http://isc.sagepub.com/Intervention in School and Clinic

http://isc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/305The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/10534512040390050801

2004 39: 305Intervention in School and ClinicCherry F. Crum

Behavior DisorderBehavioral Modification Strategy to Increase On-Task Behavior of a Student with a−−Using a Cognitive

  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Intervention in School and ClinicAdditional services and information for    

  http://isc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://isc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- May 1, 2004Version of Record >>

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

One of the greatest challenges that educators faceis giving individuals with behavior disorderstools that will help them function independentlywithout promoting a dependence on promptscommonly seen in children and youth with this

exceptionality. Traditional systems rely on an adult whois the only person managing student behavior but oftendoes not notice every problem. Many of these programstherefore are not used except when adults are available tomonitor the students.

An alternative to traditional behavior-managementprograms is a self-management program designed to teachstudents to manage their own academic and social be-haviors, which should be the ultimate goal of any soundbehavior program. Known also as cognitive behavior man-agement, self-monitoring, self-instruction, or metacognition,the program teaches individuals with behavior disorders

to monitor their own work or behavior and to administertheir own reinforcement, when appropriate, thereby en-hancing their independence.

Literature Search

For the present study, I conducted a computer searchto identify articles on cognitive–behavioral management(CBM) systems used with children and youth who hadbehavior disorders. The ERIC, Exceptional Child Educa-tion Resources, and PsycINFO databases from 1985 to2002 were searched using the descriptors “cognitive behav-ior,” “management,” “self-monitoring,” “self-instruction,”and “metacognition.” My search revealed that CBM hasbeen successful in increasing the independence of indi-viduals without disabilities (Werts, Zigmond, & Leeper,

INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC VOL. 39, NO. 5, MAY 2004 (PP. 305–309) 305

Using a Cognitive–Behavioral ModificationStrategy to Increase On-Task Behavior of a

Student with a Behavior Disorder

CHERRY F. CRUM

In this study, the effectiveness of a self-

monitoring system, combined with goal

setting, for an 8-year-old student with be-

havior disorders was examined. The stu-

dent increased his on-task behavior in

his general education classroom during

self-monitoring. His on-task behavior fur-

ther increased when goal setting was

added as an intervention.

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

306 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC

2001) as well as persons with a variety of exceptionalities.It has been used to teach skills to children and youth withthe following problems:

• attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD;Kern, Dunlap, Childs, & Clarke, 1994; Shapiro,DuPaul, & Bradley-Klug, 1998),

• behavior disorders (BD; Kern et al., 1994),• learning disabilities (LD; Kern et al., 1994; Shapiro et

al., 1998),• serious emotional disturbance (SED; Levendoski &

Cartledge, 2000), and• cognitive challenges.

Researchers have used CBM to address different typesof areas:

• academic (Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000; Mitchem,Young, West, & Benyo, 2001),

• behavior (Mahn & Greenwood, 1990), and

• social interactions (Copeland, Hughes, Wehmeyer,Rodi, & Presley, 2002; Nelson, Smith, Young, &Dodd, 1991).

In this study, I wanted to extend the current literaturebase and determine the efficiency of a CBM technique onthe on-task behavior of an 8-year-old boy diagnosed witha behavior disorder.

Method

Participant and Setting

The student who participated in the study, James, was an8-year-old White boy with a behavior disorder who wasincluded in a general education second-grade classroom.At the time of the study, he received 20 minutes of acad-emic support per week and 20 minutes of speech andlanguage instruction 2 days a week. In class and duringsupport service instruction, James was frequently off taskand distracted the other students in the group. The para-professional and his teacher constantly used negative orpositive reinforcement to prompt him to stay on task.James did not receive any specific support or instructionon how to increase his independence.

A similar pattern was seen during independent seat-work. James looked around the room, talked, and dis-turbed the people around him. The teacher frequentlyused positive and negative reinforcement to get him tostay on task. James sat near the teacher’s reading table soshe could provide him with the continuous externalprompting he needed. To increase James’ ability to stayengaged independently in his task, I selected staying ontask as the target behavior for this study.

Definition of the Target Behavior

On-task behavior was measured during handwriting andphonics seatwork. James was judged to be on task if heengaged independently in the following behaviors with-out a teacher-initiated prompt: (a) sustained eye contact tothe learning stimuli specified by his teacher, and (b) properseated position (i.e., feet on the floor and hands engagedwith learning material). The on-task behavior could benoncontinuous, with a definite starting point and observ-able ending.

