Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/267028833

EffectiveYardSupervision:fromNeedsAssessmenttoCustomizedTraining

ARTICLEinTHECALIFORNIASCHOOLPSYCHOLOGIST:CASP/CALIFORNIAASSOCIATIONOFSCHOOLPSYCHOLOGISTS·JUNE2014

DOI:10.1007/s40688-014-0011-0

DOWNLOADS

21

VIEWS

47

5AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

JillD.Sharkey

UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara

69PUBLICATIONS288CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AshleyM.Mayworm

UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara

11PUBLICATIONS3CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:JillD.Sharkey

Retrievedon:16August2015

1 23

Contemporary School PsychologyThe Official Journal of the CaliforniaAssociation of School Psychologists ISSN 2159-2020Volume 18Number 2 Contemp School Psychol (2014)18:103-116DOI 10.1007/s40688-014-0011-0

Effective Yard Supervision: from NeedsAssessment to Customized Training

Jill D. Sharkey, Kayleigh L. Hunnicutt,Ashley M. Mayworm, K. Chris Schiedel& Leandro Calcagnotto

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by California

Association of School Psychologists. This e-

offprint is for personal use only and shall not

be self-archived in electronic repositories. If

you wish to self-archive your article, please

use the accepted manuscript version for

posting on your own website. You may

further deposit the accepted manuscript

version in any repository, provided it is only

made publicly available 12 months after

official publication or later and provided

acknowledgement is given to the original

source of publication and a link is inserted

to the published article on Springer's

website. The link must be accompanied by

the following text: "The final publication is

available at link.springer.com”.

Effective Yard Supervision: from Needs Assessmentto Customized Training

Jill D. Sharkey & Kayleigh L. Hunnicutt &Ashley M. Mayworm & K. Chris Schiedel &Leandro Calcagnotto

Published online: 13 February 2014# California Association of School Psychologists 2014

Abstract Most educational scholars agree that appropriatesupervision of children is critical for positive youth develop-ment. Supervision is especially important during situationswhere children have a large degree of freedom and unstruc-tured interaction, such as during recess. Despite the apparentimportance of supervision of children at recess, there is littlepublished research on the training of yard supervisors. Thegoal of the present study was to conduct a needs assessmentand develop a customized training for yard supervisors at apublic elementary school in an effort to help yard supervisorsrespond more effectively to student conflicts and promote apositive school climate. Needs assessment data used to informthe yard supervisor training were gathered through twomethods: (a) playground observations of yard supervisor andstudent behavior and (b) yard supervisor interviews and stu-dent focus groups. Results of the needs assessment, and adescription of the yard supervisor training developed fromthese findings, are presented, with particular emphasis placedon the implications of the study for practicing schoolpsychologists.

Keywords Yard supervision . Recess . Unstructured play .

Student engagement . Needs assessment . Recessobservation . Playground

Recess is an important time in a child’s school day, wherestudents are able to play and engage in unstructured activitiesof personal interest; yet, there is little research investigating

the impact of recess on student outcomes. Research suggeststhat structure and supervision, as well as child autonomy andexploration, are needed for positive youth development.Supervision and structure are critical during recess due toconcerns regarding safety, the ability of students to engagein healthy interpersonal interactions without guidance (Lewiset al. 2000), and bullying (Hughes et al. 2009). Autonomy andexploration are also important components of recess, as hav-ing too many rules can constrain children and impede theirability to spontaneously learn from their social and physicalenvironments (Pellegrini and Bohn 2005; Thompson 2007).These findings suggest that children should feel some level ofindependence from authority during recess, but also have aneed for direction, monitoring, and skills acquisition fromadults to appropriately interact during recess. Both of theseneeds may be met through effective supervision efforts byyard supervisors. Given the potential influence of yard super-visors on the social skills development of children, we con-ducted a needs assessment at an elementary school to deter-mine what the recess environment was like and how studentsand yard supervisors interacted, so that a customized trainingcould be created to help yard supervisors respond more effec-tively to student conflicts and promote a positive schoolclimate.

Yard Supervision

The need for yard supervisors at recess generally stems fromconcerns over student safety, lack of appropriate supervision,ensuring students appropriately interact with one another(Lewis et al. 2000), and bullying (Vaillancourt et al. 2010).Safety issues on the playground include misuse of equipment,playing rough with each other, venturing into unauthorized orunsupervised areas, and other behaviors that may contribute tostudents’ physical injury and are often related to inadequate

J. D. Sharkey (*) :K. L. Hunnicutt :A. M. Mayworm :K. C. Schiedel : L. CalcagnottoDepartment of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara,CA 93106, USAe-mail: jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116DOI 10.1007/s40688-014-0011-0

Author's personal copy

supervision on the playground (Hendricks 1993; Jarvis 2007).Bullying is also a concern at recess, as studies have identifiedunsupervised areas of recess and class transitions as hot spotsfor peer victimization (Vaillancourt et al. 2010). Similarly, itcould be hypothesized that in situations where older andyounger students are free to interact (e.g., recess), bullying ismore likely to occur; research on bullying in Taiwan hasrevealed that inequalities of power (i.e., higher social statusof parents, larger physical size, being leaders in the class) werefrequently cited as predictors of students engaging in bullyingbehaviors in school (Cheng et al. 2011). In addition, familyand adolescent research suggests that children and adolescentsthat are supervised more engage in fewer problem behaviorsthan their less supervised peers (Pettit et al. 2001). Studentsalso appear to recognize the need for adult supervision, as onestudy found that 53 % of students reported wanting adults tosupervise better, particularly on the playground (Hughes et al.2009).

