Title: Developmental group counseling using structured play with elementary school disruptive children
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098092/00001
 Material Information
Title: Developmental group counseling using structured play with elementary school disruptive children
Physical Description: vi, 95 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bleck, Robert T., 1950-
Copyright Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Group counseling   ( lcsh )
Counseling in elementary education   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert T. Bleck.
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 87-94.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098092
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000186954
oclc - 03386592
notis - AAV3552

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

developmentalgro00blec ( PDF )


Full Text
















DEVELOPMENTAL GROUP COUNSELING USING STRUCTURED PLAY
WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISRUPTIVE CHILDREN









By

ROBERT T. BLECK


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1977












ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author wishes to acknowledge those people who have

helped in completing this study.

Dr. Robert D. Myrick, chairman of the author's supervisory

committee, provided invaluable support and guidance. The

writer would also like to thank the other members of his com-

mittee; Dr. Larry C. Loesch for so much of his time and energy,

and Dr. Don Availa for providing a great deal of encouragement.

Dr. Gary S. Wilkinson was always available with constant

reassurance, guidance, and enthusiasm.

Barbara Rucker provided many hours of expertise in ana-

lyzing the data collected in this study.

Margie Gelber spent many long hours helping to score the

instruments used in this study.

Chari Campbell, Jack Carter, Barbara Cleveland, Beth Dovell,

Carolyn Fouts, Steve Huntley, Sandy Jones, Nancy Mitchum, Liz

Parker, Sylvia Stuart, Lana Sunner, Pat Talbot, and Charlene

Thiess are greatly appreciated for their interest and coopera-

tion in leading the groups studied in this research. Linda

Moni was also an invaluable aid in the coordination of this

study.

The caring and support my wife, Bonnie, has given to me

has been immeasurable. The knowledge that her love will con-

tinue throughout my lifetime has made the hard work involved in

this study worthwhile.
ii












TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. .....................................


Page

ii


ABSTRACT ...

CHAPTER I:

CHAPTER II:

CHAPTER III:

CHAPTER IV:

CHAPTER V:

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:


APPENDIX

APPENDIX


APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

REFERENCES


INTRODUCTION ...............................

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................

METHODS AND PROCEDURES ...................

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .......................

DISCUSSION ........... ................. .....

TEACHER GUIDELINE LETTER ..................

OUTLINE OF TOPICS COVERED AT PRELIMINARY
COUNSELOR MEETING .........................

SCHEDULE FOR THE DCPG RESEARCH STUDY ......

CHECKLIST FOR MONITORING COUNSELOR PROGRESS
IN DISRUPTIVE CHILD'S PLAY GROUP SESSIONS .

THE DISRUPTIVE CHILD'S PLAY GROUP .........

THE DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE ......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................








Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



DEVELOPMENTAL GROUP COUNSELING USING STRUCTURED PLAY
WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISRUPTIVE CHILDREN

By

Robert T. Bleck

June, 1977

Chairman: Robert D. Myrick
Major Department: Counselor Education


The purpose of this study was to measure the therapeutic

effectiveness of a developmentally based group counseling unit,

the Disruptive Child's Play Group (DCPG). The unit utilized

structured play process with young children who were identified

as disruptive in the classroom. Specifically, the study examined

eight hypotheses regarding the subjects' self-esteem and class-

room behavior as related to, or in the absence of, the Disruptive

Child's Play Group.

Children who exhibited disruptive behavior were selected

from the third grade of 13 schools in Alachua County, Florida.

From this group an experimental group (N=71) and a control group

(N=66) were randomly selected from a separate list of boys and

girls for each school. There were 62 girls and 75 boys included

in the research.

The study lasted a total of eight weeks. During the first

week, the counselor from each of the 13 schools randomly assigned

students to experimental and control groups. During the second

week, each counselor collected preassessment data. The teachers
L








of children in the study were asked to complete the items

related to four factors of the Devereux Elementary School

Behavior Rating Scale and the entire Walker Problem Identifi-

cation Checklist. The subjects completed the Coopersmith Self-

Esteem Inventory and the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale.

Over the next five weeks the treatment, the DCPG, was led

by the elementary counselor in each school. The control group

received no treatment at that time. During the eighth week,

the same criterion measures as in the preassessment were

administered for postassessment.

The data collected were analyzed by multiple regression

analyses to determine the effects of the two independent vari-

ables (group and sex of subject) on each of the dependent

variable measures. These data related directly to the following

hypotheses:

1. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Classroom Disturbance, as meas-
ured by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior
Rating Scale.

2. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Impatience, as measured by the
Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

3. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Disrespect-Defiance, as measured
by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating
Scale.

4. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Irrelevant-Responsiveness, as
measured by the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale.








5. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
classroom behavior, as measured by teachers on
the Walker Problem Behavior Identification
Checklist.

6. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
self-esteem, as measured by the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory.

7. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
classroom behavior, as measured by the Disruptive
Behavior Rating Scale.

8. There will be no significant differences in
the criterion measures on the basis of sex.

No significant differences were found for Hypotheses One,

Two, Four, Five, Seven, and Eight at the .05 level of confidence.

These hypotheses were not rejected. However, Hypotheses Three

and Six were rejected at the .05 level of confidence. The DCPG

group significantly increased their self-esteem, as measured by

the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory. In addition, the DCPG

group significantly decreased their disrespect for or resist-

ance to the school, subject matter, and the teacher, as measured

by the Disrespect-Defiance factor of the Devereux Elementary

School Behavior Rating Scale.











CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



Disruptive behavior in the classroom has been a continual

source of frustration and tension to students, teachers, and

administrators. As a result, school counselors have been

called upon to help with this problem. Among the various

techniques used by counselors in dealing with disruptive chil-

dren has been group counseling. Can group counseling using

structured play process help children control their disruptive

behavior?



Need for this Study


There is some evidence to suggest that aggressiveness

correlates with inadequate school adjustment and low academic

performance. Disruptive behavior also adversely affects rela-

tionships with peers and teachers.

As a result of disruptive behavior, learning objectives

often cannot be accomplished. A teacher's stress may influence

his or her rapport with other students and thereby affect the

learning process. Students who watch outbursts of aggression

and teacher-student conflict may find themselves distracted,

frightened, intimidated, or unwillingly involved. Thus, their

learning is impaired. Disruptive students themselves often





2

exhibit learning problems since their behaviors are not condu-

cive to appropriate learning.

The disruptive child may be considered a socialization

failure. According to Hewett (1968),

The term socialization is used . to refer to the
process by which these expectations /expectations of
society/ are learned and met by members of a society
during the course of their development from infancy
to adulthood. At each age level, certain behaviors,
capabilities, knowledge, beliefs, and customs must
be acquired if successful adaptation to the environ-
ment is to occur. As an individual's behavior
deviates from what is expected for his age, sex,
and status it is maladaptive and he may experience
serious difficulties in getting along. (p. 3)

Controlling disruptive behavior is one expectation of

society. Such control is usually a function of the family and

the school. Considering the effect of disruptive behavior such

socialization by the school is extremely important. There is

also the belief that children who exhibit disruptive behavior

in school are likely to become delinquent. Due to the disrup-

tive child's effect on teachers, students, administrators, and

society, the need for this study becomes evident.



Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to measure the therapeutic

effectiveness of a developmentally based group counseling unit,

The Disruptive Child's Play Group (DCPG). The unit utilized

structured play process with young children who were identified

as disruptive in the classroom. The following questions were

investigated:

1. What effect will the DCPG have on teacher's perception

of the disruptive school behavior of the group member?








