California State University, Monterey Bay

Digital Commons @ CSUMB

Capstone Projects and Master's Theses Capstone Projects and Master's Theses

Spring 2017

The Effects of Utilizing Behavior Modification Techniques to

Reduce Off-Task Behavior
Mayra A. Rangel
California State University, Monterey Bay

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all

Recommended Citation
Rangel, Mayra A., "The Effects of Utilizing Behavior Modification Techniques to Reduce Off-Task Behavior"
(2017). Capstone Projects and Master's Theses. 112.
https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/112

This Master's Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Capstone Projects and
Master's Theses at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects and
Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
Running head: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES

The Effects of Utilizing Behavior Modification Techniques

to Reduce Off-Task Behavior

Mayra A. Rangel

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts in Education

California State University, Monterey Bay

May 2017


©2017 by Mayra A. Rangel. All Rights Reserved

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES

The Effects of Utilizing Behavior Modification Techniques

to Reduce Off-Task Behavior

Mayra A. Rangel

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

__________________________________________________
Kerrie Chitwood, Ph.D.
Advisor and Program Coordinator, Master of Arts in Education

__________________________________________________
Casey McPherson, Ph.D.
Advisor, Master of Arts in Education

__________________________________________________
Erin Ramirez, Ph.D.
Advisor, Master of Arts in Education

Kris Roney Digitally signed by Kris Roney

Date: 2017.05.26 11:02:38 -08'00'
__________________________________________________
Kris Roney, Ph.D. Associate Vice President
Academic Programs and Dean of Undergraduate & Graduate Studies

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES

Abstract

Challenging and disruptive behaviors in the middle school classroom have been identified as an

area affecting student performance and reducing teacher directed instructional time. This study

used Behavior-Specific Praising (BSP) and School Dollars as a form of incentive to aid the

teacher in reducing the amount of strikes for off-task behavior among middle school students in a

math classroom. A single case A-B-C-BC design was used with three middle school students to

determine if BSPs and incentives (School Dollars) reduced the amount of strikes (i.e., off-task

behavior) they received each class period. The results indicated that all three participants

responded favorably to the implementation of School Dollars as an incentive. There were no

overlapping data points with School Dollars and baseline, indicating a functional relationship

between School Dollars and a reduction in disruptive behavior. The use of BSP revealed variable

results indicating a positive impact for some students, but there is no one size fits all approach

that will be effective for all students.

Keywords: behavior specific praise, social incentives, behavior modification

iii
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..iii

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………...1

Methods..……………………………………………………………………………………..…10

Research Question…………………………………………………………………...….10

Measures………….…………………………………………………………………..…12

Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………………..13

Social Validity…………………………………………………………………………………..14

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………14

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...14

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….17

References……………………………………………………………………………………….20

Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………...25

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………...26

Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………...27

Appendix D……………………………………………………………………………………...28

Appendix E………………………………………………………………………………………29

iv
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 1

The Effects of Utilizing Behavior Modification Techniques

to Reduce Off-Task Behavior

Literature Review

Teachers nationwide are under pressure to accelerate their students’ learning to meet the

proficiency requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002; Will et al., 2010). This

task can be more effortful when teachers are faced with the dual challenge of meeting both the

academic and behavioral needs of their students. Disruptive behavior in any classroom impedes

learning (Dunlap, Lovannone, Wilson, Kincaid, & Strain, 2010), and the time spent in

redirecting students back to task takes away valuable instructional time, which in turn affects

student academic performance (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004). More than five decades

of research on effective classroom based behavior management strategies support the use of

classroom rules, use of incentives, pre-correction, planned to ignore, and praise to improve

classroom climate and manage disruptive behaviors (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009;

Hester, Hendrickson, & Gable, 2009; Jung, 1971; Eckert, Lovett, & Little, 2004).

Behavior modification techniques, such as the usage of rewards as a positive

reinforcement, can be implemented to promote positive changes in behavior within the

classroom (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). According to Axelrod (1977), positive reinforcement is

any consequence of behavior, that when presented, increases the future rate of that behavior. The

process of increasing rates of behavior is known as positive reinforcement. Positive

reinforcement can also be techniques that teachers use to gain and maintain students’ motivation

and success in the classroom. Some of the most common positive reinforcements used by

teachers are positive praising and incentives such as: movie day, free time, food and special

privileges (e.g., no homework; Misiowiec, 2006).