In addition to preventing harm and peer victimization, adultsupervision of students during recess could also provide op-portunities for students to learn appropriate social skills andprosocial behaviors. Thus, yard supervisors could use theirsupervision time as an opportunity to teach and reinforcepositive behaviors through methods such as corrective feed-back and modeling. Corrective feedback involves providinginformation to the student regarding their behavior and how tocorrect it immediately when the undesired behavior or evi-dence that it may occur is detected (Bloom 1976), whereasmodeling occurs when an action is demonstrated by an actor(i.e., yard supervisor), observed by the observer (i.e., student),and is later able to be imitated by the observer (Bandura1965). The skills acquired by students from these interven-tions by yard supervisors may translate to other school envi-ronments, possibly leading to a more positive school climateoverall.

Yard supervisors also may have a powerful impact onstudents’ engagement with school. Engaging students withschool is critical to promoting academic performance (Blumand Libbey 2004) and avoiding negative outcomes such asdropout and delinquency (Finn and Rock 1997). Although nostudies to date have examined the impact of yard supervisionon student engagement, research has demonstrated that stu-dent–teacher relationships (Hughes and Kwok 2007), teacherinvolvement (Tucker et al. 2002), teacher support (You andSharkey 2009), and healthy classroom relationships (Patricket al. 2007) are all related to increased student engagement.Furthermore, research has demonstrated that these types ofschool assets predict student engagement regardless of level offamily risk (even when controlling for internal resilience;Sharkey et al. 2008). Yard supervisors may not be aware oftheir potential impact on students’ feelings of connectednessto school. Yard supervisors can develop relationships withchildren by creating a fun, safe, and positive environment

where students can safely and skillfully negotiate unstructuredplay opportunities, which may help them stay engaged, orbecome reengaged, with school. Alternatively, if yard super-visors believe their job is to enforce rules and administerconsequences without nurturing student relationships, theymight miss opportunities to engage students, or worse, createan atmosphere that alienates students from school.

Some research has begun to emerge to evaluate the impactof structured play programs on student outcomes. For exam-ple, Playworks employs trained, full-time coaches who orga-nize games during recess, incorporate physical activity intothe classroom curriculum, and are responsible for integratingplay into the broader school community (e.g., including par-ents). This program has been found to reduce peer conflicts,increase positive relationships between students, and increasestudent focus in class (Madsen et al. 2011). Although suchprograms appear to be one positive solution to the need forsupervised play during research, other scholarship has dem-onstrated that unstructured play breaks are critical for studentsto maximize learning. Pellegrini and Bohn (2005) integratescholarship to demonstrate that the social skills and role playpractice possible during unstructured play are necessary todiffuse the buildup of cognitive interference gained with se-quential focused tasks, even if the tasks are as different asreading and physical education. They explain that there aremany additional benefits of unstructured play, including de-veloping successful peer relationships, gaining social compe-tence, perspective taking, and gaining social–emotional sup-port. Thus, it may be important for yard supervisors to providepositive and corrective feedback to students during unstruc-tured play rather than only structure the play of students.

Yard supervisors cannot be expected to nurture positiveplay environments for children without training or profession-al development; even credentialed teachers may struggle witheffective behavior management strategies. Studies have foundthat teachers seldom use behavior-specific praise (Gable et al.2009) and some inaccurately believe external reinforcement isineffective or harmful (Deci et al. 1999). Effective skills inmanaging student behavior are related to better student en-gagement and learning outcomes and teacher satisfaction withtheir job (Piwowar et al. 2013); yet, classroom management isneglected in teacher preparation programs (Johansen et al.2011). Given these findings, it is clear that professional de-velopment is needed to improve all educators’ skills to pro-mote positive behavior and create warm classroom and schoolclimates.

Despite the apparent importance of appropriate supervisionof children at recess, there is little published research on thetraining of yard supervisors, who may not be included inteacher professional development opportunities to learn be-havior management skills. Also, training specifically for yardsupervisors is necessary because their role on the playgroundto balance freedom to engage in unstructured play with

104 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

intervention to encourage safety is different than the role of ateacher in the classroom to encourage participation in highlystructured learning activities. In the only published yard su-pervisor intervention study known to the authors, Lewis et al.(2000) implemented a schoolwide recess intervention at anelementary school. The intervention consisted of the teachersproviding social skills training and pre-correction techniquesto their students prior to the intervention, followed by anintervention where proactive supervision techniques weretaught to and used by yard supervisors on the playground.Yard supervisors were instructed to reinforce student compli-ance with playground rules, provide verbal reminders of play-ground rules when students were found violating playgroundrules, and constantly be moving around the physical space ofthe yard while also completing visual scans of the area andstudents. The authors found that the lowest rates of problembehaviors were observed during structured play. In addition,the intervention was successful at reducing rates of childproblem behavior (e.g., putting their hands on their peers,misusing playground equipment, arguing with others), butnot at increasing rates of active supervision by the adults.The authors stated that this indicated that the instructionalintervention within the classroom was sufficient in promotingchanges that transferred to the playground. Thus, it is unclearif yard supervisor training is important to increase positiveplay and reduce problem behaviors during recess or if teach-ing positive play skills directly to children is sufficient. Noresearch has documented the kinds of interactions yard super-visors have with students on the playground. Therefore, it isunclear what type of training is needed and it is likely that yardsupervisor issues vary from school to school based on factorssuch as who is employed for yard supervision (e.g., teachersversus paraprofessionals) and the quality of training theyreceive for their yard supervision duties.