2. What effect will the DCPG have on a group member's

level of self-esteem?

3. What effect will the DCPG have on a group member's

perception of his or her own behavior?



Definition of Terms


For the purpose of this investigation, the following

definitions were applied:

Disruptive behavior: Behavior which is considered socially

unacceptable in a classroom (e.g. shouting, hitting, teasing,

tripping others, kicking, running around, throwing objects,

disturbing others, hurting others' feelings, verbal abuse) and

which interrupts normal classroom procedures. The terms disrup-

tive and/or aggressive behavior will be used interchangeably.

Disruptive child: A child who exhibits disruptive, aggres-

sive behavior according to a teacher report.

Play media: A variety of toys and materials which encour-

age the use of imagination and elicit emotional expression

(e.g. art supplies, clay, puppets, dolls, punching bags, trucks,

games).

Structured play process: A process in which the counselor

leads the child into structured play situations using play media

in order to elicit feelings and behaviors.



Rationale for the Study


In the past, many solutions to the problem of disruptive








children have been offered but such problems continue to plague

teachers, as reported in professional literature and popular

magazines. Some of these methods include ignoring the behavior,

isolation, punishment, modeling appropriate behavior, behavior

modification, individual counseling, and group counseling. This

experimenter suggested the utilization of group counseling incor-

porating structured play process to bring about a decrease in

disruptive behavior.

Since much of what children learn occurs in groups, it is

believed that group counseling offers the most effective and

economical method for helping children acquire new learning

and unlearn inappropriate attitudes and behaviors. Dinkmeyer

and Caldwell (1970) stressed that developmental group counseling

can lead to more positive process in the classroom situation.

The small group counseling unit studied here, the DCPG, is based

upon the objectives and goals of developmental group counseling.

The basic goals of developmental groups for the group member

are to (a) know and understand himself, (b) develop self-

acceptance and a feeling of being worthwhile in his own right,

(c) develop methods of coping with the developmental tasks of

life, (d) develop self-direction, better problem solving skills,

and better decision making abilities, and (e) develop sensitivity

to the needs of others (Dinkmeyer & Caldwell, 1970).

There is some evidence to support the use of play in group

counseling. It has been suggested that children use play to

cope with, communicate, and integrate a variety of emotional

experiences, experiences that might otherwise be overwhelming








to the child. Therefore, a counselor can learn about a child

through play, and assist the child to explore and accept his

feelings, and change his behavior.

Through a combination of structured play process in a

group setting, the DCPG was an attempt to control disruptive

behavior exhibited by third grade children. It is based on a

developmental approach to counseling.



Organization of the Study


The remainder of this study is organized into four addi-

tional chapters plus appendices. A review of the literature

on disruptive behavior, group counseling, play process, and

group counseling using play process is included in Chapter II.

Chapter III contains the methods and procedures of the study

which includes hypotheses, design of the study, descriptions

of evaluative measures, and the treatment. The results are

presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of the

study and a discussion of the results as well as recommendations

for further study.











CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE



In order to understand and deal with disruptive behavior

in children it is necessary to be aware of the cause and pos-

sible treatments of such behavior. The review of the literature

related to this study is focused on the following areas: (a)

disruptive behavior, (b) group counseling, (c) play process,

and (d) group counseling using play process.



Disruptive Behavior


Causes of Disruptive Behavior

There are many differing theories on the cause of aggres-

sion. Some of these positions include aggression as (a) an

instinct, (b) a consequence of a frustrating event, (c) an

attempt to reduce tension caused by anger, (d) a result of

environmental factors, and (e) a result of low self-concept.

Some theorists such as Freud (1930) believe that much of

man's aggressiveness is innate. Prior to World War I, Freud

had emphasized the life force (libido or eros) as the biological

source of human motivation. However, the vast destruction of

the war convinced Freud that man is not only impelled by libido

but by another set of drives he named "death instincts" (Jones,

1955). He believed the primary function of death instincts to






7

be the destruction and return of man to an inanimate state and

outright aggression was seen as the manifestation of these

instincts.

Loewenstein (1961), one other leading proponent of aggres-

sion as an instinct, distinguished three aspects of the death

instinct:

1. A primary self-destructive instinct,

2. The self-destructive instinct turning outward and

leading to aggression, and

3. Destructiveness as an independent instinct rather

than the united sexual and life instincts.

Along with others (Hartmann, Kris, & Loewenstein, 1971), he

rejected the first two assumptions but accepted the third,

formulating a theory of aggression as an independent instinct.

A more modern theorist, Lorenz (1966) also takes the view

that aggression is innate. He adds the idea that man's inhibi-

tions against the expression of aggression are developing

slower than his rapid technological development. He believes

that the only solution to this problem is to provide men with

some acceptable opportunities to discharge their aggressive

instincts.

Buss (1961) summarized the various arguments for an instinct

of aggression:

Aggression is pervasive and universal, and much
aggression cannot be explained on a reactive basis;
psychotic acts of murder, suicide, or long-awaited
revenge. The phenomena of sadism and masochism
indicate the presence of an innate pleasure in
inflecting pain on others or the self. There is
an unlearned physiological pattern for rage, the








predecessor of attack. Finally, aggression occurs
so early in development that it must be innate.
(p. 196)

A differing view on aggression is found in the form of

the "frustration-aggression hypothesis" which states that

aggression is a highly probable response to a frustrating event

(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer,& Sears, 1939). According to

Dollard et al. (1939), "the occurrence of aggressive behavior

always presupposes the existence of frustration and, contrariwise,

that the existence of frustration always leads to some form of

aggression" (p. 1).

This notion, that aggression is a result of frustration,

has been accepted widely (Buss, 1961). However, there have

been two outstanding exceptions. Maslow (1941) denied that

simple frustration would lead to aggression. He believed

aggression would be caused only by attack or threat. Rosenzweig

(1944) also said that nonthreatening stimuli is not enough to

lead to aggression, but that threatening, frustrative stimuli

would lead to aggression. Such threatening stimuli meant

attack, insult, annoyance, or any form of aversive situation.

Others believe that anger is often the cause of some disrup-

tive or aggressive act by a child. According to Buss (1963)

anger is a kind of emotional arousal which constitutes a physical

state of tension. The child feels this tension and even reports

being stirred up, aroused, tense, excited, or tight. Both

Berlyne (1967) and Buss (1963) believe that a child may act

aggressively or disruptively because such behavior reduces this

arousal and is rewarding. After their investigation of autonomic






9

responses during aggressive interchange, Hokanson, Willers, and

Koropsak (1968) also supported the view that aggressive behavior

can reduce arousal.

Some believe that aggression is a social act influenced

by experience and learning. There are two ways in which a

child could learn aggressive behavior. One way is selective

reinforcement (Brown & Elliot, 1965; Patterson, Littman, &

Bricker, 1967). Often for example, a child may receive more

attention from the teacher if he exhibits disruptive or aggres-

sive behavior. He may receive little or no attention when his

behavior is on task. Therefore, the attention becomes the

reward for his disruptive behavior. The second learning

method is by imitating or modeling aggressive behavior (Bandura

& Huston, 1961; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963a, 1963b).

The child through observation of aggressive adults and peer

models may learn disruptive behavior without selective

reinforcement.

Bandura and Walters (1959) and Glueck and Glueck (1950)

emphasized the child rearing factor of aggressive behavior.

From their studies they found that the disruptive, antisocial

person comes from an environment characterized by parental

rejection, family problems, punitive discipline, and inconsis-

tency. Sears, Moccoby, and Levin (1957), in a carefully

researched study, found that disruptive behavior was associated

with such environmental factors as parental permissiveness for

aggression, the use of physical punishment, and a low self-

concept of the mother.





