Effects of Tootling on Classwide Disruptive and Appropriate Behavior of Upper-Elementary Students

Abstract

The current study assessed the effects of a positive peer reporting procedure known as Tootling on classwide disruptive as well as appropriate behavior with fourth- and fifth-grade students and their teachers in two regular education classrooms. Tootling is a technique that teaches students to recognize and report peers’ prosocial behavior rather than inappropriate behavior (i.e., as in tattling), and is also a variation on the expression, “tooting your own horn.” Tootling combined with an interdependent group contingency and publicly posted feedback were assessed using an ABAB withdrawal design with a multiple baseline element across classrooms. Results demonstrated decreases in classwide disruptive behavior as well as increases in appropriate behavior compared with baseline and withdrawal phases across both classrooms, with results maintained at follow-up. Tootling was also rated highly acceptable by both teachers. Effect size calculations reflected moderate to strong effects across all comparisons. Limitations of the present study, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

Tootling classroom management upper-elementary students group contingency

Disruptive and inappropriate behaviors exhibited by students often receive substantial teacher attention and can interfere with instruction, while instances of appropriate behaviors may regularly go unnoticed by teachers and/or peers (Luiselli, Putnam, & Sunderland, 2002; Sterling-Turner, Robinson, & Wilczynski, 2001). A national survey of public school teachers found that 77% of teachers believed they would be able to teach more successfully if less time and energy were spent addressing disruptive student behavior (Public Agenda, 2004). In addition, most rule systems in educational settings emphasize rules and consequences for disruptive and inappropriate behaviors (Skinner, Cashwell, & Skinner, 2000). This focus on negative behaviors can result in little or no reinforcement of desired classroom behaviors. It is not enough to enforce these rules and their subsequent punishment procedures; therefore, systems need to be in place that not only decrease disruptive behaviors but also reinforce alternative appropriate behaviors.

In response to the punitive and reactive systems in schools, there has been a relatively recent shift toward more universal, preventative, and positive approaches to managing problem behaviors school-wide, referred to as the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system (Sugai & Horner, 2000). PBIS is an empirically based, multi-level service delivery system for preventing problem behaviors and achieving social and learning outcomes through the use of systemic, classroom, and individualized behavioral interventions along a three-tiered continuum (Sugai & Horner, 2008). Utilizing clearly defined expectations, evidence-based interventions, and a focus on acknowledging appropriate behaviors, constitute the fundamentals of PBIS in schools.

Despite the recent push for PBIS, many school settings continue to place emphasis on punishment procedures to address inappropriate behaviors through the use of such policies as office discipline referrals, discipline ladders, and zero tolerance practices. These types of punishment systems have the potential to be problematic because, although some children will learn to avoid punishment by not engaging in inappropriate behaviors, other children will simply learn to avoid being seen engaging in those behaviors (Skinner et al., 2000). Unfortunately, teachers are not always in a position to directly observe all instances of disruptive or appropriate behavior (Skinner, Neddenriep, Robinson, Ervin, & Jones, 2002). That is, teachers must focus attention on instruction or other students’ needs and cannot attend to all instances of behavior. As a result, teachers sometimes rely on students’ incidental accounts of classmates’ behaviors.

Many educational environments continue to have an informal peer behavior reporting system identified as tattling (Skinner et al., 2000). Within this system, children typically observe their peers’ inappropriate behaviors and report them to adult authority figures. In some instances, such as when students are being threatened or harmed by other students, reporting inappropriate behaviors can serve an important function when adults are not around to directly observe those situations. Thus, reporting inappropriate behaviors should not be completely removed from children’s social repertoires; rather, teachers need to use this already existing phenomenon to their advantage by encouraging students to report peers’ appropriate behaviors instead of solely inappropriate behaviors (Skinner et al., 2000).

It has been shown that classroom peers can affect each other’s behavior; therefore, if students are taught to report each other’s appropriate behaviors, there is an increased likelihood that those behaviors will be noticed and then reinforced (Carden Smith & Fowler, 1984; Jones, Young, & Friman, 2000). In addition, using peer-based interventions can be an effective, efficient, and practical way to encourage desirable behaviors that requires minimal teacher time. Also, a potential result of having peers monitor each other’s behavior is that children can learn behaviors through the observation and imitation of others that are positively reinforced for engaging in appropriate behavior (Bandura, 1965; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963).

