The Research Behind the Game

Practice That Keeps Behavior Plans Active.

Mission: Reinforceable is informed by research on function-based behavior support, implementation fidelity, teacher coaching, technology-mediated prompts, and game-based learning. The goal is simple: help teachers keep individualized behavior intervention/support plans (BIPs/BSPs) active during the real classroom moments when implementation matters most.

Play the Demo New Game Intake

Why fidelity matters

Why behavior plan fidelity matters

Behavior intervention/support plans can improve student outcomes when they are function-based and implemented consistently. When teachers use the plan as intended, students are more likely to:

Stay engaged in instruction
Use replacement behaviors
Participate in classroom routines
Access peers, adults, and learning opportunities

Research shows that function-based interventions can reduce problem behavior and improve student engagement when the plan is linked to behavioral function and implemented with fidelity. (Ingram et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2018; Holcomb et al., 2020)

The challenge is that strong plans do not implement themselves. Teachers need support using the plan during busy classroom routines.

Low-burden support

Teachers Need Support That Fits The School Day.

General education teachers are balancing instruction, transitions, peer dynamics, and behavior support all at once. Even when a plan is strong, it can be difficult to remember and use every step during fast-moving classroom moments.

Research suggests teacher implementation improves when support goes beyond one-time training and includes:

  • Prompts
  • Practice
  • Performance feedback
  • Problem solving
  • Support for classroom fit

These are core coaching and implementation-support mechanisms linked to improved implementation fidelity. (Collier-Meek, Sanetti, & Fallon, 2017; Fallon et al., 2015; Massar et al., 2023)

Mission: Reinforceable was designed to make these supports easier to access in a quick, daily format.

From research to practice

Technology Can Help Keep The Plan Visible.

Ongoing coaching is valuable, but it can be hard for schools to provide support every day. Technology-mediated supports can extend coaching by delivering prompts, reminders, feedback, and practice opportunities without requiring a coach to be present every moment. (Fallon et al., 2022; LaBrot et al., 2023)

Daily prompts
Scenario-based practice
Immediate feedback
Usage data for coaching conversations

It does not replace coaching or team problem solving. It helps keep the plan visible and active between support meetings.

Game-based practice

Why Use A Game Format?

Mission: Reinforceable is a branching behavior simulator. Teachers move through short classroom scenarios based on a student’s behavior plan. At each decision point, they choose among responses that are:

Plan-aligned

Responses that match the behavior plan and support the intended routine.

Supportive but incomplete

Responses that include helpful parts but miss an important plan step.

Contraindicated

Responses that are likely to make behavior worse or move away from the plan.

Each choice leads to immediate feedback. The game format gives teachers a low-risk place to rehearse decisions before similar moments happen in the classroom.

Game-based learning research emphasizes challenge, response, feedback, and revision as important parts of learning. (Gee, 2003; Plass et al., 2015; Sailer & Homner, 2020) Game design research also emphasizes meaningful play, where choices produce visible outcomes that matter within the larger activity. (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004)

In Mission: Reinforceable, mistakes are not treated as teacher failure. They are opportunities to notice what did not match the plan, review feedback, and rehearse a more plan-aligned response. Research on productive failure and games suggests that mistakes can support learning when followed by feedback and another opportunity to respond. (Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012; Juul, 2013)

Practice loop

A Quick Practice Loop Before Real Classroom Routines.

1

Prompt

A weekday email reminds the teacher to complete a brief mission before the target routine.

2

Practice

The teacher reads a realistic classroom scenario and chooses among plan-aligned, less optimal, and contraindicated responses.

3

Feedback

The game provides immediate confirmatory or corrective feedback so the teacher can rehearse a better response before the moment happens in the classroom.

Each mission is designed to take about five minutes and to supplement, not replace, existing school or district coaching.

Pilot Feedback

What our pilot study found

Before the dissertation study, six general education teachers tested Mission: Reinforceable and provided feedback on usability, feasibility, and acceptability.