10

Lastly, there is evidence (Coopersmith, 1959; Jersild, 1951;

McCandless, 1961) which indicates that children with poor per-

ceptions of themselves, when compared with those who have a more

positive self-image, are more anxious, less well adjusted, less

effective, less honest, more defensive, and more hostile.

It is evident that there are many theories on aggression,

frustration, and anger. All can be debated. However, it can-

not be denied that, whatever the cause may be, many children

frequently display disruptive behavior. When this type of

behavior occurs in the classroom it destroys the learning

climate and becomes an immediate problem.

According to Brembeck (1962) no problem is mentioned more

frequently by new teachers than discipline in the classroom.

These new teachers claimed that no other problem made greater

demands upon their growing skills. From their experiences in

the classroom they all agreed that there are always a few stu-

dents who have the power to cause endless conflicts and frustra-

tions in the classroom. Bremeck (1962) added that most new

teachers are told that establishing discipline in the classroom

is the toughest problem. However this warning holds little

meaning for them until they make mistakes and suffer the

consequences.

According to Ginott (1972) every teacher knows that "love

is not enough." Neither is "creating rapport" or "making it

interesting." A teacher can be warm, patient, and loving and

still be unable to survive in the classroom (Ginott, 1972).

There must be specific methods or techniques to deal with





11

disruptive behavior in children so that classroom learning will

not be interrupted. What are some of the techniques that have

been used to control aggressive behavior?


Techniques of Controlling Aggression and Disruptive Behavior

One difficult task for a child is to learn to control his

disruptive behavior and to discriminate between permissible

behavior and behavior deemed unacceptable by society. Dinkmeyer

and Caldwell (1970) said,

One of the important tasks in growing up is learning
how to cope with one's feelings. The elementary
school years provide a number of challenges in coping
with changes in schedule, rules, and the expectations
of significant adults both in the school and in the
home. The child must develop the flexibility to
bounce back emotionally when angry, to be able to
manage teasing and the impulsive actions of children.
He must learn to keep his temper while recognizing
that some emotions such as anger and fear are normal.
In this area the counselor helps him to manage his
hostility while learning appropriate means and times
for expressing hostility or alternative responses.
(p. 97)

Parents and teachers must help children keep aggressive

behavior within bounds. There have been many techniques used

in attempting to control disruptive behavior.

One of the more common methods used by parents and teachers

to deal with disruptive behavior is ignoring (Redl & Wineman,

1957). By planned ignoring Redl and Wineman (1957) suggest

the ability of an adult to size up a child's surface behavior

and limit interference only to behaviors which may cause serious

harm or would not stop from their own exhaustion. Often a child

will refrain from aggressive behavior if the teacher ignores

such behavior and the child does not get the attention he seeks.





12

However, the technique is limited since some behaviors are so

offensive or dangerous that they cannot be ignored. It is not

always an easy task to discriminate between behavior which can

be ignored and behavior which is harmful or offensive. In

addition, ignoring in itself does not deal with the underlying

emotional problem.

Another commonly used technique is proximity and touch

control (Redl & Wineman, 1957). Every teacher knows how aggres-

siveness may often be controlled by increasing the physical

proximity between child and adult. Just as the baby often

stops crying when picked up, without waiting for the source of

its discomfort to be removed, the child can sometimes control

his disruptive impulses if he sits close to an adult. With

some children proximity is not enough. They need direct

physical contact, which Redl and Wineman call "touch control."

Thus, putting the arm around a child's shoulder or patting him

in a friendly way while making a limiting demand often is suf-

ficient to calm him and curtail the oncoming disruptive act.

However, it is not always possible for a teacher to be in

close proximity to the disruptive child. This technique does

not deal with the underlying problem of the child.

Goodenough (1931) listed the following methods used by

teachers or parents in dealing with problem behavior:

scolding appeal to self-esteem or humor
reasoning spanking
threatening other corporal punishments
frightening deprival of privileges
coaxing putting in a chair
bribery putting to bed
praise deprival of food








soothing isolation
ridicule ignoring
appeal to the emotions diversion of child's attention
social approval or removal of source of trouble
disapproval

One of the most common methods of inhibiting aggression is

through the use of punishment. There have been some studies

which seem to indicate that punishment does seem to have a

temporary sunpressing effect on disruptive behavior (Hollenberg

& Sperry, 1951). However, punishment has been shown to lead

to adverse effects. According to Ziph (1960), the punished

child learns to dislike the punitive agent, parent or teacher,

and the activity with which the punishment is associated.

Furthermore, the child, identifying with the aggressor, may

play the punishing role of the parent or teacher in his peer

relations. In addition, the long-term effect of punishment,

especially physical punishment, may increase aggression

(Becker, 1964).

There are those who believe that aggression is a learned

response, and therefore can be unlearned as well. Children

have been trained to react nonaggressively to situations which

would ordinarily elicit an aggressive response (Davitz, 1952;

Updegraffe & Keister, 1937; Walters & Brown, 1963). In a

study conducted by Davitz (1952) some children were trained

to act aggressively, while other children were trained to act

cooperatively. Following this training, the children were

exposed to a frustrating experience. The aggressively trained

children responded more aggressively while cooperatively trained

children responded constructively.





14

This study and the modeling experiments of Bandura, Ross,

and Ross (1961, 1963a) and Waiters and Brown (1963) seem to

indicate that children can learn aggressiveness from aggressive

models. These studies propose the use of selective reinforce-

ment and nonaggressive models as methods for inhibiting

disruptive behavior. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) devised

a series of experiments to test the extent to which children

will copy aggressive behavior when this behavior was shown by

adult models in three different situations: in real life, on

film, and as cartoon characters on film. In all three situations

the model was physically and verbally attacking a Bobo doll.

After viewing these models each child was taken to an observa-

tion room where his play behavior was recorded. The results

left little doubt that exposure to aggression heightens aggres-

sive tendencies in children. Those who had seen aggressive

models behaved more aggressively than those in the control

group. These studies suggested that if a child models aggres-

sive behavior he can also model nonaggressive behavior.

Attempts have also been made to control behavior through

behavior modification. This method is based on behaviorist

theories such as that of Skinner and has been successful in the

classroom (Gagne, 1965; Hewett, 1968; Orlando & Bijou, 1960;

Skinner, 1968). According to Krumboltz and Thoresen (1969)

behaviorism, or behavior modification, is based on two funda-

mental laws of learning: (a) behavior that is rewarded will

persist or increase and (b) behavior that is not rewarded or

is punished will decrease or stop.






15

Quay (1966) utilized behavior modification within a class-

room with "conduct disorder" children who exhibited aggressive

behavior in school. Quay rewarded his students by flashing a

light on their desks if they were paying attention to the

teacher during a group listening period. Later, the light

flash was rewarded with a piece of candy, and attending behavior

of the children increased dramatically during the time of the

study.

In a successful program by Whelan (1966), emotionally dis-

turbed children earned points for appropriate behavior and task

completion. At any time during the day these points were able

to be traded for free time to spend on the playground, doing

artwork, etc. During this free time the child carried a timer

which reminded him (by the ringing of a bell) when he had

spent his earned minutes.

Although behavior modification can sometimes be used suc-

cessfully to eliminate particular observable disruptive

behaviors there are some drawbacks. First, since only the

observable behavior is dealt with, underlying emotional dif-

ficulties of the child may be neglected. In fact, it might be

the emotional difficulties which need to be dealt with most of

all. If some behaviors of a child are controlled, emotional

difficulties may cause other disruptive behaviors to occur.