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 2

According to Bandura (1969), incentive theories of motivation assume that behavior is

largely activated by anticipation of reinforcing consequences. Motivation can be regulated

through arrangement of incentive conditions and by means of satiation, removal, and

conditioning operations that affect the relative efficacy of various reinforcers at any given time

(Eckert et al., 2004). For example, in an effort to motivate children who display little interest in

their education, teachers could arrange favorable conditions of reinforcements with respect to

achievement behavior (Bandura, 1969). These reinforcements could activate a motivation

behavior that teachers could use to get students to engage in school material and eventually

develop an interest in their education. Middle school students tend to be among the age group

that often needs positive reinforcements to keep them focused on school (Haydon & Musti-Rao,

2011). Often, this is due to the transition between elementary school and middle school. During

the middle school years, students attempt to fit-in to their environment and they lose track of the

purpose of being at a school (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). These outside pressures from

peers may cause students to lose focus or motivation to perform academically.

Middle school students tend to lose focus and they often need to be motivated to perform

well in the classroom (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011). The transition to middle school occurs

during puberty, which is a period of major cognitive, emotional, and behavioral developmental

changes (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). All these changes may have a negative impact on

students’ psychological and academic adjustments, hence affecting school performance (Holas &

Huston, 2012), motivation and engagement (Wang & Holcombe, 2010) and increased aggressive

behaviors (Pellegrini, 2002). Therefore, teacher practices within the classroom are critical in

supporting and aiding students during this transition time. Such practices might include

minimizing control, allowing criticism, personal choices, and modeling self-engagement in the
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 3

learning process (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). These practices have been identified as

important for enhancing intrinsic motivation, especially within the educational context

(Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). For example, Henderlong and

Lepper, 2002, suggest that the use of enhances student motivation and boost their self-esteem.

Intrinsic motivation is important to motivate students in the classroom but they also need other

types of motivators that will keep them focus as well. Extrinsic motivators can support the

teachers to encourage and motivate students (Eckert et al., 2004; Lipe & Jung, 1971).

Teacher practices also involve extrinsic motivators such as incentives to get students

engage in classroom activities (Eckert et al., 2004; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Lipe & Jung,

1971). Academic intrinsic motivation is the drive or desire of the student to engage in learning

“for its own sake”. Students who are extrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks to obtain

rewards (e.g., good grades, approval, homework passes, food incentives) or to avoid punishment

(e.g., bad grades, parent phone calls; Middleton & Spanias, 1999). The use of incentives can

motivate students to work hard in the classroom, but it will only be because of the desire to

obtain those classroom incentives (Jung, 1971; Eckert et al., 2004). Together, intrinsic and

extrinsic motivators can support the students with the transition to middle school (Henderlong &

Lepper, 2002; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016), and help teachers to decrease disruptive

behavior in the classroom (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016).

Incentives

The use of incentives as a form of extrinsic motivators, such as homework passes, extra

credit, food, or praise statements, have been used by teachers to recognize students’ work and

behavior in the classroom (Eckert et al., 2004; Jung, 1971). According to Jung (1971), the types

of incentives must change as the students change. In other words, teachers must get to know their
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 4

students because what might work for one student does not necessarily work for all students.

Techniques and approaches must be adapted to the students’ needs and wants (Jung, 1971). The

effectiveness of a teacher can be measured by the variety of reinforcement strategies used and

their relationship to student learning and understanding (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011).

Within the classroom, the teacher has full control of how and when to use incentives.

Teachers often have their own system in place for earning incentives. For example, a classroom

system may include productive group work, participating in class, respecting teammates, sharing

ideas, being helpful around the classroom and being respectful when teacher is teaching (Jung,

1971). Depending on behavior, students have an opportunity to earn the predetermined

incentives, such as homework passes, praise, free time on the computer, extra points, or the

whole class might earn a free day for getting high scores on the test (Eckert et al., 2004; Jung,

1971). Whatever the reinforcement is, the students should be notified as to why they are

receiving the reward so they know what they did right. Among middle school students, extrinsic

motivators can help aid in the process of remaining focused and promoting classroom

engagement while reducing off-task behavior (Eckert et al., 2004; Jung, 1971; Madjar & Cohen-

Malayev, 2016). In the classroom, when teachers reward certain students for a specific behavior,

the rest of the students become aware of what they have to do so that they can also earn a reward

(Jung, 1971). Giving incentives during class is also a good strategy as it serves as a model, which

can strongly motivate the observing students to perform the same desirable behavior (Bandura,

1969; Eckert et al., 2004).

