Student Behavior Monitoring 1
RUNNING HEAD: Student Behavior Monitoring
Student Behavior Monitoring: Effects on Classroom Behavior
Rachael Hale
EPS 523
Northern Illinois University

Student Behavior Monitoring 2
Student Behavior Monitoring: Effects on Classroom Behavior
Introduction
I have been teaching high school students with behavior and emotional disorders for three years. Although a very challenging job, I love my students and the excitement that they bring to the classroom. During my years of teaching I have struggled to find new ways to help my students become successful. Many times, students of this type have had only negative experiences within the education system. They see school as a place where their failures stand out. It is my job to change these attitudes, to make them feel success, and to give them a place that they enjoy coming to everyday.
One of the strategies that I have used, and that has been successful for me, has been the use of self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is an intervention that helps students develop an awareness of both their problem behaviors and the improvements they are capable of making all on their own (e.g., Rinholm, 2002). I have used this strategy during a school-wide; first period class called Empowerment Skills . This class combines the modeling of social skills through role-play with an intense discussion format centering on moral development. My students are responsible for determining their own grade in this class. At the end of the period, they confer with me on their participation and behavior and then they assign themselves a point total for the day. I never change the points that they award themselves, but instead I encourage and praise their honesty in self-reporting.
Upon implementing this system during my first period class, the students seemed to be much more aware of their behavior during class time. After doing this for the last two years and finding it rewarding for both the students and myself, I began to wonder what the effects would be to having my students evaluate their whole day. Finding success for

Student Behavior Monitoring 3 my students for only one period wasn't enough to satisfy me, as I felt I needed to do more.
Students at my school operate on a level system. They can either be on Level 1 or
Level 2. Level 2 is preferred because it means that the students have earned 80% of their total behavior points for the week. Level 2 carries with it privileges and rewards that
Level 1 does not. Behavior point sheets follow the students from class to class, and students are given either a 0 or a 1, depending on their behavior during class. Students are able to view these sheets at any time, so they are always aware of their status. This, however, seemed to have little effect on my homeroom/first period students. I wanted to know that when they left my room to attend classes for the rest of the day that they would continue to be aware of their behavior in relation to their success overall. This led me to my research question: will having students analyze their behavior monitoring chart result in consistent behavior on a weekly basis?
My hypothesis was based on the success I had found with my first period selfmonitoring system. I naturally assumed that having students analyze their whole day would result in a heightened awareness of their behavior. I began my inquiry by researching the literature. Self-monitoring is especially valuable to at-risk or behaviorally disordered students (Roemer, 1993). Often, others view my students as different because of the school that they attend, and quite appropriately, the way that they behave. I wanted them to feel like a part of something good, something that they could be proud of. Whole class self-monitoring made sense for my students because it would help them to develop structure, awareness, and responsibility (Roemer, 1993). I wanted my students to feel successful in school by making change on their own. If self-monitoring was successful,

Student Behavior Monitoring 4 then my students would know that they could change their own behavior, and that they could accept the credit for improvement and subsequent rewards (Rinholm, 2002).
Method
The six students in this study were all assigned to my homeroom and first period class at a rural alternative school setting that serves twelve school districts in two counties. I am also the existing case manager for these students. The school currently enrolls 76 students ranging from grades six to twelve. The sample was comprised of five boys and one girl. All participants are diagnosed primarily with a behavior disorder, but three students have a secondary diagnosis of learning disability. Students are given pseudonyms in this paper to protect their anonymity.
I began data collection by informing the students that we were going to try something new at the beginning of class each day. I told them that I was looking for new ways to help them stay on Level 2 each week, and that I would like their cooperation.
The students obliged, and I promised them that if they did not like it at the end of the month, we would stop. I liked that the students were given some control and ownership over this project, rather than me just instructing them to complete the directions.
Data was collected over a 9-week period, beginning in February and ending in
April. The first three weeks I gathered baseline data by computing weekly averages from the student's behavior point sheets. I gathered these data per individual student. The next three weeks took the duration of March, with one week off for spring break. This was the intervention phase, of which the students were now an active part. Each student was given a grid with his or her name on it, as well as dates for the whole month of March
(see Figure 1). Each morning the students were given their point sheets from the day

