Ellis 1

Behavioral Program Report

Ariel Ellis
Advanced Human Learning
PSYC 605- Fall 2013

Ellis 2
Problem Behavior
With technology the way it is today, it is nearly impossible for me to stay focused or ontask. My study periods are often disrupted by the continuous need to check Facebook, send text
messages, view my snapchats, cuddle with my cats, and more. There are so many ways to
distract myself from actually studying. Distracting myself from my homework makes me
procrastinate and have to complete my assignments at the last minute; if at all. Now that I am in
graduate school my courses are more demanding. I am required to dedicate many hours outside
of the classroom to class readings and assignments. The way that I am currently studying is not
efficient enough for me to actually accomplish all the things I need to get done. I dedicate time to
sit down and study, however, I always find that the majority of my time is being spent elsewhere.
I am able to sit down and commit myself to studying, but after a few minutes my attention
switches to something more satisfying such as Facebook. If I didnt spend the majority of my
time off-task then I believe I would have much higher quality work and I would be a more
efficient graduate student.
Background to the Problem
I have always been good at school and I have always received good grades. When I first
came to college I adjusted to the new demands rather quickly and was able to learn how to work
the system. This simply means that I knew how to get good grades and I didnt need to try
extremely hard. Even though I usually get good grades I have always struggled with
procrastination. I view procrastination as distracting yourself with fun things so you can avoid
your homework. Avoiding your homework leads you to have to do it at the last minute.
Procrastination is difficult for me to avoid because I know that I will finish the assignment no
matter what even if it is one hour before it is due. The reason I know I will complete the

Ellis 3
assignment is because I always get my work done. However, I recently started graduate school.
Graduate school demands a lot more from me as a student and I have been struggling to meet
these demands. My old way of procrastinating is simply just not manageable with the course load
I have. I am not coasting through like I used to which has made me have to evaluate my habits.
In addition to graduate school, my access to social media and technology in general has
gone up remarkably. For instance, during my undergrad I had access to the internet while
studying with my computer, but if I didnt have my computer then there was nothing to distract
me from my homework. However, right before I started graduate school I upgraded my phone to
a smart phone. I literally have access to any website, any social media application, and basically
any distraction right at my fingertips. My phone has definitely hindered my ability to focus
during my studying time. In addition, the majority of the required readings in my courses are
only available to me online which makes accessing websites extremely convenient. In addition to
the technology-based distractions, my home environment plays a huge role in my ability to stay
on-task. The majority of my studying takes place at home. There are many factors at home that
can impact my ability to stay focused. For instance, I find it very difficult to concentrate if my
house is messy. I also have two cats that tend to take my attention away from my schoolwork.
My cats do a very good job convincing me that cuddling with them or sleeping next to them is
better than doing homework. Having social media at my fingertips and cats sleeping everywhere
makes it very difficult for me to focus.
An additional factor that has impacted my ability to stay on-task is simply how
exhausted I am. I have not taken any breaks from school. I went straight from high school to
college and from undergraduate to graduate school and I am burned out. This burnout has made

Ellis 4
it extremely difficult to have motivation to complete my assignments and to put my best effort
into my schoolwork.
Research Related to the Problem
In society today, it is very common for people to have a number of electronic devices at
their fingertips. In relationships and especially for teachers in classrooms, gaining and
maintaining someones attention can be a constant battle. With so many things in a persons
environment demanding their attention it makes sense that one would find it difficult to stay
focused on one task. According to Kirschner and Karpinksi (2010), the current generation has
developed the ability to quickly switch between different tasks or different media. However, this
fast-paced task-switching might not be beneficial for learning. The American Psychological
Association (2006) found that rapid switching behavior leads to poorer learning results in
students and poorer performance of tasks (as cited in Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010, p.2). Task
switching might result in poorer performance because, switching requires a person to juggle his
or her limited cognitive resources to accomplish the different task successfully (Kirschner &
Karpinski, 2010, p.2).
A study done by Rosen, Carrier, and Cheever (2013) examined task-switching by middle
school, high school, and college students studying classroom material in their typical study
environment. They recorded how often students switched from studying to another task, why
they switch, and how this impacts their ability to learn. The researchers found that on average,
participants were on task 65%, or for approximately ten minutes, of the fifteen minute
observation period and switched from their primary task to a distracting task every 5-6 minutes
(Rosen et al., 2013). Junco and Cotton (2012) found that college students sent texts, talked on

