ABSTRACT

PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY

by Abbey Louise Mauch As PBIS, or Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, use increases in schools across the country, so has the need for effective professional development on PBIS. Unfortunately, research suggests most traditionally delivered training sessions for educators result in minimal changes to their actual practice in schools. The current study examined (a) to what degree training attendees have subsequently applied the PBIS concepts learned in the training they attended, (b) to what degree implementation supports have been received by training attendees following their initial training (e.g., coaching, consultation, performance feedback), and (c) what additional supports attendees feel are needed to increase use of PBIS. Results revealed that frequency of PBIS use after training was significantly related to support received from an administrator or other personnel. Results also indicated that participants perceived administrator support, team member support, feedback, outside support, continued education, and planning time as additional supports necessary to increase their use of PBIS. Implications for future PBIS trainings and increasing training effectiveness are discussed.

PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY

Thesis Report

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Educational Specialist (Ed.S.)

by

Abbey Louise Mauch

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2019

Advisor: Dr. Amity Noltemeyer

Reader: Dr. Dawna Cricket Meehan

Reader: Dr. Anthony James

©2019 Abbey Louise Mauch

This thesis report titled

PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY

by

Abbey Louise Mauch

Has been approved for publication by

The School of Education, Health and Society

and

Department of Educational Psychology

______________________________________________________ Dr. Amity Noltemeyer

______________________________________________________ Dr. Dawna Cricket Meehan

______________________________________________________ Dr. Anthony James

iii

Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures............................................................................................................................. v

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Present Study and Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 3

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 4

Sample .................................................................................................................................... 4

Materials ................................................................................................................................. 5

Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 5

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 5

Protection of Human Subjects ..................................................................................................... 6

Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 10

Implications for Practice and Future Research ....................................................................... 11

Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 12

References ................................................................................................................................ 14

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 17

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Item Responses…………………………………………………………………………13

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Position of Participants………………………………………………………………...10 Figure 2: Percentage of Those Providing Support……………………………………………….14

1

Introduction

PBIS is a proactive framework demonstrated to be effective in reducing student

behavioral problems over time. According to Sugai and Horner, PBIS enhances student academic

engagement and achievement by preventing problem behavior, actively teaching desired

behaviors, and responding quickly to patterns of problem behavior (Sugai & Horner, 2014). This

framework teaches students the tools to solve problems and confrontations appropriately. When

used correctly, schools teach students appropriate behavioral actions and observe and praise

behavioral actions seen (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports OSEP Technical

Assistance Center , 2019).

Rather than using disciplinarian strategies or punishing students for bad behavior, PBIS

strives to teach students appropriate behavior and give them the tools to problem solve before

consequences might be needed. PBIS is associated with positive outcomes, such as a reduction in

problem behaviors and increased educational effort (Bradshaw, Mitchell & Leaf, 2010). A 2012

study also found that when implementing school-wide PBIS, there is a reduction in behavior

problems and improvements in emotion regulation among students. The study supports the use of

PBIS in schools and found it was effective after training (Bradshaw, Waasdorp & Leaf, 2012).

PBIS has also been found to decrease the number of office discipline referrals in schools that

implement it with fidelity (Flannery, Fenning, Kato & McIntosh, 2014). Not only does PBIS

benefit students, but teachers as well. According to a 2012 study across 40 elementary schools,

school-wide implementation of PBIS was associated with lower levels of teacher burnout. (Ross,

Romer & Horner, 2012).

Professional development on PBIS is increasingly needed, as about 20,000 schools

nationwide are attempting to use PBIS and it is now required in certain states, such as Ohio

(Horner, 2014). However, according to the Ohio Department of Education (2016), there has been

inconsistent implementation of PBIS due to varied interpretation of the law. Professional

development is defined as an experience to enhance professional growth. These experiences

allow professionals, such as teachers, to gain knowledge about a new curriculum or strategies to

use in classrooms. A 2016 study about professional development relative to Response to

Intervention (RTI), a similar multi-tiered framework implemented in the schools, found that

educator skill development serves a critical role to effectively implement RTI (Castillo et al.,

2016). This study also discovered the effectiveness of job-embedded coaching, meaning

2

educators who received this coaching had an increase in RTI skills, suggesting that coaching is a

necessary tool for skill development (Castillo et al., 2016). Similar research is needed to examine

the effectiveness of professional development and coaching efforts with regards to PBIS

implementation.

