assignment

University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO

Psychology Faculty Publications Department of Psychology

9-2011

Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered on a Fixed-Time Schedule Jessica L. Riley University of Nebraska at Omaha

Brian McKevitt University of Nebraska at Omaha, [email protected]

Mark D. Shriver University of Nebraska Medical Center

Keith D. Allen University of Nebraska Medical Center

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub

Part of the Psychology Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Psychology at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended Citation Riley, Jessica L.; McKevitt, Brian; Shriver, Mark D.; and Allen, Keith D., "Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered on a Fixed-Time Schedule" (2011). Psychology Faculty Publications. 217. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub/217

Running head: INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 1

Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered

on a Fixed Time Schedule

Jessica L. Riley, MS and Brian C. McKevitt, PhD1

Mark D. Shriver, PhD and Keith D. Allen, PhD2

1J. L. Riley & B. C. McKevitt, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha,

Omaha, NE. USA.

2M. D. Shriver & K. D. Allen, Department of Psychology, Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of

Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. USA.

Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Brian C. McKevitt,

PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge St., Omaha, NE

68182. Phone: 402-554-2498. Fax: 402-554-2556. E-mail: [email protected].

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 2

Abstract

The effectiveness of fixed-time delivery of attention to increase the on-task behavior of 2

students in general education was examined. The teacher in this study provided attention to

students on a 5-min fixed-time schedule and responded to students in her typical manner between

cued intervals. An ABAB withdrawal design was used to test the effects of the intervention. The

results of this study indicate that a fixed-time schedule of attention was effective in increasing

students’ on-task behavior and decreasing their off-task behavior. Implications of the study for

research and practice are discussed.

Key Words: Fixed time schedule, reinforcement, teacher attention, intervention, on-task

behavior

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 3

Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered

on a Fixed Time Schedule

Classroom management is an important component of effective teaching (Algozzine,

Ysseldyke, & Elliott, 1997). Teachers must be able to keep students engaged in academic tasks,

as well as employ strategies to reduce classroom disruptions and inappropriate classroom

behaviors. Managing inappropriate behaviors and classroom disruptions is time-consuming and

takes away from valuable instructional time and time that students can engage in academic

behaviors. Students who frequently engage in off-task and inappropriate behaviors disrupt the

classroom environment and hinder learning. Teachers working with these students need effective

strategies to increase student compliance and engaged academic behaviors, as well as to reduce

off-task and inappropriate classroom behaviors and disruptions (Alberto & Troutman, 2009).

The implementation of fixed-time (FT) delivery of teacher attention has been found to be

effective in reducing off-task and disruptive behavior in school settings (Austin & Soeda, 2008;

Jones, Drew, & Weber, 2000). Austin and Soeda (2008) found that the delivery of attention

using a FT schedule was effective in reducing the off-task behaviors of two typically developing

third grade students in a general education classroom. After a functional analysis determined

attention to be maintaining both students’ disruptive behavior, the researchers worked with the

classroom teacher to identify a feasible schedule of reinforcement. During the FT attention

condition, the teacher provided the students with attention every 4 min. The teacher praised the

students for on-task behavior and redirected the students if they were off-task. The teacher was

asked to ignore the students’ appropriate and inappropriate behavior that occurred between the

intervals (i.e., extinction).

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 4

Austin and Soeda (2008) found immediate and sustained reductions in the percentage of

intervals off-task using this schedule of FT reinforcement. During the condition in which the

teacher implemented the FT schedule of reinforcement delivery, the students’ off-task behaviors

decreased; following a return to baseline the percentage of intervals off-task for both students

increased, but once the teacher resumed FT reinforcement delivery, the off-task behaviors of the

students immediately decreased. The results were maintained within a different setting and also

when the intervention was implemented by a different teacher.

Austin and Soeda (2008) conceded that extinction was likely a contributing factor to the

intervention’s effectiveness. Given that the teacher ignored the problematic behavior of the

students during the intervention condition, the effects of the intervention may have been

attributed to extinction for off-task behaviors between intervals and increased attention for

students’ on-task behaviors at cued intervals. Another potential explanation offered for the

decrease in off-task behaviors was differential reinforcement. The teacher responded with praise

for on-task behaviors or a brief redirection for off-task behaviors. The researchers reported that

there may have been an increased association between engaging in on-task behaviors and the

delivery of teacher praise.