The Current Study

Recognizing the need for studying the playground environ-ment and yard supervisors’ role in promoting prosocial be-havior, we embarked on a study to better understand yardsupervisor interactions during unstructured play periods.Although some research has examined the implementationof recess programs to facilitate student play and related out-comes, no research has studied the playground environment tobetter understand types of yard supervisor and student inter-actions. We also acknowledge that every school context hasunique considerations that should be taken into account indeveloping yard supervisor trainings, such as a particularschool philosophy, specific rules, and the environmental con-text. Thus, our goal in this study was to develop and pilot testneeds assessment tools that school psychologists and otherschool professionals can use to identify yard supervisor

training needs at their own school site. After developing theseneeds assessment tools, we investigated (a) the types andfrequencies of different behaviors on all playground areas,(b) the types and frequencies of interactions between yardsupervisors and students, (c) the yard supervisors’ reportedtraining needs, and (d) the students’ reported experiences atrecess and with yard supervisors. This information was usedto develop a training program for all yard supervisors at theschool. The current study outlines our findings, as well aslessons learned from this pilot program.

Method

Setting and Participants

The current study was conducted at a public elementaryschool in Central California. The elementary school enrolls750 students who are primarily European American (51 %)and Latino/a (43 %); approximately one third of the students(33 %) speak Spanish as their first language and 37 % areenrolled in free and reduced lunch, which is a program forfamilies that live at or below the poverty level. For the firstphase of the needs assessment, which included observingstudents and yard duty supervisors during recess, participantsincluded all students in kindergarten through sixth grade thatwere present at recess at the time of the observations and 11yard duty supervisors. In the second phase, which includedconducting focus groups with students and one-on-one inter-views with yard duty supervisors, participants included stu-dents in four classrooms (one classroom per grades 1, 3, 4, and5) and the same 11 yard duty supervisors who were observedon the playground.

The school assigns yard supervisors to eight areas of theplayground. The kindergarten yard is a contained area thatcontains grass and a soccer goal; a play structure; a playhouse;a blacktop with handball, jump rope, and hopscotch; a largefenced in sandbox; and a garden. The rest of the school isorganized with the building structures surrounding a largeopen play area. At one end is toy 1, a play structure alongwith some blacktop area and games designed for the firstgraders. Next to that is a set of basketball courts (wherechildren also play kickball, jump rope, and tether ball),handball courts, and a more advanced play structure calledtoy 2. This section is open to all students in grades 2through 6. At the other end of the school, there is a fieldwith soccer goals and another blacktop area with four-square courts. This area is primarily designated for theupper grade students. Behind the sixth grade classrooms,there is a peace garden, where only sixth graders can goand tend the garden of flowers and vegetables or hang outand chat with their friends.

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 105

Author's personal copy

Measures

Due to the absence of standardized measures for conducting arecess and yard supervisor needs assessment, four measureswere created for this purpose: the Yard Supervisor InteractionObservation Chart, the Playground Environment Form, theClassroom Interview Protocol, and the Yard SupervisorInterview Protocol.

Yard Supervisor Observation Chart Researchers used theYard Supervisor Observation Chart (Appendix A) to capturethe nature of the interactions between yard supervisors andstudents. During a 10-min period, each yard supervisor–stu-dent interaction and time between interactions were classifiedas an event. For each event, the start time, end time, antecedent(positive or negative), and approach type (yard supervisorapproached student or student approached yard supervisor)were recorded. The nature of the yard supervisor–studentinteraction including the type of problem-solving strategyused was recorded as one or more of the following: engagingwith children (e.g., playing, talking), reward, nurturance, cor-rective behavior, coaching, student responsibility, punish-ment, threat, or command (see Table 1 for a description ofthese strategies). Qualitative notes on the student’s response to

the yard supervisor strategy that was used, student affect, andyard supervisor affect were also recorded.

Playground Environment Form Researchers used thePlayground Environment Form (Appendix B) to documentthe frequency of prosocial, neutral, and antisocial studentbehaviors on the playground. Every 10 s, a child was random-ly selected from the playground (rotating between boys andgirls) and assigned one of the three behavior types (i.e.,prosocial, neutral, antisocial) based on their most prominentbehavior during the interval. Prosocial behavior included be-havior that was helpful or involved student cooperation, con-cern for others, verbal supports, verbal praise, joint problemsolving, constructive group work, supporting others, or activelistening. Neutral behavior included student actions such aswalking around alone and sitting idle. Antisocial behaviorincluded teasing, physical aggression, verbal put downs, rude-ness, arguing, fighting, unresponsiveness, and bossiness.

Classroom Interview Protocol Researchers used theClassroom Interview Protocol to initiate dialogue about recessand the yard supervisors with all of the students within aclassroom. A total of 10 questions (see Table 2) were askedof the students regarding their experiences at recess with the

Table 1 Description of yard supervisor strategies

Strategy type Description Example

Engaging with kids Playing (P) or talking (T) Talking with students, playing a game together,doing a favor, helping

Reward Providing tangible rewards to students; the childis receiving something for their actions

“You can use the ball next”

Nurturance Emotional nurturance Smiling, praise, positive attention

Corrective behavior Providing information about a discrepancy betweenthe child’s behavior and the values of the school

Telling a student that when they kick the ball atanother student, it can hurt the student and itviolates the school rules. There are other waysto get the ball to their peer, such as handing itto them or asking them to come get the ball

Coaching Guiding the student to a different behavior or skillsbased on information given; similar to correctivebehavior feedback, but is more in-depth

Talking kids through a step-by-step problem solvingprocess around the issue of kicking the ball atanother student

Student responsibility Telling the students to figure out what the properbehavior or solution is and/or to figure it outamong themselves; student-driven solutions

A girl tells the yard supervisor that another girl tried tojoin her game after they had already started. The yardsupervisor directs them to figure it out themselves andto be respectful to each other

Punishment Imposing aversive consequences onto the child Sending the student to the office; having the studentsit on the wall; taking something away from a student

Threat Threatening punishment or other consequences Warning a student that their behavior may lead to beingsent to the principal’s office; threatening to take aball away from students who do not let others play

Command Commanding the students to behave in a particularway; attempting to impose social control and elicitcompliance from the students

Telling the students, “Put the ball down now”; “Go siton the wall”; “Give me the jump rope”; “Stoprunning on the blacktop!”

