Implementation of Presession Pairing with Group Contingency for Children of Deaf Adults to Improve Classroom Behavior

Abstract

This study extended the literature on multicomponent interventions for the children of deaf adults (CODA) population. We evaluated two evidence-based behavior intervention strategies: pre-session pairing (PSP) and independent group contingency (GC). These strategies have successfully decreased off-task behavior in school-age children with various populations. However, the CODA population was not included in previous efforts. Using a concurrent multiple baseline design across participants, a single-case design, we examined whether teacher-implemented PSP with independent GC would reduce off-task behavior in three CODAs in an inclusive classroom at a public elementary school. The results showed that the PSP alone successfully decreased off-task behavior for all participating CODAs; however, the PSP combined with GC led to a greater and consistent reduction of the behavior. Future studies should replicate these findings with similar CODA populations to generalize these findings.

Plain Language Summary

Enhancing Classroom Behavior in Children of Deaf Adults Through Targeted Interventions

Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs) often experience challenges in mainstream classrooms due to their bilingual and bicultural backgrounds, which can lead to off-task behaviors such as difficulty following instructions, talking out of turn, or struggling with engagement. This study examined the effectiveness of two behavior management strategies—Pre-Session Pairing (PSP) and Independent Group Contingency (GC)—in reducing off-task behavior among three CODA students in an elementary school. PSP, where teachers engage in preferred activities with students before lessons, helped decrease off-task behavior, while the addition of GC, a reward-based system for following classroom rules, led to even greater and more consistent improvements. The results suggest that combining PSP and GC effectively supports CODAs in adapting to classroom expectations, enhancing engagement, and fostering a more inclusive learning environment. These interventions were easy to implement and well-received by both teachers and students, highlighting their potential for broader application in classrooms with diverse learners.

Introduction

The National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication estimated that 90% of deaf parents have hearing children (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, n.d.). These children are referred to as children of deaf adults (CODA). CODA implies a unique cultural and linguistic identity, a heritage of Deaf Culture infused with the auditory abilities of an individual (Bull, 1998). According to Bishop and Hicks (2005), CODAs reported distinct variations in experiences of growing up in deaf households. The diversity of childhood experiences was analogous to that of the hearing households (Preston, 1995). However, the majority of CODAs identified with the Deaf community and considered themselves culturally Deaf (Bahan & Bauman, 2001; Bishop & Hicks, 2005; McKee & Kennedy, 2000).

While children in a hearing family absorb the traditions and values of their caregivers through experiences and communication (Hoffmeister, 1985; Singleton & Tittle, 2000), CODAs are immersed in Deaf culture and traditions from an early age and internalize their experiences with deaf parents (Hoffmeister, 1985). In addition, a generational gap may exist between parents and CODAs, seemingly due to the complexity of the cultural and linguistic differences between the hearing and Deaf worlds (Mitchiner, 2022; Preston, 1995). Deaf parents represent a cultural and linguistic minority. However, their children do not share the minority status biologically (Mitchiner, 2022).

“One Generation Thick (OGT)” is a concept of interrupted culture and experiences between deaf parents and hearing children (Pizer et al., 2013). Deaf culture is represented by a diverse community of members who are native American Sign Language (ASL) users with shared interests and values (Hale, 2001). Members of the Deaf community could have various degrees of hearing loss or could be born hearing (Bishop & Hicks, 2005). Culturally

Deaf children with hearing loss usually attend a school where they utilize sign language while hearing children attend mainstream schools. Similar to this group, CODAs attend mainstream schools. Hearing children from deaf households often reported cultural disconnect and sometimes experienced communication difficulties. Deaf culture is a way of knowing oneself; it becomes an integral part of identity and often defines the lifestyle of its members (Hale, 2001). Using ASL, being upfront or direct as a Deaf person, and wanting to communicate with other Deaf people usually signifies belonging to Deaf culture (Bishop & Hicks, 2005; McKee & Kennedy, 2000). Transmission of Deaf cultural values and norms was traditionally reserved for the Deaf children of culturally Deaf parents (Hale, 2001). ASL is a visual Language and requires prolonged eye contact and proximity for communication. The use of ASL is inseparable from Deaf culture.

