International Journal of Inclusive Education Vol. 13, No.

5, August 2009, 489500

Student behaviour self-monitoring enabling inclusion

Stephen K. Jull*
Kinase Strategy, London, W6 7LY, UK
stephen.jull@place-group.com StephenJull 0000002008 00 2008 and Francis Original Francis 1360-3116 (print)/1464-5173 International Journal of 10.1080/13603110701841315(online) TIED_A_284265.sgm Inclusive Education Taylor &Article

Disruptive, antisocial behaviour remains an ongoing issue for all schools, and particularly those identified as inclusive. Children who exhibit elevated levels of antisocial behaviour have an increased risk of numerous negative life consequences, including impaired social relationships, escalating aggressive behaviours, substance abuse, and school dropout. Schools remain committed to the use of exclusions as response to disruptive behaviours, justified in terms of protecting the teaching and learning environment of others. However, exclusions disrupt the educational and social supports of these high-risk/high-needs students at a time when they need it most. Schools remain confounded, citing insufficient resources and time. This paper suggests student behaviour self-monitoring presents opportunities for a combined intervention and assessment strategy, increasing the capacity to identify and respond to incidents of disruptive behaviour for all students before patterned disruptive behaviours emerge or are constituted as problematic. Keywords: inclusion; SEN; behaviour; classroom management; self-monitoring

Introduction This paper presents what might be described as a theoretical or propositional exploration of the potential role of student behaviour self-monitoring as a classroom-based behaviour management procedure that can help reduce the occurrence of disruptive behaviour and promote pro-social on-task learning behaviours in inclusive mainstream schools. Disruptive behaviour in schools interrupts teaching and learning and presents a risk to positive socialemotional and academic development for all children. A favourable school climate is associated with positive behaviour (Jull 2000), academic achievement (Ogden 2001; Reinke and Herman 2002), school completion (Dei et al. 1997; Reinke and Herman 2002; Rutter, Giller, and Hagell 1998), and healthy, safe communities (Shechtman 2000). Reid et al. (2004) reported a substantive negative effect size across all curriculum areas between risk for emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) and poor academic achievement. High rates of disruptive behaviour and increasing incidence of students identified with EBD are an ongoing concern for educators. Concerns tend to centre on the social and academic implications of introducing students identified with EBD for non-EBD students and teachers (Araujo 2005; Cole 2004; Florian et al. 2004; Rouse and Florian 2006). However, the risks associated with disruptive behaviour are also a concern for those students identified with EBD. The expression of disruptive behaviours even in those instances in which the behaviour is indicative of an identified special educational need (SEN) can lead to the interruption of educational programming as a function of punitive disciplinary measures such as school exclusion (i.e.,
*Email: stephenjull@kinasestrategy.com
ISSN 1360-3116 print/ISSN 1464-5173 online 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13603110701841315 http://www.informaworld.com

490

S.K. Jull

temporary or permanent removal of students from class or school for disciplinary purposes) in response to said behaviours. As such, the reduction of disruptive behaviours and the promotion of on-task, pro-social behaviour is an issue of substantial importance for all members of the school community. Inclusion and EBD The inclusion of students with EBD in mainstream classrooms presents particular educational challenges (Ainscow 2000; Cole 2004; Jull 2006a, 2006b; Winzer 1999). While implementation problems associated with insufficient administrative and educational infrastructure are cited as generalisable concerns, limiting schools capacities to meet the expanding diversity of special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream classrooms (Davis and Florian 2004; Dyson et al. 2004), it is behavioural difficulties and individual differences in behaviour [that] are among the main barriers for making the principle of the inclusive school work (Ogden 2001, 75). This has resulted in generating serious reservations about supporting the widespread placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools because many questions about teaching and learning in inclusive schools remain unanswered (Florian 1998, 105). Ambiguities regarding so-called best practices for including students identified with EBD are central to the persistence of such difficulties and reservations (Cole 2004). Students identified with EBD are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours such as defiance, over-activity, aggression and bullying (Cooper, Smith, and Upton 1994; Jull 2000, 2006a, 2006b; Pepler, Smith, and Rigby 2004; Reid et al. 2004). These behaviours are often thought to be associated with a lack of self-regulation (Eisenberg 2002) and insufficiently developed social skills required of students in the structured context of school (Reinke and Herman 2002). Students identified with EBD tend to have difficulties establishing positive/pro-social relationships with teachers and peers (Metzler et al. 2001). As such, schools which are inclusive of special educational needs such as EBD are exposed to increased risk for disruptions to the teaching and learning environment. Not surprisingly, then, the use of exclusions is widely accepted as an appropriate means for responding to antisocial or disruptive behaviour. However, the effectiveness and even appropriateness of this practice is questionable, given exclusions interrupt educational continuity for these students at time when they require increased supports to help reduce said antisocial behaviours and promote on-task pro-social learning behaviours (Araujo 2005; Jull 2000). Children who express an elevated level of antisocial behaviours over time have an increased risk of numerous negative life consequences, including impaired social relationships, escalating aggressive behaviours, substance abuse, and school dropout (Dei et al. 1997; Jull 2000; Walker et al. 1996). Thus, research on inclusive schooling must also take into account the ways in which schools respond to a failing endeavour at inclusion, namely, risk for disruptive behaviour and the factors that precede incidence of school exclusion (Araujo 2005; Booth, Ainscow, and Dyson 1998; Parsons 1999; Slee 1999). It is worth emphasising that students identified with EBD are at not at risk of exclusion because of unanticipated educational/personal needs, but rather as a function of the very special educational need that was the reason for their inclusion in the mainstream in the first instance. While this construction emphasises the responsibility of the school to the child, the locus of responsibility for the successful inclusion of students at risk of disruptive behaviour remains disputed terrain as discussed recently within the pages of this very journal (Araujo 2005; Danforth and Morris 2006; Saltmarsh and Youdell 2004).

