Abstract
Many special education teachers who teach students with high-incidence disabilities are charged with helping their students meet behavioral goals related to improved social competence. High-incidence disabilities refer to a set of high-prevalence disabilities, which include emotional and behavioral disorders, specific learning disabilities, and mild-to-moderate intellectual disability (Bryant, Bryant, & Smith, 2017). Students with high-incidence disabilities make up about 73% of all students with disabilities and 8% of school-age students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
Although not all students who would benefit from social-skills instruction (SSI) have a specific behavior goal included in their individualized education program (IEP), many students would benefit from improved social competence. In fact, up to 55% of special educators reported they teach social skills on a daily basis (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009). Yet, these same teachers may not receive sufficient training on how social skills are acquired, taught, and generalized (Dobbins, Higgins, Pierce, Tandy, & Tincani, 2009). Although academic achievement is considered a primary outcome in education, social competence is essential in order for students to manage their educational environments (Cook et al., 2008; Gresham, Elliott, Cook, Vance, & Kettler, 2010; Merrill, Smith, Cumming, & Daunic, 2017). Therefore, SSI provides a promising avenue for teaching and promoting positive social interactions.
SSI is commonly used as an intervention to address social-skill needs (Leffert, Brady, & Siperstein, 2009; Schoenfeld, Rutherford, Gable, & Rock, 2008). Within SSI, a distinction can be made between social skills and social competence. Social skills are specific behaviors one must perform correctly within a specific social context or task (Gresham, Elliot, Cook, et al., 2010). For instance, the social skills required for playground play may include how to enter into group play or how to wait one’s turn. In contrast, social competence refers to how others, such as teachers, parents, or community members, conceptualize or judge the outcomes of specific social skills of individuals across settings, individuals, and situations (Gresham, Elliot, Cook, et al., 2010). For example, social competence could be based on whether a teacher evaluates the way a student asked to join a group was successful. “Given this conceptualization, social skills are specific behaviors exhibited in specific situations that lead to judgments by others that these behaviors were competent or incompetent in accomplishing specific social tasks” (Gresham, Elliott, Cook, et al., 2010, p. 158). Therefore, social competency—the way one’s social skills are perceived by others—impacts students’ social interactions, peer acceptance, and friendships, resulting in school adjustment and the development of social and adaptive skills (Gresham, Van, & Cook, 2006). SSI is a process intended to streamline how social skills are taught within the aforementioned larger framework of social competence. SSI can also address the development and preservation of relationships as well as development of coping and problem-solving skills (Gresham et al., 2006). Students’ acquisition of social skills can facilitate their ability to work in groups (Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001), reduce teacher and peer rejection (Vitaro, Brendgren, Larose, & Trembly, 2005), and result in enhanced peer relationships (Gresham et al., 2001). Finally, as a result of effective implementation of SSI, students may experience greater school achievement (Konold, Jamison, Stanton-Chapman, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2010; Ray & Elliot, 2006).
Social-skills instruction provides a promising avenue for teaching and promoting positive social interactions.
As social competence dictates how well students are integrated and accepted into social environments, the need for SSI is even more paramount for students with high-incidence disabilities, as they are at a greater risk for delinquency, depression, anxiety, and overall poorer postschooling outcomes (Murray, 2002). In addition, postsecondary outcomes include limited employment success (Morningstar, Trainor, & Murray, 2015), which may be due to poor social capital, or the ability for individuals to access resources via social networks (Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, & Test, 2017). Therefore, SSI can play an important role in developing students’ ability to cultivate supportive relationships that affect quality of life. Limited social skills influence how students with high-incidence disabilities are perceived by parents, teachers, and peers; therefore, assessing for and addressing such needs is of extreme importance (Rosen et al., 2014). Finally, students may display externalizing behaviors (e.g., disruptive behaviors) that, when combined with poor social self-control, places these students at a higher risk to be rejected by peers and results in lower reported levels of self-esteem (Rosen et al., 2014).
