Effectiveness of a Computer-Based Professional Development Program
to Improve School Playground Safety
Lynne Swartz, MPH, CHES
Randy Sprick, PhD.
Ann Glang, PhD.
Oregon Center for Applied Science
Eugene, Oregon
Funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health
Grant # DA013358
Abstract
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that over 200,000 children every
year are admitted to emergency rooms due to playground related injuries sustained at school. The
National Association for Playground Safety recommends not only improving surface materials
and equipment, but also improving adult supervision of children while at play. There are limited
empirical studies in the literature that have examined the impact of a comprehensive training
program to improve playground safety by improving supervisor knowledge and attitudes. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive, stand-alone interactive
multimedia computer-based training program for elementary school faculty to implement a
school-wide behavior management program for playground environments. To do this, a
randomized control trial comparing the experiences of playground supervisors, students, and
staff from schools in a large urban school district was carried out. School was both the unit of
randomization and the unit of analysis. The comparisons were measured by pre, post and
follow-up assessments conducted by the investigators. Results suggest significant positive
differences due to treatment in knowledge, beliefs and attitudes for playground supervisors,
students, and staff.
Introduction
An important part of the fundamental mission of education is to promote healthy and safe
behaviors among students at school. Yet, each year over four million children and adolescents
are injured at school (CDC/Division of Adolescents and School Health, 2007). Specifically,
incidents on the playground are a major contributor to the growing number of injuries at school.
Sadly, each year emergency rooms treat more than 200,000 children under the age of fourteen
for playground related injuries (Tinsworth & McDonald, 2001). Children ages 5-9 have higher
rates of emergency room visits for playground injuries than any other age group (Phelan,
Khoury, Kalkwarf and Lanphear, 2001).
Amid growing concerns about student health and safety on the playground, the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) created the National Program for Playground Safety in 2000. The
National Program for Playground Safety developed three major recommendations for improving
student safety on the playground: 1) improve adult supervision of children on playgrounds; 2)
provide education about safe and age-appropriate use of equipment; 3) improve the quality and
maintenance of equipment and surfaces (Hudson, Mack, & Thompson, 2000). In 2001, CDC
created the School Guidelines to Prevent Unintentional Injuries and Violence (CDC, 2001) and
included a recommendation for staff development to prevent injuries. Recent research suggests
that the most promising means to reduce playground injuries is through increased quantity and
quality of playground supervision by adults (Schwebel, 2006). Schwebel (2006) identified six
different ways that supervision likely prevents injuries: (a) Supervisors repetitively teach
children playground rules; (b) supervisors recognize and stop children's dangerous behavior; (c)
supervisors prevent children from behaving impulsively; (d) the presence of a supervisor causes
children to behave differently; (e) supervisors change children's attribution of risk; and (f)
supervisors have influence as modelers and persuaders of safe behavior (p. 135). Yet, on
America’s schoolyards the quality and quantity of supervision is lacking.
Historically, the majority of schools have not provided playground supervisors with
training in appropriate playground supervision methods (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995;
Frost & Jacobs, 1995). Further, on many school playgrounds, it is not uncommon for the adult-
to-student ratio to exceed 1:150 (Bruya & Bruya, 2000). Thus, playground supervisors often
find themselves in the position of monitoring large numbers of children in unstructured and
unsafe settings with little or no training.
A review of the literature from the last fifteen years provides little information or insight
as to the level of systematic ongoing training regularly provided for school playground
supervisors. However documentation was found reporting the number of injuries to students on
playgrounds and the concerns expressed by school nurses associations as to the lack of training
for playground supervisors as a contributing factor (Schwebel, 2006; Hudson, Olson &
Thompson, 2008). Additional publications were found alerting districts to concerns regarding
their liability resulting from inadequate training of playground supervisors; however these
publications gave no data on the status of current training practices (Bossenmeyer, 2009).
Although there have been a number of studies documenting the impact of equipment and
surface safety standards on injury rates (e.g., Tinsworth & McDonald, 2001), empirically
validated interventions to improve adult supervision are limited. Given the national attention to
the problems associated with inadequate playground supervision, this lack of information about
what works is noteworthy. If school personnel want to promote a positive and safe climate for
the whole school, the vision must include the playground.
Positive Behavior Supports
The use of positive behavior supports (PBS) in the management of problem behavior may
provide some needed solutions for improving the quality of supervision on the playground
(Sugai & Horner, 2006). PBS is a team-based school-wide approach to facilitate student success
and positive behavior. Eddy, Reid, and Fetrow (2000) conducted a randomized control trial
evaluation of a school-wide behavior modification program that included a comprehensive
playground intervention. Results demonstrated that the program reduced rates of antisocial
behaviors related to delinquency, with the strongest effects occurring in children with high rates
of problem behaviors. Smith and Sugai (1998) reported that when playground supervisors
implemented systematic supervision techniques (e.g., active supervision, behavioral instruction,
and contingent reinforcement), problem behaviors on the playground were significantly reduced.
In their study in a rural elementary school, there was a reduction in problem playground
behaviors of approximately 400% to 450% across the three grade levels included in the study
(i.e., 4th - 6th grades), with the most significant reduction in the lowest grade level. Currently,
however, most teachers report that they are not well prepared to effectively manage behavior,
especially in less structured areas such as the playground (Public Agenda, 2004).
Professional development for improving playground supervision is currently hampered
by the lack of cost effective and evidenced-based practices. As schools face mounting pressure to
implement research-based professional development programs (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act,
2001; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004), Wilson and Berne (2001) suggest
exploring models using technology to deliver staff training.
Technology and Professional Development
Video and computer-based training methods are attractive alternatives or additions to
face-to-face training approaches and considered more cost effective. These methods are
attractive because training can be offered with fidelity to individuals at convenient times, can
present real-life training information, and can model recommended behaviors. Video is
particularly useful for teaching behavioral skills, providing modeling of subtle skills and allow
opportunities for discriminating pro-social behavior. However, linear video alone brings with it
certain inefficiencies. In most cases, a consultant trainer is needed in conjunction with the linear
video, adding cost and logistical demands that may limit the utility of the training. Further
linear video cannot give immediate feedback to the user, an important component of effective
instructional design. Also, a linear video approach cannot tailor information to a viewer’s
experience or training needs, and consequently may present material that is already known or of
little interest.
The drawbacks to the linear video approach can be addressed by using a computer-based
or Interactive Multimedia (IMM) approach to deliver professional development. IMM training
programs link video with computer-assisted instruction (Fotheringham & Owen, 2000; Noell &
Glasgow, 1999). The technology retains the advantages of video and has been shown to be
effective for training educators (Sariscsany & Pettigrew, 1997) and health care professionals
(Carr, Reznick, & Brown, 1999; Clark et al., 2000; Marescaux et al., 2000; Michas & Berry,
2000; Niewijk & Weijts, 1997; Opat, Cohen, Bailey, & Abramson, 2000; Potomkova, Mihal, &
Cihalik, 2006; Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006; Savage & Goodyer, 2003; Silverman, Holmes,
Kimmel, & Branas, 2003; Stefanich & Cruz-Neira, 1999; Ursino, Tasto, Nguyen, Cunningham,
& Merril, 1999).
Advantages of IMM
There are three key advantages to using IMM as a professional development program.
First, mastery can be verified via on-screen assessments and results are immediately available to
the user. This also allows for a criterion-referenced assessment of topic mastery, with the
capability to ―branch‖ users back for review of material not fully understood. Flat text pages and
linear video do not have this capability. Second, IMM training programs are time-efficient
because the user only addresses subject matter and sees material that is personally relevant or
selected. Also, since the computer system can store a record of each trainee’s system-use, an
individual can return repeatedly to resume training at the point where the previous session ended.
A final advantage of the IMM format is that it can be very simple to use. Voice-over narration
lets the user hear messages and assessment questions as they are printed on the screen.