6 general education teachers tested the beta version
93/100 average usability score
Strong feasibility and acceptability ratings across measured areas
Long-term use all teachers who completed final measures said they would use it long term

Teachers reported that the daily missions helped keep the student’s plan top of mind and helped them think through why one response worked better than another.

Pilot results describe usability and feasibility feedback. They do not prove effectiveness.

Dissertation study

The Dissertation Study

The dissertation study will examine whether adding Mission: Reinforceable to existing coaching is associated with improved teacher implementation fidelity, decreases in student interfering behavior, maintenance after the game-based prompts are withdrawn, and teacher perceptions of acceptability, feasibility, usability, and classroom fit.

The study uses a multiple-probe single-case design across teacher-student dyads. (Kratochwill et al., 2010; What Works Clearinghouse, 2022)

Baseline

Teachers continue implementing the student’s existing behavior plan while receiving coaching.

Intervention

Mission: Reinforceable is added while coaching-as-usual continues.

Maintenance

Mission: Reinforceable is withdrawn and follow-up probes examine whether outcomes continue.

Measures

What The Study Examines

Teacher fidelity

Are key behavior plan steps implemented as written?

Student behavior

Does the student’s target behavior change during the same routine?

Usage data

Are teachers completing missions, when, and for how long?

Teacher perception

Does the tool feel acceptable, feasible, usable, and a good classroom fit?

Maintenance

Do outcomes continue after the game-based prompts are removed?

Current Status

Current Status

Mission: Reinforceable is currently in beta development. The public beta is available for usability and design feedback. The tool should not yet be described as evidence-based or proven effective. The dissertation study is designed to evaluate whether adding Mission: Reinforceable to existing coaching is associated with changes in teacher implementation fidelity, student behavior, maintenance, and teacher perceptions of fit.

This research is conducted by Jessica Olson, M.Ed., Doctoral Student in Special Education at the University of Utah, under the supervision of Dr. Kathleen Strickland-Cohen, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

IRB #00195636

Selected sources

References

Selected sources grounding the design and study logic. This is not the full dissertation reference list.

  1. Collier-Meek, M. A., Fallon, L. M., & DeFouw, E. R. (2017). Toward feasible implementation support: E-mailed prompts to promote teachers’ treatment integrity. School Psychology Review, 46(4), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0028.V46-4
  2. Collier-Meek, M. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Fallon, L. M. (2017). Incorporating applied behavior analysis to assess and support educators’ treatment integrity. Psychology in the Schools, 54(4), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22001
  3. Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Johnson, A. H. (2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551738
  4. Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Famolare, G. M., DeFouw, E. R., & Gould, K. M. (2022). Electronically delivered support to promote intervention implementation fidelity: A research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 51(2), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1853485
  5. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
  6. Holcomb, C., Baker, J. N., & More, C. (2020). Digital behavior intervention plans: Effects on general education teacher fidelity of implementation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(3), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419854502
  7. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070040401
  8. Juul, J. (2013). The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. MIT Press.
  9. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
  10. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse.
  11. LaBrot, Z. C., Johnson, C., Maxime, E., Cato, T., Butt, S., & DeFouw, E. R. (2023). E-mailed prompt package to promote maintenance and generalization of early childhood educators’ behavior-specific praise. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32(4), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-022-09475-4
  12. Massar, M. M., Horner, R. H., Kittelman, A., & Conley, K. M. (2023). Mechanisms of effective coaching: Using prompting and performance feedback to improve teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 25(3), 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007221133524
  13. O’Neill, R. E., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. R. (2015). Functional assessment and program development: A practical handbook (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
  14. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
  15. Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
  16. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
  17. Samudre, M. D., Ackerman, K. B., & Allday, R. A. (2020). A systematic review of general educator training with functional behavior assessments. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319869938
  18. Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2019). Supporting successful interventions in schools: Tools to plan, evaluate, and sustain effective implementation. Guilford Press.
  19. Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Treatment integrity in behavioral consultation: Measurement, promotion, and outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4(1), 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100835
  20. Walker, V. L., Chung, Y.-C., & Bonnet, L. K. (2018). Function-based intervention in inclusive school settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(4), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717718350
  21. What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.