R.,田仲閔, J.-M.(2015)。國小普通班教師面對 ADHD 學生教學困擾與因應策略之現況調查與研究。特教論壇，19，85-101。
   連結：
2. 徐瓊珠, C.-C.,詹士宜, S.-Y.(2008)。國小教師對不同類別身心障礙學生就讀普通班意見之調查研究。特殊教育與復健學報，19，25-49。
   連結：
3. 高翊娟, I.-C.,蔡淑妃, S.-F.(2020)。班級層級介入方案對於降低國小學生健康課干擾行為之個案研究。教育研究與實踐學刊，67(2)，51-67。
   連結：
4. 蔡淑妃, S.-F.,陳佩玉, P.-Y.(2015)。班級層級功能本位介入小組方案（CW-FIT）的內涵與應用。特教論壇，19，24-34。
   連結：
5. Briesch, A. M.,Briesch, J. M.(2016).Meta-analysis of behavioral self-management interventions in single-case research.School Psychology Review,45(1),3-18.
6. Briesch, A. M.,Chafouleas, S. M.(2009).Review and analysis of literature on self-management interventions to promote appropriate classroom behaviors (1988-2008).School Psychology Quarterly,24(2),106-118.
7. Caldarella, P.,Williams, L.,Hansen, B. D.,Wills, H.(2015).Managing student behavior with class-wide function-related intervention teams: An observational study in early elementary classrooms.Early Childhood Education Journal,43(5),357-365.
8. Carr, E. G.,Dunlap, G.,Horner, R. H.,Koegel, R. L.,Turnbull, A. P.,Sailor, W.,Anderson, J.,Albin, R.W.,Koegel, L. K.,Fox, L.(2002).Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science.Journal of Positive Behavioral Intervention,4(1),4-16.
9. Chow, J. C.,Gilmour, A. F.(2016).Designing and implementing group contingencies in the classroom: A teacher's guide.Teaching Exceptional Children,48(3),137-143.
10. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Eribaum.
11. Cohn, A. M. (2001). Positive behavioral supports: Information for educators (fact sheet). http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/pbs_fs.aspx
12. 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(4),344-363.
13. Conklin. C. G.(2010).University of Kansas.
14. Conroy, M.,Sutherland, K.,Snyder, A.,Marsh, S.(2008).Classwide interventions: Effective instruction makes a difference.Teaching Exceptional Children,40(6),24-30.
15. Didden, R,de Moor, J.,Bruyns, W.(1997).Effectiveness of DRO tokens in decreasing disruptive behavior in the classroom with five multiply handicapped children.Behavioral Interventions,12(2),65-75.
16. Epstein, M.,Atkins, M.,Cullinan, D.,Kutash, K.,Weaver, R.(2008).,National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
17. Hansen, S. D.,Lignugaris-Kraft, B.(2005).Effects of a dependent group contingency on the verbal interactions of middle school students with emotional disturbance.Behavioral Disorders,30(2),170-184.
18. Harlacher, J. E.,Roberts, N. E.,Merrell, K. W.(2006).Classwide interventions for students with ADHD: A summary of teacher options beneficial for the whole class.Teaching Exceptional Children,39(2),6-13.
19. Jolstead, K. A.,Caldarella, P.,Hansen, B. D.,Korth, B. B.,Williams, L.,Kamps, D.(2017).Implementing positive behavior support in preschools: An exploratory study of CW-FIT tier 1.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,19(1),48-60.
20. Kamps, D.,Conklin, C.,Wills, H.(2015).Use of self-management with the CW-FIT group contingency program.Education and Treatment of Children,38(1),1-32.
21. Kamps, D.,Wendland, M.,Culpepper, M.(2006).Active teacher participation in functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms.Behavioral Disorders,31(2),128-146.
22. Kamps, D.,Wills, H.,Heitzman-Powell, L.,Laylin, J.,Szoke, C.,Petrillo, T.,Culey, A.(2011).Class-wide function-related intervention teams: Effects of group contingency programs in urban classrooms.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,13(3),154-167.
23. Kincaid, D.,Dunlap, G.,Kern, L.,Lane, K. L.,Bambara, L. M.,Brown, F,Fox, L.,Knoster, T. P.(2016).Positive behavior support a proposal for updating and refining the definition.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,18(2),69-73.
24. Koegel, L. K.(Ed.),Koegel, R. L.(Ed.),Dunlap, G.(Ed.)(1996).Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community.Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
25. Lohrmann, S.,Talerico, J.,Dunlap, G.(2004).Anchor the boat: A classwide intervention to reduce problem behavior.Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions,6(2),113-120.
26. Maggin, D. M.,Johnson, A. H.,Chafouleas, S. M.,Ruberto, L. M.,Berggren, M.(2012).A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior.Journal of School Psychology,50(5),625-654.
27. Martin, G. L.,Pear, J. J.(2007).Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it.New Prentice Hall/Pearson.
28. McQuillan, K.,DuPaul, G. J.,Shapiro, E. S.,Cole, C. L.(1996).Classroom performance of students with serious emotional disturbance: A comparative study of evaluation methods for behavior management.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,4(3),162-170.