A procedure known as Tootling (Skinner, Skinner, & Cashwell, 1998), first introduced as the opposite of tattling and a variation of “tooting your own horn,” uses these principles to have students monitor and report instances of prosocial behaviors of their peers, and then privately report those behaviors on index cards. Completed index cards are placed in a collection container throughout the day and then read aloud to the students for praise and feedback. Previous research has indicated that incorporation of a group contingency with reinforcement for achieving a set goal of tootles appears to be an important element that contributes to the effectiveness of Tootling (Cashwell, Skinner, & Smith, 2001; Skinner et al., 2000). When an interdependent group contingency is in place, group access to reinforcement and the same response contingencies are in effect for every group member and are based on some level of group performance such as a class average (Litow & Pumroy, 1975; Skinner, Skinner, & Sterling-Turner, 2002). Also, students are affected by their peers’ performance and may attempt to encourage and model desired and appropriate behavior, and may even discourage, either directly or indirectly, inappropriate behavior to gain access to the group reward (Skinner et al., 2002). For example, the Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), another commonly used intervention typically employing an interdependent group contingency, has been found consistently effective in numerous demonstrations for more than 40 years (see Embry, 2002; Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006, for reviews). Thus, like the GBG, Tootling attempts to capitalize on peer monitoring and peer influence to encourage students to engage in desired behavior and perhaps discourage undesired behavior.

Early studies demonstrated that students could successfully observe and record their peer’s incidental prosocial behaviors via the Tootling procedure combined with rewards for meeting a criterion number of tootles (i.e., interdependent group contingency; Cashwell et al., 2001; Skinner et al., 2000). Cihak, Kirk, and Boon (2009), in the only peer reviewed study of its kind to date, subsequently examined the effects of Tootling on disruptive classwide student behavior as the dependent variable, rather than attempting to simply increase the number of tootles produced by students as in earlier studies. Data on classwide and individual student disruptive behavior in Cihak et al. (2009) were recorded by the classroom teacher with interobserver agreement (IOA) and integrity checks by trained observers. Cihak et al. expanded upon previous peer reviewed studies by including direct observation data and by demonstrating that classwide as well as individual disruptive student behavior could be decreased using the Tootling intervention in a Title 1 school’s third-grade inclusive class that also contained four students with disabilities (three with a specific learning disability and one with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]).

The purpose of the current study is to replicate the effects of Tootling on classwide disruptive behavior as found in Cihak et al. (2009) using trained observers for all observations, and to also assess its effects on classwide appropriate behavior in upper-elementary students (i.e., fourth and fifth graders) in general education classrooms and to assess teachers’ acceptability of the intervention.

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants included two upper-elementary school classrooms in a Southeastern state. Classroom A was a fifth-grade, general education classroom consisting of 19 students (9 females, 10 males), none of whom had a disability. The participants consisted of 15 Caucasian students, one Asian American student, one Hispanic student, and two African American students; the teacher was a Caucasian female with a Bachelor’s degree in her first year of teaching. Classroom B was a fourth-grade, general education classroom containing 17 students (10 males, 7 females), two of whom had a specific learning disability. Participants included 13 African American students, three Caucasian students, and one Hispanic student; the teacher was a Caucasian female with a master’s degree and 9 years of teaching experience. All data collection and intervention procedures occurred in the regular classrooms.

At the time the study was conducted, the schools for Classrooms A and B were participating in a School-Wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (SWPBIS) program, and had a School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001) rating of 96% and 93% implementation, respectively, during a recent evaluation. The SET measures integrity of implementation for the core components of SWPBIS at the primary, systems level of intervention; a score of 80% or above is considered to be an acceptable level of implementation (Horner et al., 2009).

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from appropriate school district personnel. School administrators were contacted by the primary investigator and asked for referrals of classrooms exhibiting classwide disruptive behavior concerns. Referred teachers were contacted for consent and interviewed to determine their behavior concerns of the classroom. Classrooms exhibiting disruptive behaviors in approximately 30% or more intervals in an initial screening observation were included in this study. All procedures were approved by a university Institutional Review Board.