International Journal of Inclusive Education

491

With policy frameworks favouring the inclusion of students identified with EBD in mainstream settings, schools might anticipate increased rates of disruptive behaviours, and educational/academic risks associated with including these students for their teachers and non-SEN peers. Thus, I propose that schools would be well-served by a behaviour/educational monitoring procedure that can enable regular, even daily, evaluation of student needs to support informed and timely revision of educational supports at the first sign that behavioural or academic disruptions suggest a problem in terms of suitable provision and/or intervention in accordance with any (current or emerging, temporary or sustained) special educational need. Otherwise, left unchecked, disruptive behaviours interrupt not only the learning of the child in question, but also the teaching and learning of others. In the absence of early identification and intervention, the consequences of including students identified with EBD can include compromising the integrity of the larger learning environment and potentially jeopardising their placement at their local mainstream community school. But, is a proposal for early identification and intervention via regular monitoring and evaluation beyond the scope or capacity of schools? Indeed, teachers are busy, and school resources are limited. Issues regarding scope and capacity aside, the ethics, and, indeed, appropriateness, of regular monitoring (i.e. surveillance) of student behaviour is hotly disputed. Notions of a kind of panopticism occurring as a function of monitoring remain the subject of considerable interest amongst educationalists (Saltmarsh and Youdell 2004). Procedures involving surveillance incite critique given post-structuralist discourses regarding the problematics of power-imbalances in relation to mind (Foucault 1997) and body (Butler 1993) or simply, the objectification of the powerless by the powerful (i.e. the viewer versus the viewed). Saltmarsh and Youdell (2004) summarised aspects of these concerns in relation to inclusions and exclusions within schooling. Saltmarsh and Youdell, and previously Gillborn and Youdell (2000), suggested that administrative practices which sift and sort students based on need via a kind of surveillance creates an educational climate in which finite resources are discriminately distributed to maximise overall school academic performance. Gillborn and Youdell characterised this sifting and sorting of students in relation to resource allocation (i.e. response to/treatment of educational needs) as a kind of educational triage. Their educational triage model implies and strategy for educational delivery that includes an emphasis on (dis)proportionate allocation of resource for students deemed most likely to bolster the schools overall performance indicators, leaving the very high need, typically low performing students without sufficient resources to succeed. This kind of differential performance-driven resource allocation is, perhaps, understandable given the competitive climate within the pseudo-market economy of schooling of some educational jurisdictions. The concern, of course, is that performance driven schooling-economies do little to support the most vulnerable and those with the greatest (disproportionate) need. With this reality in mind, my work and the present paper takes into account the implications of the current educational climate when theorising change. Thus, while acknowledging socioethical concerns notably, the problematics of knowledgepower relations within schools (Jull 2000, 2002) I maintain that solutions must enhance capacity in ways that do not assume a wholesale upheaval of extant educational structures. That said, I contextual my discussion of student behaviour self-monitoring as a viable option within the current context of limited resources and the potential for inequities in allocation/distribution, but also as socio-ethically accountable and representative of solutions that promote inclusion and equity. And so while I might also hope for a sea-change in priorities within state-funded schooling such that performance indicators were more sensitive to the promotion of equity in schooling (Jull 2000, 2002), in the meantime I highlight the value