29. Northup, J.,Broussard, C.,Jones, K.,George, T.,Vollmer, T. R,Herring, M.(1995).The differential effects of teacher and peer attention on the disruptive classroom behavior of three children with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,28(2),227-228.
30. Olive, M. L.,Smith, B. W.(2005).Effect size calculations and single subject designs.Educational Psychology,25(2-3),313-324.
31. Scruggs, T. E.,Mastropieri, M. A.(1996).Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis.Exceptional Children,63(1),59-74.
32. Simonsen, B.,Fairbanks, S.,Briesch, A.,Myers, D.,Sugai, G.(2008).Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice.Education and Treatment of Children,31(3),351-380.
33. Simonsen, B.,Myers, D.(2015).Classwide positive behavior interventions and supports: A guide to proactive classroom management.The Guilford Press.
34. Stage, S. A.,Quiroz, D. R.(1997).A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings.School Psychology Review,26(3),333-368.
35. Sugai, G.,Horner, R. H.,Dunlap, G.,Hieneman, M.,Lewis, T. J.,Nelson, C. M.,Scott, T.,Liaupsin, C.,Sailor, W.,Turnbull, A. P.,Turnbull, H. R., III,Wickham, D.,Reuf, M.,Wilcox, B.(2000).Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools.Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions,2(3),131-143.
36. Theodore, L. A.,Bray, M. A.,Kehle, T. J.,Dioguardi, R. J.(2004).Contemporary review of group-oriented contingencies for disruptive behavior.Journal of Applied School Psychology,20(1),79-101.
37. Trevino-Maack, S. I.,Kamps, D.,Wills, H.(2015).A group contingency plus self-management intervention targeting at-risk secondary students' class-work and Active Engagement.Remedial and Special Education,36(6),347-360.
38. Weeden, M.,Wills, H. P.,Kottwitz, E.,Kamps, D.(2016).The effects of a class-wide behavior intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders,42(1),285-293.
39. Wills, H. P.,Caldarella, P.,Mason, B. A.,Lappin, A.,Anderson, D. H.(2019).Improving student behavior in middle schools: Results of a classroom management intervention.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,21(4),213-227.
40. Wills, H. P.,Iwaszuk, W. M.,Kamps, D.,Shumate, E.(2014).CW-FIT: Group contingency effects across the day.Education and Treatment of Children,37(2),191-210.
41. Wills, H. P.,Kamps, D.,Hansen, B. D.,Conklin, C.,Bellinger, S.,Neaderhiser, J.,Nsubuga, B.(2010).The classwide function-related intervention team program.Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,54(3),164-171.
42. Wills, H. P.,Wehby, J.,Caldarella, P.,Kamps, D.,Swinburne Romine, R.(2018).Classroom management that works: A replication trial of the CW-FIT program.Exceptional Children,84(4),437-456.
43. Wills, H. P,Kamps, D.,Fleming, K.,Hansen, B.(2016).Student and teacher outcomes of the class-wide function-related intervention team efficacy trial.Exceptional Children,83(1),58-76.
44. 王怡人, Y.-J.(2021)。國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
45. 吳沂蓁, Y.-C.(2016)。國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
46. 吳裕益, Y.-Y.(2004)。效果量分析在單一受試研究之應用。屏師特殊教育文集，6，1-48。
47. 李鴻源, H.-Y.(2014)。結合正向管教輔導策略和全校性正向行為支持預防策略幫助普通班情障高風險學生。特教園丁，29(3)，1-6。
48. 林迺超, N.-C.,袁銀娟, Y.-J.,翁素珍, S.-Z.,洪儷瑜, L.-Y.(2018)。特殊教育學生情緒行為問題處理架構。特殊教育學生的正向行為支持
49. 林進材, C.-T.(2005).班級經營—理論與策略.復文=Fuhwen Publishing.
50. 洪儷瑜（編）, L.-Y.(Ed.)(2002).社會技巧訓練的理念與實施.國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育系=National Taiwan Normal University, Department of Special Education.
51. 洪儷瑜, L.-Y.(2018)。正向行為支持。特殊教育學生的正向行為支持
52. 張芸瑄, Y.-H.(2018)。國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
53. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2013).國民小學學校輔導工作參考手冊.教育部=Ministry of Education.
54. 教育部（2020）：109 年度特殊教育統計年報。教育部。[Ministry of Education (2020). 2020 annual report on special education statistics.]
55. 陳郁忻, Y.-H.(2019)。國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
56. 鈕文英, W.-I.(2009).身心障礙者的正向行為支持.心理=Psychological.
57. 劉香芬, S.-F.(2013)。國立彰化師範大學=National Changhua University of Education。

1. (2022)。支持特殊需求兒童意見表達與參與權：「身心障礙鑑定功能量表兒童圖卡版」的運用。社區發展季刊，180，276-299。
2. (2024).No Best Prize, But a Better Way: Exploring the Primary Prevention Application of Rewards in School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Programs.教育心理學報,56(1),25-43.