Ellis 5
their cell phones, used Facebook, used email, and searched for information online that was not
part of schoolwork frequently at the same time as doing schoolwork. In addition, Junco and
Cotton (2012) reported that college students sent an average of 97 text messages a day with 71 of
those being sent while doing homework (as cited in Junco, 2012). What are the consequences of
engaging in multitasking or task switching during a study period? Junco (2012) defines
multitasking as divided attention and non-sequential task switching for ill-defined tasks as they
are performed in learning situations (p.2). According to Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever (2013), once
a task that someone switched to is complete, the original task will take even longer to complete
than if it were attempted without interruption. In regards to learning and information overload,
Mayer and Moreno (2003), state that humans have a finite amount of cognitive processes
available at any one time and these processes can be overloaded by additional stimuli (as cited
in Junco, 2012, p.2). According to Mayer and Moreno (2003) this overload occurs when the
processing demands of a learning task exceed the processing capacity of the cognitive system (as
cited in Junco, 2012).
Mayer and Moreno (2003) describe three types of cognitive demands during the learning
process: 1. Essential processing refers to the basic cognitive processes required for
making sense of presented material, including tasks such as selecting and organizing
words and images from presented materials and integration of those words and images. 2.
Incidental processing refers to cognitive processes that are not required for making sense
of the presented materials. 3. Representational holding refers to the processes that hold
mental representations in working memory. (as cited in Junco, 2012, p.2)
A learner must have enough capacity for representational holding and essential
processing in order to be able to learn material, however, these processes can become overloaded

Ellis 6
through incidental processing which make it impossible for deeper cognitive processing and
learning to occur (Mayer & Moreno, 2003, as cited in Junco, 2012) . Using Facebook during a
study period would be considered incidental processing since Facebook is not necessary to make
sense of the study materials. What is the relationship between Facebook and academics? Does
multitasking during study periods have any negative impacts on academics? In one study, Junco
and Cotton (2012) found that using Facebook or texting while trying to complete schoolwork
taxes a students limited capacity for cognitive processing and precludes deeper learning. In
addition, their study found that using Facebook and texting while doing schoolwork were
negatively predictive of overall grade point averages (GPA) (Junco and Cotton, 2012). In a
different study done by Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) they also found a significant negative
relationship between Facebook use and academic performance. Most importantly, Facebook
users reported lower mean GPAs and reported spending fewer hours per week studying than
compared to Facebook nonusers (Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010). Similar to the previous
findings, Rosen et al., (2013) found that students who accessed Facebook one or more times
during the short study period actually had lower GPAs. One interesting finding is that
participants who had more technology available to them in their environment preferred to task
switch rather than stay on one task (Rosen et al., 2010). Maybe the solution is to limit the
accessibility of technology in a students environment?
What might be some implications to help students stay on-task? Rather than removing
technology, Rosen, Carrier, and Cheever (2012) suggest that implementing technology breaks
to remove distractions might prove to be beneficial (as cited in Rosen et al., 2013). A technology
break would consist of allowing a student to briefly check their Smartphone at the beginning of a
study period and then place the phone on silent and face down on the desk while they study with

Ellis 7
the opportunity to check their phone when they finish the study period (Rosen et al., 2013). On
the topic of technology breaks, Rosen et al.(2012) found that alternating a15-minute study period
after a 1-minute technology break actually boosted attention and focus and enhanced learning (as
cited in Rosen et al., 2013). Another implication to improve learning is to teach metacognitive
skills on knowing when multitasking is appropriate and when it may interfere with the learning
process (Rosen et al., 2013).
After reviewing current research it is apparent that switching from task to task is not an
effective way to study and it actually limits the depth of learning a person can reach. It appears it
would be best to schedule in technology breaks into study periods to increase motivation and
to decrease the need to constantly check Facebook or other technology. It is apparent that
increasing my on-task studying behavior and decreasing my off-task behavior will prove to be
very beneficial to me as a student and as a functioning intellectual human being in general.
Behaviors to be Addressed
In this situation, the start of a designated study period is the antecedent and actually being
on-task or off-task are the behaviors that are elicited by the study period. The behaviors that need
to be addressed are the amount of on-task behavior and off-task behavior. On-task behavior
simply means the behavior of me actually studying without distractions during a specific study
period. Whereas off-task behavior simply means that I engage in any other behavior than
studying during a specific study period. Studying in this instance refers to anything that is
scholarly and needs to be done for one of my classes. Some of these activities might include
reading, writing, researching, making flashcards, etc. Ultimately, I need to increase the amount
of time spent on-task and decrease the amount of time spent off-task. Since engaging in one of

