TCX

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 118­–128. Copyright 2023 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/00400599231180272

118
Renee Speight
and Nancy Welsh-Young
, University of Arkansas
Student Classroom
Behavior With an IGC
Improving Secondary

Ms. Cardwell, a special educator, works closely
with her co-teacher, Mr. Alvarez, teaching
math to eighth and ninth graders. Their
90-minute block class is comprised of students
with different strengths and support needs.
Some of their students are emergent bilingual,
and some have been diagnosed with a
disability such as autism, attention deficit
disorder, or emotional and behavioral
disorder. Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Cardwell have
been co-teaching for 3 years. In their class, Mr.
Alvarez and Ms. Cardwell balance their roles
of teaching and supporting students. They
have a weekly planning time they use to
collaborate and develop instructional plans.
The teachers embed high-leverage practices
into their teaching routines such as explicit
instruction and scaffolding. They often make
use of different co-teaching models like
parallel teaching and stations to provide
targeted supports to their learners. They have
also codeveloped a behavior plan and seek to
maintain high levels of engagement with
practices such as opportunities to respond and
behavior-specific praise. Yet they continue to
struggle with multiple students demonstrating
interfering classroom behaviors such as phone
use, inattentiveness, talking with peers, and
sleeping. When such behaviors emerge, the
teachers find themselves relying on punitive
methods like reprimands and pulling students
out for conversations in the hall. They
recognize these methods as ineffective yet
aren’t sure what they can do differently to
support academic engagement. They decide
to request a meeting with their district
behavior support specialist, Ms. Arguello,
for ideas.
Promoting Positive
Learner Outcomes
Evidence-based practices foster positive
outcomes for youth with support needs.
However, when inappropriate classroom
behaviors emerge, teachers may not have
knowledge of evidence-supported
practices to address the problem behavior
appropriately (Oliver & Reschly, 2007)
and instead overemphasize ineffective
behavior management strategies (e.g.,
punitive methods; Rusby et al., 2011).
This overreliance on punitive practices is
often intensified in secondary contexts
(Losen & Martinez, 2020). However, it is
widely accepted that implementation of
proactive and responsive evidence-based
behavior management strategies improves
outcomes for learners (Sugai & Horner,
“
…the teachers find themselves relying on
punitive methods like reprimands and pulling
students out for conversations in the hall. They
recognzie these methods as ineffective…”
2020), including those in secondary
settings.
To foster improved behavior
outcomes, effective educators use positive
behavior intervention and supports (PBIS)
practices such as establishing relationships
with students, teaching expected
behaviors, and acknowledging behavior to
support and respond to student behavior
(Center on PBIS, 2022; Sugai & Horner,
2020). Yet it can be challenging for a
teacher to balance quality implementation
of PBIS-aligned practices while also
delivering instruction. Given the
relationship between effective practice
and positive outcomes for students,
teachers need supports for
implementation of evidence-based
classroom management methods. One
method recommended in the literature to
support teacher use of evidence-based
classroom management practices is a
group contingency (Maggin et al., 2017).
Group contingencies are classroom-level
interventions that support teachers in
systematizing their approach to managing
behavior. With group contingencies,
teachers use positive and proactive
methods to facilitate improvement to
student behavior (e.g., increased on-task
behavior, decreased disruptive behavior;
Dart et al., 2016; Jaquett et al., 2021; Wills
et al., 2019). The elements of a group
contingency are well aligned with the
high-leverage practices identified by the
Council for Exceptional Children to be
emphasized in teacher training and
professional development (e.g.,
establishing consistent and organized
environment, teaching social behaviors,
providing positive and constructive
feedback; McLeskey et al., 2022) and
broadly involve identifying clear
expectations for behavior, setting a goal
for learners, and rewarding students when
the goal is met (Chow & Gilmour, 2018).
Although resources are available to
support implementation of group
contingencies with young learners (e.g.,
Chow & Gilmour, 2018; Ennis, 2017;
Pokorski, 2019; Richardson et al., 2022),
slight adjustments are necessary to
support use of practices (Griffith et al.,
2022) including group contingencies with
adolescent learners. Group contingencies
could be particularly valuable for
co-teachers in inclusive secondary
learning contexts in that codevelopment
of a group contingency may support
co-teachers in developing a shared
understanding of expected behaviors and
their responses to behavior. A shared
understanding of expected behaviors and
responses can reduce the likelihood of
disagreements around behavior that may
disrupt the co-teaching relationship
(Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017). This article
describes a process for secondary teachers
in inclusive context to enhance their
classroom management systems with one
variation of group contingencies, the
interdependent group contingency (IGC).
Ms. Arguello stops by the school to observe
and identify potential opportunities for
enhancement of behavior supports. While
observing, Ms. Arguello notes the team has
identified expectations for students, developed
routines, and makes use of feedback to support
student demonstration of behavior. Yet she
notices their use of such practices faded across
the session, compromising implementation
fidelity. Ms. Arguello believes the teachers
simply need to systematize their management
November / December 2023
practices to support quality and continued
implementation. This makes her think of IGCs
as a possible way to strengthen their classroom
management practice. During the debrief, Ms.
Arguello suggests the team consider
implementation of an IGC. Ms. Cardwell and
Mr. Alvarez have heard of group contingencies
but aren’t quite sure how to implement them in
119