Second, behavior modification is not always practical. It is

often difficult and sometimes impractical to find an appropriate

reward for a child. Even if a suitable reward is found it may

serve as a reinforcer only for a limited time.





16

This experimenter proposed the use of developmental group

counseling using structured play process. It was hoped that

this technique would reduce disruptive behavior as well as

deal with the underlying emotional difficulties of the child.

What results have been found about group counseling with children?



Group Counseling with School Children


According to Dinkmeyer and Caldwell (1970), "Group coun-

seling involves the process of two or more people working

together, with the assistance of a trained counselor, to explore

and develop the basis for investigating and considering common

concerns more effectively" (p. 137). These authors believe

that groups provide the opportunity for each person to engage

in an interpersonal process in which he works with peers to

explore his feelings, beliefs, values, and concerns, thus

helping him to deal more effectively with his developmental

problems.

Mahler (1969) described group counseling as,

The process of using group interaction to facili-
tate deeper self-understanding and self-acceptance.
There is a need for a climate of mutal respect
and acceptance so that individuals can loosen their
defenses sufficiently to explore both the meaning
of behavior and new ways of behaving. The concerns
and problems encountered are centered in the develop-
mental tasks of each member rather than on patholog-
ical blocks and distortions of reality. (p. 11)

Gazda, Duncan, and Meadows (1967) described group counseling

as,

S. a dynamic interpersonal process focusing on
conscious thought and behavior and involving the
therapy functions of permissiveness, orientation







to reality, catharsis and mutual trust, caring,
understanding, acceptance and support. The therapy
functions are created and nurtured in a small group
through the sharing of personal concerns with one's
peers and the counselorss. The group counselees
are basically normal individuals with various con-
cerns which are not debilitating to the extent
requiring extensive personality change. The group
counselees may utilize the group interaction to
increase understanding and acceptance of values
and goals and to learn and/or unlearn certain atti-
tudes and behaviors. (p. 305)

The above authors agreed that group counseling is a process

in which a child can explore his feelings, behaviors, attitudes,

and common problems. This process takes place within a trusting

and accepting atmosphere.


Rationale for Group Counseling

Contemporary workers in the field of school counseling

believe that counseling should be done in groups. Faust (1968)

discussed two concepts which favor group counseling over indi-

vidual counseling. First, group counseling is economical in

that it enables the counselor to work with a greater number of

children at one time. Second, since much of what children learn

occurs in groups, it is believed that group counseling is the

most effective method for the acquisition of new learning and

the unlearning of inappropriate attitudes and behaviors.

Dinkmeyer (1968) believes that the major therapeutic effects

of group counseling stem from the idea that most problems are

basically social or interpersonal in nature. Group counseling

provides actual experience in social interaction. Such inter-

action, in a safe atmosphere, provides children the opportunity

to explore feelings, behaviors, alternative behaviors, and

consequences.





18

A group counseling situation also enables the child to see

that others have similar problems and that his are not unique.

According to Faust (1968), learning that other children feel

the same way tends to reduce feelings of inadequacy or guilt

that very often cause anxiety and ineffective learning.

Carkhuff (1969) believes that the core of functioning (or

disfunctioning) and the core of the helping process are inter-

personal. He therefore supports groups as the best means of

treating difficulties in interpersonal functioning. The child

can use a group to try out new alternative behaviors, as well

as receive feedback on inappropriate old ones.

The above authors believe that a child can indeed benefit

from group counseling. What results have been found about

group counseling in schools?


Effects of Group Counseling with School Children

The effects of group counseling on students' achievement

and adjustment have been researched. In terms of achievement

Creange (1971) found that underachieving ninth grade students

who were exposed to weekly group counseling sessions earned

significantly higher grade point averages after counseling than

a control group which had no counseling. In addition, children

were absent less and teacher evaluations were more positive

for the experimental group than for the control group. Posi-

tive results on reading performance were found by Crider (1966)

using selected guidance activities. A combination of remedial

reading and group counseling (Strickler, 1965), and group

counseling with students and their mothers (Shatter, 1957)

have also been found to improve reading performance.





19

Moulin (1970) examined the effects of client-centered group

counseling on 24 underachieving elementary school children.

Significant results were obtained in the Non-Language section

of the California Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM) and in meaning-

ful language usage as measured by the Illinois Test of

Psycholinguistic Abilities.

Other studies, however, did not yield such positive results

in relation to achievement. For example, Ohlsen and Gazda (1965)

examined group counseling with fifth graders and found no

significant improvement in grades, behavior inventory scores,

achievement test scores, perceptions of self, or social accept-

ance. Clements (1963) and Lerche (1969) also did not find

group counseling to be effective.

Winkler, Tregland, Munger, and Kranzler (1965) examined

the effects of counseling and remedial techniques in altering

grade point average of underachieving fourth grade students.

These underachievers participated in various counseling and

reading instruction for 14 one-half hour sessions. No signifi-

cant changes were reported.

Crow (1971) also found no significant gains in grades as

a result of group counseling. In a study by Myrick and Haight

(1972) with secondary school underachievers, group counseling

had no significant effect on grades and absenteeism. However,

teacher evaluations of students in the group indicated improved

work habits, greater self-confidence, reduced tension, and more

positive attitudes.

Group counseling techniques have also been researched on





20

various adjustment variables such as attitudes toward school,

peers, teachers, and self-concept. For example, Davis (1948)

counseled nine children in two groups. She obtained daily

reports from teachers, photographed the children at play, and

used a sociometric test in pre, post, and follow-up testing.

It was found that the group counseling increased social accept-

ance in the classroom.

Eldridge, Barcikowski, and Witmer (1973) researched the

effects of the DUSO program on self-concepts of rural Appalachian

primary school children. Ninety-eight students in the second

grade were divided into two treatment and two control groups.

The experimental group received 25 thirty-minute sessions

during five weeks using Unit I of the DUSO program. A signifi-

cant difference in the self-concept of the children, as measured

by the DUSO-AD-I, was obtained. The DUSO-AD-I purports to

measure understanding and acceptance of self. However, no

differences were found by the Piers-Harris Children's Self-

Concept Scale and the California Test of Personality. The

authors believe that the instruments were not measuring the

same dimension of the self-concept construct.

Other studies have shown positive changes in sociometric

level as a result of group counseling (Kranzler, Mayer, Doyer,

& Munger, 1966; Schiffer, 1967; Thombs & Muro, 1973). Reinforce-

ment techniques have been used to improve the sociometric status

of sixth graders (Hansen, Niland, & Zani, 1969), social accept-

ance among fifth graders (Barclay, 1967), social approach

behavior of third grade boys (Clement & Milne, 1967), and





21

classroom behavior of third, fourth, and fifth grade children

(Hinds & Roehlke, 1970). However, Mayer, Kranzler, and Matthes

(1967) compared the effects of group counseling and selected

guidance techniques upon fifth and sixth grade students' peer

relationships. When the treatment condition and control group

were compared no significant differences were found among them.

In addition, Biasco (1966), using fourth, fifth, and sixth

graders of low sociometric status, compared the effects of

several treatments and found no differences between counseled

and noncounseled students.

Modeling techniques have also been used in group counseling.

Thomas (1974) used videotaped modeling with first graders in an

attempt to increase attending behavior of students from dis-

advantaged families. Videotapes of any attending disadvantaged

child were presented to the experimental groups. Attending

behavior was defined as behavior which indicated that a child

was giving attention to material being presented. The results

of this stuy indicated that a short-term guidance program

using modeling is an effective method for increasing attending

behavior.

