Combating Work Refusal Using Research-Based Practices

Abstract

Academic expectations are often antecedents for various types of inappropriate classroom behavior for students with challenging behavior. Effective interventions for managing these behaviors must involve techniques that combat academic refusal. Addressing the underlying issues of resistance or refusal to perform academically in school using research-based, antecedent strategies can successfully prevent many passive or disruptive classroom misbehaviors. This column provides specific examples of applying research-proven practices of differentiated instruction, mediated scaffolding, opportunities to respond, choice making, Premack’s principle, and behavioral momentum to improve academic participation.

Keywords

classroom behavior behavior management work refusal antecedent interventions

For students with behavioral disabilities and difficulties, academic endeavors are often antecedents, or triggers, for a variety of inappropriate behaviors (Haydon, 2012; Scheuermann & Hall, 2012). When placed in the learning environment or presented with an academic task, these students may actively or passively refuse work or engage in other misbehaviors that often result in removal from the classroom. These behaviors are a specific type of noncompliance that often serves the purpose of evading academic demands. Interventions to address these behaviors will potentially remediate academic deficiencies and also will positively impact classroom behaviors associated with avoiding academic demands (Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999). This column offers research-to-practice examples aligned with antecedent interventions that have research support.

The terms work refusal, task refusal, and work or task avoidance can refer to the function of a set of behaviors that serve the purpose of helping the student avoid or escape academic tasks or other types of assigned work. The terms can also refer to behaviors defined as engaging in any behavior other than working on an assigned activity even after redirection (Petscher & Bailey, 2008). It is differentiated from off-task behavior that serves functions other than task avoidance (e.g., attention or access to tangible objects) and from school refusal, defined as refusal to attend school or remain in classes due to school anxiety, depression, family factors, or other reasons (Tolin et al., 2009).

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated the use of research-based interventions, curricula, and practices. By definition, this means that all practices used with students with disabilities must be based on research that shows positive, or successful, outcomes and uses systematic, objective observations and/or replicable experiments with rigorous data analysis to obtain outcomes that are deemed reliable and valid. Furthermore, the research must have been accepted or approved by independent experts in the field through an objective peer review. While there is an even higher standard for quality research practices, the research base for the practices suggested in this article lack the high-quality experimental evidence to be considered “evidence-based practices” or the evidence-based review has not been conducted with this population (Cook et al., 2014).

As a result of the emphasis on research-based practices in IDEIA and NCLB, functional behavioral assessments (FBA) are increasingly used to identify antecedents to and consequences that maintain challenging behaviors, including work refusal behaviors. An FBA leads to hypotheses about functions, or purposes, that misbehaviors serve for the student. Research shows that FBA data can help educators and others develop function-based intervention plans that are more effective at remediating the target behavior than interventions developed without use of FBA (e.g., Whitford, Liaupsin, Umbreit, & Ferro, 2013). In the case of work refusal, an FBA can help pinpoint specific antecedent contributors, which can guide planning and implementation of successful interventions (Restori, Gresham, Chang, Lee, & Laija-Rodriquez, 2007).

Many disruptive classroom behaviors can be ameliorated if the underlying cause is addressed; one approach to addressing the cause is through antecedent-based interventions. Antecedent-based interventions are those strategies and techniques designed to eliminate the trigger or modify the environment to prevent inappropriate behaviors (Park & Scott, 2009). Understanding the antecedent to work refusal leads to the development of logical intervention strategies rather than those based on assumptions or trial and error (Dunlap & Fox, 2011). Common antecedents associated with behaviors that result in task avoidance include (a) being asked to do something the student does not want to do because the task is perceived as too difficult or unchallenging, (b) being expected to participate in certain forms of work or work with peers that a student finds unpleasant (e.g., oral reading or group work), and (c) transitioning from a preferred task to one that is less enjoyable, that lacks structure, or that is conversely overstimulating (Scheuermann & Hall, 2012).

Six research-based antecedent interventions are described, along with practical examples of ways each could be implemented in a classroom. The interventions are organized under three broad headings of differentiating, invigorating, and structuring learning activities. Behaviors associated with work refusal will be reduced when teachers create quality instructional activities and assessments that motivate students, address learners’ uniqueness, and are structured in a way that promotes predictability.