492

S.K. Jull

of solutions that remain accountable to concerns regarding the practicalities of the real costs associated with supporting these so-called high-needs students. With this in mind, I propose that student behaviour self-monitoring represents a classroom behaviour management strategy that not only is inclusive in its application and outcomes for social emotionalbehavioural support, but also procedurally and administratively pragmatic. Inclusion, exclusion, and the utility of behavioural monitoring Inclusion represents a profoundly important policy shift in education. Inclusion is consistent with the larger global policy initiatives such as Education for All (EFA) and the Salamanca Statement for Action on Special Educational Needs (UNESCO 2005). These international policy frameworks underpin the shift in thinking regarding how and why students otherwise excluded from their local community schools might be included within the social milieu in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To be sure, inclusion is a policy initiative with substantive roots. But without an equally robust base of educational research regarding procedures and practices that can enable increased capacity to support these newly included students, a significant risk of increased educational problems for all members of a school community remains (Kauffman, Bantz, and McCullough 2002). In the case of students identified with EBD, the risk is associated with increased likelihood of disruptive behaviours and poor academic outcomes. For non-SEN students and teachers, the risk is in the exposure to higher rates of disruptive and, indeed, aggressive and violent behaviours, not to mention disruptions to teaching and learning as noted (Cole 2004). Without the facility to manage these eventualities, newly included SENEBD students are, again, at risk of exclusion from the mainstream (Kauffman, Bantz, and McCullough 2002). Exclusions, by definition, reduce the ability of schools and associated agencies to work with children identified with SEN who are disruptive and/or exposed to risk for disruptive behaviour as a function of EBD. Assuming a positive school-effect on the academic and social development of children, reducing and/or interrupting the continuity of school attendance via sanctions such as exclusion may exacerbate negative socialbehavioural developmental patterns (Maag 1999; Jull 2000). Concerns regarding the deleterious effects of school exclusion are not limited to students with EBD (Lunt and Norwich 1999). Inclusion, and effective procedures for supporting students who have difficulties remaining pro-social and on-task has implications for all students. Although students identified with EBD are more likely than their non-SEN peers to exhibit disruptive behaviours, EBD is not the only risk factor for exclusion. Indeed, all students are exposed to risks for problem or rule-breaking behaviour that can result in exclusion (Cooper, Smith, and Upton 1994; Jull 2000; Maag 1999). Simply, all students experience dips and turns in their schooling, some of which manifest in disruptive behaviour. Disruptive behaviour can be indicative of acute/discrete and or chronic/ patterned socialemotional or educational problems (Cooper, Smith, and Upton 1994; Walker et al. 1996). Indeed, student behaviours can be contextualised as indicative of the so-called goodness-of-fit between school provision and student needs (Davis and Florian 2004), and not simply because some children are bad while others are good (Cole 1998; Jull 2000; Maag 1999). Furthermore, these said same problem behaviours can be indicative of later and more substantial emerging educational and/or socialemotional problems that require prompt attention (Rutter, Giller, and Hagell 1998). It is, perhaps, ironic that schools might exclude students at the very moment when academic and social support is most needed. While early identification and intervention

International Journal of Inclusive Education

493

offers the best chance for reducing later problems, given that the stability of antisocial behaviour increases with time (Kazdin 1987; Rutter, Giller, and Hagell 1998), early identification within schools remains difficult. This is, in part, because of limited availability of easily applied practical procedures. Of course, this is not necessarily the fault of teachers or school management systems. There remains an absence of empirically tested procedures that can support assessment by way of regular monitoring of potentially disruptive students in mainstream schools (Cole and Bambara 2000) within the research literature, notwithstanding periodic survey-based data gathering instruments such as the Child Behaviour Checklist (Achenbach and McConaughy 1997). But, of course, early identification in and of itself is not enough. The identification of students needs must not only be active and continuous, but linked to intervention (Sylwester 1999). Like procedures that support early identification, interventions that have the potential to improve students functioning in the mainstream are important tools, and an essential element of a complete behaviour management strategy for enabling pro-social, on-task behaviours (Reid 1996, 327). Interventions promoting prosocial behaviours in young children are identified as perhaps the best long-term strategy for reducing disruptive behaviour (Sylwester 1999, 69). There are numerous well-known, empirically tested behavioural interventions. Hunter (2003) summarised the various strategies according to target group, namely: (1) interventions for those students who are not typically disruptive, such as the average child who is occasionally oppositional (e.g. Second Step, Seattle Social Development Project, Prime Time); and (2) interventions for those students at risk for patterned disruptive behaviour given clinical diagnoses, such as ADHD and conduct disorders (e.g. Fast Track, Lift, Rally). Given no single intervention is identified as best-practice for reducing antisocial behaviour for all students (Hunter 2003; Maag 1999), teachers have the difficult task of choosing from an array of interventions depending upon the classroom circumstances and needs of the child. Selecting Interventions that can address specific student needs is critically important. Children respond individually to interventions and what works with one as a positive reinforcer may not work with another (Maag 1999, 106). But, determining whether an intervention is working is problematic unto itself. On-going evaluation of student behaviour operating in parallel with an intervention might also be necessary, enabling continuous assessment regarding the effectiveness of a given strategy. Without this kind of data schools are merely engaged in a kind of guesswork regarding the effectiveness of universal and/or selected interventions, and, as a result, more likely to either prematurely terminate an effective intervention or fruitlessly continue with an ineffective one (Maag 1999; Metzler et al. 2001; Sugai et al. 2000; Van Acker and Talbott 1999). Maag (1999) suggested pre- and post-test evaluation strategies are insufficient in this regard. But rather, the documentation of behaviours must be frequent and continuous (143). A continuous record reduces the probability of teachers introducing error into the behaviour management process as teachers are less likely to infer meaning or over- or underestimate incidents (143). Sugai et al. (2000) suggested the same, noting that schools must decide how they intend to collect behavioural data be it office referrals, or some form of information gathering procedure for capturing behavioural data thereby avoiding the problem of basing important school disciplinary decisions on impressions. Indeed, this notion is consistent with a goodness-of-fit theme. Walker et al. (1996) emphasised that schools must ensure that they have a mechanism for maximising goodness-of-fit between educational provision and student needs. It is these kinds of data gathered through regular monitoring that can enable appropriate, sustained, effective educational practice (Kinch et al. 2001, 480).