Responses may be delivered via a single key-stroke or the click of a mouse on highly graphic
icons or ―answer buttons.‖
An IMM professional development program for playground management
On the Playground: Guide to Playground Management training program (NB: from now
on referred to as On the Playground) is based on the foundational work of Dr. Randall Sprick
emphasizing a schoolwide approach using the principles of positive behavior supports (Sprick,
1990; Sprick, Garrison, & Howard, 2002; Sprick, Sprick, & Garrison, 1993). Designed as a
stand-alone computer-based training program using video examples from real playgrounds, On
the Playground can be implemented by a school team without the need of an expert trainer;
given the computer-based platform it can be used to train new personnel or review and refresh
veteran personnel’s skill sets. The initial content for the IMM version of On the Playground
program was obtained from a linear video-based staff-training program in playground
supervision (Sprick, 1990). Content was updated using current research in positive behavior
supports, behavior change theory, and new safety information about playgrounds; detailed
interview data was collected from principals and playground supervisors and used to refine
content, create video examples, and develop the user-friendly navigation format of the program
for a beta IMM version (Glang, Sprick, Swartz, & Clark, 2003). The program is designed to
increase the knowledge and influence attitudes of key stakeholders so that they are more
proactive in creating a positive and safe environment on the playground.
Along with grounding in positive behavior support, the underlying assumptions for the
design of On the Playground are drawn from the Expanded Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen,
1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1979, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and Social Learning Theory
(Bandura, 1977, 1997). The Expanded Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that knowledge and
attitudes influence behavior. Specifically, the intention to engage in the desired behaviors is
derived from the combination of a positive attitude (or set of attitudes) towards the behavior, the
confidence that one can successfully carry out the behavior (i.e., self-efficacy), and the
normative expectation of such behaviors by one’s peers. (i.e., perceived norms of other
playground supervisors) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1979, 1980). In Social Learning Theory, the concept
of self-efficacy is defined as "the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior
required to produce the outcomes" (Bandura, 1977, 1997). According to Bandura (1977, 1997), a
change in one's belief about his/her ability to successfully execute a given behavior will mediate
the initiation and maintenance of change in that behavior. Increasing skills to perform the
behavior (e.g., to initiate a conversation) and gaining control of environmental barriers (e.g., rude
children, busy schedules) can influence the potential for a positive outcome. Supportive video
testimonials and language can also positively impact self-efficacy (Bandura 1977, 1997).
Fundamentally, the goal of the On the Playground program is to influence the behavior
of playground supervisors in implementing effective behavior management strategies on the
playground and also to change specific factors that are derived directly from the basic constructs
of this theoretical model: beliefs and outcome evaluations, attitudes, self-efficacy, perceived
norms, skills, and intentions. Specifically, in addition to increasing knowledge of effective
behavior management strategies, the professional development program for playground
supervisors focused on improving: (a) self-reported application of knowledge, (b) beliefs and
attitudes towards using effective communication strategies and initiating monitoring practices,
(c) perceptions of peer norms regarding the use of behavior management techniques; (d)
behavioral intentions to implement; and (e) self-efficacy to implement effective practices.
Research Question
Using randomly assigned elementary schools, do stakeholders who participated in On the
Playground significantly increase their knowledge and attitudes about playground safety when
compared to stakeholders in control schools?
Methods
Participants
One of the largest and fastest growing districts in the nation agreed to participate in the
study. The district is comprised of features associated with both urban and rural districts. It
includes a diverse student body with a range of economic groups. Because the weather and
climate conditions allow for students to participate in outdoor play for over 80% of the school
year, schools are built with large play and outside recreation areas. For the purposes of this study
only elementary schools (K-5) were invited to participate. Eligibility criteria for school
participation included: (1) the school was not currently using a playground management training
program, (2) the administrators agreed to complete online assessments, (3) a staff person would
be assigned to act as a liaison with the research team for conducting in-class assessments, and (4)
all playground supervisors were available for training. Thirty-two elementary schools met the
criteria and agreed to participate. For the purpose of this study, the unit of randomization was
the school itself; schools were randomly assigned to either treatment or control condition. All
information about participants was collected after random assignment. All internal review board
and district requirements regarding to human subject research were met. Datasets consisted of 16
treatment and 16 control schools and included playground supervisors, teachers and
administrators, with some attrition. The student dataset was comprised of 14 treatment schools
and 16 control schools. Specifically, one control condition school failed to return posttest data on
students, staff and the final administrator survey. A treatment school dropped out from the study
after completing baseline measures for administrators, playground supervisors and teachers.
Lastly, another two treatment schools did not return any student surveys.
Participant Characteristics
Since the study examined responses of stakeholders who participated in the treatment
condition compared to responses of stakeholders in control condition, participant characteristics
are described for control and treatment conditions for each group of stakeholders: playground
supervisors, students, administrators, and teachers.
Playground Supervisors. A total of 430 playground supervisors participated in the study:
200 in Treatment and 230 in Control. Characteristics of the playground supervisors in the control
and treatment groups are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the
control and treatment groups. For the whole population, there were more women (85.8%) than
men (14.2%), with the majority of playground supervisors between the ages of 26 and 55
(74.2%). The majority of playground supervisors identified as White (70.9%). The majority of
playground supervisors reported that they had been a supervisor for more than 10 years (23.2%)
and 63.3% of the supervisors reported that they had had no formal training as a playground
supervisor. The majority (64.4%) had at least a college degree.
Table 1. Characteristics of Playground Supervisors
Characteristics of Playground
Supervisors
Treatment Control Total
n % n % n %
Gender Female 173 46.5 196 53.1 369 85.8
Male 27 44.3 34 55.7 61 14.2
Age 18-25 17 8.5 24 10.4 41 9.5
26-39 83 41.5 82 35.7 165 38.4
40-55 73 36.5 81 35.2 154 35.8
Over 55 19 9.5 30 13 49 11.4
Declined to
answer
8 4 13 5.7 21 4.9
Race White 148 74 157 68.3 305 70.9
Minority 49 24.5 70 30.4 119 27.7
Declined to
answer
3 1.5 3 1.3 6 1.4
Length of time as Less than one 34 17 51 22.2 85 19.8
a supervisor year
1-2 years 29 14.5 38 16.5 67 15.6
2-5 years 41 20.5 47 20.4 88 20.5
5-10 years 43 21.5 40 17.4 83 19.3
More than ten
years
49 24.5 51 22.2 10 23.2
Declined to
answer
4 2 3 1.3 7 1.6
Previous
playground
supervisor
training
No 117 58.5 155 67.4 272 63.3
Yes, with a
curriculum
46 23 46 20 92 21
On the job 29 14.5 27 11.7 56 13
Declined to
answer
8 4 2 .9 10 2.3
Level of
Education
High School or
less
27 13.5 35 15.2 62 14.4
Some college 41 20.5 42 18.3 83 19.3
College degree
or beyond
131 65.5 146 63.5 277 64.4
Declined to
answer
1 .5 7 3 8 1.9
Students. Most playground injuries occur to children between the ages 5-9 (Phelan et al.,
2001). Because some ability to read would be involved in assessing students, third grade
students were selected as the targeted student group. All third grade students within each school
were included in the sample, resulting in a total of 662 third grade students participants: 309 in
the treatment group and 353 in the control group. Characteristics of the students in the control
and treatment groups are presented in Table 2 and 3. There were no significant differences
between the control and treatment groups. For the third grade population across the entire study
(in both control and treatment groups), there were slightly more boys (53%) than girls (47%).
The race/ethnicity mix of the students consisted of 28% White, 28% Hispanic, 16% African
American, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% American Indian, and 14% listed as Other.
Table 2. Demographics of third grade students by gender
Treatment Control
Boys 48% 54.7%
Girls 46% 44.3%
Data missing 6% 1%
Table 3. Demographics of children by race/ethnicity
% Treatment % Control
African American 13.8 14.7
American Indian 6.5 5.2
Asian/Pacific
Islander
9.1 6.5
Caucasian 27.5 21.5
Hispanic 18.5 32.2
Mixed/Other 14.5 18.6
Data Missing 10.1 1.3
School Level Administrators. A total of 32 administrators participated in the study:
sixteen in the Treatment Group and sixteen in the Control Group. Characteristics of
Administrators between control and treatment groups are displayed in Table 4. The majority of
administrators were women (81.3%) and White (78.1%). Most administrators were principals
(68.7%) and had more than 6 years of experience (62.5%). Slightly more than half of the
administrators stated that they provided training for their staff (56.3%) in playground
supervision.