Research has described the importance of continuous professional development in the

workplace (Boyle, While & Boyle, 2004). However, there is a gap in professional development

literature in regards to PBIS professional development. Professional development is key to

increase teacher knowledge of classroom interventions, and when teachers work together in

groups, more improvements in professional development occur (Garet, Porter, Desimone,

Birman & Yoon, 2001). However, while professional development is extremely important, it is

also important to understand how teachers can realistically implement topics learned at

professional development sessions. For example, coaching can be provided in classrooms to

support teachers and help them learn how to improve (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan & Powers, 2010).

A 2007 study also found that increasing the time teachers are given to plan for implementation of

techniques learned at professional development training led to increased implementation and

fidelity (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007).

Currently, the Ohio Department of Education and Ohio’s 16 State Support Teams (SST)

are providing PBIS professional development trainings to educators. This study is a continuation

of Katelyn Palmer’s (2018) research, which focused on the effectiveness of these PBIS trainings.

Specifically, Palmer’s study identified six factors which contribute to the effectiveness of PBIS:

knowledge, staff support, duration, coherence, active learning, and timing. Palmer examined

whether there is a relationship between these six factors and the effectiveness of training, and the

combination of factors that best predicts effectiveness. Palmer collected data through a survey

sent to educators who had attended professional development training. Ultimately, the

effectiveness of the trainings was found to be significantly related to incorporation of active

learning, level of coherence between activities at the training and structures in place at

participants’ schools, increase in knowledge, and date of training (Palmer, 2018). While Palmer’s

study determined the effectiveness of PBIS training in Ohio, participants were surveyed directly

after sessions. Therefore, there is a need to examine whether and for how long PBIS strategies

are used after training, and if there is a decrease in use over time, why this occurs.

3

Through Palmer’s (2018) research, it was noted that additional research is also needed

regarding administrator support. Increased support was related to training effectiveness, but the

research did not determine what types of support are effective in producing change. A 2016

study found job-embedded professional development effective (Castillo et al., 2016), but this has

not been examined with PBIS professional development specifically. There is a lack of literature

regarding how coaching can increase the use of PBIS and what additional coaching is needed.

Districts are the main providers of professional development opportunities and more research

needs to be done regarding how districts are involved and keep up with new practices used in

classrooms. (Whitworth & Chiu, 2015). Possible solutions include coaching, further training, and

classroom observations. Palmer (2018) also noted the lack of research in regards to PBIS use

over time. Studies about how often PBIS strategies are used and why are essential to fully

understand and incorporate these strategies in schools.

Present Study and Hypotheses

Altogether, these gaps in the literature reveal the need for increased research regarding

PBIS use, PBIS professional development effectiveness, and additional supports needed in

regards to PBIS implementation in schools. The current study examined the degree to which

PBIS training attendees have subsequently applied the PBIS concepts learned in the training they

attended, supports received by training attendees following their initial training (e.g., coaching,

consultation, performance feedback), and what additional supports attendees felt were needed to

increase use of PBIS. In general, three research questions were developed for the purposes of this

study.

Using a training follow-up survey, this study examined how frequently PBIS strategies

were implemented in classrooms within the first four weeks following training, and the four

weeks prior to filling out the survey. It also examined support participants received in

implementation, and whether this support was positively or negatively associated with level of

PBIS implementation.

It was hypothesized that PBIS strategies would be implemented initially following the

training but decrease over time. Information from the literature review supported the theory that

coaching and additional guidance lead to increased knowledge in educators. Thus, it was

hypothesized that level of implementation support after training would be positively associated

4

with level of implementation of PBIS strategies following the training. Meaning, the more

support teachers and other educators receive after training will lead to an increase in PBIS

strategy use. The final hypothesis was that administrator support would be most crucial in

regards to additional supports needed to implement PBIS.

Methodology

Sample

This sample consisted of 121 participants who attended an Ohio PBIS training during the

2017-2018 school year. The majority of participants were teachers (n = 71), followed by

administrators (n = 27), related service personnel (n = 13), and other educational professionals (n

= 10). See Figure 1 for a breakdown of participants. Trainings were conducted in all 16 SST

regions of Ohio, and participants represented rural, urban, and suburban schools and populations.

On January 22nd 2018, 319 email surveys were sent (to people who primarily completed training

between August and November 2017) and 244 emails were sent on May 7th 2018 (to people who

primarily completed training between December 2017 and March 2018). The response rate for

the study was 21.5%.

