Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF Free Download

Name: Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF
Author: _edward_smith_

1 / 90

1 views•90 pages

Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF Free Download

Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Running head: MOBILE DEVICES

Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the

Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the School Psychology Program

of the School of Human Services

of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services

Colleen J. Hernan

B.A. Walsh University, 2012

M.Ed. University of Cincinnati, 2013

Dissertation Committee:

Julie Q. Morrison, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), School Psychology

Tai A. Collins, Ph.D. (Co-Chair), School Psychology

Stephen D. Kroeger, Ph.D., Special Education

MOBILE DEVICES 2

Abstract

Academic engagement has been shown to decline as students progress through elementary and

middle school, reaching the lowest levels in high school. Increasing student engagement has

been an explicit goal of many school and district improvement efforts, especially at the high

school level. As the capabilities of portable technology continue to advance and become more

accessible, educators are becoming more concerned about the impact of the inappropriate use of

mobile devices on learning. An alternating treatments design was used to compare the

effectiveness of an antecedent (Clear Box) intervention and an interdependent group contingency

(Clear Box + GBG) intervention to typical classroom management techniques (Control) in

increasing the academic engagement of students by reducing their use of mobile devices during

instruction. This study was implemented in the high school setting with students exhibiting low

levels of academic engagement and high levels of inappropriate use of mobile devices. Visual

analysis was used to analyze the target behaviors, including academic engagement and

inappropriate presence of mobile devices. The results indicate an increase in academic

engagement and a decrease in the inappropriate presence of mobile devices in both classrooms

with the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG. In addition, teacher and student social

validity data were also examined, suggesting the intervention was viewed favorably by both the

teachers and children involved in the study. Discussion focuses on contributions to the current

literature, implications for practice, and suggestions for future areas of research.

MOBILE DEVICES 3

MOBILE DEVICES 4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Julie Q. Morrison, Dr. Tai A.

Collins, and Dr. Steven D. Kroeger for their continued guidance and expertise throughout the

entirety of this project. My committee co-chairs, Dr. Julie Q. Morrison and Dr. Tai A. Collins,

provided extensive feedback during the production, implementation, and composition of my

dissertation. The continuous support and leadership from my committee, as well as the entire

faculty in UC’s school psychology program, allowed me to incorporate various perspectives and

ideas into my dissertation project.

I would also like to thank the members of my cohort, especially Emily Flowers and

Lyndsie Hall. You have provided me with immeasurable fun and support throughout the

challenges of graduate school. I have enjoyed working with the two of you these past five years,

and I anticipate more collaborative projects in the future. I know that the field of school

psychology will benefit from your contributions, and I know that I have personally benefitted

from your expertise. Thank you for your optimism throughout our journey.

Finally, I want to thank my family for their infinite support and inspiration to push myself

toward whatever goals I set. My mother, Jane, continues to provide endless encouragement and

reassurances that I am capable of anything if I work hard and give it my all. She reminds me that

doing my best, my absolute best, is what is most important. Sometimes I’ll exceed expectations,

sometimes I’ll fall short, but I should always be proud of my best effort. My two brothers,

Michael and Zach, pushed me to the limits all throughout childhood to make me tough, so that I

would never give up on what is most important to me. I have learned from all of them to be a

team player, to work hard, and to weather the storm. I could not have gotten through this

journey without any of you. Thank you.

MOBILE DEVICES 5

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 7

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9

Student Engagement ............................................................................................................. 11

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports ................................................................... 12

Class-wide Behavioral Interventions .................................................................................... 13

Antecedent Interventions ...................................................................................................... 14

Group Contingencies ............................................................................................................ 15

Group Contingencies to Reduce Disruptive Behavior in High School ................................. 16

Interdependent Group Contingencies ................................................................................... 17

Group Contingencies with Randomized Components .......................................................... 18

Good Behavior Game ........................................................................................................... 19

Current Study ........................................................................................................................ 20

Method ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Setting ................................................................................................................................... 21

Participants ............................................................................................................................ 21

Experimental Design ............................................................................................................. 23

Dependent Variables ............................................................................................................. 24

Academic Engagement/Off-Task Behavior ................................................................... 24

Mobile Device Presence ................................................................................................ 25

Percentage of Potential Points Earned ........................................................................... 26

Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 26

Baseline .......................................................................................................................... 26

Teacher Training ............................................................................................................ 27

Student Training ............................................................................................................. 27

Clear Box ....................................................................................................................... 28

Clear Box + GBG ........................................................................................................... 28

MOBILE DEVICES 6

Control ........................................................................................................................... 31

Most Effective Intervention ........................................................................................... 31

Social Validity ...................................................................................................................... 31

Reliability of Measurement ................................................................................................... 32

Intervention Adherence ......................................................................................................... 32

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 33

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 34

Classroom A .......................................................................................................................... 34

Classroom B .......................................................................................................................... 37

Social Validity ...................................................................................................................... 42

Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 46

Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................................ 49

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 50

References .................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 65

A. Classroom A Intervention/Game Schedule ..................................................................... 65

B. Classroom B Intervention/Game Schedule ..................................................................... 67

C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) .................. 69

D. Appropriate / Not Appropriate Visual Poster ................................................................. 74

E. Orange Day Script ........................................................................................................... 75

F. Blue Day Script ............................................................................................................... 76

G. Yellow Day Script ........................................................................................................... 77

H. Student Reward Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 79

I. Points Sheet ..................................................................................................................... 80

J. Teacher Intervention Rating Scale .................................................................................. 81

K. Student Intervention Rating Scale .................................................................................. 85

L. Blue Game Adherence Checklist .................................................................................... 87

M. Yellow Game Adherence Checklist ................................................................................ 88

MOBILE DEVICES 7

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Data of Student Participants ................................................................... 22

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Target Variables for Classroom A ......................................... 41

Table 3: Cohen’s D Effect Size and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data

for Target Variables for Classroom A ................................................................. 41

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Target Variables for Classroom B ......................................... 41

Table 5: Cohen’s D Effect Size and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data

for Target Variables for Classroom B .................................................................. 42

Table 6: Team Data Earned on Yellow Days (Clear Box + GBG) ............................................. 42

Table 7: Results of the Teacher Intervention Rating Scales for the General

Education Teacher and Intervention Specialist .................................................... 44

Table 8: Results of the Student Intervention Rating Scales for the Antecedent

Intervention and Clear Box + GBG Intervention ................................................. 46

MOBILE DEVICES 8

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Academic Engagement Observed in Classroom A ............................. 35

Figure 2: Percentage of Off-Task Behavior Observed in Classroom A .................................... 36

Figure 3: Percentage of Mobile Device Presence Observed in Classroom A ............................ 37

Figure 4: Percentage of Academic Engagement Observed in Classroom B .............................. 38

Figure 5: Percentage of Off-Task Behavior Observed in Classroom B ..................................... 39

Figure 6: Percentage of Mobile Device Presence in Classroom B ............................................ 40

MOBILE DEVICES 9

Introduction

Mobile devices have become essential for communication and computing for most

populations (Alobiedat, 2012). Mobile devices are used to access the internet, communicate with

friends, and play games (Elder, 2013; Thomas, O’Bannon, & Britt, 2014). They allow users to

search and retrieve information quickly from almost any location (Robb & Shellenbarger, 2012).

Mobile devices have become more functional over time, providing users with web browsing,

sending and receiving e-mail, and audio/video capturing (Engel & Green, 2011; Thomas,

O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). As the capabilities of portable technology continue to advance,

devices have become more accessible to broader populations. In 2014, 78% of high school-aged

students had access to cell phones and 47% of high school-aged students had access to smart

phones (Cyr, Berman, & Smith, 2015). The size of mobile devices, in addition to access of

cellular networks, makes them completely portable, allowing them to be used almost anywhere,

anytime (Alobiedat, 2012).

Due to the increased frequency and presence of mobile devices in individuals of all ages,

educators are concerned about the impact of the inappropriate use of devices on learning

(Alobiedat, 2012; Burns & Lohenry, 2010; Campbell, 2008; Humble-Thaden, 2011; Jackson,

2013). Teachers and school administration have concerns regarding the use of mobile devices to

cheat in class, to bully classmates via social media and electronic communication, to share

inappropriate pictures, to send text messages, and the overall distraction of students (Campbell,

2006; Humble-Thaden, 2011; Thomas & McGee, 2012; Thomas & O’Bannon, 2013; Thomas,

O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013; Thomas & Orthober, 2011). Mobile devices impede learning when

they distract users (Jackson, 2013). Text messaging, more commonly known as “texting,” is the

exchange of short, typed messages between mobile devices (Thomas et al., 2013). Students

MOBILE DEVICES 10

report texting as a distraction in the classroom and research shows texting disrupts learning

(Froese et al., 2012; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011). Interruptions can disrupt the

encoding of content and cause difficulty when students are asked to retrieve the information

(Rosen et al., 2011). The extent to which students are focused on text messaging is a factor in

losing instructional information, as cognitive load increases when information presentation

conflicts with texting communications (Froese et al., 2012). Consequently, academic

performance decreases when students send and receive numerous text messages during class

(Jackson, 2013; O’Bannon & Thomas, 2015; Thomas, O’Bannon, & Britt, 2014). When students

divert their attention to an incoming message, their memory accuracy decreases by 16% (Rosen

et al., 2011). In a similar manner, the impact of a ringing cell phone in the classroom is

detrimental to later retention of the presented class material on exams as students are less likely

to recall information shared during the instruction at the time of the disruption (Elder, 2013;

Thomas & O’Bannon, 2013; Shelton, Elliot, Eaves, & Exner, 2009). In short, using the internet

or communicating with friends via mobile devices in a learning environment taxes working

memory resources, resulting in students working much less efficiently and taking longer to

complete tasks (Elder, 2013). The increased time required to accomplish an academic task due

to technology interruptions leads to an increase in errors (Rosen et al., 2011). The more time

students spend messaging friends, the higher the level of distraction during academic tasks,

which in turn contributes to lower academic performance (Elder, 2013).