Differentiate Learning Activities

Academic expectations that are mismatched with students’ instructional abilities are a primary cause of work refusal (Gunter, Denny, & Venn, 2000). Students with a history of school failure may feel that the next assignment offers only another opportunity to fail. Students may take extreme behavioral measures to avoid peers’ perceptions of them as academically incapable.

Differentiated Instruction

The purpose of differentiated instruction (DI) is to tailor instruction to individual students’ needs and includes adjusting the depth of information presented at one time, altering the methods used to present knowledge, or accepting various ways in which students demonstrate learning (Landrum & McDuffie, 2010). The research base for DI is not new. Many researchers have found positive outcomes for differentiating learning for gifted students as well as those with learning and behavioral disabilities (Jones, Yssel, & Grant, 2012; Tieso, 2005). The task for teachers is to provide highly engaging lessons that are within students’ instructional levels by varying aspects of the learning process. To differentiate learning for students, teachers can utilize existing data in students’ files, as well as formative and preassessments of the curriculum to explore their students’ needs (Tomlinson, 2000).

One practice of differentiating instruction includes systematically grouping students. While the teacher rotates among the groups, offering direct instruction to a small group, the other groups are at various phases in the learning process. For example, the teacher presents new learning on subtracting mixed numbers with borrowing to Group A, while Group B works with a paraprofessional for guided practice subtracting mixed numbers and fractions that do not require borrowing, visits a learning center, or practices on a website that provides feedback. It is implied that Group B has already received direct instruction from the teacher and is at the guided practice phase of the direct instruction sequence. Group C has already had direct instruction during the acquisition phase of learning, as well as guided practice, and is doing independent practice using cooperative learning structures, instructional games, individual assignments, or an assessment on subtracting whole numbers. After a set period of time, the teacher switches groups, following an established instructional routine of the direct instruction sequence. Students who have completed independent practice begin the sequence anew with the teacher for new learning. Even within these smaller groups, expectations, lessons, assignments, and assessments can be individualized to meet the unique needs of individual students.

Mediated Scaffolding

Mediated scaffolding refers to gradually transitioning from more intensive guidance, assistance, and support initially provided by the teacher to less prompted, structured practice and ultimately to a more naturalistic learning structure that the student can approach independently and is typical of that for nondisabled peers (Burke, Hagan, & Grossen, 1998). Scaffolding occurs naturally during the early stages of teaching a lesson. However, some students require additional layers of support or to have the scaffolding removed more slowly.

Scaffolds include assistance such as graphic organizers, models, reading guides, note exchanges, and word banks when designing more challenging lessons (Good & Brophy, 2008; Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003). When using graphic organizers, teachers can prefill in differing amounts of information for different students. For reading guides, some students will benefit from an outline aligned with text subheadings; other students need the teacher to pose specific questions the student can find in text. Note-taking assistance can take the form of an exchange with the teacher for model notes. Or, the teacher can provide students with notes that utilize the cloze procedure where some information is deliberately omitted for the student to fill in.

For academically competent students, work that is not challenging or perceived as irrelevant creates low motivation to complete assignments. Instead of adding additional assignments or having capable students tutor others, add breadth and depth to their lessons. Offer opportunities to extend their learning and provide opportunities for them to showcase the extra effort. For example, when a student easily masters the geology vocabulary, have her create a mural of the earth’s layers or create a YouTube video staging rock formations.

Invigorate Learning Activities

To keep students attentive and engaged, teachers must plan activities that are novel, interesting, and relevant. Lessons can be energized for the entire class by adding multiple opportunities for responding throughout the lesson that involve movement and interaction (Shoval & Shulruf, 2011).

Opportunities to Respond

All students need to have many opportunities to actively participate and to correctly respond to at least six to eight questions and comments per minute throughout the lesson (Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003). Ways to achieve such high recommended rates include using technology to pose multiple questions that students can answer by choral responding (answering as a group), or response cards, which include commercially available classroom response systems, individual dry erase boards, or index cards that correspond to multiple choice answers. Other examples include creatively altering traditional learning activities. Instead of plotting coordinate points on the white board, create “graph paper” from a bed sheet and have students throw small beanbags onto dictated points. Instead of discussing the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, have students “tweet” the news and respond using social media, pretending it was available during that time period. Incorporating free technology apps like Poll Everywhere increases students’ opportunities to respond to the lesson by texting responses to posed questions.