Warner, Niland, and Maynard (1971) used modeling techniques

with fifth graders who could not be satisfied with anything

less than a grade of A or B, but were getting C's or lower.

Models of children who were achieving at the C level and satis-

fied were included in the treatment group. The control group

was just a free discussion group. The models seemed to be

more effective than did free discussion groups. The model-







reinforcement counseling helped students set realistic goals

with which they could be satisfied.

Howard and Zimpfer (1972) in their review of the litera-

ture on group approaches in the elementary school believe that

the overall direction is more positive than negative. Ohlsen

(1973) stated that the most common positive results include

children's improved interpersonal skills, acceptance of self

and others, acceptance by others, class participation, congru-

ence between perception of real self and ideal self, school

achievement, and classroom behavior.

This researcher proposed the use of play process in a

group setting. What is the theory behind play process?



Theory of Play Process


Theory (Erikson, 1963; Pellar, 1952; Piaget, 1962; Waelder,

1933) suggests that children use play to cope with, communicate,

and integrate a variety of emotional experiences, experiences

that might otherwise be overwhelming to the child. A counselor

can therefore learn much about a child through play, help him

to understand and accept his feelings, and change his behavior.

Both Axline (1947) and Harms (1971) believe play to be the

language of children. Since a young child's verbal skills are

not developed to a high level many children find it easier to

communicate through the use of play media.

Through this natural medium of self-expression the child

is given the opportunity to play out his feelings of tension,

frustration, aggression, fear, and confusion. By playing out





23

these feelings he brings them to the surface, gets them out in

the open, learns ways of controlling them, or completely

abandons them. In the security of a playroom, where the child

is the most important person and where he is in command of

both the situation and himself, he can test out his ideas and

express himself fully. He then begins to realize the power

within himself to be an individual in his own right, to think

for himself, and to make his own decisions (Axline, 1947).

Conn (1955) stated that "Every therapeutic play method is

a form of learning process during which the child learns to

accept and to utilize constructively that degree of personal

responsibility and self-discipline necessary for effective self-

expression and social living" (p. 753).

Amster (1943) stated that,

Play is an activity a child comprehends and in which
he is comfortable, an integral part of his world,
his method of communication, his medium of exchange,
and his means of testing, partly incorporating and
mastering external realities.
.Provision of play materials means the
provision of a natural means of communication, through
which the child's problems may be expressed more
readily and the treatment more likely to succeed. (p. 62)

Amster (1943) had listed and defined six used of play:

(a) play can be used for diagnostic understanding of the child,

(b) play can be used to establish a working relationship, (c)

play can be used to break through a child's way of playing in

his daily life and his defenses against anxiety, (d) play can

be used to help a child verbalize certain conscious material

and associated feelings, (e) play can be used to help a child

act out unconscious material and to relieve the accompanying








tension, and (f) play can be used to develop a child's play

interests which he can carry over into his daily life and which

will strengthen him for his future life.

Solomon (1940) summarized the value of play as follows:

(a) it provides a way for the child to release hostility toward

parents, siblings, teachers, etc.; (b) it allows the child to

rid himself of guilt feelings; (c) it provides an opportunity

for the child to express freely all love fantasies; (d) in

play the child, through repetition, may become desensitized to

certain fears he might have.

Moustakas (1959) believes that,

The child comes into a relationship with the play
materials, a relationship which is not unlike the
warmth, comfort, and protectiveness he feels when
he holds or sleeps with his blanket or some other
precious possession. No person can give the child
what he experiences in a relationship with a toy
or play material. (p. 9)

According to Frank (1955), "in play we observe various

themes or schemes in which this child's immediate concerns are

focused and more or less symbolically played out" (p. 585).

Millar (1968) believes that an aggressive child may improve

his behavior through play because feelings, such as anger,

which are aroused but denied expression, may be "displaced"

onto objects in play or expressed symbolically in play.

According to Muro (1969), a child, through play, can

safely express his anger and fears, act silly, be critical or

resentful, and in general, have the opportunity to explore him-

self and his environment to the fullest.

Dinkmeyer and Caldwell (1970) believe that through the







use of play process the counselor can enter the world of the

child. Just as an adult may verbally express his feelings

and perceptions, the perceptions and feelings of the child are

expressed through play. Thus, play allows the counselor to

form a closer relationship with the child.

Faust (1969) stated that the term "play process" is "the

relationship between the child and the counselor with play as

a major vehicle for that relationship, which makes it possible

for the child to effect change within himself" (p. 154). The

child can translate his wishes, fears, and conflicts into the

more comfortable language of play.

Play therapy has been used effectively with emotionally

disturbed children as well as disruptive students (Axline, 1947;

Baruch, 1952; Ginott, 1961; Moustakas, 1959; Myrick & Haldin,

1971). It has also been used to increase the language, motor,

and personal-social skills of mentally retarded children

(Newcomer & Morrison, 1974).

Recognizing the benefits of play techniques, this researcher

adapted them to developmental group counseling in the elementary

school. Using play process in a group setting, the counselor

can help children explore a.id evaluate their feelings, behaviors,

and peer relationships. What has been the effect of using play

techniques in a group setting?



Group Counseling Using Play Process


According to Axline (1947) play in a group setting offers

the same benefits as individual play therapy but has some added

benefits:







Group therapy is a . therapeutic experience with
the added element of contemporary evaluation of
behavior plus the reaction of personalities upon one
another. The group experience injects into therapy
a very realistic element because the child lives in
a world with other children and must consider the
reaction of others and must develop a consideration
of other individual's feelings. (p. 25)

Play in groups may be a useful tool for the counselor as

it allows children to express themselves and understand others

through media that is familiar and comfortable to them.

Slavson (1945) stated that the value of using play in a group

lies in the fact that the group gives the child an opportunity

to relate to others, and helps him break through isolation,

withdrawal, and aggressive rejection of people. Ginott (1961)

believes that "most children, at times in their therapy, should

be exposed to peers . so that they can test themselves in

relation to social actualities" (p. 60).

To support the use of play techniques in group counseling

the following studies, some of which directly deal with aggres-

sive children, may be cited.

Clement (1967) used play therapy groups with shy and with-

drawn third grade boys and obtained successful results.

A project utilizing play group techniques in public school

has been described by Schiffer (1957). It concerned the treat-

ment of emotionally disturbed children who came from a slum

area in New York City. A play room was set up in the school

building only for the use of the play groups. Schiffer stated,

"our experience indicates that therapeutic effects do emerge

and many of the children function better in the classroom and





27

in the neighborhood as a result of their participation in the

specialized play group" (p. 193).

Jensen (1958) successfully utilized a combination of play

process (music, art, drama, and dance) and interview group

counseling with underachieving primary school children in

grades two, three, and four. The students were 10 children

with normal measured intelligence, but their classroom behavior

ranged from silent withdrawal to hyperactive, disruptive partici-

pation. It was found that 8 of the 10 children benefited from

this program. Axline (1947) also used group play therapy

successfully with a group of behavior problem boys in a foster

home.

Koenig (1949) chose 10 children from grades three through

six for play group counseling because of various problems such

as nonconforming classroom behavior, truancy, chronic tardi-

ness, infantile behavior, nervousness, aggressive behavior,

emotional disturbances, stealing, and inattention. Significant

improvement in 9 of the 10 children was noted.

