Running header: BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

Behavior Intervention Plan:

Disruptive Behavior in an After School Setting
Andrea M. Claire
St. Bonaventure Graduate Student

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

Behavior Intervention Plan:

Disruptive Behavior in an After School Setting
Literature Review
Disruptive behavior is one of the most common behavior issues present in the educational
setting. Many researchers have done studies to find the most effective intervention plans and
behavior plans to counteract this type of behavior issue. Clicking Away (Bouck & Szwed, 2013),
Good Behavior Game (Crijen, Muthen, van der Sar, & van Lier, 2004), Mystery Motivator, and
Get Em on Task (Arndt, Davies, Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012) are all different intervention
strategies that can be used to decrease the amount of disruptive behavior seen in young children.
Intervention Summaries
The Clicking Away intervention strategy includes the use of technology. This
intervention has the target students using electronic clickers to check in with their answer to a
question. The teacher and the students would have a signal worked out so as not to disrupt the
class when asking the students to check in. This intervention helps the students stay on task,
and the extra use of technology provides a fun motivator as well (Bouck & Szwed, 2013).
The classroom based intervention system that was used in the study is called Good
Behavior Game (GBG). This intervention system requires teams of 3 or 4 students, and each
team is encouraged to manage their own behaviors. Each team is randomly and equally
distributed. The process of the intervention is that each team has a number of cards centered in
the middle of their table. The card is removed if just one of the members is displaying an
inappropriate behavior (which have been discussed and posted in the room). Teams are rewarded
with compliments, and winning teams received tangible prizes daily, weekly, and/or monthly.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

The key is to catch the teams being good and reward the good behavior (Crijen, Muthen, van der
Sar, & van Lier, 2004). The intervention consisted of three phases. The first is the introduction
phase in which the GBG is played for 10 minutes about 3 times a week. The second phase
(expansion phase) involves an increase in the duration of the game to an hour about 3 times a
week with only weekly and monthly rewards. Finally, the last phase is the generalization phase.
This phase uses the same parameters as the second, except the game should be played in a
variety of settings and GBG rules are encouraged to be followed even when not playing the
game. The first phases last about 2 months, the second lasts till early spring, and the final phase
is continued until the end of the year (Crijen, Muthen, van der Sar, & van Lier, 2004).
The Mystery Motivator intervention is a tool that is set up so the entire class (if on-task)
has a possibility to receive a prize. A weekly chart is created with an invisible M placed on 3
out of the 5 school days per week. If the class shows the targeted positive behavior established
(which is disused with the students and modeled to ensure understanding of expectations), then
they take a crayon and color in the current day of the week. If the M appears, the class gets a
prize. If the M does not appear, then the class receives praise and is told to continue to try for a
prize the rest of the week. The Mystery Motivator also allows for the class to earn bonus points
(Arndt, Davies, Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012).
The Get Em on Task computer-signaling program is a program that requires a computer.
The computer signals the teacher to scan the room to look for on-task and off-task behavior. If
the student observed is doing an on-task behavior, then he/she is called out (by name) to add a
point to their record sheet. If he/she is observed doing an off-task behavior, he/she is called out
to put an X on his/her record sheet. The students are observed in intervals throughout a set time
period, and the students being observed in each interval are chosen at random. This system

