Reflective Discipline: Understanding the Influence … of self-reflection on behavior! Rising Tide Volume 8 !!! Reflective Discipline: Understanding the Influence of Self-Reflection

Influence of self-reflection on behavior

Rising Tide Volume 8

Reflective Discipline: Understanding the Influence of Self-Reflection on Student Behavior Kaitlyn Lindsay St. Mary’s College of Maryland

Abstract: Behavior is an issue in every classroom and teachers are faced with the challenge of addressing this behavior while continuing to provide all students with a quality education. Often students will not understand how their behavior is affecting others and the classroom environment. Self-‐reflection can be a simple and effective tool for students to begin to understand how their behaviors affect others and the classroom environment. In this study a reflective discipline approach was implemented in a first grade classroom that encouraged students to reflect on negative behaviors as well as discuss their reflections and how their behavior affected others with their teacher. Results showed that the intervention decreased negative behaviors, significantly increased positive behaviors seen in the classroom and students’ understanding and ability to explain how their behaviors affect others improved. This study helps close some gaps in the area of using self-‐reflection as a classroom management approach.

Introduction

Classroom management is a critical yet challenging part of the teaching profession. Teachers face disruptive student behavior daily and must spend time thinking about ways to approach classroom management and then attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of these. Often teachers can feel unprepared and defeated and students leave the situation without understanding why their behavior is problematic (Freeman, Simonsen, Briere & MacSuaga-‐Gage, 2014). Scholars have found that this feeling may be due to the fact that new teachers may not be prepared to manage their students’ behavior effectively because of a lack of exposure to strategies of behavior management during their teacher preparation program (Freeman et al., 2014).

Students push the boundaries and misbehave in the classroom for a variety of reasons. They may be having a bad day, have a rough home life, or have a diagnosis that affects their ability to regulate their behavior (Blimes, 2012; Moorefield, 2005). However, another reason why students misbehave in the classroom may be because they do not understand how their actions affect their classmates or the classroom environment. Piaget (1923/1926) refers to this inability to see how their actions affect others as egocentrism. Egocentrism refers to a young child’s inability to see a situation from another person’s point of view (Piaget, 1923/1926). This occurs between the ages of two and seven



2

years and is a part of the preoperational stage of development. Therefore, because students do not understand that their behavior is disrupting the classroom environment they will continue to do this behavior.

It is important for teachers to find a balance between instruction and discipline that allows them to continue to teach those who are not causing the disruption. However, their approach must take egocentrism into account when dealing with young children. Many scholars have conducted studies that examine self-‐management strategies for student behavior (Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer & Hughes, 2001; Rafferty, 2010; De Haas-‐Warner, 1991) yet there is no research on strategies that attempts to address the egocentric behavior of young children. Self-‐reflection could be a simple and effective tool for students to begin to understand how their behaviors affect others and the classroom environment. However, research on self-‐reflection as a form of classroom discipline is lacking. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of self-‐reflection on the frequency of positive and negative behaviors in the classroom and how it influences the students’ understanding of how their behavior affects others. The research questions that guide this investigation are:

1. To what extent, if any, does self-‐reflection decrease negative behavior? 2. To what extent, if any, does self-‐reflection increase positive behavior? 3. How does self-‐reflection influence students’ understanding of how their

behavior affects others?

Theoretical framework

According to Piaget (1923/1926), egocentrism refers to young children’s inability to see a situation from another person’s point of view. This occurs between the ages of two and seven years and is a part of the preoperational stage of development. Therefore, because students do not understand that their behavior is disrupting the classroom environment they will continue to do this behavior. One of the famous techniques Piaget used to demonstrate egocentrism is often referred to as the “Three Mountain Task” (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). Children were shown a three-‐dimensional display of a mountain scene and then asked to choose a picture that shows what they observed. Most children were able to complete this task with little difficulty. However, when asked to select a picture that showed what someone else would have seen from a different point of view, children almost always chose the scene showing their own view of the mountain. Piaget argued that young children found this task difficult because of their inability to take on another person’s perspective (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956).

Literature review

Egocentrism Researchers have provided further evidence to support Piaget’s theory of egocentrism (Abrams, 2011; Burack et al., 2006). Abrams (2011) found that children exhibit egocentric behaviors because in his study he found children expected more than half of in-‐group and out-‐group members to agree with their own preferences. Burack et al. (2006) found that maltreated youths in particular scored lower on social perspective-‐