Singleton and Tittle (2000) stated that CODAs were unique because they shared their parents’ language and culture but not their deafness. Deaf parents may be as competent and caring as hearing parents (Hoffmeister, 1985; Rieffe et al., 2015; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). However, parental deafness may also interfere with access and development of some parental skills of the dominant culture due to the unpreparedness and unawareness of the hearing world (Brown, 2013; Mitchiner, 2022; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). Lack of experience in the hearing world may hinder some deaf parents from preparing their hearing children to join the hearing community.

Unique Family Circumstances Create Unique Challenges For CODAs

CODAs share the “deafness” of their parents in every single aspect, except for the ability to hear (Bishop & Hicks, 2005). These unusual circumstances could result in unique difficulties (Brown, 2013; Martins et al., 2022; Rieffe et al., 2015) with behavior, academic engagement (Hoffmeister, 1985; Mitchiner, 2022; Rieffe et al., 2015), and communication in hearing school environments. In addressing the needs of CODAs, researchers have mainly focused on CODAs’ bi-modal bilingualism and language development. Historically, the scientific world has been intrigued with the code-blending and code-switching of bimodal bilinguals with a unique ability to use two modalities simultaneously for communication (Frederiksen & Kroll, 2022). However, other aspects of their unique needs, such as educational experiences, have received little attention. Research about CODAs’ educational experiences in K-12 grade has been sparse, and conflicting. Several studies reported that CODAs have both positive and negative educational and socio-emotional experiences (Bishop & Hicks, 2005; Bull, 1998; Preston, 1995; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). While reports of spoken language, vocabulary, and articulation problems were less common for CODAs (Hadjikakou et al., 2009; Hofmann, & Chilla, 2015), some CODAs experienced cross-cultural conflicts, such as difficulty adjusting to hearing teachers and peers. These CODAs also expressed their difficulties controlling the volume of their voice because, in a deaf household, one could talk loudly without annoying anyone (Singleton & Tittle, 2000). It was also reported that shoulder tapping or foot stomping was needed to attract attention during conversation and that there was a lack of listening comprehension due to the absence of eye contact (Hadjikakou et al., 2009; Singleton & Tittle, 2000).

Transitioning from the Deaf household into the hearing world could be challenging, especially when entering the mainstream education system. CODAs might experience full immersion into the hearing world for the first time. Bi-cultural and bimodal bilingual experiences may confuse many CODAs in the hearing world, where they may struggle with identity and a sense of belonging (Singleton & Tittle, 2000). Hoffmeister (1985) reported that CODAs often act as language brokers at young ages, which could be stressful for those children. Language brokerage may also impact the balance of power between child and parent because the child could take the caretaker’s role (Bishop & Hicks, 2005; Bull, 1998; Preston, 1995). Feelings and emotions associated with the process could manifest in problem behaviors.

Based on the findings, it was apparent that CODAs represent a marginalized cultural group. Nevertheless, the extent to which CODAs adjust to a classroom environment and academic engagement has received little attention from researchers (Blenner & O’Connor, 2017; Harvey, 2003; Moroe & De Andrade, 2018).

In addition, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), particularly Article 24, underscores the need for inclusive education for all individuals. For hearing children born into deaf families, education can present unique challenges due to societal perceptions and limited access to specialized resources. Article 24 of the CRPD mandates that education should be tailored to individual needs and promote equal opportunities for children with disabilities, including those children who have a relation to persons with disabilities. This study seeks to strengthen equitable access to CODAs’ curriculum and quality education. By examining the effects of positive behavior intervention, this research aims to expand knowledge on the complexities of inclusive education for this marginalized group and provide actionable recommendations for effective teaching practices (United Nations, 2006).

Positive Behavior Interventions in the School Environment

Integrating behavior support into the learning environment positively affects student academic engagement. A review of over 250 studies that used single-case designs concluded that evidence-based interventions for individuals with various abilities were successful (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2015; Kamps et al., 2015).

Pre-session pairing (PSP) (Kelly et al., 2015; Kruger et al., 2016) and group contingency (Ennis et al., 2016; Maggin et al., 2017) are evidence-based interventions. These strategies have been proven to increase student engagement and decrease problem behavior. For example, using PSP with students of all genders, from diverse environments, with varying abilities and academic levels, researchers concluded that this antecedent intervention was highly effective in preventing and remedying problem behavior (Kern et al., 2002; Ledford et al., 2018; Rispoli et al., 2011). PSP is a rapport-building procedure that creates a sense of trust between the learner and practitioner (Conroy & Stichter, 2003).