106 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

yard supervisors, student conflicts at recess, and suggestionsfor improving the nature of interactions between yard super-visors and students.

Yard Supervisor Interview Protocol Researchers used the YardSupervisor Interview Protocol to gather information about theyard supervisors’ training and experiences during recess. Atotal of 20 questions (see Table 2) were asked regarding yardsupervisors’ responsibilities, conflict management style, re-sponses to hypothetical playground conflicts, type of studentconflicts usually encountered, and training for being a yardsupervisor.

Procedures

Prior to data collection, approval for the study was granted bythe University Institutional Review Board for the protection ofhuman subjects. Researchers collected the needs assessmentdata over a two-day period. Eight separate areas of the play-ground yard were identified for the purposes of observations(see Table 3), though they were later collapsed into four, forthe purpose of parsimoniously examining playground areas bygrade (see Table 4). In addition, many of the areas that werecollapsed also physically overlapped upon one another.Observers were three graduate research assistants, one under-graduate research assistant, and the university faculty memberleading the project. All observers received informal trainingon the protocols being used in the study. Calculation of inter-rater reliability was not conducted due to the complexities ofmatching the exact events that were recorded independentlyby each observer, especially in areas where the there was ahigh volume of events to record. Observations of yard super-visor–student interactions were conducted using the YardSupervisor Observation Chart, with the majority of the obser-vations being conducted simultaneously by two researchers.Attempts were made to observe each yard supervisor twice,although this was not always possible because of yard super-visor schedules. Each supervisors’ scores were computedusing an average of all available observations. In addition,one researcher completed observations of student behaviorusing the Playground Environment Form. This researcherrotated throughout the playground areas, completing at leasttwo min of observation per playground area, for a total of32 min. Student focus groups were conducted using theClassroom Interview Protocol. Researchers conducted focusgroups in a first, third, fourth, and fifth grade classroom (totalof four classrooms). Teachers were present when the focusgroups occurred, although they did not participate. Focusgroups took place for approximately 15–30 min each.Researchers conducted yard supervisor interviews throughoutthe two-day period. A total of 11 yard supervisors wereindividually interviewed; none of whom were teachers at the

Table 2 Student and yard supervisor interview questions

Student interview questions

1. What do the yard supervisors do during recess?

2. Who has gone to the yard supervisor for help? Why?

3. Have the yard supervisor ever come over to you without asking themto? If yes, what for?

4. What are your conflicts with classmates usually about?

5. How do you deal with these conflicts?

6. What do the yard supervisors do when you have a conflict withsomeone?

7. Can you give an example of something a yard supervisor said thatwas helpful?

8. Can you give an example of something a yard supervisor said thatyou did not think was helpful?

9. What do you wish the yard supervisor did more of?

10. What do you wish the yard supervisor did less of?

Yard supervisor interview questions

1. How long have you been a yard supervisor?

2. How long have you been a yard supervisor at this elementaryschool?

3. How many hours a week do you work as a yard supervisor?

4. Do you have employment other than as a yard supervisor?

5. Are you a parent of a child at the elementary school?

6. Describe the training you received to be a yard supervisor (crisisintervention, CPR, etc.)?

7. What are your major responsibilities as a yard supervisor?

8. Which of these responsibilities do you spend the most time doing?

9. Which of these responsibilities do you spend the least amount oftime doing?

10. Please describe how you might respond to:

a. A student running in a prohibited area, such as near playstructures, walls, or fences.

b. A student not sharing a piece of equipment, such as a ball.

c. Students fighting or rough playing.

11. How many student conflicts do you witness in an average 20-minrecess period?

12. What are these conflicts usually about (e.g. damage of property,name calling)?

13. Do the students usually come to you for help resolving theirconflicts or do you usually need to approach the students yourself?

14. Are there any types of conflicts that you witness and do not feel theneed to intervene? If yes, provide a few examples.

15. Have you noticed that certain students get into more conflicts thanothers? If yes, what types of conflicts do they typically get involvedin?

16. Do you follow-up with students who have resolved their conflicts?If yes, why do you see this as beneficial? If no, why not?

17. Have you ever felt unequipped to handle a situation during recess?If yes, please describe it.

18. What makes your job harder?

19. What makes your job easier?

20. Is there anything that you feel would help you do your job? Anyinformation, training, or support that you would benefit from?

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 107

Author's personal copy

elementary school. Consent was obtained from each yardsupervisor before being interviewed. Interviews ranged fromapproximately 25 to 50 min and took place in a private roomwithin the school.