Figure 1. Position of Participants.

58.7%22.3%

10.7%

8.3%

Position

Teachers

Administrators

Related Service Personnel

Other EducationalProfessionals

5

Materials

A follow-up survey was developed for this study and used three or more months after

participants’ PBIS professional development. (see Appendix A for items). The survey asked

demographic items about the participant’s professional role and years of professional experience.

The survey also asked participants to rank the frequency of their use of PBIS strategies within

the first four weeks after training, and again within the prior four weeks. Participants also

answered items regarding what support, if any, was given to them after training and what

additional support they believed was needed. The survey was hosted online using Qualtrics

software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).

Procedures

Participant names and school districts were collected as part of training registration

records from the Ohio Department of Education, and were provided in a spreadsheet to a faculty

member at Miami University involved with evaluating PBIS training effectiveness in the state of

Ohio. The researcher searched for participant email addresses on school district websites. A

January 22nd 2018 email was sent individually to anyone who completed training from August to

November 2017. In early April 2018, this process was repeated and a list of participant email

addresses was created. On May 7th 2018, an individual email was sent to anyone who completed

training from December 2017 to March 2018. The email, which included language approved by

the IRB, described the study, invited the individual to participate, and provided them with a link

to the Qualtrics survey. A reminder email was sent one week after the initial email, to non-

responders. Survey results were obtained anonymously through Qualtrics and exported to SPSS

for data analysis. Participant email addresses were not attached to or associated in any way with

the survey results. All procedures were approved by the Miami University IRB before data

collection began.

Data Analysis

To analyze the survey results, the answers were coded and descriptive statistics were used

to analyze the results. Specifically, measures of central tendency, frequency, and measures of

variability were used to analyze the data. A paired samples t-test was used to examine whether

there were changes over time (from first four weeks after training as assessed by item 5, to prior

four weeks before survey as assessed by item 6) in the degree to which participants implemented

6

PBIS strategies. An independent samples t-test was used to examine whether a participant

received support (item 8) significantly impacted PBIS use in the first four weeks after training

(item 5) and the prior four weeks (item 6). A correlation was also conducted to examine the

association between the degree of support participants received after the training and their degree

of implementation of PBIS strategies (a) in the first four weeks after the training (item 5), and (b)

in the prior four before the survey was sent (item 6). Finally, a thematic analysis was

implemented to examine what additional supports are needed to increase PBIS use in schools

(item 13). Codes were created to identify important features of the data (such as administrators,

professional development, etc.) and themes were discovered among these codes to analyze the

results.

Protection of Human Subjects

The survey results remained anonymous as individual names and emails were not

reported on the survey. Participants’ responses remained confidential and anonymous during data

collection and analysis. The IRB also approved the survey, email, and study prior to data

collection in order to ensure confidentiality and protection of participants’ rights.

Results

Responses to items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 are summarized in Table 1 below. The vast

majority of participants (over 80%) reported that they occasionally, often, or very often applied

information they learned at the training within the first four weeks after the training. Similarly,

the vast majority of participants (over 80%) reported that they occasionally, often, or very often

applied training information within the past four weeks prior to the survey administration.

Overall, the results indicate frequent use of PBIS training information in the initial four weeks

following training, and the four weeks prior to the survey, although it is also important to note

that a small percentage (less than 7%) of participants reported that they never applied

information from the training either in the first four weeks after the training or the prior four

weeks before survey administration. The results also indicate that the majority of participants

(nearly 90%) used PBIS strategies more after attending training and also received some type of

support in implementation (over 70%). For those who reported receiving support, this support

7

was mostly (over 65%) provided by a building administrator or a SST staff member according to

participants. Figure 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of who provided support. While over

70% of participants reported receiving support, 45% reported receiving this support only

occasionally. More than two-thirds of participants (over 70%) also reported that additional

support would increase their use of PBIS.

Table 1

Item Responses

Variable Frequency Percentage

Item 5: Within first four weeks after training, how

frequently did you apply information?

Never

Infrequently

Occasionally

Often

Very Often

9

17

47

50

26

6.04

11.41

31.54

33.56

17.45

Item 6: In the past four weeks, how frequently are you

applying information learned?

Never

Infrequently

Occasionally

Often

Very Often

10

16

42

53

27

6.76

10.81

28.38

35.81

18.24

Item 7: Are you using PBIS strategies more or less after

attending training?