When implementing PSP, the implementer engages in a preferred activity with a student exhibiting problem behavior immediately preceding a problematic situation (Jaquett et al., 2021). Pairing the practitioner and the learning environment with a highly preferred activity before the instruction without any demands decreased problem behavior during the instructional session (Kelly et al., 2015; Kruger et al., 2016). Similarly, group contingency (GC) has been found to improve student individual or group behavior. In utilizing GC (Little et al., 2015), students receive a predetermined preference activity or item contingent on compliance with specific expectations (Briesch et al., 2020). Independent GC is characterized as using the same criterion and consequence for the same target behavior for the entire class of students, but each student’s performance determines the consequences. Meta-analyses of single case designs, one analysis from 1960 to 2017 and another from 1980 to 2010, demonstrated that independent GCs positively affect students’ classroom behavior during academic instruction from kindergarten to the 12th grade, including those from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds with different abilities (Baba & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2011; Little et al., 2015).

Current Study, Purpose, and Research Question

This study aimed to extend the literature on the multi-component behavior interventions that included PSP and independent GC by evaluating improvements in the off-task behavior of CODAs in the classroom. While the literature has documented the effects of PSP and independent GC separately (Baba & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2011; Briesch et al., 2020; Lugo et al., 2019; Shillingsburg et al., 2014; Taylor, 2019), the effectiveness in combination has yet to be investigated. Combining these two intervention strategies is expected to enhance behavioral outcomes in a relatively short time frame, especially for students whose changes in behavior did not reach the desired levels through either intervention alone. In addition, more research on CODAs should be conducted because it is difficult to determine whether the findings of studies on other populations can be generalized to CODAs. To our knowledge, no available information about behavior support for CODAs has yet to be available. Thus, this study aimed to address the gap in the literature by identifying effective intervention strategies to improve classroom behavior for elementary CODAs. Specifically, the study examined whether PSP would decrease off-task behavior and if adding GC to PSP would further decrease and maintain decreased off-task behavior during instructional activities.

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants were recruited from a first-grade inclusive classroom at an elementary school in the northeastern part of the United States. The school had approximately 200 students, and the majority (75%) were CODAs. This school was established in 1908 as the Public School for the Deaf. For over a century, the school has gone through many changes. The admission priority was given to the deaf (D), hard of hearing (HOH), and those with deaf relatives. This included siblings of D/HOH children (SODAs), children of deaf adults (CODAs), grandchildren of deaf adults (GODAs), and other family members. The students comprised 45% Hispanic, 25% White, 21% Black, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 3% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 1% two or more races. In addition, 68% of the students qualified for free lunch, 78% have Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs), and 80% have English as a New Language (ENL) services. The school employed 26 full-time teachers, 57% White, 27% Hispanic, 15% Black, and 1% two or other races. In addition, 30% of the teachers were D/HOH. Most of the teachers (75%) were female.

The research was conducted in the classrooms of two hearing teachers who used spoken English and ASL to communicate with students according to their hearing status. The primary teacher was the researcher (first author). The researcher was a certified teacher who had taught for 8 years and pursued a PhD in education during the study. The secondary teacher was female, earned a master’s degree in education, and had been teaching for 10 years. The following five criteria were used to determine the eligibility for child participants: (a) primary language was ASL; (b) used ASL daily with caregivers; (c) enrolled in an inclusive classroom; and (c) display Disruptive behavior during at least one academic period (e.g., ELA, math, ASL, or morning circle time).Three students who met these criteria were selected to participate in the study. Each participant who met the criteria was born in the U.S., was in first grade, had at least one deaf parent, and had an IEP for speech and language impairments.

Ethical Considerations

Informed consent was first obtained from the secondary teacher. The researcher explained the study and asked the teacher to read and sign the consent form. Informed parental consent and student verbal assent were obtained from the student participants. Parents were then given a permission form detailing the study, which included the researcher’s contact information for any questions, and asked to complete, sign, and return the form. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

To minimize any risk of harm to participants the intervention activities were consistent with normal classroom practices, and no procedures involved physical, psychological, or academic risk beyond typical instruction. We collected data only through observations, without any alteration to students’ daily schedule, instructional placement, or access to services. We used video recordings exclusively for data-scoring purposes and stored on an encrypted, password-protected device accessible only to the research team.