Many students acknowledge using mobile devices for social networking purposes in the

classroom (Froese et al., 2012). In 2010, 24% of teens attended schools that completely banned

cell phones, 62% of teens attended schools in which they could bring cell phones to school (not

in class), and 12% of teens attended schools that allowed them to have their cell phone at all

MOBILE DEVICES 11

times (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). In opposition to school policy, 65% of teens

from no-phone schools took their phones to school every day, 58% of teens with cell phones

whose school banned the devices sent a text message during class, 64% of those teens texted in

class at least once, and 43% of teens with cell phones texted in class at least once a day (Lenhart

et al., 2010). Despite policies created with the intent to ban their use in schools, many students

regularly use their mobile devices in their classrooms, which is disruptive to their engagement in

learning (Campbell, 2006; Lenhart et al., 2010).

Student Engagement

Educators have long recognized the critical importance of student engagement on

academic success. Student engagement can be defined broadly as behavioral engagement (i.e.,

participation in academic instruction), emotional engagement (i.e., positive and negative

reactions to teachers, classmates, and academics), and cognitive engagement (i.e., investment

and willingness to invest effort into academic material; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004;

Fredricks et al., 2011; Reeve & Lee, 2013). Most specifically as it relates to classroom

performance, behavioral engagement can be defined as academic engaged time, which is the

proportion of instructional time during which students are engrossed in learning (Gettinger &

Seibert, 2002). The percentage of academic engaged time that is productive, active, and

successful is strongly related to academic achievement (Gettinger & Seibert, 2002; Malmskog &

McDonnell, 1999).

The behavioral engagement of students in the classroom entails positive conduct, time

on-task, overt attention, classroom participation, question asking, choice of challenging tasks,

and the absence of disruptive behaviors (Fredricks et al., 2004; Wang, Bergin, & Bergin, 2014);

however, managing students’ challenging behavior continues to be a struggle for many

MOBILE DEVICES 12

classroom teachers (Alter, Walker, & Landers, 2013). Student disruptive behaviors require the

teacher to spend considerable time on classroom control and discipline. Consequently, there is a

decreased amount of time spent on academic instruction (Martini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000).

Disruptive behavior within the classroom setting is predictive of less academic engagement time,

lower grades, and places the student at risk for failure in any classroom setting (Luiselli, Putnam,

& Sunderland, 2002; Stage & Quiroz, 1997).

Academic engagement has been shown to decline as students progress through

elementary and middle school, reaching the lowest levels in high school due to students’

personal academic backgrounds and low expectations for learning (Archambault, Janosz,

Morizot, & Pagani, 2009; Cooper, 2014; Fredricks et al., 2011; Gregory, Allen, Mikami, Hafen,

& Pianta, 2014; Marks, 2000). Both socio-economic status (SES) and prior academic

achievement correlate with students’ level of engagement in school (Marks, 2000). Of critical

importance, engagement with instruction has been identified as perhaps the best predictor of

student success (Hirn & Scott, 2014). Increasing student engagement has been an explicit goal

of many school and district improvement efforts, especially at the high school level (Fredricks et

al., 2011).

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a behaviorally-based approach

to enhance the capacity of schools, families, and communities to design effective environments

that link research-validated practices to teaching and learning (Sugai et al., 2000). PBIS involves

an empirically-validated set of strategies and the assessment and reengineering of environments

for preventing problems and promoting pro-social behavior (Flannery, Frank, Kato, Doren, &

Fenning, 2013; Scott, White, Algozzine, & Algozzine, 2009; Unlu et al., 2014). It is a

MOBILE DEVICES 13

framework for providing support within a multi-tiered system of behavior management (Dunlap,

Kincaid, Horner, Knoster, & Bradshaw, 2014; Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Sterling,

2015). The tiered system involves implementing a broad range of universal supports, strategic

interventions, and intensive, individualized interventions for students based on need to achieve

important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002;

McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2009; Warren et al.,

2003). The implementation of PBIS supports leads to improved academic achievement,

enhanced social competence, and safe learning and teaching environments (Bohanon et al., 2006;

Carr et al., 2002; Warren et al., 2003).

Class-wide Behavioral Interventions

Within a PBIS framework, low intensity behavioral supports can take the form of class-

wide interventions. Class-wide interventions involve the use of effective teaching strategies

designed to promote and reinforce social and behavioral competence in students, while

minimizing problem behaviors (Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, & Marsh, 2008; Ling, Hawkins, &

Weber, 2011; Mautone, Luiselli, & Handler, 2006). For example, class-wide interventions

include careful planning of the physical environment, teaching routines and expectations, and

acknowledging children for engaging in appropriate behavior (Unlu et al., 2014). As such,

evidence-based class-wide interventions have the potential to help a large number of students by

preventing problem behaviors before they become a significant problem in the classroom

(Flower, McKenna, Muething, Bryant, & Bryant, 2014; Kern & Clemens, 2007; Reinke, Lewis-

Palmer, & Merrell, 2008; Richards, Heathfield, & Jenson, 2010).

There is a need for empirically supported procedures and interventions that promote

positive and effective class-wide management procedures, specifically in the high school setting

MOBILE DEVICES 14

(Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Sterling, 2015). The current study utilized both an

antecedent intervention and group contingency intervention at the class-wide level to decrease

the inappropriate and disruptive use of mobile devices during academic instruction. The

intervention altered the physical environments within the classroom, made classroom

expectations explicit through training and visual prompts, and provided acknowledgement for

appropriate classroom behavior.

Antecedent Interventions

Antecedent interventions are behavior change strategies that manipulate contingency-

independent antecedent stimuli (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). They are approaches that

focus on structuring the environment in order to prevent problem behaviors from occurring

(Kern & Clemens, 2007). Antecedent interventions can be used to increase appropriate

behaviors, reduce problem behaviors, and design environments that promote adaptive behaviors

by eliminating or substituting a specific condition or variable to a problematic target behavior

(Kern, Choutka, & Sokol, 2002). They are considered to be proactive and preventative because

they are designed to modify variables so that problem behaviors are less likely to occur (Kern et

al., 2002; Luiselli & Murbach, 2002). When applied class-wide, antecedent strategies address

the behavioral needs of most students in the classroom and can prevent problematic behavior

from occurring (Kern & Clemens, 2007).

Antecedent interventions rely on current, existing behavior-environment relationships

(Conroy, & Stichter, 2003). To develop antecedent interventions, information is obtained about

environmental events that appear to set the occasion for problematic behavior and include some

type of environmental rearrangement (Kern et al., 2002; Kern & Clemens, 2007). Modifications,

such as changing the seating arrangement in the classroom or providing choices for academic

MOBILE DEVICES 15

assignments, are then introduced so that events occurring before the demonstration of problem

behaviors are eliminated or changed in some way so that they no longer trigger the problem

behaviors (Axelrod & Zank, 2012; Kern & Clemens, 2007; Skerbetz & Kostewicz, 2013).

Group Contingencies

A group contingency is a behavior modification strategy in which a group’s

consequences are dependent upon the behavior of individuals in the group or the group as a

whole (Fabiano et al., 2008; Skinner, Skinner, & Burton, 2009). With a group contingency, the

same target behaviors, criterion for reinforcement, and selected reinforcement is applied

consistently across all students in the classroom, simplifying behavioral management plans (Ling

& Barnett, 2013; Ling et al., 2011). As such, group contingencies reduce the need for individual

interventions while promoting positive behaviors class-wide. Group contingencies are effective

in modifying group behavior with peers acting as change agents, influencing each other’s

behavior (Crouch, Gresham, & Wright, 1985; Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004). From the teacher’s

perspective, managing only one behavioral intervention class-wide provides additional time for

instruction and other classroom managerial responsibilities (Gresham & Gresham, 1982;

Murphy, Theodore, Aloiso, Alric-Edwards, & Hughes, 2007).

There are three types of group contingencies: independent, dependent, and interdependent

(Chafouleas, Hagermoser Sanetti, Jaffery, & Fallon, 2012). All three types of group

contingencies utilize reinforcement contingent on reaching a predetermined level of

performance, with the primary distinguishing feature involving how access to reinforcement is

determined (Chafouleas et al., 2012). Independent group contingencies are established when

reinforcement for each member of a group is earned when each individual meets a performance

criterion that is in effect for all members of the group (e.g., every student that completes the

MOBILE DEVICES 16

homework assignment will earn extra time at recess; Cooper et al., 2007; Kirk et al., 2010).

Dependent group contingencies are established when reinforcement for all members of a group is

conditional on the behavior of one member of the group or a select group of members within the

larger group (e.g., if one individual student completes the homework assignment, the entire class

will be given extra time at recess; Cooper et al., 2007). If the individual or small group performs

a behavior to a specific criterion, the group shares the reinforcement; however if the individual or

small group performs below the criterion, the reward is not delivered. Interdependent group

contingencies are established when each member of the group or the group as a whole meets a

performance criterion, and consequently each member of the group earns the reinforcement (e.g.,

the group of students with the fewest disruptive behaviors earns a reward; Cooper et al., 2007;

Kirk et al., 2010).

Group contingencies have resulted in increased reports of peers’ positive behavior,

increased on-task behavior during instruction, and decreased disruptive behavior (Little, Akin-

Little, & O’Neill, 2015; McGoey et al., 2010). Group contingencies are documented to be cost

effective, time efficient, easily implemented, and highly acceptable to teachers and students

(Little, Akin-Little, & Newman-Eig, 2010). These low intensity interventions have been shown

to be more efficient in modifying the behavior of groups than individual contingency systems

(Crouch et al., 1985). Though group contingencies have been found to be effective and efficient

intervention strategies, few studies have assessed their effectiveness in the secondary school

setting (Schanding & Sterling-Turner, 2010).

Group Contingencies to Reduce Disruptive Behavior in High School

Disruptive behavior is a significant concern in many high school settings (Flower et al.,

2014). High school teachers report spending considerable time managing behaviors and express

MOBILE DEVICES 17

a need for effective classroom management procedures (Mitchell et al., 2015). Furthermore,

secondary students transition to multiple classrooms a day, increasing the potential for disruptive

transitions and making the coordination of behavioral expectations and interventions more

challenging (Schanding & Sterling-Turner, 2010).

