RP Final

1
BEHAVIOR IMPROVEMENT IN MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH CLASSES
Behavior Improvement in Middle School Math Classes
Samantha Connor, Bridgewater State University
EDMC 530: The Teacher as Researcher
Professor John-Michael Bodi
December 14, 2021

2
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………..3

The Researcher………………………………………………………………………………………………..........3
The Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………...........4
Chapter II: Review of Literature....…………………………………………………………………………………8
Shaping a Child’s Behavior …………………………………………..........……………………………………….9
Prevalence of Disruptive Behaviors in the Classroom …………………………………………………………….11
Corporal Punishment Approach to Addressing Behavior Problems……………………………………………….12
Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions……………………………………………………………….…….13
The Good Behavior Game…………………………………………………………………………………...…….16
Tootling…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
Noncontingental Reinforcement……………………………………………..…………………………………….20
Supervision and Pre-correction…………………………………………………………………………………….21
Inclusive Skill-Building Learning Approach………………………………...…………………………………….22
Teaching Self-Control…………………………………………………………………………………………..….23
Teaching Self-Regulation………………………………………………………………………………………….25
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………...………….26
Chapter III: Research Design and Methods……………………………………………...…………….…………26
Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…....26
Participants………………………………………………………………………………………...….…………...26
Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………………..….27
Overall Procedures and Timeline of the Study……………………………………………………..……………..30
Variables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………....31
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments and Procedures for Collecting Data …………………………………31
How to ‘score one’ for each instrument……………………………………………….…………………………..33