Measurement

Given the intervention goal of increasing the length oftime James stayed engaged on the task at hand, I chosepartial interval recording as the measurement method.The teacher used a behavior observation sheet (Jenson,Rhodes, & Reavis, 1994) to record the data under inde-pendent conditions. She recorded the following behav-iors in 10-s intervals for 15 minutes:

• out of seat—James was fully or partially out of his as-signed seat without teacher permission;

• inactive—James was not engaged with the assignedtask, instead sitting and waiting passively;

• playing with objects—James was manipulating objectswithout the teacher’s permission;

• talking out/noise—James was verbalizing inappropri-ately or making sounds with objects, his mouth, orhis body.

These behaviors were collapsed into one category, off task.At the end of each 15-minute period, the teacher coulduse the behavior observation sheet to see the number ofintervals during which James was engaged in on-task be-havior.

Materials

The following materials were used in this study: (a) be-havior observation form, (b) On-Task/Working Monitor-ing Form, and (c) the Weekly Summary Sheet. All threewere adapted from the Tough Kid Tool Box (Jensen et al.,1994).

BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION FORM. This form containedspaces for recording 90 intervals of data for a target childand peer. The form also provided a place where the fol-lowing demographic data could be recorded: studentname, teacher name, grade, date, observer name, class ac-tivity, and class structure (teacher directed whole class,teacher directed small group, or students had indepen-dent work session).

The observation form offered a definition of on-taskbehavior (i.e., student making eye contact with the teacher

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOL. 39, NO. 5, MAY 2004 307

or task and performing the requested task) and eight be-havior codes:

1. talking out/noise,2. out of seat,3. inactive,4. noncompliance,5. playing with object,6. positive teacher interaction,7. negative teacher interaction, and8. neutral teacher interaction.

In this study, data were recorded as on task (checkmark) or off task (zero).

ON-TASK/WORKING MONITORING FORM. This formcontained space to record the following data: studentname, date, and class and a space to record a plus mark ora zero. The following instructions were printed on theform:

When you are in class and think about it, put a “+” in asquare if you are working or studying. Put a “0” in asquare if you are off task and not working. Fill in Row 1first, then Row 2, and so on. You should fill in at least tworows per class.

WEEKLY SUMMARY SHEET. On this sheet, the teachercould record the following data: student name, date, bestdaily score, self-monitored behavior, and morning andafternoon behaviors. The summary sheet contained thefollowing instructions:

• Define one to three behaviors and write them in theboxes.

• Have student record behavior for the morning andthe afternoon each weekday.

• Do not have the student keep track of more thanthree behaviors.

• Have the student write his or her best daily score andweekly average at the top of the form.

Procedures

I used a criterion research, or ABC, design to determinethe impact of the CBM strategy on James’ on-task be-havior (Jenson et al., 1994). In order to increase the du-ration that James stayed engaged in his work, he wasasked to observe and collect data on his own behavior.The teacher gave James a recording form and instructedhim to mark down each time the specified behavior oc-curred.

INTERVENTION. Baseline data were collected for 5 days.The intervention data were also collected for 5 days, dur-ing James’ morning seatwork period. During the third

phase of the study, James was introduced to goal settingand assigned to use this intervention with self-monitoringof his behavior. James’ on-task behavior was compared tothat of a same-age, same-gender neurotypical peer dur-ing the baseline and first intervention phases of the study.

The teacher explained to James that he needed toself-monitor his on-task behavior while working on hishandwriting and phonics. She showed him how to recorda behavior, such as talking out, out of seat, or inactive,each time it occurred, James recorded the information byputting a “+” in a square if he was working or studying ora “0” in a square if he was off task and not working.

James received a recording form for the time period inwhich he was to self-monitor, and the teacher promptedhim to record his behavior during that period. If Jamesdid not record the behavior appropriately, he was alsoprompted to do so. At the end of the recording period,James wrote down the number of target behavior occur-rences on the summary sheet.

CONTINGENCY PROGRAM. To help make the changepermanent, I tied the self-monitoring program to a contin-gency, which was based on James continuing to maintainhis target goals. At the end of each week, he received theWeekly Summary Sheet and was told what the contin-gency would be for the following week. Starting the thirdweek, James was awarded 15 minutes of free time each dayand lots of praise for meeting his goal for the day. Afterthe morning work was completed and checked by theteacher, James could participate in the free-time activitypreviously agreed upon. His options included (a) listen-ing to music or a story using headphones, (b) coloring ordrawing, or (c) playing with a puzzle.

During the final phase of the study, I implementedgoal setting in conjunction with the CBM plan. Beforework began each day, James would set a goal for on-taskbehavior and then monitor his goal throughout the morn-ing. Two additional subjects (draft book writing and read-ing seatwork) were added.

Results

I graphed the baseline data collected over 5 days, and theyindicated a decreasing trend in on-task behavior (i.e., thelength of time that James demonstrated on-task behaviorwas decreasing). The same-age, same-gender neurotypi-cal peer was steady in the time of his on-task behavior.During each intervention phase, the number of intervalsduring which James exhibited on-task behavior steadilyincreased to approach the on-task behavior of his peer(see Table 1).