Despite the wide use of SSI, there have been limited findings related to its effectiveness. According to Kavale and Mostert (2004), much of this variance is due to SSI programs being specifically designed and assessed as part of a larger research investigation. Thus, the targeted social skills taught to participants (as part of prepackaged SSI) may not have been accurately reflective of students’ individualized needs. Such problematic assessment of social skills may stem from poor rationale for inclusion of skill assessment items, questionable psychometric properties of instruments, and failure to account for contextual variables that affect social-skill performance. Forness and Kavale (1996) examined the effectiveness of SSI for students with learning disabilities and found only modest results for this population. Echoing these findings, other meta-analyses and reviews have also noted limited effectiveness with regard to students with high-incidence disabilities (Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Merrill et al., 2017; Quinn, Kavale, Mathur, Rutherford, & Forness, 1999). In addition to measurement issues related to rating intervention quality (e.g., discrepant ratings from parents, teachers, and student self-reports), the reasons behind limited SSI effectiveness have also included insufficient intensity of SSI and inaccurate assessment of need (Forness & Kavale, 1996). In a systematic review of research on SSI with students with emotional and behavioral disorders, Sullivan and Sadeh (2012) found effectiveness remained unclear due to some of these same methodological issues found in previous studies, including inaccurate assessments, discrepancies within measurement tools, and insufficient SSI instruction. Recent findings indicated varied results of SSI may also be attributed to a need for greater methodological rigor within the context of treatment integrity in single-subject designs (Hutchins, Burke, Hatton, & Bowman-Perrott, 2016). Methodological issues around how to research and measure social skills continue to exist, and as such, this intervention should be viewed as experimental and in need of continued research and restructuring (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). Despite these limited findings, social competency continues to be an area of focus. Given the benefits of social skills both socially and academically, the aforementioned limited research findings must be considered but not impede SSI. Incorporating accurate and effective assessment of social-skill needs highlights the importance of social skills for daily living. Teachers can look to features of effective instruction to guide implementation of SSI both within IEP goals and across daily instruction. Accordingly, teaching social skills must remain a priority in a continued effort to improve social acceptance, enhance positive relationships, and support an improved overall quality of life for students with high-incidence disabilities.
Assessing and Addressing Social Skills
To address SSI needs, students require direct and systematic teaching of skills in both school settings (Bullis, Walker, & Sprague, 2001; Hill & Coufal, 2005; Martens & Witt, 2004) and in the community. Social-skills programs typically share a number of similar features, including the promotion of skill acquisition, performance, generalization, and maintenance (Cook et al., 2008). The most effective social-skills programs are ones that use direct teaching, modeling, coaching, and generalization (Gresham et al., 2001). As with academics, it is important to plan social-skills lessons to ensure systematic progression through modeling, guided practice, and independent practice phases with reinforcement (Cartledge, Gardner, & Ford, 2009; Fisher & Frey, 2010). Specifically, teachers require the knowledge and tools necessary to assess, teach, and promote generalization and maintenance of social skills. With sufficient preparation, teachers can use the knowledge and, frequently, the materials they already possess to address the social competence needs of these students.
Teachers can look to features of effective instruction to guide implementation of SSI both within IEP goals and across daily instruction.
Step 1: Assess Needs
SSI should be reflective of student need (Schoenfeld et al., 2008), which should be assessed prior to instruction. Moreover, instruction should focus on socially valid behaviors (Gresham et al., 2001; Schoenfield et al., 2008), meaning such behaviors are relevant to a particular child at a specific point in time, people, and location, in contrast to a contrived definition or theory (Baer, Wolf, & Risely, 1968). For example, teaching “appropriate” greetings (a contrived definition) subjects the greeting’s “appropriateness” to the individual(s) interpreting it. If students’ cultural norms dictate that they do not make eye contact with adults, then instruction must take this convention into consideration when teaching how to greet adults. Further, for instance, repercussions surrounding starting a conversation poorly are likely to be more socially valid for a student entering middle school rather than a rising preschooler. A middle schooler who begins a conversation by announcing “It’s my turn” may encounter more negativity and annoyance from peers than preschoolers who are developmentally more egocentric and have less understanding of and experience with social norms.