After data collection was completed, data were coded andentered by trained research assistants. Descriptive statisticswere calculated for individual items on the Yard Supervisor

Observation Chart and the Playground Environment Form.Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR; Hill et al. 1997)strategies were used to code the data obtained in the studentfocus groups and yard supervisor interviews to develop mainemerging themes. To comply with the CQR standards, twoschool psychology graduate students trained in CQR methodseach independently read the results and developed a set of

Table 3 Playground areasobserved Playground area Minutes Antisocial (%) Neutral (%) Prosocial (%)

Peace garden 2 0.0 0.0 100.0

Blacktop 4 0.0 4.2 95.8

Field 2 0.0 16.7 83.3

Quad 6 11.1 19.4 69.5

Basketball/handball 4 0.0 29.2 70.8

Toy 1 6 11.1 33.3 55.5

Toy 2 2 0.0 33.3 66.7

Kindergarten yard 6 8.3 22.2 69.5

Table 4 Yard supervisor and environment observations by yard area

Category Total K-yard Basketball/handball/toys Blacktop/field Peace garden

Event type

Interaction 62 % 67 % 47 % 49 % 76 %

Time but without interaction 38 % 33 % 53 % 51 % 24 %

Antecedent

Positive 26 % 31 % – 0 % 42 %

Neutral 25 % 27 % – 20 % 26 %

Negative 12 % 14 % – 7 % 11 %

Approach

Yard supervisor approaches 64 % 62 % 71 % 73 % 48 %

Student approaches 18 % 10 % 14 % 20 % 52 %

Strategy

Engaging with kids 66 % 66 % 29 % 50 % 100 %

Engaging, talking 52 % 53 % – 33 % 95 %

Engaging, playing 7 % 9 % – 0 % 5 %

Reward 6 % 7 % 0 % 0 % 11 %

Nurturance 36 % 43 % 0 % 17 % 26 %

Corrective behavior 20 % 22 % 29 % 13 % 16 %

Coaching 12 % 10 % 14 % 3 % 37 %

Student responsibility 4 % 4 % 14 % 0 % 5 %

Punishment 4 % 3 % 0 % 7 % 5 %

Threat 1 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 %

Command 32 % 31 % 43 % 33 % 32 %

Time spent

Average time per interaction (in min) 1.06 1.04 1.33 1.07 1.11

Average time between interactions (in min) 1.54 1.17 2.86 2.06 1.00

Data are provided when numbers were available; they may not sum to 100 %. For strategy type, multiple strategies could have been employed perinteraction, so the percentages may not sum to 100 %

108 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

codes to summarize themes. The themes were further refinedduring consensus meetings. Finally, a school psychologygraduate school faculty member audited the themes by read-ing the grouped responses and assigning an independenttheme to them. Any inconsistencies were corrected in a groupmeeting. These results were used to develop a training thatwould apply to this particular school and their unique context.

Results

Results of the needs assessment indicated that a majority ofstudent behavior at recess was prosocial (78 %), followed byneutral (19%), and antisocial (3%). The highest percentage ofprosocial behaviors was observed in the sixth grade only yard,and the only antisocial behaviors were observed in the kin-dergarten and first grade yards (see Table 3).

Observations of yard supervisors revealed that the majorityof events observed were yard supervisor–student interactions(62 %; see Table 4), as opposed to time between interactions.The highest percentage of yard supervisor–student interac-tions were observed in the sixth grade-only area (76 %), andthe lowest was in the first through second grade area (47%). Amajority of the antecedents to each event were positive (26 %)or neutral (25 %) in nature, with a smaller percentage beingnegative (12 %). The highest prevalence of positive anteced-ents was observed in the sixth grade only area (42 %), and thelowest was in the second through sixth grade area (0 %). Thehighest prevalence of neutral antecedents was in the kinder-garten yard area (27 %), and the lowest was in the secondthrough sixth grade area (20 %). The highest prevalence ofnegative antecedents was in the kindergarten yard area (14%),with the lowest number being in the second through sixthgrade area (7 %). Data were not available on antecedents forthe first through second grade area.

Yard supervisors, as opposed to students, initiated most ofthe interactions (64 %). Yard supervisors were most likely toapproach students in the second through sixth grade area(73 %) and least likely in the sixth grade-only area (48 %).Students in the sixth grade-only area were most likely toapproach the yard supervisors (52 %), whereas kindergar-teners were the least likely to approach yard supervisors(10 %). Of the nine strategies tracked by researchers, thestrategy most used by yard supervisors was engaging withthe students (66 %; specifically, talking with them, 52 %),followed by showing nurturance (36 %) and giving a com-mand (32 %). The least used strategies were giving threats(1 %), punishment (4 %), and encouraging student responsi-bility (4 %). These statistics organized by playground area canbe found in Table 4.

Qualitative analyses were conducted on the students’ focusgroup and yard supervisors’ interview responses. Responsesto each question were analyzed separately and coded for

common themes within each question. The results of yardsupervisor interviews revealed that the yard supervisors atthe elementary school viewed student safety and rule enforce-ment as their biggest priorities. Collectively, they expressedthat being responsible for such a large number of students waschallenging and they stated the desire for teachers and admin-istrators to support their efforts. Although they rarely recalledfeeling unequipped to handle any situation, it was clear thatthe yard supervisors thought some training would be benefi-cial to them. The yard supervisors indicated they would ap-preciate training that taught them conflict resolution skills theycould use when trying to settle arguments between students.Additionally, some were interested in role playing possiblescenarios that could occur during recess in order to help themfeel more prepared. Overall, the yard supervisors appeared toenjoy their work and expressed pride in being able to keep somany students safe on the playground. A summary of themain themes from the yard supervisor and student interviewsis provided in Table 5.

Students’ impressions of the yard supervisors were gener-ally positive. Many students felt the yard supervisors werepeople they could go to whenever they had a problem duringrecess. They specifically mentioned how the yard supervisorshelp them with conflicts that occur and that their assistancetends to be helpful. Many students, however, expressed aninterest in learning how to resolve conflicts with their peers bythemselves. They appeared to want an increased level ofautonomy during recess, with the yard supervisors being therefor support rather than serving as judges for every argument.Overall, the students reported that they feel the yard supervi-sors are looking out for them and see the yard supervisors asvaluable members of the school staff.

