1. Running Header: THE EFFECT OF SELF-MONITORING Meredith P.1
The Effects of Self-Monitoring on Off-Task Behavior
Kelsey Meredith
SED 350
Taylor University
November 19, 2012

2. Meredith P.2
Functional Behavioral Assessment
Pseudonym- John
Background Information:
John is a five year old African American boy attending school at Allen Elementary. He is
currently in a regular education classroom, but is pulled out for group work outside of the
classroom throughout the week. In the regular classroom for classwork he sits at a table with four
other students, but his desk is an extension of the normal table. This is an attempt to prevent him
from being distracted or distracting others. He does not take any medication for controlling his
behavior or for illness. The purpose of this assessment is to examine and address John’s off-task
and outspoken behavior in order to keep him and those around him more focused.
Functional Assessment Interview:
Through a teacher interview, it was discussed that John would be a good child for evaluation
because he is very rambunctious, and that tends to interfere with his ability to listen, work, and
follow the directions the teacher gives. He often talks out in group discussion, and this distracts
the other students or does not allow them to answer questions on their own. The teacher does not
believe the behavior is malicious, but it is a distraction. Because he is distracting to both himself
and others, it affects not only his own education but that of his peers. Through informal
interactions with his grandmother, in my professional opinion, she does not agree with the way
he acts and is doing her best to deal with his inappropriate behavior. She asks the teacher to
notify her if he is having a bad day and provides him with discipline at home. Though she means
well, she may not always use the best tactics to deal with John’s behavior. One time while I was
working with John, she disapproved of the way he was interacting with me. As part of her

3. Meredith P.3
reprimand she threatened to send him back to live with his mother. Constant threats of this type
of punishment may do more harm than good.
Observation:
Throughout my observations of John, I began to see a pattern in his behavior. His inappropriate
behavior fell under a few categories: speaking out of turn, getting out of his seat without being
told, not listening when instructed, talking to others when it is not permitted, distracting others
who are working. The antecedents to these behaviors were not easily detectable because they
were often not in response to obvious triggers like punishment or reprimand. It was often the
setting that was most telling of his oncoming behavior. When sitting at the tables for work he
likes to get out of his seat, talk to his peers about unrelated topics, and not follow directions
given to him. When at the carpet he often speaks out of turn or without raising his hand. The
result of his behavior is most commonly attention, whether it be positive or negative from the
teacher or his peers. When he speaks out it is either accepted because he has the right number, or
he is addressed and told to stop talking out. When he talks to his friends or moves about the
classroom he is talked to or told to sit down. Either way he is always addressed.
Summary and Recommendation:
John’s actions consist of attention-seeking and off-task behavior. This behavior is often
preempted by regular classroom activities that allow for easy talking to partners and peers as
well as activities that are designed for structured feedback from the students. The BIP should
address the function of attention for John and provide a replacement behavior that is inconsistent
with speaking out and talking with peers during personal work at the desks.
Behavior Intervention Plan

4. Meredith P.4
Background Info:
Student: John Grade: Kindergarten School: Allen Elementary
Date Developed: November 1, 2012 Date Implemented: November 8, 2012
Target Behavior/Description of Behavior:
Behavior- disruptive and off task behavior, not obeying the teacher, speaking out of turn
Behavior Described- speaking to peers during independent seatwork, speaking to the teacher
before being called upon and without raising his hand, getting out of his seat without being told,
not waiting for instructions and going on to new steps before being told, distracting others who
are working by talking to them and doing things on their work.
Baseline Data Results:
The baseline was determined by observing John’s off-task behavior at thirty second intervals.
According to the data collected, off-task behavior occurred anywhere between forty and fifty
percent of the time. The most often times for the behavior to occur were during seatwork and
carpet time.
Hypothesis Statement:
John exhibits off-task and disruptive behavior such as speaking without being called upon,
talking to peers during independent seatwork, and getting out of his seat when the teacher is
talking at carpet time or he is to be working on assignments independently. The function of this
behavior is to attracted attention to himself from either his peers or the teacher.
DesiredReplacement Behavior/Intervention Goal:

5. Meredith P.5
John will raise his hand whenever he wants to speak at the carpet or during seatwork. This will
serve as an incompatible replacement behavior because John cannot perform most of his
inappropriate behavior with the requirement to raise his hand before speaking. This will also
serve to eliminate his chatter with his classmates during seatwork because raising his hand will
not allow him to speak with them for the most part.
Positive Behavior Support:
Consistency with the already implemented classroom behavior plan will help to keep the
behavior contained. Explaining instructions before the students move from the carpet to seatwork
could decrease the ability to move ahead on projects before the teacher has gone through the
steps. Playing music while the students are working at their seats will decrease the silence in the
classroom and give him something to listen to instead of talking with his friends. Working hard
to answer him when he does successfully raise his hand as well as calling on him to answer
questions at the carpet will reinforce the behavior of raising his hand instead of just speaking out
to get attention.
Strategies to teach new behavior:
John is a smart student and able to understand instructions when he is able to sit and focus. In
order to explain the new strategy that will be implemented it can be explained to him in the
simplest way possible in order for him to understand. Because he is a kindergartener it will be
important to keep the steps as basic as possible. He should not be in the presence of other
students during the explanation. A table in the hallway would be appropriate after classes have
started and the students are in their respective rooms. I will be implementing a form of self-
assessment in order for John to take responsibility for his own behavior. According to an article