Results from assessments provide information related to the nature of the deficit and can also lead to a rationale as to why the skill is important to the student. In practice, these results can be a starting point for discussions with students about the importance or benefits of engaging in a skill. This way, the student is invited into the instruction (e.g., “OK, Laura, it seems like you have trouble with starting conversations with peers, so let’s work on teaching you some different ways to do that. By learning how to start conversations, you’ll have more positive interactions with peers, have people to talk to at lunch, and create some friendships that may extend beyond school!”). These benefits can be used as a relevant rationale or a “hook” for the learner to buy into the lesson. Students who can identify the importance and relevancy of a skill are often more engaged with the instruction (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Chamberlain, 2005). In some cases, a student’s IEP team will have already conducted these targeted, social-skill needs assessments, and as such, the current scope of social-skills needs will be either written as an IEP goal or stated in the present level of academic achievement and functional performance. It should be noted that an assessment could still be initiated even if an IEP goal already exists, particularly if the student has been making progress but not yet reached mastery. If an IEP goal does not exist, a needs assessment can guide skill selection and instruction, much like it does in academic domains.
Assessments should be conducted across settings and school team members. Assessments may be formal, as in data collection via direct observation, functional behavioral assessments, rating scales, checklists, and parent or teacher interviews. They may also be informal, such as direct observations without data collection (e.g., engaging a student in play or a game), student self-reports, and collecting anecdotal evidence from parents and teachers (e.g., teacher’s verbal report on how Andy did at the school assembly last week). A list of formal social skill assessments is provided in Table 1. Given that generalization of SSI may be difficult unless planned for, using direct observation as one means of assessment ensures skills selected for instruction are socially valid to the current school context (Morgan, Hsiao, Dobbins, Brown, & Lyons, 2015). In this sense, direct observation serves to verify the skills taught are necessary and relevant for the student’s current setting. Such observations are most beneficial with repeated opportunities to assess skills across locations, time, and people. Regardless of assessment methods, student and parent input should also be solicited to gain a well-rounded understanding of student needs as well as strengths (e.g., social skills the student already possesses).
Published Social-Skill and Social-Competency Assessment Scales
Instructional needs may result from unclear or conflicting expectations, developmental delays, lack of motivation, or lack of opportunity to practice social skills (Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur, 2004). When collecting assessment data, it is important to note reasons for a student’s instructional needs so that skills can be taught accordingly. Students who demonstrate social-skills needs may require instruction in one of three areas: acquisition, performance, or fluency. Such distinctions are important because although results from assessment may identify a need for intervention, it may not inform what the intervention should target.
Acquisition instructional needs
Students who need acquisition instruction do not have foundational knowledge about specific skills (Fenty, Miller, & Lampi, 2008; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Consequently, they do not perform select social skills because they are unacquainted with the steps or requirements necessary for execution. To determine students’ skill knowledge, teachers can query students directly about their understanding of skill steps (Gresham, Elliott, & Kettler, 2010). This may take the form of direct questions (e.g., “If you wanted to ask for help, what is the first thing you would do?”), a sequencing sort (e.g., writing skills steps on strips of paper and having students identify and order skill steps), a skill checklist (e.g., students select steps included in a particular social skill from a list of possible steps), or informal data collection via observation (e.g., direct observation of target behavior). For example, Barrett, a kindergartener, may want to ask for help, but instead of raising his hand and waiting for a teacher, he calls out. When the teacher directly asks Barrett what steps he should take to get the teacher’s attention, he is able to identify only calling out or getting out of his seat. The problem is not that he is being intentionally disruptive; instead, Barrett has not been taught the steps necessary to ask for teacher help. If there are still doubts as to whether Barrett truly has an acquisition need, one may further test this by attempting to provide a strong reinforcer contingent upon raising his hand. If Barrett consistently fails to raise his hand, it may be likely due to an acquisition need. Students like Barrett require direct and systematic instruction that includes step-by-step explanations for each skill as well as reinforcement for accuracy of skill execution. Prior to assessing skill use across contexts and people, the first place for a teacher to start with a needs assessment is to make sure the student has the knowledge of skill steps in order to execute the skill (Gresham, Elliot, & Kettler, 2010).