Implications of the Needs Assessment

The outcomes of the initial observations indicated that stu-dents at this particular elementary school exhibited mostlyprosocial behavior. In addition, the majority of problem areason the playground and with students took place on the play-ground areas that were specific to younger students, with ahigher percentage of negative observations and interviewsbeing reflected with kindergarten age children. This latterpoint is consistent with what would be expected of kindergar-ten age children’s psychosocial developmental skills; at thatpoint in their life, they are in the early stages of acquiringknowledge of others’ perspectives, social cues, and how torefrain from aggressive behavior (Pellegrini and Bohn 2005).Overall, however, results demonstrate a strong majority ofpositive interactions, especially considering there were asmany as 750 students on the playground at the same time.This finding could be attributed to several possibilities thatneed to be explored further in more rigorous research. First,

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 109

Author's personal copy

this school has a strong parent involvement requirement andmany volunteer and provide financial resources to supportstudents in a myriad of ways, which may contribute to theapparent positive climate. Second, it is possible that the ob-servations did not pick up subtle relational aggression thatcould be expected of older students. Although observers care-fully scanned the playground areas, it was difficult to hearmost interactions. Thus, negative interactions could have beenmissed.

Of the events recorded while observing the yard supervi-sors, the majority were categorized as an interaction between ayard supervisor and student (versus a time between interac-tion) and the majority of the time yard supervisors approachedthe student (versus the student approaching the yard supervi-sor). These findings indicate that the yard supervisors wereoften interacting with students during recess and were notreluctant to approach students if necessary. The most usedstrategy used by yard supervisors with the students was en-gaging with the students (i.e., talking with them), followed byproviding nurturance and issuing a command. It was interest-ing to note that providing rewards, encouraging student re-sponsibility, coaching, and providing corrective behavioralfeedback were among the least used strategies. Although themost used strategies appeared to be primarily positive orneutral, the yard supervisors were not often utilizing strategiesthat would facilitate student autonomy in addressing their ownconflicts and challenges on the playground, such as coachingand corrective feedback.

It is worth noting that the sixth grade-only area consisted ofa garden that had a set of rules that were strictly enforced there(e.g., no running, being disruptive), which was called thepeace garden. Students were allowed to socialize in that area

somewhat, but with a primary focus on developing gardeningskills and tending to the garden. Thus, the positive climateobserved in the sixth grade-only area may be reflective of theeffects of a more structured and supervised environment. Inaddition, students were often asking questions of the yardsupervisor in the sixth grade-only area regarding their person-al sections of the garden and how to properly care for thegarden, which may explain the higher number of yard super-visor–student interactions in this area as compared with thosein other sections of the playground.

During the interviews, students indicated that they desiredmore independence during their recess time. This coincideswith previous research that suggests that students desire moreautonomy on the playground (Thompson 2007). However, theyard supervisors reported that they spent most of their timeresolving conflicts, which students appeared unequipped toresolve among themselves. The yard supervisors indicatedthat they had not received any type of training for theirposition, but were very interested in receiving training orlearning more productive skills in addressing conflicts on theplayground. Lastly, both the yard supervisors and studentsreported that the yard supervisors’ role was to maintain safetyon the playground, and students reported feeling as if the yardsupervisors were concerned with their safety.

Yard Supervisor Training

The results of the study were used to create a training for theyard supervisors tailored specifically for this school. The firstsection of the training was designed to encourage positive and

Table 5 Main themes from yard supervisor and student interviews

Yard supervisor interviews Student interviews

Topic Themes Topic Themes

Experiences Yard supervisors reported that they are mainly responsiblefor safety and rule enforcement

Experiences Students felt that yard supervisors were concerned for studentsafety

Yard supervisors reported that they spend a lot of timeresolving conflicts

Students reported mostly positive interactions with yardsupervisors

Conflict Yard supervisors reported that a majority of conflictsrevolve around students not playing by the rules

Conflict K-1: Students report struggles with sharing and getting along

Yard supervisors reported that students come to them forhelp when they need it

2–6: Students report struggles with peers not playing by therules

Yard supervisors follow-up with students after a conflict Students report that they try to resolve conflicts on their own

Training No formal or informal training received Suggestions Students reported that they desired more autonomy at recess

Conflict resolution training desired Students suggested that yard supervisors listen to bothsides more when resolving conflicts

Situational role play of conflict management desired

110 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

prosocial ways to: (a) make sure students follow the rules, (b)provide individual rewards to students for good behavior, and(c) build the student–yard supervisor relationship. Each ofthese concepts was divided into strategies for younger stu-dents (grades K and 1) and older kids (grades 2 through 6). Forexample, making sure students follow the rules for youngerstudents included (a) be aware of surroundings, (b) give directinstructions, (c) explain your reasoning, and (d) be positiveduring interactions and for older students included (a) beaware of surroundings, (b) give students a chance, (c) beapproachable, and (d) restore order when necessary. We de-scribed each strategy in detail and introduced scenarios foryard supervisors to role play and discuss each skill. Forhelping older students follow the rules, an example scenariowas “two students disrupt a group’s game by walking throughit.” The idea was to break participants into groups and haveyard supervisors practice the skill in response to the scenario.After practicing their responses, small groups would comeback to the whole group for discussion. In the next part ofthe training, we detailed strategies for supervisors to resolveconflicts with and between students, as well as how to teachstudents these conflict resolution techniques. Finally, we cre-ated a list of future directions the school could take, includingaddressing some of the school system ideas identified such astransforming the list of playground rules from negative (e.g.,“do not run”) to positive (e.g., “please walk”).