Research examining the use of group contingency interventions in secondary school

settings has shown these low intensity interventions to reduce problem behaviors and increase

academic engagement (Christ & Christ, 2006; Kamps et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2015; Trevino-

Maack, Kamps, & Wills, 2015; Williamson, Campbell-Whatley, & Lo, 2009). When

implemented regularly, group contingencies may increase the probability of reinforcement

delivered by the teacher, which may increase the natural occurrence of appropriate student

behavior (Kamps et al., 2011). Additionally, group contingencies may be most effective in

secondary settings because older students may be less likely to receive frequent and timely

positive reinforcement than students in earlier grades (Flower et al., 2014).

Interdependent Group Contingencies

As described previously, interdependent group contingencies require that all or none of

the members of a group receive access to a consequence contingent on the group’s behavior

meeting a criterion or all individuals in the group meeting a criterion (Cooper et al., 2007; Kirk

et al., 2010). With an interdependent group contingency, students have a common goal. Given

that each individual student’s success increases the probability of the entire group attaining the

goal and earning the reward, the social attention is likely to foster positive interactions as peers

are likely to encourage each other and praise their team members’ appropriate behavior

(Gresham & Gresham, 1982; Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000; Little et al., 2015; Skinner, Skinner,

Skinner, & Cashwell, 1999).

MOBILE DEVICES 18

Interdependent group contingencies are especially beneficial for classrooms in which

more than one student is exhibiting inappropriate behaviors, as they allow teachers to deliver

reinforcement contingent upon appropriate behavior at one time for the whole class, rather than

at multiple times for certain students (Denune et al., 2015). Teachers can develop a more

functional learning environment when using an interdependent group contingency intervention,

such as the as Good Behavior Game (GBG), as a classroom management procedure (Mitchell,

Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Sterling, 2005). Introducing the GBG in high school populations

may help enable teachers to handle minor infractions in their classrooms and avoid removing

students from the academic setting for disciplinary action (Mitchell et al., 2015).

Group Contingencies with Randomized Components

To maximize the effectiveness of group contingency interventions, researchers have

studied the randomization of contingency components including types of rewards, reinforcement

criteria, and target behaviors (Denune et al., 2015; Hulac & Benson, 2010). The randomization

of contingency components adds an element of uncertainty, which encourages the students to

maintain all positive behaviors throughout the intervention because they are unaware of the

criteria for reinforcement or other aspects of the intervention (Coogan, Kehle, Bray, &

Chafouleas, 2007; Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000). By randomizing criteria for reinforcement,

students need to modify all behaviors targeted for change because they are unaware of which

behaviors will be selected for assessment and reward (Popkin & Skinner, 2003; Reinhardt,

Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2009). Randomizing the type of reinforcement decreases the

probability of reinforcement satiation (Little et al., 2015).

When implementing interdependent group contingencies with randomized components,

students work as a team and can potentially decide on preferred reinforcement together when the

MOBILE DEVICES 19

behavioral goals are achieved (Skinner, Pappas, & Davis, 2005; Williamson et al., 2009).

Alternatively, teachers may prefer to simply pull a piece of paper from a container that contains a

variety of rewards that students may earn if behavioral goals are earned, keeping the

reinforcement a mystery (Skinner et al., 2009). The random selection of reinforcement is

effective with all group contingency interventions, but particularly useful with dependent and

interdependent group contingencies (Skinner et al., 2009). In addition to a mystery reward, the

pre-specified level of performance required to earn the reinforcement can be unknown. This

mystery criterion creates a variable schedule of reinforcement (Schanding & Sterling-Turner,

2010). The randomization of rewards and criteria for earning reinforcement increases the

likelihood that secondary students will focus on the classroom rules for the entire duration of the

class period in order to earn the potential rewards.

Good Behavior Game

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an interdependent group contingency intervention

and it has been used to effectively reduce disruptive behavior in elementary, middle, and high

schools (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Flower et al., 2014; Kleinman & Saigh, 2011;

McCurdy, Lannie, & Barnabas, 2009). The GBG involves arranging rules and expectations for

behavior, dividing the class into teams, delivering points for rules violations, and providing

rewards to the team with the fewest points or any team with points falling below a known or

mystery criterion (Donaldson, Wiskow, & Soto, 2015; Flower et al., 2014; Kleinman & Saigh,

2011). The rules and expectations of the GBG encourage students to manage their own behavior,

as well as their teammates’ behavior, through a process of group reinforcement (Dijkman,

Harting, & Van Der Wal, 2015; Poduska & Kurki, 2014). Playing the game where rewards are

contingent on behavior creates a system in which peer approval promotes positive behavior

MOBILE DEVICES 20

class-wide (Flower et al., 2014).

During implementation of the GBG, student teams receive points when team members

violate classroom rules and expectations. Variations of the GBG used modified point

distribution procedures, whereby team points were awarded for following the rules, rather than

the traditional method of awarding points for not following the rules (McCurdy et al., 2009). By

providing students with reinforcement contingent upon the demonstration of appropriate

behaviors rather than punishing inappropriate behaviors, group contingencies encourage students

to continue the appropriate behaviors in the future (Denune et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Anderson,

2014).

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of an interdependent

group contingency intervention and an antecedent intervention in increasing student academic

engagement by decreasing the inappropriate and disruptive use of mobile devices during

academic instruction. Studies investigating the effects of an antecedent intervention or

interdependent group contingency to minimize students’ inappropriate use of mobile devices

during academic instruction while simultaneously increasing academic engaged time have been

absent from the research literature to date. Interdependent group contingency and antecedent

interventions have been successful in promoting appropriate classroom behaviors and reducing

disruptive behaviors, although most of these studies were conducted at the elementary school

level. This study extended the research on class-wide behavioral interventions by focusing on

decreasing the inappropriate use of mobile devices in the high school classroom. This study

addressed the following research questions:

MOBILE DEVICES 21

1. To what degree does the antecedent intervention reduce the use of mobile devices and

increase the amount of academic engaged time in high school classrooms in comparison to

typical classroom management techniques?

2. To what degree does the interdependent group contingency intervention reduce the use

of mobile devices and increase the amount of academic engaged time in high school classrooms

in comparison to typical classroom management techniques?

3. Is the antecedent intervention or the interdependent group contingency more effective

in reducing the use of mobile devices and increasing the amount of academic engaged time in

high school classrooms?

Method

Setting

The current study was conducted in an urban high school serving students in Grades 9-12

in a public school district in the mid-western region of the United States. The study was

conducted in two ninth-grade algebra general education classrooms, each served by the same

primary teacher and intervention specialist. Classroom A met during the seventh period of the

school day (1:24pm-2:13pm). Classroom B met during the eighth period (2:18pm-3:07pm).

Each class was scheduled to meet for 49 minutes. All phases of the current study (i.e., baseline,

data collection, intervention implementation) occurred during academic instruction, which

included direct instruction from the primary teacher, supplemental support from the intervention

specialist, group assignments, and independent work.

Participants

Classrooms were selected to participate in the study based on (a) screening of class-wide

academic engagement (active and passive on-task behavior) below 70%, (b) teacher statement of

MOBILE DEVICES 22

concern regarding the rates of inappropriate use of mobile devices during instruction, and (c)

teacher interest in participating in all phases of the intervention. The building school

psychologist identified two classrooms in which it was believed that the students could benefit

from classroom management support and referred the researcher to the teachers (one general

education teacher and one stationary intervention specialist), both of whom agreed to participate

in the study. Permission to conduct research in the classrooms was obtained from the lead

teacher and intervention specialist (See Appendix A).

Classroom A consisted of 20 students and Classroom B was comprised of 23 students

(see Table 1). Attendance was variable due to absences typical of an urban high school. All

students participated in the class-wide intervention. Students were required to sign an assent

form in order to be recruited to respond to a social validity questionnaire at the end of the study

(See Appendix B). Parents/guardians were also provided the contact information for the

researcher should they not want their child to receive the social validity questionnaire or if they

had any general concerns regarding the study (See Appendix C).

Table 1.

Demographic data of student participants

Classroom A

Classroom B

Gender

Male

Female

Ethnicity

African American

Caucasian

Hispanic

Special Education

Students with Disabilities

Status

Students without Disabilities

Total Students

MOBILE DEVICES 23

The primary researcher was responsible for training, overseeing data collection, and

serving as a consultant for any issues regarding intervention implementation and adherence. The

primary researcher trained and provided oversight to school psychology graduate students who

served as data collectors. The data collectors completed reliability checks and measured

intervention adherence.

An intervention specialist was present in the classroom to provide supplemental support

to all students. The intervention specialist managed and implemented all intervention materials

and procedures across each intervention phase of the research study (i.e., alternating intervention

implementations and most effective intervention implementation). The general education

teacher provided additional support with intervention materials and procedures when possible to

increase intervention efficiency.

Experimental Design

An alternating treatments design was used to compare the effectiveness of an antecedent

(Clear Box) intervention and an interdependent group contingency (Clear Box + GBG)

intervention to typical classroom management techniques (Control) in increasing the academic

engagement of students by reducing their use of mobile devices during instruction. The

alternating treatments design allows for the implementation of two or more interventions at one

time in order to compare their effects on a target variable (Cooper et al., 2007; O’Neill,

McDonnell, Billingsley, & Jenson, 2011). The interventions are alternated rapidly across

intervention sessions for a group of participants (Cooper et al., 2007; O’Neill et al., 2011).

After initial baseline data collection, the alternating treatments phase was implemented.

Within this phase, a baseline condition, a Clear Box condition, and a Clear Box + Game

condition alternated daily. The days of each intervention phase were determined using a

MOBILE DEVICES 24

computerized sequence generator to ensure complete randomization and an intervention schedule

was made for each class (See Appendices D and E). Once a differential effect was observed

between the alternating intervention conditions and the best intervention was identified, a most

effective intervention phase was implemented.