Materials

The students used 3 × 5 index cards to write reports of appropriate prosocial behaviors (tootles). A container labeled Tootling was positioned in an easily accessible area of the classroom. A dry erase board with a picture of a thermometer numbered toward the respective goal was placed in front of the classroom to provide visible progress toward the goal. Initial Tootling goals for both classrooms were set at 65 tootles and subsequent increases were determined by the classroom teacher and primary investigator based on student performance. Classroom teachers were provided with a script for the Tootling training session and a daily Tootling procedures script.

Intervention Rating Profile–15 (IRP-15)

Following the completion of the study, teachers completed a modified version of the IRP-15 (Martens, Witt, Elliott, & Darveaux, 1985). The IRP-15 is a single-factor, 15-item rating scale used to assess the general acceptability of an intervention via a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The scale is reliable (Cronbach’s α = .98; Martens et al., 1985) with higher scores indicating greater acceptability and scores above 52.50 indicative of an acceptable rating (Von Brock & Elliott, 1987). Modifications to the IRP-15 included wording items in the past tense, replacing the word intervention with Tootling, and changing wording to reflect group behavior rather than a single child. Such minor modifications to the scale have not been found to affect its psychometric properties (Freer & Watson, 1999).

Dependent Measures

The primary dependent measure was instances of disruptive behaviors exhibited by students. Disruptive behaviors were defined as a student demonstrating at least one of the following behaviors: (a) out of seat without permission, defined as no part of the student’s legs or buttocks in contact with a seat, including standing or walking around without permission; (b) inappropriate vocalizations, defined as the student making any vocal, audible noise unrelated to the task at hand such as talking, yelling, singing, or humming; or (c) engaging in any physical, motor movements unrelated to the task at hand such as manipulating objects or materials, throwing objects, or tapping fingers or objects on a desk.

Appropriate behavior exhibited by the students in the classroom was evaluated as a secondary dependent variable. Appropriate behavior was defined as the student being actively involved or attending to (e.g., looking at) independent seatwork, teacher instruction, designated classroom activities, and/or engaging in task-related vocalizations with teachers and/or peers. Although instances of both disruptive and appropriate behaviors were collected as dependent measures, only disruptive behavior data were used for phase change decisions.

Data Collection

Dependent variables were measured as percentage of intervals of occurrence, using a 10-s momentary time sampling recording procedure. The percentage of intervals of occurrence for disruptive and appropriate behaviors was measured across 20-min observation sessions. Participating teachers and students remained together for approximately a 2-hr block of time consisting of instruction across multiple subjects, after which the students switched classrooms and teachers for instruction in other subjects. Tootling was implemented by the teacher(s) during this entire block of time that the referred class was with the participating teacher(s). However, all 20-min observation sessions for both classrooms were conducted at about the same time each day during the same portion of the instructional block (i.e., during science instruction in Classroom A; during language arts instruction in Classroom B). Percentage of behavioral occurrence was calculated by dividing the total number of intervals of occurrence by the total number of intervals in the observation and multiplying by 100.

Data collection procedures were the same during screening, baseline, and treatment phase observations. Students in the classrooms were divided into groups, and each student from each group was momentarily observed at the beginning of each 10-s interval. Classroom A was divided into five groups each having four students, except for Group 1 which had two students. Classroom B was also divided into five groups each having four students, except for Group 4 which had three students. Based on operational definitions of behaviors, any interval of passive off-task behavior that was neither appropriate nor disruptive was not marked, but was still counted toward the total intervals observed when calculating the overall percentage.

The order in which the groups were observed varied systematically (e.g., Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 were observed during the first rotation, then Groups 2, 3, 4, 1 in the next rotation, etc.). To select which student in each group to observe first, each day the primary investigator randomly selected which student (e.g., Student 1, Student 2) would begin the rotation. For example, an observation that was selected to begin with Student 1 in Group 1 was followed by Student 1 in Group 2, then Student 1 in Group 3, and Student 1 in Group 4. Then Student 2 in Group 2 was observed, followed by Student 2 in Group 3, then Student 2 in Group 4, then Student 2 in Group 1, and so on. Data for each 20-min observation were aggregated across each group of students to obtain an estimate of the overall percentage of intervals of classroom disruptive and appropriate behavior. An audio recording was used to signal the observers at every 10-s interval during the observation.

