Evaluation of a Novel Independent Group Contingency in an Alternative School
Introduction
Alternative schools provide crucial educational opportunities for students who struggle in traditional settings due to behavioral or academic challenges. However, managing disruptive behavior in these environments can be difficult, leading teachers to seek effective behavior management strategies.
A recent study by Joslyn, Najafchaghabouri, and Vollmer (2024) explores a novel adaptation of an independent group contingency (GC) model to address common implementation barriers in alternative school settings (DOI: 10.1007/s40617-023-00862-5). This research is significant because it demonstrates a practical way to use behavioral interventions while minimizing disruptions, teacher workload, and student resistance.
This blog will break down key findings from the study, explain the innovative features of the contingency model, and highlight how behavior analysts can apply these insights in real-world educational settings.
Understanding Group Contingencies (GCs)
Group contingencies are widely used in classrooms to manage behavior effectively by linking student performance to rewards. They are categorized into three types:
- Dependent GC – The entire group’s reward depends on the behavior of one or a few students.
- Interdependent GC – The whole group must meet a behavioral criterion to earn a reward.
- Independent GC – Each student earns individual rewards based on their own behavior, even within a group setting.
Research supports the effectiveness of GCs in improving student behavior in general education classrooms. One well-known example is the Good Behavior Game (GBG), which has been shown to reduce disruptive behaviors and increase student engagement.
Challenges in Implementing Traditional GCs
While GCs have significant benefits, alternative school educators often avoid them due to common challenges, such as:
- High effort for teachers – Tracking group progress requires additional time and effort.
- Verbal feedback disruptions – Providing feedback can interrupt teaching and increase student off-task behavior.
- Sabotage by students – Some students may intentionally disrupt group efforts to prevent others from earning rewards.
- Manipulation of reinforcement criteria – Students may exploit known reinforcement rules to game the system.
Recognizing these challenges, this study proposes modifications to the independent GC model that make it easier to implement in alternative school settings.
Study Methodology
Setting and Participants
The study took place in a Title 1 alternative K–12 public school, which serves students with emotional and behavioral disorders and histories of truancy or delinquency. A science teacher’s classroom was selected as the setting, where students frequently engaged in disruptive behaviors.
Modifications to the Independent GC Model
To improve feasibility and address common teacher concerns, four key modifications were made to the traditional independent GC approach:
- Low-effort implementation – Instead of continuous monitoring, teachers used time-sampling observations to reduce workload.
- No verbal feedback – To avoid disruptions, students were not informed in real-time whether their behavior was being tracked.
- Independent reward structure – Students earned reinforcement based on their own individual performance, preventing sabotage.
- Unclear reinforcement criteria – The exact rules for reinforcement were not disclosed to students, reducing the likelihood of manipulation.
Behavioral Measures and Data Collection
The researchers defined disruptive behavior as:
- Talking out of turn
- Leaving one’s seat without permission
- Making noises that interrupt instruction
The study measured the frequency of disruptive behavior before, during, and after the intervention to evaluate its effectiveness.
Key Findings and Implications
1. Reduction in Disruptive Behavior
Following the implementation of the modified independent GC, classrooms saw a significant decrease in student disruptions, demonstrating that the intervention was effective at promoting better classroom behavior.
2. Increased Teacher Satisfaction
Because the intervention required less effort and avoided verbal feedback disruptions, the teacher found it easier to implement and was more willing to use it long-term.
3. Improved Feasibility in Alternative School Settings
By avoiding sabotage and reinforcement manipulation, the intervention worked well even in a high-risk student population, suggesting it could be adapted for broader use.
These results highlight the practical benefits of modifying traditional behavior interventions to fit challenging educational environments.
Takeaways for Behavior Analysts
1. Independent GCs Can Be Refined for Better Usability
The study demonstrates that small modifications to an independent GC model can address common barriers to implementation, making it more feasible for teachers in alternative schools.
2. Minimize Disruptions with Non-Verbal Feedback
Eliminating verbal feedback reduces classroom interruptions and prevents unnecessary student reactions that might escalate behavior problems.
3. Prevent Sabotage and Manipulation
By ensuring that reinforcement criteria are not explicitly stated, students are less likely to work against the system or exploit known rules.
4. Encourage Teacher Buy-In Through Simplicity
Interventions that require minimal additional work are more likely to be adopted and sustained by teachers, leading to long-term behavioral improvements.
Final Thoughts and Next Steps
This study provides a strong example of how applied behavior analysis (ABA) research can be used to improve behavior interventions in real classroom settings. By modifying traditional group contingencies in a way that reduces teacher burden and prevents student interference, this intervention offers a promising approach for alternative school settings.
Behavior analysts can use these findings to:
- Design more practical GCs for challenging learning environments
- Provide training to educators on low-effort intervention strategies
- Explore further replications and adaptations of this approach in different school settings
For full details on this research, read the original study by Joslyn, Najafchaghabouri, and Vollmer (2024) in Behavior Analysis in Practice (DOI: 10.1007/s40617-023-00862-5).