Roleplaying is one technique used in play process. Cole

(1949) used it to desensitize fifth graders to rebuff and dis-

couragement. Bleck, Gumaer, and Loesch (1976), Gumaer, Bleck,

and Loesch (1975), and Wells (1962) used roleplaying success-

fully with elementary school students to deal with normal

children exhibiting disruptive, aggressive behavior. The

behavior included quarreling over possessions, rivalry for

positions in games, fighting, tripping and hitting others,

teasing, and interference with each other's classroom activities.







Summary


The problem of disruptive children in the classroom has

plagued educators for many years. Indeed, the questions often

asked by teachers to counselors concern discipline in the

classroom.

Theorists have debated the cause of disruptive behavior

in children, suggesting such behavior occurs due to an instinct

or drive, a consequence of frustration, a result of environ-

mental factors, an attempt to reduce tension caused by anger,

or a low self-concept. However, no matter what the cause,

children do display socially unacceptable behavior.

Children need opportunities to examine, understand, and

accept their feelings as well as to discriminate between

acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Research indicates that

a group setting is especially conducive for such an opportunity.

Research also indicates that play process may be a technique

of great value within the group as a facilitator of communica-

tion and understanding. Because group counseling and play

techniques are presently among the skills of most elementary

school counselors and have been used effectively with children,

this study was focused on using structured play within a group

setting as a technique to deal with disruptive children.











CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES



Since disruptive student behaviors are a problem with

which teachers are faced, methods need to be found which will

help alleviate these behaviors. Literature on teaching dis-

ruptive pupils appropriate self-control is sparce. Regardless

of whether disruptive behavior is a result of a drive, frustra-

tion, anger, selective reinforcement, modeling, family back-

ground, or a low self-concept, it is often detrimental to the

learning climate of the classroom. Disruptive students demand

excessive teacher time which could be better spent in more

productive efforts. Relatedly the disruptive child's problems

may be reflected in decreased self-esteem and increased behavioral

difficulties in the classroom. Clearly, there is a need for

more research concerning the socialization process and appropri-

ate inverventions with disruptive children.

This study investigated the effects of a small group coun-

seling unit, the Disruptive Child's Play Group (DCPG). The

unit was designed specifically for the child who creates disturb-

ances in the classroom. The DCPG attempted to provide an

opportunity for the disruptive child to examine feelings,

explore alternative socially acceptable behaviors, and develop

enough self-control to decrease the frequency of disruptive

behaviors. The techniques used within the group combined the







objectives of developmental group counseling with those of

structured play process. Through the use of play in a group

setting, it was intended for the children to experience a

comfortable and accepting environment.

The hypotheses, population, sampling procedures, experi-

mental design, experimental conditions, and the criterion

instruments used in this study are reported in this chapter.

The chapter concludes with an explanation of how the data was

collected and analyzed.



Hypotheses


This study focused on eight hypotheses related to disrup-

tive children and their adjustment as effected by, or in the

absence of, the DCPG. The following hypotheses were tested:

1. There will be no significant difference between
ihe DC'G group and the ciintrol group. r'earding
the variable of Classroom Disturbance, as meas-
ured by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior
Rating Scale.

2. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Impatience, as measured by the
Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

3. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Disrespect-Defiance, as measured
by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating
Scale.

4. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Irrelevant-Responsiveness, as
measured by the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale.
5. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding








classroom behavior, as measured by teachers on
the Walker Problem Behavior Identification
Checklist.

6. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
self-esteem, as measured by the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory.

7. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
classroom behavior, as measured by the Disruptive
Behavior Rating Scale.

In addition, the following minor hypothesis was tested:

8. There will be no significant differences in
the criterion measures on the basis of sex.



Population and Sampling Procedures


Population

The population for this study was students selected from

third grade classes in Alachua County schools, Alachua County,

Florida. The schools are racially integrated, having a 65

percent white and a 35 percent black population. The propor-

tion of boys and girls in each of 18 schools is about equal (50

percent boys, 50 percent girls). Students in the educable

mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed special education

classes were excluded due to their exceptionality.

From this group, all third grade teachers from the schools

participating in the study were asked to choose six students

(three boys and three girls) from their class who they felt

exhibited disruptive behaviors. The teachers were given the

definitions of disruptive behavior and the disruptive child

used in this study to serve as guidelines for their selections

(see Appendix A). The children chosen by each third grade






32

teacher from all the schools in the study made up the popula-

tion for this study.


Sampling Procedures

If the third grade teachers at a school chose at least

six boys and six girls, then three boys and three girls were

randomly assigned to the experimental group and three boys

and three girls were randomly assigned to the control group.

This was done by randomly numbering the girls and the boys

separately and then selecting the first three chosen from a

list of random numbers as the experimental group and the next

three as the control group for each sex. From these schools,

both the experimental and control groups consisted of six

children, three boys and three girls.

If in a school there were less than six boys or six girls,

the counselor randomly assigned half the boys or girls to the

experimental group and half to the control group. The numbers

of boys and girls in the experimental and control groups for

each school are shown in Table 1. At the end of the study

there were actually less than six children in some groups due

to children being absent for more than three DCPG sessions,

leaving the school, or transferring classes (see Table 1).

S All 16 elementary school counselors in Alachua County

were asked to participate in the study. A total of 13 counselors

participated. Each counselor must have met the following

standards: (a) certified by the Florida State Education Depart-

ment as an elementary school counselor; (b) employed as an

elementary school counselor in Alachua County; and (c)














0
0

W





0
as


0

0
SC
o
,t








r.
0









H
0,





.rl


4-H


a)


m
C]



'1-


r~c c(c n rC\n c Crn


II r cnHc c ^ c


0 P 0 0 0 0
-H bi hc



I a) 0 -H
o1 ii o l o 0)U]l 0 11o .i] U ?l0
I 01 l- 0 0 0


N C\ r H r-l -l n NI \Doo \















I Ii
o a \ ]r- N --] -J NH
mUr mU mOH OH OH U]ImH mIH P
ffl bt 4- U]
mo0 .l o U) uo ul uc LH U U) o o -o
tom me rm Fi 9) -4 ui -i


S I AH o







instructed in the DCPG unit and the procedures for this

study.



The Design of the Study


Overview

The experimental design of this study was the randomized

pre- and postcontrol group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).

The experiment lasted a total of eight weeks.


Procedures

The week before the study began this researcher met with

the 13 counselors who volunteered to participate in the study.

At this meeting the researcher explained each session of the

DCPG, population and sampling procedures, administration and

scoring of the instruments, and the time schedule for the

study. (See Appendix B for an outline of topics discussed.)

At the meeting, the researcher gave each counselor a folder

containing the DCPG unit, samples of paper bag puppets and

name tags used in the DCPG unit, paper bags to make the

puppets, teacher guideline letters (Appendix A), a random

number table, a time schedule (Appendix C), and 12 copies of

each instrument. The researcher explained each item in the

folder and told the counselors they would receive 12 more

copies of each instrument during the seventh week of the study.

During the first week of the study each counselor randomly

assigned students to experimental and control groups. During

the second week, the counselor met with the teachers of the





35

children in the study to arrange a time for the DCPG group to

meet and to collect preassessment data. The counselor at each

school asked the teachers to complete the items related to the

factors of Classroom Disturbance, Impatience, Disrespect-

Defiance, and Irrelevant-Responsiveness on the Devereux Elemen-

tary School Behavior Rating Scale. In addition, these teachers

were asked to complete the Walker Problem Identification Check-

list for the same children. The counselors then scored the

instruments and returned them to this researcher.