Experimental Design

Two ABAB withdrawal designs with a multiple baseline element (Kazdin, 1982) across classrooms were used to assess the effectiveness of the Tootling intervention for decreasing classwide disruptive behavior and increasing appropriate behavior. One classroom remained in the baseline phase whereas the other moved into treatment. Once a treatment effect was determined for the first classroom, the second classroom began implementation of the Tootling procedures. All phase changes (e.g., including withdrawal and reimplementation) occurred based on visual analysis, level, stability, and/or trend of disruptive behavior data for each classroom. Follow-up observations were also conducted 2 weeks after the final intervention phase. Teachers were free to continue or discontinue intervention procedures during follow-up. Both teachers chose to continue intervention procedures during follow-up.

Procedures

Screening

Referred classrooms were screened to determine whether they met criterion for inclusion. Classrooms included in the study displayed classwide disruptive behavior in approximately 30% or more of the observed intervals. A criterion of 30% was selected on the premise that disruption levels of approximately 30% or more have the potential to disrupt ongoing classroom instruction. In addition, this criterion also allowed for the prevention of floor effects as demonstrations of improvement in student behavior were still possible below 30%. Data collection for the screen-in followed the same procedures used for baseline and intervention phases described above.

Baseline

Baseline data for disruptive and appropriate behavior were collected in the two classrooms. Teachers were asked to continue with instruction and classroom management procedures as per their normal routines.

Training

Prior to implementation of Tootling procedures, each classroom had one Tootling training session conducted by the classroom teacher. Teachers were provided with a script to guide them through the training session in which students were trained to recognize and report peers’ appropriate behaviors. The students were provided with examples and non-examples of tootles and how to record them on the index cards. Students were then instructed to practice writing tootles on an index card, and the teacher provided corrective feedback and/or praise to ensure that the students had a sufficient understanding of the Tootling procedures. The training session continued until each student successfully wrote one tootle.

Tootling

At the beginning of the respective period each day, the teacher provided the students with index cards to keep at their desks so that they could record any instances of prosocial peer behaviors. The teacher was instructed to briefly review the instructions for recording tootles and encourage the students to write a tootle if they observed a classmate behaving appropriately (Cihak et al., 2009). In Classroom A, students were informed that they could write a total of two tootles on each index card, one on the front and one on the back. In addition, students in Classroom A were allowed to get another index card if they had used the card that was given to them at the beginning of the period. In Classroom B, the teacher only allowed the students to receive one index card for the duration of the period. In both classrooms, students were allowed to get up periodically and place their tootles in the box.

An interdependent group contingency procedure was also implemented in combination with the Tootling intervention to specify a goal to be achieved by the class collectively toward a group reward. For each new goal in Classroom A, the teacher allowed students to call out suggestions for potential rewards, and then the class voted for what they would work toward. Rewards for Classroom A consisted of extra recess time and 20 min of computer time. The teacher in Classroom B, however, decided to choose rewards herself with no collaboration from the students. The rewards chosen for this classroom were primarily small edible items (e.g., cupcakes, chips). At the end of each period, the teachers read at least five of the tootles and provided praise to the children for their reported instances of prosocial behaviors. Then, the teachers added the number of tootles produced that day to the tootles from previous days and indicated progress toward the cumulative goal on the feedback chart (Skinner et al., 2002). When the class reached their goal, students received the chosen reward.

Withdrawal

Following the first intervention phase, Tootling and interdependent group contingency were withdrawn and all Tootling-related items in the classroom were removed (i.e., feedback chart, collection container, and cards were not handed out). Classrooms returned to normal routines and procedures in place during baseline. Observations continued by observers to determine levels of disruptive and appropriate behavior during this phase.

Reimplementation of tootling

After the withdrawal phase, the Tootling intervention was reintroduced as it had been in the initial intervention phase. Data were again analyzed for level, trend, and variability to determine effects of the intervention.