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………....34
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………………...…………...38
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………...…………...40
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………………...…………...42
Appendix D……………………………………………………………………………………………...…………...44
3
Chapter I: Introduction
The Researcher
Becoming a teacher was never a part of my plan when I was applying to colleges. In
2016, I attended The Catholic University of America in Washington D.C. and was on the path to
becoming an accountant. I signed up for a work study called D.C. Reads, a program where
college students tutored children who were not performing at grade level. I was assigned to tutor
in reading comprehension and fluency at Washington Jesuit Academy, a private middle school
open only to boys who faced poverty. One of my fifth grade students, Allante, went from
struggling to comprehend fourth grade texts to comprehending seventh grade texts, and working
his way out of the tutoring program. John could read grade-level texts fluently by the end of the
semester. I had the privilege to observe the educators interact with these students, pushing them
academically and providing endless amounts of encouragement and support.
Each student came into school with an amalgamation of challenges. Many behaved
inappropriately as their home lives had been difficult. Students often looked to their teachers in
this school for love and care because they did not have parents to provide for them at the time. I
quickly realized that although I was doing well in my business classes, my heart belonged in the
field of education, specifically working with students who were in similar situations as the boys
at Washington Jesuit Academy.
I transferred to Bridgewater State University (BSU) in 2017 where I studied Mathematics
and Secondary Education with a concentration in Middle School. At the end of the education
preparation program, I completed my student teaching at Edgar B. Davis K-8 School in
Brockton, MA. The students reminded me a lot of the boys I tutored in D.C. As a product of the
Brockton Public Schools system myself, working with these sixth graders felt like home. I had
hoped upon graduation I would find a teaching position at one of the many middle schools in
4
Brockton. However, in March of 2020, my student teaching experience was cut short by
COVID-19. I struggled to find a teaching position because most schools sought to hire
experienced educators who could better maneuver the uncertainties of the 2020-2021 school
year.
Due to my experience as a reading tutor, I was hired at Blessed Sacrament School (BSS)
in Walpole, MA to teach sixth and seventh grade math for students who needed to be in a small
group environment, and to be a support staff in their English Language Arts (ELA) class. BSS
operated in person for the entirety of the school year and thus had to follow a plethora of
restrictions and guidelines from the state and the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education. As a result, the teaching position I was hired for had to be altered so that students
were not working in the same room. I ended up being the eighth grade ELA teacher and running
a math skills class for sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. It was not my ideal job, but I was
grateful for the opportunity to teach in the middle of the pandemic and was eager to gain any
experience to teach in a math setting. Although I loved many aspects of BSS, I decided to apply
to math positions in Brockton for the 2021-2022 school year. In that following June, I was hired
to teach at South Middle School (SMS) as a seventh grade math teacher.
The Problem
Student behavior widely effects the productivity in a class. Even minor disruptions
impede the entire class’s success. Every time a teacher must redirect behavior, address escalated
behavior, or even pause class to wait for students to display expected behavior, the time frame
that was planned for the notes, discussions, and activities becomes skewed. In my district, all
students take the same math unit test on the same day. Math teachers do not create their own
tests or pacing for the units. Therefore, when students consistently display inappropriate behavior
5
and a teacher must interrupt the lesson to enforce their classroom management plan, their
students no longer have the appropriate amount of time to truly master each standard.
In my opinion, behavioral problems are to be expected in a school district where a great
majority of students face poverty and difficult home lives. When a student comes to class on an
empty stomach, it is reasonable to expect them to be irritable. I have had students who faced
homelessness, or students whose parents were in and out of rehab or jail, and students who
practically raised themselves because parents had to work several jobs and could not be home
and available to their child. I have known many students who faced trauma or had ongoing
violent situations that they came home to every day. Some of those children were not equipped
to cope with such trauma and difficult situations. My students, like the students I had in D.C.,
each came into the classroom with their own challenges. Many of those personal challenges
resulted in displays of inappropriate behavior during class.
The administrators at SMS released a survey to students in 2020 regarding the culture of
the school. Out of the 630 students in the school, 406 responded to the survey. A score of 3 or 4
meant that students highly agreed with the statement, and a score of 1 or 2 meant that students
highly disagreed with the statement. The statement about SMS setting clear rules for behavior
earned a mean score of 3.38. The statement that read “The behaviors in my class allow the
teachers to teach” earned a mean score of 2.78. Thus, although students were aware of the
expectations in school, disruptive behavior was a clear hindrance to the lessons in the classroom.
Within my first week at this school, I saw firsthand exactly what these students were referring to
in their survey.
Jose was a seventh grader who struggled with self-control. He rarely raised his hand in
class to wait for permission to speak, and would instead blurt out his thoughts constantly. He also
6
had trouble sitting still. Jose would walk around the class and distract other students. Jose would
also frequently yell to me about how certain other students were not on task when he was
actually the student who was not on task. I often had to stop the class to remind Jose to raise his
hand and only share his thoughts about the math lesson.
Marco was another student in this class. He would get up and walk out of the room
without asking for permission. I would then have to follow him to the hall to bring him back into
the room. He would also argue constantly about the school rules and blatantly disregarded any
redirection when I gave him behavior warnings. The entire class suffered from the behavior
issues of specific students.
Jayveon was a seventh grade student in a different class period. He would shout across
the room to his friends when the class was expected to be silent. Jayveon often made noises
while I was giving instruction and while students were exploring the activity of the day. Even
after other students or I would ask him to stop, Jayveon would continue. I could see in the facial
expressions of my students that they had trouble focusing whenever Jayveon made his outbursts.
In each anecdote, students were fully aware of the expectations in my class. They were
clearly displayed on the wall and we had in depth conversations about the school rules at the
beginning of the year. These students also knew the consequences that would ensue if their
behavior persisted. Yet, it was a constant battle in the classroom of putting my classroom
management plan into action while also moving along in the day’s lesson. The disruptive
behavior had a direct negative effect on the learning time of the entire class. Improvement in
such negative behavior would allow both the individuals who typically displayed negative
behavior and the rest of the class to better master math topics by minimizing the disruptions in a
7
class period. Therefore, in my lit review I will discuss studies where researchers concentrate on
methods and techniques aimed at improving disruptive behavior in middle school math classes.
8
Chapter II: The Review of the Literature
Many factors contribute to a child’s behavior. Thus, before addressing methods of
improving disruptive behavior presented in middle school classrooms, the review of literature
will first focus on the role a child’s environment has in shaping their behavior, and the
prevalence of inappropriate behavior in the classroom. There are not many current studies on
improving disruptive behavior specifically in a middle school mathematics class, so the review
will focus on improving behavior in general for middle school students.
Shaping a Child’s Behavior
This section of the literature provides background on child development to explain the
way external factors influence a child’s behavior in school. Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial
Developmental Theory and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Developmental Ecological Systems Theory
both explain the way a child’s environment effects their behavior.
Erikson’s theory deliberated the impact education, society, and relationships have on a
person’s behavior and character. Since environment influences a child’s development, any
psychosocial trauma a child experiences can have deleterious effects on their development. The
two stages in Erikson’s theory specific to middle school-aged children are Industry vs Inferiority
and Identity vs Role Confusion. In the Industry vs Inferiority stage, children gain new abilities
and become more skilled (Erikson, 1950). When children are in an environment, whether at
home or school, where people encourage them to gain these proficiencies and cheer them on
through these new experiences, those children will likely show positive development. They
would gain confidence in themselves and their abilities (in Maree, 2021).
Towards the end of middle school, children move into the Identity vs Role Confusion
stage. They gain independence and their own identity separate from their peers (Erikson, 1950).
9
In this stage as well, children need encouragement in their environment in order to successfully
develop into their own identities (in Maree, 2021).
Since encouragement and care yield positive development for children at these stages, a
lack of support in both stages creates a negative effect on a child’s development. Factors within a
child’s immediate environment- including abuse, an unstable family structure, and mental health
problems, for example- can all contribute to a child’s lack of support. Rather than developing
into a well-behaved, socially-equipped middle school student, a child will struggle to behave
properly since there is an absence of necessary proper guidance.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory also considers the role of environment in a child’s development.
Bronfenbrenner illustrated the layers that a person’s environment can be broken into. The
immediate environment, or microsystem, can be both home and the classroom for students. The
next layer, the mesosystem, includes the connections and relationships between the immediate
environments. The exosystem consists of places where a person is not an active participant, but
can still be effected by events within the setting. For example, a parent’s workplace or the school
board could be settings in this layer. The macrosystem, or outermost layer, includes the culture,
laws, and beliefs surrounding a person. Children properly develop when they have a sense of
security in their immediate environment, while a poor environment can lead to failure to persist
in tasks or concentrate (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A secure environment includes positive,
involved caregivers, access to basic necessities, and a sense of safety. Thus, students who have
good relationships within their immediate environment develop into well-behaved children, as
their physical and emotional needs are met. Given that classrooms are in the microsystem,
educators play a significant role in the environment of their students, so it is crucial on their end
to form a space where children feel comfortable enough to persevere and focus on their work.
10
Prevalence of Disruptive Behaviors in the Classroom
Classroom management is essential to ensuring each class has an environment conducive
to learning. Beyond the aspects of classroom management including setting routines and
expectations, educators must also plan to address inappropriate behavior in their classroom. In a
2018 statistics report, forty five percent of new teachers revealed they did not feel prepared to
deal with a variety of classroom management situations. The report also stated new teachers in a
city setting felt the most unprepared compared to teachers in town, rural, and suburban settings.
Further, teacher responses were broken down by school poverty level. Twenty percent more
teachers in lower poverty schools felt prepared in handling classroom management and discipline
issues compared to teachers in higher poverty schools (Bowsher et al., 2018). Thus it is clear that
community and socioeconomic status influence the behavior illustrated in schools and can create
challenges for teachers implementing a classroom management plan. Overall, teachers need
training on improving behavior in order to feel better prepared in the classroom.
Even teachers who have a well-developed classroom management plans face difficulty
moving through lessons when students frequently illustrate disruptive behavior. In a 2016 report
of school-related statistics from the 1990s to 2016, thirty eight percent of educators in 2011-2012
felt as though misconduct by students hindered their instructional time. In addition to disruptions
in the classroom, this misconduct included tardiness and students not showing up to class when
they were present in school (Musu-Gillette et al., 2017). A lesson cannot continue successfully
when students are not focused and engaged. When a teacher frequently stops the lesson to
address misbehavior, the entire class’s learning time reduces for the class period. Therefore, if
teachers are able to implement strategies to improve behavior before misbehavior occurs, they
would be able to spend their class focusing more on academics.