494

S.K. Jull

Cole and Bambara (2000) highlighted the value of students self-monitoring behaviour, as this technique offers potential benefits both in terms of intervention and continuous monitoring and assessment. Self-monitoring has proven effective as an intervention in schools, both in terms of increasing target behaviours (Reid 1996; Maag 1999) and promoting generalised positive behavioural outcomes (Freeman and Dexter-Mazza 2004; Wood, Murdock, and Cronin 2002). But, this practice has yet to take hold as everyday, universal best practice. This, I suggest, is largely because of the limitations in technical innovation to enable student behaviour self-monitoring as a generalisable and universally applicable procedure. Self-monitoring backgrounder The notion that there are benefits in students self-monitoring their activities in school is not new (Maag 1999; OReilly et al. 2002; Reid 1996; Rock 2005; Rose, McNamara, and ONeil 1996). Rose, McNamara, and ONeil (1996, 166) cited an aspect of the 1994 UK Education Code of Practice that encouraged student involvement in decision-making monitoring and reviewing progress [and] implementing individual education plans. Student involvement of this sort promotes the notion of teacher/student dialogue that moves towards greater collaboration between teacher and the learner [promoting] a more facilitative position in lessons (167). Rose, McNamara, and ONeil reported successes in self-assessment for students of various SEN categories, including EBD. However, like the work of Reid (1996), Maag (1999), and more recently Mooney et al. (2005), Rose, McNamara, and ONeil (1996) framed student self-assessment/monitoring in terms of on-task academic behaviour, not disruptive behaviour, per se. In two recent meta-analysis of self-monitoring research, Mooney et al. (2005) and Cole and Bambara (2000, 203) both reported generalised positive effects of student behaviour self-monitoring, including applications involving students identified with EBD. Cole and Bambara suggested positive effects are widely reported because the act of engaging in selfmonitoring without any additional intervention components can lead to changes in the targeted behaviour. Simply, student self-monitoring in and of itself produces favourable behavioural outcomes (Maag 1999; Nelson and Hayes 1981; Reid 1996). For both students and teachers, the informative, reflective value in the procedure can trigger behavioural change: self-initiated/regulated behavioural change in the case of students, and pedagogically/contextually situated professional adaptation in the case of teachers (Maag 1999; Jull 2006a, 2006b). Whats more, Maag (1999) reported the positive effect of self-monitoring is accentuated if combined with timely contextual feedback. Maag highlighted the value of graphical feedback specifically. Jull (2006a, 2006b) explored the use of graphical feedback generated by a computer-based self-monitoring procedure and found students were readily able to understand and discuss their personal records of behaviours over time. Thus, the quality of the behavioural monitoring feedback has implications for the quality of selfreflection/awareness, and so in turn perhaps, the quality of informed/adaptive changes. In addition to the intrinsic benefits associated with improved student and teacher awareness regarding disruptive behaviours, Maag (1999, 39) suggested that the underlying value of monitoring behaviour is to determine why people behave as they do so that we are better able to tailor interventions to address those explanations. Although the benefits of self-monitoring as an intervention are fairly well substantiated, its viability as a procedure that might provide behavioural data for assessment purposes to determine why people behave as they do remains unclear and largely unexplored (Cole and Bambara 2000). This is, perhaps, unsurprising given the use of self-monitoring for

