Download The Utilization of Behavior Management in

ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 1985, 2, 338-346
The Utilization of Behavior Management
in Mainstreaming in Physical Education
John M. Dunn
Oregon State University
H.D. Bud Fredericks
Teaching Research, Monmouth, OR
The mainstrearning of handicapped students into physical education classes is dependent upon teachers who can provide successful learning experiences. The application
of behavior management concepts appears to be an instructional technique which physical
educators should consider in designing quality mainstreaming experiences. Studies were
reviewed that report the application of behavior management principles in various curricular areas including physical education. Additional research is needed to substantiate the importance of behavior management techniques in helping to create a favorable
environment in the mainstreamed physical education class.
The successful mainstreaming of handicapped students into physical education
classes depends upon the teacher's ability to create a favorable learning environment in
which handicapped and nonhandicapped students learn and practice specific motor and
physical fitness tasks. Physical education instructors who teach a mainstreamed class may
find that much class time is spent managing inappropriate student behavior. There are
several reasons for this: students' behavior patterns, nonhandicapped children's negative
response to their handicapped peers, and the teacher's own inexperience with behavior
management techniques. The need for physical educators to upgrade their knowledge of
behavior management skills is critical (Dunn & French, 1982).
The purpose of this paper is to persuade physical education teachers that they
should seriously consider behavior management techniques as a teaching tool. The evidence
for this persuasion is addressed in these major questions: Is it appropriate to use behavior
management in mainstreamed settings? Have behavior management techniques been used
in physical education settings? What are some considerations if one is to succeed with
behavior management techniques in a physical education setting? Finally, this paper presents some pointers for further research in this area.
Behavior Management in a Mainstreamed Environment
The first question, "Is it appropriateto use behavior management strategies in mainstreamed
settings?" is answered in the affirmative. There are sufficient examples of exemplary
Request reprints from Dr. J.M. Dunn, Dept. of Physical Education, 214 Langton Hall,Oregon
State University, Cowallis, OR 97331.
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
339
behavior management techniques used in classes with nonhandicapped students, and in
mainstreamed environments, to indicate that the use of such techniques has value and can
be applied to children in mainstreamed physical education classes. The techniques used
in the regular classroom are many and varied but they essentially focus on teacher response
to children's behavior and on the establishment of certain rules and contingencies.
Walker, Hops, and Fiegenbaum (1976) demonstrated various effects of teacher
praise, token reinforcement (points), and cost contingency (the loss of earned points) in
changing the classroom behavior of disruptive children. This study suggested that a combination of teacher praise, tokens, and cost contingency was more effective than either
teacher praise alone or teacher praise and tokens in combination. This study reinforced
what Patterson (1974) had previously found, that a combination of reward and punishment is the best method of controlling behavior. These techniques were later demonstrated
in a variety of studies. Humphrey, Karoly, and Kirschenbaum (1978) found that selfmanagement techniques using both self-reward and self-imposed fines could be successfully
employed with handicapped students in integrated settings. Both that study and one by
Marholin and Steinman (1977) demonstratedthat behavior problems should not be treated
in isolation. Although there is need for additional research on the effect of behavior management techniques in mainstreamed settings, the findings to date suggest that this approach
can be successfully implemented in integrated classrooms.
Behavior Management in Physical Education Settings
The second question, "Have behavior management techniques ever been used in physical
education settings?" likewise is answered in the affirmative. Although few studies have
applied behavior management concepts in a physical education environment, those few
studies do indicate there is no reason why this approach cannot be successful.
Behavior management techniques have been employed in physical activity programs
to help handicapped students build skills, but few studies have analyzed the effect of using
these techniques to remediate inappropriate behavior in the gym. Studies have reported
that reinforcement techniques improve motor proficiency and enhance the development
of physical fitness.
Auxter (1969) observed that higher levels of functioning and faster learning rates
in motor skill development were found with emotionally disturbed children who were reinforced through a system of tokens. These findings were obtained with 10 emotionally disturbed children 9 to 12 years of age.