Follow-up

Follow-up observations were conducted 2 weeks after the study ended. Classroom teachers were told that they could continue the intervention if they chose to do so, but were not obligated to continue the procedures. At the time of follow-up, both teachers had continued using the Tootling intervention. In addition, the teacher in Classroom B had begun using the intervention in her morning class.

IOA and Treatment Integrity

IOA between the primary investigator and a trained observer was conducted for recorded instances of disruptive and appropriate behavior exhibited by students. IOA was calculated separately for disruptive and appropriate behavior and reported as total agreement of occurrence and nonoccurrence of behavior. The total number of agreements was divided by the total number of agreements and disagreements and then multiplied by 100. IOA was obtained for at least 33% (range = 33%-60%) of data collection sessions for each phase across both classrooms.

IOA for disruptive behavior in Classroom A averaged 94.3% (range = 87%-99%) across all phases, appropriate behavior averaged 92% (range = 83%-96%) across phases, and total behavioral IOA across both disruptive and appropriate behavior was 91% (range = 79%-96%) across phases. IOA for Classroom A fell to 79% for one observation, and the observer was retrained on the data collection procedures and operational definitions of target behaviors before being allowed to collect subsequent data. For all phases in Classroom B, average IOA for disruptive behavior was 96.6% (range = 93%-99%), appropriate behavior averaged 94% (range = 87%-97%), and total behavioral IOA for disruptive and appropriate behavior averaged 93% (range = 86%-97%).

Because observers could not be present during the entire 2-hr block during which Tootling occurred, treatment integrity checklists were completed by the classroom teachers daily regarding their implementation of the Tootling procedures (e.g., providing the students with index cards, reading tootles at the end of each day, posting progress of the class). The primary investigator also collected treatment integrity data for 100% of observations during intervention phases. Integrity checklists consisted of directly observable steps required for the intervention (e.g., feedback chart clearly displayed and updated from previous days, collection container easily accessible for students).

Integrity collected by the primary investigator in Classroom A averaged 97% (range = 75%-100%), and integrity reported from the classroom teacher’s daily checklists was 100% across all intervention phases. For Classroom B, integrity collected by the primary investigator never fell below 100% across intervention phases; however, integrity as reported by the daily teacher checklist was 97% (range = 80%-100%) for intervention phases. IOA for the primary investigator checklists was collected for an average of 37% and 49% of observations in Classrooms A and B, respectively. Treatment Integrity IOA was 100% between observers for all integrity checks.

In addition, procedural integrity was assessed by the primary investigator for the Tootling training sessions conducted by the classroom teachers prior to implementation of treatment. The primary investigator completed an integrity checklist to assess whether the teacher implemented the steps for training the students in the Tootling procedures. Integrity was 100% for both Tootling training sessions in Classrooms A and B. Procedural integrity IOA was also collected for steps completed during the trainings in both classrooms and was 100% between observers.

Effect Size

Effect size calculations were conducted for both disruptive and appropriate behavior across both classrooms to provide more robust analyses beyond visual analysis and mean level comparisons (Parker, Vannest, & Davis, 2011). Specifically, Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) procedures were used to calculate pairwise comparisons to determine overlap in individual datum points for each non-treatment/treatment phase dyad (i.e., A1 to B1 and A2 to B2) for each classroom (Parker & Vannest, 2009). According to results found by Parker and Vannest (2009) in a comparison of multiple effect size calculations, NAP was reported to correlate most closely with the R² effect size. Tentatively, when interpreting NAP scores, values between 0 and .65 are considered weak effects, scores of .66 to .92 are considered moderate effects, and scores of .93 to 1.00 are considered strong/large effects (Parker & Vannest, 2009).