International Journal of Inclusive Education

495

purposes of assessment with children introduces substantial problems (Cole and Bambara 2000, 203) not least concerns regarding the validity of self-reported behavioural records in the absence of adult/teacher supervision and/or data auditing. Procedures for supervising/auditing self-monitoring data have been referred to as matching (Freeman and Dexter-Mazza 2004). Given a sufficiently robust self-monitoring procedure which includes data matching self-monitoring consistently produces positive effects, and has demonstrated that it can offer behavioural data that is a reliable measure of behavioural outcomes and change over time (Freeman and Dexter-Mazza 2004). Freeman and Dexter-Mazzas ABAB method revealed a patterned student behavioural outcome in which significant reductions in problem behaviour were linked to student awareness regarding the presence and absence of matching. Importantly, Freeman and Dexter-Mazza observed that it was not the matching procedure itself that was responsible for increased accuracy of the student-reported records, but rather awareness on the part of the student that the record might be checked by the teacher. While Freeman and Dexter-Mazza (2004) imply positive results regarding data validity when self-monitoring is combined with a matching strategy, self-monitoring research has yet to reconcile questions regarding data validity an issue of significance if and when such data might be used to support formal behavioural assessment. As such, it remains unclear if student self-monitoring data can offer valid measure of behaviours against norm-referenced standards or cut-points. The validity of the data produced, of course, has implications for the confidence in potential applications for these data in behavioural assessment, feedback, and support. However, common practice, as it were (i.e. the way self-monitoring studies tend to report the data and its usefulness), suggests value in these data without the benefit of confidence intervals. For example, Snyder and Bambara (1997) reported benefits of self-monitoring behaviour in terms of both intervention and assessment in their study involving three middle school students in which self-monitoring enabled a cycle of monitoring, assessment, goal-setting, and strategic planning. In this example, self-monitoring appeared to support a strategy of behaviour assessment, which informed behavioural intervention (through goal-setting and strategic planning), in the absence of confirmation regarding data validity. While Cole and Bambara (2000) acknowledged the unknowns regarding the validity of self-monitoring data, such concerns do not appear to limit applications of self-monitoring data as reported in the research literature. The notion that self-monitoring might generate valid data that can support both student and teacher reflexive practice as well as serve as an early warning of potentially problematic behavioural patterns via a more formalised assessment procedure is at the heart of my present research interests and questions regarding its potential utility to support the project of inclusion. Both features present opportunities for increasing schools capacities in responding to disruptive behaviour. The former assumes implicit individualised benefits in terms of self-regulation, while the later implies value via supporting a strategy for informed decision-making regarding educational interventions and programme planning. Cole and Bambara (2000, 226) explored the notion of an integrated self-regulatory framework within a context of student self-monitoring that speaks to both these outcomes. Cole and Bambaras (2000) notion regarding an integrated self-regulatory framework includes a facility of continuous behavioural self-monitoring that has the twinned purpose of providing both immediate feedback to support short-term reflexive practice (metacognitive), while at the same time enabling the establishment of a longitudinal record which might be used to identify potentially problematic (behaviour) trajectories, and (restated for emphasis) tailor interventions to address those explanations (Maag 1999, 39). Thus, if we can reconcile concerns regarding the validity of self-monitoring data for use

496

S.K. Jull

in behaviour assessment increasing confidence in the degree to which the data are informative/indicative student behaviour self-monitoring might enable a strategy of continuous behaviour monitoring that could reliably inform both individually driven reflexive self-regulation and externally informed intervention through programme changes and the selection of targeted interventions to promote pro-social, on-task behaviours in schools. While it seems we might be able to reconcile issues regarding data validity and utility, practical questions regarding the feasibility of having all students self-monitor behaviour over an extended period of time remain. The first question centres on the universality of self-monitoring, namely, issues pertaining to the practicality of having all students engaged in continuous process of self-monitoring and feedback. There are a limited number of studies that have investigated the use of self-monitoring for more than only a handful of students (typically less than six) at any given time (Cole and Bambara 2000). Otten (2004) suggested practical barriers to translating self-monitoring applications into whole-class applications, particularly in primary-aged classroom where procedures that can support the early identification and treatment of problem behaviours are most needed. Cole and Bambara (2000) identified two studies involving more than six students in a self-monitoring procedure. One of the studies discussed a procedure for self-monitoring behaviour of all students in an SEN EBD segregated classroom but in a mainstream school (Kern et al. 1994). However, the procedure in question was neither sustained nor apparently sustainable. Students selfmonitored behaviour for discrete, finite blocks of time (at 45-minute intervals) with no conditions for or requirement of continuous monitoring. The second study discussed a collective approach to self-monitoring (Miller et al. 1993). Miller et al. reported, students in a mainstream pre-school class self-monitored via a show of hands at the end of lessons, voting as to whether they believed the class (as a whole) had met a specified behavioural target. The various ways self-monitoring data might be recorded and maintained is another area that has undergone little research and development. Self-monitoring procedures tend to rely on a pencil-and-paper approach (Cole and Bambara 2000). Maag (1999) summarised a range of record keeping procedures typical of self-monitoring, including the use of sticker charts, tick-box questionnaire type forms, reminder sheets, and student-made charts and graphs. Cole and Bambaras (2000) meta-analysis of the self-monitoring research revealed only one study that integrated a computer database application with a pencil and paper-based procedure. Fitzgerald and Werner (1996) described an integrated computer-based instructional and self-monitoring procedure in a study in which one student with mild mental retardation and autistic-like behaviours self-reported behaviours into the computer after having first completed a paper-form checklist (Cole and Bambara 2000, 219). The intervention, however, was unsustainable and desisted once direct adult/teacher support was removed. In contrast, the results of my own preliminary research (Jull 2006a, 2006b) suggested neither practical nor technical barriers to a computer-assisted procedure. Not only did teachers report that they were able to implement a computer-supported student behaviour self-monitoring procedure without additional effort in classroom behaviour management, and students report that they were able to complete the procedure with little difficulty, teachers and students cited positive behaviour effects, including reduced occurrence of disruptive behaviour and improved teacherstudent communications (Jull 2006a, 2000b). Where to from here The inclusion project demands a kind of equality that is sensitive to individual student needs but without unnecessarily labelling or drawing attention to so-called difference,

