Behavior

Management
Getting better at implementing behavior strategies in a
first grade classroom

By Amanda Evans
 Purpose of Research
● What is the purpose of this study?
○ To observe the effects of sticker charts on the behavior of first grade students and to get better at implementing
behavior management strategies in the classroom.

● Why am I conducting this study?

○ To gain a better understanding of how I can improve implementing behavior management strategies in future
classrooms.

● What’s the story behind it?

○ When I walked into my current classroom, the first thing I noticed was the hectic energy in the room. Students
running around, forgetting the long list of directions they were given, and to put it simply, not following proper
classroom behavior guidelines. With the new school year comes new challenges, such as teaching students how
to simply exist in the classroom again. Since COVID began, there have been numerous challenges teachers have
had to face, but one that teachers are just now starting to become aware of is behavior management challenges. I
wanted to see how a sticker chart would specifically impact my students behavior as well as how I could get
better at implementing behavior strategies as this is extremely important for a classroom to run smoothly.
Research Question(s)

In what ways do I get better

01 at managing behavior in the
classroom?

02 Do sticker charts improve

behavior in the classroom?
 Setting
School- Henry Houck Elementary
Grade- First Grade
Subjects- Math, Independent reading, ELA
AM and PM
Every Tuesday
Participants
23 six and seven year old first
grade students. 10 girls and 13
boys. 5 students have IEPs
and/or 504 plans. 4 students
speak English and Spanish, and
2 are ESL students.
 Research Design
Began by making a sticker chart. At morning
meeting, and each subject subsequent,
Weeks students would be reminded of expectations.
1-4 If whole class met expectations, a sticker
would be added to the chart. If the class
received 3 stickers, they would receive a
prize at the end of the day.

Mostly same design as weeks 1-4, however

Weeks during each subject, a student would be
5-8 chosen randomly to be ‘the lucky duck’ and
if this student followed expectations for the
duration of that subject, the class would
receive a prize at the end of the day.
 Expectations

1 2 3

Raise their Stay in their Follow

hand for seat unless directions the
permission to directed first time they
speak otherwise are stated
 Data Collection Method
Tool 1
- From literature review
- List of 11 questions to
review teaching
1. Have you developed the habit of enforcing rules in a firm, fair, and consistent manner?
2. Is it clear what those who finish early should do?
3. Are your objectives clear, both to you and the students?
4. Do you know what you will do or what your choices are when rules are broken?
5. Do you reinforce good behavior?
6. Does your behavior convey the belief that school is a serious place?
7. How do you show that you convey expectations for good behavior?
8. In enforcing rules, do you make an effort to keep attention focused on the task rather than
stopping instruction so everyone attends to the offending student?
9. Does your manner and tone of voice convey a clear message regarding expectations?
10. How would your students classify you: 1) Nice but soft; 2) Not nice, often hostile or grumpy; 3)
Nice but firm?
11. Do you often remind students of expectations throughout the day and before lessons?
 Data Collection Method
For both recordings:
Tool 1 Analysis
- I answered each question regarding my own teaching

First Tuesday:
- “Inconsistent and lenient”
- “Did not call out bad behavior...focused on students who were displaying positive behaviors”
- “I like how ______ is sitting quietly with their hand raised”
- “I convey expectations by giving students a recap of what they should be doing at the beginning
of each subject. However, this was inconsistent”
- “Expectations need to be clearer and there cannot be a gray area”
- “My manner and tone do not convey clear expectations. I ask students to follow instructions
instead of telling them to follow instructions”
- “Nice but soft”
- First recording I was too lenient and my expectations were not clear.
 Data Collection Method
Tool 1 Analysis
Second Tuesday:
- “Early finishers have a clear assignment to negate unwanted behaviors”
- “Expectations are clearer. Three set expectations, but this leaves room for other behaviors. Need to
give more expectations”
- “Focuses on students showing proper behavior. Addresses students not following expectations
quietly as to not call them out”
- “Nice but firm”

Comparison:
- From the first Tuesday to the second, my expectations got a bit clearer. One thing that drastically
changed was my attitude. In the first recording, I was very lenient and did not follow through on
my own objectives, but in the second recording, I was more firm in my expectations with students.
 Data Collection Method
Tool 2
- Likert scale
I explained and gave reminders of expectations before lessons.
Strongly disagree (1) -Strongly Agree (5)
First Tuesday: 2 Second Tuesday: 4

I convey a clear message of the same expectations every time.

Strongly disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
First Tuesday: 2 Second Tuesday: 3

I showed rules in a firm, fair, and consistent manner.

Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
First Tuesday: 2 Second Tuesday: 4

I focused on the task at hand rather than the offending student(s)

Strong disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
First Tuesday: 4 Second Tuesday: 5
 Data Collection Method
Tool 2 Analysis
For both Tuesdays:
- I looked at my behavior in the videos and gave myself a rating to whether I always did the task
(5), most times did the task (4), sometimes did the task (2), never did the task (1), or 3 if I was
unsure,

Comparison:
- Reminders of Expectations: First Tuesday, stated expectations at the beginning of the day and
again during independent reading only, 2 rating. Second Tuesday, stated expectations at almost
every subject point and during lessons, 4 rating.
- Clear expectations: First Tuesday, my expectations were not very clear and left room for a lot of
issues, 2 rating. Second Tuesday, at this point, my expectations were not meeting the needs of the
students and many different behaviors were arising, 3 rating because my expectations did not
work even for me.
 Data Collection Method
Tool 2 Analysis

Comparison Continued:
- Consistency: First Tuesday, not very consistent with giving reminders. Also not firm in telling
students to follow directions, moreso asking them to, 2 rating. Second Tuesday, more consistent
with telling students the expectations, given reminders at almost every subject change. Much more
firm in telling students to follow instructions rather than asking, 4 rating.
- Focus: My one strength is focusing on the task and not stopping each and every lesson to tell
students that they are misbehaving. I focus rather on students who are meeting expectations, rather
than calling out students who are not. On the first Tuesday, I gave myself a 4 for this because I did
it most times, and on the second Tuesday, I gave myself a 5 because I was doing this all the time.
 Conclusions
Flop or not?
Flop Not
My teaching got better
My students did not care
from my first recording
about the sticker chart.
to the second, and in
Behavior was still bad,
general over the course
and there were days the
of 8 weeks. While I
students got no stickers
don’t believe the sticker
at all. The sticker chart,
chart had a direct impact
I believe, was not useful
on behavior, my change
in helping mitigate
in behavior management
unwanted behaviors.
style seemed to.
 Limitations
- Limited videotapes

- Changed tools, glows & grows

- Number of students fluctuated weekly

- Design change halfway through

- More time

- Whole group versus small group

- Only one day a week

New
If I were to do this study again I would:
- Start from the beginning of the year
- Implement a list of expectations that
the students helped me come up with
- Stick with the ‘lucky duck’ rather than

Design whole class

- Address consistency and fairness
issues with problem students