Self-management interventions to reduce disruptive classroom behavior.

Abstract

Calling out, engaging in side conversations with peers, getting out of one's seat, playing with objects-although common to many classroom settings, these types of disruptions can significantly interfere with the learning of the students involved and their larger community of peers (Walker et al., 1994). A 1995 poll conducted by the American Federation of Teachers found that 17% of classroom teachers reported losing 4 or more hours of instructional time each week due to disruptive behavior (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2003-2004. As such, a great deal of empirical attention has been paid over the past half century to the development and evaluation of teacherdirected strategies for reducing disruptive behavior; those strategies have ranged from the use of deliberate praise and ignoring to token economies and group contingencies (Stage & Quiroz, 1997). Although positive behavior change has been documented, a central limitation of teacher-directed interventions is that behavior remains externally managed. The importance

Internal Factor Structure and Convergent Validity Evidence: The Self-Report Version of Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory

“…Prior research has shown discipline referrals to be related to a wide range of behavioral issues, including disruptive behaviors, social skills deficits, poor behavioral control, and school dropout (Pas, Bradshaw, & Mitchell, ). Given that deficient self‐regulatory skills are often linked with many of these behavioral problems (Barkley, ; Briesch & Briesch, ), we anticipated that the SRSI‐SR would exhibit significant relations to office disciplinary referrals. More specifically, we expected to observe negative relations between discipline referrals and the two adaptive self‐report subscales and positive relations between discipline referrals and the maladaptive regulatory subscale.…”

Implementing self-management within a group counseling context: Effects on academic enabling behaviors

“…The individual then administers self‐reinforcement depending on the result of this evaluation (e.g., delivering positive self‐statements for meeting a goal, restricting rewards for not meeting a goal). Because Kanfer's theory was generated through research with adults, the extent to which cognitive processes are similar among children remains unclear (Briesch & Briesch, ). Given children's limited metacognition, setting individual goals, conducting reflective evaluations, and providing behavioral feedback within discussions with an adult may help to scaffold developing self‐evaluation processes, and ensure that the self‐evaluation and self‐reinforcement phases of Kanfer's theory actually occur.…”