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):

Slide 5 Review of the Literature (Pros): Slide 6 Review of the Literature (Cons): Slide 7 Review of the Literature (Theorist): Slide 8 Research Hypothesis: Slide 9 Methods: Slide 10 Research Design: Slide 11

Table of Contents: Threats to Internal Validity: Slide 12 Threats to External Validity: Slide 13 Proposed Pre-Test/Post-Test: Slide 14 Proposed Pre-Test/Post-Test Results: Slides 15-16 Proposed Baseline Data: Slide 17 Proposed Data Analysis: Slide 18 References: Slides 19-22 Appendi(ces): Slides 23-26

Statement of the Problem: Students with disruptive behaviors hinder the

learning process for themselves and their peers (Smith & Rivera, 1995).

Studies show teachers in general education classrooms have significant challenges managing students with disruptive behavior (Westling, 2010).

Students with disruptive behaviors have a higher risk of being referred for special education services (DuPaul, 1998).

Review of the Literature:(Current Strategies)

Traditionally, prevention and intervention measures are taken (Smith & Rivera, 1995).

Traditional management is teacher-monitored and focuses on reinforcements from external sources (DuPaul, 1998).

Studies have shown that students are able to use self-management techniques effectively (Prater, 1994)

Review of the Literature:(Pros)

Teaching students how to self-monitor has been effective for students in special and general education classrooms (Prater, 1994).

Self-monitoring can be used for students at all grade levels (Jolivette, Patton & Ramsey, 2006).

Self-monitoring relatively simple to implement and consumes less of teacher’s time with individual students (Jolivette, Patton & Ramsey, 2006).

Review of the Literature:(Cons)

Research has been limited due to the majority of self-monitoring studies done in special education populations (DuPaul & Hoff, 1998).

Studies in general education classrooms are usually limited to very few students, therefore evidence cannot be generalized (Jull, 2009).

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

Review of Literature:(Theorist)

William Glasser’s (1925-) “choice theory” is closely related to the concept of self-monitoring. It is based on the belief that behavior is something we can control. He theorizes that students are able to manage their own behavior without coercion (Bucher & Manning, 2001).

Research Hypothesis:Implementing a self-monitoring strategy to 5 second-grade students, three times per week after a 50-minute period during a four-week period, at P.S. X in Brooklyn, New York, 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 will be 5 second-grade students from

P.S. X located in Brooklyn, New York in a general education classroom, identified as having disruptive behaviors (talking out of turn and getting out of their seats).

Instuments used will be consent forms given to students’ parents, school principal, and teacher. Students will be given a daily behavior sheet or checklist to use for self-monitoring.

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 frequencyo 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

Pre-Test/Post-Test: Student and Parent Survey Questions Used for

Correlations Between Attitude & Disruptive Behavior:

Part 2: (Student) AttitudesQ18: I know when I am misbehaving.(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

Proposed Pre/Post-Test Results:

.rxy = 0.726Strong, positive correlation between students behavioral knowledge and their disruptive behavior.

.rxy = 0.625Fair, positive correlation between students behavioral knowledge and their disruptive behavior.

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.20

1

2

3

4

5

6

Student Survey Q18Pre-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Disagree/DisagreeI know when I am misbehaving.

Aver

age

# o

f D

isru

ptiv

e Be

havi

or

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.20

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Student Survey Q18Post-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Agree/AgreeI know when I am misbehaving.

Aver

age

# o

f D

isru

ptiv

e Be

havi

or

Proposed Pre-/Post-Test Results:

.rxy=0.481Fair, positive correlation between students unhappiness at home and their disruptive behavior.

.rxy=0.893Strong, positive correlation between students happiness at home and their disruptive behavior.

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

Parent Survey Q19Pre-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Agree/AgreeMy child is not happy at home.

Aver

age

# o

f D

isru

ptiv

e Be

havi

or

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.20

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Parent Survey Q19Post-Treatment

Series1Linear (Series1)

Strongly Disagree/DisagreeMy child is not happy at home.

Aver

age

# o

f D

isru

ptiv

e Be

havi

or

Proposed Baseline Data:

1 2 3 4 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Students' Disruptive Behavior Averages

Pre-TreatmentPost-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

Proposed Data Analysis:

Pre/Post-tests (surveys) showed:o A strong, positive relationship (.rxy=0.726) between a

student’s knowledge of their misbehavior and the frequency of their disruptive behavior. Students that do not know when they are misbehaving are more disruptive.

o A strong, positive relationship (.rxy=0.893) between a student’s happiness at home and the frequency of their disruptive behavior.

Bar graph results show that there was a 50% decrease in disruptive behavior (getting out of seat) due to treatment. These results validate existing research.

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. 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