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

allows for students to earn their own points and use them to buy things from an agreed upon
menu of prizes. Again, the on-task behaviors are modeled for understanding before the
intervention is implemented (Arndt, Davies, Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012).
Intervention Results
All of the interventions reviewed had positive results, however some had more drastic
results than others. The study using the Click Away strategy found that during the intervention
the students on-task behavior (non-disruptive behavior) increased, but when the intervention
was withdrawn the students returned to the baseline data level (Bouck & Szwed, 2013). In the
Good Behavior Game study the students showed varied results depending on the classroom
being reviewed. Since this study had three separate classes participating in the study the results
for each class were different. The first and second classes showed an increase in positive
behavior, while the third class showed no change from the baseline data (Crijen, Muthen, van der
Sar, & van Lier, 2004). The Mystery Motivator and the Get Em on Task interventions were
implemented as a part of the same study. The researcher used a pattern that alternated the
baseline process and the two intervention processes. The mystery motivator had slightly lower
results than the get em on task intervention although both showed an increase in on-task
behavior (Arndt, Davies, Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012).
Conclusion
The interventions discussed would all have potential for being successful in a classroom.
They have all shown a decrease in off-task or disruptive behavior. The student who is the focus
of the following BIP (Behavioral Intervention Plan) would benefit from any of these systems
being put in place. Since the setting of the BIP is in an after school program, this limits the type

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

of intervention that can be done. For instance, the Click Away (Bouck & Szwed, 2013) program
would not be able to be implemented exactly like they say is successful due to a lack of
technological resources. The Good Behavior Game (Crijen, Muthen, van der Sar, & van Lier,
2004) would be the easiest to implement into the program because it doesnt require as many
resources and materials to implement. Both the Mystery Motivator and the Get Em on Task
strategies could also be implemented into the program, however this would require resources and
materials that the program instructors would be responsible for providing (Arndt, Davies,
Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012).
Behavior and Interviews
Introduction
K (pseudonym) is a 9 year old, female, fifth grade student who also has a twin in the
same grade as she is. The student attends a rural school (Elementary P-5) district in which there
is a total enrollment of 349 students. The school is lacking in diversity as 95% of the students
enrolled are white. (Cuba-Rushford Elementary School Enrollment, 2013/14) The school
accommodates for its gifted fourth and fifth grade students by inviting graduate students from St.
Bonaventure University to hold an after school enrichment program two nights a week (75
minute sessions). On Tuesday nights the students participate in book club and on Thursday
nights the students participate in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).
K attends both the after school programs every week (as well as her twin sister). In order to
participate in the program the students had to be invited to join by their teachers. The teachers of
fourth and fifth grade had to select the students in their class that not only qualified as being
gifted/talented, but also upheld a high standard of behavior. The program has a total of 6
participants in book club and 7 participants in STEM. The program is held in the third floor

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

library, which is like a storage room. The room is a long, large rectangle with an open space on
one half of the room and hexagonal tables on the other half. The room has no technology access
and creates a loud learning environment (the large space allows for echoing).
Definition of Behavior
Ks behavior occurs during the after-school enrichment program. She displays disruptive
behavior on a daily basis during the after school setting. Disruptive behavior can be defined as
yelling out, interrupting another student or the teacher, and wandering around the room. For
example, K has a tendency to interrupt the teacher while she/he is giving directions and wander
around the room doing gymnastics during transition times.
Teacher Interview
The teacher interview was conducted with one of the graduate interns who instructs the
after school program. The teacher revealed that K is a very active girl who participates in the
after school program on Tuesdays and Thursdays while also taking gymnastics on Monday,
Wednesday, Friday, and Saturdays. She was chosen to be invited to join the program because of
her general education teacher suspecting her of being gifted and/or talented. The after school
teacher also agrees that K shows signs of being gifted. Her teacher said she is also engaged
during lessons and is always the first to answer a question. She thinks critically about the
problem, but always seeks approval of her answer. K has been noted to say is that right or I
dont want it to be wrong. Ks after school teacher also noted that she has a close bond with her
twin sister. The two of them share the same hobbies and are both in gymnastics. The teacher
mentioned that both sisters share similar behaviors in the after school setting. K generally shows
enthusiasm for the program and enjoys the science experiment lessons the most. When asked