Student Behavior Monitoring 5 before. They then charted their point total for that day in the form of a bar graph. The last three weeks I collected more baseline data by again recording the weekly averages off of the student's behavior point sheet.
After compiling all of the quantitative data, numbers were entered into line graphs showing each student's progress during the initial baseline, intervention, and final baseline phases. Because of the small sample size and single group comparison, a basic statistical approach was taken, using averages and percents. I also chose to use visual analysis to report results on a single subject basis. Line graphs were chosen for this purpose.
Results
Results of the research proved to be both satisfying and thought provoking. The initial baseline data were taken during the first three weeks of data collection and show that each student functioned at a different level. This is true of my students, as each of them is an individual. Success for one student varies from that of another student. The initial baseline showed that each student experienced some success, at or above the 80% criterion level (see Figures 2 and 3). The initial baseline also shows, however, that this success was inconsistent for most students (see Figures 2 and 3). Two students, Greg and
Mitch, show dramatic drops in averages during week two of the initial baseline phase
(see Figure 3). Greg had three unexcused absences for this week, which resulted in three days of all zeros on his behavior point sheet (see Figure 3). Mitch, similarly, had two unexcused absences during week two, which resulted in two days of all zeros on his behavior point sheet (see Figure 3). Overall, the data agrees with my original

Student Behavior Monitoring 6 acknowledgment that my students were inconsistent in their behavioral success, thus the need for an intervention.
The intervention phase of the data collection period resulted in positive outcomes for most of my students. During this three-week phase, five of the six students rose above their initial baseline average, and achieved Level 2 status for at least one week (see
Figures 2 and 3). One student actually dropped below his initial baseline average, though he was able to maintain a Level 2 status for two of the three weeks (see Figures 2 and 3).
During this phase, I was pleased to experience one week where all six of my homeroom students were on Level 2 (see Figures 2 and 3). This is highly unusual given the time of year that this research took place.
The final baseline phase resulted in some confusing data in terms of my hypothesis. During this phase, students were not charting their daily point totals, but I was still collecting data on them. I had originally suspected that the students would drop from their high level status once the charting phase was omitted, however, this proved to be false. Three out of six students actually rose above their intervention phase averages, and were on Level 2 for all three weeks (see Figures 2 and 3). The other three students dropped below their intervention phase averages, but only one dropped out of Level 2 status (see Figures 2 and 3). The results indicate that the intervention was successful for most students, however, once the intervention ceased, 50% of the students still experienced as much, if not more success than with the intervention.
Discussion
The results both support and raise questions about my hypothesis. I was pleased to see that, as I had predicted, my students responded well to the intervention. Analyzing

Student Behavior Monitoring 7 their behavior charts really did seem to improve their overall behavior. All students experienced Level 2 status for at least one of the three weeks, which as I mentioned, is phenomenal. Usually, students may experience Level 2 status as a group during the first weeks of a new school year, or during the last weeks of the existing school year. Whole homerooms usually do not experience Level 2 status together during the weeks leading up to spring break. Typically, students tend to act out more frequently based on the anxiety they feel leading up to a big change in schedule.
When I compare the initial baseline data with that of the intervention data, I find myself doubting the actual intervention. For example, are the results wholly based on the self-monitoring, or are they a reflection of a whole program? During the three weeks that the intervention was taking place, there were other incentives going on within the school building which could have had some effect in the outcome of behavior averages. At that particular time there were incentives for a large, exciting field trip and a Kiss the Pig contest being held by our Dean of Students and Principal. In the weeks following, I came to the conclusion that the results probably are a combination of in-school incentive programs running during March, and my student's charting of their own behavior point sheets. In either case, my goal was reached, as my students did experience success at a fairly consistent level during the intervention phase.
During the intervention phase there were occurrences that I noted that could be useful to someone interested in conducting similar research, or if I were to do this again.
On most days, students were very cooperative in charting their progress. On some occasions, however, individual students would refuse to participate with the class in filling out their charts. One student, Dave, had an especially poor week behaviorally

Student Behavior Monitoring 8 during the end of our data collection phase (see Figure 2). Once his behavior point sheet from the day before was passed out, and the he had a chance to look over it, Dave became upset and refused to complete the charting task. Further questioning led me to believe that Dave did not like to visually display his poor day on a chart, which would serve as a further reminder to him that he had behaved poorly. In the situations that this occurred,
Dave would complete the missing day when given another opportunity at a different time.
Through this process I learned that the students need consistent praise in terms of the honesty and accuracy of their charting, and not necessarily on their behavior the day before (Rinholm, 2002). Not only does this set a good example for others who may not be accurately reporting, but also it takes the emphasis away from the past and puts it on the present and future. I did not have any problems with my students falsely reporting their point totals. As mentioned earlier, students have access to their point sheets throughout the day, but for some reason, also being able to see it in a bar graph format pleased them.
Many times students would seem amazed and even proud of those tall lines that emerged before them on their graphs. In the same respect, students often commented on their displeasure and embarrassment at the short lines that emerged on the papers before them.
Through this process, many insightful and class bonding discussions took place. As a class we were able to more openly discuss positive versus negative choices. Although we engage in this activity often, students seemed more open in sharing their experiences than usual. They also seemed less embarrassed at opening up due to the fact that everyone else was participating under the same circumstances that they were. I do believe that there was a heightened awareness and hidden competition formulated between and among my students during this research process.