During baseline, James was on task for an average of17.33% of the intervals (SD = 5.53), compared to hispeer, who was on task an average of 94.89% of the inter-vals (SD = 8.45). By comparison, during the intervention

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

308 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC

phase, James’ on-task behavior increased to 66.44% ofthe intervals (SD = 19.43). His peer’s behavior remainedcomparable to the baseline performance (on task 99.56%of the intervals; SD = .99). As mentioned, during the thirdphase of the study, I added goal setting to the CBM in-tervention. James established a goal for his performanceby indicating whether he would maintain his perfor-mance from day to day. James’ on-task behavior increasedbetween the first and second intervention phases. Also,his behavior appeared to stabilize during the second CBM/goal-setting phase. During the final phase of the study, hewas on task 86.60% of the intervals (SD = 1.14). Table 2reports the results of James’ on-task behavior throughoutthe study.

Discussion

In this study, I evaluated the effectiveness of a CBM tech-nique on the on-task behavior of an 8-year-old boy witha behavior disorder. Overall, the data indicated that theCBM strategy was effective. James exhibited on-task be-havior for increasing periods of time, and he started touse the CBM material by himself by getting the work-sheet he needed before he started the task. He knew howto complete the worksheet and summarize the informa-tion on his weekly worksheet without any promptingfrom the teacher. James was reminded for 2 days how torecord behavior on his sheet. The first day, he looked atthe teacher frequently to see if he was being watched.When he turned in the worksheet, the teacher praisedhim for staying on task. James increased the amount ofhis on-task behavior each day. Gradually, he was able tomonitor his own behavior. By the third day, James pickedup his form and independently monitored his behaviorwithout being prompted.

Limitations

Because this study lasted only 15 days, the results maynot generalize to a longer time period. In addition, I con-ducted the study in a general education setting during thestudent’s morning academic activities. The true test of anintervention would be the ability for the student to gen-eralize the on-task behavior across the day in differentsettings.

Implications for Teachers

Cognitive behavior management is a valuable tool for help-ing students reach their academic and social potentials byproviding teachers with strategies and information on howto support student needs. Cognitive behavior manage-ment provides students with strategies to manage theirown behavior, thereby giving them more independence

Table 1. Number of Intervals ThatJames and a Peer Were On Task

Day James Peer

Baseline

1 21 88

2 19 72

3 17 90

4 12 90

5 9 87

Intervention

6 44 90

7 41 90

8 61 88

9 71 90

10 82 90

Table 2. Number of Inter-vals That James Was OnTask During the Study

# intervals

Day for James

Baseline

1 21

2 19

3 17

4 12

5 9

Intervention I

6 44

7 41

8 61

9 71

10 82

Intervention II

11 87

12 85

13 86

14 88

15 87

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOL. 39, NO. 5, MAY 2004 309

in their daily lives. Through the use of CBM, studentscan gain critical skills they can use throughout their lives.It is imperative that teachers and researchers continue toinvestigate the impact of this technique for children witha variety of exceptionalities across different settings.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Cherry F. Crum, MA, is an educator in an elementary schoolin Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Her current interest is the study ofcognitive–behavioral modification.

REFERENCES

Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Wehmeyer, M. L., Rodi, M. S., & Presley,J. A. (2002). Using self-monitoring to improve performance in gen-eral education high school classes. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 40–54.

Jenson, W. R., Rhodes, G., & Reavis, H. K. (1994). Tough kid tool box.Longmont, CO: Sopris-West.

Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Childs, K. E., & Clarke, S. (1994). Use of a class-wide self-management program to improve the behavior of studentswith emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 14, 445–458.

Levendoski, L. S., & Cartledge, G. (2000). Self-monitoring for ele-mentary school children with serious emotional disturbances: Class-room application for increased academic responding. BehavioralDisorders, 25, 211–124

Mahn, C., & Greenwood, G. E. (1990). Cognitive behavior modifica-tion use of self-instruction strategies by first graders on academictask. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 158–161.

Mitchem, K. J., Young, K. R., West, R. P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM:A classwide peer-assisted self-management program for general ed-ucation classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 111–140.

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., Young, R., & Dodd, J. (1991). A review ofself-management outcome research conducted with students whoexhibit behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 169–179

Shapiro, E. S., DuPaul, B. J., & Bradley-Klug, K. L. (1998). Self-management as a strategy to improve the classroom behavior of ado-lescents with ADHD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 545–555.

Werts, M. G., Zigmond, N., & Leeper, D. C. (2001). Paraprofessionalproximity and academic engagement: Students with disabilities inprimary aged classrooms. Education and Training in Mental Retarda-tion and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 242–440.

by guest on March 18, 2013isc.sagepub.comDownloaded from