More

Less

127

15

89.44

10.56

Item 8: Following training, did you receive support to

help implement PBIS?

Yes

No

106

40

72.60

27.40

8

Item 10: Who provided this support?*

Building Administrator

District Administrator

SST Staff Member

External Consultant

Other

59

20

34

6

22

41.84

14.18

24.11

4.26

15.60

Item 11: How frequently was support provided?*

Very Infrequently

Infrequently

Occasionally

Often

Very Often

5

16

45

29

5

5.00

16.00

45.00

29.00

5.00

Item 12: Do you believe additional support following your

training would increase your use of PBIS?

Yes

No

103

39

72.54

27.46

*Only answered if responded “Yes” to item 8

Figure 2. Percentage of Those Providing Support.

42%

14%

24%

4%

16%

Support Provided

Building administrator

District administrator

SST staff member

External consultant

Other (e.g. PBIS team,staff, etc.)

9

A paired samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there were changes over time

(from first four weeks after training as assessed by item 5, to prior four weeks before survey as

assessed by item 6) in the degree to which participants implemented PBIS strategies. The results

showed there was not a significant difference in PBIS implementation between the first four

weeks after training (M = 3.44, SD = 1.054) and the prior four weeks before the survey (M =

3.49, SD = 1.064); t(116) = -1.00, p = 0.319. These results suggest that there were no significant

changes over time in the degree to which participants implemented PBIS from the first four

weeks after training to the prior four weeks before the survey.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare how frequently participants

used PBIS information learned at the training in those that received support from administration

or other personnel and those that did not receive support conditions. There was a significant

difference in frequency of training use for participants that did receive support after training (M

= 3.71, SD = 0.857) and those that did not receive support (M = 2.87, SD = 1.306) conditions;

t(113) = 3.985, p = 0.000. These results indicate that there was a significant difference between

participants who did receive support and those who did not. Specifically, the results suggest that

those who received support from administration or other personnel following PBIS training used

strategies learned at training more frequently.

Additionally, a correlation was conducted to examine the association between the degree

of support participants received after the training and their degree of implementation of PBIS

strategies (item 11) (a) in the first four weeks after the training (item 5), and (b) in the prior four

weeks after training (item 6). The researcher found a significant, positive correlation found

between Items 5 and 11, r = .388, n = 83, p = <.01. Meaning, increases in frequency of PBIS

implementation initially following training were correlated with increases in frequency of

administrator support. A significant, positive correlation was also found between Items 6 and 11,

r = .374, n = 83, p = <.01. Therefore, frequency of support was positively correlated with

frequency of PBIS use in the 4 weeks directly prior to the survey.

A qualitative analysis was conducted for Items 9 and 13. Item 9 asked participants to

describe the type of support received following PBIS trainings. Three themes emerged among

participant responses. One theme that emerged was team member support. For example, one

participant stated, “Our principals formed a PBIS team and conduct monthly meetings along with

activities to promote PBIS building-wide.” Participants described team member support from

10

both school teams and State Support Team members. In addition to school teams, another

important theme identified was administrator support. One participant stated, “We have had a

great amount of respect from administration with planning, giving resources, meeting times

during school, and giving out surveys to families, teachers, and community members.” In

addition, a theme of feedback also emerged. For example, a participant stated that they received,

“Assistance with answering questions and feedback from administrators.”

Item 13 asked participants what additional support is needed to improve PBIS

implementation school-wide. Three themes emerged among participant responses. The first

theme that emerged was outside support, for example, one participant stated, “Someone coming

in to help design a program” would be beneficial. Participants generally described outside

support as additional training, coaching, and school-wide instruction from State Support Team

members. The second theme that emerged was the need for refreshers and/or continued

education. For example, one participant stated a need for, “Continuing education related to

effective positive behavior incentives.” Finally, the third theme that emerged was additional

planning time among school teams. A participant described his or her school’s need for, “A

consistent time for a monthly meeting.” Many other participants also stated a need for additional

meetings among teams to further improve PBIS implementation.

Discussion

Based on the analysis of the results, two out of the three original hypotheses were

supported. A significant positive correlation was found between reported frequency of

implementation support received after the training and frequency of PBIS use in the four weeks

before the survey. A significant positive correlation was also found between reported frequency

of PBIS implementation following training and frequency of administrator support for PBIS

implementation. Therefore, the hypothesis that level of implementation support after training

would be positively associated with level of implementation of PBIS strategies following the

training was supported. Significant differences also existed in reported frequency of using

information learned at training between participants who did and did not receive support after the

training both within the first four weeks after the training and the four weeks before the survey.

