Self-Monitoring and its Effect on Reducing Disruptive Behaviors in

General Education Classrooms

Cecilia GeraldEducation 7202T

Spring 2012

Table of Contents:

Statement of the Problem: Slide 4 Review of the Literature (Current

Strategies/Theorist): Slide 5 Review of the Literature (Pros/Cons): Slide 6 Research Hypothesis: Slide 7 Methods: Slide 8 Research Design: Slide 9 Threats to Internal Validity: Slide 10 Threats to External Validity: Slide 11

Table of Contents:

Procedure: Slide 12 Sample Survey Questions: Slide 13 Results (Correlations): Slide 14-15 Results (Baseline Data): Slides 15-16 Results (Bell Curve): Slide 17 Discussion: Slide 18 Implications: Slide 19 References: Slides 20-23 Appendi(ces): Slides 24-27

Statement of the Problem:

Students with disruptive behaviors hinder the learning process for themselves and their peers (Smith & Rivera, 1995). They also have a higher risk of being referred for special education services (DuPaul, 1998).

Studies (Westing, 2010) show teachers in general education classrooms have significant challenges managing students with disruptive behavior. They feel they lack effective classroom management training and support from administration.

Traditional behavior management techniques are dependent on teacher reinforcements (token/rewards), lessening instruction time (Westing, 2010).

Review of the Literature:

Current Strategies: Citywide Standards of Intervention and Discipline Measures

(ex: parent outreach, conferencing, referrals to administration)

In-class prevention (rules, classroom layout, transitions) and intervention (praise, ignore, reward) measures are taken (Smith & Rivera, 1995).

Theorist: William Glasser’s (1925-) “choice theory” closely related to

concept of self-monitoring and is based on belief that behavior is something we can control. He theorizes that students can manage their own behavior without coercion (Bucher & Manning, 2001).

Review of the Literature:

PROS:

Effective for students in special and general education classrooms (Prater, 1994).

Applicable to students at all grade levels (Jolivette, Patton & Ramsey, 2006).

Simple to implement, consumes less of teacher’s time with individual students (Jolivette, Patton & Ramsey, 2006).

CONS:

Research limited because majority of studies done in special education populations (DuPaul & Hoff, 1998).

General education studies usually limited to very few students, therefore evidence cannot be generalized (Jull, 2009).

Studies have not been conducted over long-term periods (Jull, 2009).

Research Hypothesis:Implementing a self-monitoring intervention to 5 second-grade students at P.S. X in Brooklyn, New York for (3) 50-minute periods per week over a four-week period, will decrease disruptive behavior of getting out of their seats as measured by O 1,2,, X, O 1,2,3 behavior management strategy.

Methods:Participants: 5 second-grade students in a general education

classroom in P.S. X located in Brooklyn, New York. There are 4 females (ages 7 and 8) and 1 male (age 7). They have been identified by their teacher as having disruptive behavior of getting out of their seats.

Instruments: Consent Forms (parents, principal, and teacher). Daily Behavior Sheet (self-monitoring treatment). Pre- and Post-Test Surveys (student/parent opinions).

Research Design: Single Subject Research Design:

o Pre-experimental: One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

Rationale:o Single group of only 5 studentso Research emphasis on a change of behavioro Survey acts as pre/post-test

Symbolic Design: O 1,2,, X, O 1,2,3

o O-1. Pre-survey to correlate attitudes/disruptive behavior 2. Collect pre-treatment data on behavior frequency

o X - Treatment phase (using Daily Behavior Sheet)o O-1. Post-survey to correlate attitudes/disruptive behaviors 2. Collect post-treatment data on behavior frequency 3. Fade out/withdrawal of treatment

Threats to Internal Validity:

History Testing/Pre-Test Sensitization Instrumentation Mortality Statistical Regression Differential Selection of Subjects Selection-Maturation Interaction

Threats to External Validity:

Ecological Validity Generalizable Conditions Pre-Test Treatment Selection-Treatment Interaction Specificity of Variables Experimenter Effects Hawthorne Effect Novelty Effect

Procedure: Students/parents complete pre-survey about their attitudes

towards school, home life, and behavior traits. Researcher observes and records frequency of students’

disruptive behaviors over a 5-day period (baseline data). Researcher conferences with students about their behaviors and

introduces self-monitoring strategy. Based on the baseline data, researcher determines appropriate

self-monitoring procedure for each student (self-monitoring form, frequency of self-monitoring, cue system (audio, visual, verbal, or physical).

Researcher trains students to self-monitor, gives practice sessions, then students self-monitor independently.

Researcher monitors students’ progress, collects baseline data at end of treatment period, gives post-survey, and fades out treatment.

Sample Survey Questions:

Student and Parent Survey Questions Used for Correlations Between Attitude & Disruptive Behavior:

Part 2: (Student) AttitudesQ1: I know the difference between good behavior and misbehavior.(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

Part 2: (Parent) AttitudesQ19: My child is not happy at home.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

Results: Correlations

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.20

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Student SurveyQ.1 Post-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Agree/ AgreeI know the difference between good/

misbehavior.