Also during the second week the counselor at each school

gave the students in both the experimental and control groups

an overview of the study. The children then completed the

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and the Disruptive Behavior

Rating Scale which were used for preassessment data. The

counselor sent these instruments to this researcher for scoring.

During the third, and through the seventh week, the

experimental group received the DCPG treatment. The treat-

ment consisted of two 30 to 45-minute DCPG sessions per week.

Any child who missed three or more sessions of the DCPG was

dropped from the study. During this time the control group

received no treatment. The control group remained in their

regular classroom during this study but will be given the DCPG

group experience in the future.

The eighth week was used for postassessment. During this

week the teachers and students of the experimental and control

groups again completed the same criterion instruments admin-

istered during the second week. The counselors scored the

instruments and sent them to this researcher.







During the eight weeks of the study, the researcher

monitored the counselors by calling each counselor. By using

a checklist (Appendix D), the researcher kept a record of each

counselor's progress.



The Disruptive Child's Play Group


The Disruptive Child's Play Group (Appendix E) is pat-

terned after the Cross and Robinson (1973) model for structured

group experiences with some variations. According to Cross

and Robinson (1973), structured group experiences consist of

a series of 6 to 10 group meetings of six to eight students.

The DCPG consists of ten 30 to 45-minute sessions for a group

of six members.

Cross and Robinson (1973) proposed a three-stage sequence

for structured group experiences. Their first stage focuses

on group interaction and self-disclosure designed to increase

group trust, group cohesiveness, awareness of self and others,

and awareness and understanding of feelings. Sessions 1, 2,

and 3 of the DCPG unit are modeled after this stage.

The second stage of the sequence begins to involve group

members to a greater degree with each other, focusing on feed-

back in some way. The third stage is flexible according to

the chosen focus of the group. The final session of this

stage involves a strength bombardment activity which provides

an opportunity for students to give positive feedback to each

other (Cross & Robinson, 1973).

The DCPG sessions reverse the sequence of stage two and








three and conclude with a strength bombardment activity.

Sessions 4 through 8 of the DCPG unit are modeled after stage

three, focusing on disruptive behavior and related feelings,

alternatives, and consequences. Sessions 9 and 10 of the DCPG

unit are modeled after stage two in that group members give

feedback to each other. Session 10 is the strength bombard-

ment session. In these two sessions, group members develop

self-acceptance and a feeling of being worthwhile by receiving

positive feedback.

The specific activities used in each session of the DCPG

unit were chosen for three reasons: (a) they include play,

(b) they fit into the Cross and Robinson (1973) structured

group experience model, and (c) they were used previous to

this study by this researcher in his experience as an elemen-

tary school counselor.


Goals of the DCPG Unit

The main goals of the group are to help children as

follows:

1. decrease the frequency of disruptive behavior in

school,

2. clarify and accept their feelings,

3. demonstrate consideration of other's feelings and

needs,

4. investigate and use alternative socially acceptable

coping behaviors, and

5. improve peer and teacher relationships.







Objectives of the DCPG Sessions

The specific objectives of the DCPG sessions are outlined

below.

Session 1--Orientation and Clay Modeling
Focus: a) get acquainted
b) discuss rules for group participation
c) self-disclosure through clay modeling

Session 2--Review and Animal Drawings
Focus: a) review rules for group participation
b) self-disclosure through animal drawings

Session 3--Feelings Games
Focus: a) remembering what others shared
b) become aware of feelings
c) act out feelings

Session 4--Picture Painting
Focus: a) self-disclosure through painting
(behavior related)

Session 5--RoleplayinS
Focus: a) roleplay potentially disruptive behavior
situations
b) discuss feelings evoked by each situation
c) roleplay alternative responses and discuss
consequences of each alternative

Session 6--Making Puppets
Focus: a) make "teacher and student" puppets

Session 7--Puppetplay
Focus: a) develop a list of problem situations at
school
b) dramatize situations through puppetplay
c) dramatize alternative responses and discuss
consequences of each

Session 8--Puzzle Experience
Focus: a) participate in a puzzle experience designed
to stress the importance of cooperation

Session 9--Clay Modeling
Focus: a) give personal feedback to each other
through clay gifts

Session 10-Strength Bombardment
Focus: a) give and receive positive feedback







Criterion Instruments


This study included four criterion measures. The Devereux

Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale and the Walker Problem

Identification Checklist were administered to the teachers.

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and the Disruptive

Behavior Rating Scale were administered to the students.


Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale

The Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale (DESB)

is a rating form filled out by teachers and measures overt

behavior related to classroom achievement. This instrument

was developed by Spivak and Swift (1967). The instrument con-

tains 47 items which are categorized into 11 factors, 4 of

which were used in this study. These 4 factors were Classroom

Disturbance, Impatience, Disrespect-Defiance, and Irrelevant-

Responsiveness.

Classroom Disturbance

The Classroom Disturbance factor items measure the extent

to which the child's behavior is active, social (although

inappropriate), and disruptive. This factor includes 4 items,

3 of which are scored on a frequency scale and 1 on an intensity

scale. A test-retest reliability coefficient of .91 has been

reported for this factor (Spivak & Swift, 1967). This was

based on 128 students with a one-week interval between admin-

istrations. Reliability coefficients on the other factors were

based on these same students and obtained in the same manner.

Impatience

The Impatience factor items measure the child's lack of





40

drive to enter into and complete assigned work. This factor

includes 4 items, 1 of which is scored on a frequency scale

and 3 on an intensity scale. The test-retest correlation

coefficient for this factor was .88.

Disrespect-Defiance

The Disrespect-Defiance factor items measure the extent

to which the child shows open disrespect for the school, sub-

jects, or teacher. This factor includes 4 items scored on a

frequency scale. The test-retest correlation coefficient for

this factor was .87.

Irrelevant-Responsiveness

The Irrelevant-Responsiveness factor items measure the

extent to which the child's verbal responses in class are

irrelevant, intrusive, and/or exaggerated or untruthful. This

factor includes 4 items scored on a frequency scale. The test-

retest correlation coefficient for this factor was .88.

This experimenter chose to have teachers rate only the 16

items related to the above factors, since it was felt that they

were the most relevant to the study.

Raw scores on each factor are converted into standard

score units. Standard scores are then plotted on a child's

profile, indicating whether the student is in the average range

or whether he or she exhibits more of a disruptive influence.

In terms of validity, Spivak and Swift (1967) mentioned

that the experience of teachers and the knowledge of educa-

tional and research psychologists were combined to identify

problem behaviors that interfere with academic achievement.





41

They further explained that there have been four studies dealing

with teacher conferences for selection of behaviors. These

studies included factor analyses of rated behaviors and studies

of the relationship between the items (and/or factors) on the

scale and age, sex, IQ, clinical diagnosis, academic subject,

grade level, sex of teacher rater, age and educational level

of parents, and sibling status of child. Norms and test-

retest reliabilities have been obtained and profiles of aca-

demic achievers and underachievers reported. These studies

used data from public schools and special classes in public

and residential school settings. In all, 147 teachers were

involved and made 1,719 ratings of 1,546 children. The final

behavior factors emerged from studies of both normal and

special class children and related to academic achievement

in both types of classes (Spivak & Swift, 1967).


Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist

The Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist

(WPBIC) is a behavior checklist which is filled out by teachers

and used for the identification of children with behavior prob-

lems. It was developed by Walker (1970). The checklist is

designed for use in elementary schools and is standardized for

grades four, five, and six. It consists of observable, opera-

tional statements about classroom behavior which were supplied

by a representative sample of elementary school teachers.

The instrument consists of 50 items which describe behaviors

that interfere with successful performance in the classroom.