International Journal of Inclusive Education

497

such that schools might engender a learning environment that provides opportunities for educational success regardless of underlying differences or exceptionalities. Students identified with EBD are among those who require specific supports in mainstream schools in order that they might increase on-task, pro-social behaviours and, by effect, chances for educational success. Failure to reduce disruptive behaviours can expose students to increased risk of short- and longer-term problems, including exclusion and dropout. Teachers encounter increased demands on time and resources as a function of responding to the varied and often problematic behaviours of students in inclusive learning environments. Choosing a classroom management strategy or set of behavioural interventions that might offer support for responding to the diversity of socialbehavioural needs is a difficult task. While concerns regarding disparities of resource allocation as a function of so-called education triage, given limited capacity/resources remain a concern (Gillborn and Youdell 2000; Saltmarsh and Youdell 2004), teachers continue to strive towards promoting equity in educational provision, if only to offer the supports necessary to reduce disruptive behaviour and promote academic achievement in response to administrative expectations. As such, teachers require time-efficient and effective procedures that can support all students. Selected or targeted interventions offer a higher degree of specificity, but present problems in terms of accuracy given a diversity of student needs, whereas universal procedures provide good accuracy given a wider target, but at the cost of low specificity. Teachers are also faced with the additional challenge of monitoring behaviour outcomes over time in relation to evaluating effectiveness of interventions and/or programme changes. Ideally, teachers should not be expected to implement simultaneously a variety of selected targeted interventions (assuming differing student needs) while also monitoring the effects of each intervention over time. A central strength of self-monitoring as an intervention is in the universally beneficial meta-cognitive and reactivity effects experienced by participants. Student behaviour selfmonitoring is a procedure that is effective at both reducing problem behaviours and increasing pro-social target behaviours for students with and without SEN. What is more, there are no limitations per se on what students might self-monitor suggesting a kind of procedural flexibility to enhance specificity without compromising accuracy (or universality). Indeed, different students might monitor different behaviours/outcomes depending on indicated needs. Although there are numerous studies reporting beneficial effects of self-monitoring behaviour in targeted applications, little to no research has queried the benefits of the procedure as a universal intervention that is, used for all students. Additionally, there is an absence of research investigating the use of self-monitoring as a continuous intervention, applied over an extended period of time (e.g. a whole school year). There are only a handful of studies reporting the utility of self-monitoring as a means of supporting assessment of behavioural change over time, none of which serves as an early warning of emerging problem behaviour. Continuity of monitoring is essential for revealing emerging behaviour patterns before they become entrenched, helping reduce the risk for exclusion because of repeating, patterned disruptive behaviours. In short, existing selfmonitoring research has been limited to targeted applications for only a small number of students, over discrete time periods, with little emphasis on sustainability. Such a research strategy implies the following: (1) only very few students require socialbehavioural support in the form of direct intervention, (2) unwanted behaviour patterns desist after a short period of intervention, and (3) self-monitoring is useful only once a problematic behavioural pattern is identified, having already become established.

498

S.K. Jull

Indeed, student behaviour self-monitoring presents opportunities for a combined intervention and assessment strategy, increasing capacity to identify and respond to incidence of disruptive behaviour for all students before such behaviours emerge or are constituted as problematic. A strategy of early identification and equitable, universal support is consistent with the inclusion project. The potential benefits of self-monitoring to enable increased capacity to support the inclusion of difficult to manage students such as those identified with EBD and promote pro-social, on-task behaviours for all students seems clear. Thus, I submit, research regarding applications of student selfmonitoring for the twinned purposes of intervention and assessment and in a variety of settings particularly complex learning environments such as inclusive schools is an area ready for exploration. Notes on contributor
Dr. Julls research explores issues concerning inclusion and special educational needs in what are typically called mainstream schools. More specifically, he explores ways of supporting students and teachers in identifying patterns of potentially concerning behaviours over time through methods of self-monitoring and feedback. His work takes the position that behaviours are communicative. Patterns of behaviour namely, disruptive behaviours in schools are thus conceptualised as communicative of individual needs, and can be contextualised as indicative of the degree to which students needs are met within the context of their learning. Dr. Jull is presently CEO of Kinase Strategy, a specialist consultancy in London.