Avera

ge #

of

Dis

rupti

ve B

ehavio

rs

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

Student SurveyQ.1 Pre-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Disagree/AgreeI know the difference between

good/misbehavior.

Avera

ge #

of

Dis

rupti

ve B

ehavio

r

.rxy = 0.365Strong, but low positive correlation between students knowledge of good/misbehavior and frequency of disruptive behavior.

.rxy = 0.742Strong, positive correlation between students knowledge of good/misbehavior and frequency of disruptive behavior.

Results: Correlations

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Parent Survey Q19Post-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Agree/AgreeMy child is not happy at home.

Avera

ge #

of

Dis

rupti

ve B

ehavio

r

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

Parent Survey Q19Pre-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Disagree/DisagreeMy child is not happy at home.

Avera

ge #

of

Dis

rupti

ve B

ehavio

r

.rxy = 0.742Strong, positive correlation between students happiness at home and frequency of disruptive behavior.

.rxy = 0.643Strong, positive correlation between students happiness at home and frequency of disruptive behavior.

Results: Baseline Data

1 2 3 4 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Students' Disruptive Behavior Averages

Pre-Treatment

Post-Treatment

Students

Aver

age

# of

Disr

uptiv

e Be

havi

or

Pre-TreatmentMean Median Mode Range

Student 1 3.4 3 3 3Student 2 4.8 4 4 4Student 3 4 5 5 6Student 4 3 3 2,3 3Student 5 2.2 2 3 3Cumulative Mean: 3.48

Post-TreatmentMean Median Mode Range

Student 1 1.4 2 2 2Student 2 2.4 2 2 3Student 3 2.2 2 1 3Student 4 1.8 1 1 2Student 5 1 1 0 2Cumulative Mean: 1.76

*50% decrease in disruptive behavior

Results: Bell CurvePre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Mean = 17.4Median = 17SD = 4.4V = 19.4

Mean = 8.8Median = 9SD = 2.6V = 6.6

Discussion: Pre/Post surveys showed:

o Students that know when they are misbehaving are less disruptive. Smith & Rivera (1995) reported that behavior problems occur when students cannot discriminate acceptable behavior.

o Students that are happier at home misbehave less. Research (2009) shows that family factors influence behavior problems.

Baseline data results show there was an overall 50% decrease in disruptive behavior (getting out of seat) due to treatment. These results validate existing research (Sheffield & Waller, 2010) that self-monitoring is an effective intervention.

Implications:Based on the results of this study, studies on self-monitoring should be continued. Further research on self-monitoring should be conducted:

in general education classrooms.

with longer term treatment periods.

with larger sample sizes.

References: Alber-Morgan, S.R., DeBar, R. M., & Legge, D. B. (2010). The Effects of Self-monitoring with a MotivAider on the On-task Behavior of Fifth and Sixth Graders with Autism and Other Disabilities. Journal of Behavior Assessment & Intervention in Children, 1(1), 43-52. Amato-Zech, N. A., Hoff, K. E., & Doepke, K. J. (2006). Increasing on-task behavior in

the classroom: Extension of self-monitoring strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 43: 211–221. Axelrod, M. I., Zhe, E. J., Haugen, K. A., & Klein, J. A. (2009). Self-Management of On-Task

Homework Behavior: A Promising Strategy for Adolescents With Attention and Behavior Problems. School Psychology Review, 38(3), 325-333. Bucher, K. T., & Manning, M. (2001). Exploring the Foundations of Middle School Classroom

Management. Childhood Education, 78(2), 84. Citywide Standards of Intervention and Discipline Measures (2011 Discipline Code)

Retrieved from: http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B4C3EAD9-AA61-4430-A6C3-D389F6238700/108973/DiscCode2012.pdf Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and

reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-710. 

Daly, P. M., & Ranalli, P. (2003). Using Countoons to Teach Self-Monitoring Skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 30.

de Haas-Warner, Sarah J. (1991). Effects of self-monitoring on preschoolers' on-task behavior: A

pilot study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(2) 

References: Ducharme, J. M., & Shecter, C. (2011). Bridging the Gap Between Clinical and Classroom

Intervention: Keystone Approaches for Students With Challenging Behavior. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 257-274. DuPaul, G. J., & Hoff, K. E. (1998). Reducing disruptive behavior in general education

classrooms: The use of self-management strategies. School Psychology Review, 27(2), 290. Fowler, S. A. (1986). Peer-Monitoring and Self-Monitoring: Alternatives to Traditional Teacher

Management. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 573-581. Freeman, K. A., & Dexter-Mazza, E. T. (2004). Using Self-Monitoring With an Adolescent With

Disruptive Classroom Behavior. Behavior Modification, 28(3), 402-419. Ganz, J. B. (2008). Self-Monitoring Across Age and Ability Levels: Teaching Students to

Implement Their Own Positive Behavioral Interventions. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 39-48. Harris, K. R., Friedlander, B., Saddler, B., Frizzelle, R., & Graham, S. (2005). Self-Monitoring

of Attention Versus Self-Monitoring of Academic Performance: Effects Among Students with ADHD in the General Education Classroom. Journal Of Special Education, 39(3), 145-156.