The potential benefits of the research outweighed any minimal risks. The study contributed to advancing evidence-based strategies for supporting children of CODAs. Participating students benefited from increased positive teacher–student interactions, individualized attention, and the use of reinforcement strategies that improved classroom engagement. All names used for CODAs were pseudonyms.

All adult participants and parents or guardians of the child participants provided informed consent in writing. Consent forms described the study purpose, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality protections, and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. For deaf parents, the consent process was provided in American Sign Language through certified interpreters and a Certified Deaf Interpreter to ensure full comprehension. Student participants provided verbal assent after the researcher explained the study in age-appropriate language and confirmed understanding.

Linda

Linda’s parents were Hispanic and born in the U.S. They were profoundly deaf but did not use assistive devices or technologies, such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, or assistive listening devices. Their preferred mode of communication was ASL. To obtain parental consent, the classroom teacher sent a written consent home. The parents requested a video call with an ASL interpreter and a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) who had cultural and linguistic expertise in Deaf Culture. The CDI helped to interpret the ASL message from the hearing interpreter into visual information customized to suit the specific needs of Linda’s parents. Linda was Hispanic with four siblings at home, including one deaf eldest sibling and three hearing. She lived in a crowded household with several siblings and stepsiblings. Due to educational and emotional neglect, there was an open case against her parents with the city Administration for Children’s Services. Linda repeated kindergarten because of severe social-emotional and language delays.

Although Linda enjoyed dancing, playing with other children, and doing arts and crafts, she exhibited several academic and behavioral issues. Linda often persisted in speaking without being recognized by teachers or peers. She made loud and distracting noises or repeatedly approached the teacher’s desk without permission. She struggled to follow the teacher’s directions and to communicate her needs. Her expressive and receptive vocabulary was limited. She communicated using gestures, homemade signs, and various vocalizations. The i-Ready assessment showed that Linda was at the emerging kindergarten level in math and reading. As a result, she received Tier 2 reading interventions. The i-Ready assessment consisted of diagnostic and personalized instruction (Carr & Durand, 1985). It was required of all students each year in this school district.

Mary

Mary’s parents were Hispanic and were profoundly deaf. Mary was conceived via surrogate in the Dominican Republic, then moved to the U.S. to live with her biological father and his husband. Mary’s biological father was from the Dominican Republic. He was a native Dominican Sign Language user. His husband was born in the U.S. He was a native ASL user. Their preferred mode of communication was ASL and homemade signs. They did not use any assistive hearing devices or technologies. Mary’s parents consented to the study in writing. Mary was a Hispanic-only child who was often observed helping her classmates transition, preparing for lessons, and offering help and advice to peers and teachers. Mary was an active child who liked dancing and playing with her friends and enjoyed talking to her teachers and peers about her family and home life. While she had several strengths, her off-task behavior was a significant concern for her teacher. Mary engaged in untimely conversations with peers during instruction and independent work periods. Mary was often found to start unyielding arguments or debates with peers or teachers during instruction. In academics, Mary was one level below in math and approaching first-grade level competency in reading, according to the i-Ready assessment, which resulted in her receiving Tier 1 math interventions.

India

India’s parents were African American; the mother was deaf, and the father was hearing. India’s mother was profoundly deaf and used no hearing assistive devices or technologies. The researcher communicated about study participation mainly with the father. The father was a fluent ASL user and English language speaker. India’s mother was a fluent ASL user and her preferred mode of communication was ASL. India was African American and had a younger hearing sister.

Although sociable and always offering to help classmates and teachers, India often conversed with her peers during academic instruction and independent work periods against class rules and could not stay on-task during instruction. According to the i-Ready assessment, India was in Grade 1 in math and an emerging kindergarten in reading. As a result, she was receiving Tier 2 reading interventions.