References
Achenbach, T.M., and S.H. McConaughy. 1997. Empirically based assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology: Practical applications. London: Sage. Ainscow, M. 2000. The next step for special education: Supporting the development of inclusive practices. British Journal of Special Education 27, no 2: 7680. Araujo, M. 2005. Disruptive or disrupted? A qualitative study on the construction of indiscipline. International Journal of Inclusive Education 9, no. 3: 24168. Booth, T., M. Ainscow, and A. Dyson. 1998. England: Inclusion and exclusion in a competitive system. In From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education, ed. T. Booth and M. Ainscow, 193225. London: Routledge. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge. Cole, C.L., and L.M. Bambara. 2000. Self-monitoring: Theory and practice. In Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, research, and clinical foundations, ed. E. S. Shapiro and T. R. Kratochwill. 2nd ed., 20232. New York, NY: Guilford. Cole, T. 1998. Understanding challenging behaviour: Prerequisites to inclusion. In Promoting inclusive practice, ed. C. Tilstone, L. Florian, and R. Rose, 11327. London: Routledge. Cole, T. 2004. The development of provision for children and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD): Past, present, and future. In Inclusion and behaviour management in schools: Issues and challenges, ed. J. Wearmouth, T. Glynn, R.C. Richmond, and M. Berryman, 1733. London: David Fulton. Cooper, P., C.J. Smith, and G. Upton. 1994. Emotion and behavioural difficulties: Theory to practice. London: Routledge. Danforth, S., and P. Morris. 2006. Orthodoxy, heresy and the inclusion of American students considered to have emotional/behavioural disorders. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10, no 2: 13548. Davis, P., and L. Florian. 2004. Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: A scoping study. DfES Research Report No. 516. London: Queens Printer. Dei, G.S., J. Mazzuca, E. McIsaac, and J. Zine. 1997. Reconstructing drop-out: A critical ethnography of the dynamics of black students disengagement from school. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Dyson, A., P. Farrell, F. Polat, and G. Hutcheson. 2004. Inclusion and pupil achievement. DfES Research Report No. 578. London: Queens Printer.

International Journal of Inclusive Education

499

Eisenberg, N. 2002. Emotion-related regulation and its relation to quality social functioning. In Child psychology in retrospect and prospect: In celebration of the 75th anniversary of The Institute of Child Development, ed. W.W. Hartup, and R.A. Weinberg, 13372. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 32. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fitzgerald, G.E., and J.G. Werner. 1996. The use of a computer to support cognitivebehavioural interventions for students with behavioural disorders. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 7, no. 1: 12748. Florian, L. 1998. Inclusive practice: What, why and how. In Promoting inclusive practice, ed. C. Tilestone, L. Florian, and R. Rose, 1326. London: Routledge. Florian, L., M. Rouse, K. Black-Hawkins, and S. Jull. 2004. What national datasets tell us about inclusion and achievement. British Journal of Special Education 3, no. 3: 11521. Foucault, M. 1997. Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. New York, NY: New Press. Freeman, K., and E.T. Dexter-Mazza. 2004. Using self-monitoring with an adolescent with disruptive classroom behavior: Preliminary analysis of the role of adult feedback. Behavior Modification 28, no. 3: 40219. Gillborn, D., and D. Youdell. 2000. Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hunter, L. 2003. School psychology: A public health framework. III. Managing disruptive behavior in schools: The value of a public health and evidence-based perspective. Journal of School Psychology 41, no.1: 3959. Jull, S.K. 2000. Youth violence, schools, and the management question: A discussion of zero tolerance and equity in public schooling. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/jull.html (accessed November 13, 2006). Jull, S.K. 2002. Locating gender bias and systemic discrimination within public schooling democracy. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 48, no. 1: 4760. Jull, S.K. 2006a. Auto-Graph: Considering the utility of student behaviour self-monitoring for inclusive schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 6, no. 1: 1730. Jull, S.K. 2006b. Exploring the utility of student behaviour self-monitoring in mainstream schools: Reconsidering antisocial behaviour within the inclusion project. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge. Kauffman, J.M., J. Bantz, and J. McCullough. 2002. Separate and better: A special public school class for students with emotional and behavioural disorders. Exceptionality 10, no. 3: 14970. Kazdin, A.E. 1987. Treatment of antisocial behaviour in children: Current issues and future directions. Psychological Bulletin 102, no. 1: 187203. Kern, L., G. Dunlap, K.E. Childs, and S. Clarke. 1994. Use of a classwide self-management program to improve the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children 17, no. 3: 44558. Kinch, C., T. Lewis-Palmer, S. Hagan-Burke, and G. Sugai. 2001. A comparison of teacher and student functional behavior assessment interview information from low-risk and high-risk classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children 24, no. 4: 48094. Lunt, L., and B. Norwich. 1999. Can effective schools be inclusive schools? Perspectives on educational policy. London: Institute of Education London, University of London. Maag, J. 1999. Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications. San Diego, CA: Singular. Metzler, C., A. Biglan, J.C. Rusby, and J.R. Sprague. 2001. Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children 24, no. 4: 44897. Miller, L.J., P.S. Strain, K. Boyd, J. Jarzynka, and M. McFetridge. 1993. The effects of classwide self-assessment on preschool childrens engagement in transition, free play, and small group instruction. Early Education and Development 4, no. 1: 16281. Mooney, P., J.B. Ryan, B.M. Uhing, R. Reid, and M.H. Epstein. 2005. A review of self-management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education 14, no. 3: 20321. Nelson, R.O., and S.C. Hayes. 1981. Theoretical explanations of reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification 5, no. 1: 314. OReilly, M., R. Tiernan, G. Lancioni, C. Lacey, J. Hillery, and M. Gardiner. 2002. Use of selfmonitoring and delayed feedback to increase on-task behaviour in a post-institutionalized child within regular classroom settings. Education and Treatment of Children 25, no. 1: 91102.