Dependent Variables

Dependent variables were observed daily during the seventh and eighth periods

(Classrooms A and B, respectively) and included: academic engagement, off-task behavior,

mobile device presence, and the percentage of potential points earned. The data collected for

academic engagement, off-task behavior, and mobile device presence were measured using the

Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools observation code (BOSS; See Appendix F),

which is based on a 15-sec time sampling recording system (Shapiro, 2011). The BOSS was

used during all phases of the study. Data collectors observed one student per observation

interval and rotated around the classroom until all students were observed. Data collectors

continued this process until the end of the observation session. During baseline data collection,

observation sessions lasted the duration of the class period. During alternating treatments data

collection, observation sessions occurred simultaneously with intervention implementation;

observation sessions stopped when intervention was completed for the day, which was indicated

by the teacher. Observation sessions were conducted approximately four to five times per week,

for a minimum of 20 minutes.

Academic Engagement. Academic engagement was measured using momentary time

sampling, which records whether the target behavior is occurring at the end of each time-interval

(Cooper et al., 2007). Academic engagement was measured as the percentage of intervals in

which the students were observed to be actively or passively engaged in academic work.

MOBILE DEVICES 25

Examples of academic engagement included reading aloud, writing, speaking with a peer or

teacher about an assigned task, attending to the teacher or instructional materials, or reading

silently.

Off-task behaviors were measured using partial interval recording, which records whether

the behavior occurred at any time during the interval, to determine the percentage of intervals in

which students were verbally, physically (motor), and passively off-task (Cooper et al., 2007;

Shapiro, 2011). Verbal off-task behavior was defined as any audible verbalizations that were not

permitted and/or were not related to an assigned academic task. Examples of verbal off-task

behaviors included speaking to a peer or teacher about unrelated school topics, making any

audible sound, and calling out answers to academic problems when the teacher did not permit it.

Physical (motor) off-task behavior was defined as any instance of motor activity that was not

directly associated with an assigned academic task. Examples of physical (motor) off-task

behaviors included out of seat behavior, manipulating objects not related to the academic task,

physically touching another student, drawing or writing that was unrelated to the academic task,

and fidgeting in one’s seat. Passive off-task behavior was defined as instances when a student

was passively not attending to an assigned academic activity for a period of a least three

consecutive seconds. Examples of passive off-task behaviors included staring out the window,

attending to anything other than the teacher or instructional materials, and sitting quietly in an

unassigned activity.

Mobile Device Presence. Data collectors also recorded the presence of mobile devices

during academic instruction. The mobile device-present variable was measured using partial-

interval recording on 15-second intervals as an additional variable on the BOSS observation

code. Mobile device presence was recorded if the observed student used a mobile device (e.g.,

MOBILE DEVICES 26

cellphone, iPod, iPad, tablet, student laptop) at any time during the observation interval if not

approved previously by the teacher. The teacher indicated the difference between appropriate

and inappropriate times for the presence and use of mobile devices with a verbal announcement

and a visual poster (See Appendix G).

Percentage of Potential Points Earned. During the implementation of the

interdependent group contingency (Clear Box + Game) intervention, students had the

opportunity to help their team (group of students sitting in same row) earn points by keeping

their mobile devices out of reach and unused during instruction. Student teams earned bonus

points if they collectively agreed to place all of their devices inside of their team’s clear box for

the entire class period on intervention days. The intervention specialist distributed points when

the intervention was implemented. The percentage of potential points earned was calculated by

dividing the total number of points earned from each group in the class by the total number of

potential points each group could have earned, multiplied by 100.

Procedures

Baseline. During this condition, the teacher and intervention specialist were instructed to

use typical classroom management techniques, which involved class-wide reminders of

classroom expectations and frequently pausing instruction to redirect disruptive or off-task

students. Classroom expectations indicate that students need to remain seated and quiet during

instruction, with no electronic devices used unless they were needed for academic purposes.

Academic engagement, off-task behaviors, and mobile device presence were observed for the

entire class period. A minimum of three baseline data points was collected until a stable or

decreasing trend of 80% or fewer of academic engagement was established.

MOBILE DEVICES 27

Teacher training. Teacher training took place during one hour-long session after

baseline data were collected to control for any confounding variables during baseline. Training

was conducted by the primary researcher, a fourth-year advanced doctoral student in school

psychology. The training included direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice with

feedback on the procedures for the antecedent intervention and the interdependent group

contingency intervention. During the training session, scripts for each intervention phase were

provided to and reviewed with the intervention specialist (See Appendices H, I, and J). The

intervention specialist was also trained on how to provide direct instruction to the students on all

of the intervention procedures. The primary researcher reviewed all intervention procedures

with the teacher for additional intervention support.

Student training. The intervention specialist conducted the student training after teacher

training was completed. Students were trained on each intervention’s procedures on the first day

of each intervention phase. Classroom rules and intervention rules were reviewed with the class

on days in which either the antecedent intervention or interdependent group contingency

intervention was implemented. The students were provided with full explanations and

demonstrations of each intervention procedure. Students were divided into teams of small

groups according to the row of desks they were each assigned prior to the beginning of the study.

Student team members changed based on naturally occurring consequences in the classroom,

such as student absences, group assignments, and classroom management strategies. During the

student training, teachers explained the purpose of the clear boxes and the rules for earning

points. Teachers provided examples and role-played the distribution of points, the random

selection of the mystery criteria, and the random selection of the mystery reward. The primary

researcher collected preference assessments (See Appendix K) from each student in both

MOBILE DEVICES 28

classrooms to guide the selection of mystery rewards to ensure the rewards were desired by the

students.

Clear Box. The Clear Box strategy was an antecedent intervention that was alternated

among interventions throughout the alternating treatments phase of the study. The days in which

the Clear Box intervention was implemented were referred to as blue days and the rules

associated with blue days were referred to as the blue rules. The teacher reviewed the classroom

rules and the blue rules with the students. On blue days, the teacher used both a verbal

announcement and a visual poster (See Appendix G) at the start of class to indicate that it was an

inappropriate time for the use of any mobile devices. One clear box was designated for each

team and the boxes were placed on an assigned shelf in a corner of the classroom. At the

beginning of each blue day, the intervention specialist passed around the clear boxes to each

team, giving team members a moment to discuss who wanted to place their devices in the boxes.

Students were reminded that they could place their mobile devices inside of the box with the

volume set on silent (with no vibration on) and screens facing down, but no points or rewards

could be earned on a blue day. A visual poster reminded students of the blue rules and

procedures of the Clear Box intervention. If and when the teacher permitted the use of mobile

devices, the teacher used a verbal announcement and the visual poster (See Appendix G) to

explicitly indicate their acceptable use. If students were permitted to access their mobile devices

during class, the Clear Box intervention procedures were no longer considered in place, and data

collectors ended the observation session.

Clear Box + GBG. The Clear Box + GBG (Good Behavior Game) intervention was an

interdependent group contingency intervention with antecedent intervention components. The

days in which the Clear Box + GBG intervention was implemented were referred to as yellow

MOBILE DEVICES 29

days and the rules associated with yellow days were referred to as yellow rules. Yellow days

were implemented the same as blue days except students were given the opportunity to help their

team earn points for a reward at the end of class. A visual poster reminded students of the

yellow rules and procedures of the Clear Box + GBG intervention.

When class began, the intervention specialist recorded the number of mobile devices

placed in each of the teams’ clear boxes. Students were encouraged to place all of their mobile

devices in the boxes when the intervention specialist collected them from each team. If all

members of a team pre-committed to place all of their mobile devices in their clear box at the

start of class without retrieving the devices until the intervention concluded that day, the team

earned 15 bonus points. If any member of that team was caught using a mobile device during the

class period, the team’s bonus points were eliminated. If a student(s) chose not to place their

mobile device into the clear box or indicated he/she did not have a mobile device to place in the

box, the team was permitted to earn bonus points unless that individual student was caught using

a mobile device at any time during the class period.

The intervention specialist wore a timing device that was programmed to vibrate between

10- and 15-minute interval lengths. The values between 10-15 minutes were entered into a

random sequence generator to determine the two interval lengths that were programmed into the

timing device that day. The alternating times are noted on the Intervention Schedule for the

interventionist to program the timing device (See Appendices D and E). The timing device

alternated between the two interval lengths throughout the class period. When the timing device

vibrated, the specialist scanned the classroom for on-task/off-task behavior and mobile device

presence. The teacher distributed 5 points to teams in which all of the students were on-task and

no mobile devices were in use at the moment that the timing device vibrated. The teams with

MOBILE DEVICES 30

students demonstrating any type of off-task behavior or use of mobile devices when the timing

device vibrated received no points for that time interval. The intervention specialist recorded the

points accrued by each team after each timed interval using the Points Sheet (See Appendix L).

If at any time during the yellow game the specialist observed a student using a mobile device as a

member of a team competing for bonus points, the specialist could disqualify the team from

earning the bonus points. These procedures continued throughout the class period.

When the teacher wanted to permit the use of mobile devices, the teacher used a verbal

announcement and a visual poster (See Appendices I / J and G, respectively) to indicate that

mobile device use was acceptable. If students were permitted to access their mobile devices

during class, the Clear Box + GBG intervention procedures were no longer considered in place,

and data collectors ended the observation session. Once the intervention was discontinued, the

intervention specialist counted the number of mobile devices in each pre-committed team’s clear

box, and verified that the current number of mobile devices matched the number recorded at the

start of class. If there were fewer devices than there were initially at the start of class, the team

did not earn the 15 bonus points. If the number of devices remained the same, the team earned

15 bonus points.

The teacher added the total points earned by each team of students and randomly drew a

number from a mystery jar containing different numeric values for reward criteria. Teams could

earn between 0 and 35 points. Mystery criteria ranged between 10-30 points in 5-point

increments, as the mystery jar contained three 20-point, two 15-point, two 25-point, one 10-

point, and one 30-point options. The number drawn indicated the minimum number of points

each team needed to have earned in order to win the daily reward. If teams earned fewer points

than the randomly selected criterion, no reward was provided. If any of the teams earned the

MOBILE DEVICES 31

selected number of points or more, all of the students on the winning teams were provided with

the reward for the day. The teacher then randomly drew the name of an item from a second

mystery jar, which contained all of the potential daily rewards that were selected from student

preference assessments.