Regardless of assessment methods, student and parent input should also be solicited to gain a well-rounded understanding of student needs as well as strengths.
Performance instructional needs
In some cases, students may have a social skill in their repertoire yet fail to consistently perform in appropriate contexts (Fenty et al., 2008; Walker et al., 1995). Within this type of deficit, a student may be able to articulate the skill yet fail to glean relevant information from the environment that dictates when, where, and how much of the behavior to engage in. Similarly, students who display performance-based deficits may perform a specific skill in context yet do so at an inefficient level (Andrews, 2006). Such failure to perform may be due to either a lack of motivation to perform the skill or difficulty discriminating the contexts in which the skill is appropriate (Andrews, 2006; Gresham, Elliot, & Kettler, 2010). In such situations, students are in need of performance instruction.
For example, Barrett, the kindergartner, may know the steps involved in waiting his turn and does so within the context of the classroom, yet he cuts in front of peers in the equipment line on the playground because it is a faster way to get the equipment and begin playing. Barrett has the skills to wait his turn and can explain each skill step; however, he is doing so inconsistently across settings. In this case, students like Barrett may require a reinforcement plan. In order to facilitate successful SSI, these students require reinforcement in order to understand the benefits of performing a targeted social skill across settings (Gresham, 2016).
A reinforcer is any stimulus added to or removed from the environment immediately following a behavior that increases the future likelihood that the behavior will occur again (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Finding relevant reinforcers is essential to student success when implementing any sort of training initiative, particularly for those students who are not motivated to demonstrate skills. Thus, reinforcer preference assessments should be conducted and incorporated as an ongoing component to SSI. In order to determine what will serve as salient reinforcement to each student (e.g., high fives vs. stickers), student’s preferences should be assessed regularly (weekly, daily). For example, students may rank a list of activities (e.g., sitting in a teacher’s chair, doing morning announcements), tangibles (e.g., school supplies, a school event ticket), and people (e.g., art teacher, office staff) in order of preference. As students come into contact with the natural benefits (e.g., friendships, positive feedback) of executing social skills in context, external reinforcers can be faded.
Targeted skill instruction may be required in order for students to understand the contexts in which certain behaviors are used (Andrews, 2006). Students with performance needs may also require extended skill practice with generalization. For example, Tau may understand how to ask his peers to engage in a game in the classroom, but once on the basketball court, he is unable to use the same engagement skills with less familiar peers. A student who fails to perform a social skill may appear unmotivated because of repeated failed attempts at social interactions.
Fluency instructional needs
A student who needs fluency instruction has knowledge of a skill and context(s) in which it should be performed and has a desire to perform it yet may be awkward and unpolished in the performance, leading to failed skill execution. For example, Barrett can explain the steps necessary for asking for help and wants to ask for help by raising his hand. However, he continues raising and lowering his hands repeatedly in class without waiting for help because he explains that it makes him “feel funny” to put his hand in the air. To be successful with this skill, Barrett needs to become more comfortable with executing the skill and needs additional practice. To address fluency, SSI must include extensive practice, checks for maintenance, and opportunities for generalization. For Barrett, this may look like practice opportunities to raise his hand in a smaller setting. In this way, Barrett will be consistently reinforced (e.g., receiving help or attention, receiving incentives). For some students, developing skill automaticity, which is achieved by repeated practice, will address these skill inconsistencies. Guidelines for making determinations about acquisition, performance, and fluency are presented in Figure 1.