A FT schedule of attention delivery requires teacher attention be delivered at certain pre-

determined time intervals. FT attention delivery is presumed to work because an individual’s

motivation to engage in problematic behavior to obtain attention may be reduced as a result of

the freely available reinforcer (Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1997). Given that the delivery of attention

is based on time and not occurrences of a target behavior, FT attention delivery is sometimes

referred to as noncontingent reinforcement or NCR (Waller & Higbee, 2010). However, to be

classified as NCR, the stimulus delivered on the time-based schedule should be unrelated to the

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 5

target behavior and not contingent upon its occurrence (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kazdin,

2001). In schools, it may be unlikely that teachers will provide students with comments that are

unrelated to the delivery of desired target behaviors. In fact, teachers are commonly taught to

make behavior-specific praise statements (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). Therefore, providing

teachers with cues to make statements related to praising desired behavior or redirecting

undesired behavior may be considered more acceptable than typical NCR delivery used with

students with more severe disabilities that involves neutral statements.

Furthermore, extinction is a common component of NCR. Teachers are instructed to

ignore problematic behaviors between cued intervals of attention delivery (Alberto & Troutman,

2009). However, teachers may find it challenging and unacceptable to ignore problem

behaviors between intervals of attention, especially when those problem behaviors disrupt the

learning environment. Allowing teachers to address behaviors between intervals of fixed-time

attention might serve to make the intervention more acceptable.

FT attention delivery is an intervention that can be reasonably implemented by a

classroom teacher without a significant amount of time and cost (Austin & Soeda, 2008). The

density of the schedule should depend on the frequency of the problematic behaviors. Leaner

schedules, which may be more feasible for teachers, may be used in the classroom for students

whose off-task or disruptive behavior disrupts their learning or the learning of other students in

the class while denser schedules may be used with students with more severe behaviors.

Mautone et al. (2009) reported that the time and resources required to implement

interventions, as well as the complexity of the intervention, are characteristics that may impact

the treatment integrity of interventions implemented in the classroom. Educators prefer

interventions that are time efficient, minimally intrusive, and that increase appropriate classroom

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 6

behaviors and skills (Elliott, Witt, & Kratochwill, 1991). Given that FT reinforcement delivery

may be a time and resource efficient intervention for teachers to implement in their classroom to

address disruptive behaviors of students, teacher acceptability of the intervention may increase.

Teacher acceptability of the intervention is critical for treatment integrity and intervention

success (Mautone et al., 2009). Austin and Soeda (2008) indicated that involving the teacher in

decisions about the schedule of reinforcement may also have increased acceptability of the

intervention.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the delivery of FT attention

on the increase in on-task behavior and co-occurring reduction in off-task behavior in general

education students. Studies applying FT attention to a general education population are

uncommon but important because FT can be a highly manageable intervention for a general

education teacher to implement (Austin & Soeda, 2008). The present study replicates the study

conducted by Austin and Soeda (2008) thereby adding to the existing evidence for the

effectiveness of a FT schedule of attention as an acceptable method for increasing on-task

behavior and decreasing off-task behavior in a general education setting. This study also

expands on Austin and Soeda’s (2008) study by examining if FT attention delivery is effective in

reducing off-task behaviors without the inclusion of extinction between intervals.

Method

Participants and Setting

Data were collected from two elementary school students and their classroom teacher in a

school located in a small Midwestern U.S. city. One 7-year-old female student, Sally, and one 7-

year- old male student, Joey, were identified by their teacher as displaying off-task behavior,

including not remaining seated or keeping hands to self during large-group instruction, talking to

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 7

peers, calling out, getting out of their seats, disrupting instruction and disturbing other students.

The teacher reported that both students have the academic skills to complete coursework but that

these students engaged in more off-task behavior than their classroom peers. Joey had been

diagnosed with attention-deficit-hyperactive disorder and was taking medication during the

course of the study. The classroom teacher had been teaching elementary-age students for nine

years.

The school in which the study took place had 225 students in grades Kindergarten

through fifth, with 60% of the school’s population eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. This

study took place in the classroom of the teacher and student participants. The classroom had 11

girls and 10 boys at the time of the study.