Ellis 8
these behaviors makes the other one impossible, then increasing one will innately decrease the
other. The focus here should be increasing the amount of time spent on-task which will help
reduce the off-task behavior.
Increase Time On-Task
Duration of time engaged in work (studying)
Measurement: continuous recording

Decrease Time Off-Task

Duration of time spent on Facebook or on phone
Measurement: continuous recording

Behavior Change Procedures to be Implemented

In order to decrease the amount of time spent off-task I needed to increase the amount of
time spent on-task. In order to do this I used the behavioral procedure of shaping. Shaping is
where you reinforce successive approximations of a goal behavior. Essentially you are shaping a
behavior from one thing to another and the final result is an improvement upon the original
behavior. In this instance, I needed to shape my on-task behavior from a smaller percentage to a
larger percentage. The aspect of the behavior that needed to be shaped was the duration; the
amount of time (percentage of time) spent engaging in the specific behavior. After collecting
baseline data I found that I was on-task for an average of 70% (or 42 minutes) of my study
periods. And my average study period length was 60 minutes. My goal was to increase the
amount of on-task time in a 60 minute study period to 100%. To do this I increased my
percentage of on-task studying in increments of 5% each week. For example, for the first week I
reinforced myself for being on-task for 70% of each study period that week and then after a week
I increased it to 75%. I did this for seven weeks until I reached my goal behavior of being ontask for 100% of the time. I was flexible in increasing or decreasing the amount of days of
reinforcement for a specific percentage. For instance, if I was not consistently meeting my goal
percentage for that week then I would allow myself an extra day or two to meet that percentage.

Ellis 9
Before I started each study period I would calculate the percentage of time needed to be on-task
before I could receive reinforcement. For instance, if I needed to be on-task for 85% of my 60
minute study period then I would need to administer the reinforcement after 51 minutes had gone
by (60min x. 85% = 51min). So if I started my study period at 5:25 pm then I would need to stay
on-task until 6:16 pm in order to receive my reinforcement. At 6:16 pm I would immediately
check my Facebook and close it after three minutes had gone by.
In order to reinforce myself for engaging in the appropriate behavior I needed to use a
reinforcer that would be very powerful, brief, and easy to administer. I chose time on Facebook
as my reinforcer. Facebook is available on my computer or on my phone so I am able to access it
anywhere and at any time. I decided to allow myself to be on Facebook for 5% of the total study
period. This basically means that I was allowed to have 3 minutes on Facebook if I met my
required percentage of on-task behavior (60 min x 5% = 3 min.). After the three minutes were up
then I would either start a new study period or go about my day.
In my behavioral plan I used the Premack Principle. The Premack Principle states that
using a high frequency behavior to reinforce a low frequency behavior will increase the low
frequency behavior. So in this situation Facebook was my high frequency behavior and studying
on-task was my low frequency behavior. I used Facebook to reinforce studying on-task so that I
could increase my on-task studying. In order for a reinforcer to be reinforcing you need to be
deprived of it. Engaging in the reinforcer needs to be made contingent upon engaging in the
appropriate behavior. As soon as I started this behavior program I removed the Facebook
application from the home screen on my phone to limit my accessibility. I completely deprived
myself of Facebook and only allowed myself on it when I demonstrated appropriate on-task