Social-skill deficit decision making
Step 2: Develop a Plan
After assessments are complete, teachers select an SSI goal or target based on students’ instructional needs. If a student has multiple skill instruction needs, teachers should first look to the IEP, more specifically a student’s goals, to prioritize skills. Beyond the IEP, skills that compromise safety (e.g., pushing others to obtain toys vs. sharing) should be targeted next, followed by skills that disrupt classroom instruction for the individual student or the class as a whole (e.g., interrupting group instruction vs. waiting for a turn.). This may mean looking at specific skills or categories of skills. Students may need skill instruction with a skill content area (e.g., conversation skills, task-related skills) or more precise instruction in specific skills within the content area (e.g., turn taking in conversation, organizing materials). It is also important to ensure instruction addresses the underlying social-skill instructional need. For example, if Nadeem’s social skill target was to learn how to enter a conversation, a teacher would begin by examining the root of the instructional need (i.e., acquisition, performance, or fluency) and use this information to guide the way in which Nadeem is taught. For example, if the need is acquisition- based, the teacher must appropriately plan how to teach varying topographies of how to enter a conversation (e.g., waiting for a pause in conversation to make a relevant comment); if the need is performance-based, instruction and reinforcement across different settings and individuals (e.g., with peers and adults or in the classroom or on the job) would be required. It is important that students’ strengths, or areas of skill proficiencies, are also used in planning for skill instruction. If a student does well in one area but demonstrates needs in another, teachers should find a way to integrate the students’ strengths into instruction. For example, Nadeem’s teachers can use his success at maintaining a conversation as a bridge to starting a conversation by outlining Nadeem’s topics of interest. Nadeem can use these topics as a way to start conversations. Finally, mastery criteria (e.g., student demonstrates four steps of a skill on three out of four structured opportunities over two consecutive weeks) must be set out in advance, with the ultimate aim that students be able to demonstrate the targeted skill(s) to a predetermined level (Otero, Schatz, Merrill, & Bellini, 2015).
Step 3: Provide Direct Instruction
As noted previously, SSI requires careful planning and consistent implementation (Schoenfeld et al., 2008). Similar to the instruction of academic skills, social skills can and should be taught explicitly (Darch, Kame’enui, & Chichlow, 2003). As such, an SSI lesson plan would include a review, statement of the objective, presentation of information, guided practice, independent practice, and formative evaluation with feedback. Settings in which SSI is delivered should be as natural as possible, as combining natural settings along with student-relevant skills increases the likelihood skills will be accurately reinforced (Hutchins et al., 2016). These environments could include the classroom, lunchroom, playground, or schoolwide assemblies, depending on the delivery of special education services. If natural environments are not suitable or available, one should set up the physical environment to reflect the natural one. For example, when providing direct instruction for skill acquisition, students may require a small, structured environment that allows for repeated presentations for practice and reinforcement, whereas if the goal of the lesson is to generalize skills, the settings must be flexible and reflect a variety of potential environments. Additionally, the instructional team should include all individuals associated with the student (e.g., general educators, special education teachers, counselors, specialists) and ideally include input from the parents in order to strengthen the teaching network (Allsopp, Santos, & Reid, 2000). Extending the team to include parents or caregivers allows for additional opportunities for practice and reinforcement of the targeted skill across different environments.
Generalization opportunities are the specific, programmed teaching moments in which students practice newly taught skills across settings, people, and situations.