3

taking and also scored significantly higher on egocentrism. These studies show that students can display egocentric behavior and therefore it is important for teachers to address this in the classroom. Teacher Praise Teacher praise, in the form of behavior-‐specific praise, is praising students when they are exhibiting desired, appropriate, and positive behaviors in the classroom (Stormont & Reinke, 2009). It is a universal concept that can be easily implemented in the classroom (Stormont & Reinke, 2009). A teacher praising his or her students for desired behavior throughout the day tends to occur naturally. However, in order for praise to be an effective tool for increasing positive behaviors while simultaneously decreasing negative behaviors it must be used consistently (Stormont & Reinke, 2009). Scholars have found that classrooms do not support appropriate behavior for students who have been identified as having behavior problems (Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver & Wehby, 2010). In fact, they may actually have the opposite effect and instead encourage inappropriate behavior (Partin et al., 2010). Also students who have been identified as having problem behaviors often do not have positive relationships with their teachers (Partin et al., 2010). This is a problem. Classrooms should be a supportive environment for all students and provide them the tools with which to conduct themselves appropriately in the classroom. Creating an environment that supports positive behavior is important for a student’s academic achievement. Scholars have found that students with behavior or attention problems achieve less in academics than do students without behavior problems (Georges, Brooks-‐Gunn & Malone, 2012). For example, Georges, Brooks-‐Gunn, and Malone (2012) found that kindergarten children with both behavior and attention problems had fewer gains and lower scores in mathematics and reading over the school year than students without behavior problems or children with only aggressive behavior. Therefore, it is very important to create an environment where positive student behaviors are supported with teacher praise. Teacher praise is a management strategy that has empirical support (Partin et al., 2010). It has been shown to increase positive behavior while also decreasing problem behavior (Partin et al., 2010; Rathel, Brown & Marshall, 2014). Teacher praise has also been shown to be an effective intervention for students with a variety of disabilities (Rathel et al., 2014). For example, Rathel, Brown, and Marshall (2014) examined the effectiveness of the use of behavior-‐specific-‐praise with students diagnosed with emotional and behavioral disorders and mild intellectual and learning disabilities. The results showed an increase in teacher use of positive remarks and of student on-‐task engagement (Rathel et al., 2014). They also found a decrease in the teachers’ use of negative communications (Rathel et al., 2014). These results suggest that teacher praise can be an effective tool for the classroom by increasing appropriate behavior and creating a positive environment for all students. However, not all students are comfortable with teacher praise (Burnett & Mandel, 2010). In a study conducted by Burnett and Mandel (2010) one student described feelings of guilt and discomfort when initially being praised but these feelings faded with subsequent praise. Despite this one student’s discomfort none of the students indicated that they did not like to receive praise (Burnett & Mandel, 2010).



4

Pre-Corrective Statements Pre-‐corrective statements are statements that describe the specific behavior that is expected of students in a particular environment (Lewis, Colvin & Sugai, 2000; Stormont & Reinke, 2009). These statements are proactive in addressing behavior because they set the expectations from the outset (Lewis et al., 2000). This allows students to reflect on their current behavior and have a reminder throughout the day to compare their behavior with. For example, before starting group reading the teacher might say

“While we are reading this story together, remember to sit in your own spot, crisscross applesauce, hands on your lap, and put your listening ears on. There is no talking while I am reading. Remember to raise your hand if you have a question and wait for me to call on you. Let’s get started.”

Such statements help to clarify expectations of how students are to behave. Scholars have found that pre-‐corrective statements help decrease problem behavior (Lewis et al., 2000). Lewis, Colvin and Sugai (2000) looked at the effectiveness of pre-‐corrective statements in structured activities, with rules, and unstructured activities, without rules, during recess and their findings suggest that pre-‐corrective statements are an effective management strategy. They found that teachers’ use of pre-‐corrective statements lead to a decrease in problem behaviors during unstructured activities and kept problem behaviors low during structured activities (Lewis et al., 2000). However, consistency is important. In order to see the benefits of pre-‐corrective statements, teachers must be consistent with their use (Stormont & Reinke, 2009). Pre-‐corrective statements seem to be effective for all types of students regardless of their age (Lewis et al., 2000). Therefore, it would be an effective management tool for teachers in the general education classroom, which may be composed of a diverse group of students. Self-Monitoring Self-‐monitoring is a self-‐management strategy with the goal of self-‐regulation, meaning that students are able to think about their behavior, decide whether it is appropriate, and then chose the appropriate response (Rafferty, 2010). Self-‐monitoring is accessible by all ages (Basket, 2001; DuPaul & Hoff, 1998; Holifield, Goodman, Hazelkorn & Heflin, 2010). Basket (2001) found that elementary school students were able to record their behavior with accuracy. Self-‐monitoring usually takes the form of classroom interventions aimed at students with behavior problems and special needs (Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer & Hughes, 2001; Coyle & Cole, 2004; Shapiro, DuPaul & Bradley-‐Klug, 1998). These students are typically the focus of interventions because they present teachers with the most challenges. There are several benefits of incorporating self-‐management into the classroom. Overall, students’ self-‐monitoring can lead to a decrease in inappropriate and negative behavior and an increase in appropriate and positive behavior (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991; Holifield et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 1998). Self-‐monitoring allows the teacher to teach and students who are not causing the disruption the opportunity to learn (Blimes, 2012). It also creates the opportunity for discussion with students about their behavior and gives teachers an opportunity to help students understand their disruptive behavior (Blimes, 2012). Self-‐monitoring provides students with special needs a way to regulate their behavior and can be effective for students with variety of diagnoses, ranging from ADHD to students who are placed in self-‐contained classrooms (Holifield et al., 2010; Shaprio et al.,