500

S.K. Jull

Ogden, T. 2001. The prevention and management of behavioural difficulties in school: Research and practice. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education 1, no. 1: 7590. Otten, K.L. 2004. An analysis of a classwide self-monitoring approach to improve the behaviour of elementary students with severe emotional and behavioural disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A 65(3-A): 893. Parsons, C. 1999. Education, exclusion and citizenship. London: Routledge. Pepler, D.J., P.K. Smith, and Rigby, K. 2004. Looking back and looking forward: Implications for making interventions work effectively. In Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be?, ed. P.K. Smith, D.J. Pepler, and K. Rigby, 30724. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reid, R. 1996. Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities 29, no. 3: 31731. Reid, R., J.E. Gonzalez, P.D. Nordness, A. Trout, and M.H. Epstein. 2004. A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with emotional/behavioural disturbance. Journal of Special Education 38, no. 3: 13043. Reinke, W.M., and K.C. Herman. 2002. Creating school environments that deter antisocial behaviors in youth. Psychology in the Schools 39, no. 5: 54959. Rock, M.L. 2005. Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention 7, no. 1: 317. Rose, R., S. McNamara, and J. ONeil. 1996. Promoting the greater involvement of pupils with special educational needs in the management of their own assessment and learning processes. British Journal of Special Education 23, no. 4: 16671. Rouse, M., and L. Florian. 2006. Inclusion and achievement: Student achievement in secondary schools with higher and lower proportions of pupils designated as having special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10, no. 6: 48193. Rutter, M., H. Giller, and A. Hagell. 1998. Antisocial behaviour by young people. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Saltmarsh, S., and D. Youdell. 2004. Special sport for misfits and losers: Educational triage and the constitution of schooled subjectivities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 8, no. 4: 35371. Shechtman, Z. 2000. An innovative intervention for treatment of child and adolescent aggression: An outcome study. Psychology in the Schools 37, no. 2: 15767. Slee, R. 1999. Policies and practices? Inclusive education and its effects on schooling. In World yearbook of education 1999: Inclusive education, ed. H. Daniels and P. Garner, 194206. London: Kogan Page. Snyder, M.C., and L.M. Bambara. 1997. Teaching secondary students with learning disabilities to self-manage classroom survival skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30, no. 5: 53443. Sugai, G., J.R. Sprague, R.H. Horner, and H.M. Walker. 2000. The use of office referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 8, no. 2: 94101. Sylwester, R. 1999. In search of the roots of adolescent aggression. Educational Leadership 57, no. 1: 659. UNESCO. 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 The quality imperative. http:// portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35939&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC& URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed November 13, 2006). Van Acker, R., and E. Talbott. 1999. The school context and risk for aggression: Implications for school-based prevention and intervention efforts. Preventing School Failure 44, no. 1: 1220. Walker, D., R.H. Horner, G. Sugai, M. Bullis, J.R. Sprague, D. Bricker, and M.J. Kaufman. 1996. Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-aged children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 4, no. 4: 194209. Winzer, M. 1999. The inclusion movement in Canada: Philosophies, promises and practice. In Inclusive education, ed. H. Daniels and P. Garner, 99106. London: Kogan. Wood, S.J., J.Y. Murdock, and M.E. Cronin. 2002. Self-monitoring and at-risk middle school students: Academic performance improves, maintains, and generalizes. Behavior Modification 26, no. 5: 60526.