Although direct instruction lessons may take many formats (e.g., McGinnis & Goldstein, 1997; Miller, Fenty, Scott, & Park, 2011; Morgan et al., 2015; Simonsen et al., 2012), one such format is outlined in Figure 2. In this plan, the skill is defined and modeled, students identify areas or environments where they might need the skill, and students role-play the skill, receive feedback, and are provided with opportunities to generalize the skill. Students gain skill fluency with direct practice. Repeated presentation of practice opportunities reinforces skill development, allowing for robust behavioral repertoires (Cooper et al., 2007).
Social-skills lesson framework
As with all instruction, students should be provided an overview of the skill and a rationale about the importance of the SSI lesson. Through this process, teachers work to secure student buy-in. For students with performance needs who may not see the value of skill instruction, this is especially important. It is often helpful to have students generate scenarios in which they have needed a specific skill and how having or not having that skill affected the situation and outcome. If the rationale is not well developed and the student is not invested in the process, it is perhaps not in the best interest of the student to address the skill at that time.
Once the target skill has been decided upon, it must be objectively defined. For example, if the target skill is how to join a conversation, input from both teachers and students can be used to describe what the skill looks and sounds like (e.g., ask oneself if a comment or question is relevant to ongoing conversation, wait for a natural pause in conversation). This step is particularly important for students who have acquisition needs and may not be aware of or understand the steps required for a specific skill. Once the skill has been explained, the skill should be modeled by an “expert” (e.g., the teacher) several times. To support the next step of generalization programming, it is ideal to have multiple experts available to model in a variety of settings during instruction (e.g., joining in a conversation with familiar vs. unfamiliar peers, joining in a conversation in a lunchroom compared to a cooperative group setting).
Following several iterations of expert modeling, students should be given multiple opportunities for structured skill practice with others. Structured practice should include a review of individual skill steps, multiple opportunities for practice with different peers and situational scenarios, and individualized and specific feedback. Using structured practice in this way promotes repetition and reinforcement of specific, targeted skills, which is necessary to ensure skill mastery prior to working on skill generalization.
Step 4: Generalize Into Settings and Situations
Generalization refers to demonstrating acquired skills outside of the context in which they are learned (Cooper et al., 2007). Generalization opportunities are the specific, programmed teaching moments in which students practice newly taught skills across settings, people, and situations. These opportunities are absolutely essential to any SSI program in order for newly taught skills to be maintained over time (McIntosh & MacKay, 2008; Smith & Gilles, 2003). Students with fluency instructional needs, in particular, require generalization support. It is essential that such opportunities are meaningful and realistic. If generalization is not connected to the natural environment, results will be limited and long-term effects may fail (Bullis et al., 2001; Maag, 2005).
Initially, it may be necessary for teachers to accompany students during these opportunities. For example, an elementary teacher may move SSI from a contrived “lunch bunch” into the authentic environment of the lunchroom to encourage conversation-skills practice. This may still include arranging for specific students to interact with varying peers in a semicontrolled lunch environment. This support should be faded over time to ensure the student demonstrates mastery in a genuine environment. Considerations for generalization should include situational vocabulary (e.g., formal language, slang), interactions with people of different status (e.g., employers, parents), various levels of informality (e.g., adults, peers, siblings), interaction norms (e.g., not cutting people in line; saying “bless you” when someone sneezes), and proper ways to address people (e.g., Mrs., Dr., first names). As students demonstrate generalization across settings and situations, teachers should elicit help from peers, parents, school staff, employers, and community members (Fenty et al., 2008; McIntosh & MacKay, 2008). With continued support and feedback, students’ fluency with social skills will be enhanced and competence deepened.