Several investigators have compared the effect of various reinforcement strategies
with handicapped students. Schack and Ryan (1978) conducted a study with five trainable
mentally retarded youngsters to analyze four different treatment strategies on two motor
tasks: a bean bag toss and a ring toss. They concluded that reinforcement procedures in
general led to more effective learning, and that the greatest gains were made when social
praise was paired with the giving of tokens. The other treatment procedures, in descending order of effectiveness, included social reinforcement only, token reinforcement only,
and instruction only with no reinforcement.
Heitman (1982) concluded that social reinforcement, particularly verbal praise,
was effective in improving the accuracy and speed of motor tasks with trainable and educable
mentally retarded boys. Social praise was found to be more effective in enhancing performance than merely providing factual information about the student's motor task speed
and accuracy.
Dunn and Fredericks
340
The effect of reinforcement with motor tasks has also been analyzed with severely
handicapped boys. In a study of 6 subjects, Bishop (1981) found that reinforcement procedures improved attentional behavior. He also concluded that primary or sensory reinforcers were superior to the use of social praise alone in teaching the subjects to attend
to specific tasks. However, Bishop reported that the relationship is not clear between attentional behavior and the occurrence of successful motor performance during reinforced
and nomeinforced conditions.
Leme (1982) compared the effect of tangible reinforcement plus social praise
versus social praise only on the physical fitness performance of severely handicapped
students. The findings of this study suggest that the combination of tangible reinforcement plus social praise was superior to social praise only on sit-up performance. No difference between reinforcement treatments was found for the five other physical fitness
items that comprise the AAHJ?ER Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded
(Johnson & Londeree, 1976).
Two major studies demonstrate the use of behavior management techniques to
remediate inappropriate behavior in a physical education setting. McKenzie and Rushall
(1974) improved attendance in a competitive swimming environment by marking attendance at practice, thereby publicly praising such performance. These same authors (1980)
reduced inappropriate behaviors by controlling the coaches' verbal feedback to the swimmers and by using a behavior technique called disqualification. Although both conditions
decreased the number of inappropriate behaviors, the latter was more effective.
Major Considerations for Use in Physical Education Settings
Our experience indicates there are four primary questions teachers ask about applying
behavior management teachings in a physical education setting. Each question is addressed in turn here.
Group Setting
Can behavior management be used effectively in a group setting? Behavior management
techniques have been shown to be effective in a group setting for increasing academic
and skill performance as well as for remediating inappropriate behaviors. Increases in
academic and skill performance have been demonstrated in a variety of classroom settings. For instance, Hopkins, Schutte, and Garton (1971) reported that teachers improved
the rate and quality of printing and writing of first- and second-grade students by social
reinforcement and rewarding with access to a playroom.
Foxx and Jones (1978) reported a remediation program for increasing the spelling
skills of both elementary and junior high students through use of a positive practice procedure that increased performance by better than 10%.Through behavior management
techniques, Lahey and McNees (1975) reduced letter discrimination errors for children
in the primary grades during a special summer program. Working with 19 third-grade
students, Rapport and Bostow (1976) made access to recreational activities contingent upon
the completion each day of at least 80%of academic tasks: writing, copying words, spelling, and dictionary skills. This procedure produced reliable and substantial increases in
the task performance of all students in the study.
McLaughlin (1981) awarded points to students in a sixth-grade class for increases
in math performance. These points could be exchanged for various reinforcing activities
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
341
in school. The results indicated that when students were given points for improved performance and efficiency, their performance increased further. These procedures were
replicated, which further confirmed the results. Delinquent boys ages I3 and I5 were given
tokens they could redeem for candy, gum, and other canteen items if they performed well
on academic tasks. The results indicated their academic performance improved significantly
during this time (Tyler & Brown, 1968). Miller (1977) made listening to music contingent
upon improved arithmetic performance for EMR children. Statistical analyses revealed
sigdlcant differences between no-reinforcement and a contingent reinforcement condition.
Behavior management techniques have also been successfully used to manage
various activities in a classroom. For instance, Jacobson, Bushell, and Risley (1969) improved the rate at which children moved from one activity area of a Head Start classroom
to another. Swinehart (1974) was able to increase the rate at which third-grade students
completed math assignments by making morning recess contingent upon the completed
math assignment.