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

about her disruptive behavior, the teacher stated that the behavior generally does not impact her
learning or the other students learning, but that some of the students find it to be annoying or
frustrating. The behavior never stops a lesson and is usually stopped by a redirect from the
teacher. Ks teacher seems to notice the wandering behavior to occur more during transition
times, while the interrupting behavior occurs more during lessons and discussions. The off-task
behavior occurs when the students are given choice time or independent work time. The teacher
noted that the most prominent behavior K displays is the interrupting of others while talking. To
view the original notes taken during this interview see Appendix A.
Student Interview
Throughout the interview with the student she was very open and honest about the
questions I asked her. She participated and even asked questions in return. She was enthusiastic
and positive, but did give exhaustive answers to some questions. She also referenced her sister a
lot by saying things like my sister does that too or me and my sister. Through the
conversation I had with her (between asking questions), I found out that K comes from a family
of 8 siblings with both mom and dad present. She moved with her family from Florida when she
was 7, but she really likes living in Cuba. The student revealed that the teacher was correct in
the extra activities the student participates in. K also told me that she really likes coming to
school because she gets to see her friends and do fun projects sometimes. Her favorite class is
science and her least favorite is math. She said that she is always busy and finds time to do her
homework in between after school activities. K finishes her homework rather quickly and finds
it to be relatively easy for her to complete independently. She says that she really likes her
general education teacher and enjoys his classroom. She enjoys the after school setting and
thinks it has improved since the last time it was implemented. She said that if she could change

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

something about the program we would do a science fair because she thinks it would be fun to
create her own experiment and test it out. After I asked her all of the questions, she went back to
the room and I noticed that she did not follow the teachers direction. She began to wander the
room and talked to other students who were sitting down at a table. The teacher had to redirect
her once so she would sit down and begin working. To view the original notes taken during this
interview see Appendix A.
Baseline Data and Function
K has been displaying disruptive behavior (yelling out, wandering, and interrupting)
during an after-school setting. Since Ks teacher identified the interrupting behavior to be the
most prominent of the three defined disruptive behaviors, the focus of the BIP will be on
interrupting another person while they are talking. The target behavior can then be defined as: K
will raise her hand to speak and wait to be called on 80 percent of the time during the after
school setting. Since the students main trouble is talking out of turn, then the solution would be
to implement a tactic for the student to use to show she has something she wants to add to the
conversation. If the teacher is unable to call on K to share her thoughts, she will be directed to
write them down or save them for the end of the lesson. The teacher will then ask K to share
after the lesson is complete. K then has the choice to share or not.
Baseline Data
The baseline data was collected using two different methods. The first was observation
(using the ABC analysis) of the student and the second was a frequency count (using a frequency
table). The ABC analysis was chosen because it gives a possible cause that starts the behavior
and what the student is getting from the behavior. The frequency count chart was chosen

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

because it will give a clear baseline of how often K interrupts during one session of the after
school program.
The ABC analysis form was used on 2 separate occasions, once in book club and once in
STEM. The student was observed during the entire 60 minute session. The observations were
typed directly into the computer during the observation then compacted into a one page chart for
ease of analysis and comparison (see Appendix B). The student seemed to interrupt when she
had an answer or question about something pertaining to the lesson. The student stopped the
interrupting behavior when the teacher redirected, and at one point also said a simple sorry to a
student she interrupted.
The frequency count (see Appendix C) was also done over a period of 4 sessions (60
min.). The frequency data gave a clear baseline to compare the intervention data to see if the
student has met the defined goal of raising her hand and not interrupting 80 percent of the 60
minute period. The frequency chart was teacher created and then compiled into a graph. (See
Figure 1). The frequency chart showed that K displays more interrupting behavior during the
STEM program than the book club program since she interrupted 5 times during book club and 9
times during STEM. She displayed interruptive behavior 3 times during the first observation, 4
times during the second, 2 times during the third, and 5 times during the fourth. This data shows
that the student is consistently displaying this issue over a period of 2 weeks.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

10

Frequency of Behavior for Baseline Data

5
4
3
2

3/24/15-Book Club

3/26/15-STEM

3/31/15-Book Club

4/2/15-STEM

Frequency of Behavior in 60 min.