Furthermore, an experienced and well aware teacher will use different types of positive

reinforcements. Some approaches and strategies can be used on a regular basis where some can

only be used on certain occasions and/or when a particular behavior is exhibited (Ecker et al.,
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 5

2004). Among middle school students, the use of incentives as an extrinsic motivator has been

proven to be an effective technique to decrease off-task behavior and promote a healthy learning

environment (Bandura, 1969; Eckert et al., 2004; Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011; Henderlong &

Lepper, 2002; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016), but teachers must also implement other

techniques to support the students. Furthermore, students should not become accustomed to

earning rewards all the time, because they learn to expect reinforcement for everything that they

do (Fefer, DeMagistris, & Shuttleton, 2016; Jung, 1971). If students become saturated with the

reinforcement, the reinforcer or reward becomes less effective. Therefore, teachers should

diversify reinforcements and incentives because students can get bored and might lose interest

with some of the reinforcements (Fefer et al., 2016).

Usage of praise as an incentive. Teachers often use praise statements in an effort to

diversify the techniques used in the classroom and to recognize student performance (Partin,

Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehby, 2009). Teacher praise is an affirmative statement

delivered by the teacher immediately following the completion of a specified academic or social

behavior (e.g., correct academic response, work completion, following rules; Haydon & Musti-

Rao, 2011). Specific, teacher initiated, verbal feedback is a powerful agent to promote academic

success (Fefer et al., 2016). In addition, praise from teachers can decrease disruptive behaviors,

increase on-task behavior (Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000), and enhance motivation,

resilience, and persistence on challenging tasks (Dweck, 2007). Praise statements can be

delivered in the classroom as a form of incentive. This type of incentive demonstrates acceptance

or approval by the teacher towards the actions of students (Floress, & Reinke, 2015; Lipe &

Jung, 1971)
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 6

Furthermore, teacher praise is the most widely studied social incentive (Delin &

Baumeister, 1994; Jenkins, Floress, & Reinke, 2015; Lipe & Jung, 1971). Recently, Wagner and

Riener (2014) conducted a field experiment in 25 secondary schools (Middle Schools) in North

Rhine Westphalia, Germany. The purpose of their study was to test the power of social

incentives on student test scores. The results indicated that social incentives were an effective

method to increase test scores. Using social incentives, the students’ attention and focus was on

the class lessons that prepared them to achieve a high score on the test, which increased student

school performance. Students also demonstrated high levels of persistence and motivation at the

time of taking the test. Qualities such as persistence are essential in creating life long learners

and these qualities can be promoted through the use of praise.

Praise as an incentive has also been shown to be as effective as material incentives (Lipe

& Jung; 1971). That is, praise is a low cost, yet effective tool in improving student outcomes.

Additional research has proven that the use of praise in the classroom can be a technique that

could influence different types of classroom behaviors such following rules and expectations,

engaging in activities, working with their peers and paying attention in class (Henderlong &

Lepper, 2002). Students learn that they can earn and deserve praise from the teacher if they do

what they are asked to do in the classroom. In other words, students make a connection between

praise statements and doing the right thing. There is an increase in students’ positive behavior

and the undesired behavior frequency reduces (Partin et al., 2009). Praise is thought to increase

the frequency of behavior because the positive experience of being praised becomes associated

with the behavior that elicited praise (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). Partin and associates (2009)

successfully demonstrated how, through consistent and appropriate use of teacher praise,
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 7

teachers were able to change the classroom atmosphere. Specifically, when teachers increased

their usage of praising statements, negative behaviors decreased.

Praising students is a technique that has been used by teachers across grade levels over

the years because of its effectiveness (Sutherland, Copeland, & Wehby, 2001). Sutherland and

colleagues (2001), discuss the effectiveness of teacher praise, which has been known to work and

be effective in the classroom since the late 1960s when research was conducted on the

relationship between teacher praise and the disruptive behavior of students (Sutherland,

Copeland, & Wehby, 2001). The use of teacher praise is not only designed to decrease

destructive behavior, but also intended to support the teacher in their classroom management

(Fefer et al., 2016; Jung 1971). Classroom management is a challenge for many teachers,

especially middle school teachers (Holas & Huston, 2012; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016).

Middle school students often have a difficult time focusing, which affects the teacher’s

classroom management skills; thus, creating a domino effect (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016).

Teacher praise in the classroom has been shown to be an effective classroom

management tool and have an impact on student outcomes (Fefer et al., 2016; Jung, 1971).

Using praising statements as a form of positive reinforcement have positive effects on both

academic and behavioral outcomes. Therefore, increasing the time the teacher is teaching and

reduces the time addressing off-task behavior (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). According to

Haydon and Musti-Rao (2011), praise statements can be broadly categorized as general praise

and behavior-specific praise. Statements such as “good job” or “nice work” are examples of

general praise. These statements help build student confidence and reassures them of the work

they are doing and to continue working hard to keep getting recognized for their work and effort.