Behavior management concepts applied to group settings has proven to be effective
in remediating inappropriate behaviors. Fishbeii and Wasik (1981) modified a good behavior
game to reduce disruptive behaviors of a fourth-grade class during their weekly library
period. The students designed the rules and stated them in positive terms, and the librarian
and teacher observed and kept score. Reinforcers consisted of special classroom activities
conducted by the teacher with the winning team. As a result, disruptive and off-task behavior
decreased significantly. Using a variety of reinforcers, O'Leary and Becker (1967)
demonstrated that a teacher's awarding of tokens that could be exchanged for the reinforcers decreased the disruptive behavior of a third-grade class. In fact, the deviant behavior
was reduced from 76% to 10% within 40 days. Talking out loud, a frequent disturbing
element in a classroom, was significantly decreased in a study reported by Hall, Fox,
Willard, Goldsmith, Emerson, Owen, Davis, and Porcia (1971). A frequency tally was
maintained and positive reinforcement, praise, and access to games were awarded for proper
hand raising without talk-outs.
As noted, the principal methods used in group management techniques have been
some form of token systems and group contingencies. In addition, Robinson, Newby, and
Ganzell(1981) used tokens in a third-grade class of 18 hyperactive boys. Four different
colored tokens could be earned and exchanged for 15 minutes of play on electric video
games when the boys successfully completed two tasks that involved learning to read and
to use new vocabulary words in sentences, and two tasks in which they served as proctors
to students who had not yet completed the former tasks. The mean number of tasks completed during the intervention periods rose to over nine times the number completed without
the tokens. All 18 students responded to the token program with an increase in their academic
performance. In some cases tokens can be self-determined. For instance, Glym (1970)
targeted the learning of history and geography, awarding tokens contingent on test grades.
The tokens could be redeemed for prizes that were relevant to the academic material.
Students in one group were to decide for themselves how many tokens they earned, a second group was teacher-determined, a third was chance-determined, and a fourth group
received no tokens. The self-determined and teacher-determined groups achieved better
performance than the chance-determined and no-tokens group and in fact made significant improvements over baseline.
Reinforcers for tokens seem primarily to have focused on free time or special
recreational activities (Glynn, 1970; Lovitt, Guppy, & Blattner, 1969; Robinson et al.,
1981; Strandy, McLaughlin, & Hunsaker, 1979). Another technique used is to post in
public and invite peer comments in order to increase performance. Van Houten and Van
342
Dunn and Fredericks
Houten (1977) compared the effectiveness of posting individual performance with posting
individual plus team performance. Individual plus team posting led to better academic progress and to more comments from students about academic performance than did individual
posting alone. It was further demonstrated that increased levels of performance could be
maintained by appointing class captains who were encouraged by their teachers to give
peer recognition.
Performance Versus Behavior
A second major question is, if one is faced with a class of poor performing students and
also students who engage in inappropriate behaviors, should the behavior management
procedures address performance or the remediation of inappropriate behaviors? The data
from the literature are quite mixed. Haubrich and Shores (1976) support the use of contingent reinforcement for academic performance as a primary classroom strategy that increases both academic performance and attending task behavior. This study replicated the
fmdings of the Shores and Haubrich (1969) study. Ayllon and Roberts (1974) demonstrated
that disruptive behavior in a fifth-grade classroom could be decreased by reinforcing improved reading performance.
On the other hand, McKenzie, Clark, Wolf, Kothera, and Benson (1968), focusing
on a token reinforcement system and nonattending behavior during reading and arithmetic
lessons, increased attending behavior from 68% to 86% with a subsequent increase in
reading and arithmetic achievement. Finally, Ferritor, Buckholdt, Hamblin, and Smith
(1972) discovered that when their behavioral contingencies focused on academic performance, academic performance improved but attending declined and disruption increased.
They found they needed to combine contingencies for both performance and attending.