their secondary classroom. They ask Ms.
Arguello to provide more information. Ms.
Arguello describes group contingencies as a
strategy to strengthen classroom-level systems
of positive and proactive support. The
framework supports teachers in
communicating clear expectations for behavior,
identifying reasonable goals related to those
expectations, and providing rewards when
goals are achieved. After this explanation,
Ms. Cardwell and Mr. Alvarez decide to give it
a try.
Interdependent Group
Contingencies
There are a three variations of group
contingencies (i.e., dependent
contingencies, independent group
contingencies; interdependent group
contingencies; Cooper et al., 2019). With
independent group contingencies, a
criterion for performance is set for the
group, and each group member receives
access to the reward as they meet the set
criterion (Cooper et al., 2019). With
dependent group contingencies, a
criterion for performance is set for the
group, who gain access to the reward
contingent on the behavior of an
individual member or a few members of
the group (Cooper et al., 2019). In an
interdependent group contingency, a
criterion is again set for the group, yet
access to the reward is provided when all
group members meet the set criterion
(Cooper et al., 2019). Of the group
contingency variations, IGCs may be (a)
more preferred by teachers and students
(Groves & Austin, 2017), (b) increase
teamwork between students, (c) improve
inclusion for students in social contexts,
and (d) provide an easier way for teachers
to deliver rewards to students (Kelshaw-
Levering et al., 2000). Furthermore,
research supports use of IGCs for
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2
adolescent student populations (Chaffee
et al., 2020; Jaquett et al., 2021; Lum et al.,
2017; Wills et al., 2019), which may
enhance secondary teacher readiness for
meeting the behavioral needs of their
students.
Two example intervention models of
IGCs applied at the secondary level are
Tootling and Class-Wide Function-
Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT;
Chaffee et al., 2020; Wills et al., 2019).
Tootling combines an IGC with positive
peer reporting in which students
120
“
The framework supports teachers in communicating
clear expectations for behavior, identifying
reasonable goals related to those expectations, and
providing rewards when goals are achieved.
anonymously write positive comments
about their peers’ behaviors (Chaffee et al.,
2020; Crewdson et al., 2023; Harry et al.,
2022; Lum et al., 2017, 2019). The
collection of positive comments is
reviewed by the teacher at the end of the
class period. When the total number of
Tootles meets the goal predetermined by
the teacher, the class receives a reward
from a list of preferred reward items (e.g.,
student selection of seat, 15 minutes of
recess) often codeveloped by teachers and
students (Chaffee et al., 2020). As a
class-wide intervention, Tootling has led
to increases in student academic
engagement and decreases of disruptive
behavior (Chaffee et al., 2020; Harry et al.,
2022; Lum et al., 2017, 2019). Although
Tootling can foster improvement to
student behavior and resources are
available for teachers interested in
implementing this model (e.g., Crewdson
et al., 2023), students might show
resistance to writing positive comments
about their peers (Chaffee et al., 2020) and
instead perceive this as a responsibility of
the teacher. This could require additional
teaching time to support students in
development of positive commenting
skills. Thus, some teachers might find a
point-based model like CW-FIT a better
fit for their needs.
The point-based model CW-FIT uses
a game-styled competition to teach
appropriate classroom behaviors. In
CW-FIT, teachers use an explicit
instruction model (i.e., describe, model,
practice) to teach students the behavior
expectations (e.g., following directions the
first time, ignoring inappropriate
behavior, respect; Wills et al., 2019).
Students work in teams earning points for
demonstrating the expected behaviors.
Teams meeting the daily point goal earn
preselected rewards in the form of a
preferred item or activity. In secondary
settings, CW-FIT has been associated
with increased academic engagement and
on-task behavior and reduced disruptive
classroom behavior across classroom
settings (e.g., self-contained, co-taught,
general education; Orr et al., 2019; Speight
et al., 2020, 2021; Wills et al., 2021).
When seeking to improve student
behavior with an IGC, teachers might
choose to design their own IGC to align
with their classroom and students’ needs
or to use one of these IGC models (e.g.,
Tootles or CW-FIT) to ease
implementation efforts.
Ms. Arguello works with Ms. Cardwell
and Mr. Alvarez to design an IGC aligned
with their needs, current management system,
and the needs of their students. She begins by
asking the teachers what behaviors they expect
of their students. Ms. Cardwell shares they
expect students to follow directions and show
respect to teachers, peers, and themselves. Ms.
Arguello praises the pair for selecting
behaviors that tell students “what to do” as
opposed to what not to do but recommends
they more explicitly describe what these
behaviors look like in the classroom. To
achieve this, she suggests they focus on the
expectation “Be Respectful” because it most
closely aligns with the behaviors they seek to
improve. She recommends they identify
contextually appropriate skills that show
respect in their classroom and develop a plan
to ask for student feedback regarding what
respect looks like in their classroom because
this can foster student buy-in in the system. In
line with this recommendation, the team
brainstorms skills to meet their needs. They
settle on keeping phones put away, using
encouraging language, listening to their