11
Beyond the minor disruptions that occur in the classroom, educators also witness
behavior warranting involvement by school administration. In a 2017-18 survey, principals
reported whether several disciplinary issues occurred in their public schools at least once a week.
Of the several types of issues, the most reported were bullying at 13.6 percent, student acts of
disrespect for teachers at 11.8 percent, and student verbal abuse of teachers at six percent (Irwin
et al., 2020). Altogether, inappropriate behavior is a common occurrence in schools across the
United States, whether they are disruptions in the classroom that can be addressed by a teacher or
larger acts of disrespect addressed by principals.
Corporal Punishment Approach to Addressing Behavior Problems
Historically, when students misbehaved in the United States, teachers would inflict pain
on them, including spanking them with a paddle or hitting them with a ruler as punishment.
Although corporal punishment is not common practice in 2021, it is still legal in nineteen states
due to the 1977 Ingraham v. Wright Supreme Court ruling. As a result, 160,000 students are
recipients of this type of punishment each year (Gershoff et al., 2016).
Although teachers use corporal punishment as a way of getting children to display
appropriate classroom behavior, it does not encourage obedience. Children do not learn how to
properly behave by being subject to physical punishment and instead typically show aberrant
behavior more over time. Corporal punishment can also lead to a decline mental health and poor
academic performance (Gershoff et al., 2016).
With the exception of the use of corporal punishment in modern day, I could not find any
studies in support of reprimanding students and disciplining them when displaying disruptive
behavior. This may be due to the growing evidence regarding positive behavior outcomes as a
12
result of praising and rewarding appropriate behaviors. Research on children’s social emotional
capacity at all ages has likely informed schools of better practices to improve behaviors.
Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions
In contrast to the corporal punishment approach of behavior improvement, Positive
Behavior Supports and Interventions (PBIS) is a widely used framework consisting of three tiers.
PBIS is an evidence-based approach to preventing inappropriate behaviors by improving social
emotional effects on students (Center on PBIS, 2021).
The majority of students in a school follow the tier one implementation, which includes
adults teaching expectations in the school and classroom, and recognizing positive behavior.
Prior to implementation, the school creates a few positive expectations for students to follow.
Classroom expectations must agree with the larger school expectations. Teachers praise positive
behavior and correct inappropriate behavior according to these expectations. Further, teachers
should communicate with parents often to build relationships. At this tier, the school decides a
method of recognizing positive behavior, often through a rewards system and specific praise by
adults (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Students who do not illustrate improved behaviors at tier one move into a tier two
intervention. Approximately fifteen percent of students exhibit warning signs for “at risk”
behavior. Warning indicators include poor assessment performance, poor attendance, negative
behavior leading to some form of discipline, low achievement across all subjects, mobility
between schools or states, and slow progression toward the next grade level (National Forum on
Education Statistics, 2018). This level of support targets the at risk students who may develop
severe behavior issues. Intervention focuses on social skills, behavioral skills, and management
of emotions. Students in tier two require more adult observations, positive reinforcement, and
13
pre-corrections. The PBIS team determines possible reasons for the inappropriate behavior and
reviews student progress (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Between one and five percent of students in a school typically require tier three supports.
Students in tier three often have mental disabilities or behavioral disorders. Intervention begins
with a function-based assessment (FBA) to determine the purpose of the student’s inappropriate
behaviors. By completing an FBA, the team is able to create an individualized plan that focuses
on the identified behaviors and causes. Plans include preventing misbehavior, teaching positive
displays of behavior, and using positive reinforcement. Students at tier three receive wraparound
support, meaning students work with adults involved in the intervention to recognize their
strengths and weaknesses. The Leadership Team ensures students at tier three have the supports
they need and tracks student progress. The Support Team creates strategies for each student and
makes changes as they review student progress (Center on PBIS, 2021).
In a qualitative peer-reviewed study, researchers investigated the relationship between
PBIS and equity in schools. Researchers further studied the outcome of this case study. Five
schools were observed, and students and teachers participated in interviews regarding PBIS. The
results of each school’s data were sorted into themes, with the most prominent theme being the
benefits and structure of this framework. This theme was present among elementary, middle, and
high schools. Students were committed to PBIS and mentioned the matrices of expectations that
served as a reminder of the behavior they should display. Leaders, teachers, and students noted
the sense of a positive community that PBIS brought to their schools by reinforcing shared
expectations throughout the schools (Clayton et al., 2020). Given that the study analyzed benefits
of PBIS, the school culture, and the role of relationships in fair work, the study was valid. The
researchers looked at each stage of the PBIS framework, including expectations of each school
14
and the school climate. The study included 876 elementary school students, 1630 middle school
students, and 1422 high school students, so the sample size was large. Given that this was a
qualitative study in which researchers used a narrative approach, the study could have been
strengthened by the use of data collection. Thus, the reliability is low.
A similar peer-reviewed study researched the effectiveness of PBIS is Maryland schools.
The study focused on tier one interventions and supports in 1316 elementary, middle, and high
schools across the state. 857 schools had PBIS training, while 457 did not have any PBIS
training. Trainings were held for two days before implementation began. Data was collected
during the fall and spring seasons, and included School-Wide Evaluation Tools (SET) and
submissions of the Implementation Phase Inventory (IPI) data. The IPI informed researchers on
whether schools were in the preparation, initiation, implementation, or maintenance phase of
PBIS. After the first year, secondary schools had over a 90% in SET scores. Schools with PBIS
experienced less suspensions and absences. Over the six year study, data revealed improvement
in behavior as well as academic performance among students in both elementary and secondary
schools (Pas et al., 2019). The purpose of the study was to determine the overall effectiveness of
PBIS in elementary and secondary schools. Since data focused on behavior and academic
achievement, the study was valid. The study was conducted over a long time frame and included
a large sample size of students, teachers, and school leaders, thus results could be applied to a
larger population within Maryland. However, the study is limited to one state and should not be
generalized to other states.
In a different peer-reviewed study, researchers focused on the use of PBIS on students
with behavioral challenges. These students were transitioning from an alternative school to a
middle school. Behavioral challenges included but were not limited to aggression, disruption,
15
depression, and withdrawal. Researchers collected baseline data for one year and then the six
schools in the district implemented PBIS for two years. Over 24,000 students attended these six
middle schools, and the alternative school had about 2.4% of this student population. Data
included an average of office discipline referrals (ODRs), SET scores, and referrals to the
alternative school each year. After the three year study, data revealed that ODRs decreased from
baseline numbers when PBIS was implemented. The second year of PBIS yielded the lowest
number of ODRs. Thus, PBIS resulted in a display of more positive behaviors (Jolivette et al.,
2012). The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of PBIS in students who displayed
behavior problems. Since researchers collected data on the number of ODRs and the number of
students sent to the alternative school, the study was valid. The study was longitudinal and
included a large sample size, so it can be generalized to a larger population. Further, data was
triangulated, which strengthened the analysis. This study can be replicated with the same
methods and data collection, so it is a reliable study.
The Good Behavior Game
In order to improve behavior in the classroom, teachers may use a proactive approach
rather than reacting to the inappropriate behavior after the fact. The good behavior game was
created by Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf in 1969 to prevent misbehavior in elementary grades,
and was later applied to the secondary grades. In this game, the teacher groups students into
teams, and those teams earn points for displaying inappropriate behavior. Teams who behaved
well and earned the lowest amount of points would be rewarded by the teacher (in Bowman-
Perrott et al., 2015).
This peer reviewed meta-analysis found that teachers have adapted the good behavior
game in several ways. Some teachers awarded teams who did not reach a pre-determined amount
16