5

1998). It is also an effective intervention for students who have a pattern of inappropriate behavior or are at risk for conduct disorder (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991; DuPaul & Hoff, 1998; Moore, Prebble, Robertson, Waetfor & Anderson, 2001). Self-‐monitoring may help teachers find a balance between teaching and discipline, therefore, benefiting all students. Although few researchers have examined the effectiveness of self-‐monitoring for all students, those who have done so have found that self-‐monitoring helps all students increase on-‐task and appropriate behavior (Cahill, 2006). There are several ways that self-‐monitoring can be incorporated into the classroom (Rafferty, 2010). These different approaches have been shown to be effective for a variety of students. Self-‐monitoring can take the form of recording, ranking, goal setting, self-‐talk, and card systems. Students self-‐monitoring through recording requires them to write down, with tally marks or other methods, whether their behavior was on-‐task and appropriate at a designated time (Agran et al., 2001; Basket, 2001; Coyle & Cole, 2004; De Haas-‐Warner, 1991). Self-‐monitoring through ranking requires that students to rank their behavior on a predetermined scale for a designated period of time (DuPaul & Hoff, 1998; Shapiro et al. 1998). While goal setting has students set behavioral goals, often with the guidance of the teacher, and then take time to reflect whether they reached their goal (Moore et al., 2001). Self-‐monitoring through self-‐talk is when signaled students talk about their behavior and recorded whether they were on task (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991). The use of card systems for self-‐monitoring are typically a whole class intervention in which students gauge their behavior using different colored cards (Cahill, 2006). Self-Reflection Self-‐reflection involves the recognition and regulation of behavior by taking time to think about it (Moorefield, 2005). Encouraging students to self-‐reflect may be useful because it goes beyond lecturing a student about misbehavior and requires that the student think about and evaluate their behavior themselves. The review of the literature yielded few resources on self-‐reflection as a management tool or discipline approach in the classroom. The one source I found was Moorefield (2005) describing the use of a reflective discipline approach in her classroom. Her personal accounts of self-‐reflection pointed to its effectiveness in the classroom as a discipline approach (Moorefield, 2005). She reported that there were several benefits to using a self-‐reflection sheet with students (Moorefield, 2005). Self-‐reflection allowed her to continue to teach while simultaneously dealing with the problem behavior, gave students space to “cool off,” and allowed the opportunity for conversation with students about their behavior (Moorefield, 2005). Moorefield (2005) also observed fewer discipline problems and fewer student-‐teacher conflicts as a result. However, since this was a personal account of the use of self-‐reflection as a discipline tool it is an area that requires further investigation.

Throughout the literature review I was unable to locate research that examined self-‐reflection’s influence in the general education classroom. However, self-‐reflection has been used to guide learning of early childhood practicum students (McFarlan, Saunders & Allen, 2009). These students felt that self-‐reflection was a helpful tool and noted benefits of reflecting on their performance (McFarlan et al., 2009). The success of self-‐reflection in this context may suggest that self-‐reflection in the classroom could be used to help students better understand their behavior.



6

Gaps in the Literature There are several gaps in the literature. Researchers who examined the effectiveness of self-‐monitoring in the classroom tended to focus on students with special needs and problem behavior (Coyle & Cole, 2004; De Haas-‐Waner, 1991; DuPaul & Hoff, 1998). Very few scholars have examined self-‐monitoring as a whole class intervention. As a result, students who are well behaved are also largely ignored in the classroom unless teacher praise is being implemented. If self-‐monitoring has been shown to be an effective management intervention, it may be helpful to apply this knowledge to all students. Finally, self-‐reflection of one’s actions and how they affect others have not been studied as a discipline approach in the classroom. Research on self-‐reflection is limited. However, benefits have been reported by an individual teacher who has used self-‐reflection in her classroom, but is an area that needs further investigation (Moorefield, 2005). Self-‐reflection may address children’s egocentric behaviors in the classroom, help students monitor their behavior, and also benefit students who display appropriate behavior by increasing their awareness of how their actions affect others.

Intervention This intervention took place in a first grade Title I Elementary School classroom in a

rural school district in a mid-‐Atlantic state. Approximately 81% of the students receive free and reduced lunch based on socioeconomic status. Therefore, it is a beneficiary of both state and federal financial support. My classroom consisted of 22 first grade students who were diverse in their ethnicities, socioeconomic status, and experiences. Of my students, six of them were English Language Learners (ELLs), two had speech/language IEPs, and one had selective mutism. The class as a whole was very talkative, energetic and had difficulty getting along with one another. There were also a few students in this class who were frequent visitors to other first grade classrooms, the In-‐School Intervention Center, or administration for disruptive and violent behavior.