Thus one gains little guidance from the literature, although certainly most practitioners
prefer to focus on the positive performance of the student, reinforcing that performance
in the hope of decreasing the inappropriate behaviors that interfere with learning.
,Amount of Social Reinforcement
Perhaps one of the most important considerations in managing behavior in a classroom
is, how much social reinforcement should a teacher deliver? In a study conducted by Hill
and Strain (1977), EMR children were grouped with a regular fourth-grade class during
a social studies period. The EMR children were divided into two groups. Using a reversal
design, social reinforcers were delivered that were contingent upon task-persistent behavior
of the target children. Subjects in the control or nomeinforcement groups were not reinforced as they engaged in appropriate task related behaviors. Results showed that increases
in the level of task-persistent behavior and the administration of social reinforcement were
functionally related.
Unfortunately, our own experience with the amount of social reinforcement being
delivered in regular classrooms indicates that it is very low. White (1975) recorded the
natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. The rates of teacher
verbal approval dropped markedly after the second grade; in every grade thereafter, the
rate of teacher verbal disapproval exceeded the rate of teacher verbal approval. Thomas,
Presland, Grant, and Glynn (1978) examined the natural rates of teacher verbal approval
and disapproval in 10 seventh-grade classrooms. The majority of the teachers displayed
individual approval rates. Jones and Jones (1981) reported a study conducted by Fredericks
of first-grade teachers in which it was found that only 9 of the 17 teachers had reinforce-
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
343
ment rates over 50%. Seven were above 70%. These data were correlated with children's
liking of school. Baseline data indicated that more than 90%of the fist-graders liked school
during the first 2 weeks of the school year. Returning in February and surveying the same
children, the experimenters found that 90% of the children whose teachers achieved 70%
verbal approval still liked school. Children in classrooms where verbal disapproval exceeded verbal approval generally disliked school; in fact, 100% of them disliked school
in those classrooms where verbal disapproval was 60% or higher. Teachers' approval and
disapproval rates did not change significantly between September and February.
Duration
A fourth major question about the application of behavior management techniques is,
how long must a contingency management program that uses tokens remain in effect? The
general rule is to keep it in effect until a target objective has been achieved, such as 80%
or 90% compliance with classroom rules, a certain performance level, or any other goal
that has been established. Token reinforcement systems have been known to be utilized
for large portions of the school year and, even after being withdrawn, improvements in
behavior were maintained without further use of a token system. Both Jones and Kazdin
(1975) and Main and Menro (1977) demonstrate how treatment effects were maintained
after tokens were withdrawn. If inappropriate behaviors reemerge or if performance levels
decrease, the token system is reestablished and maintained for a longer period of time
so the skills and behaviors learned through the token system become a natural part of the
student's repertoire of performance skills.
We believe the principles that have been demonstrated in other classrooms and with
other groups of children of all ages are applicable to physical education settings. Behavior
management in a group setting can eliminate inappropriate behaviors and increase performance skills. Token systems or point systems with backup reinforcers of free time or access to other activities are easily employed. Public posting of performance levels and peer
feedback together serve as another valuable use of group management techniques. But
above all, the teacher must recognize the importance of increasing the amount of social
reinforcement to students as they perform successfully and maintain appropriate behavior.
This verbal approval, perhaps one of the most important of the group management techniques, will not only increase student behavior but will also increase student enthusiasm
for the subject material being presented. Even after tokens are no longer used, the social
reinforcement continues and, through that, the improved student behavior as well.
Considerations for Further Research
Clearly, additional research is needed on behavior management concepts and their application in the physical education environment. There are data to support the application
of behavior management techniques with handicapped students in special classes and integrated classes, but few studies have analyzed the effect of this approach on the acquisition of motor skills and remediation of inappropriate behavior in the gym. Some areas
of investigation that should be undertaken to help practitioners implement appropriate
physical education experiences for handicapped and nonhandicapped students include the
following:
1. If handicapped students are to be successfully mainstreamed into physical education classes, the behavior of handicapped and nonhandicapped children as a group will
Dunn and Fredericks
344
be important in establishing a positive learning environment. Few studies have analyzed
the effects of behavior management strategies on group behavior rather than individual
behavior. Vogler (1981) demonstrated that a group oriented contingency management system
was effective in a physical education setting for increasing the on-task behavior of 23
behavior disordered children. Studies of this nature should be extended to other disability
populations as well as integrated physical education classes.