Dependent Variable and Data Collection

The dependent variable, off-task behavior, was defined as (a) not having eyes oriented toward a given assignment or the teacher during instruction or directions, (b) off-topic comments or questions, (c) not working on an assigned task (e.g., having a conversation with peers, moving around the classroom), (d) not using the materials appropriately (e.g., drawing on the paper, playing with the writing tools, playing with the manipulatives), (e) not interacting with teacher and peers when requested, or (f) inappropriate vocalizations (e.g., saying that they know the answer, complaining, asking for assistance without an effort to work independently, commenting on the weather or talking about the actions of their peers) (Bloom et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2005). The off-task behavior was measured using a 20-s whole interval recording system in which the interval was scored whenever off-task behavior occurred during the entire 20-s. To calculate the percentage of time engaged in off-task, the sum of the intervals with off-task was divided by the total number of the intervals and multiplied by 100.

The secondary teacher was not involved in the data collection. The researcher (first author/primary teacher) and the fourth author collected data through live observations and video recording during 10-20 min targeted reading instruction. Observations began at the start of the reading instruction and ended when students transitioned to the next activity. 100% of the data collection sessions across participants and phases were video recorded for later scoring to assess interobserver agreement (IOA).

The fourth author, a special education doctoral student, was the independent observer for assessing IOA. She was trained in data collection procedures and independently recorded the target behavior of each student participant. IOA was calculated by dividing the number of interval agreements by the total number of interval agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The calculations resulted in a percentage agreement between the observers. IOA was 98% for Linda, 97% for Mary, and 98% for India. IOA averaged 97% in baseline, 95% in PSP, and 96% in PSP plus GC across students.

Treatment Integrity

The primary teacher and fourth author assessed treatment integrity for approximately 33% of the intervention implementation sessions in each intervention phase (PSP and PSP plus GC phase) per student to ensure the secondary teacher implemented the intervention procedures correctly.

IOA on treatment integrity was also assessed during the observations. The data collectors used checklists to tally whether the procedural steps were followed correctly. The number of correct procedural steps was divided by the total number of procedural steps and multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage of procedural fidelity. The treatment integrity was 100% across observation sessions for both phases. IOA for procedural fidelity was also 100% for all three participants.

Social Validity

Two social validity survey questionnaires created by the researcher were used to assess this intervention’s social significance and relevance. Using a 5-point Likert scale, teachers and participants answered 10 questions about the relevance of this intervention, perceived significance, willingness and comfort of participating in it, its manageability, and sustainability.

The questionnaire for student participants also included 10 items about enjoyment, understanding, feelings and preference of the activities. The questions were read to the student participants, and evaluated using a 3-point Likert scale.

Procedures

The study employed a component analysis with a multiple baseline design with an ABC sequence (baseline, PSP, and PSP with GC). Before collecting baseline data, a trial-based functional analysis was conducted to identify the function of each student’s problem behavior (Bloom et al., 2011, 2013). The interventions were systematically staggered across the participants. After three baseline sessions, the intervention was randomly introduced to the first student exhibiting problem behavior. Randomization distributes environmental factors equally across the participants and minimizes potential bias.

Functional Behavior Analysis and Baseline

The functional behavior analysis (FBA) started with completing the Functional Assessment Checklist for the Teachers and Staff (FACTS) (March et al., 2000). The FACTS inquired about antecedents, consequences, and instructional periods associated with the target behavior. The FACTS results showed that the off-task behavior was potentially maintained by teacher attention and escape from complex tasks for all three participants. A trial-based functional analysis (Bloom et al., 2011; Saini et al., 2018) was conducted to confirm the hypothesized functions of the participating students. Each of the attention and escape conditions was tested during 2-min trials during small group instruction or individual work time in the classroom. Each trial consisted of a 1-minute test segment and a 1- min control segment. During the attention condition, the teacher was near the student, providing noncontingent attention for 1 min (control segment). The teacher gave verbal attention every 5 s, stating, “You are doing very well today. Please focus and continue your work.” During the test segment of the attention condition, the teacher sat at her table with the student and began testing by stating, “I need to do some work,” and then turning away from the student. She provided attention to the student for 15 s immediately after the occurrence of problem behavior and then terminated the trial. When testing the escape condition, the teacher did not place any academic demands on the student for the duration of the control segment. During the test segment, the teacher provided an activity that placed high academic engagement demands on the student and was associated with a high rate of problem behavior. The teacher then terminated the trial after removing the task demand contingent on the occurrence of problem behavior. When no problem behavior occurred, the trial was terminated after 2 min. For each participant, 2 to 4 daily trials were performed over 3 days, for a total of six trials per condition. Testing lasted 12 to 24 min per condition.