Recording and Reliability

The variables of interest that were recorded are included in the Behavioral Observation of

Students in Schools (BOSS) developed by Shapiro (2004). These variables included: (a) active

engaged time, defined as “those times when the student is actively attending to the assigned

work” (b) passive engaged time, defined as “those times when the student is passively attending

to assigned work” (c) off-task motor behaviors, defined as “any instance of motor activity that is

not directly associated with an assigned academic task” (d) off-task verbal behaviors, defined as

“any audible verbalizations that are not permitted and/or are not related to an assigned academic

task” (e) off-task passive behaviors, defined as “those times when a student is passively not

attending to an assigned academic activity for a period of at least three consecutive seconds” and

(f) teacher-directed instruction, defined as “those times when the teacher is directly instructing

the class or individuals within the class” (Shapiro, 2004, pp. 38-41). Shapiro designed the BOSS

to be used for classroom observations of independent seatwork, small group, or other

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 8

instructional events. Active and passive engaged time were reported as on-task behaviors in the

results of this study, while off-task motor, verbal, and passive behaviors were coded as off-task

behaviors. The behavioral categories were combined by adding the intervals together.

Direct observations of student on-task and off-task behavior were conducted by the first

author and trained graduate students using a 15-s momentary time sampling recording procedure.

A timer was used to indicate the time intervals when observations by the researchers occurred

and were recorded. At the beginning of the cued interval, the observer(s) looked at the behavior

of the target student or teacher and placed a mark in the appropriate box on the scoring sheet.

Direct observations took place three to four times a week during 30-min sessions in the

classroom during both teacher-led large-group and small-group instruction, as well as

independent and partner work. Observers rotated between each student participant after 5 min of

recording so that each student was observed for a total of 15 min. On some days during

observation sessions, students had to leave for other activities so the observation session was

limited to 12.5 to 13 min per student. Data were recorded for 17 sessions during the fall semester

of the academic school year.

A frequency count of teacher attention towards each student participant was also

recorded; teacher attention included teacher praise and redirection. Teacher praise towards the

student was recorded if the teacher said something positive to the student. Examples of teacher

praise included: “Great job (student name)” and “I like how hard you are working (student

name).” A redirection of student behavior made by the teacher was recorded if the teacher told

the student that he/she should not be engaging in a certain behavior and/or should be engaging in

a different behavior or task. Examples of redirection included: “(Student name), you should be

working on your paper,” “(Student name), you should not be talking to your friends right now,”

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 9

and “Keep your hands to yourself (student name).” Examples of teacher talk that were not scored

include: “(Student name), please read the next section out loud” and “(Student name), point out

on the board which word most correctly fits this sentence.”

The observations were conducted by the first author and a secondary observer for

interrater agreement checks. Graduate students were trained to use the 15-s momentary time

sampling procedure and how to code behaviors using the variables from the BOSS. The training

included teaching and reviewing the procedures, providing examples of behaviors that could be

coded, and also practicing the coding procedures. Trained graduate students simultaneously, but

independently, observed and recorded on-task and off-task behavior of the target students and the

praise and redirection statements made by the teacher during 23.5% of the sessions across all

phases of the study. Interrater agreement was calculated by dividing the sum of intervals the

codes were consistent between observers by the total number of intervals recorded during the

observation session. The mean interrater reliability for on-task and off-task behavior was 95%,

with a range of 80.77% to 100% accuracy. Interrater reliability for teacher praise and redirection

statements was 100%.

Treatment Integrity

To assess procedural integrity during intervention conditions, data were collected to

monitor the delivery of teacher attention to the target students. The delivery of teacher attention

had to have been provided every 5 min. Due to the teacher’s classroom responsibilities, such as

providing direct instruction to the large group or talking with another student, the teacher was

allowed to provide attention to the students up to 5 s after her cue and still have it coded as a

correct delivery. Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of intervals the

teacher provided attention divided by the number of intervals the teacher was cued, then

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 10

multiplying by 100%. Treatment integrity during 8 of the 9 sessions in the intervention

conditions was 100%; one intervention session was implemented with 80% integrity.

Procedure

Informed consent was obtained from the teacher participant and the parents of the student

participants. The author met with the teacher participant to explain the benefits of using FT with

students who display off-task behavior. The author then described the FT procedure, including

the teacher’s role during the baseline and intervention conditions and a brief description of the

data collection procedures and interrater observations.