Figure 1: Frequency of Behavior for Baseline Data

Analysis and Function

Based on the baseline data taken from both the ABC analysis and the frequency chart, I
feel that the most obvious function of the behavior is to gain attention from the teacher. This
seems to be the best possible function, because when we look at the ABC analysis, the majority
of the consequences the student receives involves the teacher redirecting the student. Out of the
two days that K was observed using the ABC analysis form, the teacher redirected her behavior 6
out of 7 times. This could mean the student just wants the teacher to pay attention to her or that
the teacher isnt setting clear enough instruction to answer or ease the students concerns with the
lesson. If the student is simply looking for attention, then the teacher needs to implement an
intervention that addresses the attention seeking behavior K is displaying (which I feel it is). If
the teacher is not presenting clear enough directions, then the teacher needs to change the way
he/she implements the lesson and presents the instruction. Based on the antecedents in the ABC

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

11

analysis, I feel that the student is interrupting too quickly for the teachers instruction to be the
issue, although the intervention data will give us a more concrete explanation. For example,
during the first recorded incident on the ABC analysis form, K interrupts the teacher while he/she
is giving directions. Based on the frequency count, K shows more interrupting behavior during
instructional times. K interrupts 14 times during a two week period.
Reflection
Through observing K in the after school setting I have learned many things. The first and
most prominent is that K displays the interrupting behavior more frequently during the STEM
portion of the program than in the book club portion of the program. I wonder if that is because
STEM is on Thursdays (end of the week) while book club is on Tuesdays (at the beginning of
the week)? I have also learned that K does not seem to interrupt because of any malicious intent,
she seems to genuinely want to answer or has a question she just lacks control on when to
interject. I think that based on the observations, if the teacher implements the intervention
properly and the student understands why she is being asked to meet the goal (raising the hand)
then the students behavior should decrease with no troubles. If the behavior does not decrease,
then the function of the behavior needs to be re-examined, however I believe it is clear based on
the observations done in the ABC analysis. Through the teacher interview and observing K, I
have learned that the interrupting behavior is most prevalent in instructional time. This includes
times when the teacher is giving directions, participating in the lesson, and sharing with the class.
Through limited observation during transition times, it seems the teacher of the program was
correct in stating that K doesnt show this behavior during these transition times.
Behavioral Intervention Plan

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

12

Intervention
Preventative actions. As mentioned in the Analysis and Function section a possible
reason why K interrupts is the way instruction is being given. This is something that the teacher
can easily fix. Since K is looking to receive attention from the teacher, the teacher could
possibly speak to K one-on-one when she first walks into the room to remind her that she
encourages her to ask question if she doesnt understand something, but to save those until the
teacher is done giving direction. Another possible solution is to address the entire class before
giving directions. For instance, the teacher could begin the lesson with I know some of you
may have questions or be wondering what we are going to do today, let me get through the
directions and I will make sure to ask you if you have questions when I am finishedIt is very
important that you hear the directions so please just listen for now. Something else the teacher
could do before the students arrive is to set up the materials at one table and have the students
names on another table indicating to them to sit there. This helps prevent K from examining and
forming concerns for the days activity before the lesson begins.
Teaching plan. As mentioned in the literature, a successful intervention strategy that
works for disruptive behavior is the Good Behavior Game (Crijen, Muthen, van der Sar, & van
Lier, 2004). I chose this intervention strategy because it can be applied to the entire program, not
just K. This intervention requires students to monitor each others behavior. Since the program
is small, only 7 enrolled, I decided to modify from the original format and make it a classroom
monitoring system and not in small groups. The students will be informed that the intervention
will be starting on 4/7/15. The class period before this we will go over what acceptable
behaviors are (the students created a contract the first day, this is brought out and reviewed).