of points, thereby allowing several teams to potentially earn a reward. Other teachers paired the
game with a behavior intervention, used the game without grouping students into teams, or
having students self-monitor behavior (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015).
Several studies on the good behavior game resulted in data supporting a decrease in
aberrant behaviors and an increase in positive classroom behaviors. Further, data revealed
students with emotional or behavior disorders and students who displayed inappropriate behavior
gained more from the good behavior game than students who typically displayed appropriate
behavior (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015).
In a similar intervention conducted in 2019, each teacher broke students into teams and
did a ten minute lesson on classroom expectations. The teachers communicated a reward for
positive behavior with students. Throughout class, teams of students earned points for following
the classroom rules, and teachers praised the positive behavior. When students acted
inappropriately, the teachers provided feedback on why the teams did not earn a point. Teams
earned the reward when they reached a pre-determined amount of points (Caldarella et al., 2019).
This peer-reviewed study included 234 middle school students, and of those students,
twenty three were considered at-risk. The intervention increased on-task actions from about forty
percent before the intervention to about eighty four percent. Upon withdrawing the intervention
and reintroducing it, data revealed similar percentages for on-task actions. Students with
behavior disorders also showed improvement in this area. Further, inappropriate classroom
behavior decreased significantly during the intervention (Caldarella et al., 2019). This study was
both valid and reliable. The purpose was to study the effects of class-wide function-related
intervention teams in middle schools, and the results revealed the intervention’s effect on on-task
behavior and disruptive behavior. Further, the researcher separated data between the entire class
17
and the 23 target students who were considered at-risk to determine the effectiveness for students
at different tiers. In the replication of this intervention, the data revealed similar results in all
three areas. Lastly, given that the sample size was large and included nine middle school, the
results are generalizable.
Another peer-reviewed study applied this approach to two middle school art classes
displaying frequent disruptive behavior, each of which contained one target student. One class
had thirty students and the other had twenty six students. The target students were determined
based on Stage One of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders. Researchers collected
baseline data on on-task behavior both for groups of students and the at-risk students, as well as
teacher praise. Then, teachers were trained on class-wide function-related intervention teams,
including classroom expectations, teacher praise, and giving points towards a reward. The two
teachers selected expectations that they wanted their class to improve on and taught those
expectations with the assistance of a script. Students were grouped into teams and the teachers
communicated the number of points necessary to earn a prize. Throughout class, teachers praised
specific behaviors and awarded points. Before class ended, groups totaled their points and earned
their reward. In addition to groups being observed, target students were also observed
specifically for on-task behavior. Both classes displayed an over twenty percent increase in on-
task behavior from the baseline to intervention. Upon withdrawal and reintroduction, similar data
was revealed. The positive behavior of the target students also increased during the interventions
compared to baseline data (Monson et al., 2019). The goal of the study was to investigate the
effects of class-wide function-related intervention teams on the behavior of students in art
classes. Since data focused on on-task behavior, the study was valid. However, the sample size
18
was small and should not be generalized to larger populations. Further, data was collected solely
through observations, which weakened the study.
This style of intervention was also implemented in a peer-reviewed study in math and
science classes. The study included seventh and eighth grade classes in three middle schools
using PBIS. Given that these school were using PBIS, expectations were already communicated
to students and rewards systems were already in place. Each class included two at-risk students.
The intervention began by communicating the classroom expectations for two days and
communicating that positive behavior earned points. Students were sorted into groups and the
teacher provided praise and points every five minutes. Points were only awarded to groups in
which every student was displaying appropriate behavior. The teachers gave feedback to groups
who did not earn points. At the end of class, points were totaled and groups earned their rewards.
On-task behavior increased by over twenty percent in all three classrooms compared to baseline
data (Wills et al., 2019). The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of class-wide
function-related intervention teams on on-task behavior. Given that data focused on the
frequency of on-task behavior, the study is valid. The study included classes from diverse
locations and could therefore be generalized to other middle school math and science classes.
This study would be stronger if there were more types of data collected, however.
Tootling
Tootling is a behavior intervention where students recognize positive behavior displayed
by other students in the class. Students earn rewards as an entire class based on the amount of
reports students give to the teacher. A teacher implements tootling in their classroom by first
setting a goal for the class and discussing positive behavior. The teacher can give examples of
appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and students may contribute with their own examples as
19
well. The teacher supplies children with index cards at the beginning of class. Throughout class,
students are to make note of appropriate classroom behaviors, whether it is helping another
student or following a class rule. Before class ends, students turn in their tootles for the teacher
to read aloud. The class earns a point for every tootle, including tootles by different students that
recognized the same positive behavior. The class earns a reward when they reach the goal
communicated before class (Chaffee et al., 2019).
In this study, disruptive behavior decreased when the tootling intervention was in place,
however the disruptive behavior did not return to baseline levels when tootling was withdrawn.
As a result, Chaffee speculated that tootling may assist in teaching appropriate behavior in class,
regardless of whether or not the class earned a reward (Chaffee et al., 2019).
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of tootling in a middle
school setting. Since the results focused on class-wide behavior, the study is valid. The internal
validity was, however, lowered due to a paraprofessional returning to one of the classrooms
during the withdrawal portion of the study. The study was replicated, and although data did not
return to baseline levels during withdrawal, behavior did decrease when the intervention was not
in place. The sample size was small, with only forty one students participating in the study, so
researchers would need to expand their study to a larger number of students before generalizing
results.
Noncontingental Reinforcement
In an exploration of noncontingental reinforcement (NCR), an intervention method in
which students receive incentives to show positive behavior at given times regardless of their
behavior before or after that specific moment. Teachers received training on disruptive behavior,
FBAs, and NCR. Teachers learned how an FBA informs the way NCR is used in the classroom
20
for the specific student. Once teachers had adequate training, they completed a Problem
Behavior Questionnaire for their student and used the questionnaire to create a plan for how to
use the reinforcers. The functions for disruptive behavior between the four students were task
escape, teacher attention, and peer attention. The reinforcement depended on the precise
disruptive behavior exhibited by the student (Andreasen, 2015).
As a result of the intervention, the students misbehaved less than before the use of
reinforcers. The exploration found that teachers incorporated NCRs into their class without
interfering with the normal flow of the class period. Further, the exploration revealed that
teachers of all experience levels were able to implement this intervention successfully
(Andreasen, 2015). The purpose of this exploration was to discover the effects teacher training in
FBA and implementing NCR for students illustrating disruptive behaviors. The data focused on
the rate of disruptive behavior before and after interventions, and included talking at
inappropriate times and being out of their seat, so the exploration was valid. However, the
exploration included only four teachers and four students, which is a small sample size. Further,
the FBA revealed different functions for the disruptive behavior of these four students, so the
exploration cannot be generalized for a greater population.
Supervision and Pre-correction
In a 2016 peer-reviewed study, researchers used active supervision and pre-correction, to
improve misbehavior. Teachers received training to determine the moat disruptive behaviors and
to implement the three aspects of the intervention. During the intervention, teachers actively
supervised the room by standing in areas where misbehavior commonly occurs and watching the
entire class for both positive and negative behavior. Teachers talked with students and gave
positive or corrective feedback on their behavior (Haydon et al., 2016).