Praising statements can be vary depending on the situation or behavior that the teacher is
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 8

addressing or they might just be regular praising statements that do not necessarily address any

specific behavior (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011). These are referred to as Behavior-Specific

Praising (BSP) and Non-Behavior-Specific Praising (NBSP).

Behavior-Specific Praise

In a BSP statement, a teacher specifies the behavior for which the praise is delivered.

Teachers can provide students with BSP that is either academic-specific or social-specific

(Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). An example of a BSP statement is, “Johnny, good job cleaning the

play area.” In a NBSP statement, a teacher delivers verbal praise without describing the behavior

for which the student is praised. Statements such as “good job” or “nice work” are examples of

NBSP statements. Sutherland, Wehby, and Copeland (2000) reported that although BSP is the

most effective form of praise, it is only a small percentage of the types of praise that the students

receive. Praising students every time they demonstrate appropriate behavior helps to decrease the

level of disruptive behavior and to improve task engagement and class participation (Haydon &

Musti-Rao, 2011; Sutherland et al., 2000). The use of BSP is one teacher practice that could

help middle school students adapt to new environment and improve the level of engagement in

the class (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016; Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011).

Middle school students often misbehave to attract peer attention; yet, recognizing

students for their good behavior in front of their peers is a good way for students to receive

positive attention that can help to build their self-esteem and motivate them to keep receiving

that same attention (Holas & Huston, 2012; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). Praising students

across grade levels increases task engagement and class participation, instructional time and

students’ competence level (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011).

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 9

Researchers have demonstrated that increases in BSP statements are associated with

increases in students’ on-task behavior, compliance, and task engagement (Fullerton, Conroy, &

Correa, 2009; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001), reductions in off-task behavior (Austin & Soeda,

2008), and rates of disruptive behavior (Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Martin, 2007). Transition to

middle school affects all these areas (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016), but with the use of BSP,

teachers can decrease the negative effects of the transition and improve class and school

performance (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011). Do to the positive effects of BSP among students,

Haydon and Musti-Rao (2011), stress the importance of teachers using BSP in their daily lesson

plans to increase instructional time and increase students’ competence level.

Middle school teachers need to motivate students to keep performing in class and they

can reinforce student performance by reaffirming student appropriate behavior and performance

(Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011). Using praise statements allows teachers to provide feedback on

the specific student behavior they are trying to improve and can also be effective in providing

encouragement, building self-esteem, and promoting positive teacher-student interactions

(Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1999), this being the main goal of

educators at the secondary level (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016; Holas & Huston, 2012).

Conclusion

Transition to middle school can become an obstacle to students and could harm their

school performance (Holas & Huston, 2012; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). Teachers have

the tools necessary to promote a positive classroom environment by engaging students in the

curriculum and reducing behavior issues such as off-task behavior (Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011;

Holas & Huston, 2012; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). Students who lack motivation and

demonstrate behavior issues in the classroom need extra support and guidance (Bandura, 1969;
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 10

Eckert et al., 2004; Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Holas & Huston,

2012; Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2016). Acknowledging the middle school students through the

use of incentives and praising statements, such as BSP could be the tools that change the

classroom atmosphere and the level of engagement of students (Fullerton et al., 2009; Haydon &

Musti-Rao, 2011; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Walker et al., 1999). Both BSP and incentives

have been researched separately (Bandura, 1969; Eckert et al., 2004; Haydon & Musti-Rao,

2011; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Fullerton et al., 2009; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001 Walker et

al., 1999); however, more information is needed about the use of both motivating interventions

being used together. This research will focus on the application of BSP and incentives

individually and in combination.

Methods

Research Question

Does Behavior-Specific Praise and use of School Dollars as incentives reduce the amount

of strikes for off-task behavior of three middle school students in a math class?

Research Design and Procedures

An A-B-C-BC design was used to evaluate the effects of BSP and use of School Dollars

on strikes, which represented the number of infractions for off-task behavior. There were four

phases: baseline and three interventions. All students started at baseline at the same time. In

baseline, the teacher did not modify instruction time or the way students were addressed. During

the four phases of the study, the researcher and the observer recorded the number of strikes for

off-task behavior each student received during a class session using a simple frequency recording

strategy. The frequency represented the number of strikes obtained during each session.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 11

All three students needed to have three stable data points to move from baseline to the

three other interventions phases of the study. The three students started baseline together. As

they obtained three stable data points (consistency across your numbers/pattern of repeated data

points) they were able to move to the first intervention phase. Once they were in the first

intervention, again they had to have at least three stable data points to move to the second

intervention. When they had reached the three stable points they started the second intervention

phase. The students were able to move to the last intervention phase when they had reached three

stable data points in the second intervention phase. To exit the study, they had to reach three

stable data points for the last intervention phase of the study.