Choice Making

Choice making refers to students sharing in the decision making of creating and carrying out learning activities. Dunlap et al. (1994) found that when offered choices or allowed some control over academic endeavors, students with emotional and behavioral disabilities increased task engagement and reduced problematic behavior. Simply allowing students to choose the order in which learning tasks are to be presented or completed offers reluctant learners a sense of control in their learning. Another example is to offer alternatives in activities. For example, to demonstrate competencies after reading To Kill a Mockingbird, students can choose to create a Prezi presentation to demonstrate overarching themes of the book, or they can use any digital storytelling tool to illustrate plot or character development.

Related to choice making, Bottge, Rueda, and Skivington (2006) found that students with behavior challenges will engage in learning tasks that they find to be authentic and motivating. Motivation for learning can be increased by providing a rationale for learning and by personalizing lessons, as well as adding an element of fun. When offering an example in math or creating word problems, incorporate real world scenarios using students’ names or names from popular culture, taking care to maintain a person’s dignity. For example, “Justin Bieber has a net worth of 1.6 × 10⁸. In standard notation, how much money does he have?” Utilize examples from real life. For example, “My husband is building a flowerbed for our tenth anniversary. It is 2 feet long by 3 feet wide. He went to buy mulch to fill the bed halfway full. How much mulch does he need?” While not recommended for initial learning, game formats can greatly enhance motivation for reviewing and practicing newly learned skills. There are many Internet sites that offer Who Wants to Be a Millionaire or Jeopardy! templates where teachers can create games from the curriculum to be played individually or in teams.

Structure Learning Activities

Students with challenging behaviors require a structured, predictable learning environment to be academically and behaviorally successful (Flannery & Horner, 1994; Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003). While there are many components of a systematized classroom, two antecedent interventions are described below.

Premack’s Principle

Premack’s principle states that an activity that a person enjoys can be used as a reinforcer for an activity that is less pleasurable (Premack, 1959). By applying this reinforcement principle, teachers create reinforcing activities that students enjoy immediately following less palatable assignments. Because Premack’s principle strengthens the likelihood that less preferred activities will be attempted, it can function as an antecedent intervention. To illustrate the use of Premack’s principle, consider the following example. At the end of math instruction, the teacher allows students two minutes to draw freely on their dry erase boards while he reads jokes or shows funny pictures on the overhead. Transitioning from one activity to another is difficult for many students with behavior disorders, especially when the change is to a less preferred activity. Another technique that establishes predictability and structure is the use of visual supports to initially teach and later prompt students to change from one instructional activity to another (McCoy, Mathur, & Czoka, 2010). Examples include picture schedules of daily activities and cue cards that provide reminders of expectations.

Behavioral Momentum

Mace et al. (1988) defined behavioral momentum as the likelihood for a behavior that originally had a low probability for compliance to increase after a sequence of commands that have a higher probability for compliance. Lee and Laspe (2003) found that making several requests that had a high probability of student compliance prior to making a request that students may resist increased the likelihood that they would comply. For example, the teacher who expects resistance as students conclude a map coloring assignment but who needs students to transition to math may use behavioral momentum to increase the likelihood of compliance: “Students, hold up your beautiful maps you have been working on so diligently. Now, give a high-five to your work partner. Give a thumbs-up sign if you would like to do this kind of activity again. Great! Now, take 2 minutes to put up the colored pencils and turn your maps in to be graded.” Teachers should take every opportunity to offer specific praise that follows, or is contingent upon, each occurrence of compliance, as Sutherland (2000) found that increasing rates of specific, contingent praise increased appropriate student academic and behavioral responses.

Conclusion

Improving classroom behavior requires a multifaceted approach. The climate must be positive and supportive. The classroom must be a safe place where quality instruction happens daily. The behavior curriculum must consist of posted and taught expectations; predictable, practiced routines and procedures; consistent reinforcement that acknowledges appropriate behavior; as well as a systematic continuum of responses for inappropriate behavior (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). Finally, skillful lesson planning is paramount to producing desired learning outcomes. Teachers must offer a rich curriculum that is relevant and responsive to students (Scheuermann & Hall, 2012).