2. The studies reviewed here which used behavior management techniques should
be replicated in various settings with other populations of different ages and disabilities.
All these studies except for Heitman's (1982) were conducted with reasonably small sarnple sizes. This is understandable, given the severity levels of some of the populations studied,
yet this limitation can be overcome with replicated research designs. Studies should be
extended to populations other than the mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed.
3. Some of the studies indicated that social reinforcement alone (Bishop, 1981;
Heitrnan, 1982) could be used as an effective behavior management strategy. Others reported
that social reinforcement was most effective when combined with a token (Leme, 1982;
Schack & Ryan, 1978). Additional studies are needed in order to clarify under what conditions and with what populations social reinforcement alone can be utilized. It would also
be helpN to determine if social praise is a more powerful reinforcer in the physical education
setting compared to other academic environments. Perhaps participation in some motor
tasks is reinforcing to the extent that elaborate behavior management strategies are not
necessary within the gymnasium environment.
References
Auxter, D. (1969). Operant conditioning of motor skills for the emotionally disturbed. American
Corrective merapy Journal, 23, 28-31.
Ayllon, T., & Roberts, M.D. (1974). Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic
performance. J o u m l of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7 , 71-76.
Bishop, P.L. (1981). Types of reinforcement conditions and effects on attentional behavior of
severely mentally retarded boys in physical education (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Utah, 1980.) DAl, 41(10), 4328-A.
DUM, J.M., & French, R. (1982). Operant conditioning: A tool for special physical educators in
the 1980s. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(1), 42-53.
Ferritor, D.E., Buckholdt, D., Hamblin, R.L., & Smith, L. (1972). The non-effects of contingent
reinforcement for attending behavior on work accomplished. J o u m l of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 5 , 7-17.
Fishbein, J.E., & Wasik, B.H. (1981). Effect of the good behavior game on disruptive library
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 89-93.
Foxx, R.M., & Jones, J.R. (1978). A remediation program for increasing the spelling achievement
of elementary and junior high school students. Behavior Modification, 2, 211-230.
Glym, E.L. (1970). Classroom applications of self-determined reinforcement. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 3, 123-132.
Hall, R.V., Fox, R., Wiard, D., Goldsmith, L., Emerson, M., Owen, M., Davis, F., & Porcia, E.
(1971). The teacher as observer and experimenter in the modification of disputing and talking-out
behavior. J o u m l of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 141-149.
Haubrich, P.A., & Shores, R. (1976). Attending behavior and academic performance of emotionally
disturbed children. Exceptional Children, 42, 337-338.
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
345
Heitman, R.J. (1982). The effects of knowledge of results, social reinforcement and mental age
upon the motor skill acquisition of mentally retarded children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1981.) DAI, 42(9), 3906-A-3907-A.
Hill, A.D., & Strain, P.S. (1977). The effects of teacher-delivered social reinforcement on the
task persistent behavior of educable mentally retarded children. Psychology in the Schools,
14, 207-212.
Hopkins, B.L., Schutte, R.C., & Garton, K.L. (1971). The effects of access to a playroom on the
rate and quality of printing and writing of first and second grade students. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 4, 77-87.
Humphrey, L., Karoly, P., & Kirschenbaum, D. (1978). Self-management in the classroom: Selfimposed response cost versus self-reward. Behavior Therapy, 9, 529-601.
Jacobson, J.M., Bushell, D. Jr., & Risley, T. (1969). Switching requirements in a Head Start
classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 43-47.
Johnson, L., & Londeree, B. (1976). AAHPER Motor Fitness Testing Manual for the Moderately
Mentally Retarded. Washington, DC: AAHPER Publications.