An important theme identified within the results of item 9 (see Appendix A) was

increased administrator support, which supported the hypothesis that administrator support

11

would be crucial in regards to additional supports needed to implement PBIS. Other themes

identified were team member support and additional feedback. The majority of participants

(72.54%) believed that additional support would increase their use of PBIS. Participants

identified outside support, such as further training, coaching, and instruction from the State

Support Team, continuing education, and planning time as necessary to improve school-wide

PBIS implementation. The final hypothesis of this study stated PBIS strategies would be

implemented initially following the training but decrease over time; however, the results do not

support this theory. According to survey results, there was no significant changes over time in

the degree of PBIS implementation within the first four weeks after training and the four weeks

prior to the survey. Therefore, participants reported implementing strategies at the same rate and

consistency initially after training until the time they took the survey. Although this final

hypothesis was not supported, these results are positive and suggest that implementation of PBIS

strategies did not decrease over time following the training.

While only two out of three hypotheses were reported, these results provide valuable

information. This study found that increased level of support following trainings was positively

associated with increased PBIS use in the classroom. This suggests implementation support may

help increase implementation. 89.44% of participants also reported using PBIS strategies more

after the training, therefore supporting the effectiveness of these Ohio trainings. Furthermore,

this study identified crucial support to help increase PBIS implementation, such as outside

support, continuing education, and planning time. Participants identified further training,

coaching, instruction from State Support Team, additional refreshers related to behavior

incentives, and increased time for teams to meet as important measures of support.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

Based on these results, future research is necessary regarding the importance of school

and district leaders’ role in PBIS professional development. For example, a 2012 study examined

the importance of principals and administrators in regards to PBIS implementation. This study

found that principals with a positive and supportive outlook regarding PBIS had increased PBIS

use in their schools (Richter, Lewis & Hagar, 2012). The results of this study indicated that

administrator support is important for classroom PBIS implementation, but future research could

examine if administrator buy-in is also associated with increased implementation. Directions for

future research also include disaggregating the analysis results by participants’ profession

12

(administrators, teachers, etc.). Furthermore, this study measured PBIS implementation over the

span of one or more months; however, future research could examine how frequently PBIS is

implemented for a year or more after training.

Educational professionals can use these results to identify strengths and weaknesses of

PBIS implementation in their schools. Specifically, schools should examine what support, if any,

is provided to teachers following PBIS professional development, who provides this support, and

how often. Schools should also examine how administrators can support implementation of

educational practices, such as PBIS. Administrators can provide support to teachers by attending

to basic team tasks and setting clear priorities, encouraging knowledge-based decisions through

problem solving, encouraging instructional flexibility, and developing strong professional bonds

among teachers (Boscardin, 2005). According to a 2016 study regarding factors that help and

hinder administrator support of PBIS, administrators were more likely to become supportive

after obtaining formal and informal knowledge of PBIS through multiple channels (McIntosh,

Kelm & Canizal Delabra, 2016). Administrators also reported that networking with

implementing schools, learning how PBIS aligns with personal values, experiencing its

effectiveness firsthand, observing a need for PBIS, attending PBIS trainings, connecting with a

PBIS coach, and attending team meetings helped participants support PBIS implementation in

their schools. In order to increase administrator support of PBIS, additional trainings specifically

tailored to administrators may be helpful, as well as developing a coaching network where

administrators can share their successes and areas of improvement (McIntosh, Kelm & Canizal

Delabra, 2016).

Limitations

This study provides specific insight about the frequency of PBIS implementation

following trainings and what support helps increase this implementation. However, there are

several limitations that need to be considered. First, it is important to consider participant

response bias. Those who responded to the survey may be more likely to be those who followed

through on PBIS implementation. Also, participants may not have answered each question

accurately. It is often difficult for individuals to accurately assess their own actions. Second, the

time between the participants’ PBIS training session and the follow-up survey ranged. Therefore,

those with longer time periods between training and survey completion may not have accurate

responses. On the other side, participants who attended trainings closer to the survey did not

13

have as much time to successfully implement PBIS strategies as other participants. Finally,

perceptions regarding what supports would increase participants’ use of PBIS were based

entirely on their opinions. It would be beneficial to collect this information in a different way so

it is not opinion-based for future research (e.g., external observer checks). It is also unclear

whether the methods of support participants’ identified would in fact improve their

implementation of PBIS, and whether their schools would have the capacity to provide such

support.