Table 4. Characteristics of Administrators
Treatment Control Total
n % n % n %
Gender Female 13 81.3 13 81.3 26 81.3
Male 3 18.7 3 18.7 6 18.7
Race/Ethnicity White 13 81.3 12 75 25 78.1
Minority 3 18.7 3 18.7 6 18.7
Declined to
answer
0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1
Job Title Principal 11 68.7 11 68.7 22 68.7
Assistant
Principal
4 25 4 25 8 25
Other 1 6.3 1 6.3 2 6.3
Declined to
answer
0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1
Length of time as
an administrator
Less than one
year
0 0 1 6.3 1 3.1
1-2 years 3 18.7 1 6.3 4 12.5
3-5 years 3 18.7 4 25 7 21.9
6-10 years 5 31.3 6 37.4 11 34.4
More than 10
years
5 31.3 4 24 9 28.1
Provide training
for supervisors
No 7 43.7 7 43.7 14 43.7
Yes 9 56.3 9 56.3 18 56.3
Staff. A total of 1,132 staff members, 562 (49.6%) in the control group and 570 (50.4%)
in treatment group, participated in the pretest phase. In the post-test phase a total of 690 staff
members participated, 337 (48.8%) in the control group and 353 (51.2%) in the treatment group.
This group consisted of general school staff attending regular staff meetings and included
teachers and other allied professionals.
Leadership Team. A total of sixty leadership team members participated in the pretest
phase and twenty-five participated in the post-test phase. The leadership team component was
only a part of the treatment condition. Therefore, no control data are available for the leadership
team. Leadership teams were created by intervention administrators.
Measurement
Unique surveys were constructed for administrators, teachers, playground supervisors,
students, and leadership team members (See Appendix A-E for samples of all survey
instruments). Each survey question was reviewed to make certain that the standards for creating
good questions were met (e.g., clear wording, alignment to survey purpose, appropriateness for
the stakeholder group, and sequenced in a logical order). The following measures were selected,
adapted, or developed; then field-tested and standardized for each stakeholder group prior to
implementation in this study:
Playground Supervisor Knowledge and Attitude Test. Test items were designed by
content area experts and field-tested prior to this research study. After field-testing, items were
selected by content experts based on item performance and alignment to content. A pre-test,
post-test, and follow-up test was constructed for the playground supervisors. The Playground
Supervisor Knowledge and Attitude Test had a total of 66 items. The knowledge component of
pretest consisted of seven multiple choice items; the attitude and beliefs component consisted of
47 items using a five point Likert scale; the response style section consisted of 12 items on a
seven point Likert scale. The post-test contained the same items as the pretest; the follow-up test
contained the same knowledge and attitude items with additional questions regarding program
satisfaction for the treatment group only.
Student Knowledge of Playground Rules and Perception of Playground Safety
Assessment. Assessment items were designed by content area experts and field-tested prior to
this research study. After field-testing, items were selected by content experts based on item
performance and alignment to content. A pre-test and post test was constructed appropriate for
third grade students. The knowledge component of pretest consisted of three open response
items; the attitude component consisted of ten items using a four point Likert rating scale. The
post-test contained the same items as the pretest. The Likert rating scale format was designed
using a four point range of ―smiley-face‖ to ―sad-face‖ icons to accommodate students with
different skill sets. If needed, teachers were allowed to orally read the questions to the students,
but students needed to determine their answer to the question by marking the appropriate
―smiley-face‖ icon (See Figure 1 for an example of a student question and icon).
Figure 1. Example of Student Survey Question
I feel safe on the playground.
Staff perception surveys Two widely regarded survey instruments used in the field of
positive behavior supports were adapted to assess : Perceptions of Playground Safety (Sprick,
Garrison, & Howard, 2002) and Understanding Your Role in Playground Safety (Sprick, et al.,
2002). These surveys consist of a total of 15 questions using a five point Likert scale.
Participants are asked how much they agree or disagree with key statements. Sample items
include: ―It is easy for students to make friends on the playground‖ and ―Adults on the
playground treat the students respectfully.‖
Program Satisfaction. Program satisfaction was measured with 5 questions using a five
point Likert scale and 10 open-ended response items. Questions such as the following were used:
What did you like best about the program?; What did you like least?; On a scale of 1-5, How
easy was the program to use?
Fidelity of Implementation. Fidelity of program implementation was assessed using the
EBS Self-Assessment Survey version 2.0 (Sugai, Horner & Todd, 2003). There are 27 items with
three different types of responses available: in place, partially in place, and not in place. The
participant indicated the level of implementation (in place, partially in place, or not in place) for
each question. Questions such as the following were used: School has comprehensive written
rules for the playground; Playground supervisors consistently model positive and respectful
interaction with students; Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous situations.
Schedule of administration for each measure by group is outlined in Table 5.
Table 5. Schedule of administration
T: Treatment Condition; C: Control Condition
Participant
Group
Measure Pretest
(T1)
Posttest
(T2)
Follow-up
(T3)
Playground
Supervisors Knowledge and
Attitudes of
Playground
Supervision
Program Satisfaction
Survey
TC TC (at 30
days)
TC (at 75
days)
T (at 75
days)
School Staff Perceptions of
Playground Safety
(Sprick, Garrison, &
Howard, 2002)
Understanding Your
Role (Sprick et al.,
2002)
TC
TC
TC (at 75
days)
TC (at 75
days)
Students
Knowledge of
Playground Rules
Perceptions of
Playground Safety
(Sprick, Garrison, &
Howard, 2002)
TC
TC
TC (at 30
days)
TC (at 30
days)
School level
Administrators
Perceptions of
Playground Safety
(Sprick et al., 2002)
Fidelity of
Implementation
TC TC (at 30
days)
TC (at 60
days)
T
Leadership
team Fidelity of
Implementation
Program Satisfaction
T (at 45
days)
T (at 45
days)
T (at 75
days)
T (at 75
days)
Procedures and Design
The evaluation of the On the Playground program consisted of a randomized trial with
schools assigned to treatment or control conditions. The multi-component intervention involved
unique procedures for each group of stakeholders.
Playground supervisors. Research staff set up each school’s computer lab for playground
supervisors to attend the computer-delivered training session at any time throughout the day.
During the session, playground supervisors were provided informed consent; administered a
paper and pencil pretest (T1); and given access to either the treatment or control materials.
Playground supervisors at the treatment schools viewed On the Playground, while playground
supervisors at the control schools viewed a linear video, S.A.F.E. Playgrounds, from the National
Program for Playground Safety (1998). Both programs were approximately 15 minutes in
length. Playground supervisors were assessed immediately after completing either the treatment
or control program (T2) and a follow up survey T3) was administered approximately 75 days
after the post-test.
School staff. At both treatment and control schools, a school administrator (principal or
vice principal) administered pre-tests (T1) to staff at each school prior to the initiation of any
study activities. The same surveys were administered approximately 75 days later (T2). The
surveys were completed anonymously, as part of each school's staff development efforts, and not
individually tracked between T1 and T2.
Students. Classroom teachers administered paper-pencil assessments to a sample of third
grade students at both control and treatment schools at pretest (T1). Student responses were
tracked for each participant for analysis. The student assessment post-test (T2) was
administered 30 days after end of the supervisor’s training program.
Administrators. Control and treatment administrators were assessed at T1. They were
also assessed 30 days (T2) after completion of T1 and at 60 days after T1 (T3). All assessments
were delivered online via the Internet.
Leadership team. In the treatment group only, a leadership team was formed to
implement the playground program. This group was assessed at 45 days after the administrator
received the program and again at 75 days after the administrator received the program.
All participant populations were tracked and prompted via email, voicemail or posted mail if
their materials were not returned in a timely manner.