The goal of this intervention was to increase students’ understanding of how their behavior affected others and the classroom environment. To reach this goal, I had students reflect on negative behavior in the classroom. Prior to the study, we discussed and established as a class classroom expectations during morning meeting. These expectations reflected behaviors that would allow our classroom to be a safe, supportive, and encouraging learning environment and they were displayed visually in the classroom. During the study, students who were displaying negative behavior were asked to draw a picture of their behavior and how it had affected others. Later the same day I had a conversation with those students about their behavior and how it affected others and their responses were recorded. When positive behaviors were displayed students were praised and I briefly explained how their behavior was positively affecting others and the classroom environment.

The first step of this study was to conduct a pre-‐observation of student behavior using a behavior checklist. Each student was assigned a number and my mentor teacher conducted these observations. There were a total of two pre-‐observations, which occurred on different days, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. During each observation, each student was observed for a 30-‐second interval. When a student was being observed, a



7

tally mark was placed in the box each time they displayed an individual behavior. The behavior checklist addressed both negative and positive behavior (see Appendix A). The second step was to establish behavior expectations. This was done as a class in order to encourage students to think about appropriate behavior. After we established these behavior expectations they were displayed in the classroom. However, since these expectations reflected the current classroom rules I chose to use the already established visuals of behavior expectations. These behavior expectations were reviewed each morning during our class meeting in order to remind students of the expectations. We also chose one expectation each morning that students brainstormed or showed ways they could follow this expectation.

The third step was to explain to students that when they were not following the behavior expectations they would be given two warnings. These warnings were given verbally and visually using fingers. After these warnings, if they continued to misbehave they would be asked to think about their behavior. The reflection sheet was shown to the students and I explained that when they went to think about their behavior they needed to draw a picture about their behavior and how it affected others (see Appendix B). They were informed that they would have a conversation with me sometime that day about their behavior. This conversation ideally occurred between recess and lunch or right before dismissal. The reflection sheet was kept in a folder on a small table in the back of the classroom and on a clipboard I had with me throughout the day. The fourth step was to implement the intervention. This intervention lasted for five weeks. However, after week 2 there was a two-‐week break from the intervention due to spring break and scheduling. When students failed to exhibit the expected behaviors they received two warnings verbally and visually. After these warnings if they continued to misbehave, students were given a reflection sheet and asked to go to the back table and think about their behavior. Here, students drew a picture of their behavior and how it had affected others; this process took no more than five minutes away from instruction. Sometime that same day, ideally between recess and lunch or right before dismissal, I had a conversation with the student about their behavior. During this conversation I asked them to identify why they had been sent to reflect, how their behavior had affected their classmates and me, and to identify classroom rules they were not following. Their responses were recorded on the back of their reflection sheet. In order to address positive behaviors whenever students exhibited the behavior expectations they were praised. I then explained how their behavior was positively affecting others and the classroom environment. The final step was to reassess student behavior. This consisted of two post-‐observations and took place during the last two days of the intervention. During these observations each student was observed following the same guidelines as the pre-‐observation.



8

Methods

Data collection A mixed methods approach was used to collect data for this study. The process of

collecting data occurred at different points of the study. A quantitative approach was used to collect data on students’ exhibited behaviors in the classroom. This data was collected through pre-‐ and post-‐observations. Two pre-‐observations occurred within consecutive days once in the morning and in the afternoon preceding the intervention. Students were observed for a 30-‐second interval and tally marks were placed in the box each time they displayed an individual behavior. The behavior checklist addressed both positive and negative behaviors (see Appendix A). The same procedures were repeated for the two post-‐observations during week five of the intervention.

A qualitative approach was used to collect students’ self-‐reflection responses. Each response was labeled with their assigned number and date. If students reflected more than once in the same day the corresponding number of the reflection was written under the date. For example, a 1 was written for their first reflection and a 2 for their second reflection. After the study was complete the sheets were sorted by week. Student self-‐reflections were collected through the pictures they drew of their behaviors and how it affected others and the individual conversations they had with me. During these conversations I asked students to identify why they had been sent to reflect, how their behavior had affected their classmates and me, and to identify classroom rules they were not following. Their responses were recorded on the back of their reflection sheet. The data collection processes, in relation to the research questions of this study, are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1:

Research questions and data sources Research Questions Data Source #1

(Quantitative) Data Source #2

(Qualitative) 1. To what extent, if any,

does self-reflection decrease negative behavior?

Pre-post behavioral checklist

2. To what extent, if any, does self-reflection increase positive behavior?

Pre-post behavioral checklist

3. How does self-reflection influence students’ understanding of how their behavior affects others?

Recorded student self-reflection responses



9

Data analysis The behaviors on the pre-‐ and post-‐behavioral checklists were analyzed to see if

there was a change in positive and negative behaviors over the course of the intervention. Students 3, 8 and 9 were removed from the sample because that they were absent for one of the pre-‐ or post-‐observations. The negative behaviors of the pre-‐ and post-‐observations were combined to calculate the sum of negative behaviors. This process was repeated for the sum of the positive behaviors for the pre-‐ and post-‐observations. Then a two-‐tailed, paired, t-‐test was conducted to see if there was a significant change in positive and negative behaviors.