Once the baseline phase began, procedures were conducted on consecutive school days. During baseline, the students were reminded of individual behavioral expectations before preferred activity engagement. Individual behavioral expectations included respectful engagement with peers and teachers, active listening, eager participation, and following directions. In addition, the teachers implemented typical classroom management strategies (e.g., transition warnings, redirections, and reprimands).

Preference Assessment

The researcher conducted a preference assessment with each participating student before the intervention phase. During the preference assessment, the researcher presented a verbal list of activities (e.g., favorite book, drawing, puzzles, iPad activity, educational game) and asked each student to rate them from non-preferred to highly preferred. The assessment included at least five preferred activities they could engage in with their classmates and teacher. The preference assessment was conducted two more times for each participant to verify their preference. The first and the fourth authors independently but simultaneously scored the video-recorded sessions to assess IOA data for one session per student (33.3%). The IOA was calculated by scoring agreement on each item’s ranking, dividing the number of agreements by the sum of agreements and disagreements, and multiplying by 100. IOA was 100% across all participants. Upon completing the assessment, the study team created a script for PSP implementation and a fidelity checklist, adapted based on the procedural steps (Saini et al., 2018).

Pre-Session Pairing

The first researcher completed the training of the secondary teacher after the baseline phase, and students participated in the pre-session pairing (PSP) activities for five min before engaging in the target reading activity. The student determined which preferred activity to engage in each session from the target student’s preferred activity list. Then, the secondary teacher announced the activity to the class and immediately initiated it. For example, if the student chose a storytelling activity, the teacher announced that they would create a story by adding a sentence or two to a prompt provided by the teacher. The secondary teacher participated in the activity, delivering at least one positive statement directly to the participant and providing a transition warning during the activity. The teacher used the script and procedure created during the teacher training. At the end of the activity, the teacher praised the students and delivered reading academic instruction. The students’ off-task behavior data collection began as soon as the academic instruction began.

Given that all three participating students were from the same classroom, and the intervention was introduced staggered, the students still in baseline engaged in their typical recess activities separately, such as using an iPad, completing a puzzle, reading a favorite book, or drawing. Data were graphed immediately after each session to ensure the need for any adjustments. The behavior goal during the reading instruction was 20–25%, depending on the baseline performance of each participant. The intervention introduction was staggered to account for environmental effects and closely monitor possible confounding events.

PSP with Independent Group Contingency

Although the PSP intervention phase decreased off-task behavior for all participants, an independent group contingency (GC) was added to maximize the intervention effects (Pennington et al., 2019). After engaging in the PSP activity, the students participated in independent GC during their started reading instruction period. For the independent GC, tokens were used as a conditioned reinforcer (Klimentová et al., 2017). Before the introduction of tokens, the secondary teacher was instructed on the implementation of the treatment. Additionally, the student participants were notified that the reinforcement was contingent upon their ability to meet the behavioral criterion of five tokens following classroom rules. Participants could earn up to five tokens during each instructional period when they met the teacher’s class-wide rules. Examples of rules included (a) being ready to begin learning at the start of class (e.g., being in the seat), (b) raising your hand before speaking, (c) using manipulatives or technology appropriately (e.g., not playing with it), and (d) following the teacher’s directions (e.g., being engaged and attentive). The teacher announced the number of tokens that a student accumulated after instruction.

If a student earned less than five tokens, the student could have continued to earn five tokens during the next instructional period. The earned tokens could be exchanged for a choice-based activity (e.g. drawing, doing a puzzle, or reading a favorite book) from a classroom treasure box at the end of the day.

Results

Trial-Based Functional Behavior Analysis

The results of the trial-based functional analysis indicated that the function of off-task behavior was to gain attention from the teacher for all three participating students. As Figure 1 shows, the participants’ off-task behavior primarily occurred during the teacher attention condition. For Linda, off-task behavior occurred in 100% of the testing segments and 0% of the control segments during the attention trials. For Marry, off-task behavior occurred during 90% of the testing segments and 10% of the control segments. For India, off-task behavior occurred in 80% of the testing segments and 20% of the control segments during attention trials. Escape from task demand was not identified as a function of off-task behavior for any student. As the figure presents, Linda’s off-task occurred in 20% of the testing segments and 0% of the control segments during the escape trials. For India and Mary, off-task occurred in 0% of the control and test segments.