6. Meredith P.6
by Clunies-Ross, Little, and Kienhuis (2008), “students’ on-task behavior increases significantly
through the use of proactive strategies” rather than using reactive strategies like disapproval or
punishment (p. 696). In regards to the use of self-monitoring specifically, Webber and others
(1993) reviewed twenty-seven studies done on the practice and concluded that it increased on-
task behavior as well as giving the students a sense of responsibility for their own behavior. In
order to explain to John what he is to do, I will first explain to John what his inappropriate
behaviors are. After that I will explain the replacement behavior. I will explain that I want him to
speak only after he has raised his hand and the teacher has called on him. After that I will show
him the self-monitoring sheet. I will explain that every time I tap him on the shoulder he will
have to mark whether he has raised his hand appropriately or if he has spoken out of turn to the
teacher or his classmates. He will put a mark under the column with a smiley face if he has
behaved appropriately, or he will put a mark under the unhappy face is he has not. If he fills the
table and more than three spaces are marked under the smiley face he will receive a sticker. I will
tell him that at the end of the day he will receive a prize for each sticker he has earned. I then
will ask him to make a goal for how many stickers he is going to earn that day.
Possible Reinforcers:
The stickers in and of themselves are meant to be a reinforcer, and he will be allowed to choose
what sticker he wants on his table. The prizes given at the end of the day can be a variety of
things. The plan is to use starburst and Hershey kisses and allow him to choose among the two.
Other prizes could include different candy, extra recess time, extra computer time, extra time to
play a game, classroom leader for recess or lunch, small games or toys, ect. Another thing that
could be worked in after he is comfortable with the system is to use multiple stickers to receive a
larger prize such as lunch with the teacher, a larger toy like a stuffed animal, jump rope, chalk,

7. Meredith P.7
ect., or classroom leader for a whole week. It would also be good to perform a stimulus
preference assessment to determine what would be most reinforcing to him.
Consequences for inappropriate behavior:
Inappropriate behavior will be disciplined according to the current disciplinary plan enacted in
the general classroom. This system is a simple point system. If the teacher sees them showcasing
inappropriate classroom behavior (as stated on their classroom rules list) then she will give them
a 1. It is simply a checkmark on a paper with their name on it. If they misbehave again they get a
2, and one more time would result in a 3. If they reach to the number three, they are sent for a
time out on a mat facing away from the rest of the classroom and their peers. When the time out
is over the student returns to the classroom activity, whatever it may be. If they get up to 3 again
they are sent to the office for a call home. The system resets itself with every new section of the
class, so typically it only lasts for thirty minutes. This system works well because the students
are so young. For misbehavior, John will have to place a mark in the unhappy column, and if he
gets more than two in that column, he will not receive a sticker. Not getting a sticker means he
will not receive at least one prize he could have earned at the end of the day. For extreme
breaches in behavior taking away stickers could be used as a form of punishment.
How to determine effectiveness:
There will be two forms of measurement to determine if the behavior intervention plan is
successful or not. One form of assessment is the self-assessment that John does. To make sure
that this assessment is accurate, there must be another observer checking his assessment and
making sure he is honest on his table. This assessment can be performed in the same manner
used to assess the baseline. Watching for off-task behaviors and noting whether they are present

8. Meredith P.8
or absent at thirty second intervals. Tap John on the shoulder every two minutes for him to mark
whether he was behaving appropriately or not. Make sure that his self-assessment matches yours
and reward him if he is performing the assessment correctly and honestly. This could be in the
form of extra stickers or prizes at the end of the day.
Results
Data:
Baseline- the data for baseline on-task behavior ranged anywhere from fifty to sixty percent on-
task. It stayed very close in that range and there were no significant outliers.

9. Meredith P.9
Intervention- the data ranged from sixty-five to eighty-five percent on task. This set of data had a
larger scope of behavior than the baseline data. This does show an upward slope and the trend
line is climbing from left to right.
Summary of results:
The BIP did appear to be affective though it was only implemented for one day. The data shows
that the occurrence of on-task behavior was increasing anywhere from five to twenty-five
percent. The baseline behavior was not terrible, but there is an obvious increase in positive and
appropriate behavior according to the observation done during the intervention. The rising trend
line displays the increase in on-task behavior that occurred throughout the intervention session.
This increase ranged from five percent more on-task all the way up to twenty-five percent more
on-task. This shows as obvious increase in appropriate behavior that was directly affected by the
implementation of the self-monitoring system. There were a few things that hindered the data
from being more accurate and the plan having even greater results. The plan was only able to be
implemented once for a three hour period. Because I am a lab student, I only go in once a week,
and I was not able to be more consistent with the behavior intervention. I intended to have
another set of data for day two of the intervention, but John’s brother passed away earlier in the
week, and it would not have been fair or accurate to test the behavior intervention the second
week. For the future, I would highly suggest continuing with this course of action and being
consistent with it. He responded well, and if it was applied regularly it could be gradually faded
out to longer and longer periods of time before self-evaluation. It would also be a good idea to
assess his stimulus preference in order to give him rewards that would motivate him the greatest.

10. Meredith P.10
Resources
Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive
classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student
behavior. Educational Psychology, 22(6), 693-710. doi:10.1080/01443410802206700
Webber, Jo. (1993). Research on Self-Monitoring as a Behavior Management Technique in
Special Education Classrooms: A Descriptive Review. Remedial and Special Education,
14(2), 38-56.