teachers and each other, and following
instructions to complete assigned tasks.
Although these will be the primary skills the
team will emphasize within this system, they
plan to develop a poster with their students
T a b l e 1 Teacher-Led Planning Phase
Steps Teacher actions
Select and define expected • Describe behaviors
behaviors positively and in an
observable way
• Create or plan posters to
depict behavior
Context for implementation • Identify time with lower
levels of desired classroom
behavior
• Delineate clear start
and stop time for the
contingency
Grouping and room • Create heterogeneous
arrangement groups
• Create visuals so learners
can clearly identify their
group
• Allow students to name
game or teams
Tracking progress • Set a clear response-based
or time-based criterion for
students to work toward
• Develop plan for tracking
progress toward meeting
criterion
Setting the criterion • Collect data using
observational
measurement method (e.g.,
time sampling) to identify
present levels of on-task
behavior
• Set an achievable criterion
for students
Identify rewards • List items students may
prefer to create a menu
• Plan method for students
to provide input
that includes these skills and others suggested discuss the types of rewards to include in a
by their students. After developing menu of options.
expectations and target skills, Ms. Arguello
then discusses the importance of identifying
rewards or incentives for students to earn for
How to Create and
demonstrating expected behaviors and also Implement IGCs
making the criterion for accessing the reward Based on previous research and guidelines
clear. She describes two strategies with for implementation of group
evidence in secondary settings: point systems contingencies (e.g., Chow & Gilmour,
and Tootling. After Ms. Cardwell and Mr. 2018; Pokorski, 2019; Speight et al., 2020),
Alvarez talk it over, they decide a point system IGCs, including the CW-FIT model, are
strategy is aligned more with their needs and planned and implemented in classroom
their students’ needs. They then work with Ms. environments across three phases: (a)
Arguello to set a point goal for students and teacher-led planning, (b) student
Support considerations
•  lign target behaviors with
A
learner skill
• Plan for student creation or
development of poster
• Translate to learner native
language
•  reate a visual with start
C
and stop Time for learners
with receptive language
needs
•  trategically place peer
S
models
• Create proximity to game
materials for learners
requiring additional
support
•  onsider use of timer as a
C
self-prompt for tracking
•  evelop visual to clearly
D
depict daily criterion
• Include visual showing
student progress toward
meeting criterion
• Decrease criterion if
students are not achieving
• Identify rewards requiring
fewer points and rewards
requiring more points
instruction, and (c) implementation of the
group contingency. Drawing on this
previous research, the following are
recommended steps across each phase.
November / December 2023
Teacher-Led Planning
The first phase for implementation of an
IGC is the teacher-led planning phase. In
this phase, teachers select and define
behaviors, analyze their implementation
contexts, plan grouping and room
arrangement, determine the criterion
students must meet to access the reward,
121
 plan methods to track student responses,
and identify potential rewards for students
(see Table 1).
Step 1: selecting and defining
expected behaviors. To identify
behaviors for the contingency, consider
the expected behaviors not currently
observed or occurring at low levels in the
classroom. Clearly, it can be helpful to
implement the contingency to reduce
off-task or disruptive behaviors. Yet IGCs
can also foster academically engaged
behaviors. When teachers identify gaps,
this drives selection of the expected
behaviors for the IGC. Examples of
behaviors identified in secondary school
settings include (a) be respectful, (b)
follow directions the first time (Speight
et al., 2020; Wills et al., 2019), (c) keeping
phones put away during class (Jones et al.,
2019), (d) positive comments on the
behaviors of peers (Lum et al., 2017), I
remaining on task, and (f) increasing
academic performance during
independent work (Jaquett et al., 2021).
When identifying expectations, develop
definitions. When developing definitions
of behaviors, remember the definition
tells students what to do (e.g., “put
phones away”) as opposed to what to not
to do (e.g., “don’t touch your phone).
Although preplanning expected
behaviors is important to ensure the
contingency meets the teachers’ needs,
prepare to adjust expectations and
definitions to create an opportunity for
students to provide input on the selected
behaviors because this can foster student
buy-in.
Step 2: context for
implementation. When planning for
implementation, consider the context and
support needs of your students to guide
decisions related to timing of
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2
implementation. Identify behavior
challenges in your contexts and plan the
contingency to align with situational
needs. For example, if students show
higher levels of academically engaged
behavior during independent work as
opposed to group work, then the
contingency should be implemented while
students are working in groups. Once the
context for implementation is identified,
note an approximate start and stop time of
the contingency. It will be important to
clearly communicate the start and stop
122
time with students so they know when to
expect their reward.
Step 3: grouping and room
arrangement. When planning the size
of groups within a contingency (e.g.,
teams of three to five students vs. whole
class), use knowledge of students to guide
decision making. Students may show