Figure 1.

Percentage of trials with off-task behavior across control and test segments for attention and escape conditions.

Off -Task Behavior

Figure 2 shows that off-task behavior for all participants decreased when PSP was implemented. However, when the independent GC was added to PSP, their off-task behavior decreased even further, and the reduction was maintained during the fading phase. While Linda’s baseline mean was 73% (range, 70%–75%) for off-task behavior, it decreased to 50% (range, 45%–56%) during the PSP intervention. When the independent GC was added to PSP, her off-task was further reduced to 6% (range, 5%–7%). Her off-task behavior occurred around 6% (range, 3%–9%) at the PSP fading and around 4% (range, 2%–5%) at the independent GC fading phase. Their off-task behavior remained relatively stable. Mary’s baseline mean was 60% (range, 45%–68%). When the PSP was implemented, the off-task behavior decreased to 38% (range, 27%–45%) and 7% (range, 5%–10%) when the independent GC was added. The behavior was maintained at 4% (range, 1%–10%) during the PSP fading and 3% (range, 2%–3%) during the independent GC fading phase.

Figure 2.

Percentage of intervals with off-task behavior across days for three participants.

For India, the baseline mean for her off-task behavior was 61% (range 45%–75%). During the PSP intervention, it decreased to 33% (range, 25%–43%), further reducing it to 4% (range, 3%–5%) during the PSP with independent GC Phase. During PSP fading, the off-task behavior was maintained at around 4% (range, 2%–5%). During the independent GC fading, it occurred around 3% (range, 2%–4%).

If a student earned less than five tokens, the student could have continued to earn five tokens during the next instructional period. The earned tokens could be exchanged for a choice-based activity (e.g., drawing, doing a puzzle, or reading a favorite book) from a classroom treasure box at the end of the day.

Overall, the PSP successfully decreased the off-task behavior of all three participants to some degree, but the addition of independent GC markedly decreased the off-task behavior. The behavior remained stable and low, as indicated by approximately 5% across all participants during the fading phases. The results demonstrate that PSP with independent GC is an effective strategy for decreasing CODAs’ off-task behavior.

Social Validity

Results of the secondary teacher social validity survey and student interview indicated high satisfaction with the intervention from both groups. The overall ratings were consistently high (e.g., 4 or 5 on the Likert scale), suggesting that both the teacher and students found the intervention useful in promoting a positive classroom environment. The secondary teacher reported that she benefited from the process. For example, she mentioned successfully building rapport with the participants and the rest of the class using PSP. She further described the Independent GC as a motivating tool to decrease off-task behavior and successfully engage the participants in academic instruction. Additionally, the teacher found PSP and independent GC were cost-effective methods of providing behavior support for her students, and she would continue to use them in the future. The student participants also enjoyed selecting preferred activities for the class and found earning tokens fun. Overall, the participants and teachers found the interventions to be highly desirable.

Discussion

This study aimed to extend the existing literature on the multi-component intervention to the elementary school CODA population by implementing PSP and PSP with GC as two treatment conditions for three CODAs with high levels of off-task behavior. The results revealed that using the PSP led to a reduction in off-task behavior for all participating CODAs. However, PSP alone did not achieve the desired level of reduction.

When GC was added alongside PSP, the off-task behavior decreased significantly, nearly reaching zero levels for the participants. These results provide a preliminary exploration of the effectiveness of using PSP in conjunction with independent GC for the CODAs. During the implementation of PSP, the secondary teacher served as a conditioned reinforcer by pairing herself with a preferred activity. Even during the fading phase of PSP, the CODAs’ off-task behavior remained low, suggesting that they associated the secondary teacher with receiving preferred activity. Building on this, an independent GC incorporating a token economy was introduced to naturally extend the intervention to the whole class. The token economy maintained focus on the individual behavior while implementing the intervention during the whole-class instruction. The independent GC intervention aimed to further improve the CODA participants’ individual behaviors by teaching them the classroom expectations and rules, which are crucial skills for this population.