Step 5: Maintain Skills With Self-Monitoring
One way to support skill maintenance over time is to teach students self-monitoring skills. Self-monitoring refers to the act of observing and evaluating one’s own behavior within a social context (Fenty et al., 2008; Schoenfeld et al., 2008). Self-monitoring might be focused on specific skill steps or larger skill strategies, such as listening, turn taking, and proximity. Self-monitoring may take the form of checklists, reflective journals, or cue cards carried by students as “cheat sheets.” Checklists and cue cards serve as visual reminders of specific behavioral expectations. Adults may facilitate the use of these tools by prompting students to review them prior to entering into a social situation wherein the specified behaviors are required (Gureasko-Moore, DuPaul, & White, 2007). Checklists can be discussed and completed during the skill execution or afterward by either the student or the adult. Reflective journals provide an outlet for students to write down events requiring social skills, along with gaps in understanding, unintended consequences of behaviors, or social successes. With adult support, students may look back upon these and create links between original learning, experience, and new strategies that may facilitate social interactions (Cazan, 2012). Even with support from other adults and the instruction of self-monitoring techniques, it may be necessary to periodically retrain and remind students of SSI steps and maintain the delivery of salient reinforcers contingent on targeted behaviors (Schoenfeld et al., 2008).
Step 6: Assess and Reassess
Students should undergo ongoing assessment and reassessment of skill mastery through both generalization and maintenance phases. Students’ progress should be monitored on a consistent schedule to measure growth and skill mastery. As shown in Figure 3, one such way to do this is through assessments, like teacher-made Likert-type scales that include operationally- defined criteria for observation or checklists for skill-step execution as identified during instruction. Another option is a rating scale, like the Direct Behavior Rating Form (Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman, & Christ, 2009). Once expected social-skill steps are defined, this form allows evaluators to use a Likert scale to rate students on behaviors in the context in which they occur. If teachers, parents, or students complete these checklists or rating scales regularly, these data can be graphed, which allows for ongoing progress monitoring. Teachers can use online tools, such as ChartDog 2.0 (Wright, n.d.), to record and assess progress (see Figure 4 for a step-by-step explanation of how to use this software). If behavior change is not occurring or not occurring at an expected rate during progress monitoring, reinforcement is the first place where adjustments should be made, followed by instructional remediation. If the student is no longer successful with executing previously mastered social skills, the following questions should be considered (McIntosh & MacKay, 2008): Is the skill too hard for students to use correctly (e.g., too many steps)? If so, consider an abbreviated skill list or use picture cues. Are the reinforcers still salient and are there enough reinforcer options to maintain interest? If not, conduct a new reinforcer inventory or change the reinforcers to keep the student interested. Do students have enough opportunities to use the skills in a variety of real-life settings? If the answer is no, create social scenarios that allow students to practice social skills with a range of settings and people.
Sample teacher-created, social-skills checklist
ChartDog 2.0 progress monitoring
Conclusion
Although teachers may view SSI as a competing demand with academic instruction, social competence is directly related to success in school and the community. First, students with poorly developed social skills and quality relationships experience reduced school participation (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). This is particularly true for students with high-incidence disabilities, who may be at a greater risk for delinquency, depression, and anxiety (Murray, 2002) and have poor postsecondary outcomes (Morningstar et al., 2015). A student who cannot engage with academic materials or attend to instruction may not benefit from academic interventions until socialization is addressed. Second, designating time during the school day for behavioral interventions can reduce the amount of time required to address problematic student behaviors that arise as a result of students’ lack of social competence. Using preventative instruction ultimately saves teachers time, as time once spent reacting to consequences of poor social skills may now be dedicated to other instruction (Konold et al., 2010; Ray & Elliot, 2006).
The goal of using SSI is for students to create more robust social-skill repertoires through direct skill instruction. With opportunities for instruction, modeling, role-play, and generalization, students can increase their social competence, leading to improvement with relationships (Gresham et al., 2001) and adaptive, coping, and problem-solving skills (Gresham et al., 2006). With increased social competence, students may spend less time facing behavioral challenges and, consequently, be more available for learning. Further, from an academic perspective, SSI can help students become more engaged in learning (Elliot, Malecki, & Demarary, 2001) and ultimately improve school achievement (Konold et al., 2010; (Ray & Elliot, 2006). These benefits may allow for increased instructional time and positive engagement with and among all students.