21
The pre-correction aspect of the intervention was implemented by addressing expected
behavior and anticipated misbehavior before students began any transition in class. The teacher
predicted the inappropriate behavior students may display and communicated the class rules.
Disruptive behavior reduced during the intervention and increased when the intervention ended
(Haydon et al., 2016). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of active supervision,
pre-correction, and explicit timing on misbehavior and transition time. Since the results focused
on both problem behavior and transition time, the study was valid. Further, the study included
three high school teachers who each had sixty students in their class, so the results could be
generalized to larger populations.
Inclusive Skill-Building Learning Approach
A peer-reviewed pilot study determined the effectiveness of Inclusive Skill-Building
Learning Approach (ISLA) to address discipline problems. The study aimed to strengthen
students’ ability to problem solve social and behavioral issues, and to strengthen student-teacher
relationships. Before this intervention, according to Nese, students would display inappropriate
behavior, go to the principal’s office, wait for their disciplinary action, receive the disciplinary
action, and then go back to class or leave school. ISLA’s approach included students displaying
inappropriate behavior, going to a behavior support room, either receiving a student-guided FBA
or targeted behavioral skills coaching, a reconnection conversation before the student returns to
class, and the teacher and student reestablishing their relationship in class (Nese et al., 2020).
The study was implemented in two middle schools, one which had 604 students and
another which had 530 students. These schools had been using PBIS for at least two years before
ISLA was introduced. Researchers used the School-Wide Information System to collect data
before and after the intervention regarding ODRs and disciplinary actions. The intervention
22
began with classroom management training. Schools then received ISLA training, which
included information about the process, student supports, and expectations when students went
back to class. There were trainings in August and January on the process when students arrive in
the office, FBAs, behavioral skills coaching, reconnection conversations, and the process when
students return to the classroom. In one middle school, there were 616 ODRs the year before the
ISLA intervention and 462 during the ISLA intervention year. The other middle school had 414
ODRs in the year before ISLA and 322 during ISLA. ODRs decreased by more than twenty
percent in both schools (Nese et al., 2020).
The purpose of this study was to investigate ISLA and its influence on problem behavior.
Since data focused on ODRs due to problem behavior, the study is valid. Although the study had
a large sample size, it was limited to two schools in one state. The study would have been
stronger if it included more schools across the country. Further, there was no control group or
withdrawal phase to compare data to. Thus, it may not be generalizable to schools outside of this
particular region.
Teaching Self-Control
Students who display aberrant behavior often lack self-control, whether it is control of
their emotions, actions, or thoughts. As a result, students often give in to their impulses and do
not evaluate possible repercussions of their behavior. When a teacher addresses self-control in
their behavior intervention, students gain the ability to withhold immediate reactions to their
environment, which then prevents disruptive behavior (Nijhof et al., 2021). Self-control is an
aspect of Dodge’s Social Processing Model for the way children behave in social situations. The
Response Decision Process is the stage of the model where children think about consequences,
evaluate the outcome, and decide how they are going to respond in a situation. The final stage,
23
the Enactment Process, is where the child carries out their response and self-regulates. The
model suggests that a child’s response to stimuli results from their previous experiences and
predetermined influences (Cooke, 2017).
In the 2021 study, students participated in a cognitive behavioral therapy program called
“Keep Cool…Start at School.” This program’s purpose was to decrease inappropriate behavior
in students from underprivileged neighborhoods. Four sessions targeted the development of
perspective taking, while eight sessions targeted the development of self-control. In the sessions
on self-control, students practiced self-control through role playing, modeling, and positive
reinforcement. These sessions focused on both emotions and actions; students practiced
displaying appropriate behavior and regulating their negative emotions. At the end of this
intervention, teachers and parents used the Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scale to assess
improvement in behavior, and teachers used the Self-Control Rating Scale to assess
improvement in self-control. Upon analysis of the data, “Keep Cool…Start at School” increased
the self-control displayed by students, which lessened the disruptive behavior present in the
classroom. Perspective taking illustrated no effect on behavior (Nijhof et al., 2021). The purpose
of this study was to determine the effect of the prevention program on perspective taking and
self-control. The researcher also sought to find a link between a change in perspective taking and
self-control and improvement in disruptive behavior. Since the results focused on perspective
taking, self-control, and problem behavior, the study was valid. The study included 173 children
between the ages of eight and twelve and these children were divided into a group for the
intervention condition and the waitlist condition in order to compare results. Given the large
sample size and that there were no significant difference in socioeconomic status (SES) between
24
the two groups, the results can be generalized for a larger population of children from a similar
SES.
Teaching Self-Regulation
A 2016 peer-reviewed study piloted a program called I Control, which teaches social self-
regulation to middle school students facing behavior issues. This study was conducted in
seventeen classrooms in fourteen schools, and included 152 students. Seven of these schools
were Title I schools and four were alternative schools. Teachers were assigned to treatment and
control groups, resulting in nine classes receiving the intervention (Smith et al., 2016).
I Control includes the teacher-delivered curriculum and the Brain Training Lab (BTL) on
the computer. Unit 1 included lessons that introduced the intervention and goals. This unit
focused on executive functioning and the way it relates to self-regulation. Unit 2 focused on
setting goals and learning strategies improve on reaching those goals. Unit 3 included regulating
emotions. Students learned how to determine their emotions, describe them, and figure out the
triggers of those emotions. The last unit worked on skills needed to address social problems.
Students were to check for a problem, name the problem, brainstorm solutions, respond to the
problem, and reflect afterwards. These lessons used a variety of lesson styles, such as modeling,
journaling, and working in teams. Teachers facilitated lessons twice a week and included BTL
sessions after the pretest. Researchers held follow-up meetings and a professional development
after Unit 2 (Smith et al., 2016).
Upon collecting post-test data, students who displayed worse scores on the pretest
appeared to benefit the most from this intervention. Externalizing behaviors, like rule-breaking,
were lower in the treatment group than the control group. Data showed improvement on
executive function, behavior problems, and social problem solving (Smith et al., 2016).
25
The purpose of this study was to determine I Control’s effect on behavior issues,
executive function, and social skills. Data included behavior before and after intervention as well
as in comparison to the control classes, so it is valid. Further, the study was conducted for an
entire school year, which is a significant period of time. Given that this was a pilot, more studies
should be implemented before generalizing results.
Conclusion
Altogether, the review of the literature illustrated a clear association between strategies to
prevent disruptive behavior and an improvement in behavior by the students. Students responded
well to teacher praise, pre-correction, and rewards for meeting expectations. In the methods
section, I will develop a method to address the prevention of disruptive behavior, rather than
ways to react to disruptive behavior.