The results corroborate previous research (Ennis et al., 2016; Kern et al., 2002; Ledford et al., 2018; Rispoli et al., 2011), highlighting that combining an antecedent strategy with reinforcement (e.g., GC) effectively addresses problem behavior in CODAs attending an inclusive classroom in an elementary school. The current and previous studies suggest that individualized behavior support embedded within whole-class academic instruction can offer an economical and time-efficient solution for educators working with students from diverse backgrounds and abilities (Harvey, 2003). Generalizations in single-case design studies often stem from a series of replications. Future studies should replicate these findings with CODAs with similar characteristics to validate PSP’s effects with independent GC. In addition, similar to some typically developing peers, some CODAs may exhibit deficits in behavioral engagement, an essential component of academic engagement (Mitchiner, 2022). Academic engagement is strongly linked to academic performance (Mitchiner, 2022; Saini et al., 2018). Thus, future research should investigate how decreased off-task behavior affects academic performance among CODAs.

This population possesses unique needs due to their non-traditional home environment (Brown, 2013; Knight, 2018; Preston, 1995; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). While their home environment requires the use of ASL, CODAs must adapt to a hearing classroom setting and adhere to group expectations, particularly as they enter the school environment. The current findings imply that teachers can proactively prepare these CODAs to comply with the essential classroom rules and expectations by systematically employing PSP and independent GC. These strategies can also be applied to help CODAs who exhibit problem behavior and encounter challenges in synchronizing with group expectations and rules.

Limitations and Future Research

Due to time constraints, data collection to assess the long-term sustainability of the intervention was not feasible. Future research endeavors should consider adding this phase to ensure the enduring effectiveness of PSP combined with GC. Furthermore, research should explore what other evidence-based strategies can effectively address off-task behavior CODAs may exhibit in the classroom. For instance, some CODAs encounter communication difficulties that adversely affect their academic and behavioral performance in the classroom. Tailored strategies to address these specific challenges would be highly beneficial for CODAs. The existing body of literature has furnished sufficient data on how families, peers, and school environments impact the academic and behavioral performance of students with and without disabilities in classroom settings. By investigating how these factors influence CODAs, researchers and practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of their unique needs. This, in turn, will enable the development of targeted interventions and support systems that are more closely attuned to the needs of CODAs.

The findings should be interpreted with caution due to the following limitations. First, the researcher (first author) served as one of the two co-teachers in the classroom. This may introduce the potential for implicit biases that may have inadvertently influenced the research outcomes. Although the researcher took steps to promote transparency and objectivity, such as conducting a rigorous IOA assessment, underlying biases could still have impacted the results. In addition, there may have been a limited response variation due to the participants being from the same classroom, which might have influenced the outcomes. Shared social dynamics or peer influence among familiar classmates may have affected participants’ behavior. The potential influence of demographic variables such as academic delays and gender (specifically female learners) in the study should be recognized. Future research directions could focus on exploring these variables in detail to understand their impact better. Another limitation of the current design, incorporating both PSP and GC, is that it does not allow for the isolation of the effects of GC alone. In this study, PSP was intentionally prioritized as the primary antecedent-based intervention to establish a positive teacher–student relationship before introducing reinforcement-based strategies. The intent of the study was to enhance and sustain the behavioral gains achieved through PSP by incorporating independent group contingency. In an authentic classroom environment this type of sequencing often aligns with students’ needs.It should also be recognized that multi-component interventions may yield varied effects depending on the context and population.

Last, the study involved three student participants. Although single-case design research involves testing a small number of participants and focusing intensively on the behavior of each participant, the results should be interpreted with caution. In single-case design research, generalizations are drawn from a sequence of replication studies carried out across various cases, studies, and research groups rather than inferred from a single large sample study. We encourage future researchers to replicate our study to enhance its replicability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current study provides valuable insights into utilizing PSP and independent GC with the CODA population. These interventions are user-friendly, require minimal class time, and do not disrupt regular instruction. These strategies will likely enable educators to reach a marginalized, culturally and linguistically diverse sector of learners, namely CODAs with unique needs in an inclusive setting. Teachers can promote engagement and inclusion of these unique and diverse students by incorporating PSP and independent GC into their regular classroom practices.