Fidelity. To assure fidelity, a second observer was present during the implementation of

the interventions throughout each session and a sign-in sheet was used to track attendance (see

Appendix A). Therefore, the study has 100% fidelity. During baseline, the researcher only gave

direct praising. BSP was only given during the intervention phase of the study.

Setting & Participants

The study took place along the central coast of California, in a small city with a

population of 157,380 people, in a secondary school. The school serves approximately 1,071

students enrolled in 7th and 8th grade that are predominately Hispanic/Latino (84%) and White

(10%). Approximately 51% of the populations are females and 49% males. About 68% of the

students receive free or reduce lunch. Furthermore, 24% of the students are English Language

Learners (School, 2015). The three participants were selected using a purposive sampling on a

single classroom. Students were recruited based on teachers’ recommendations and school

referral records. Students were not included if they did not show behavior problems at school.

Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of the participants.

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 12

Student 1. Julian is a 13-year-old Hispanic boy who has been referred for special

education services under the autism spectrum.

Student 2. Ricardo is a 13-year-old Hispanic boy who is currently eligible for special

education services under the category of ADHD and is also an English Language Learner (ELL).

Student 3. Cassandra is a 13-year-old Hispanic girl who is an ELL student and is general

education.

Measures

A frequency count for off-task behavior was collected daily for the duration of the study

using a checklist (see Appendix B). Similarly, to Haydon and Musti-Rao (2011), for this study

the researcher used measure frequency of off-task behavior. The duration of the study was

determined by the number of class periods that each participant needed to obtain three stable

points for each of the phases of the study. Stable data points were a representation of a pattern of

frequency count. For the three students in the study, the researcher and an observer (i.e., other

classroom teacher) recorded the off-task behavior each student demonstrated during each session

(class period). There was no limit on the number of strikes (off-task behavior infractions) a

student could receive. Observation data across all students were collected using a simple

frequency recording strategy. Frequency represented the number of strikes for off-task behavior

each participant received during each session.

Validity. To address validity, the researcher and the second-observer created a list of off-

task behaviors that were considered for the purpose of this study. The observer and researcher

practiced identifying off-task behavior using the list that they created as preparation for the

study. This was to prevent other class distractions from being considered in the study. Both the

researcher and the observer had the list of off-task behaviors during the sessions.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 13

Reliability. To establish reliability, inter-observer agreement data was used during the

intervention and baseline phases of the study. The teacher and the observer kept tracked of the

strikes each student received for off-task behavior. Inter-observer was also responsible for using

a checklist to identify when the teacher fail to give the BSP (see Appendix C) or the School

Dollars (see Appendix D). To ensure consistency and reliability of the measure, the observer was

explicitly coached prior to the start of the study on the types of off-task behavior that were to be

consider for strikes.

Inter-Observer Agreement (IOA). Inter-observer data was collected during 25% of all

phases for each participant using a data collection checklist (see Appendix B) to determine

researcher accuracy in calculating the dependent variable, strikes for off-task behavior. Inter-

observer agreement was calculated for each participant by dividing the number of agreements by

the number of agreements and disagreements, and multiplying by 100%. The IOA should be

80% or more for each participant.

Ethical Considerations

The students were not informed that they were part of a study or of the procedures that

the teacher implemented during the intervention phases of the study. To insure further

confidentiality, students’ names were not used in the study. The study did not interfere with

students’ normal course of their class time and learning. Students did not encounter any physical,

mental, or emotional harm at any point in the study.

Validity threats. Students chosen for the study had similar characteristics to avoid any

erroneous interpretation of the results. Also, the students chosen were those that were less likely

to move during the study. The students did not know about the study so they would not

purposefully participate and show positive behavior during class time. The researcher was
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 14

working with his/her own students, to avoid research bias, there was a second observer present

during the duration of the study 100% of the time.

Social Validity

At the completion of the study, the inter-observer completed a four-point Likert scale

(i.e., 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) social validity questionnaire (see Appendix E).

The questionnaire, adapted from Berger, Manston and Ingersoll (2016), consists of nine

questions designed to understand the perceived usefulness, significance and satisfaction with the

implemented intervention (Kennedy, 2005). Participant responses were kept confidential and

descriptive statistics were conducted to gain insights regarding the intervention. The inter-

observer agreed that this was an effective intervention that could be replicated in other

classrooms.

Data Analysis

Visual analysis was done using graphs, tables and charts to look at trends in the data

(Haydon & Musti-Rao, 2011). The number of daily strikes earned during baseline and the

intervention phases of the study were analyzed to look at the percentage of non-overlapping data

points to attempt to establish a pattern between the use of BSP, the use of School Dollars and the

number of off-task strikes participants received during each session for the duration of the study.