higher levels of interdependence in a
smaller team arrangement as opposed to a
whole class arrangement, which can
strengthen the impact of the contingency.
Furthermore, grouping students into
teams could create flexibility within the
grouping arrangements. For instance, if
two students do not get along, plan for
those students to be in different groups.
To guide grouping decisions, consider the
following: (a) availability of peer models,
(b) linguistic needs of students, and (c)
number of students currently exhibiting
lower levels of on-task behavior. If
grouping students into teams for
implementation, the room should be
arranged to promote clear understanding
of group membership because students
must have knowledge of their team. To
achieve this, students’ seats should
grouped be together by team with their
team number clearly displayed on their
table(s) (Speight et al., 2020).
Step 4: tracking progress. During
planning, determine the method for
tracking student progress. There are two
methods to track student responses during
the contingency: (a) a response-based
system in which points or progress
markers are provided when responses are
demonstrated (e.g., points awarded
immediately after demonstration of
expected behavior) and (b) a time-based
system in which points or progress
markers are provided at predetermined
intervals of time (e.g., behavior scanned
and points awarded every 3–5 minutes). A
time-based system might be easier to use
in that this system includes a prompt for
teachers to check student behavior. For
example, with a time-based system,
teachers can set a timer to sound every 5
minutes to prompt a check of student
behavior. In co-teaching settings, partner
teachers share responsibilities for
monitoring responses during
implementation. At this stage of planning,
co-teachers establish such roles for
themselves, such as one teacher leading
the behavior acknowledgment while the
other keeps track of the points. By
establishing clear roles in planning, this
can strengthen teacher adherence to the
plan during implementation.
Step 5: setting the criterion. The
criterion set for students should encourage
improvement of student behavior yet be
achievable so students can access the
reward. To set an achievable goal, collect
data on student behavior to approximate
current on-task levels or recruit support
of a colleague with skill related to
observational data collection. For
example, in a co-taught classroom, the
special education teacher could collect
class-wide momentary time sampling data
indicating whether or not students are
showing on-task behavior every 2 minutes
across a 30-minute session. These data can
then be used to guide identification of an
achievable criterion for students. For
instance, if data suggest students are
currently demonstrating on-task behavior
around 60% of the learning session, a
reasonable initial goal could be increasing
on-task levels to 75% of the session.
Teachers would use this percentage to
drive selection of a daily criterion. For
example, in a point-based system, if
students have 10 opportunities to earn a
point each session, the initial criterion
would be set at 7 or 8. Again, it is
important the criterion is achievable, so
this planned criterion may require further
adjustment during implementation of the
contingency.
Step 6: identifying rewards. The final
step for planning the contingency is
identifying rewards for students. Create a
menu of items believed to be preferred by
students, such as free time, reduction in
assignment length, uninterrupted device
time, or fast-food restaurant coupons
(Trevino-Maack et al., 2015). If the school
currently has a PBIS system, it may be
beneficial to include the PBIS incentives in
the menu. At this step, it is important to
consider ways students can provide
feedback on the rewards to promote
buy-in and validity. Group discussion,
checklists, or digital methods are useful
tools to assess student satisfaction with
rewards. Additionally, teachers can choose
to create systems that foster student
choice in selecting rewards for
consumption. For instance, after meeting
the criteria, individual students within the
group can select something from the list
T a b l e 2 Student Instruction Phase
Steps
Gain student input on behaviors
Teach expected behaviors
Explain the contingency
Feedback on rewards
developed. Although students should have
access to a reward consistently, it isn’t
necessary that the reward be consistent
across students.
Student Instruction
After planning the contingency, the
student instruction phase begins. As noted
across each step of this phase, include
opportunities for co-development of the
contingency with secondary students to
support student buy-in. This phase
includes soliciting student feedback on
behaviors, teaching the expected
behavior(s), explaining contingency
procedures, and identifying valid rewards
(see Table 2).
Step 1: gaining student input on
behaviors. To foster secondary student
buy-in, it can be helpful to gain student
input on behavior expectations or
Teacher actions
• Asks students what target
behaviors look like to them
• Utilize explicit instruction
to teach target behaviors
with role of examples and
nonexamples
• Describe the rationale for
such behaviors
• Request student input on
description or importance
of behavior
• Clearly describe
procedures of game
• Create opportunity
for questions during
explanation
• Verify all learners are
aware of their team
number
• Select rewards with
reinforcing qualities
• Solicit learner feedback on
rewards
• Tie into any existing
positive behavior
intervention and support
schoolwide system
codevelop expectations (Center on PBIS,
2022). For example, a teacher targeting
the schoolwide expectation "Be
Respectful" with the IGC can ask students
to describe what respect looks like to them