Although we originally designed a 3-h training withfollow-up meetings, the cost and logistics of releasingthe supervisors from duty only allowed for a 1-h meet-ing. Approximately 16 yard supervisors attended themeeting, which occurred 2 months after data collection.After the results of the initial observations and inter-views were disseminated to the yard supervisors, wereviewed the specific strategies we had identified. Thisencouraged a roundtable discussion on conflict resolu-tion on the yard, which revealed a number of additionalschool system factors that needed to be addressed inorder to effectively facilitate the yard supervision inter-vention. One of these issues was a lack of understand-ing and different interpretations of school rules acrossyard supervisors, which made uniformity of conflictresolution procedures difficult across supervisors.Participants also discussed issues regarding lack ofteacher and administration support in some cases, aswell as difficulties in eliciting compliance with schooland playground rules from parents visiting their chil-dren. Other items discussed included consistency inpunishment and rewards, concerns with structured playactivities on the playground (i.e., inconsistency/lack ofuniformity of game rules), and the desire to increasestudent responsibility for recess materials. These issueshighlighted the necessity for a schoolwide intervention

in addressing a yard supervisor training, similar to whatwas implemented by Lewis et al. (2000) once theschool made internal decisions on next steps such as acommon school philosophy and student orientation toplayground rules. Researchers integrated the findingswith recommendations for the school, including propos-ing that the full training takes place with follow-upbooster sessions.

Discussion

The current study adds to the current literature by providingstrategies to assess playground supervision needs; schoolpsychologists can use the findings from this study to informtheir own practices within the schools. The training standardsof the National Association of School Psychologists suggestthat school psychologists should be trained in and engage inschoolwide practices and prevention practices. Thus, the train-ing of yard supervisors to help create positive and develop-mentally appropriate recess and playground environments is atask that school psychologists are particularly well suited for.

The results of this study indicate a need to addresssystemic issues within the school alongside a yard su-pervisor training program in order to maximize effec-tiveness of such efforts. In addition, the results highlightthe importance of school psychologists completing aneeds assessment that accounts for the unique and var-iable needs of the school prior to such endeavors.Though there are not any standardized needs assess-ments for the purpose of yard supervision training, suchstandardized assessments would likely not be sufficientby themselves to capture the range of needs unique toeach school. Instead, school psychologists could adapt aneeds assessment that would adequately reflect an in-strument that would capture the pertinent informationfor their purposes.

In addition, school psychologists can use the resultsof the needs assessment to develop a number of recom-mendations for their school in order to supplement theyard supervisor training and hopefully also improveschool climate in general. Such recommendations wereprovided to the administration in the present study andincluded (a) develop a positively worded list of schooland playground rules (i.e., what to do rather than whatnot to do); (b) develop a slogan that can promote theway in which school staff would like students to act; (c)update and make sure the rule postings are consistentacross school entrances and playground areas; (d) sendnew rules home with parents and ask them to provide asignature indicating that they had reviewed the ruleswith their child(ren); (e) establish monthly yard

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 111

Author's personal copy

supervisor meetings; (f) establish a positive reward sys-tem to be used infrequently for significant acts; (g)conduct a schoolwide training on the new rules, includ-ing teachers, students, staff/supervisors, and parents; (h)communicate rules with the afterschool/preschool pro-gram; (i) implement a conflict resolution program/strategy; and (j) implement a peer mentor program sothat fifth/sixth graders can engage kindergarten/firstgrade students in games. In addition, school psycholo-gists are adept at staying up-to-date on other evidence-based strategies and suggestions that would be relevantto their school’s needs.

Although circumstances of the current study did not allowfor follow-up data collection, school psychologists are alsorecommended to complete follow-up procedures after imple-mentation of such an intervention. Information from a follow-up would provide data on the effectiveness of the intervention,as well as areas where continued improvements could bemade in the yard supervisor training and intervention.

Limitations and Future Directions

There were several limitations to the present study that shouldbe considered when interpreting the findings. First, the datawere calculated using percentages and not consensus codingof multiple researchers per yard supervisor. Video recordingthe students on the yard was not possible, but may havealleviated the problems surrounding this issue. Second, notall yard supervisors were observed the same number of times.This presented a methodological concern, as well as the in-ability to accurately assess inter-rater reliability. Future re-search should more thoroughly investigate psychometricproperties of these or similar instruments. In addition, a sig-nificant limitation of the study was the lack of evaluation ofthe effectiveness of the yard supervisor training in changingyard supervisor and student behavior and/or interactions.Findings from the study revealed that the process of collectingdata and presenting the findings to the yard supervisors andschool principal were helpful in creating awareness of roomfor improvement; however, whether or not those actions ac-tually changed behavior is unknown. It will be critical forfuture studies to evaluate the effectiveness of supervisor train-ing in changing both yard supervisor and student behavior.

Although initial research has done so (i.e., Lewis et al. 2000),further research should be completed in order to provideadditional support for the assertion that the training is associ-ated with positive student and school outcomes (e.g., schoolclimate). In addition, future research could also investigate theimpact of a yard supervisor training on any potential age orgender differences in student outcomes.