The student self-‐reflection responses were analyzed using qualitative methods. I examined the student self-‐reflections through open-‐coding, analyzing data and themes emerge on their own, and focused-‐coding, trying to find very specific examples to support an idea that has already been established (Creswell, 2005). In open-‐coding I transcribed each weeks’ student responses to the questions, “How did your behavior affect your friends?” and “How did you behavior affect me?” into a word document. These were then copied by week into the frequency word generator Wordle (see Appendix C). I then examined each weeks’ Wordle for similarities, differences, and themes.

In focused-‐coding I examined students’ responses to the questions, “How did your behavior affect your Friends?” and “How did you behavior affect me?” During my examination I was looking for evidence to support my idea that students’ responses would be egocentric in early weeks of the intervention and then become non-‐egocentric further into the intervention and after self-‐reflection. In order to examine this aspect I created a chart that examined each student’s responses across the five weeks of intervention (see Appendix D). Each student’s response was recorded as being egocentric or non-‐egocentric and if they were prompted. Responses that only addressed the student’s perspective or simply repeated their behavior were considered egocentric, while responses that addressed how their behavior had affected others were considered non-‐egocentric. This chart was examined to see if themes emerged.

Validity concerns To limit my biases in the study my mentor teacher completed the pre-‐ and post-‐

observations. However, this presents its own biases from her decision of which category to classify the student behavior. During later discussion she admitted that some behavior she observed was hard for her to decide which category it belonged in.

In order to limit my own biases when examining student responses I used two approaches, open-‐coding and focused-‐coding, to examine similar aspects of their responses. However, the findings are largely based upon my interpretation of the data.

Findings and interpretations In this section I have organized the analyses to answer each of my research questions. Both quantitative and qualitative results are reported. Following the analyses are my interpretations of the meaning of the findings, which are founded in relevant literature.



10

To what extent, if any, does self-reflection decrease negative behaviors? Quantitative Analysis. My first goal was to determine whether self-‐reflection

decreased the students’ total negative behaviors that they displayed in the classroom. I conducted a two-‐tailed, paired sample t-‐test to determine if there was a significant difference between students’ total negative behavior before and after the behavior intervention. A two-‐tailed, t-‐test was used because I could not predict whether students’ total negative behavior would increase or decrease.

The t-‐test revealed that there was no significant difference between students’ total negative behavior before (M = 2.16, SD. = 2.71) and after (M = 1.21, SD = 1.62) the intervention. Although the class’s total number of negative behavior decreased from 41 negative behaviors before the intervention to 23 negative behaviors after the intervention the decrease in negative behaviors for individual students was not significant. Table 2: Student Total Negative Behaviors Pre-‐ and Post-‐Observations Negative Behaviors n Mean SD p Pre-‐Observation 19 2.16 2.71 .12 Post-‐Observation 19 1.21 1.62

Interpretations. It is important to create opportunity for students to think about and decide whether their behavior is appropriate and then choose the appropriate response (Rafferty, 2010). Various scholars have noted the success of self-‐monitoring in decreasing inappropriate and negative behavior (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991; Holifield et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 1998). Moorefield (2005) also observed that self-‐reflection can lead to fewer discipline problems. In this intervention, although self-‐reflection created the opportunity for students to reflect on their behavior it did not produce a significant decrease in negative behavior for individual students. However, the total negative behaviors for the class did decrease from before and after the intervention. This suggests that with a larger sample size and more time the intervention could be successful in decreasing negative behavior.

To what extent, if any, does self-reflection increase positive behaviors? Quantitative Analysis. My second goal was to determine whether self-‐reflection increased the students’ total positive behaviors that they displayed in the classroom. I conducted a two-‐tailed, paired sample t-‐test to determine if there was a significant difference between students’ total positive behavior before and during the behavior intervention. A two-‐tailed, t-‐test was used because I could not predict whether students’ total positive behaviors would increase or decrease. The t-‐test revealed that there was a significant difference between students’ total positive behavior before (M = 2.05, SD = 1.39) and after (M = 3.32, SD = 1.67) the intervention. After the intervention the total positive behaviors for each student significantly increased (see Table 3).



11

Table 3: Student Total Positive Behaviors Pre-‐ and Post-‐Observations Positive Behaviors n Mean SD p Pre-‐Observation 19 2.05 1.39 .004 Post-‐Observation 19 3.32 1.67

Interpretations. Various scholars have noted the success of self-‐monitoring in increasing appropriate and positive behavior in the classroom (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991; Holifield et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 1998). Similarly, this intervention created the opportunity for students to reflect on their behavior and gave them an opportunity to think about how they could change their behavior in the future. By allowing students to self-‐reflect there was a significant increase in students’ total positive behavior in the classroom. How does self-reflection influence students’ understanding of how their behavior affects others? Open-coding qualitative analysis. Student responses for each week of the intervention were transcribed into a word document and then copied into the frequency word generator Wordle (http://www.wordle.net). The produced Wordles show each word in student responses and the size of each word is a representation of how often that word appeared. The Wordle from week 1 (Figure 1) shows words that reflect student actions, such as talking, pushed, making, laying, and so on. This suggests that when students were responding to the “How does your behavior affect?” questions they responded by repeating the behavior they were sent to reflect on. Although, “sad” was the word that occurred the most and suggests students had an awareness of how their actions affected others the remaining of the words do not reflect an explanation but instead a listing of their behavior. There are very few words that reflect students’ awareness of how their behavior affects others, such as, distracting or learning.