Results

The results for Julian are presented in Figure 1 and show the number of strikes for off-

task behavior during baseline and each intervention. In Figure 1 the x-axis is the session number

and the y-axis is the number of strikes for off-task behavior. For baseline, Julian had a mean

score of 10.75 with a range from 10 to 11 strikes. The mean for the BSP phase was 9.57 with a
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 15

range of 8-11 strikes. The mean for the School Dollars phase was 5.5 with a range of 5-7 strikes.

The mean for the BSP + School Dollars phase was 4.5 with a range of 4-6 strikes.

Figure 1. Julian's frequency of strikes for off-task behavior per session.

The results for Cassandra are presented in Figure 2 and show the number of strikes for

off-task behavior during baseline and each intervention. In Figure 2 the x-axis is the session

number and the y-axis is the number of strikes for off-task behavior. For baseline, Cassandra had

a mean score of 8.75 with a range from 8 to 9 strikes. The mean for the BSP phase was 7.42

with a range of 6-8 strikes. The mean for the School Dollars phase was 5.5 with a range of 5-7

strikes. The mean for the BSP + School Dollars phase was 4.5 with a range of 4-6 strikes.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 16

Figure 2. Cassandra's frequency of strikes for off-task behavior per session.

The results for Ricardo are presented in Figure 3 and show the number of strikes for off-

task behavior during baseline and each intervention. In Figure 3 the x-axis is the session number

and the y-axis is the number of strikes for off-task behavior. For baseline, Ricardo had a mean

score of 10.25 with a range from 10 to 11 strikes. The mean for the BSP phase was 10.25 with a

range of 9-11 strikes. The mean for the School Dollars phase was 8.75 with a range of 8-9

strikes. The mean for the BSP + School Dollars phase was 9.25 with a range of 7-10 strikes.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 17

Figure 3. Ricardo's frequency of strikes for off-task behavior per session.

Discussion

This study was designed to examine how BSP and the use of School Dollars could

positively influence students’ behavior in a math class to reduce their number of strikes for off-

task behavior. Based on the data collected, there was a reduction in the number of strikes for the

three participants during the School Dollars phase of the study. Furthermore, there were no

overlapping data points for the three participants between the School Dollar phase and baseline;

thus, indicating a functional relationship between implementation of School Dollars and a

decrease in disruptive in-class behavior. The fact that there was no overlapping data indicates

that the intervention was highly effective. The results from this current study are similar to

findings in previous research; indicating, the use of incentives for middle school students can

have a positive impact on in class behavior (Eckert et al., 2004; Jung, 1971; Madjar & Cohen-

Malayev, 2016).
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 18

Julian and Cassandra showed immediate improvement beginning with the first

intervention phase (i.e., BSP); however there was 45% of overlapping data with the baseline

phase for both participants. Julian exhibited some difficulties at the beginning of the first

intervention. It seemed that he was trying to adapt to the reinforcement that was being given to

him. When analyzing the data of Julian and Cassandra, there was no visible evidence as to which

of the intervention was more efficient at targeting off-task behavior. This is because as the two

participants transition between phases, the number of strikes decreased at each phase. This

downward trend was consistent for both Cassandra and Julian; in fact, both participants ended

the study with the same number of strikes. However, considering that Julian started with a

higher number of strikes than Cassandra, we can conclude that the intervention had a bigger

impact on Julian.

As for Ricardo, he did not show much improvement on his overall number of strikes. His

beginning number of strikes was 11 and by the end of the study he had 10. However, during

School Dollar phase, Ricardo did show an improvement, but then during BSP +School Dollar

phase, the number of strikes increased. Even though Ricardo’s number of strikes did not go

down significantly and he did not improve by much, it is visible by the results that his strikes did

go down during the School Dollar phase. Therefore, it seems logical to assert that School Dollars

may be the best motivator for Ricardo at this time.

Based on the data analysis and comparison of baseline and interventions for the three

participants, the School Dollars phase for the participants did not show any overlapping data

points with baseline. Also, all participants demonstrated an improvement in their number of

strikes during this phase. Therefore, in this study, School Dollars was an effective intervention to
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 19

reduce off-task behavior. Although Cassandra and Julian showed the biggest improvement in this

study, Ricardo was able to improve at least during one intervention.

The three students in this study showed more interest in receiving tangible reinforcements

(i.e., School Dollars) rather than social incentives (i.e., BSP). The participants in the study

improved their number of strikes for off-task behavior during the BSP phase. However, School

Dollars were more effective. As both interventions can be used to reduce off-task behavior in the

classroom, the used of tangible reinforcements such as, School Dollars, seemed to be more

beneficial and effective to reduce off-task behavior in the classroom. It is also important to

discuss some of the factors that might have impacted the effectiveness of School Dollars in this

study.