Functional assessment. The teacher was interviewed using the Functional Behavioral

Assessment Interview Form developed by Gable, Quinn, Rutherford, and Howell (1998). The

purpose of the interview was to develop hypotheses regarding the function of off-task and

disruptive behavior of the student participants. The information obtained during the interview

included a description of the problem behavior, when and where the target behavior was most

and least likely to occur, and what happened before, during, and after the problem behavior.

Direct observations of the student participants were then conducted by the author using anecdotal

recording. Data were recorded on the occurrence and description of the problem behavior, and

what occurred directly before and after the problem behavior of each student participant. The

teacher and the first author used interview and observation information to generate a hypothesis

that the off-task behavior of each student participant was maintained by teacher and peer

attention.

Baseline. During the baseline phase, no changes in teacher behavior were made; the

teacher was asked to respond to the students in her typical manner which consisted of brief

reprimands or redirections for off-task or inappropriate behavior and praise for on-task and

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 11

desirable behavior. Direct observations took place by the first author and secondary observer to

record the on-task and off-task behavior of each student participant. Observations of student

behavior occurred during large and small group teacher-led instruction and independent work

time.

FT attention. The teacher and the author agreed upon a 5-min schedule of reinforcement

which was based upon the baseline levels of teacher attention for each participating student. The

teacher provided attention to each student about every 15 min during baseline. The teacher

agreed that providing the students attention every 5 min seemed feasible and would increase

rates of teacher attention to three times the rate originally provided in the baseline conditions.

Austin and Soeda (2008) chose a 4-min schedule of reinforcement in their study; this was

effective in decreasing off-task behaviors of students. Considering the rates of the students’ off-

task behaviors, we hypothesized that an even leaner schedule of reinforcement could be effective

in decreasing these behaviors.

The teacher was cued to provide attention to the student participants using a Motivaidor®

device that was set to vibrate every 5 min. Upon receiving the cue, the teacher provided brief,

individual attention to each student participant; the students were praised for on-task behavior

and the teacher redirected off-task behavior. The teacher was asked to alternate providing

attention to each student first. During the intervention condition, the teacher was allowed to

redirect and reinforce student participants’ behavior between intervals as she typically would.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

This study utilized an ABAB withdrawal design with both student participants in order to

assess the presence of a functional relationship between intervention implementation and student

behavior. During the baseline (A) condition, the teacher was asked to respond to the student

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 12

participants’ behavior in her usual manner. During the FT attention (B) condition, the teacher

provided attention to the students’ behavior following a vibratory cue at fixed intervals. Between

the cued intervals, the teacher responded to the students in her typical manner. The initial

intervention phase was followed by a withdrawal of the intervention and a return to baseline (A).

The FT attention intervention condition (B) was then reinstated.

The on-task and off-task behaviors of each student were recorded in the same way during

the baseline and intervention phases to allow for an analysis of the effects of the intervention.

This design demonstrates the relations between the implementation of the intervention and the

changes in target behavior (Tankersely, Harjusola-Webb, & Landrum, 2008). In addition, rates

of teacher praise and redirections were recorded for each condition to analyze the effect of the

FT attention intervention on increasing the unprompted rates of teacher attention.

Results

The on-task behaviors of each student are presented in Figure 1. On- and off-task

behaviors were mutually exclusive in the coding system, thus only on-task behaviors are

displayed. For Sally, there is a clear and immediate increase in on-task behaviors at the start of

the intervention, (M=90.43%; range 80% to 96.7%) relative to baseline (M=69.5%; range 50% to

91.7%). This increase in the percentage of intervals of on-task behavior is maintained throughout

the intervention condition. There is an immediate decrease in on-task behavior with a return to

baseline (M=69.58%; range 61.7% to 83.3%); followed by an increase in on-task behaviors when

the intervention is reinstated (M=91.7%; range 83.3% to 96.7%). The mean percentage of

intervals of off-task behavior were greater in both baseline conditions (M=30.95%; range 8.3%

to 50%) in the first baseline and in the second baseline (M=30.43%; range 16.7% to 38.3%)

when compared to the mean percentage of intervals of off-task behavior in both intervention

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 13

conditions (M=9.58%; range 3.3% to 20%) in the first intervention condition and in the second

intervention condition (M=8.3%; range 3.3% to 16.7%).