12

Figure 1. Wordle Week 1 When examining the Wordle from week five (Figure 2) there was a change in the words that had appeared in the Wordle from week one. The change in the words suggests a development in student responses. In the beginning of the intervention student responses reflected a listing of their behavior. However, in the end of the intervention student responses reflect explanations of how their behavior affected others, such as, teaching, learn, talking, and distracting.



13

Figure 2. Wordle Week 5

Focused-coding qualitative analysis. Throughout this intervention I recorded student responses to the questions, “How did your behavior affect your friends?” and “How did you behavior affect me?” during my one-‐on-‐one conversations with students about their behavior. These responses were then coded as egocentric or non-‐egocentric (see Table 4). Responses that only addressed the student’s perspective or simply repeated their behavior were considered egocentric. While responses that addressed how their behavior had affected others were considered non-‐egocentric. Table 4: Egocentric and Non-‐Egocentric Student Responses

Question Answered Student Response Representative Quote How did your behavior affect your friends?

Egocentric “Sad because I was talking. But _______ kept touching and poking and talking to me.”

Non-‐Egocentric “Because I was talking they couldn’t hear you and couldn’t learn.”

How did your behavior affect me?

Egocentric “I don’t know.” Non-‐Egocentric “It made you sad because you couldn’t

teach cause you had to stop to tell me to be quiet.”



14

Results were recorded in a chart (see Appendix D). After coding was complete the chart was examined. Below is an explanation of the themes found.

Egocentric student responses. The majority of student responses for the first two weeks of the intervention were egocentric. In week one, there were only a total of nine out of 60 responses that were coded as non-‐egocentric. The remaining students responses were egocentric. During week two all student responses were coded as egocentric. Table 5: Week 1 and 2 Egocentric Student Responses

Question Answered Representative Quote How did your behavior affect your friends? “Sad” Why? “Because I was making noise.”

“Sad” Why? “Because I was throwin’ stuff.” How did your behavior affect me? “Umm… I don’t know.”

“It didn’t do anything to you.”

The progression of student responses. During week three of the intervention student responses began to shift from egocentric to non-‐egocentric. There were a total of 22 sheets given to students, creating a total of 44 student responses. Student responses shifted from “I don’t know” and repetition of their behavior to explaining how their behavior affected others. However, students often needed to be prompted “why” in order to give a detailed response. Table 6: Week 3 Student Responses Question Answered Student

Response Representative Quote Number of

Occurrences How did your behavior affect your friends?

Non-‐Egocentric

“Sad” Why? “Because they can’t learn because I was talking.”

17

Egocentric “Sad” Why? “Because I was talking.”

5


Non-‐Egocentric

“It slowed you down.” Why? “You were not able to teach.”

12

Egocentric “I don’t know.” 10

Although the majority of student responses were non-‐egocentric there were 15 student responses that were egocentric. Five of these responses addressed the question, “How did your behavior affect your friends?” The remaining 10 egocentric responses addressed the question, “How does your behavior affect me?” suggesting understanding how their behavior affected the teacher may be harder for students to grasp.



15

Non-egocentric student responses. In the final two weeks of the intervention the majority of student responses were non-‐egocentric. In week five, there were a total of 19 “Think About It” sheets given to students, creating a total of 38 student responses. A majority of the student responses were non-‐egocentric and did not require to be prompted “why” in order to give a detailed response. Students were able to give non-‐egocentric responses for both “How does it affect?” questions. Table 7: Week 5 Examples of Non-‐Egocentric Student Responses

Question Answered Representative Quote How did your behavior affect your friends?

“Because I wouldn’t let _________ learn because I was playing with her and distracting everyone.” “They will hear me talking and not be able to learn.”


“It stopped you from teaching because I wasn’t in my spot and you had to talk to me.” “You were sad because I interrupted the lesson you were teaching. I wasn’t being respectful.”

Only three students gave egocentric responses. The student responses that were

egocentric answered the question, “How does your behavior affect me?” Again suggesting that it is difficult for students to understand how their behavior affects teachers. The exception was student 10. This student had four responses that remained egocentric during week five of the intervention. However, her behavior during this week was extremely defiant and disrespectful and this was reflected in her responses (see Table 8). Table 8: Week 5 Student 10’s Responses

Question Answered Representative Quote How did your behavior affect your friends?

“They like it.” “No one was looking at me. They liked it.”


“I don’t know. You are just mean and don’t like me.” “I don’t know. It’s just cause you don’t like me. That’s why.”