This study was conducted on a group of eighth graders. In seventh grade, the students are

also exposed to School Dollars. This is because of the implementation of PBIS at the school. Part

of the school wide interventions of PBIS is School Dollars. Also, some of the students come

from elementary schools where they have been exposed to a form of School Dollars. The

students are used to this form of incentive and are aware of what they need to do to receive this

incentive from their teachers. The previous connection with School Dollars might have

influenced the students’ behavior and therefore impacted the results of the study.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations that may have impacted this study. For example, this study

contained a small convenience sample of three participants and was conducted for a short time

frame. Future studies should consider a larger sample size and a School Dollar intervention

conducted for a longer period. This will allow the researcher to determine if School Dollars can

be equally successful for a larger population over a longer period. In addition, before the start of
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 20

the study, one student had to be replaced because of changes in classroom placement. It was

challenging to find another student in the same classroom that exhibited the behaviors being

targeted in this study. This unexpected challenge delayed the initiation of the research by three

days.

Another unexpected situation was that Ricardo was going through a difficult time at

home. His parents were getting a divorce. By the time the counselors communicated this

situation to the teachers, it was too late to withdrawal him from the study. The only option was to

continue with the study and the selected interventions. These outside influences may have

impacted the results. During the study, new students were added to the classroom. The

atmosphere of the class changed since the new students were trying to adapt to their new teacher

and the teacher was trying to adapt to them. This might have impacted the way the teacher was

connecting with the students and the effectiveness of intervention delivery.

Based on the results, it was during the School Dollars phase that all three participants

showed an improvement with no overlapping data points between School Dollars and baseline.

The use of incentives as a school-wide approach to positive behavior management in the middle

school setting may be a promising solution to improve behavior on campus. Furthermore,

middle school teachers can easily implement School Dollars as a classroom incentive to

positively influence in class behavior.

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 21

References

Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed-time teacher attention to decrease off-task

behaviors of typically developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 41, 279–283. doi:10.1901/jaba200841279

Axelrod, S. (1977). Behavior Modification for the Classroom Teacher. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Berger, N. I., Manston, L., & Ingersoll, B. (2016). Establishing a scale for assessing social

validity of skill building interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorder.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 3258-3269.

doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-2863-9 


Delin, C., & Baumeister, R. (1994). Praise: More than just social reinforcement. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour, 24, 219-241. doi: 10.1111/146859141994

Dunlap, G., Lovannone, R., Wilson, K. J., Kincaid, D. K., & Strain, P. (2010). Prevent-teach-

reinforce: A standardized model of school-based behavioral intervention. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 9–22. doi:10.1177/1098300708330880

Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65, 34–39.

Eckert, T., Lovett, B., & Little, S. (2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom: Bribery or

best practice. School Psychology Review, 33, 344-362.

Fefer, S., Demagistris, J., Shuttleton, C., Kenkel, M., & Silverman, K. (2016). Assessing

adolescent praise and reward preferences for academic behavior. Translational Issues in

Psychological Science, 2, 153-162. doi:10.1037/tps0000072

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 22

Fullerton, E. K., Conroy, M. A., & Correa, V. I. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ use of

specific praise statements with young children at risk for behavioral disorders.

Behavioral Disorders, 34, 118–135.

Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise,

ignoring, and reprimands. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195–205. doi:10.1177/

1053451208328831

Hancock, D. (2000). Impact of Verbal praise on College Students’ Time Spent on Homework.

Journal of Educational Research, 93, 384-390. doi: 10.1080/00220670009598733

Haydon, T., & Musti-Rao, S. (2011). Strategies to increase behavior-specific teacher praise in an

inclusive environment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 91-97.

doi: 10.1177/1053451211414187

Henderlong, J., Lepper, M., & Eisenberg, N. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic

motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 774-795.

doi: 10-1037/003329091285774

Hester, P. P., Hendrickson, J. M., & Gable, R. A. (2009). Forty years later-The value of praise,

ignoring, and rules for pre- schoolers at risk for behavior disorders. Education and

Treatment of Children, 32, 513–535.

Holas, I., & Huston, A. C. (2012). Are middle schools harmful? The role of transition timing,

classroom quality and school characteristics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41,

333–345. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9732-9

Jenkins, L., Floress, M., & Reinke, W. (2015). Rates and types of teacher praise: A review and

future directions. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 463-476. doi: 10.1002/pits.21835

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 23

Jung, S.M. (1971). Criterion measures for educational incentives. Psychology in the Schools, 8,

121-128. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Lipe, D., & Jung, S. (1971). Manipulating incentives to enhance school learning. Review of

Educational Research, 41, 249-280.