Lessons Learned

Although we could have developed ideas for the yard super-visors strictly from the literature without conducting observa-tions or interviews, we felt that understanding the specificcontext of recess at the school was crucial for several reasons.By conducting a needs assessment, we were able to determinethe specific strengths and challenges of this particular school.Through this process, we realized that many effective strate-gies are already in place and can be exemplified and highlight-ed as a goal for all interactions. We were able to note manystrengths about the playground environment overall, as well aswithin the specific interactions between effective yard super-visors and students already occurring at the site. Moreover, werealized that some of the barriers to effective yard supervisionrested in the playground environment itself and the lack ofconsistent rules and perceived administrative support.Ultimately, having a tailored training gave us credibility withthe yard supervisors and administrators, which is necessaryfor any systemic changes to be accepted and successfullyimplemented.

This pilot program revealed that a number of actionswere required of a yard supervisor training prior toimplementation. The first was gathering data and creat-ing a needs assessment unique to the interests of theschool. Second, working with the staff and administra-tors on a schoolwide intervention appears to be neces-sary for successful yard supervisor training and theirsubsequent implementation of skills learned. Third, hav-ing buy-in from the majority of the participating parties(yard supervisors, staff, teachers, and administratorsalike) is critical. The authors recommend the consider-ation of these aspects prior to implementation of a yardsupervisor training.

112 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

Appendices

Appendix A

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 113

Author's personal copy

114 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy

Appendix B

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116 115

Author's personal copy

References

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies onthe acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1(6), 589–595. doi:10.1037/h0022070.

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). Executive summary: wingspreaddeclaration on school connections. Journal of School Health, 74,231–234. doi:10.1111/j.17461561.2004.tb08278.x.

Cheng, Y.-Y., Chen, L.-M., Ho, H.-C., & Cheng, L. (2011). Definition ofschool bullying in Taiwan: a comparison of multiple perspectives.School Psychology International, 32, 227–243. doi:10.1177/0143034311404130.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic reviewof experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrin-sic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students atrisk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221.

Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back tobasics: rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Interventionin School and Clinic, 44, 195–205. doi:10.1177/1053451208328831.

Hendricks, C. M. (1993). Safer playgrounds for young children. ERICClearinghouse on Teacher Education.Washington DC. Retrieved onAugust 23, 2013 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED355206.pdf.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide toconducting consensual qualitative research. The CounselingPsychologist, 25, 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001.

Hughes, J., & Kwok, O. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement andachievement in the primary grades. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 99, 39–51. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39.

Hughes, P. P., Middleton, K. M., & Marshall, D. D. (2009). Students’perceptions of bullying in Oklahoma public schools. Journal ofSchool Violence, 8, 216–232. doi:10.1080/15388220902910656.

Jarvis, P. (2007). Dangerous activities within an invisible playground: a studyof emergent male football play and teachers’ perspectives of outdoorfree play in the early years of primary school. International Journal ofEarly Years, 15(3), 37–41. doi:10.1080/09669760701516918.

Johansen, A., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2011). An examination ofNew Zealand teachers’ attributions and perceptions of behaviour,classroom management, and the level of formal teacher trainingreceived in behaviour management. Kairaranga, 12, 3–12.

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

Madsen, K. A., Hicks, K., & Thompson, H. (2011). Physical activity andpositive youth development: impact of a school-based program.Journal of School Health, 81(8), 462–470. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00615.x.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. L., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ per-ceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs,and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’scognitive performance and school adjustment. EducationalResearcher, 34(1), 13–19. doi:10.3102/0013189X034001013.

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M.(2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parentalmonitoring and psychological control in early adolescence, 72(2),583-598. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00298.

Piwowar, V., Thiel, F., & Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers’competencies in classroom management. A quasi-experimentalstudy with teachers of secondary schools. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 30, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.007.

Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. J. (2008). The relationship ofschool assets, individual resilience, and student engagement foryouth grouped by level of family functioning. Psychology in theSchools, 45, 402–418. doi:10.1002/pits.20305.

Thompson, S. (2007). Do’s and don’ts: children’s experiences of theprimary school playground. Environmental Education Research,13(4), 487–500. doi:10.1080/13504620701581588.

Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., Trujillo, M.,Carraway, K., et al. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictorsof academic engagement among low-income African Americanchildren. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 477–488. doi:10.1002/pits.10038.

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennet, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P.,Hymel, S., et al. (2010). Places to avoid: population-based study ofstudent reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 40–54. doi:10.1177/0829573509358686.

You, S., & Sharkey, J. D. (2009). Testing a developmental-ecologicalmodel of student engagement: a multilevel latent growth curveanalysis. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 659–684. doi:10.1080/01443410903206815.

Jill D. Sharkey, PhD is a full-time faculty member and the schoolpsychology program coordinator in the Department of Counseling, Clin-ical, and School Psychology in the Gevitz Graduate School of Educationat the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Sharkey conductsresearch at the Center for School-Based Youth Development, where shestudies student engagement for youth at risk, proactive discipline strate-gies, and systems influences on juvenile delinquency and joining youthgangs

Kayleigh L. Hunnicutt, MA is a graduate student in the Counseling,Clinical, and School Psychology program at the University of California,Santa Barbara. Her research interests are in exploring factors contributingto and deterring adolescent engagement in high-risk behaviors.

Ashley M. Mayworm, MEd is a doctoral candidate in the Counseling,Clinical, and School Psychology Department at the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. Her research interests are in the areas of studentengagement, school climate and discipline, and interventions to preventyouth involvement in delinquency.

K. Chris Schiedel, BA is a master of education student in the Counsel-ing, Clinical, and School Psychology Department at the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara.

Leandro Calcagnotto, BA is a full-time special needs assistant andformer research assistant in the Counseling, Clinical, and School Psy-chology Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

116 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:103–116

Author's personal copy