and/or why it is important to show
respect to themselves and each other. This
creates an opportunity for students to
describe what aspects of showing respect
are most meaningful or valuable, which
can help identify specific skills to target
with this system. As an extension of this
codevelopment, students can develop
posters or visuals aligned with the
expectation to be displayed in the
classroom.
Step 2: teaching expected
behaviors. A phased explicit instruction
model is used to teach the behaviors
(Center on PBIS, 2022). At this step,
teachers might ask students to codevelop
relevant lessons by identifying specific
Support considerations
•  tudents can create
S
posters displaying
expected behavior
•  reteach target behaviors
P
to students with receptive
language needs
• Repeated instruction may
be necessary
• Incorporate visual displays
into preteaching
• Translate descriptions
of behavior in native
languages
•  reate opportunity for
C
learners demonstrating
increased levels of anxiety
related to the change to
observe the game initially
• Create visual of game
procedures
•  reate opportunity to gain
C
learner feedback on an
individual basis
examples or nonexamples to role-play or
describing the rationale for the behavior
in their own words. During the first phase
of the explicit instruction, present a
description of the behavior and discuss the
importance of demonstrating in the
classroom (e.g., “Following directions the
first time is important because it keeps us on
track and shows respect.”). Then, review the
observable characteristics of the behavior.
Finally, create opportunities for students
to practice or role-play examples and
nonexamples of the behavior (e.g., “Show
me what it looks like to be ready to learn.”
“Now show me what it might look like if you
November / December 2023
aren’t ready to learn.”). When working to
meet the needs of learners with limited
language proficiency, it might be
important to provide a preteaching phase
in which target behaviors are introduced
in a small group setting. Creating
familiarity with expected behaviors prior
to large group instruction may facilitate a
123
 T a b l e 3 Implementation Phase
Steps
Provide reminders and
precorrections
Identify criteria and reward
Implement the contingency
Share results and provide
reward
higher level of response during the
student instruction phase and increased
demonstration of expected behaviors. At
times, given diversity in linguistic
backgrounds, it may also be necessary to
translate descriptions of behavior in
native languages.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2
Step 3: explaining the
contingency. Explain the IGC to
students by describing when the
contingency will begin each day, how the
daily criteria will be set, how their
progress will be tracked, and when they
can expect the reward. This helps students
learn the connection between the
behaviors and accessing the rewards.
Some teachers have presented an IGC as a
game or competition in the classroom in
which the class or teams will work
124
Teacher actions
• Review behavior
expectations daily
• Review interdependent
group contingency
procedures
• Identify daily criteria
• Identify reward from
reinforcement menu
• Choose the reward
• Include supports
to monitor student
demonstration of expected
behaviors (e.g., setting a
timer to cue observation)
• Maintain 4:1 praise to
reprimand ratio
• Maintain consistency
in roles for co-teachers
during implementation
• Make chart visible to
students
• State aloud the results,
announcing if criterion was
met
• Allow students to briefly
celebrate their win
• Challenge them to earn it
again tomorrow
• Deliver reward immediately
to teams meeting criteria
together to meet the goal. At this point in
the process, teachers can create the
opportunity for students to develop team
names or name the competition. Because
learners may have limited experience with
classroom-level contingency management
systems, supports may be necessary to
ensure a clear understanding of the IGC
framework. It may be beneficial to create a
visual clearly depicting the procedures of
the game to accompany the vocal
explanation. Furthermore, it may be
helpful for reluctant learners to simply
observe the first few days of game
implementation to gain familiarity with
the system. In contexts with learners from
diverse linguistic backgrounds, teachers
should provide opportunity for peers with
common linguistic characteristics to
interpret the description of group
Support considerations
• Incorporate precorrects
related to behavior
expectations with each
transition
•  rovide visual depicting
P
criterion
• Solicit learner feedback on
reward daily
• If using time-based,
shorten intervals initially
• If using a timer, assess
learner response to timer
sound and modify timer
audible tone if sound
appears aversive
• Provide bonus points to
teams and individuals
• Shape behaviors with
positive feedback
•  reate opportunity for
C
students to report the
outcome to the class
• Monitor students'
consumption of the reward
• Reassess preference at
individual level for students
showing low levels of
consumption
contingency procedures to promote
student understanding.
Step 4: feedback on rewards. The
final step of the student instruction phase
is identifying rewards for the
reinforcement menu. Share ideas for
rewards with students and gather
feedback to determine value using a
mode, such as a checklist, identified in the
planning phase.
Contingency Implementation
After planning the contingency and
teaching students, begin the final phase of
the process, implementation. This phase
includes providing reminders related to
the contingency procedures, identifying
and sharing the performance criteria,
implementing the contingency, sharing
 F i g u r e 1 Implementation checklist