Ellis 10
behavior. And to make things easier on myself, at the start of a study period I would remove my
phone from the room or turn it off.
Since I wanted to increase my on-task behavior I didnt have very many options when it
came to choosing a behavioral procedure. I could have focused on decreasing off-task behavior;
however, the true issue was the inability to stay on-task for a set amount of time. Since
increasing one behavior naturally decreases the other I could have done it either way, but I chose
to focus on improving my study habits through increasing on-task studying. Shaping was the
correct procedure since I could already engage in the behavior to some degree; it just needed to
be shaped into a more appropriate form of the behavior.
Observation and recording procedures
As mentioned previously, I needed to shape the duration of my on-task behavior. I used
the table below to collect my baseline data. I needed to collect information on the lengths of my
study periods and the average amount of percentage I was on task. In order to collect my baseline
data I used continuous recording. I used the table below to collect the most important
information. During a study period I would write down on a piece of scratch paper every single
time I went off-task and on-task. At the end of the study period I would add up the total minutes
and the total amount of minutes I was on-task and then record the numbers in the chart. For
instance, a study period might have gone like this: at 9 am I started my study period, at 9:05 I
went off-task, at 9:10 I went back on-task, at 9:18 I went back off-task, at 9:23 I went back ontask, at 9:30 my study period ended. In this example the total study period length is 30 minutes
and I was on-task for 20 minutes. I would record these two numbers into the chart and then
calculate the percentage on-task by dividing 20/30 (minutes on task/total time).

Ellis 11

Baseline Study
Period #
1

Start Time

End Time

Total Time

Minutes on Task

% on Task

9:00

10:05

65 min

40 min

61.5%

After ten observation periods for the baseline I calculated the average study period length
and my average on-task percentage. I calculated the average study period length by adding up all
of the minutes in the Total Time column and dividing by ten. My average study length ended
up coming out to 70 minutes. However, study period number ten was an outlier at 240 minutes in
length. I recalculated the average by excluding study period ten and dividing by 9 and the
average came out to 51 minutes. I decided for simplicity reasons to keep my study period length
at a consistent 60 minutes throughout the behavioral plan. Studying in one-hour blocks made the
most sense for my schedule. I calculated the average percentage on-task in the same way by
adding up all the numbers in the % on Task column and dividing by 10. The average
percentage on-task for the ten baseline study periods was 71.7%.
Once I started implementing my behavioral program I used the chart below to collect my
data. I numbered the study periods so it would be easier to graph later on. The required
percentage on-task for the week and the minutes required were set, however, I allowed myself to
be flexible and use my best judgment if I needed to increase, decrease, or keep the percentage the
same within a particular day. It all depended on if I was consistently meeting my goal. I also
recorded the start time and end time of each study period so that I could calculate when I would
need to administer the reinforcement. For example, in the chart below, my sixty minute study
period started at 7:00 PM and that means it would end at 8:00 PM. However, the important piece
of information that I need to know is at what time will I have been on-task for 70% of that hour
long study period? To calculate this you would just add 42 minutes (60 min x 70% = 42) to the
start time to figure out when to reinforce. I also included a column that asks if reinforcement was

Ellis 12
given. If I was on-task until 7:42 then I would allow myself three minutes on Facebook.
However, if I went off-task at 7:30 then my percentage on-task would actually be 50% which
means reinforcement would not be given since I did not meet the requirement.
Study
Period #
1
2
3
4
5

Required %
for the Week
70%
70%
70%
75%
75%

Minutes
Required
42
42
42
45
45

Start Time

Reinforce at

% on Task

7:00

7:42

70%

Reinforcement
Given?(Yes/No)
Yes

One method of recording that I considered using was a quality rating scale that measured
the quality of my study period on a scale from one to five. I ultimately decided against using this
scale. I realized that this scale would take more effort than it was worth. The information that it
would provide would be additive, but not necessary to help change my presenting problem of not
being able to stay on-task. I only measured the duration of my on-task studying behavior and I
believe it was the most appropriate method.
Description of Program Implementation
(A) The total length of the program was 8 weeks in duration. The way I calculated the
length of the program was by taking how many weeks were left in the semester and dividing it
by how much I needed my percentage of on-task behavior to increase. Increasing by 5% seemed
simple and it worked out perfectly for my 8 week program. I collected one week of baseline data
and had seven weeks of the shaping program. (B) I implemented the entire program onto myself.
This entire plan required a lot of self control. I recorded the data, kept track of the time,
administered the reinforcement, and withheld/deprived the reinforcement. (C) To shape the
duration of on-task studying behavior I started with reinforcing at 70% for each study period and