Hughes, C. A., & Boyle, J. R. (1991). Effects of self-monitoring for on-task behavior and task productivity on elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Education &

Treatment Of Children (ETC), 14(2), 96. Jolivette, K., Patton, B., Ramsey, M. (2006). Students with emotional and behavioral

disorders can manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2), 14-21.  

References: Jull, Stephen K. (2009). Student behavior self-monitoring enabling inclusion. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(5), 489-500. Mathes, M. Y., & Bender, W. N. (1997). The effects of self-monitoring on children with

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are receiving pharmacological interventions. Remedial & Special Education, 18(2), 121. McGown, Carolyn. (2011) Better with nuts: Classroom survival and success for new and

developing teachers. McConnell, M. E. (1999). Self-monitoring, cueing, recording, and managing: teaching

students to manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2), 14-21. McDougall D. (1998). Research on self-management techniques used by students with

disabilities in general education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 19(5). Mitchem, K. J., Young, K., West, R. P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A Classwide Peer-

Assisted Self-management Program for General Education Classrooms. Education & Treatment Of Children (ETC), 24(2), 111.

O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2010). Descriptive Statistics Threats to Validity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://bbhosted.cuny.edu/webapps/portal

Özkan, Ş., & Sonmez, M. (2011). Examination of Single Subject Studies Conducted on Individuals with Disabilities by Using Self-Management Strategies: A Meta-Analysis Study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 809-821.

References: Prater, Mary A. (1994). Improving academic and behavior skills through self-management

procedures. Preventing School Failure, 38(4), 5. Rafferty, Lisa A. (2010). Step-by-Step: Teaching Students to Self-Monitor. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 43(2), 50-58. Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The

present, the prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 317. Reinke, W. M., Splett, J. D., Robeson, E. N., & Offutt, C. A. (2009). Combining school and

family interventions for the prevention and early intervention of disruptive behavior problems in children: A public health perspective. Psychology In The Schools, 46(1), 33-43.

Sheffield, K., & Waller, R. J. (2010). A Review of Single-Case Studies Utilizing Self-Monitoring Interventions to Reduce Problem Classroom Behaviors. Beyond Behavior,

19(2), 7-13. Smith, D. D., Rivera, D. P., (1995). Discipline in special education and general education

settings.  Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(5), 1-14 Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: <

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/> (version current as of October 20, 2006). Vanderbilt, A. A. (2005). Designed for Teachers: How to Implement Self-Monitoring in the

Classroom. Beyond Behavior, 15(1), 21-24. Westling, David L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behaviors: knowledge, views, and

practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 48.

Appendix A:Appendix A: Parent Consent Form Dear Parent/Guardian, My name is Cecilia Gerald and I am a graduate student in the Childhood Education program at Brooklyn College. As part of my coursework, I am doing a study on the effects of self-monitoring (a behavior management technique) on students with disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. In order to do my research, I need to work with a few students for 45 minutes per day, three times a week, for a total of 4 weeks. My goal is to help students decrease their disruptive behaviors by training them to manage their own behavior. The students will be trained to use the techniques during one school period in their regular classroom environment.I am requesting your permission to incorporate any data I have gathered into my research report. Please note that all participants in this study will remain anonymous and any information regarding your child will be kept confidential. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at: cmg211@msn.com. I appreciate your support. Thank you,Cecilia Gerald

Appendix B:Appendix B: Principal Consent Form Dear Principal,My name is Cecilia Gerald and I am a graduate student in the Childhood Education program at Brooklyn College. As part of my coursework, I am conducting a study on the effects of self-monitoring (a behavioral management technique) on students with disruptive behaviors. I am interested in working with a few students in a general education setting three times a week, for 45 minutes, for a total of 4 weeks. My goal is to help these students decrease their disruptive behaviors by training them to manage their own behavior.I would like your permission to use the students’ data in my research report. All of the participants in the study will be kept anonymous and all of the findings will be kept confidential. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at cmg211@msn.com.I appreciate your support. Thank you,Cecilia Gerald

 

Appendix C:Appendix C: Teacher Consent Form Dear Teacher(s),My name is Cecilia Gerald and I am a graduate student in the Childhood Education program at Brooklyn College. As part of my coursework, I am conducting a study on the effects of self-monitoring (a behavioral management technique) on students with disruptive behaviors. I am interested in working with a few students in a general education setting three times a week, for 45 minutes, for a total of 4 weeks. My goal is to help these students decrease their disruptive behaviors by training them to manage their own behavior.I would like your permission to work with your students’ and use their data in my research report. All of the participants in the study will be kept anonymous and all of the findings will be kept confidential. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at cmg211@msn.com. I appreciate your support. Thank you,Cecilia Gerald  

Appendix D: I will remember to:

Stay in my seat.

_________________________________________

Daily Behavior Sheet

Name: ______________________________________________

Did I stay seated?

Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

Appendix D:Daily Behavior Sheet