Results

Figure 1 shows the percentage of intervals of disruptive and appropriate behavior across all phases in both classrooms. Mean percentage of disruptive behavior for Classroom A was 26.6% (range = 20%-30%) of intervals observed during baseline, 14.2% (range = 10%-23%) of intervals during the initial intervention phase, 30.75% (range = 27%-39%) of intervals during withdrawal, 9.4% (range = 5%-15%) of intervals during reimplementation of Tootling, and 8.7% (range = 7%-12%) of intervals during follow-up observations. Mean level of appropriate behavior was 58.2% (range = 49%-63%) of intervals during baseline, 75.2% (range = 66%-88%) of intervals during the initial Tootling phase, 54.75% (range = 48%-60%) of intervals during withdrawal, 79.9% (range = 68%-89%) of intervals during reimplementation, and 84.7% (range = 83%-86%) of intervals during follow-up. NAP effect size scores for both classes are summarized in Table 1. All effect size comparisons for both disruptive and appropriate behavior in Classroom A reflect strong effects.

Figure 1.

Percentage of intervals of occurrence for classwide disruptive and appropriate student behavior across both classrooms and all phases.

Table 1.

NAP Across Classrooms A and B.

	NAP	Descriptor
Classroom A
Disruptive behavior
Baseline × Initial Tootling (A1 × B1)	.96	Strong
Withdrawal × Reimplementation (A2 × B2)	1.0	Strong
Appropriate behavior
Baseline × Initial Tootling (A1 × B1)	1.0	Strong
Withdrawal × Reimplementation (A2 × B2)	1.0	Strong
Classroom B
Disruptive behavior
Baseline × Initial Tootling (A1 × B1)	1.0	Strong
Withdrawal × Reimplementation (A2 × B2)	.875	Moderate
Appropriate behavior
Baseline × Initial Tootling (A1 × B1)	1.0	Strong
Withdrawal × Reimplementation (A2 × B2)	.8958	Moderate

Note. NAP = nonoverlap of all pairs.

For Classroom B, percentage of intervals of disruptive behavior averaged 27.3% (range = 16%-36%) during baseline, 7.4% (range = 6%-10%) of intervals during the initial Tootling phase, 17.3% (range = 6%-28%) of intervals during withdrawal, 7.5% (range = 2%-15%) of intervals during reimplementation of the intervention, and 6.5% (range = 6%-7%) of intervals during follow-up. Appropriate behavior for Classroom B averaged 59.3% (range = 43%-71%) of intervals during baseline, 83.2% (range = 80%-86%) of intervals during the initial introduction of Tootling, 70.5% (range = 62%-85%) of intervals during withdrawal, 82.9% (range = 77%-89%) of intervals during the reimplementation of Tootling, and 77.5% (range = 75%-80%) during follow-up. Effect size comparisons for disruptive as well as appropriate behavior in Classroom B reflect moderate to strong effects (see Table 1).

Both teachers were asked to complete the IRP-15 following the end of data collection sessions. Ratings from the IRP-15 for both teachers were high. The teacher in Classroom A rated strongly agree (i.e., 6) on all items of the scale, and the teacher in Classroom B rated strongly agree (i.e., 6) or agree (i.e., 5) on all items. Total overall scores by both teachers suggest high acceptability of the intervention, with scores of 90 and 85 for Classroom A’s teacher and Classroom B’s teacher, respectively.

Discussion

Initial studies of Tootling demonstrated that students could accurately and effectively report their peers’ prosocial behaviors, but did not directly investigate the effects of the intervention on student behavior (Cashwell et al., 2001; Skinner et al., 2000). In these studies, only the number of tootles produced by students was assessed; disruptive or appropriate student behaviors were not measured directly. Cihak et al. (2009) published the first peer reviewed study to demonstrate that Tootling could have beneficial effects on student disruptive behavior.