Materials
Treatment Condition Materials
Schools in the treatment group used On the Playground, a comprehensive program to
help schools create and implement a school-wide approach to promote prosocial behaviors and
prevent misbehaviors. On the Playground consists of three separate components; each
component has its own CD-ROM. The components are briefly described below, for complete
description of the technical requirements and skill contents see Appendix F and G.
Playground Supervisor’s Toolkit. This video-rich CD-ROM is a self-paced training
program designed to help playground supervisors learn strategies that will (1) prevent
misbehaviors on the playground and (2) manage misbehaviors more effectively. The highly
interactive content is organized into segments that address the most common problems,
presented via vignettes. Thus, supervisors can select the issues most important/problematic to
them. In addition to prevention and management of common problems, a core set of
management skills is taught, including establishing relationships with students, effective
scanning and monitoring, and effective and respectful corrections
Planning Team’s Toolkit. Designed for a team of school administrators, teachers and
supervisors, this CD-ROM advocates best practices for school-wide playground policy planning
and implementation. Using data and policies provided by the administrator (see above), this
program assists and directs the team in examining their playground program in areas such as
playground scheduling and mixes of students, staffing and training, and creating policies that
work for their individual school. The program is organized into a series of meetings with
agendas and assignments that help lead the team through the creation of a comprehensive plan
for their school, and communicating the plan to staff, students and parents.
Administrators Toolkit. This text-based CD-ROM is directed towards the building-level
administrator or principal who is responsible for creating and staffing the playground program
for their school. This program is organized in five steps, including creating a school-wide
playground policy, creating a planning team, assessing their school’s playground facilities and
policies and creating a training program for playground supervisors. There is additional
information about liability, record-keeping, and tips for dealing with common misbehaviors.
Control Condition Materials
S.A.F.E. Playgrounds, a video program from the National Program for Playground Safety
(1998), was used for the control condition. This widely used video program runs approximately
15 minutes and covers the importance of Supervision, Age-appropriate design, Falls to surfaces,
and Equipment maintenance.
Results
Results are summarized in Table 6.
Playground Supervisors
Three outcome measures were analyzed to determine the impact of the On the
Playground program on playground supervisors. Results showed that all three of the outcome
measures, supervisor knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy, increased significantly in the
treatment group in comparison to the control group. A mixed design, analysis of variance was
conducted in which the effects of time of measurement, experimental condition, and their
interaction on supervisor beliefs, self-efficacy, and knowledge were examined. For supervisor
beliefs, there were significant differences in belief over time (F [2, 398] = 42.92, p < .001) and
for the main effect of condition (F [1, 199] = 3.97, p = .048). The interaction of time and
condition was statistically significant, F (1, 398) = 19.78, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared
indicated that about 9% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the
condition by time interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was
no significant difference between the groups at time one, but there were significant mean
differences at time two (4.21 vs. 3.99) and time three (4.19 vs. 4.05).
There were also significant differences in self-efficacy over time (F [2, 462] = 84.77, p <
.001), but not for the main effect of condition. The interaction of time and condition was
statistically significant, F (1, 462) = 13.87, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared indicated that
about 5.7% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the condition by time
interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was no significant
difference between the groups at time one, but there were significant mean differences across
condition at posttest (T2) (4.29 vs. 4.07) and follow-up (T3) (4.27 vs. 4.13).
Results from the pretest to posttest comparisons of supervisor knowledge showed
significant differences in knowledge over time (F [1, 328] = 30.75, p < .001) and for the main
effect of condition (F [1, 328] = 4.85, p = .028). The interaction of time and condition was
statistically significant, F (1, 328) = 16.68, p < .001. The obtained eta-squared indicated that
about 4.8% of the variance in supervisor’s beliefs was accounted for by the condition by time
interaction. Simple effects tests using Sidak’s correction showed that there was no significant
difference between the groups at pretest, but there were significant mean differences at posttest
(.530 vs. .440). When follow-up (T3) data were analyzed, both the effects of time of
measurement (F (2, 390) = 9.44, p < .001) and the effect of condition were found significant (F
(1, 195) = 9.025, p = .003), but the interaction of time and condition on supervisor knowledge
only approached significance (F (2, 390) = 2.80, p = .062). There were significant mean
differences across condition at follow-up (T3) (.495 vs. .448).
Students
A three-level, Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used in which three times of
measurement were nested within each student within each school. Across both groups and all
three occasions the average rating of safety was 3.62 (4.0 was unsafe). However, there was a
significant interaction of condition with time of measurement, t(1,438) = -3.70, p < .001, which
indicated that where a significant difference between the treatment group and control group
which the averages masked. Specifically, over time, students in the treatment group viewed their
playground was less unsafe (i.e., ratings were lower on the ―unsafe scale‖) in comparison to the
views of the control group about their playground.
A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the effects of time of
measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on student knowledge were
examined. Both the main effect of time (F [2, 632] = 3.51, p = .030) and the main effect of
condition (F [1, 316] = 5.06, p = .025) were statistically significant. The interaction of time and
condition was not statistically significant, F (2, 632) = .829, p = .437. While there was no
significant difference across condition in mean student knowledge at pretest or posttest (1.62 vs.
1.45 and 1.72 vs. 1.62), the mean student knowledge was significantly different across condition
at follow-up (1.85 vs. 1.56).
Staff
Two staff outcome measures were analyzed, staff perceptions of safety and staff
understanding of their role. A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the
effects of time of measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on both outcome
measures were examined. For staff perceptions of safety, both the main effect of time (F [1, 26]
= 8.28, p = .008) and the main effect of condition (F [1, 26] = 4.95, p = .035) were statistically
significant. The interaction of time and condition was not statistically significant, F (1, 26) =
1.26, p = .273. While there was no change in mean perception of safety in the control group
from pretest to posttest over time (3.81 vs. 3.94), the mean perception of safety did improve
significantly for the treatment group (3.94 vs. 4.25).
Results from the mixed design, analysis of variance on staff role understanding showed
that neither the main effect of time (F [1, 26] = 3.86, p = .060) nor the main effect of condition (F
[1, 26] = 2.36, p = .136) was statistically significant. The interaction of time and condition was
statistically significant, F (1, 26) = 4.74, p = .039, η2 = .15. While there was no change in mean
role understanding in the control group over time (3.77 vs. 3.75), mean role understanding
increased significantly for the treatment group (3.83 vs. 4.26).
Administrators
A mixed design, analysis of variance was conducted in which the effects of time of
measurement, experimental condition, and their interaction on administrator measures were
examined. No significant effects were found on any of the outcome measures.
Program Satisfaction (Supervisors and Leadership team only)
When asked how useful the program was, 66.7% of the supervisors responded somewhat
useful (41.5%) or extremely useful (18.7%). When asked how difficult the program was to use,
60.8% responded somewhat easy (26.3%) or extremely easy (34.5%). When asked about how
successfully the program provided information and strategies for correcting misbehaviors, of
those who responded, 62.6% indicated that the program was moderately successful (31.3%) or
highly successful (31.3%). The majority of supervisors thought the program was successful,
with comments such as ―… watching the situations on the computer and learning how to deal
with situations has helped me more on the playground. I'm more aware & can correct
misbehaviors better.‖
The Leadership Teams also found the program to be useful, 34.5% stating they found the
program somewhat useful and 25.9% responding that they found the program extremely useful.
Roughly 48% found the program to be somewhat or extremely easy to use, with none reporting
that they found the program difficult to use. Sixty two percent of those who responded on
Leadership teams reported that the program was moderately or highly successful in meeting the
goal of creating a comprehensive school wide playground program, and 72.5% thought the
program was either moderately or highly successful in providing information for correcting
student misbehavior.