For Joey, there is a distinct increase in on-task behaviors at the start of the intervention,

which is sustained throughout the intervention condition (M=80%; range 76.7% to 86.7%)

relative to baseline (M=59.85%; range 51.9% to 75%). There is a decrease in the percentage of

intervals of on-task behavior after a return to baseline (M=62.5%; range 48.3% to 71.7%). On-

task behaviors then increase when the intervention condition is reinstated (M=80.05%; range

71.7% to 88.5%). The mean percentage of intervals of off-task behavior were greater in both

baseline conditions (M=40.15%; range 25% to 48.1%) in the first baseline and in the second

baseline condition (M=37.5%; range 28.3% to 51.7%) when compared to the mean percentage of

intervals of off-task behavior in both intervention conditions (M=20%; range 13.3% to 21.7%) in

the first intervention condition and in the second intervention condition (M=18.7%; range 11.5%

to 28.3%).

The rate of teacher attention (i.e., praise and redirection statements) made per minute

during baseline and intervention conditions is presented in Figure 2. The rate of praise statements

made by the teacher to Sally increased during intervention conditions when compared to baseline

conditions. The mean rate of praise statements for Sally during the first baseline condition

(M=.03; range 0 to .10) increased during the intervention condition (M=.17; range .13 to .20).

Praise statements decreased during the second baseline condition (M=.02; range 0 to .07) and

then increased again during the second intervention condition (M=.15; range .07 to .20).

Likewise, the number of redirections for Sally increased during the intervention conditions when

compared to baseline, although redirections occurred less frequently than praise statements in the

intervention conditions. The mean rate of redirection statements during the first baseline

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 14

condition (M=.04; range 0 to .10) increased during the first intervention condition (M=.10; range

.03 to .17). In the second baseline condition, the mean rate of redirections again decreased

(M=.02; range 0 to .03), then increased in the second intervention condition (M=.13; range 0 to

0.13).

The same pattern of increases occurred for Joey; the mean rate of praise statements in the

first baseline (M=0.01; range 0 to .03) and in the second baseline (M=0.02; range 0 to .03)

increased in the first intervention condition (M=.18; range .13 to .20) and in the second

intervention condition (M=.15; range .12 to .20). The mean rate of redirections for Joey in the

first baseline (M=.05; range .03 to .07) and in the second baseline (M=.07; range 0 to .13) also

increased in the first intervention condition (M=.09; range .03 to .17) and in the second

intervention condition (M=.09; range .03 to .20). Like Sally, praise statements occurred more

frequently than redirections for Joey.

Figure 3 depicts the rates of total teacher attention (i.e., praise and redirection statements

combined) during baseline and intervention conditions. As expected, rates of teacher attention

for each student increased considerably following the introduction of FT because of the cued

prompts provided to the teacher. However, a question remained whether the teacher provided

attention beyond the cued prompts, thus demonstrating that she did not engage in extinction

between teacher prompts. For the intervention, the teacher was asked to provide attention to the

students every 5 min, or at a rate of .20 times per min (as depicted by the horizontal line in

Figure 3). Because the rates of attention provided exceed .20 per min during the intervention

conditions, this graph illustrates that the teacher also provided attention to each student between

the cued intervals and thus did not engage in extinction. In fact, when we subtracted the teacher

attention provided on cue from the total teacher attention provided (as illustrated in Figure 3), we

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 15

found that the rates of teacher attention provided without cues in baseline (M=.07 for Joey and

M=.06 for Sally) were almost identical to those provided without cues during the intervention (M

=.08 for Joey and M= .06 for Sally), further demonstrating that the teacher proceeded with her

typical routine between cued prompts.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that the provision of FT attention was effective in

increasing the on-task behaviors of both student participants. With an increase in the percentage

of intervals of student engagement in on-task behaviors, there was a decrease in the occurrence

of incompatible off-task and disruptive behaviors. This study demonstrates that FT attention

delivery can be an effective strategy used to increase the on-task behaviors and decrease the off-

task behaviors of typically-developing students. These findings are similar to the results of the

Austin and Soeda (2008) study in which off-task behaviors of students decreased upon the

implementation of FT.