The present investigation demonstrated the positive effects of Tootling on classwide student disruptive and appropriate behavior across fourth- and fifth-grade general education classrooms using direct observation data solely by trained observers. Overall, the present results with regard to classwide disruptive student behavior are consistent with those of Cihak et al. (2009), who found decreases in both classwide and individual disruptive student behavior with the use of Tootling. Specifically, the current study also found decreases in disruptive behavior for both classrooms during Tootling phases when compared with baseline and withdrawal phases. In addition, the current results also demonstrated substantial increases in appropriate behavior with Tootling across both classrooms. Finally, results for both classrooms regarding decreases in disruptive behavior as well as increases in appropriate behavior were also maintained at follow-up. All effect size comparisons reflected moderate to strong effects across classrooms using a strong experimental design, combining a multiple baseline element with the ABAB withdrawal designs in each classroom, thereby further strengthening the demonstration of experimental control. Thus, these data provide strong empirical support for the use of Tootling as an effective and highly acceptable intervention by teachers for improving both disruptive and appropriate classwide behavior in students as old as fifth graders.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the results of the current study demonstrated beneficial effects of the Tootling intervention on both disruptive and appropriate classwide student behavior, several limitations should be noted. First, the intervention typically contains several common components (e.g., positive peer reporting, publicly posted feedback, interdependent group contingency). As similarly noted by Cihak et al. (2009), the results of the present study cannot be isolated nor attributed to any specific component or combination of components. Second, even though the current study showed effects across two classrooms, additional replications are needed in the peer reviewed literature to further support the use of Tootling as an effective intervention to decrease classwide disruptive behavior and increase appropriate behavior. Third, while Cihak et al. (2009) demonstrated effects on third-grade students, and the present study used fourth and fifth graders, it remains to be empirically demonstrated whether Tootling is effective across other developmental levels (e.g., middle and/or high school students). Fourth, data collection procedures combined observation intervals to produce an aggregate level of behavior for the entire class; therefore, the effects of Tootling on individual student behavior could not be determined. Thus, peer reviewed studies are needed in addition to Cihak et al. to further evaluate the effects of the intervention on individual student disruptive and appropriate behavior, in addition to the class as a whole, and to evaluate classwide and individual target student acceptability. Fifth, Tootling was implemented during only one block of instruction (approximately 2 hr) by each teacher. Future research should consider extending the length of time Tootling is implemented to include additional class periods and greater portions of the school day. Also, future research should consider monitoring potential generalization and improvements in behavior during non-Tootling periods.

Finally, teacher integrity fell below 80% on several occasions in both classrooms, and slight deviations were made in the procedures throughout implementation. For example, the teacher in Classroom B allowed students to write only one tootle per day, she chose the rewards with no input from the class and sometimes read the tootles and updated the chart the next day instead of at the end of the period. In Classroom A, the teacher did not update the feedback chart on two occasions. Despite these deviations, however, desired effects on classwide student behavior were clearly demonstrated in both classrooms, suggesting that strict adherence to these particular elements may not be necessary for the success of the intervention. Future research should evaluate which components of the intervention are critical to the success of Tootling in an attempt to improve its efficiency.

Implications for Practice

Despite limitations presented previously, the results of this study further support the use of Tootling as an effective intervention for decreasing disruptive and increasing appropriate classwide student behavior. The importance of the results regarding appropriate student behavior is also relevant to the recent emphasis on SWPBIS in schools. Best practice in SWPBIS dictates that schools utilize evidence-based interventions to promote positive behavior in schools (Sugai & Horner, 2006). The present study demonstrated substantial improvements in classwide appropriate student behavior to support the use of Tootling as a means for promoting positive behaviors.

Tootling also aligns with SWPBIS, in that it may be used as either a Tier I or Tier II intervention. The current study demonstrated the usefulness of Tootling as a Tier II intervention, in that classrooms were referred due to high levels of disruptive student behaviors; however, schools should also consider Tootling as a viable option for providing Tier I supports. Tootling may be used as a preventative, classroom management strategy if teachers begin using the intervention to promote appropriate behaviors at the beginning of the year before disruptive behavior becomes a concern.

In addition, both teachers rated the intervention as highly acceptable and continued using Tootling during all follow-up observations. The teacher in Classroom B further reported that she was beginning the intervention in one of her other classes as well. However, we have no data regarding any effects or improvements in behavior during non-Tootling periods. The high acceptability ratings as well as teachers’ anecdotal reports of continued use of the intervention beyond the present study suggest that Tootling is a practical option for consultants to present to teachers in need of effective, teacher-friendly, and positively oriented classroom management strategies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Abigail M. Lambert, PhD, is currently a postdoctoral fellow with Live Oak Behavioral Psychology, LLC, a private pediatric psychology clinic in Mandeville, Louisiana. Her applied work focuses on consultation and direct intervention services for families and schools to address the social, emotional, and behavioral concerns of typically developing children as well as children with developmental disabilities.