Interpretations. Moorefield (2005) described several benefits of using self-‐reflection in the classroom. One of these benefits was that it allowed the opportunity for conversation with students about their behavior (Moorefield, 2005). Qualitative analysis of data in this study supports the importance of teachers having conversations with their students about their behavior. Examination of the first week’s Wordle and student responses reflect students’ inability to understand how their behavior affects others. This inability is supported by Piaget’s (1923/1926) theory of egocentrism. In the beginning of the intervention, students were unable to understand and explain how their behavior affected others. However, this ability developed through self-‐reflection and discussion of



16

their actions. In the end of the intervention students became non-‐egocentric in their responses and were able to understand and explain how their behavior affected others.

Are students egocentric? Piaget (1923/1926) believed young children were egocentric, meaning that they were unable to see a situation from another person’s point of view. Initially, student responses to the questions “How did you behavior affect your friends?” and “How did your behavior affect me?” were egocentric. Students were unable to see their behavior from another person’s point of view. Therefore, student responses acknowledged their unawareness or simply repeated their behavior. However, through self-‐reflection this awareness was developed and students became non-‐egocentric in their responses. After reflecting on their behavior individually and through one-‐on-‐one conversations with me students were able to understand and explain how their behavior affected others and myself in the classroom. Although, students were initially egocentric they were able to become non-‐egocentric through self-‐reflection. Is self-reflection an affective discipline approach?

Self-‐monitoring allows students the opportunity to think about and regulate their behavior. Scholars have found that self-‐monitoring leads to a decrease in inappropriate and negative behavior and an increase in appropriate and positive behavior in the classroom (De Haas-‐Warner, 1991; Holifield et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 1998). Can self-‐reflection have the same affect? One scholar observed the positive effects of self-‐reflection in her classroom (Moorefield, 2005). The use of a self-‐reflection sheet allowed for the opportunity for conversation with students about their behavior as well as decreased discipline problems and student-‐teacher conflicts (Moorefield, 2005). The analysis of this intervention produced very similar results. After using self-‐reflection as a discipline tool the overall amount of negative behaviors in the classroom decreased and also lead to a significant increase in the total positive behaviors for each student.

Conclusion The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-‐reflection on student behavior and on students’ understanding of how their behavior affects others. From the data I collected during the implementation of the behavior intervention, I can conclude that self-‐reflection decreased negative behaviors, significantly increased student positive behaviors as well as led to the development of students’ awareness and understanding of how their behavior affects others. Based on these findings, I will continue to incorporate self-‐reflection into my classroom as a discipline approach.

Limitations Although I can draw conclusions for this particular group of students the results

cannot be generalized to other populations. I was limited by a small sample size of 22 students. Repeating this study with a larger sample size would increase the reliability and validity of the results. Additionally, repeating this study in other grade levels with the appropriate adjustments would provide interesting information for comparison.



17

Another limitation is the timeline of the study. This study was conducted across a five-‐week span. However, there was a two-‐week break from the study after the second week due to spring break and schedule conflicts. After this break the study was resumed for three weeks. The inconsistency of the intervention may have influenced student behavior and development of their understanding of how their behavior affects others.

Implications For future research, this intervention should be done with a larger sample size and

across a longer span of time. This would eliminate the two major limitations of the study. A larger sample size would reduce the influence of an individual’s actions and increase the reliability and validity of the results. Conducting the study for a longer time would allow for students to become familiar with the procedures and allow for results of the study to be seen. This intervention should take place across various grade levels. This would allow an investigation on whether this study is generalizable outside of first grade. Further research should also be done to determine how effective this intervention is with students who are defiant and display extremely disruptive behaviors.

I believe that the information gained from this study is of great value to the education field. During the five weeks in which I implemented the behavior intervention there was an improvement in exhibited student behavior and students’ understanding of their behaviors. Self-‐reflection allowed students the opportunity to think about their behavior. This reflection helped lead to a decrease in negative behaviors and a significant increase in student positive behaviors in the classroom. It also created the opportunity to have conversations with my students and through these conversations students were able to develop an understanding of how their behavior affected others, therefore, helping to produce a positive classroom environment and students who are aware of their actions.



18

References Abrams, D. (2011). Wherein lies childen’s intergroup bias? Egocentrism, social

understanding, and social projection. Child Development, 82(5), 1579-‐1593. Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. (2001). Teaching students to self-‐

regulate their behavior: The differential effects of students vs. teacher-‐delivered reinforcement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(4).

Basket, L. (2001). Self-‐monitoring in children: Acuity and reactivity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(1), 107-‐116.

Blimes, J. (2012). Chaos in kindergarten? Educational Leadership, 32-‐35. Burnett, P.C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers’

and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154.

Burack, J. A., Flanagan, T., Peled, T., Sutton, H. M., Zygmuntowicz, C., & Manly, J. T. (2006). Social perspective-‐taking skills in maltreated children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 207-‐217.

Cahill, S.M. (2006). Classroom management for kids who won’t sit still and other “bad apples”. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(1).