In this study, FT attention delivery was differentiated from NCR because the attention

provided by the teacher was related to the behaviors she observed. Commonly, teachers make

behavior specific statements, so the provision of attention related to observed behaviors in this

FT intervention has practical applicability for teachers. Furthermore, the extinction component

typically required when implementing FT or NCR was removed for this study, also enhancing its

practical application. Even without the inclusion of extinction between cued intervals, FT was

still effective in increasing the on-task behavior of the student participants. Teachers may be

more willing to implement an intervention which would allow them to respond to student

behaviors between cued intervals (e.g., by redirecting disruptive behavior during instruction).

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 16

The teacher in this study stated that she liked the intervention and that it was easy to use.

She believed that this intervention was not a distraction to learning and teaching in her

classroom. She reported that using the Motivaidor® cueing device reminded her to provide

reinforcement to the students in the study and also to other students in the classroom. The teacher

understood how important it was to provide more frequent attention to these students and also to

provide more positive reinforcement by praising the students for desirable behaviors. She

reported that she is trying to build in more reinforcement for all the students in her class.

This study also indicates that a relatively lean schedule of reinforcement is sufficient in

increasing the on-task behaviors of students. Research by Lalli et al. (1997) also found that lean

schedules of reinforcement were effective in decreasing aggressive behaviors, as long as the

schedule did not result in reinforcement deprivation. The schedule of reinforcement used in this

study was determined after identifying baseline levels of teacher attention towards the students.

The teacher in this study provided teacher attention about every 15 min to each student; in order

to prevent deprivation, the delivery of reinforcement during the intervention conditions was

increased to 5 min for each student. This schedule of reinforcement was acceptable to the

teacher, and increased the amount of teacher attention each student received in the intervention

conditions relative to baseline conditions.

We hypothesize that the provision of teacher attention on a fixed-time schedule of

reinforcement served to weaken the contingency between problem behaviors of the students and

existing reinforcement. Teacher attention became freely available to these students without their

engagement in problematic behaviors. The rate of teacher attention was increased to prevent

deprivation and to provide students with more frequent access to reinforcement. The students

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 17

received teacher praise for positive behaviors more often, and the teacher maintained the ability

to redirect the students if they were off-task.

However, because the teacher’s comments were specific to the behaviors she observed, it

may be the case that increases in on-task behavior resulted from a reinforcing effect of praise,

and decreases in off-task behavior resulted from a punishing effect of redirection statements.

These effects may have occurred independent of an existing contingency that the FT intervention

attempted to remove, especially given the lack of extinction between cued intervals. Further

research is needed to address possible mechanisms for the intervention effects observed in

relation to the content of teacher verbal statements.

The inclusion of an extinction component may be a more essential component of FT if

the target students more frequently engage in off-task behavior or engage in more disruptive

classroom behaviors. The off-task behaviors of the students in this study (e.g. out-of-seat,

fidgeting with objects, etc.) may have been less disruptive to the class compared to other off-task

behaviors (e.g. yelling out answers, running around the room, throwing objects, etc.). Future

research may need to identify the conditions when FT without an extinction component may be

more effective than FT with extinction between cued intervals.

Increasing the rate of attention delivery in this study increased the frequency of teacher

praise and redirection statements for each student. Thus, the FT intervention also served to

increase the number of positive teacher-student interactions, even though redirections continued.

Burnett (2002) found that students who reported positive relationships with their teachers

perceived the overall classroom environment as positive. Although not specifically measured, the

researcher noted anecdotally that the frequency of teacher praise for other students in the

classroom also increased. During FT, the teacher also responded positively to other students in

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 18

the class. The teacher tried to make it less noticeable that she was targeting the student

participants during the study, so she provided praise to other students for engaging in on-task

behaviors. Implementing FT, even if the intervention is directed at only a few students, may

increase the frequency of positive teacher statements towards other students in the classroom

which may lead to a more positive classroom environment.

One limitation of this study was the length of intervention implementation. Future studies

may be conducted to identify strategies to maintain the effects of the intervention over time.

Similarly, there were only four data points per condition and a lack of stability in baseline which

limits interpretation of changes between phases. Another limitation of this study was the class

activity during the time of observation. Observations took place during the same time of day

during most, but not all, sessions. Class activities varied during all the sessions including

combinations of small and large group teacher-led instruction, as well as individual and partner

work. The teacher identified that student participants engaged in more off-task behaviors during

large group teacher-led instruction, so the first author tried to match observations during this

time. However, the different activities observed may have contributed to the variability in data.