Daniel H. Tingstrom, PhD, is professor of psychology and director of training of the School Psychology Program in the Department of Psychology at The University of Southern Mississippi. His research interests include applied behavior analysis, compliance training procedures for parents and teachers, and the implementation and evaluation of individual and classroom-based behavioral interventions.

Heather E. Sterling, PhD, a licensed psychologist with Central Louisiana’s Resource Center for Developmental Disabilities, provides behavioral support services to families, schools, care providers, and individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She also is an adjunct instructor with Ball State’s Applied Behavior Analysis Program.

Brad A. Dufrene, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at The University of Southern Mississippi. His research interests include tiered school and family interventions for young children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders and behavioral consultation in applied settings.

Shauna Lynne, MSEd, is currently a graduate student in the School Psychology Program at The University of Southern Mississippi. Her applied work includes providing assessment and direct intervention services to students with behavioral and academic concerns, as well as conducting training in behavioral interventions for parents and teachers.

References

Bandura

(1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-595.

Bandura

Ross

S. A.

(1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 601-607.

Barrish

H. H.

Saunders

Wolf

M. W.

(1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.

Carden Smith

L. K.

Fowler

S. A.

(1984). Positive peer pressure: The effects of peer monitoring on children’s disruptive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 213-227.

Cashwell

T. H.

Skinner

C. H.

Smith

E. S.

(2001). Increasing second-grade students’ reports of peers prosocial behaviors via direct instruction, group reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication and extension. Education & Treatment of Children, 24, 161-175.

Cihak

D. F.

Kirk

E. R.

Boon

R. T.

(2009). Effects of classwide positive peer “Tootling” to reduce the disruptive classroom behaviors of elementary students with and without disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 267-278.

Embry

D. D.

(2002). The good behavior game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 273-297.

Freer

Watson

T. S.

(1999). A comparison of parent and teacher acceptability ratings of behavioral and conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychology Review, 28, 672-685.

Horner

R. H.

Sugai

Smolkowski

Eber

Nakasato

Todd

A. W.

Esperanza

(2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-144.

10.

Jones

K. M.

Young

M. M.

Friman

P. C.

(2000). Increasing peer praise of socially rejected delinquent youth: Effects on cooperation and acceptance. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 30-39.

11.

Kazdin

A. E.

(1982). Single-case research design: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Litow

Pumroy

D. K.

(1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.

13.

Luiselli

J. K.

Putnam

R. F.

Sunderland

(2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 182-188.

14.

Martens

B. K.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Darveaux

(1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191-198.

15.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

(2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357-367.

16.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine non overlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303-322.

17.

Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public schools foster the common good? New York, NY: Author.

18.

Skinner

C. H.

Cashwell

T. H.

Skinner

A. L.

(2000). Increasing Tootling: The effects of a peer-monitored group contingency program on students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 263-270.

19.

Skinner

C. H.

Neddenriep

C. E.

Robinson

S. L.

Ervin

Jones

(2002). Altering educational environments through positive peer reporting: Prevention and remediation of social problems associated with behavior disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 191-202.

20.

Skinner

C. H.

Skinner

A. L.

Cashwell

T. H.

(1998, November). Tootling, not tattling. Paper presented at the twenty sixth annual meeting of the Mid South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

21.

Skinner

C. H.

Skinner

A. L.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

(2002). Best practices in contingency management: Application of individual and group contingencies in educational settings. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 817-830.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

22.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Robinson

S. L.

Wilczynski

S. M.

(2001). Functional assessment of distracting and disruptive behaviors in the school setting. School Psychology Review, 30, 211-226.

23.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2000). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 130-135.

24.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining the implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259.

25.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2008). What we need to know about preventing problem behaviors in schools. Exceptionality, 16, 67-77.

26.

Sugai

Lewis-Palmer

Todd

Horner

R. H.

(2001). School-wide evaluation tool. Eugene: University of Oregon.

27.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Wilczynski

S. M.

(2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225-253.

28.

Von Brock

M. B.

Elliott

S. N.

(1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131-144.