The purpose of this checklist is to support teacher implementation of group contingencies in secondary settings across each phase: (1) teacher-
led planning; (2) student instruction; and (3) implementation. Quality indicators are included to support fidelity of implementation.

Directions: Review each step and mark for implementation. If a step has not been implemented or has been partially implemented, enhancement
of that step is recommended to foster quality implementation.
Implementation Assessment
Steps Across Phases Fully Partially Not Plan to Improve
Addressed Addressed Addressed (if any)
Teacher-led Planning Phase
1) Clearly identified time for implementation
2) Behaviors are positively stated and defined with plan for student input
3) Contingency planned to align with contextual factors
4) Groups are planned around classroom needs
5) Criteria set and plan for tracking progress developed
6) Potential rewards are identified with plan for student input
Student Instruction Phase
1) Student input gathered and/or co-development of expectations and skills
2)  xplicit instruction used to teach expected behaviors and skills with clear
E
description and role-play of examples and non-examples
3) Explanation of contingency and confirmation of student understanding
4) Feedback gathered on rewards offered
Contingency Implementation Phase
1) Reminders of expected behaviors and procedures provided
2) Performance criteria and reward clearly described
3) Contingency implemented to include feedback and correction
4)  esults of contingency shared with students, reward provided, and students
R
consumption monitored