Coyle, C. & Cole, P. (2004). A videotaped self-‐modeling and self-‐monitoring treatment program to decrease off-‐task behavior in children with autism. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 29(1), 3-‐15.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

De Haas-‐Warner, S. J. (1991). Effects of self-‐monitoring on preschoolers' on-‐task behavior: A pilot study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(2), 59.

DuPaul, G. J., & Hoff, K. E. (1998). Reducing disruptive behavior in general education classrooms: The use of self-‐management strategies. School Psychology Review, 02796015, 27(2).

Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E. & MacSuga-‐Gage, A. S. (2014). Pre-‐service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 106-‐120.

Georges, A., Brooks-‐Gunn, J. & Malone, L. M. (2012). Links between young children’s behavior and achievement: The role of social class and classroom composition. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(7), 961-‐990.

Holifield, C., Goodman, J., Hazelkorn, M. & Heflin, J. (2010). Self-‐monitoring to increase attending to task and academic accuracy in children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 25(4), 230-‐238.

Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000) The effects of pre-‐correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 109-‐121.

McFarlan, L., Saunders, R., & Allen, S. (2009). Reflective practice and self-‐evaluation in learning positive guidance: Experiences of early childhood practicum students. Early Childhood Education Journal 36, 5050-‐511.



19

Moore, D., Prebble, S., Robertson, J., Waetfor, R. & Anderson, A. (2001). Self-‐recording with goal setting: A self-‐management programme for the classroom. Educational Psychology, 21(3).

Moorefield, L. (2005). Reflective discipline: Providing students a tool for self-‐reflection can decrease classroom disruptions-‐-‐and help identify the problems behind them. Teaching Pre K-‐8, 36(1), 70-‐71.

Partin, T. C. M., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 172-‐178.

Piaget, J. (1926). Language and thought of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner. (Orginial work published in French in 1923)

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1956). The child's conception of space. Routledge, London. Rafferty, L. (2010). Step-‐by-‐step: Teaching students to self-‐monitor. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 43(2), 50-‐58. Rathel, J. M., Brown, W. H. & Marshall, K. J. (2014). Increasing induction-‐level teachers’

positive-‐to-‐negative communication ratio and use of behavior-‐specific-‐praise through e-‐Mailed performance feedback and its effect on students’ task engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(4), 219-‐233.

Shapiro, E. S., DuPaul, G. J., & Bradley-‐Klug, K. L. (1998). Self-‐management as a strategy to improve the classroom behavior of adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(6), 545.

Stormont, M. & Reinke, W. (2009). The importance of precorrective statements and behavior-‐specific praise and strategies to increase their use. Beyond Behavior 18(3), 26-‐32.



20

Appendix A: Student Behavior Checklist



21

Appendix B: Student Reflection Sheet

Think About It…



22

Appendix C: Wordles Week 1

Week 2



23

Week 3

Week 4



24

Week 5



25

Appendix D: Qualitative Focused-coding Chart

STUDENT

RESP.

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

23 1 F

X N X Y X Y X N X N

M

X N X Y X N X N X Y

2 F

X Y X Y X Y X Y X N

M

X Y X Y X N X Y X N

3 F

X Y X Y X Y

M

X Y X Y X Y

4 F

X Y X Y X Y

M

X Y X Y X Y

5 F

X Y X Y

M

X Y X Y

6 1

F X N X N X Y X N X N

M

X N X Y X N X Y X N

2 F

X N X Y X N X N X N

M

X N X Y X N X N X N

3 F

X N X Y X N X N X N

M

X N X Y X Y X N X N

4 F

X N X N

M

X N X Y



26

10 1 F

X N X N X N X N X N

M

X N X N X Y X N X N

2 F

X Y X Y X N X N

M

X Y X Y X Y X N

3 F

X Y X N

M

X Y X N

4 F

X N

M

X Y

STUDENT

RESP.


EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

11 1 F

X N X Y X N X N X Y

M

X N X Y X Y X N X Y

2 F

X N X Y X Y X N

M

X N X Y X Y X N

3 F

X Y X Y

M

X Y X Y

4 F

X Y

M

X Y

7 1

F X N X Y X N X N

M

X N X Y X Y X N



27

3 1 F

X Y X N X N

M

X N X N X N

1 1

F X Y X Y X Y

M

X Y X Y X Y

2 F

X Y X N

M

X Y X N

20 1

F X N X Y X N

M

X N X N X N

2 F

X N X N X N

M

X N X N X N

19 1

F X N X Y X Y X Y

M

X N X N X Y X Y

2 F

X N X Y

M

X N X Y

STUDENT

RESP.


EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

EGO

NON

PROMPT

12 1 F

X N X Y X Y X N

M

X N X Y X Y X N

2 F

X Y

M

X Y



28

14 1

F X N

M

X N

15 1

F X N

M

X N

13 1

F X N

M

X Y

Documents

Reflective Discipline: Understanding the Influence … of self-reflection on behavior! Rising Tide Volume 8 !!! Reflective Discipline: Understanding the Influence of Self-Reflection