Article Summary

Article Summary

Article Summary

Introduction

It can be seen that this article investigated the impact of a modified GBG, herein referred to as the Lunchroom Behavior Game (LBG), in an urban, elementary school. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: (a) what is the impact of the LBG on disruptive behavior, and (b) how acceptable is the intervention for cafeteria staff and students?

According to the article, in recent years a number of researchers have noted an increase in the number of youth with serious and chronic antisocial behaviors (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2003/2004). The situation is particularly evident in urban areas where there is increased exposure to associated risk factors ([McCurdy et al., 2003] and [Wagner et al., 2005]). The result is that in some school settings, particularly those with less structure and adult presence, the level of disruptive behavior may be critically unsafe.

Nonclassroom settings, including hallways, the playground, and the cafeteria are often the most violence-prone areas in the school ([Astor and Meyer, 2001] and [Astor et al., 2001]). It is reported that about 50% of problem behaviors in a given school occur in non-classroom settings ([Colvin et al., 1997] and [Nelson and Colvin, 1996]). For example, Craig, Pepler, and Atlas (2000) employed naturalistic observations of children on the playground and in the classroom and found, not surprisingly, that higher frequencies of aggression occurred on the playground than in the classroom. More recently, Fabiano, Pelham, Karmazin, Panahon, and Carlson (2008) documented an average daily frequency of about 0.5 rule violations per student, or one per every two students, in their study conducted in an elementary school cafeteria. Clearly, examples such as these provide compelling evidence for the need for intervention in non-classroom settings.

Compounding the issue of elevated rates of problem behavior in non-classroom settings, there are inherent difficulties that contribute to the problem of managing behavior in such settings (Colvin et al., 1997). A prescribed curriculum and effective instruction serve to minimize problem behavior in the classroom setting ([Lewis et al., 2000] and [Sutherland et al., 2002]) whereas in the non-classroom setting the emphasis is primarily on the supervision of student behavior. Without an instructional focus, supervisors in non-classroom settings rely on students to self-manage their behavior. Moreover, in many non-classroom settings supervisors are more likely to be of classified, rather than certified, status. In urban schools, for example, the cafeteria and the playground are often times staffed by non-professionals hired directly from the community with little or no training in managing student behavior ([Astor and Meyer, 2001] and [Astor et al., 2001]).

Recognizing the contribution of non-classroom settings to the escalation of problem behavior across the school, advocates of schoolwide positive behavior support (SW-PBS) promote the use of active supervision to maintain low levels of problem behavior ([Colvin et al., 1993], [Lewis et al., 2000] and [Lewis et al., 1998]). Active supervision refers to specific behaviors (i.e., scanning, moving, and interacting) utilized by supervising adults to prevent problem behavior and promote rule-following among students (Colvin et ...