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

13

The students agreed that talking out and interrupting was an undesirable behavior.
Instead of signaling out K, as this would most likely make her act out more, the class decided
that anytime this particular behavior occurred everyone would raise their hand (non-verbal,
visual cue). This cue would remind the student who spoke out to raise their hand. Other
behaviors were mentioned as well, but they do not pertain to Ks function. I made it a point to
focus on the students giving the feedback and monitoring because the main function of Ks
behavior was to receive attention from the teacher, I did not want to reinforce her function during
the intervention. The student monitoring helps keep this reinforcement at a minimum.
Since this is a class wide game in which they receive prizes for good behavior, each
time someone in the class displays a desirable behavior (which the class determined before the
start of the intervention) then the teacher would place a small foam shape sticker onto a chart.
The class agreed that in order for everyone to receive a prize for the day they had to have at least
10 stickers, in order to receive a larger prize at the end of the week they had to have accumulated
at least 25 stickers. Finally, at the end of the intervention period (two weeks) the students agreed
that a total of 55 stickers was needed to earn a free day. Since I know that the intervention is
really meant to help K decrease her behavior, I suggested prizes that I knew she would enjoy
the class ultimately decided on candy for the daily prize, 15 minute free time for one day for the
weekly prize, and a free day for the end of intervention prize.
Response strategies. If the preventative strategies and the intervention strategy
implemented fail to improve Ks behavior then other strategies would be considered. Since this
is not the regular classroom setting, and access to resources is limited, the possible strategies are
limited. I would consider choosing strategies that are individualized and not whole group since
the first strategy implemented was whole group. Such strategies would be to have the student

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

14

self-monitor her behavior which is a different variation on the Good Behavior Game (Crijen,
Muthen, van der Sar, & van Lier, 2004). Another possible independent strategy could be a
variation on the Mystery Motivator (Arndt, Davies, Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012). In this strategy
K would record her own behavior and turn it in each day. The teacher would have a dark solid
color bag that had green and red marbles in it (more green than red). If K had a good day
(which would be defined with K in a sit down meeting) then she would get to choose a marble
from the bag. If the marble she chose was green then she would get to pick a prize from a prize
box, if it was red then she would get no prize, but still receive praise for having a good day.
Intervention Data
I decided to use the same data collection methods as the baseline data to keep
consistency. This includes the ABC analysis and a frequency count. The ABC analysis gives
more information on the reasoning behind Ks interrupting while the frequency count provides a
direct number of times the behavior occurs so it can be compared to the baseline data. Both the
ABC analysis (see Appendix D) and the frequency count (see Appendix E) showed the
intervention to be effective in reducing the undesired behavior. The ABC analysis showed that K
interrupted 3 times during a two day observation. She interrupted a student twice, and the
teacher once. In all three instances, the intervention was successful in redirecting Ks behavior.
The ABC analysis showed that the function of the behavior (to gain teacher attention) was
effectively addressed by K responding to the student monitoring. The frequency count shows us
that K drastically decreased the amount of times she interrupted, from 14 times in 2 weeks to
only 6 times in 2 weeks. The trend of K interrupting more frequently in the book club portion of
the program also dissipated. K interrupted 3 times during book club and 3 times during STEM.
The frequency chart, which was created into a graph (see Figure 2) showed a decrease in the

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

15

number of times K displayed the interrupting behavior from a total of 14 times in 2 hours to 6
times in 2 hours (see Figure 3). Overall, the intervention proved to be a success in decreasing the
undesirable behavior K displayed.

Frequency of Behavior During Intervention

4/7/15-Book Club

4/9/15-STEM

4/14/15-Book Club

Frequency of Behavior in 60 min.