Table 6. Program results
Participant
Group
Measure Time x
condition
p-value
Time x
condition
eta squared
Playground
Supervisors Supervisor beliefs
Supervisor self-
efficacy
Supervisor knowledge
<.001
<.001
<.001
.09
.057
.048
School Staff Perceptions of
Playground Safety
Understanding Your
Role
.237
.039
---
.15
Students
Perceptions of
Playground Safety
(Sprick, Garrison, &
Howard, 2002)
Knowledge of
Playground Rules
<.001
.437
NA
---
School level
Administrators
Perceptions of
Playground Safety
(Sprick et al., 2002)
Fidelity of
Implementation
.349
.999
---
---
Discussion and Implications
As a comprehensive school-wide playground program, On the Playground showed
promising results. Compared to playground supervisors at control condition schools, treatment
group playground supervisors showed significant changes in attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy,
and pre-to-post knowledge of effective behavior management practices on the playground.
Students in the treatment condition showed enhanced perceptions of playground safety and
improved knowledge at follow-up compared to controls. Additionally, staff had a better
understanding of their role on the playground, suggesting that implemented changes were
effective in improving staff’s comprehension of the impact of their behavior on playground
supervisory tasks. Although the program showed no changes in administrator knowledge,
attitude or intention, this could be due to the relatively short period of time (roughly 90 days)
administrators had to implement the program; another assessment at the end of the school year
may have revealed more effects in this group.
User satisfaction among the treatment group was high among the groups of school staff
that used the CD-ROM program. The number of positive comments suggested that this approach
and content was a viable intervention format for public elementary schools. In terms of external
validity, it is notable that we made every attempt to evaluate this program as it would be
implemented without extensive involvement and oversight by a research staff. For example, the
treatment groups were sent the program and asked to implement the intervention as they would
any other school policy or initiative, rather than the researchers implementing the intervention
via workshops and presentations. This is suggestive that a non-traditional computer-based
intervention can have an impact in school trainings.
Limitations
All survey research shares the limitation that the information collected depends upon the
validity of the reports of respondents. Some schools dropped out due to the rigors of the
evaluation protocols and the number of populations and assessments required of each
participating school. However, given the size of the evaluation sample, we consider the rate of
attrition to be minimal. It is also important to note that these results may not generalize to other
geographic regions and community settings.
Finally, it is recommended for future studies that standardized definitions and data
collection systems for capturing playground injury and discipline referral data be implemented as
part of the research design, so that trends in student playground behavior outcomes can be
measured with the implementation of the professional development training program.
Appendix A
Playground Supervisor’s Survey
1. If a child breaks a rule and argues about the consequences, the best way to deal with it
is to:
1. restate the rule
2. enforce the consequences in the same way for each student
3. make sure that your consequences are relative to the needs of each child d) b and c only[[
4. a and b only
5. b and c only
2. What is the best ratio of positive feedback to give student who have misbehaved?
1. 3 positives to 1 correcting comment
2. 5 positives to 1 correcting comment
3. 1 positives to 1 correcting comment
4. 0 - it’s best to be stern for the next few days after a misbehavior to let them know you
mean business.
3. A student is coming down the slide while 3 others are lined up waiting a turn. Sean
starts to climb up the slide the wrong way, hoping to avoid the line. Which of these
responses is the most effective?
1. ―Sean, you know better than that. Please stand over here (indicating a spot away from the
equipment) and watch the others. Then you can have your turn.‖
2. ―Sean, please get down. Going the wrong way is unsafe. Stand over here (indicating a
spot away from the equipment) and watch the others take turns.‖
3. ―Sean, remember the rule: Only one person on the equipment at a time. Someone could
get hurt—like you! Nicole was just about to come down the slide and she could knock
you over. I’d like you to stand over here (indicating a spot away from the equipment)
and wait for a moment while the others take turns. You’ll get a chance to use the slide
the right way in just a minute.‖
4. An effective brief delay on the playground should last approximately:
1. 2-3 minutes
2. 30 seconds-1 minute
3. Until the child has calmed down.
5. Positive practice is most useful when:
1. The student doesn’t seem to understand the rule
2. The time out area is full
3. Behavior is more willful, or if it’s a reoccurrence
4. The student seems to be seeking attention
6. An effective timeout on the playground should last approximately:
1. 2-3 minutes
2. 5 minutes
3. 10 minutes
7. When you see a child being bullied it is extremely important to:
1. Stand back and allow time for the students to work out the situation for themselves.
2. Respond immediately and, with a respectful tone, tell the bully that this behavior will not
be tolerated and follow up with appropriate consequences.
3. Step in immediately and aggressively to stop bullying behavior.
4. Comfort the victim.
8. How effective do you think this written referral would be?
―Hannah has been a major troublemaker the past few weeks. She has been throwing paper
almost every day. I keep asking her to stop but she doesn’t listen. Today when I asked walk
with me to talk about it, she freaked out and yelled at me and then she stormed off. You deal
with her – I don’t need this.‖
1. Very effective
2. Slightly effective
3. Neither effective nor ineffective
4. Slightly ineffective
5. Very ineffective
9. If the kids are playing well, I don‘t have to enforce all the playground rules all the
time.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
10. I know the protocol to handle aggressive behaviors on my playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
11. I know the protocol to handle bullying or threatening behaviors on my playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
12. I know the protocol to handle fighting on my playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
13. At every recess, it is important to remind the kids who frequently misbehave that you
are on to their tricks.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
14. If I‘m too calm when addressing student misbehavior, the students won‘t listen to me.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
15. I shouldn‘t need to re-teach and re-enforce school expectations and rules on the
playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
16. It is OK to stand with other adults during the playground as long as the students are
being watched.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
17. Sometimes it‘s OK to be sarcastic when correcting a child‘s behavior
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
18. I need to be aware if other supervisors need my help on the playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
19. It is essential to restate the rule with a child that is arguing with me about a
misbehavior.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
20. Kids can‘t always be expected to follow my directions.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
21. Unless I see it happening, I don‘t worry much about bullying on the playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
22. Unless I see it happening, I don‘t worry much about fighting on the playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
23. Knowing and greeting students on the playground is not that important in preventing
problem behaviors.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
24. On the playground, I think it is important to allow kids to work out their issues and for
me to interfere as little as possible
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
25. It is important to speak to each child with respect, even if they are very annoying or
ignoring me.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
26. It is important to enforce playground rules relative to the situation and child involved.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
27. I can‘t do much to prevent bullying on the playground.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree a little
3. Neither Agree or Disagree
4. Disagree a little
5. Disagree a lot
28. How appropriate is using ―stay with the supervisor‖ as a discipline strategy for
students who are overly dependent?
1. Very appropriate
2. Somewhat appropriate
3. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate
4. Somewhat inappropriate
5. Very inappropriate
29. How confident are you that you could always restate the rule and give a consequence
when a child argues with you?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
30. How confident are you that you could always intervene every single time you see a rule
violation on the playground?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
31. How confident are you that you could always give students who often misbehave a
fresh start at each recess?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
32. How confident are you that you could always monitor the vast majority of students in
your playground?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
33. How confident are you that you could always calmly handle a child who is
misbehaving?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
34. How confident are you that you could always act immediately if a child was
misbehaving on the playground?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
35. How confident are you that you could always speak respectfully when dealing with a
child who is misbehaving on the playground?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
36. How confident are you that you know all the rules for your playground?
1. Not at all confident
2. A little confident
3. Neither
4. Moderately confident
5. Very confident
Please think about the past 7 days. How often have you:
37. Arrived on the playground before the students arrive.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
38. Intentionally met students in a welcoming and positive manner as they entered the
playground.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
39. Known the area you were assigned to supervise and the general rules and specific rules
for games and equipment.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
40. Scanned (looked around) at all students in the area, not just looking at one area or in
one direction.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
41. Looked occasionally into other supervisors‘ areas to see if assistance is needed.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
42. Circulated through your assigned area and avoided talking with other adults on the
playground.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
43. When interacting with a student (e.g., correcting misbehavior), positioned the student
so that you could continue to supervise—that is, so that the student‘s back is to the
group and you are facing the group.