Jones, V., & Jones, L. (1981). Responsible classroom performance. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jones, R.T., & Kazdin, A.E. (1975). Programming response maintenance after withdrawing token
reinforcement. Behavior Therapy, 6, 153-164.
Lahey, B.B., & McNees, M.P. (1975). Letterdiscrimination errors in kindergarten through third
grade: Assessment and operant training. Journal of Special Education, 9, 191-199.
Leme, S.A. (1982). The effect of tangible reinforcement plus social praise versus social praise
only on the physical fitness test performance of severely/profoundlyretarded institutionalized
subjects (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1981.) DAI, 42(8),
3554-A-3555-A.
Lovitt, T.C., Guppy, T.E., & Blamer, J.E. (1969). The use of a free-time contingency with fourth
graders to increase spelling accuracy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 7 , 151-156.
Main, G.C., & Menro, B.C. (1977). A token reinforcement program in a public junior high school.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 93-94.
Marholin, D., & Steinman, W. (1977). Stimulus control in the classroom as a function of the
behavior reinforced. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 465-478.
McKenzie, H.S., Clark, M., Wolf, M., Kothera, R., & Benson, C. (1968). Behavior modification
of children with learning disabilities using grades as tokens and allowances as back-up reinforcers. Exceptional Children, 34, 745-752.
McKenzie, T., & Rushall, B. (1974). Effects of self-recording on attendance and performance in a
competitive swimming training environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7 , 199-206.
McKenzie, T., & Rushall, B. (1980). Controlling inappropriatebehavior in a competitive swimming
environment. Education and Treatment of Children, 3 , 205-215.
~ c ~ a u ~ h lT.F.
i n , (1981). The effects of a classroom token economy on math performance in an
intermediate grade school class. Education and Treatment of Children, 4 , 139-147.
Miller, D.M. (1977). Effects of music-listening contingencies on arithmetic performance and music
preference of educable mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
81, 371-378.
O'Leary, K.D., & Becker, W.C. (1967). Behavior modification of an adjustment class: A token
reinforcement program. Exceptional Children, 33, 637-642.
Patterson, G. (1974). A basis for idenming stimuli which control behaviors in natural settings.
Child Development, 45, 900-91 1.
Rapport, M.D., & Bostow, D.E. (1976). The effects of access to special activities on the performance in four categories of academic tasks with third-grade students. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 9 , 372.
Robinson, P.W., Newby, T.J., & Ganzell, S.L. (1981). A token system for a class of underachieving hyperactive children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 307-315.
346
Dunn and Fredericks
Schack, F.K., &Ryan, T. (1978). The effects of varying reinforcement on gross motor skill learning
and retention in trainable mentally retarded boys. American Corrective Therapy Journal,
32(5), 135-140.
Shores, R.E., & Haubrich, P.A. (1969). Effect of cubicles in educating emotionally disturbed
children. Exceptional Children, 34, 21-24.
Strandy, C., McLaughlin, T.F., & Hunsaker, D. (1979). Free time as a reinforcer for assignment
completion with high school special education students. Education and Treatment of Children,
2(4), 271-277.
Swinehart, G. (1974). Contingency management used to modify the rate of turning in completed
assignments in an elementary classroom. SALT-School Applications of Learning Theory, V1(2),
21-29.
Thomas, J.D., Presland, I.E., Grant, M.D., & Glynn, T.L. (1978). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in grade 7 classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11,91-94.
Tyler, V.O., Jr., & Brown, G.D. (1968). Token reinforcement of academic performance with
institutionalized delinquent boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 164-168.
Van Houten, R . , & Van Houten, J. (1977). The performance feedback system in the special education classroom: An analysis of public posting and peer comments. Behavior Therapy, 8,
366-376.
Vogler, E.W. (1981). The effects of grouporiented contingency management system on behaviorally
disordered students in physical education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1980.)
DAI, 41(10), 4331-A-4332-A.
Walker, H., Hops, H., & Fiegenbaum, E. (1976). Deviant classroom behavior as a function of
combinations of social and token reinforcement and cost contingency. Behavior Therapy, 7 ,
76-88.
White, M.A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8 , 367-372.