Figure 2: Frequency of Behavior during Intervention

4/16/15-STEM

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

16

Baseline and Intervention Data Comparison

5
4
3
2

Observation 1

Observation 2
Baseline Data

Observation 3

Observation 4

Intervention Data

Figure 3: Frequency Comparison Graph

K was observed for a total of 4 days. On the final day K was able to reach her goal of
raising her hand 80 percent of the 60 minute period (see Figure 4). K spoke in those 60 minutes
a total of 14 times and only once did she do so not raising her hand. This means that K
successfully raised her hand 13 out of 14 times, or 92.86 percent in the 60 minute period.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

17

Goal Completion Chart

13

1
Raised Hand

Interrupted
Frequency of Behavior

Figure 4: Goal Completion Chart

Reflection
One of the first things I thought of when reflecting on this process is how different it was
due to the after school setting. It seemed to be much more difficult to: implement more complex
strategies, include general education classroom information, and family information. I feel that
in order for a BIP to be truly implemented correctly the family should be involved. This was
very difficult to do because Ks family is very busy and rarely responded to letters or reminders
sent home about the after school program. Also along with family collaboration I think that the
student interview should have contained more open-ended questions, although K and I ended up
having a conversation and that became the interview, the original questions were mostly yes/no
type answers that didnt give as much information as the conversation did.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

18

The interventions discussed in the literature all seem to be convincingly successful,

however the Click Away (Bouck & Szwed, 2013) and the Mystery Motivator (Arndt, Davies,
Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012), if implemented the way the article describes would cause some
concerns. I feel these two methods require a lot of resources and there is a great chance of a
mishap. For instance, the Click Away (Bouck & Szwed, 2013) method requires the use of a
technology I have never seen before, this could cause many problems during the intervention if I
wasnt provided with training on the device. Also, the Mystery Motivator (Arndt, Davies,
Hunley, & Kraemer, 2012) requires a lot of pre-planned work on the teachers part, I worry that
this intervention may require too much time or even take time away from instructional planning.
Although, the ideas behind all of the interventions mentioned are a great base for a classroom
management system and are easily adaptable.
The intervention I chose, an adaptation of the Good Behavior Game, addressed the
function of Ks behavior because it took away the teacher attention she was looking for and
focused the attention on Ks behavior and student monitoring. Having the other students
monitor each others behaviors was very successful, not just for K, but for the entire group
undesired behaviors for the entire class decreased.
Ks behavior was successfully addressed using an intervention tactic that shifted her
focus from gaining teacher attention to student monitoring and self-evaluation. I feel that the
behavior management techniques and interventions that the program teachers have implemented
have been effective at lowering the undesired behavior as well. Also, another aspect to think
about is that it is an after-school setting, so open communication between the students is
encouraged most of the time.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

19

Since the intervention in this BIP was a success for Ks behavior, I feel it would be
beneficial for adults in contact with K throughout the school day would also benefit from
learning about this intervention. Even if K does not display these behaviors in their classroom,
the intervention could serve as a tool for them to use with other students who do show disruptive
or interrupting behaviors in their classroom. This could be an intervention that they havent
heard of, but might find to be successful.
In the future I think it would be much easier to complete this process through
collaboration. Having more eyes and hands to help divide and conquer is much easier and faster
than trying to do everything alone. Through collaboration comes more ideas and intervention
strategies as well, maybe the interventions I found would have been different than the ones
someone else (like a school counselor) would have found because the focuses of the two
professionals would be different.
Overall, I feel the intervention plan I choose worked because I was able to implement it
with the entire group. I think it made it much easier to manage in a short amount of time to have
something all the students understood instead of just K participating in an individualized
intervention. The intervention also was easily fit into the everyday schedule of the program.
Since the students did most of the monitoring of behaviors, the other teacher and I were able to
focus on catching the students being good. This was a great way to reinforce the positive
behaviors we were trying to instill in the students. At the end of the intervention the students did
earn the free day which means the Good Behavior Game (Crijen, Muthen, van der Sar, & van
Lier, 2004) positively affected the students in the program.
Appendix A

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

Teacher/Student Interview Notes

20

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

21

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

22

Appendix B

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

23

Baseline ABC Analysis Chart

Date and Time
of Observation
3/24/15
3:15pm

3/24/15
3:27pm

3/24/15
3:44pm

3/26/15
3:15pm

Antecedent

Behavior

Consequence

Book Club or
STEM?
Book Club

The teacher is
instructing the
students on
the activity
that will follow
their 30
minute
reading
session.
Students are
volunteering
to discuss
their book
with the class.
Giving details
about what
they had just
read.