1. Every recess
2. most of the recesses
3. some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
44. Made a positive connection with each student who has had difficulty in the past, within
the first five minute of entering the play area.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
Please think about the past 7 days. How often have you:
45. Stayed in ―problem‖ areas so that students were aware that you are monitoring.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
46. Stepped in immediately at the onset of any potential problem.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
47. Praised and greeted students more often than you corrected misbehavior.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
48. Given students specific, descriptive praise that was age appropriate.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
49. Thanked students for following the rules.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
50. Corrected student misbehavior consistently (i.e. from student-to-student and from day
to day).
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
Please think about the past 7 days. How often have you:
51. Used a professional tone with students.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
52. Responded to student misbehavior in as unemotional a manner as possible.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
53. Used a supportive stance (i.e., off to one side, not directly in front) when talking to
individual students.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
54. Corrected misbehavior in a way that avoids publicly humiliating the student.
1. Every recess
2. Most of the recesses
3. Some of the time
4. Rarely
5. Never
At one time or another, all children do things that are ―wrong‖ or that their playground
supervisors and teachers don‘t like. Playground supervisors and teachers have different
ways or styles of dealing with these types of problems.
Below are some styles of how a supervisor might react to different problems. For each one, please
circle the number that best describes your style.
55. When a student misbehaves…
I raise my voice or
yell
I speak to the
student calmly
56. When I give fair threat or warning…
I often don‘t carry
it out
I always do what I
said
57. When I am upset or under stress…
I am picky and on
the student‘s back
I am no more
picky than usual
58. When a student misbehaves…
I usually get into a
long argument
with the student
I don‘t get into an
argument
59. When a student does something I don‘t like…
I do something
about it every time
it happens
I often let it go
60. When there is a problem with a student…
things build up
and I do things I
don‘t mean to
things don‘t get
out of hand
61. When a student doesn‘t do what I asked…
I often let it go I take some kind of
action
62. If saying ‗no‘ doesn‘t work…
I take some other
kind of action
I offer the student
an incentive to
behave
63. When a student misbehaves…
I handle it
without getting
upset
I get so frustrated
or angry the
student can see
I‘m upset
64. When I say a student can‘t do something…
I let the student do
it anyway
I stick to what I
said
65. When a student does something I don‘t like, I say mean or sarcastic things, or call the
student names…
never or rarely most of the time
66. If a student gets upset when I say ‗no‘…
I back down
and give in to the
student
I stick to what I
said
END OF SURVEY – Please return by mail in the envelope provided. Thank you!
Appendix B
Student Survey
On the Playground – 3rd
Grade Student Survey – Pretest #__________
IMPORTANT: DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS SURVEY, but we would like you to tell
us about yourself and our school. Thank you for helping us to make our school a better place.
I am a boy girl
I am African American American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic White Other
Think about how safe you feel in our school. Circle the face that best tells us how you feel
about each question.
1. I feel safe on the playground.
2. I feel safe in the restrooms during recess.
3. It is easy for students to make friends on the playground.
4. Students treat each other respectfully on the playground.
5. Students at this school treat the adults on the playground with respect.
6. The adults on the playground treat students respectfully.
7. The adults on the playground treat students fairly.
8. If I have a problem I can’t solve on my own, I know I can go to an adult at
this school (e.g., teacher, counselor, or principal) for help.
9. I have been taught the rules and how I’m supposed to act when on the playground.
10. I have been taught the rules and how I’m supposed to properly use the playground
equipment.
Name or describe (3) three big rules of the playground at our school.
1._________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3._________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!
Appendix C
Program Satisfaction
Thank you for your time in responding to this survey to provide data that will help your school to
create a stronger and safer program on the playground.
IMPORTANT: DO NOT put your name on this survey, but do tell us your individual opinions.
School Name__________________________
Please identify your role in your school:
Administrator Teacher Teacher Assistant Classified
Student Counselor Parent Other________________
I am regularly scheduled to supervise a recess period Yes No
Please respond to each question by either circling a response that most closely identifies your
opinion, or by supplying personal comments.
1. How useful was the program?
5 4 3 2 1
Extremely useful Somewhat useful Neither Not very useful Not useful
at all
2. If this program was useful, in what ways was it useful?
3. How easy or difficult was this program to use?
5 4 3 2 1
Extremely easy Some what easy Neither easy nor difficult Some what difficult Extremely
difficult difficult
4. What did you like best about the program?
5. What did you like least about the program?
6. Was there anything you found to be confusing?
7. Was there any information that you felt should be included in the program but was not?
8. Were there any subjects that you would like to know more about?
9. What would make the program better for other users?
10 Is there anything else that you could tell us about using this program?
11. Did you experience any difficulties with the computer while using the program?
Please describe.
12. The leadership team did most of its work from a computer located in a(n):
5 4 3 2 1
conference room classroom home library other__________
13. One of the primary goals of the Playground Supervision program was to provide a
method of creating a comprehensive school wide playground program.
How successful was the program in meeting this goal?
5 4 3 2 1
Highly Moderately Neutral Somewhat Not at all
14. Another goal of the program was to provide information and to practice strategies to
use for correcting student misbehavior. How successful was the program in meeting
this goal?
5 4 3 2
1
Highly Moderately Neutral Somewhat
Not at all
15. Will you recommend continuing implementation of this program at your school? Why
or why not?
16. Please use this space to add anything else you think we should know about this or other
playground training programs.
Appendix D
Fidelity of the Implementation
Put a in the box that best describes the level of implementation at your school.
Current Status
Feature
In
Place
Partially
in Place
Not in
Place
1. A team exists for behavior support planning & problem
solving.
2. The team is representative of our school.
3. The Level of Structure for our playground has been
identified.
4. Problematic areas of our playground have been identified.
5. Hazards on the playground have been identified.
6. Playground equipment is safe and well-maintained.
7. Organizational issues for the playground such as
scheduling, routes and grade level mix have been
analyzed.
8. Playground policies are informed by data collected from
staff.
9. Playground policies are informed by behavioral and
injury data collected from students.
10. Playground policies are informed by data collected from
parents.
11. School has comprehensive written rules for the
playground.
12. Playground rules reflect existing district policies.
13. Students can identify three playground rules.
14. School has formal strategies for informing families about
expected student behaviors at school.
15. Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous
situations.
16. Teachers use specific methods to actively teach expected
behaviors on the playground.
17. Playground supervisors have a written copy of job
expectations.
18. Playground supervisors have received training in positive
behavioral management for the playground.
19. Playground supervisors work as a team with other
supervisors.
20. Playground supervisors consistently model positive and
respectful interaction with students.
21. Playground supervisors actively supervise (circulate,
scan, and consistently enforce rules) on the playground.
22. Planning and intervention activities on the playground are
documented.
23. The playground is regularly observed and monitored by
team or administrator.
24. Data on problem behavior incidents on the playground
are collected and summarized within an on-going system.
25. Data on playground injuries are collected and
summarized within an on-going system.
26. Staff and students are rewarded for positive change and
growth.
27. Staff is informed of new playground policies and
structures.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!
Appendix E
Administrator’s Survey
Hello and welcome!
You are invited to participate in our Administrator's Survey for our program:
On the Playground: A Guide to Playground Management.
In this survey, you will be asked to answer questions about your school. It will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
It is very important for us to learn your opinions. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel
uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point.
Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported
only in the aggregate.
If you decline to answer to a question, please type "n/a" in the text box, or choose the answer
response of "decline to answer".
If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact the
Playground Project staff, or Janet Clay at 1-888-349-5472 or by email to____________
Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on
the Continue button below
1. Enter your school name:
2. Your job title:
Principal
Assistant Principal
Decline to answer
Other
3. Gender:
Male
Female
Decline to answer
4. Your Race or Ethnicity. Please choose all that apply:
African American
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White/Caucasian
Decline to answer
Other
5. How many years have you been a school administrator?
6. How many years have you been at your current school?
7. Do you currently have any type of playground management team in place?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
8. Do you provide training for playground supervisors on how to supervise?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
9. Do you have written playground rules in place?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
10. Does your staff teach lessons about playground rules to students?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
11. Do you specifically track discipline referrals related to the playground?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
12. Do you periodically review your playground policies and practices?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
12a.Have you reviewed your playground policies or practices in the last 2-3 years?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
13. On average, how many recesses do you schedule each day?
14. Approximate number of students on the playground during an average recess:
15. Are there mixes of students (ages and grade levels) during recess?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
16. Briefly explain how students at your school are mixed for recess:
17. Do you know the ratio of supervisors to students on your playground?
Yes
No
Decline to answer
17a. Do you know the ratio of supervisors to students on your playground?
Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd
Grade
3rd
Grade
4th
Grade
5th
Grade
18. For the previous year 2004-2005, how many students were referred to your office each week
regarding their problem playground behavior?
19. For the previous year 2004-2005, how many playground-related injuries required a school
office or nurse visit each week?
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
20. Our playground's equipment and activities are adequate.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
21. The size of our playground relative to the number of students at any given time is adequate.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
22. The number of current play structures on our playground is adequate.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
23. The condition of current playground equipment and grounds is safe.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
Now we would like to ask you about your students.
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
24. Students feel safe on the playground.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
25. Students feel safe in the restrooms during recess.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
26. It is easy for students to make friends on the playground.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
27. Students treat each other respectfully on the playground.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
28. Students treat adults respectfully on the playground.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
29. Adults on the playground treat students respectfully.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
30. Adults on the playground treat students fairly.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
31. If students have a problem they can’t solve on their own, they know they can go to a staff
member (e.g., teacher, counselor, principal) for help.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
32. Students are taught the rules and expectations for playground behavior.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
33. Students are taught the rules and expectations for proper use of the playground equipment.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
34. There is good communication between teaching staff, playground supervisors and building
administrators regarding playground issues and problems.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
35. I have a clear understanding regarding my role in dealing with playground issues and
problems (e.g., what to do if a student chronically misbehaves on the playground).
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Decline to
Agree Disagree answer
Appendix F
On the Playground: User’s Guide
Introduction
On the Playground is a comprehensive multimedia program that guides schools through the steps
of planning and implementing policies designed to create a positive playground environment.
This six CD set includes specific instructions to the administrator charged with initiating the
program (Administrator’s Toolkit), a page-by-page ―facilitator‖ for the Playground Planning
Team (Planning Team’s Toolkit), and a self-guided curriculum using video demonstration
vignettes to teach your playground supervisors effective behavior modification techniques
(Supervisor’s Toolkit). You will find four copies of the Supervisor’s Toolkit CD to accommodate
multiple users.
To accommodate a variety of learning styles, this binder contains printed materials directly from
the CDs. You will find a hard copy of each of the data collection tools we offer, as well as the
entire content from the Planning Team’s Toolkit and the Administrator’s Toolkit CDs. The
Supervisor’s section of the binder contains the one-page overview for each of the 14 common
playground misbehaviors covered, as well as other reference materials found on that CD.
Anticipated outcomes from implementing the On the Playground steps include:
Reduction of unnecessary disciplinary referrals
Increased staff coordination and consistency in dealing with severe behavior problems
Improved school climate
Enhanced school safety
Improved staff communication and coordination when managing student behaviors
Increased positive interactions between staff and students
Improved staff skills in effective supervision and positive behavior support
To Get Started
The Administrator’s Toolkit asks the administrator to gather general data about your school. By
answering a series of questions about demographics, your playground’s physical environment,
and rate of playground problems, this CD will suggest which ―Level of Structure‖ your school
might use for optimum effectiveness of the program. The Administrator’s Toolkit also contains
data collection tools that can be used by the Planning Team, and a list of reports and policy
documents the team might need. The Administrator’s Toolkit should take about 40 minutes to
complete (not including the time it may take to gather the data and documents).
Forming the Team
Playground supervisors know better than anyone what recess is like and where the problems are.
Teachers understand the types of playground issues that lead to lost class time and can suggest
grade-appropriate lesson plans. Administrators are accountable when playground problems lead
to emotional or physical injuries. So, together, these multiple perspectives will lead to a richer,
more creative, and effective Playground Planning Team.
Typically, the team will consist of at least four, but no more than nine, members. How many
team members you choose is dependent on the size of your school and it’s ―Level of Structure.‖
Your Playground Planning Team will assist with:
Collecting and analyzing information about your playground and about playground
policies
Revising current playground procedures and rules, and creating new ones
Designing student lessons on how to behave on the playground
Facilitating the training of playground supervisors
Championing the cause
Training the Playground Supervisors
The Planning Team will coordinate with the playground supervisors to create the best and most
efficient way to use the Supervisor’s Toolkit CD. This CD, with its video examples of common
behavior problems, and its expanded sections on effective behavior management strategies, is a
self-contained tool to start training your supervisors. The Supervisor’s Toolkit teaches ways to
enforce rules, increase safety, reinforce responsible behavior, and promote a positive school
culture. Depending on the needs of your school, the program can be used to train supervisors
individually or in groups. When using it in a group setting, the video segments work well as
springboards to discussion.
Launching the Program
Launching a new program on a specific date can give the program more power and create
dramatic results. The Planning Team CD will encourage the team to create a schoolwide event,
like an assembly or a poster contest to signal the kick-off of the new playground rules and
policies.
Using the Program (Technical Information)
Step 1. To run the program, insert the program into your CD-ROM drive and close the tray.
Step 2. The program should auto-launch. If it does not do so, then it may be that this feature is
disabled on your computer. To launch the program manually, open the window showing the
contents of your CD-ROM and double-click on the ―exe‖ file. (Each CD has its own ―exe‖ file
name. For example, look for ―PlaygrndTm.exe‖ on the Planning Team’s Toolkit CD.) Depending
upon your Windows operating system, you can also find the contents of your CD-ROM by
opening "My Computer."
Note: The program will open and make use of Internet Explorer (IE), however you do not need
to be connected to the Internet to run the CD. If you have never launched (used) IE, the first time
IE launches it will launch the "Internet Connection Wizard". Even if you have no modem or no
network card, you still must attempt to complete the wizard's instructions for Windows to
configure IE correctly. In such a case, even if the wizard fails, you will then be able to use IE to
run the CD.
Note: Using the browser allows you to increase or decrease the size of the window as is
convenient for you. For the best effect, however, click on the "maximize" button in the upper
right corner of the window so you can view any buttons, etc. that appear at the bottom of the
screen. (This program was designed to be viewed on a monitor having a resolution of 800 x 600
or higher. To optimize screen size, you may also want to set your monitor to a higher resolution.)
System Requirements
* Windows XP HOME Edition/XP Professional/2000/ME/98SE
* Internet Explorer (IE) web browser version 5.5 or newer with JavaScript and cookies enabled
(no internet connection required)
* Windows Media Player version 7.01 or newer; version 8 or 9 preferred
*Adobe Acrobat Reader
* Multimedia PC with a Pentium III or higher processor
* 900 MHz or faster processor
* 512 Megabytes RAM or higher; 256 Megabytes minimum
* 10x CD-ROM recommended; 24x or faster CD-ROM drive preferred
* Windows-compatible sound card and headphones or speakers
* Monitor resolution set at 800 x 600 or higher
* Video card with 16 bit ('high') color
* Super VGA display
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Appendix G
Contents of On the Playground Program
Supervisor Toolkit Leadership Team Toolkit Administrator Toolkit
Dealing with Common
Problems
Arguing/not taking
responsibility
Whining and tattling
Not following
playground rules
Not following
supervisor directions
Dangerous or
aggressive behavior
Minor misbehavior
Loner/isolated child
Clingy child
Cliques and gangs
Harassing others
Bullying, threatening
Fighting
Arguing with other
kids
Kids with chronic
problems
What's your style?
Supervisor Toolkit
Prevention of
playground problems
Best practices for
corrections
Correction Strategies
Dealing with
emergencies
Your Supervisor Job
Description
Understanding Your
Liability
General Liability
Issues
The Importance of
Recordkeeping
Welcome to New Team
Members
Recess, Why Bother?
How to Implement
Your Role
Efficiency and
Productivity
Liability Overview
Collect and Analyze Data
Why Bother with Data?