Control. During the alternating treatments phase (after the initial baseline data was

collected), baseline (Control) days were referred to as orange days with orange rules, which were

equivalent to the ordinary classroom rules. The classroom rules stated that students remain

seated and quiet during instruction, with no electronic devices used unless they were needed for

academic purposes. Typical classroom management techniques involved class-wide reminders

of classroom expectations and frequently pausing instruction to redirect disruptive or off-task

students.

Most Effective Intervention. Once adequate data were collected through the alternating

treatments design with five intervention data points per intervention, the most effective

intervention phase was implemented. The most effective intervention was determined by an

upward or stable trend of academic engagement during implementation of one intervention.

Teacher and student social validity data were also used to consider the perceived most effective

intervention. The most effective intervention phase was implemented for a minimum of five

data points.

Social Validity

Social validity was assessed using questionnaires completed by the teacher, intervention

specialist, and students from both classrooms. The teacher intervention rating scale (See

Appendix M) was adapted from Elliott and Von Brock Treuting (1991) and the student

intervention rating scale (See Appendix N) was adapted from Turco and Elliott (1986). Both

MOBILE DEVICES 32

teachers and students were asked to choose the intervention they considered most effective and

which intervention they enjoyed the most, if any. The social validity data were analyzed along

with the intervention outcome data to determine the overall effectiveness and acceptability of the

interventions.

Reliability of Measurement

The primary researcher provided training to each research assistant in the data collection

procedures to ensure a minimum of 80% agreement was reached on all observation variables.

During baseline, alternating treatments, and the most effective intervention phases, inter-

observer agreement (IOA) with an independent observer (i.e., data collector or the primary

researcher) was calculated for a minimum of 25% of observation sessions for each intervention

phase per classroom. IOA was calculated for 53.57% and 48.15% of total observation sessions

in Classrooms A and B, respectively. IOA for all variables was calculated using the interval-by-

interval method based on agreements and disagreements for occurrences and non-occurrences of

target behavior, taking the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus

disagreements (Cooper et al., 2007). The resulting mean IOA for academic engagement was

98.73% (range: 96.18-100.00%) for Classroom A and 99.44% (range: 98.47-100.00%) for

Classroom B. The resulting mean IOA for off-task behaviors was 98.36% (range: 95.42-

100.00%) for Classroom A and 99.18% (range: 96.95-100.00%) for Classroom B. The resulting

mean IOA for mobile device presence was 98.98% (range: 96.95-100.00%) for Classroom A

and 99.46% (range: 97.71-100.00%) for Classroom B.

Intervention Adherence

Adherence was observed for 100% of observation sessions in both classrooms for each of

the intervention conditions (Clear Box and Clear Box + GBG) using direct observation as

MOBILE DEVICES 33

assessed according to the intervention adherence checklists (See Appendices O and P,

respectively). During the first five data collection occasions, adherence was measured and

teacher feedback was offered using the intervention adherence checklist as a guide. The

percentage of adherence was calculated by dividing the number of steps completed by the total

number of steps, multiplied by 100 percent. The resulting mean procedural adherence for both

Classroom A (N=15) and Classroom B (N=15) was 100% for blue and yellow days. Every

observation resulted in 100% adherence.

Data Analysis

Results of the alternating treatments design were analyzed using visual analysis, a

method used in single case research design to analyze experimental control and determining the

significance of behavior change (Cooper et al., 2007; Horner et al., 2005). The degree of

experimental control in the alternating treatments design was determined by visual inspection of

the differences between the data paths representing the different treatments, and determining that

any change in the dependent variable was a function of manipulating the independent variable

(Cooper et al., 2007; Horner et al., 2005). Visual analysis of data considered the number of data

points, variability, level of performance, and the direction and degree of data trends. The target

variables (i.e., engagement, off-task behaviors, mobile device presence, and percentage of

potential points earned) were plotted on line graphs and analyzed for level, trend, variability, and

the immediacy of treatment effects. Descriptive statistics and percentage of non-overlapping

data (PND) were calculated and reported as summary statistics. Social validity, IOA, and

procedural adherence data were also calculated and reported.

MOBILE DEVICES 34

Results

The results of this study displayed in Figures 1-6 demonstrate an increase in academic

engagement, a decrease in off-task behaviors, and a decrease in the presence of mobile devices

during academic instruction with the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG intervention. The

overall data indicate that the Clear Box + GBG intervention results in the improvement of the

target variables when compared to both the Clear Box intervention and typical classroom

management strategies (e.g., Control condition). The Clear Box + GBG intervention was

determined to be the most effective intervention and therefore implemented during the most

effective intervention phase of the research design.

Classroom A. Figure 1 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the academic

engagement of Classroom A. Baseline data were stable with a mean academic engagement of

33.40% (SD=6.81). Throughout the alternating treatments phase, the implementation of the

GBG + Box intervention resulted in an immediate increase in academic engagement and

maintained at a high level with a mean of 70.90% (SD=11.39). The implementation of the

Antecedent intervention resulted in data remaining consistent with baseline, producing a mean of

30.40% (SD=8.88). The Control condition (no intervention in place) also resulted in data

consistent with baseline, producing a mean of 30.27% (SD=3.68). After the alternating

treatments phase, the most effective intervention phase was implemented with the Clear Box +

Game. The resulting data remained stable at a high level with a mean of 64.92% (SD=1.82).

MOBILE DEVICES 35

Figure 1. Percentage of academic engagement observed in Classroom A.

Figure 2 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the off-task behavior of

Classroom A. Baseline data were at high rates and slightly variable with a mean of 69.31%

(SD=7.33). With the implementation of alternating treatments, data for the Control condition

were consistent with baseline rates of off-task behavior and high stability, showing a mean of

70.82% (SD=2.27). The implementation of the Antecedent intervention resulted in data that

were consistent with baseline data, demonstrating a mean of 70.30% (SD=8.32). There was an

immediate drop in off-task behavior with the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG

intervention, though somewhat variable, displaying a mean of 30.07% (SD=10.65). During the

most effective intervention phase, the Clear Box + GBG intervention showed stable, low rates of

off-task behavior with a mean of 36.19% (SD=1.18).

MOBILE DEVICES 36

Figure 2. Percentage of off-task behavior observed in Classroom A.

Figure 3 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the presence of mobile

devices during academic instruction for Classroom A. Baseline data were at high rates and

slightly variable with a mean of 39.51% (SD=7.97). During the alternating treatments, the

Antecedent intervention had data consistent with baseline rates, showing a mean of 38.41%

(SD=11.67). Data for the Control condition were slightly lower than baseline, though just as

variable, with a mean of 25.16% (SD=8.07). Despite Control condition data showing lower rates

of mobile device use relative to baseline rates, data from the Clear Box + GBG intervention

demonstrated an immediate drop in the presence of mobile devices with a mean of 5.58%

(SD=4.57). The Clear Box + GBG intervention was found to be the most effective, displaying a

mean of 11.62% (SD=5.62).

MOBILE DEVICES 37

Figure 3. Percentage of mobile device presence observed in Classroom A.

Classroom B. Figure 4 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the academic

engagement of Classroom B. Baseline data show low rates of academic engagement with a

mean of 38.19% (SD=4.11). Throughout the alternating treatments phase, data for the Control

condition demonstrated lower rates of engagement than baseline with more variability, showing

a mean of 27.35% (SD=11.27). Data collected for the Antecedent intervention was implemented

demonstrated rates of engagement consistent with baseline rates, though more variable, with a

mean of 36.86% (SD=11.92). With the implementation of Clear Box + GBG intervention, there

was an immediate and significant increase in academic engagement with a mean of 69.20%

(SD=7.93). The Clear Box + GBG intervention was determined to be the most effective

intervention, and engagement rates increased during this phase with a mean of 73.60%

(SD=4.48).

MOBILE DEVICES 38

Figure 4. Percentage of academic engagement observed in Classroom B.

Figure 5 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the off-task behaviors of

Classroom B. During baseline, data were stable at high rates of off-task behaviors with a mean

of 65.10% (SD=3.17). During the alternating treatments phase, data for the Control condition

showed higher rates of off-task behavior than baseline with a mean of 70.48% (SD=6.31). The

Antecedent intervention resulted in rates of off-task behavior (mean of 63.99%; SD=10.82) that

were similar to baseline rates. With the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG intervention,

there was an immediate and significant drop in off-task behaviors with a mean of 34.14%

(SD=7.77). During the most effective intervention phase, the Clear Box + GBG intervention had

lower rates of off-task behaviors, showing a mean of 27.48% (SD=4.30).

MOBILE DEVICES 39

Figure 5. Percentage of off-task behaviors observed in Classroom B.

Figure 6 displays the results of the alternating treatments on the presence of mobile

devices in Classroom B. Baseline data were highly variable, showing high rates of mobile

device presence at an average of 32.94% (SD=18.58). During the Control condition, the

presence of mobile devices averaged higher rates than baseline though significantly more

variable, demonstrating a mean of 38.49% (SD=22.18). Implementation of the Antecedent

intervention resulted in lower rates of mobile device presence compared to baseline and control

days, with a mean of 22.32% (SD=3.05). The implementation of the Clear Box + GBG

intervention resulted in an immediate decrease in mobile device presence, showing a mean of

9.24% (SD=4.34). During the most effective intervention phase, the Clear Box + GBG

intervention demonstrated even lower rates of mobile device presence, displaying a mean of

3.13% (SD=3.10).

MOBILE DEVICES 40

Figure 6. Percentage of mobile device presence observed in Classroom B.