K interrupts
the teacher
while he is
giving
directions.

The teacher
redirects the
behavior, the
behavior
stops.

K interrupts
the student to
ask a question
about a
character
name.

Book Club

Students are
participating
in an after
reading
activity that
involves them
sharing their
book covers.
The students
getting
instructions
for a science
experiment
that has been
set up on their
table.

K interrupts a
student who is
sharing their
book cover to
ask them a
question
about what
they drew.
K interrupts
the teachers
directions to
ask what one
of the
materials are.

The teacher
redirects the
behavior and
the other
student shows
frustration.
The behavior
stops with the
redirect and
the student
says sorry to
the other
student.
The teacher
redirects and
tells the class
to hold all
questions until
the end.

The teacher
responds with
What was the
direction
about
touching
materials, you
will be able to
answer that
question
yourself
during the

STEM

Book Club

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

24

3/26/15
3:27pm

Students are
participating
in a science
experiment.
The teacher
asks a prompt.
A student
begins to
answer the
question.

K interrupts
the student
and answers
the question.

3/26/15
3:35pm

The students
are working in
groups to
complete a
science
experiment.

3/26/15
3:45pm

The students
are finishing
up sharing
their results of
the
experiment.

K is listening
to a group
member
explain
something,
she then
interrupts
their
explanation
saying they
are wrong.
The other
group is
sharing their
results that
differ from Ks
group. K
interrupts to
share their
results.

experiment.
So the teacher
redirects. The
behavior
stops.
The teacher
redirects the
behavior and
the other
student shows
frustration.
The behavior
stops with the
redirect and
the student
says sorry to
the other
student.
The student
lets K explain
the rest of the
idea.

Teacher
redirects and
tells K to wait
till the other
group has
finished.

STEM

STEM

STEM

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

25

Appendix C
Original Baseline Frequency Chart

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

26

Appendix D
Intervention ABC Analysis Chart
Date and Time
of Observation
4/7/15 3:22pm

4/9/15 3:17pm

4/9/15 3:45pm

Antecedent

Behavior

Consequence

The first day

of
intervention
the students
are answering
comprehensio
n questions
following a
skit.
The students
are excited for
a science
lesson that
has been
placed on
their table.

K interrupts a
student
speaking
about their
skit.

The students
raise their
hands to
visually
remind K not
to interrupt
another
student.

K interrupts
the teachers
directions to
ask what they
are going to
do today.

Students are
sharing results

K interrupts a
student

The students
raise their
hands to
visually
remind K not
to interrupt
the directions.
Another
student
whispers to
her that she
should hold
her thoughts
in until the
teacher asks
for questions.
The group of
students K is

Book Club or
STEM?
Book Club

STEM

STEM

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

with each
other.

27
sharing a
thought to
share her own.

with for the

experiment
raises their
hands to
visually
remind K to
not interrupt.

Appendix E
Original Intervention Frequency Chart

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

28

References
Arndt, K. J., Davies, S. C., Hunley, S., & Kraemer, E. E. (2012). A comparison of the mystery
motivator and the get em on task intervention for off-task behaviors. Psychology in the
Schools, 49(2), 163-175.
Bouck, E.C., & Szwed, K. (2013). Clicking away: Repurposing student response systems to
lessen off-task behavior. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(2), 1-12.
Crijen, A. A. M., Muthen, B. O., van der Sar, R. M., & van Lier, P. A. C. (2004). Preventing
disruptive behavior in elementary school children: Impact of a universal classroom-based
intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (22)3, 467-478.
Cuba-Rushford Elementary School Enrollment (2013 - 14). (2015, January 1). Retrieved April 1,
2015, from http://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?year=2014&instid=800000055147

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN

29