Madjar, N., & Cohen-Malayev, M. (2016). Perceived school climate across the transition from

elementary to middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 270-288.

doi:10.1037/spq0000129

Middleton, J., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for Achievement in Mathematics: Findings,

Generalizations, and Criticisms of the Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 30, 65-88. doi:10.2307/749630

Misiowiec, S. (2006). Positive reinforcement in the classroom. Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304915545?accountid=10355

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W. (2004). An investigation of the academic

achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders in public school

settings. Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73. doi: 10.1177/001440290407100104

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).

Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization and sexual harassment during the transition to

middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703

Partin, T., Robertson, R., Maggin, D., Oliver, R., & Wehby, J. (2009). Using teacher praise and

opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 24

Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54, 172-178.

doi: 10.1080/10459880903493179

Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Martin, E. (2007). The effects of visual performance

feedback on teacher use of behavior-specific praise. Behavior Modification, 31, 247–263.

doi:10.1177/0145445506288967

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they

setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92–102. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23887084

Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching

behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal

of Special Education, 35, 161–171. doi: 10.1177/002246690103500306

Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effects of varying rates of

behavior specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with emotional and

behavioral disorders. The Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 2-8.

doi: 10.1177/106342660000800101

Sutherland, K. S., Copeland, S., & Wehby, J. II. (2001). Catch them while you can:

Monitoring and increasing your use of effective praise. Beyond Behavior, 11, 46-49.

doi: 0.1177/0040059916643707

Wagner, V., & Riener, G. (2014). Peers or Parents? On the Working of Social Incentives in

School: Evidence from a Large-Scaled Field Experiment in Germany. Retrieved from

http://www.parthenimpact.com/parthenuploads/78/2015/add_1_258731_5NlSVXFM1c.p

df
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 25

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1999). Antisocial behavior in schools: strategies and

best practices (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment,

engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational

Research Journal, 47, 633– 662. doi: 10.3102/0002831209361209

Wills H. P., Kamps D., Hansen B., Conklin C., Bellinger S., Neaderhiser J., Nsubuga

B. (2010). The classwide function-based intervention team program. Preventing School

Failure, 54, 164–171. doi:10.1080/104598809034962301

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 25

Appendix A

Observer Sign-In Sheet

Session Date Note/Message Signature/Initial

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 26

Appendix B

Daily Checklist

Off-Task Behavior Definition:

• Light Sounds: mumble, hum • Make frequent and unnecessary
• Day Dreaming comments and questions
• Looking around the room or at other students • Get out of seat frequently
• Looking out window • Hands on others and in others’ space
• Playing with; backpack, desk, folders, or and belongings
materials • Doing everything but what they should
• Do other things other than the activity be
• Annoying and distracting to others • Failing to transition appropriately
• Pestering • Out of line, playing around, horse play,
• Ask a lot of obvious questions etc
• Roll on the floor, crawl under tables • Talk to others frequently
• Bother other students • Throw objects
• Yell out
• Make noises

Checklist
Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Total:
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 27

Appendix C

Actions to Consider for BSP

Check if BSP was not given
Action Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Student has materials out

and ready to start class.
Student completed the
warm up.
Student is working
productively on the
assignment
Student is working
productively with his/her
group
Student is participating in
class discussions
Student is asking questions
relevant to the task
Student is quietly working
on an assignment
Student works until the
teacher releases them to
pack their materials
Student cleans his/her
materials
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 28

Appendix D

Actions to Consider for School Dollars

Check if school dollars were not given
Action Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Student has materials out

and ready to start class.
Student completed the
warm up.
Student is working
productively on the
assignment
Student is working
productively with his/her
group
Student is participating in
class discussions
Student is asking questions
relevant to the task
Student is quietly working
on an assignment
Student works until the
teacher releases them to
pack their materials
Student cleans his/her
materials
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES 29

Appendix E

Social Validity Questionnaire

Questions: 1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
1 This treatment was effective

2 I found this treatment acceptable for

increasing the student’s skills

3 Using the treatment improved skills
across multiple contexts (home,
classroom, community)

4 I think the student’s skills would
remain at an improved level even
after the treatment ends

5 This treatment improved family
functioning

6 This treatment quickly improved the
student’s skills

7 I would be willing to carry out this
treatment myself if I wanted to
increase the student’s skills

8 I would suggest the use of this
treatment to other individuals

9 This treatment decreased the level of
stress experienced by the student’s
family