Future studies may try to isolate observations during the times when students are engaging in

more off-task behaviors to further identify the effectiveness of FT attention delivery.

An additional limitation of the study was the lack of a functional analysis to accurately

identify a true function of the problematic behavior. While this lack of a functional analysis may

be considered a limitation, the procedures used replicate common practice in schools (i.e.,

interview and observation techniques to hypothesize function; Crone & Horner, 2003). In

addition, there is empirical evidence that descriptive functional assessment procedures may

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 19

produce accurate hypotheses of function (e.g., Alter, Conroy, Mancil, & Haydon, 2008; Lerman,

Hovanetz, Strobel, & Tetreault, 2009; Taylor & Romanczyk, 1994).

Researchers need to continue to work to determine a model for identifying schedules of

reinforcement delivery most effective for promoting positive student behavior and learning in

classrooms. This would help teachers and other education professionals determine the most

appropriate schedule of reinforcement delivery when using FT interventions in schools. FT

interventions with lean schedules of reinforcement may enhance teacher acceptability, thus

promoting the use of this promising intervention.

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 20

References

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., & Elliott, J. (1997). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction.

Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Alter, P. J., Conroy, M. A., Mancil, G., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional

behavior assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and

functional analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 200-219.

Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed-time teacher attention to decrease off-task behaviors

of typically developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 279-283.

Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom

environment. Educational Psychology, 22, 5-16,

Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools.

New York: Guilford.

Elliott, S. N., Witt, J. C., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1991). Selecting, implementing, and evaluating

classroom interventions. In G. Stoner, M. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.). Interventions for

achievement and behavior problems (pp. 99-135). Bethesda, MD: National Association

of School Psychologists.

Gable, R. A., Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., & Howell, K. W. (1998). Functional behavioral

assessments and positive behavioral interventions. Preventing School Failure, 42, 106 -

119.

Jones, K. M., Drew, H. A., & Weber, N. L. (2000). Noncontingent peer attention as treatment for

disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 343-346.

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 21

Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings. Belmont, Ca:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997). Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for

severe problem behavior: Some procedural variations. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 30, 127-137.

Lerman, D. C., Hovanetz, A., Strobel, M., & Tetreault, A. (2009). Accuracy of teacher-collected

descriptive analysis data: A comparison of narrative and structured recording formats.

Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(2), 157-172.

Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J., Jitendra, A. K., Tresco, K. E., Junod, R.V., & Volpe, R. J. (2009).

The relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability of reading interventions

for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in Schools, 46, 919-

931.

Shapiro, E.S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York:

Guilford.

Tankersley, M., Harjusola-Webb, S., & Landrum, T.J. (2008). Using single-subject research to

establish the evidence base of special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44,

83-90.

Taylor, J. C., & Romanczyk, R. G. (1994). Generating hypotheses about the function of student

problem behavior by observing teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

27, 251-265.

Waller, R. D. & Higbee, T. S. (2010). The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and

appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 149-153.

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 22

Figure 1. Percentage of intervals in which on-task behaviors were observed for Sally (top) and

Joey (bottom) during baseline and intervention conditions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

P e r c e n

ta g

e o

f In

te r v

a ls

O n

-t a

sk

Sessions

Baseline BaselineFT FT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

P e r c e n

ta g

e o

f In

te r v

a ls

O n

-t a

sk

Sessions

Joey

Baseline BaselineFT FT

Sally

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 23

Figure 2. Rate of teacher attention per minute during baseline and intervention conditions.

Teacher attention is depicted as either praise statements or redirection of student behavior.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

R a

te o

f A

tt e n

ti o

n

Sessions

Praise

Redirection

Baseline BaselineFT FT

Sally

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

R a

te o

f A

tt e n

ti o

n

Sessions

Praise

Redirection

Baseline BaselineFT FT

Joey

INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR USING FIXED TIME 24

Figure 3. Rates of teacher attention during baseline and intervention conditions for each student.

The teacher was prompted to provide attention to the students at a rate of .20 (as depicted by the

horizontal line). During the FT conditions, the teacher also provided unprompted attention to the

students between cued intervals.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

R a

te o

f T

e a

c h

e r A

tt e n

ti o

n

Sessions

Sally Rate

Joey Rate

Baseline BaselineFT FT