Ellis 13
increased by 5% each week after successfully and consistently meeting the required percentage.
The 1st week of the program was used to collect baseline data and the other seven weeks
consisted of phases that gradually increased my on-task studying behavior. In order to keep
things consistent, a study period was always sixty minutes in duration. Program success was
defined by whether or not my percentage of on-task studying increased over time. The ultimate
goal was to reach 100%, but any increase would be a positive improvement. (D) Ideally in a
behavior modification plan you would want to switch the reinforcer to something more natural in
the persons environment. I ended my behavior plan once I had consistently met the criterion of
100% of on-task studying for a sixty minute study session. In a real world situation, if I was not
in charge of my own reinforcers, than it would be beneficial to switch the reinforcer of Facebook
to something more natural such as social praise. In my situation it would be a little tricky to
deliver that reinforcement to myself. Since I have performed the desired behavior repeatedly, it
might be a good idea to switch from continuous reinforcement to intermittent reinforcement;
specifically variable ratio. This would reduce the number of reinforcements given and actually
increase the behavior. And eventually it is important to wean the person off of the program
completely.
Results
The graph below shows the percentage of on-task studying in the 90 study sessions I had
over 8 weeks. The program contained a baseline and seven phases. In looking at the graph it is
apparent that the baseline data is all over the place. My percentage of on-task studying in the
baseline data ranged from 34% to 100% with a mean of 71.7% and standard deviation of 18.
After implementing the shaping procedure my behavior was drastically controlled. In phase one
and phase two, for a total of 21 study periods, I met the required criteria 100% of the time. This

Ellis 14
is a huge difference when compared to the baseline. However, you will notice that the first study
period in phase three is drastically low at 50% when I had just successfully met the 75% criterion
twelve times before that. The reasoning behind this sudden drop could be due to the consistent
and continuous reinforcement I received at 75% in phase two. Phase two contained twelve study
periods as compared to phase one which had only nine study periods. If one level is reinforced
for so long that it becomes extremely strong, new approximations are less likely to appear.
However, after two more study periods I was able to meet the 80% criterion. If you notice, the
first few study periods of phase three through phase seven are low. This shows that increasing
the reinforcement requirement at the start of each new phase was stressful and difficult for me in
general. Although the first few study periods for each phase were low, I eventually met the
required criteria for each phase. Overall the mean percentage of on-task studying increased with
each phase and the standard deviation decreased with each phase starting at phase three. This
shows that my on-task behavior increased and that there was less variance between each study
period meaning that I was meeting the criterion more consistently as the program went on. For
example, even though I might not have met criteria for study period #78 or #79 they were only
2% and 5% away from the required criterion as compared to study period #32 which was 30%
away from the required criterion. Overall, the program was effective in increasing my on-task
studying. The seven week program was highly successful in that it increased my mean on-task
percentage from 71.7% all the way to 99.42%.

Ellis 15

Figure 1. Behavioral Change Results

Conclusion
To my surprise, the program was rather successful! I believe the success of the program
lies mostly with the strength of the reinforcer. I found myself scheduling in extra study sessions
just so I could check my Facebook. However, along with the strength in the reinforcer comes the
weakness of implementing a behavioral program onto yourself. You should never be in charge of
your own reinforcers. There were a few times I checked my Facebook without actually having
studying. This happened especially when I had my wisdom teeth removed over Thanksgiving

Ellis 16
break because I had nothing else to do! Even though there were a few times I wasnt completely
deprived of my reinforcer, Facebook was still a strong enough reinforcer to bring out the
appropriate behavior needed. Overall I am happy with the results and am well on my way to
becoming a more efficient graduate student.

Ellis 17
References
Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 2236-2243
Junco, R., Cotton, S.R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.
Kirschner, P.A., Karpinski, A.C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Rosen, L. D., Mark Carrier, L. L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do
it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),
948-958.