Student Behavior Monitoring 9
During the last three weeks of my data collection, student charting was halted.
On the first day without the charts, students questioned me as to what I had done with them and why we weren't doing them anymore. Clearly dependence, or at least incorporation into routine, was developing. I collected three more weeks of baseline data without the use of any interventions, and it was these results that startled me the most. I had expected that the weekly averages would once again drop after the charting had stopped, but in fact, most students continued their success and even improved. Not that this is something to be disappointed about, but it did diverge from my original premise.
Half of the students continued to improve in their behavior averages after charting had ceased. Even if the students fell below the intervention averages, all students stayed within a few percentages of these. Most remarkable to me was that during the first week of no charting, all students stayed almost at or rose above their intervention averages.
This made me think that there was some carry over in awareness on the student's part.
In drawing conclusions from my research, I have decided that the best action research project, including this one, is one that continues on. I feel that my data and my results are skewed because of the lack of time with which I had to complete this project.
I believe that, as Roemer (1993) indicates, students need to have enough time to gradually take over, as they need to monitor for a long enough period of time to apply self-monitoring to work habits and learning. For this reason, I believe that a better, more effective way to conduct this research would be to use this year as an initial baseline for my students. Most of this year, with the exception of three weeks, has existed without the students charting their behavior point totals. Next year, when school begins, I plan to start the data collection process again in the same manner that was used for this analysis. I am

Student Behavior Monitoring 10 fairly certain that my homeroom will remain virtually the same, with the addition or subtraction of one or two students. At the end of next year, I will have a year's worth of data to compare to the time-related baseline data from this school year. My assumption is that this will produce powerful data in terms of students evaluating and being responsible of their own behavior, as well as recognizing that they are capable of positive change.
Students who show a small interest in changing their problem behaviors often are not aware of the power that they have to initiate the necessary changes (Rinholm, 2002).
For me, action research has proven to be a useful tool in gaining insight into my teaching, as well as helping to decipher questions that I have about my students. I have always understood the value of praise for a student, and this project reiterated that fact.
As these students saw their successes on paper, and heard it in words from me, they felt important and triumphant. Use to having only their faults recorded and spoken of by school authority figures, my students received a chance to hear and see otherwise. I think students charting their own progress can be beneficial for any student population and classroom, but especially for the at-risk and behaviorally disordered population. This is another of the many classroom and behavior management strategies that can work if the teacher is willing to donate the time and commitment.

Student Behavior Monitoring 11
References
Rinholm, J. (2002). Classroom behavior strategies . Retrieved February 18, 2003, from http://www.members.rogers.com/jrinholm/index.htm
.
Roemer, F. (1993). Whole class self-monitoring. Retrieved February 18, 2003, from http://www.pb5th.com/selfmoni.shtml
.

Student Behavior Monitoring 12
Figure 1
Behavior Monitoring
Chart
5
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
6
1
0
Tues Wed Thu rs
Fri Mon Tues Wed Thu rs
Fri Mon Tues Wed Thu rs
Fri
3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/17 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21

Student Behavior Monitoring 13
Figure 2
*Dave
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Ba se lin e
In te rv en tio n
Ba se lin e
*Each baseline and intervention phase is 3 weeks in duration
*Mack
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Baseline Intervention Baseline
*Each baseline and intervention phase is
3 weeks in duration
*Jackie
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
B as el in e
In te rv en tio n
B as el in e
*Each baseline and intervention phase is 3 weeks in duration
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2

Figure 3
Student Behavior Monitoring 14
*Greg
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
B as el in e
In te rv en tio n
B as el in e
*Each baseline and intervention phase is 3 weeks in duration
*Mitch
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
B as el in e
In te rv en tio n
B as el in e
*Each baseline and intervention phase is 3 weeks in duration
*Jack
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
B as el in e
In te rv en tio n
B as el in e
*Each baseline and interval phase is 3 weeks in duration
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2
Baseline 1
Intervention
Baseline 2