26
Chapter III: Research Design and Methods
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate ways to prevent and improve behavior in a
middle school math classroom. An educator’s approach to both positive and negative behavior is
a critical aspect of a classroom management plan, thus the research will address both. The
researcher will use a quasi-experimental design to analyze the frequency of disruptive behavior,
teacher praise and reprimands, and behavior that requires disciplinary action. This study is a
quasi-experimental design because subject assignment will not be randomized. The researcher
will collect data through observations and school databases.
Participants
Human subjects will consist of 7th graders from one urban middle schools and one
suburban middle school in southern Massachusetts. The urban school, West Middle School
(WMS), is in Brockton, MA. The suburban school, Randolph Community Middle School
(RCMS), is in Randolph, MA. Obtained through the Massachusetts Department of Education
school profiles, WMS and RCMS have similar populations in several ways.
Table 1
WMS RCMS
ENROLLMENT 675 674
AFRICAN AMERICAN 61.5% 36.4%
WHITE 17.6% 12.3%
HISPANIC 12.4% 17.4%
FIRST LANGUAGE NOT ENGLISH 39.6% 36.4%
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER 11.1% 8.6%

27
HIGH NEEDS 76.1% 67.4%
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 62.5% 49.9%
Within each middle school, the researcher will observe classes from two general
education teachers who volunteer to participate in the study. The researcher will use cluster
sampling in each school, so once a teacher agrees to partake in the intervention, the sample will
be their entire class for a given period. The researcher will compare the schedules of WMS and
RCMS to observe classes at similar times in the day.
Students and teachers will not be harmed during this study. Once the researcher gains
permission from the superintendents and principals, she will distribute forms of consent to
parents of students in each class as well as the four teachers (Appendix A). The consent forms
will include the purpose of the study and ask for permission to observe their student. Given the
diverse population, consent forms will be available in Spanish, French, and Portuguese in
addition to English. Teacher consent forms will include agreeing to participate in training.
Research Design
The researcher will conduct a quasi-experimental study adapted from the several
variations of the Good Behavior Game (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015) in the review of the
literature. Given that researchers wish to establish a cause and effect relationship between praise
and rewards and behavior improvement, an experimental design is the best approach to this
study. The experimental study will investigate quantitative data regarding the frequency of
behaviors for both students and teachers by comparing the intervention periods to the non-
intervention periods.
Rather than organizing students into teams like in the traditional Good Behavior Game,
the entire class will earn points if all students display appropriate behavior at given times. In
28
order to observe all four classes at similar times of day, co-researchers will be assigned to each
class participating in the study. Researchers will gather baseline data on the behavior of students
by observing each class. Teachers will receive training during their common prep period on
classroom expectations, identifying most frequent disruptions in their class, implementation of
this adaptation of the good behavior game, and teacher praise vs reprimand. Teachers will spend
two days teaching expectations to the class, including allowing students to provided examples
and non-examples of appropriate behavior. Students will also share input of desired class
rewards.
Following an ABAB design, researchers will gather baseline data for three weeks.
Teachers will then implement the intervention for three weeks. Teachers will wear a vibrating
timer that goes off every five minutes. The timer will vibrate instead of ring so that students do
not adjust their behavior at the sound of the timer. When the timer vibrates, the teacher will scan
the classroom and determine if students are collectively displaying appropriate behavior. When
teachers recognize good behavior displayed by the entire class, they are to provide specific praise
and add a point to their reward board. The class earns a reward when they reach twenty points.
Teachers are encouraged to praise students throughout class regardless of whether the timer is
vibrating or not. If any students are displaying inappropriate behavior when the timer vibrates,
the teacher must provide corrective feedback and the class does not earn a point. As the observer,
researchers will document frequency of disruptive behavior identified by teachers during training
and teacher praise and reprimand. After the three week intervention period, teachers will
withdraw the intervention and operate their classroom as they did before the training. Next,
teachers will reintroduce the intervention for an additional three weeks.