This column specifically targeted only one behavior that can interfere with students’ learning. Even when all of the previously described supports are in place, some students may continue to struggle with class participation and completing assignments. The presentation of academic expectations may trigger misbehavior that allows students to escape what they perceive as disengaging, even aversive conditions. Punishment will be minimally effective at changing behaviors associated with work refusal; in fact, punishment that removes students from the classroom may actually reinforce the behavior (Perry & Morris, 2014). Teachers can successfully prevent classroom misbehavior that is initiated by academic concerns by implementing some of the antecedent interventions discussed above. The techniques and examples offered in this article are based on practices that have been researched and found to significantly and positively impact students’ academic performance, as well as their behavior.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Bottge

Rueda

Skivington

(2006). Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving contexts: Effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 394–407.

Burke

M. D.

Hagan

S. L.

Grossen

(1998). What curricular designs and strategies accommodate diverse learners? TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(2), 34–38.

Cook

Cote

Kamman

McCarthy

Miller

Scala

Travers

(2014). Evidence-based special education in the context of scarce evidence-based practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(2), 81–84. doi:10.1177/0040059914551921

Dunlap

DePerczel

Clarke

Wilson

Wright

White

Gomez

(1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505–518.

Dunlap

Fox

(2011). Function-based interventions for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 333–343. doi:10.1177/1053815111429971

Flannery

K. B.

Horner

R. H.

(1994). The relationship between predictability and problem behavior for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 157–176.

Good

T. L.

Brophy

J. E.

(2008). Looking into classrooms (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Gunter

P. L.

Denny

R. K.

Venn

M. L.

(2000). Modification of instructional materials and procedures for curricular success of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 44, 116–121. doi:10.1080/10459880009599793

Haydon

(2012). Using functional behavior assessment to match task difficulty for a 5th grade student: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 459–476.

10.

Iovannone

Dunlap

Huber

Kincaid

(2003). Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 150–165.

11.

Jones

R. E.

Yssel

Grant

(2012). Reading instruction in Tier 1: Bridging the gaps by nesting evidence-based interventions within differentiated instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 210–218.

12.

Landrum

T. J.

McDuffie

K. A.

(2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6–17.

13.

Lee

D. L.

Laspe

A. K.

(2003). Using high-probability request sequences to increase journal writing. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 261–273.

14.

Lee

Y. Y.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(1999). Using an instructional intervention to reduce problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 195–204.

15.

Mace

F. C.

Hock

M. L.

Lalli

J. S.

West

B. J.

Belfiore

Pinter

Brown

D. K.

(1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123–141.

16.

Martella

R. C.

Nelson

J. R.

Marchand-Martella

N. E.

(2003). Managing disruptive behaviors in the schools: A schoolwide, classroom, and individualized social learning approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

17.

McCoy

Mathur

Czoka

(2010). Guidelines for creating a transition routine: Changing from one room to another. Beyond Behavior, 19(3), 22–29.

18.

Park

K. L.

Scott

T. M.

(2009). Antecedent-based interventions for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 196–211.

19.

Perry

B. L.

Morris

E. W.

(2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79, 1067–1087. doi:10.1177/0003122414556308

20.

Petscher

E. S.

Bailey

J. S.

(2008). Comparing main and collateral effects of extinction and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Behavior Modification, 32, 468–488.

21.

Premack

(1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66, 219–233. doi:10.1037/h0040891

22.

Restori

A. F.

Gresham

F. M.

Chang

Lee

H. B.

Laija-Rodriquez

(2007). Functional assessment-based interventions for children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. California School Psychologist, 12, 9–30.

23.

Scheuermann

Hall

J. A.

(2012). Positive behavioral supports for the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

24.

Shoval

Shulruf

(2011). Who benefits from cooperative learning with movement activity? School Psychology International, 32(1), 58–72.

25.

Simonsen

Fairbanks

Briesch

Myers

Sugai

(2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380.

26.

Sutherland

K. S.

(2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 44, 110–115.

27.

Sutherland

Alder

Gunter

(2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.

28.

Tieso

(2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 60–89.

29.

Tolin

D. F.

Whiting

Maltby

Diefenbach

G. J.

Lothstein

M. A.

Hardcastle

. . . Gray

(2009). Intensive (daily) behavior therapy for school refusal: A multiple baseline case series. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16, 332–344.

30.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58, 6–11.

31.

Whitford

D. K.

Liaupsin

C. J.

Umbreit

Ferro

J. B.

(2013). Implementation of a single comprehensive function-based intervention across multiple classrooms for a high school student. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 147–167.