Tables 2 and 4 list the descriptive statistics of each target variable throughout each phase

of the study (e.g., baseline, alternating treatments, most effective intervention) for Classrooms A

and B, respectively. Tables 3 and 5 list the Cohen’s D effect sizes and the Percentage of Non-

overlapping Data (PND) for each target variable throughout each phase of the alternating

treatments for Classrooms A and B, respectively. Percentages of non-overlapping data (PND)

were calculated by dividing the number of intervention points that did not overlap with any

baseline points by the total number of intervention points. Table 6 list the team data earned on

Yellow Days with the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG intervention.

MOBILE DEVICES 41

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Target Variables for Classroom A

Target

Baseline

Control

Clear Box

Clear Box +

GBG

Most Eff.

Variable

Mean

Engage.

33.40%

6.81

30.27%

3.68

30.40%

8.88

70.90%

11.39

64.92%

1.82

Off-Task

69.31%

7.33

70.82%

2.27

70.30%

8.32

30.07%

10.65

36.19%

1.18

MD Pres.

39.51%

7.97

25.16%

8.07

38.41%

11.67

5.58%

4.57

11.62%

5.62

Table 3.

Cohen’s D Effect Size and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data for Target Variables for

Classroom A

Target

Control

Clear Box

Clear Box +

GBG

Most Effective

Variable

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Acad.

Eng.

-0.57

-0.38

4.00

100%

6.33

100%

Off-

Task

0.28

0.13

-4.29

100%

-6.31

100%

Pres.

-1.79

80%

-0.11

-5.22

100%

-4.04

100%

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics of Target Variables for Classroom B

Target

Baseline

Control

Clear Box

Clear Box +

GBG

Most Eff.

Variable

Mean

Engage.

38.2%

4.11

27.4%

11.27

36.9%

11.92

69.2%

7.93

73.6%

4.48

Off-Task

65.1%

3.17

70.5%

6.31

64.0%

10.82

34.1%

7.77

27.5%

4.30

MD Pres.

32.9%

18.58

38.5%

22.18

22.3%

3.05

9.2%

4.34

3.1%

3.10

MOBILE DEVICES 42

Table 5.

Cohen’s D Effect Size and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data for Target Variables for

Classroom B

Target

Control

Clear Box

Clear Box + GBG

Most Effective

Variable

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Eff.

Size

PND

Acad.

Eng.

-1.28

-0.15

20%

4.91

100%

8.23

100%

Off-

Task

1.08

-0.14

20%

-5.22

100%

-9.97

100%

Pres.

0.27

-0.80

-1.76

80%

-2.24

100%

Table 6.

Team data earned on Yellow Days (Clear Box + GBG)

Team

Average % of

Potential

Points Earned

Range of %

of Points

Earned

% of Sessions

Bonus Points

Earned

% of Sessions

Reward

Earned

Classroom A

24.00%

0-100%

20%

115.00%

100-125%

100%

98.33%

0-166.67%

90%

80%

58.50%

0-125%

60%

20%

65.00%

0-100%

60%

40%

Classroom B

45.00%

0-166.67%

30%

20%

70.83%

0-166.67%

60%

40%

113.33%

75-166.67%

100%

80%

73.15%

0-166.67%

50%

77.50%

0-166.67%

50%

40%

Social Validity

Toward the end of the alternating treatments phase of the study, teachers and students

were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the Antecedent intervention and the Clear Box

+ GBG intervention (See Appendices M and N). Both questionnaires contained rating scales and

MOBILE DEVICES 43

asked teachers and students to rate 21 of the responses from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly

agree). Questions 1-18 were asked of both the Antecedent intervention and the Clear Box +

GBG intervention; questions 19-21 were asked specifically of the Clear Box + GBG

intervention. Teachers were asked six open-ended response questions regarding which

intervention they most preferred, had the best results, and which intervention they would be

willing to implement again in the future, if any. Students were asked four open-ended response

questions regarding which game they most preferred and why, if they noticed a change in their

own personal use of mobile devices, and what changes they would make to the game(s), if any.

Both the general education teacher and intervention specialist agreed that the Clear Box +

GBG intervention was the most effective in reducing the presence of mobile devices and was the

most liked intervention by teachers and students. The intervention specialist noticed significant

changes in students’ behavior and stated: “It gave students a motivation to be engaged in class; I

also like how it was a competition with themselves, rather than having students competing

against each other.” The general education teacher also preferred the Clear Box + GBG

intervention, stating that it would likely be used again in the future. Additionally, the general

education teacher stated that he would be willing to be the lead interventionist if he were to use

the Clear Box + GBG intervention in the future. Table 7 lists the results of the Teacher

Intervention Rating Scale for the Antecedent intervention and the Clear Box + GBG intervention.

MOBILE DEVICES 44

Table 7.

Results of the Teacher Intervention Rating Scales for the General Education Teacher and

Intervention Specialist

Clear Box

Clear Box + GBG

General

Ed.

Teacher

Intervention

Specialist

General

Ed.

Teacher

Intervention

Specialist

This was an acceptable intervention

for the classroom’s problem behavior.

Agree

Slightly Agree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Most teachers would find this

intervention appropriate for the

behavior problems targeted.

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

The intervention was effective in

changing the classroom’s problem

behavior.

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

I would suggest the use of this

intervention to other teachers.

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

The classroom’s behavior problems

were severe enough to warrant use of

this intervention.

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Most teachers would find this

intervention suitable for the problem

behavior targeted.

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I would be willing to use this

intervention again with another group

of students.

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

The intervention did not result in

negative side effects for the

classroom.

Strongly

Agree

Slightly

Agree

The intervention was a fair way to

handle the classroom’s problem

behavior.

Slightly

Agree

Slightly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

10.

I liked the procedures that were used

in the intervention.

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

Agree

11.

The intervention quickly improved

the classroom’s behavior.

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Agree

12.

The intervention produced a lasting

improvement in the classroom’s

behavior.

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree

Disagree

MOBILE DEVICES 45

13.

Soon after using the intervention,

there was a positive change in the

problem behavior.

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree

Slightly

Agree

14.

The classroom’s behavior remained

at an improved level even after the

intervention discontinued.

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

15.

The intervention produced enough

improvement to the classroom’s

behavior that the behavior is no

longer a problem.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

16.

Other behaviors related to the

problem behavior improved due to

the intervention.

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree

Slightly

Disagree

17.

The class’s academic engagement

seemed to increase with the use of

this intervention.

Disagree

Agree

18.

The class’s use of mobile devices

seemed to decrease with the use of

this intervention.

Disagree

Agree

19.

I liked using the Motivator Timer to

distribute points to teams.

---

Agree

20.

I liked using the mystery criterion to

determine teams that earned a

reward.

---

Agree

Strongly

Agree

21.

I liked using the mystery reward to

determine which reward students

could earn.

---

Agree

Strongly

Agree

The results of the student intervention rating scales (N=20) showed that students

preferred the Clear Box + GBG intervention when compared to the Antecedent intervention. In

response to the open-ended questions on the Student Intervention Rating Scale, one student

stated: “I like the [Clear Box + GBG intervention] better because we get rewards, our classmates

participate, and it helped me focus better in class.” Results from the Student Intervention Rating

Scales for both interventions are presented in Table 8.

MOBILE DEVICES 46

Table 8.

Results of the Student Intervention Rating Scales for the Antecedent Intervention and GBG + Box

Intervention

Percentage of Students who

“Agree” or “Strongly Agree”

Antecedent

Clear Box +

GBG

The Game was a fair way to deal with the use of

mobile devices in the classroom.

45%

50%

The Game was too harsh on the class for using

mobile devices.

10%

There are better ways to handle the use of mobile

devices in the classroom than this Game.

45%

The Game would be a good game for the teacher to

use with other classrooms.

40%

70%

I like the rules for this Game for using mobile

devices in the classroom.

40%

60%

I think the rules for this Game helped my class do

better in school.

20%

60%

Overall, I liked playing this Game with my

classmates.

20%

55%

I used my mobile devices less on days we played

this Game compared to days with no game.

25%

45%

I would like to play this Game in future classes.

20%

45%

10.

I liked that I didn’t know how many points my team

needed to earn to receive the daily rewards.

40%

11.

I was happy with the different options for the daily

rewards.

50%

12.

I liked the reward being a mystery every Yellow

Day.

55%

*Questions 10-12 were presented to students only for the Clear Box + GBG Intervention.

Discussion

The current study analyzed the effectiveness of an antecedent intervention and an

interdependent group contingency intervention in increasing student academic engagement by

decreasing the inappropriate and disruptive use of mobile devices during academic instruction.

This study addresses a gap that exists in the literature examining the combined influence of

MOBILE DEVICES 47

antecedent intervention strategies and an interdependent group contingency intervention with a

specific focus on decreasing the inappropriate use of mobile devices. Though various studies

have been conducted that analyze the influence of interdependent group contingency

interventions and antecedent intervention strategies, this study is one of the first to examine their

effectiveness in specifically targeting the inappropriate use of mobile devices.

One purpose of the current study was to determine if the Clear Box intervention was

more effective in increasing the students’ academic engagement compared to typical classroom

management strategies (Control condition). Results showed that the Clear Box intervention was

no more effective at increasing students’ engagement than the teacher’s typical classroom

management strategies. The presence of mobile devices during the implementation of the Clear

Box intervention also exhibited similar rates as the Control condition. As such, simply offering

the opportunity for students to precommit by placing their devices in the clear box was not

effective in decreasing the presence of mobile devices during instruction or increasing students’

academic engagement.

A second purpose of this study was to determine if the interdependent group contingency

intervention (Clear Box + GBG) was more effective at increasing students’ academic

engagement compared to typical classroom management strategies. Results showed that the

students’ academic engagement was significantly higher with the implementation of the Clear

Box + GBG intervention compared to the control condition. The presence of mobile devices also

significantly decreased when the Clear Box + GBG intervention was implemented. The results

of this study are consistent with previous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of group

contingency interventions resulting in immediate decreases in disruptive classroom behavior and

MOBILE DEVICES 48

increases in on-task behavior (Maggin, Johnson, Chafouleas, Ruberto, & Berggren, 2012;

McGoey et al., 2010; Theodore, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001).