29
Further, at each stage of the experiment, researchers will collect data on the frequency of
behaviors displayed by students in each class that exceed the typical disruptive behaviors.
Researchers will obtain records through the main office at each school of formal behavior write
ups and office discipline referrals (ODRs). An ODR means that a behavior surpassed the
common disruptive behaviors and was an extreme violation of class expectations. These
behaviors warrant discipline by administration. If a student is written up but the office does not
provide discipline, it means that students exceeded the normal disruptive behavior expected in a
classroom, but the teacher was able to provide discipline without office involvement. For
example, a student could receive detention or a call home, but the teacher still creates a write up
for the office to document the behavior. The office organized this data for the researchers so that
students stayed anonymous.
C1=Class at WMS
C2= Class at WMS
C3= Class at RCMS
C4= Class at RCMS
N= Teacher Training
T=Intervention
O= Observations during non-intervention stages
C1 O1 N1 T1 O5 T5
C2 O2 N2 T2 O6 T6
C3 O3 N3 T3 O7 T7
C4 O4 N4 T4 O8 T8
30
Overall Procedures and Timeline of the Study
In order to conduct the experiment for twelve weeks and avoid the rise of excited
behavior that typically occurs between Thanksgiving and winter vacation, I will conduct the
experiment from January to April.
In December, I will gain permission to conduct my study from the superintendents and
principals. Before winter vacation, parents and teachers will receive consent forms by email or
mail. Consent forms must be returned the first week of January. Beginning in the second week of
January, researchers will collect baseline data via observations. At the end of the three weeks,
researchers will obtain formal behavior write ups and ODRS from the baseline period. On the
Monday after the baseline period, teachers will receive training. They will spend Tuesday and
Wednesday teaching expectations and appropriate behavior. The intervention will begin on
Thursday and will continue for a total of fifteen days. Observations will occur daily and the
researchers will gather formal behavior write ups and ODRS on the fifteenth day. The
withdrawal of the intervention will occur for fifteen days. Reintroduction of the intervention will
occur for fifteen days. Once again, daily observations will occur in each phase and data from the
office occurs on the final day of each phase.
Variables
In this experiment, the independent variables are the disruptive behaviors identified by
teachers prior to the experiment and the three expectations each teacher chose to use in the class.
The dependent variable is the frequency of both positive and negative behavior during class.
Further, an independent variable is the ODRs and formal write ups, while the dependent variable
is the behavior warranting disciplinary action and the frequency of the ODRs and write ups.
Extraneous variables may include the particular students in each classroom sample. For
31
example, some students may require tier two or three interventions beyond this class-wide
intervention. As a result, behavior may not improve and will effect the entire class’s performance
during the experiment. The seating design in each room may also effect each class’s
performance. Some layouts of desks, such as table groupings, promote more interaction with
peers while rows of desks typically limits inappropriate talking since students are not facing each
other. Further, the assigned seats could result in an increase or decrease in appropriate behavior
depending on the relationship between peers sitting near each other.
Validity and Reliability
The study is valid because the data focused on behavior improvement, which reflects the
purpose of the study. Further, the two schools have similar demographics so that schools with a
similar population can generalize the results. Since the intervention was replicated and included
data from the baseline and withdrawal periods for comparison, the study is reliable. Each class
was observed at the same time of day, which added to the consistency of the methods. Given that
class sizes range from twenty to thirty students, the sample size of this study is between eighty
and one hundred twenty students, which is large enough to generalize results.
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments and Procedures for Collecting Data
Instrument #1 (Appendix B)
Classroom observations will focus on the behavior of students and the praise to
reprimand ratio of the teacher. The template used for documenting class behavior was adapted
from the Basic 5 Observation Form (McKale Skyles, 2010). When the teacher’s timer goes off,
the observer records whether the class met the class expectations or whether the behavior of any
students prevented the class from earning a point. The observer either circles + for positive
behavior or – for negative behavior. Then, the observer circles the expectation that either was or
32
was not met and notes any corrective feedback the teacher gave the class. This instrument also
includes the date and time of each five minute interval. This instrument is valid because it
directly reflects the behaviors present in the room throughout the class period. The instrument
documents both positive and negative behaviors, as well as the teacher’s reaction in the form of
either a point towards the reward or corrective feedback.
Instrument #2 (Appendix C)
The template used for documenting praise and reprimands allows the observer to circle
whether they observed praise or a reprimand and whether it was aimed at an individual or group.
The observer can circle the behavior that prompted teacher response or write in their observation.
Further, the observer records the time of each praise or reprimand. This instrument is valid
because it illustrates not only the behavior present in the classroom, but also the teacher’s
response to the behaviors. Once again, it directly relates to the purpose of the study because it
documents both positive and negative behaviors and responses.
Instrument #3 (Appendix D)
Formal behavior write ups and ODRs are collected from the office during each phase of
the experiment. This data provides insight into behaviors that exceed the common disruptive
behavior displayed in class. This instrument is valid because it documents inappropriate
behaviors that exceed the disruptive behaviors addressed by the classroom expectations in each
class. This instrument gives insight into the frequency of behaviors that need more of a response
than corrective feedback by the teacher. If this adaptation of the Good Behavior Game
successfully prevents inappropriate behaviors, the researcher can expect a decrease in ODRs and
write ups, thus it directly aligns to the purpose of determining ways to prevent negative behavior.
33
How to ‘score one’ for each instrument
At the end of each class period, the observer totals the number of positive behaviors
recorded and the number of negative behaviors recorded on the observation sheet. These
numbers are expressed as a ratio. At the end of each stage of the experiment, the ratios are
averaged to reflect a mean ratio for the baseline, initial intervention, withdrawal, and second
intervention.
In addition to scoring the class wide behavior sheet, the observer also scores the teacher
praise and reprimand sheet. Praise and reprimands are also expressed as a ratio, with each praise
or reprimand worth one point. At the end of each stage of the experiment, the ratios are averaged
to reflect a mean ratio of praise to reprimands.
The ODRs and formal behavior write ups are totaled for students in each class to reflect
the frequency in each stage of the experiment. The totals will be organized into a bar graph,
organized by class and separated into bars for each phase of the experiment.
34
References
Andreasen, Melody C., "An Exploration of the Use of Functional Behavior Assessment and
Noncontingent Reinforcement on Disruptive Behavior in Middle School General
Education Classrooms" (2015). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 455.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/455
Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2015). Promoting
positive behavior using the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 18(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715592355
Bowsher, A., Sparks, D., Mulvaney Hoyer, K. (2018). Stats in Brief. NCES 2018–143.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018143.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by nature and
Design. Harvard University Press.
Caldarella, P., Wills, H. P., Anderson, D. H., & Williams, L. (2019). Managing student behavior
in the middle grades using class-wide function-related intervention teams. RMLE Online,
42(7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1654799
Center on PBIS (2021). Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. www.pbis.org.
Chaffee, R. K., Briesch, A. M., Volpe, R. J., Johnson, A. H., & Dudley, L. (2019). Effects of a
class-wide positive peer reporting intervention on Middle School student behavior.
Behavioral Disorders, 45(4), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919881112
Clayton, J., Robertson, D., & Sotomayor, T. (2020). Opportunities and access: exploring how
school district leaders make meaning of equity in practice through positive behavioral
35
interventions and supports. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership,
16(4). https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2020v16n4a878
Cooke, T. (2017). Social Information Processing: A Useful Framework for Educational
Psychology. Educational Psychology Research and Practice. 3 (1), p. 50-69.
https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8870z
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. W. W. Norton.
Gershoff, E. T., & Font, S. A. (2016). Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence,
Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy. Social policy report, 30, 1.
Haydon, T., Kroeger, S. (2016). Active Supervision, Precorrection, and Explicit
Timing: A High School Case Study on Classroom Behavior, Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60:1, 70-78, DOI:
10.1080/1045988X.2014.977213
Irwin, V., NCES; Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., AIR; Barmer,
A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., and Parker, S. (2020). Condition of Education 2021.
NCES 2021144. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2021/a07_508c.pdf
Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N. C., Josephs, N. L., McDaniel, S. C., & Ennis, R. P. (2012).
District-Wide PBIS Team Questions Related to Using the PBIS Framework to Transition
Students with Challenging Behaviors from an Alternative School to a Neighborhood
School Kristine Jolivette. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education
Professionals, 45–64. https://doi.org/EISSN-2325-7466
Maree, J. G. (2021). The Psychosocial Development Theory of Erik Erikson: Critical overview.
Early Child Development and Care, 191(7-8), 1107–1121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1845163
36
Massachusetts School and District Profiles. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2021, from
https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/general.aspx?
topNavID=1&leftNavId=100&orgcode=00440420&orgtypecode=6.
McKale Skyles, T. 2010. “Supporting Classroom Management: Collecting Data to Support the
Teacher Evaluation Process.” http://akrti2015.pbworks.com/f/Saturday-
Strand%206_Skyles%20Handout%20Packet.pdf
Monson, K. D., Caldarella, P., Anderson, D. H., & Wills, H. P. (2019). Improving student
behavior in middle school art classrooms: Initial investigation of CW-fit tier 1. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719864704
Musu-Gillette, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., and Oudekerk, B.A. (2017). Indicators of
School Crime and Safety: 2016 (NCES 2017-064/NCJ 250650). National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC
National Forum on Education Statistics (2018). Forum Guide to Early Warning Systems
(NFES2019035). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Nese, R. N. T., Bastable, E., Gion, C., Massar, M., Nese, J. F. T., & McCroskey, C. (2020).
Preliminary Analysis of an Instructional Alternative to Exclusionary Discipline. THE
JOURNAL OF AT-RISK ISSUES , 23(1). https://doi.org/ISSN-1098-1608
Nijhof, K., te Brinke, L.W., Njardvik, U. et al. The Role of Perspective Taking and Self-Control
in a Preventive Intervention Targeting Childhood Disruptive Behavior. Research on
Child Adolescent Psychopatholgy 49, 657–670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-