125
November / December 2023

results, and providing the reward (see
Table 3).
Step 1: provide reminders. At the
beginning of each session, it can be helpful
to provide a quick review of expected
behavior(s) as a precorrect, such as
“Remember our classroom expectation is to be
respectful. Let’s quickly review what it looks
like to be respectful in our class.”
Additionally, remind students about the
contingency procedures. For example,
“You are working together to meet the goal by
demonstrating respect. When the goal is met,
you will get the reward.”
Step 2: describe criterion and
reward. Describe the criterion to access
the reward and identify a reward (or an
array of rewards) for the session. It is
important to balance the criterion and the
reward. For instance, 3 minutes of free
time at the end of class might require
fewer points or lower criteria than a
fast-food restaurant coupon. Teachers
often post the criterion and the reward
daily to serve as a reminder.
Step 3: implement the
contingency. When implementing the
contingency, use the method identified
during planning to monitor student
adherence to the expectations (e.g., timer
to cue evaluation of student behavior).
During implementation, teachers are
encouraged to strive for a 4:1 praise to
reprimand ratio (Speight et al., 2020,
2021; Wills et al., 2019) to strengthen
student demonstration of the expected
behaviors. Feedback on behavior during
the contingency might look like, “I
appreciate you showing respect by following
our procedure for submitting work.” In
instances in which one or more students
are not demonstrating the target behavior,
provide specific corrections such as
“Remember, we should follow directions the
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2
first time to work toward meeting goal.”
When providing feedback and
corrections, it is important to consider the
current level of expected behavior
demonstrated by the individual student.
As with any behavior change procedure,
responding may improve by providing
prompts and acknowledging
approximations of the behavior.
Step 4: share results and provide
reward. At the end of the IGC, make
time to share whether students met
126
“
“…if IGC steps aren’t fully implemented, this
can weaken effectiveness. Thus is is critical
teachers plan for evaluation of fidelity…”
criteria and will earn their reward. It is
important that rewards are provided as
immediately after the behavior as feasible.
While providing the reward, teachers
should note whether students are truly
accessing the reward (e.g., actively playing
the game, enjoying free time). If teachers
notice some students do not seem to be
participating or interested in a specific
reward, they may need to consider
reassessing possible rewards.
After the first few days of implementing their
newly designed group contingency, which their
students call “Dabs,” Ms. Cardwell and Mr.
Alvarez notice a few students in their class are
showing lower levels of improvement to their
behavior. They decide to call on the expertise
of Ms. Arguello again to help determine the
best approach for these students. After
questioning Ms. Cardwell and Mr. Alvarez,
Ms. Arguello decides to observe the classroom
and monitor implementation fidelity. While
observing, she notices the team implements
each step of the contingency with effectiveness,
yet they were delayed in providing students
their reward of phone time. Mr. Alvarez
counted the Dabs earned by each team as
students transitioned to an independent
activity, yet teams weren’t given phone time
until the end of class. After discussing this
observation with the team, Ms. Arguello
suggests the team modify the time for
implementation to include the independent
task time so the reward is delivered
immediately. The team decides to count team
points after students complete 15 minutes of
independent work, leaving the remaining 5
minutes of class for students to access their
reward.
Additional Considerations
for IGCs
Monitoring Fidelity
IGCs support teachers in systematizing
classroom-level behavior supports. Yet if
IGC steps aren’t fully implemented, this
can weaken effectiveness. Thus, it is
critical teachers plan for evaluation of
fidelity of IGC implementation. When
evaluating fidelity of implementation,
teachers can self-monitor implementation
using the fidelity tool provided in Figure
1. Teachers should assess fidelity often but
at least weekly in order to minimize
procedural drift and strengthen adherence
to the plan. Although teachers can
complete the fidelity tool drawing on
memory alone, to enhance self-evaluation,
teachers could video record a session and
then use the fidelity tool to assess IGC
implementation. Alternatively, teachers
can invite colleagues to monitor
implementation. This could be
particularly useful in co-teaching settings
because a co-teacher could act as an
outside observer, score implementation,
and share their observations with their
co-teaching partner. After evaluation of
implementation, if a step is found to be
partially implemented, teachers should
consider ways to improve or strengthen
that step of the IGC using the support
considerations provided across each
phase of this article. Alternatively,
teachers can also seek support or coaching
from a district or regional behavior
specialist.
Enhancing Student Outcomes
Research suggests IGCs support teachers
in systematizing their classroom
management methods, potentially leading
to enhanced student outcomes. Yet even
when fidelity is maintained, students show
evidence of buy-in, and adjustments are
made to support students (e.g., providing
different reward options), there are
certainly students who will need more
intensive levels of support (i.e., specific
Tier 2 supports such as check-in/check-
out, self-monitoring or even Tier 3
supports). Although IGCs are not meant
“
IGCs are an efficient and effective strategy for
teachers to integrate into their existing classroom
management systems that …may be particularly well-
suited for secondary and/or inclusive classrooms.
to meet the full continuum of student
needs in an inclusive learning context,
IGCs help teachers strengthen their use of
positive and proactive supports,
improving outcomes for many
students.
Conclusion
To improve classroom behavior, it is
necessary teachers are equipped with
evidence-based strategies that are easily
implemented. IGCs are an efficient and
effective strategy for teachers to integrate
into their existing classroom management
systems that strengthen implementation
and may be particularly well-suited for
secondary and/or inclusive classrooms.
The steps provided in this article create
guidance for secondary teachers seeking to
develop an IGC aligned with their current
classroom management system to enhance
their students’ outcomes.
Declaration of Conflicting
Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts
of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Renee Speight https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-5876-907X
Nancy Welsh-Young https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-3561-4892
Renee Speight and Nancy Welsh-Young,
Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Arkansas, USA
Address correspondence concerning this
article to Renee Speight, University of
Arkansas, 410 N. Arkansas Avenue,
Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA (email: rspeight@
uark.edu).
References
Center on PBIS. (2022). Supporting and
responding to student’s social, emotional, and
behavioral needs: Evidence-based practices
for educators (Version 2). Center on PBIS,
University of Oregon. https://www.pbis.
org/resource/supporting-and-responding-
to-behavior-evidence-based-classroom-
strategies-for-teachers
Chaffee, R. K., Briesch, A. M., Volpe, R. J.,
Johnson, A. H., & Dudley, L. (2020).
Effects of a class-wide positive peer
reporting intervention on middle
school student behavior. Behavioral
Disorders, 45(4), 224–237. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0198742919881112