The final purpose of this study was to determine if the antecedent intervention or the

interdependent group contingency intervention was more effective at increasing the students’

academic engagement and decreasing the presence of mobile devices. The Clear Box + GBG

intervention was significantly more effective than the Clear Box intervention for all of the target

variables. Though the Clear Box intervention alone resulted in similar rates of engagement and

mobile device presence compared to the control condition, the antecedent components integrated

within the group contingency intervention (Clear Box + GBG) may have contributed to the

effectiveness of the multi-component intervention. Though research indicates that class-wide

implementation of the GBG is an effective intervention to be implemented at the high school

level (Flower, McKenna et al., 2014; Lannie & McCurdy, 2007; Ling et al., 2011; Mitchell et al.,

2015; Wright & McCurdy, 2011), the addition of the antecedent intervention may have enhanced

the overall effectiveness of the GBG for both classrooms in the current study. Multi-component

interventions, which utilize a combination of empirically-validated interventions simultaneously,

allow for more intensive support when fully implemented, increasing the overall effectiveness of

the multi-component intervention (Kehle, Bray, Theodore, Jenson, & Clark, 2000).

Additionally, the study sought to determine the overall acceptability, effectiveness, and

ease of implementation for each intervention. Results of the teacher and student rating scales

demonstrate that the Clear Box + GBG intervention was more acceptable, viewed as more

effective, and was more enjoyable to play in comparison to the Clear Box intervention. Both the

general education teacher and intervention specialist reported a significant change in student

behavior with higher rates of academic engagement when student teams participated in the Clear

MOBILE DEVICES 49

Box + GBG intervention. Students in both classrooms reported paying closer attention to the

teacher during the Clear Box + GBG intervention and enjoyed earning prizes.

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of this study indicate that the interdependent group contingency intervention

is effective in increasing students’ academic engagement and decreasing the presence of mobile

devices during instruction; however, there were several limitations to the study that should be

noted. First, the Clear Box + GBG intervention procedures were implemented by the

intervention specialist, who served in the classroom to provide supplemental support to the

general education teacher for academic instruction. Though the intervention was implemented

with full adherence, this study did not provide information on the feasibility of a teacher

managing the Clear Box + GBG intervention without the support of an intervention specialist.

The general education teacher reported that he would be willing to implement the Clear Box +

GBG intervention with future classes, even without the support of a second teacher in the

classroom. It may be beneficial for future research to implement the Clear Box + GBG

intervention in a classroom with one teacher serving as the sole interventionist. Doing so would

be informative of the full effectiveness and feasibility in a classroom with a higher teacher-to-

student ratio.

A second limitation is the implementation of this study in only one general education

teacher’s classroom, with the same intervention specialist serving as the interventionist. All of

the students that participated in the study were taking ninth-grade algebra. Future research

should look to implement the Clear Box + GBG intervention across multiple classrooms, with a

variety of interventionists, academic subjects, and student populations. Expanding the research

MOBILE DEVICES 50

across diverse educational settings and populations can demonstrate the generalizability of the

intervention and maximize its overall effectiveness.

A third limitation of this study was the absence of a GBG intervention phase without the

presence of the clear box. While previous research has shown the effectiveness of the GBG on

decreasing disruptive behavior, no study has yet to determine the effectiveness of the GBG

specifically on decreasing the inappropriate presence of mobile devices. Future research should

look to compare the Clear Box + GBG and the GBG alone to determine if the clear box is a

necessary component when targeting the inappropriate presence of mobile devices.

Conclusion

Mobile devices have limitless features that provide students access to unlimited tools and

information that may be used for academic purposes, but those same features can disrupt their

learning (Thomas & Munoz, 2016). New forms of technology offer new opportunities for

academic instruction, but the technology can keep students constantly distracted (Baker, Lush, &

Neuhauser, 2012; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012). Interruptions can disrupt the encoding of

academic content and cause difficulty when asked to retrieve the information (End, Worthman,

Mathews, & Wetterau, 2010; Rosen et al., 2011; Shelton et al., 2009). Of the teens that take

their mobile devices to school, 43% send or receive texts during class at least once a day, which

results in lowered academic performance (Lenhart et al., 2010; Rosen et al., 2011; Thomas &

Munoz, 2016). Diverted attention from an interruption decreased students’ memory accuracy by

16% (Rosen et al., 2011).

Despite the distractions that mobile devices can cause, the potential benefits of mobile

devices in the classroom have led to an increasing number of schools removing their bans,

resulting in a need for schools to develop clear policies on appropriate use of mobile devices in

MOBILE DEVICES 51

the classroom (Thomas & Munoz, 2016). This study is one of the first to successfully

demonstrate the effectiveness of the GBG as part of an intervention package specifically

targeting the inappropriate use of mobile devices and simultaneously increasing students’

academic engagement. The Clear Box + GBG intervention may provide schools and classrooms

a means of permitting students to maintain possession of their mobile devices, while reserving

their use for appropriate academic purposes. Based on the results of the data, school personnel

should consider utilizing interdependent group contingency interventions with antecedent

strategies when working in classrooms with high rates of inappropriate use of mobile devices.

The Clear Box + GBG intervention can be adapted to fit any classroom and rewards can be

modified according to students’ preferences. The Clear Box + GBG intervention was perceived

to be easy to implement, enjoyable to play, and viewed as an effective intervention by teachers

and students.

MOBILE DEVICES 52

References

Alobiedat, A. (2012). Faculty and student perception towards the appropriate and inappropriate

use of mobile phones in the classroom at the University of Granada. International

Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 5-16.

Alter, P., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ challenging

behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education and Treatment of Children,

36(4), 51-69.

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective,

and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health,

79(9), 408-415.

Axelrod, M. I., & Zank, A. J. (2012). Increasing classroom compliance: Using a high-

probability command sequence with noncompliant students. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 21, 119-133.

Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the use of cell phones and other

electronic devices in the classroom: Evidence from a survey of faculty and students.

Journal of Education for Business, 87, 275-289.

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of

individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119-124.

Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K.L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harris, S., Moroz, K. B.,

Hicks, K. J., Kasper, B. B., Culos, C., Sailor, W., & Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide

application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal

of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 131-145.

MOBILE DEVICES 53

Burns, S. M., & Lohenry, K. (2010). Cellular phone use in class: Implications for teaching and

learning: A pilot study. College Student Journal, 44(3), 805-810.

Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing,

cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280-294.

Campbell, S. (2008). Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism,

collectivism, and focus of the setting. Communication Reports, 21(2), 70-81.

Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson,

J. L., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support:

Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4-16.

Chafouleas, S. M., Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., Jaffery, R., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). An

evaluation of a class-wide intervention package involving self-management and a group

contingency on classroom behavior of middle school students. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 21, 34-57.

Christ, T. J., & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an interdependent group contingency

mediated by an automated feedback device: An intervention across three high school

classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 78-90.

Conroy, M. A., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional

assessment process: Existing research, issues, and recommendations. The Journal of

Special Education, 37(1), 15-25.

Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S. (2008). Class-wide interventions:

Effective instruction makes a difference. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 24-30.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

MOBILE DEVICES 54

Cooper, K. S. (2014). Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods

examination of teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 363-

402.

Crouch, P. L., Gresham, F. M., & Wright, W. R. (1985). Interdependent and independent group

contingencies with immediate and delayed reinforcement for controlling classroom

behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 177-187.

Cyr, B. A., Berman, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2015). The role of communication technology in

adolescent relationships and identity development. Child Youth Forum, 44, 79-92.

Denune, H., Hawkins, R., Donovan, L., McCoy, D., Hall, L., & Moeder, A. (2015). Combining

self-monitoring and an interdependent group contingency to improve the behavior of

sixth graders with EBD. Psychology in the Schools, 52(6), 562-577.

Dijkman, M. AM., Harting, J., & Van Der Wal, M. F. (2015). Adoption of the good behavior

game: An evidence-based intervention for the prevention of behavior problems. Health

Education Journal, 74(2), 168-182.

Donaldson, J. M., Wiskow, K. M., & Soto, P. L. (2015). Immediate and distal effects of the

good behavior game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3), 685-689.

Dunlap, G., Kincaid, D., Horner, R. H., Knoster, T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). A comment on

the term “positive behavior support.” Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions,

16(3), 133-136.

Elder, A. D. (2013). College student’s cell phone use, beliefs, and effects on their learning.

College Student Journal, 47(4), 585-592.

Elliott, S. N., & Von Brock Treuting, M. (1991). The behavior intervention rating scale:

Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness measure.

MOBILE DEVICES 55

Journal of School Psychology, 29, 43-51.

End, C. M., Worthman, S., Mathews, M. B., & Wetterau, K. (2010). Costly cell phones: The

impact of cell phone rings on academic performance. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 55-57.

Engel, G., & Green, T. (2011). Cell phones in the classroom: Are we dialing up disaster?

TechTrends, 55(2), 39-45.

Fabiano, G. A., Pelham Jr., Karmazin, K., Kreher, J., Panahon, C. J., & Carlson, C. (2008). A

group contingency program to improve the behavior of elementary school students in a

cafeteria. Behavior Modification, 32(1), 121-132.

Flannery, K. B., Frank, J. L., Kato, M. M., Doren, B., & Fenning, P. (2013). Implementing

school-wide positive behavior support in high school settings: Analysis of eight high

schools. The University of North Carolina Press, 96(4), 267-282.

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega Jr., R. (2014). Effects of

the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of

Educational Research, 84(4), 546-571.

Flower, A., McKenna, J., Muething, C. S., Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). Effects of the

good behavior game on class-wide off-task behavior in a high school basic algebra

resource classroom. Behavior Modification, 38(1), 45-68.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Source of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., and Mooney, K. (2011).

Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description

of 21 instruments. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

MOBILE DEVICES 56

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory

Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, D. A., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B., Brecht, P. W., &

Chacon, J. D. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual

learning. Collect Student Journal, 46(2), 323-332.

Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In

A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV, 1, 773-787.

Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Effects of a

professional development program on behavioral engagement of students in middle and

high school. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 143-163.

Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group

contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education,

16(1), 101-110.

Hirn, R. G., & Scott, T. M. (2014). Descriptive analysis of teacher instructional practices and

student engagement among adolescents with and without challenging behavior.

Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 589-610.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of

single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council

for Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179.

Hulac, D. M., & Benson, N. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and

managing disruptive behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(4), 257-262.

Humble-Thaden, M. B. (2011). Student reflective perceptions of high school educational cell

phone technology usage. The Journal of Technology Studies, 37(1), 10-16.

MOBILE DEVICES 57

Jackson, L. D. (2013). Is mobile technology in the classroom a helpful tool or a distraction?: A

report of university students’ attitudes, usage practices, and suggestions for policies. The

International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 8, 129-140.

Kamps, D., Wills, H. P., Heitzman-Powell, L., Laylin, J., Szoke, C., Petrillo, T., & Culey, A.

(2011). Class-wide function-related intervention teams: Effects of group contingency

programs in urban classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(3), 154-

167.

Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi

component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in

the Schools, 37(5), 475-480.

Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000).

Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist.

Psychology in the Schools, 37(6), 523-533.

Kern, L., Choutka, C. M., & Sokol, N. G. (2002). Assessment-based antecedent interventions

used in natural settings to reduce challenging behavior: An analysis of the literature.

Education and Treatment of Children, 25(1), 113-130.

Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom

behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 65-75.

Kirk, E. R., Becker, J. A., Skinner, C. H., Yarbrough Fearrington, J., McCane-Bowling, S. J.,

Amburn, C., Luna, E., & Greear, C. (2010). Decreasing inappropriate vocalizations

using class-wide group contingencies and color wheel procedures: A component

analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 931-943.

Kleinman, K. E., & Saigh, P. A. (2011). The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct

MOBILE DEVICES 58

of regular education New York City high school students. Behavior Modification, 35(1),

95-105.

Kraemer, E. E., Davies, S. C., Arndt, K. J., & Hunley, S. (2012). A comparison of the mystery

motivator and the get ‘em on task interventions for off-task behaviors. Psychology in the

Schools, 49(2), 163-175.

Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban

classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior.

Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 85-98.

Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones: Text

messaging explodes as teens embrace it as the centerpiece of their communication

strategies with friends. Pew Internet & American Life Project: An Initiative of the Pew

Research Center.

Ling, S. M., & Barnett, D. W. (2013). Increasing preschool student engagement during group

learning activities using a group contingency. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 33(3), 186-196.

Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (2011). Effects of a class-wide interdependent group

contingency designed to improve the behavior of an at-risk student. Journal of

Behavioral Education, 20, 103-116.

Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & Newman-Eig, L. M. (2010). Effects on homework completion

and accuracy of varied and constant reinforcement within an interdependent group

contingency system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 115-131.

Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Group contingency interventions with

children—1980-2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39(2), 322-341.

MOBILE DEVICES 59

Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor the boat: A class-wide intervention to reduce

problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(2), 113-120.

Luiselli, J. K., & Murbach, L. (2002). Providing instruction from novel staff as an antecedent

intervention for child tantrum behavior in a public school classroom. Education and

Treatment of Children, 25(3), 356-365.

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior

support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 4(3), 182-188.

Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A

systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students

with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625-654.

Malmskog, S., & McDonnell, A. P. (1999). Teacher-mediated facilitation of engagement by

children with developmental delays in inclusive preschools. Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 19(4), 203-216.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,

middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce

disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), 149-

156.

Mautone, J. A., Luiselli, J. K., & Handler, M. W. (2006). Improving implementation of

classroom instruction through teacher-directed behavioral consultation: A single-case

demonstration. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(3),

432-438.

MOBILE DEVICES 60

McCurdy, B. L., Lannie, A. L., & Barnabas, E. (2009). Reducing disruptive behavior in an

urban school cafeteria: An extension of the good behavior game. Journal of School

Psychology, 47, 39-54.

McGoey, K. E., Schneider, D. L., Rezzetano, K. M., Prodan, T., & Tankersley, M. (2010).

Class-wide intervention to manage disruptive behavior in the kindergarten classroom.

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(3), 247-261.

McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined

efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and

behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 8(3), 146-154.

Mitchell, R. R., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., Ford, W. B., & Sterling, H. E. (2015). The

effects of the good behavior game with general-education high school students. School

Psychology Review, 44(2), 191-207.

Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007).

Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive

behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 53-63.

O’Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. M. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice

teachers answer the call. Computers & Education, 85, 110-122.

O’Neill, R. E., McDonnell, J. J., Billingsley, F. F., & Jenson, W. R. (2011). Single case

research designs in educational and community settings. Boston: Pearson.

Poduska, J. M., & Kurki, A. (2014). Guided by theory, informed by practice: Training and

support for the good behavior game, a classroom-based behavior management strategy.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 83-94.

MOBILE DEVICES 61

Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving

students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with

randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 282-295.

Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in

classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 527-540.

Reinhardt, D., Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2009). Improving homework

accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies and randomized components. Psychology

in the Schools, 46(5), 471-488.

Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A class

wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior.

School Psychology Review, 37(3), 315-332.

Richards, L. C., Heathfield, L. T., & Jenson, W. R. (2010). A class-wide peer-modeling

intervention package to increase on-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47(6),

551-556.

Robb, M., & Shellenbarger, T. (2012). Using technology to promote mobile learning:

Engaging students with cell phones in the classroom. Nurse Educator, 37(6), 258-261.

Rodriguez, B. J., & Anderson, C. M. (2014). Integrating a social behavior intervention during

small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(4), 234-245.

Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). Empirical examination of

the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom:

Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17(2),

163-177.

MOBILE DEVICES 62

Schanding Jr., G. T., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2010). Use of the mystery motivator for a high

school class. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(1), 38-53.

Scott, J. S., White, R., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K. (2009). Effects of Positive Unified

Behavior Support on Instruction. International Journal on School Disaffection, 6(2), 41-

48.

Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention.

Guildford Press.

Shelton, J. T., Elliot, E. M., Eaves, S. D., & Exner, A. L. (2009). The distracting effects of a

ringing cell phone: An investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 29, 513-521.

Skerbetz, M. D., & Kostewicz, D. E. (2013). Academic choice for included students with

emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 212-222.

Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement:

Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond.

Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 389-403.

Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Burton, B. (2009). Applying group-oriented contingencies in

the classroom. In A. Akin-Little, S. Little, M. Bray, & T. Kehle (Eds.), Behavioral

interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies. School Psychology, (pp.

157-170). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. F., Skinner, A. L., & Cashwell, T. H. (1999). Using interdependent

contingencies with groups of students: Why the principal kissed a pig. Education

Administration Quarterly, 35, 806-820.

Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of intervention to decrease disruptive

MOBILE DEVICES 63

classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 333-

368.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T. …

Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral

assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.

Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies

and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology,

39(3), 267-277.

Thomas, K., & Munoz, M. A. (2016). Hold the phone! High school students’ perceptions of

mobile phone integration in the classroom. American Secondary Education, 44(3), 19-

37.

Thomas, K., & O’Bannon, B. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers’

perceptions. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(1), 11-20.

Thomas, K. M., O’Bannon, B. W., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom:

Teachers’ perspectives of inclusion, benefits, and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 30,

295-308.

Thomas, K. M., O’Bannon, B. W., & Britt, V. G. (2014). Standing in the schoolhouse door:

Teacher perceptions of mobile phones in the classroom. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 46(4), 373-395.

Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text

messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60, 1-9.

Trevino-Maack, S. I., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2015). A group contingency plus self-

management intervention targeting at-risk secondary students’ class-work and active

MOBILE DEVICES 64

engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 36(6), 347-360.

Turco, T. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1986). Students’ acceptability ratings of intervention for

classroom misbehaviors: A study of well-behaving and misbehaving youth. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 281-289.

Unlu, E., Vuran, S., Akdogan, F. E., Guven, D., Yonter, S., & Celik, S. (2014). Class-wide

positive behavior support plan on adhering of the classroom rules. Elementary Education

Online, 13(2), 607-621.

Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade

classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4),

517-535.

Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A., & Sailor,

W. (2003). Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues

and lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 80-91.

Williamson, B. D., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., & Lo, Y. (2009). Using a random dependent

group contingency to increase on-task behaviors of high school students with high

incidence disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46(10), 1074-1083.

Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Class-wide positive behavior support and group

contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 173-180.

Appendix A. Classroom A Intervention/Game Schedule 65

Appendix A. Classroom A Intervention/Game Schedule 66

Appendix B. Classroom B Intervention/Game Schedule 67

Appendix B. Classroom B Intervention/Game Schedule 68

Appendix C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) 69

Appendix C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) 70

Appendix C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) 71

Appendix C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) 72

Appendix C. Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools Observation Code (BOSS) 73

Appendix D. Appropriate / Not Appropriate Visual Poster 74

Appendix E. Orange Day Script 75

Appendix F. Blue Day Script 76

Appendix G. Yellow Day Script 77

Appendix G. Yellow Day Script 78

Appendix H. Student Reward Questionnaire 79

Appendix I. Points Sheet 80

Appendix J. Teacher Intervention Rating Scale 81

Appendix J. Teacher Intervention Rating Scale 82

Appendix J. Teacher Intervention Rating Scale 83

Appendix J. Teacher Intervention Rating Scale 84

Appendix K. Student Intervention Rating Scale 85

Appendix K. Student Intervention Rating Scale 86

Appendix L. Blue Game Adherence Checklist 87

Appendix M. Yellow Game Adherence Checklist 88

Appendix M. Yellow Game Adherence Checklist 89

1 views·90 pages

Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF Free Download

Using an Antecedent Intervention and Interdependent Group Contingency to Decrease the Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in High School Classrooms PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Uploaded by _edward_smith_ on 4/8/2026

/90