37
020-00761-1
Pas, E. T., Ryoo, J. H., Musci, R. J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). A state-wide quasi-experimental
effectiveness study of the scale-up of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and
supports. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.001
Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., Algina, J., Pitts, D. L., Merrill, K. L., Cumming, M. M., & Allen, C.
(2016). Self-regulation for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Preliminary
effects of the I Control Curriculum. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25(3),
143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616661702
Wills, H. P., Caldarella, P., Mason, B. A., Lappin, A., & Anderson, D. H. (2019). Improving
student behavior in middle schools: Results of a classroom management intervention.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(4), 213–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719857185
38
Appendix A: Consent Form
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Introduction
I am requesting your permission for your student to participate in a research study. The
purpose of this study is to determine a method of preventing disruptive behavior in class and
increasing positive behavior. Your child is invited to participate in this study because he/she is a
7th grade student at West Middle School/Randolph Community Middle School. The study has
been approved by both the superintendent and principal of your student’s school.
Participation is voluntary and will not affect your student’s grades or any services
provided by the school for your student. The person performing this research is Samantha
Connor, a graduate student at Bridgewater State University. If you have any questions, please
contact her at samanthaconnor@bpsma.org.
Purpose
By doing this study I hope to determine the effectiveness of a group reward system to
prevent and improve negative behaviors in math classes.
Procedures
Research will take place during your student’s math class. If you grant permission, your
child’s behaviors as well as the math teacher’s interactions with your child will be observed.
Data collection will be on a group basis and the researcher will not record who is displaying
negative behavior.
Risks
To the best of my knowledge, there is no risk of harm for your child/ward to participate
in this study.
Benefits
If this reward-based intervention yields positive results, your student will have more
time in class dedicated to learning and exploring math instead of lessons being interrupted by
inappropriate behavior. You student’s teacher will focus more class time on the academic needs
of students instead of using class time to redirect behavior.
Cost
There is no cost for participating in this study.
Withdrawal:
You may choose to withdraw your permission at any time during the twelve week
period. If you request it, we will remove your student’s data from the collection.
Confidentiality
Your child’s name will not be on any data gathered. This informed consent document
with your child’s name on it will be kept in a locked desk. Only Samantha Connor and her
college advisor will have access. This informed consent document will be shredded three years
after publishing the study results.
Questions:
You are encouraged to ask me questions. If you have any questions, about this study,
please contact Samantha Connor at samanthaconnor@bpsma.org.
39
Certification:
I have read and I believe I understand this Informed Consent document. I believe I
understand the purpose of the research and my child’s involvement in the study. I have been
given the opportunity to ask questions, and they have been answered.
I understand that I may withdraw my permission at any time.
I have received a copy of this Informed Consent document for my personal reference. I
hereby give my informed and free consent for my child/ward to be a participant in this study.
Signatures:
________________ __________________________________________
Date Consent Signature of Parent/Guardian
__________________________________________
Printed Name of Parent/Guardian & Relationship
__________________________________________
Printed Name of Child Participant
Please return this signed permission to your student’s teacher.

40
Appendix B: Class Behavior Observation Instrument
Date Time Behavior Expectation Met/Not Met
+ - *this section is different for each class- teachers each
made 3 class expectations during training which would
be listed here
Corrective Feedback (if applicable)
+ - Expectation Met/Not Met

41
Ratio of Positive Behavior to Negative Behavior ______:______

42
Appendix C: Teacher Praise and Reprimand Observation Instrument
Date Time Praise/Reprimand Individual/Group Behavior
P R I G Out of seat, Talking, Off Task,
Disrespectful Speech, Violate
Personal Space, Raise Hand,
Collaborate Well, Focused
Other:_________________
Other:_________________
Other:_________________
Other:_________________

43
Other:_________________
Other:_________________
Other:_________________
Praise to Reprimand Ratio _________:_________

44
Appendix D: Behaviors Exceeding Disruptive Instrument
Date Class Write Up or ODR Behavior Cited
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Write Up ODR
Total Write Ups:___ + Total ODRs:___= Total Behaviors Exceeding Disruptiveness___

RP Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RP Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RP Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

BEHAVIOR IMPROVEMENT IN MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH CLASSES

Behavior Improvement in Middle School Math Classes

Samantha Connor, Bridgewater State University

EDMC 530: The Teacher as Researcher

Professor John-Michael Bodi

December 14, 2021

Chapter I: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………..3

How to ‘score one’ for each instrument……………………………………………….…………………………..33

academically and providing endless amounts of encouragement and support.

at Washington Jesuit Academy.

I transferred to Bridgewater State University (BSU) in 2017 where I studied Mathematics

preparation program, I completed my student teaching at Edgar B. Davis K-8 School in

to teach at South Middle School (SMS) as a seventh grade math teacher.

In my opinion, behavioral problems are to be expected in a school district where a great

resulted in displays of inappropriate behavior during class.

issues of specific students.

Chapter II: The Review of the Literature

Many factors contribute to a child’s behavior. Thus, before addressing methods of

will focus on improving behavior in general for middle school students.

Shaping a Child’s Behavior

Developmental Theory and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Developmental Ecological Systems Theory

both explain the way a child’s environment effects their behavior.

develop into their own identities (in Maree, 2021).

properly since there is an absence of necessary proper guidance.

Bronfenbrenner’s theory also considers the role of environment in a child’s development.

in tasks or concentrate (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A secure environment includes positive,

Prevalence of Disruptive Behaviors in the Classroom

Classroom management is essential to ensuring each class has an environment conducive

training on improving behavior in order to feel better prepared in the classroom.

would be able to spend their class focusing more on academics.

behavior warranting involvement by school administration. In a 2017-18 survey, principals

larger acts of disrespect addressed by principals.

Corporal Punishment Approach to Addressing Behavior Problems

recipients of this type of punishment each year (Gershoff et al., 2016).

Although teachers use corporal punishment as a way of getting children to display

academic performance (Gershoff et al., 2016).

Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions

In contrast to the corporal punishment approach of behavior improvement, Positive

PBIS is an evidence-based approach to preventing inappropriate behaviors by improving social

emotional effects on students (Center on PBIS, 2021).

adults (Center on PBIS, 2021).

reviews student progress (Center on PBIS, 2021).

makes changes as they review student progress (Center on PBIS, 2021).

In a qualitative peer-reviewed study, researchers investigated the relationship between

strengthened by the use of data collection. Thus, the reliability is low.

A similar peer-reviewed study researched the effectiveness of PBIS is Maryland schools.

whether schools were in the preparation, initiation, implementation, or maintenance phase of

generalized to other states.

In a different peer-reviewed study, researchers focused on the use of PBIS on students

methods and data collection, so it is a reliable study.

The Good Behavior Game

Perrott et al., 2015).

having students self-monitor behavior (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015).

behavior (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015).

results are generalizable.

effects of class-wide function-related intervention teams on the behavior of students in art