14

References

Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes

professional development effective? The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45-68.

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide

positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes results from a

randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive

Behavior Interventions, 12(3),133-148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive

behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5),

1136-1145. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0243

Castillo, J. M., March, A. L., Tan, S. Y., Stockslager, K. M., Brundage, A., Mccullough, M., &

Sabnis, S. (2016). Relationships between ongoing professional development and

educators’ perceived skills relative to RtI. Psychology in the Schools, 53(9), 893-910.

Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., & Powers, E. (2010). Job-Embedded Professional

Development: What It Is, Who Is Responsible, and How to Get It Done Well. Issue

Brief. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M.M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of school-wide

positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem

behavior in high schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 111-124.

Gaal, J. (2017). Does professional development matter? A follow-up pilot study. International

Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 24(1), 59-76.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

15

Horner, R. H. (July, 2014). Using PBIS to make schools more effective and equitable. Paper

presented at the Southern Region Student Wellness Conference, Indian Wells, CA.

McIntosh, K., Kelm, J.L., Canizal Delabra, A. (2016). In search of how principals change: A

qualitative study of events that help and hinder administrator support for school-wide

PBIS. Grantee Submission, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 100-110.

Ohio Department of Education. (2016). Policy: Positive behavior interventions and

support and restraint and seclusion. Retrieved from

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/School-Safety/Building-Better-

Learning-Environments/Policy-Positive-Behavior-Interventions-and-Support

Palmer, K. (2018). Professional Development In Schools: Predictors Of Effectiveness And

Implications For Statewide PBIS Trainings. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation).

Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes

professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.

American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports OSEP Technical Assistance Center (2019). Tier I

supports. Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/school/tier1supports

Richter, M.M., Lewis, T.J., & Hagar, J. (2012). The relationship between principal leadership

skills and school-wide positive behavior support: an exploratory study. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 69-77.

Ross, S., Romer, N., & Horner, R.H., (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of

school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions. 14(2) 118-128.

16

Sugai, G. and Horner, R. H. (2014). Positive Behavior Support, School-Wide. In Encyclopedia

of Special Education (eds C. R. Reynolds, K. J. Vannest and E. Fletcher-Janzen).

doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese1902

Whitworth, B. A., & Chiu, J. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: The

missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 121-137.

17

Appendices

Appendix A: Follow-Up Survey

Q1 What was the date of the PBIS training you attended? If it was a multi-session training,

please put the date of the last session. If you are unsure of the exact date, please indicate the

month of the training.

Q2 What is your role?

• Administrator

• Teacher

• Related Services

• Parent/Community Member

• Paraprofessional

• Other

Q3 (Item shown only to those who respond “Teacher” “Administrator” “Related Services” or

“Paraprofessional” to item 3) How many years of educational or teaching experience do you

possess?

• 0-5 years

• 6-10 years

• 11-20 years

• 21+ years

• N/A

Q4 (Item shown only to those who respond “Teacher” to item 3) What do you teach?

• Special Education

• General Education

• Other

• N/A

18

Q5 Within the first four weeks after the PBIS training you attended, how frequently did you use

or apply information learned at the training?

• Never

• Infrequently

• Occasionally

• Often

• Very often

Q6 In the past four weeks, how frequently are you using or applying information learned at the

training?

• Never

• Infrequently

• Occasionally

• Often

• Very often

Q7 Are you using PBIS strategies more or less after attending the training?

• More

• Less

Q8 Following the PBIS training session you attended, did you receive support from

administrators or other professionals to help implement PBIS? Support could mean additional

instruction, technical assistance, modeling, feedback, and/or coaching.

• Yes

• No

Q9 Please describe the type of support received.

Q10 (Item shown only to those who respond “Yes” to item 8) Who provided this support? Please

check all that apply.

• Building administrator

19

• District administrator

• State Support Team staff member

• External consultant

• Other (please describe)

Q11 (Item shown only to those who respond “Yes” to item 8) How frequently was support

provided to you?

• Very infrequently

• Infrequently

• Occasionally

• Often

• Very often

Q12 Do you believe additional support following your PBIS training would increase your use of

PBIS?

• Yes

• No

Q13 What additional support would be beneficial to you and your school, to further improve

PBIS implementation?