Retrieve Accessible Data
Data Sources
Organize the Playground for
Success
Mapping Your Playground
Emergency Procedures
Physical Safety Hazards
Scheduling
Classroom Transitioning
Supervisory Coverage
Develop a Supervisor Job
Description
Training Playground
Supervisors
Supervisor CD Overview
Tools, Calendars, and
Recordkeeping
Design responsible
playground behavior
lessons
Sample Lesson Plans
Your Playground
Handbook
Understanding Your Liability
General Liability Issues
The Importance of
Recordkeeping
Calendars
Forms and Workbooks
Resources and Helpful
Articles
Program Overview and Pre-
planning
Roles and Responsibilities
Why Train?
Why Have Recess?
Road Blocks to Success
Planning for Action
Create Your Profile
Level of Structure
Forming a Team
Why bother with a
Planning Team?
Suggestions for Forming
the Team
Overview of the Team's
Responsibilities.
Setting a Timeline
Training Supervisors
Supervisor CD Overview
Setting up a Training
Program
Monitoring/Reviewing
Understanding your Liability
General Liability Issues
The Importance of
Recordkeeping
Administrator's Tool Box
Common misbehaviors and
successful management
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1979). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Review, 888-918.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Birnbaum, A. S., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P.J., Murray, D.M., Perry, C. L. & Forster, J.L.
(2003). School functioning and violent behavior among young adolescents: A
contextual analysis. Health Education Research, 18 (3), 389-403.
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational research. New York: Longman.
Bossenmeyer, M. (2009). Playground liability: Accident or Injury. Retrieved December
28, 2009, from http://www.peacefulplaygrounds.com/playground-liability-
accident-or-injury.htm
Bruya, L., & Bruya, L. (2000). Risk Factor One: Supervision on a Safe Playground.
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71, (3),20.
Carr, M. M., Reznick, R. K. & Brown, D. H. (1999). Comparison of computer-assisted
instruction and seminar instruction to acquire psychomotor and cognitive
knowledge of epistaxis management. Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery,
121(4), 430-434.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control. (NCIPC) (2007). National Program for Playground Safety. Washington,
D.C.: Health and Human Services, Division of Adolescents and School Health,
CDC. Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Health Guidelines to Prevent
Unintentional Injuries and Violence (2001). Retrieved December 28, 2009 from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5022a1.htm
Clark, L. J., Watson, J., Cobbe, S. M., Reeve, W., Swann, I. J. & MacFarlane, P. W.
(2000). CPR ’98: a practical multimedia computer-based guide to
cardiopulmonary resuscitation for medical students. Resuscitation, 44(2), 109-117
Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D.W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in
early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process.
Child Development, 66, 139-151.
Danseco ER, Miller TR, Spicer RS. Incidence and costs of 1987--1994 childhood
injuries: demographic breakdowns. Pediatrics 2000;105(2). Retrieved December
28, 2009 from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/105/2/e27
Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An elementary school-based prevention
program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence:
Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Journal of Emotional &
Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 165-176.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fotheringham, M.J. & Owen, N. (2000). Interactive health communication in preventive
medicine. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19 (2), 111 – 112.
Frost, J., & Jacobs, P. J. (1995). Play deprivation: A factor in juvenile violence.
Dimensions of Early Childhood. 23, (3), 14-20.
Glang, A., Gersten, R., & Singer, G. (1990). Computer-assisted video instruction in
training rehabilitation paraprofessionals. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 10 (3), 137-146.
Glang, A. Sprick, R. Swartz, L. & Clark, (2003). On the playground: A guide to
playground management [CD-ROM]. Eugene, OR: Oregon Center for Applied
Science.
Harshfield, J.B. (1996). Liability issues of using volunteers in public schools. National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80, 581, 61-65.
Hudson, S., Mack, M., & Thompson, D. (2000). How safe are America's playgrounds?
Cedar Falls, IA: National Program for Playground Safety.
Hudson, S., Olson, H., & Thompson, D. (2008). The Journal of School Nursing, 24(3),
138-144.
Marescaux, J., Soler, L. Mutter, D., Leroy, J., Vix, M., Koehl. C., et al. (2000). Virtual
university applied to telesurgery: from teleducation to telemanipulation. Studies in
Health Technology and Informatics, 70, 195-201.
Michas, I. C. & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a Procedural Task: Effectiveness of
Multimedia Presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555-575.
National Program for Playground Safety. (1998). S.A.F.E. Playgrounds videotape
program. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.
Niewijk, A. H. & Weijts, W. B. (1997). Effects of a multi-media course on urinary
incontinence. Patient Education and Counseling, 30(1), 95-103.
Noell, J. & Glasgow, R. E. (1999). Interactive technology applications for behavioral
counseling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 17 (4), 269-274.
Opat, A. J., Cohen, M. M., Bailey, M. J. & Abramson, M. J. (2000). A clinical trial of the
Buteyko Breathing Technique in asthma as taught by a video. Journal of Asthma:
Official Journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma, 37(7), 557-564.
Phelan, K. J., Khoury, J., Kalkwarf, H. J., & Lanphear, B.P. (2001). Trends and patterns
of playground injuries in United States children and adolescents. Ambulatory
Pediatrics,1 (4), 227–33
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and
development. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 51-67.
Potomkova, J., Mihal, V., & Cihalik, C. (2006). Web-based instruction and its impact on
the learning activity of medical students: a review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ
Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub, 150(2), 357–361
Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public
schools foster the common good? Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from
http://www.publicagenda.org/articles/teaching-interrupted
Public Law 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved on December 28, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Ruiz, J., Mintzer, M., & Leipzig, R. (2006). The impact of E-learning in medical
education. Academic Medicine, 81, 207-212.
Sariscsany, M. J. & Pettigrew, F. (1997). Effectiveness of Interactive Video Instruction
on Teacher's Classroom Management Declarative Knowledge. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 16 (2), 229-240.
Savage, I. & Goodyer, L. (2003) Providing information on metered dose inhaler
technique: is multimedia as effective as print? Family Practice, 20(5), 552-557.
Schwebel, D.C. (2006). Safety on the playground: Mechanisms through which adult
supervision might prevent child playground injury. Journal of Clinical
Psychology in Medical Settings, 13 (2), 135-143.
School Health Guidelines to Prevent Unintentional Injuries and Violence. Morbidity &
Mortality Weekly Report December 7, 2001;50(RR–22); 1–74.
Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S. & Branas, C. (2002). Computer games may be
good for your health. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 16(2), 80-
85.
Sprick, R. S. (1990). Playground discipline: Positive techniques for recess supervision.
(Video program). Eugene, OR: Teaching Strategies.
Sprick, R.S., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (2002). Foundations: A positive approach to
school-wide discipline. Eugene, OR: Northwest Publishing.
Sprick, R.S., Sprick, M. S., & Garrison, M. (1993). Interventions: Collaborative planning
for students at-risk. Longmont, CO: Sporis West.
Stefanich, L., & Cruz-Niera, C. (1999). A virtual surgical simulator for the lower limbs.
Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, 35, 141-145
Sugai, G., Horner, R. & Todd, A. (2003). EBS Self Assessment Survey version 2.0.
Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon.
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2006). A Promising Approach for Expanding and Sustaining
School-wide Positive Behavior Support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245-
259.
Tinsworth, D, & McDonald, J. (2001). Special Study: Injuries and Deaths Associated
with Children’s Playground Equipment. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
Todd, A., Haugen, L. Anderson, K., & Spriggs, M. (2002). Teaching recess: Low cost
efforts producing effective results. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
4,(1), 46-52.
Ursino, M., Tasto. J. L., Nguyen, B. H., Cunningham, R. & Merril, G. L. (1999).
CathSim: an intravascular catheterization simulator on a PC. Studies in Health
Technology and Informatics, 62, 360-366.
Walker, H.M., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J.R., Bricker, D., &
Kaufman, M.J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior
patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.
Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (2001). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. In D. Boesel (Ed.), Continuing professional development.
Washington, D.C.: OERI, U.S. Dept. of Ed.