Chow, J. C., & Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Designing
and implementing group contingencies in
the classroom: A teacher’s guide. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 50(4), 213–219. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0040059918757945
Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2019).
Applied behavior analysis. (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Crewdson, M., Richardson, R. D., Skinner, C. H.,
Fowler, K., & Wright, S. (2023). Tootling:
A classwide peer-mediated intervention
for decreasing antisocial and disruptive
behavior and enhancing prosocial behaviors
and academic engagement. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 55(3), 198–207.
Dart, E., Radley, K., Battaglia, A., Dadakhodjaeva,
K., Bates, K., & Wright, S. (2016). The
classroom password: A class-wide
intervention to increase academic
engagement. Psychology in Schools, 53(4),
416–431.
Ennis, R. P. (2017). Group contingencies to
increase appropriate behaviors in the
classroom: Tips for success. Beyond Behavior,
27, 82–89.
Griffith, C., Hirsch, S., & Burns, T. (2022).
Implementing functional assessment-
based interventions in secondary settings.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(1), 6–16.
Groves, E., & Austin, J. (2017). An evaluation
of interdependent and independent group
contingencies during the good behavior
game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
50(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.393
Harry, S. W., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A.,
Dart, E. H., Radley, K. C., Lum, J. D. K., &
Bates-Brantley, K. E. (2022). The effects of
tootling combined with public posting in
high school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral
Education. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09462-1
Jaquett, C., Skinner, C., Moore, T., Ryan,
K., McCurdy, M., & Cihak, D. (2021)
Interdependent group rewards: Rewarding
on-task behavior versus academic
performance in an eighth- grade classroom
serving students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
46(4), 238–252.
Jones, M. E., Allan Allday, R., & Givens, A. (2019).
Reducing adolescent cell phone usage using
an interdependent group contingency.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(2),
386–393.
Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H.,
Henry, J., & Skinner, C. (2000). Randomized
interdependent group contingencies: Group
reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the
Schools, 37(6), 523–533.
Losen, D. J., & Martinez, P. (2020). Lost
opportunities: How disparate school
discipline continues to drive differences in the
opportunity to learn. Learning Policy Institute;
Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil
Rights Project, UCLA.
Lum, J. D. K., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H.,
Dufrene, B. A., Olmi, D. J., & Wright, S.
J. (2019). Tootling with a randomized
independent group contingency to improve
high school classwide behavior. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 93–105.
Lum, J. D. K., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A.,
Radley, K. C., & Lynne, S. (2017). Effects
of tootling on classwide disruptive and
academically engaged behavior of general
education high school students. Psychology
in the Schools, 54(4), 370–384.
Maggin, D. M., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Johnson, A.
H. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based
group contingency interventions for students
with challenging behavior: An update.
Remedial and Special Education, 38(6),
353–370.
McLeskey, J., Maheady, L., Billingsley, B.,
Brownell, M., & Lewis, T. (2022). High
leverage practices in inclusive classrooms
(2nd ed). Routledge.
Oliver, R., & Reschly, D. (2007). Effective
classroom management: Teacher preparation
and professional development. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Orr, R., Caldarella, P., Hansen, B., & Wills, H.
(2020). Managing student behavior in a
middle school special education classroom
using CW-FIT tier 1. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 29, 168–187.
Pokorski, E. A. (2019). Group contingencies
to improve classwide behavior of young
children. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
51(5), 340–349.
Richardson, R. D., Crewdson, M. A., Skinner,
November / December 2023
C. H., Wheat, L. S., & Martinez, J. A.
(2022). Interdependent group-oriented
contingencies: Randomly selected
components to the rescue. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 54(4), 246–256.
Rusby, J., Crowley, R., Sprague, J., & Biglan, A.
(2011). Observations of the middle school
environment: The context for student
behavior beyond the middle school
classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 48(4),
400–415.
127
 Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2017). Making
inclusion work with co-teaching. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284–293.
Speight, R., Kucharczyk, S., & Whitby, P. (2021).
Effects of a behavior management strategy,
CW-FIT, on high school student and teacher
behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education,
31(4), 751–770.
Speight, R., Whitby, P., & Kucharczyk, S. (2020).
Impact of CW-FIT on student and teacher
behavior in a middle school. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(4), 1–15.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and
scaling positive behavioral interventions and
supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes,
and considerations. Exceptional Children, management: A randomized control trial
86(2), 120–136. of class-wide function-related intervention
Trevino-Maack, S. I., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2015). teams for middle schools (CW-FIT MS).
A group contingency plus self management Journal of Behavioral Education. Advance
intervention targeting at-risk secondary online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/
students’ class-work and active engagement. s10864-021-09455-0
Remedial and Special Education, 36(6),
347–360.
Wills, H., Caldarella, P., Mason, B., Lappin, A.,
& Anderson, D. (2019). Improving student
behavior in middle schools: Results of a
classroom management intervention. Journal
TEACHING Exceptional Children,
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(4), 1–15.
Wills, H. P., Caldarella, P., Williams, L., Fleming, K., Vol. XX, No. X, pp. XX–XX.
& Chen, P.-Y. (2021). Middle school classroom Copyright 2023 The Author(s).

Streaming knowledge

Sage Video brings learning to life

through our expertly curated collections
featuring documentary-style videos,
real-world scenarios, and compelling
interviews. Each collection is designed
to accommodate multiple learning styles
and is carefully crafted to facilitate
learning and expand knowledge.
Developed with leading academics,
Sage Video will help transfer principles
into practice across the social sciences.

Why Sage Video?

• Benefit from exclusive video content
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 2

featuring leading experts in their fields,

with a focus on key learning objectives that
align precisely with the current curriculum
• Personalize your learning experience by
creating custom clips, building playlists,
or accessing offline playback options
• Seamlessly integrate videos into course
management systems and presentations
by embedding them directly

Sign up for a free 30-day trial today

sagelearningresources.com/video

128
Peer Reviewers
Thank you for your generously
donated time and effort
We appreciate your contribution and are grateful
to you for helping authors develop their papers.
If you have reviewed for a Sage journal you are entitled to:
• 60 days access to all Sage journals
• 25% discount on Sage books
• 20% discount for Sage Author Services
Visit the Journal Reviewer Gateway to learn more about the benefits
to reviewing for Sage journals and how to become a reviewer.

Find out more

sagepub.com/reviewerrewards