Each item was assigned a score weight in terms of how much







influence the item had in handicapping a given child's adjust-

ment. This was accomplished by having five judges rate each

item's influence on a 20-point scale ranging from "of no

importance" to "great importance." The scale was on a con-

tinuum and the judges could rate an item at any given point.

The judges' item ratings were pooled and averaged. Each item

was given an arbitrary score weight ranging from 4 to 1 based

on such ratings. Since the inter-judge reliability correlation

was .83, the means of the judges on all items were pooled and

assigned as score weights for the scale items. With this

weighting system, a child can receive a high score of 100 and

a low score of 0.

The reliability of the WPBIC was determined by the Kuder-

Richardson split-half method. The split-half coefficient

obtained on the instrument was .98 (Walker, 1970).

Four types of validity have been obtained on the WPBIC.

One type of validity estimated was contrasted groups validity.

In this method of assessing validity two independent groups

were defined in relation to the construct being measured and

the instrument was then given to both groups. Differences

between the two groups in instrument score were then tested

for significance (Walker, 1970). Two groups were defined in

relation to the construct of behavior disturbance. Matched

were 38 subjects with 38 from the 534 children not so identi-

fied in terms of age, grade, and sex. A difference between

the experimental group and control subjects was significant

beyond the .001 level. Contrasted groups validity can be





43

claimed for the WPBIC since the behaviorally disturbed students

received significantly higher scores on the construct which is

measured by the instrument than did the nondisturbed subjects

(Walker, 1970).

In terms of criterion or predictive validity, the criterion

was referral to psychiatric or clinical facilities or those

requiring special education classes because of behavior prob-

lems. The biserial correlation between checklist scores and

the criterion was .68.

Factorial validity was also obtained. A total of five

factors were found: (a) Acting out, (b) Withdrawal, (c) Dis-

tractability, (d) Disturbed Peer Relations, and (e) Immaturity.

After subjecting the factors to a Varimax Orthogonal rotation,

it was found that the factors were relatively independent of

one another. This suggests that separate functions of the

same behavior domain (behavior disturbance) are measured.

A correlation coefficient between each item and the total

score was computed. Validity of the 50 items range from .03

to .67. Overall, the validity indices indicate that each of

the items correlate to a high degree with the criterion (total

score). In addition, the item validities further suggest that

the items on the checklist constitute a homogeneous, related

set of behaviors with the exception of items 33, 36, and 47

which have indices of .10, .10, and .03 respectively.


Self-Esteem Inventory

The Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) was developed by Cooper-

smith (1967). There are 58 items on the scale which are





44

suitable for children eight to ten years of age. The alterna-

tive responses to each of the 58 items are "Like me" or "Unlike

me. "

The SEI is a self-report instrument consisting of five

subscales: (a) General Self, (b) Social Self-Peers, (c) Home-

Parents, (d) Lie Scale, and (e) School-Academic. A total score

is obtained by multiplying the appropriate responses on all

the scales by two, except the Lie Scale. One hundred is the

highest possible score.

A test-retest reliability coefficient of .88 was obtained

for the SEI over a five-week period with a sample of 30 fifth

grade children. A test-retest coefficient of .70 was obtained

after a three-year period with a sample of 56 children (Cooper-

smith, 1967).

Content validity for the instrument was obtained by having

five psychologists sort the items into a high self-esteem group

or a low self-esteem group.


Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale

The Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (DBRS) was developed

by this researcher (see Appendix F) and is a modification of an

instrument developed by Loesch, Myrick, and Cross (1975). It

is a 12-item rating scale of student perceptions of their own

behavior. The child reports the perceived frequency of a

behavior by rating each of the 12 items on a Likert-type scale

of rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always. Of the 12 items,

3 are worded in the positive while 9 are worded in the negative.

For the positively worded items, 1 point is assigned for a





45

response of rarely, 2 for sometimes, 3 for often, and 4 for

almost always. For the negative worded items the point values

are assigned in the reverse order: 4 for rarely, 3 for some-

times, 2 for often, and 1 for almost always. In this manner

the maximum score is 48 and the minimum score is 12 (range of

36). The instructions and the 12 items were read aloud to the

children.

A test-retest reliability measure was taken of the instru-

ment and a product moment correlation of .93 was obtained.

This was accomplished through two administrations of the

instrument to 17 students within a nine-day interval.












CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS



The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects

of a developmentally based group counseling unit, the Disrup-

tive Child's Play Group (DCPG). The unit utilized structured

play process with third grade children who were identified as

disruptive in the classroom. Using randomization and a pre-

and postcontrol group design, each counselor monitored a total

of seven dependent variables for both boys and girls in the

DCPG and the control groups. This chapter presents an analysis

of the data collected from these criteria measures as related

to the eight hypotheses that were investigated in this study.

A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the

effects of the two independent variables (group and sex of

subject) on each of the seven dependent variables. This

analysis enabled the experimenter to test the equality of the

means, the effects of the independent variables on the depend-

ent variables, and the interaction effects. The level of

confidence used in this study was the .05 level. The differ-

ent N's for each variable are due to missing data.



Hypothesis One: Classroom Disturbance


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group regarding







the variable of Classroom Disturbance, as measured by the

Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. An inspec-

tion of Table 2 indicates that subjects who received the DCPG

had a lower mean gain score on the Classroom Disturbance

factor (-1.761) than the subjects in the control group (-1.415).

A lower score on this factor is indicative of more positive

behavior in the classroom. Therefore, the DCPG group showed

more improvement than the control group.

However, the analysis of variance data reported in Table 3

indicates no statistically significant difference between the

experimental and control groups. There also were no statis-

tically significant interaction effects between group and sex.

Each of the F values was lower than the F statistic needed for

significance at the .05 level of confidence (--3.91). There-

fore, Hypothesis One was not rejected.



Hypothesis Two: Impatience


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding the variable of Impatience, as measured by the

Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. An inspec-

tion of Table 4 indicates that the subjects who received the

DCPG had a lower mean gain score on the Impatience factor

(-2.143) than the subjects in the control group (-1.469). A

lower score on this factor is also indicative of more patient

behavior in the classroom. Thus, the DCPG group showed more

improvement than the control group.













Table 2


Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain
Classroom Disturbance Factor of the
Elementary School Behavior Rating


Scores on the
Devereux
Scale


Experimental Control
(!=71) (N=65)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

-1.761 3.556 -1.415 3.570


Table 3

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Classroom
Disturbance Factor of the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 1.10 1.10 0.09

Sex 1 0.01 0.01 0.0008

Interaction 1 3.69 3.69 0.31

Residual 121 1438.78 11.89





49
However, the analysis of variance data reported in Table 5

again indicates no statistically significant difference between

the experimental and control groups. There also were no statis-

tically significant interaction effects between group and sex.

Each of the F values was lower than the F statistic needed for

significance at the .05 level of confidence (--3.91). There-

fore, Hypothesis Two was not rejected.



Hypothesis Three: Disrespect-Defiance


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding the variable of Disrespect-Defiance, as measured

by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. Table

6 indicates that subjects who received the DCPG had a lower

mean gain score on the Disrespect-Defiance factor (-2.718) than

the subjects in the control group (-0.600). A lower score on

this factor is indicative of more positive behavior in the

classroom. Therefore, the DCPG group showed a great deal more

improvement than the control group.

The analysis of variance data reported in Table 7 indi-

cates a statistically significant difference between the

experimental and control groups. The F value (7.05) was

higher than the F statistic needed for significance at the .05

level of confidence (- 3.91). The F value obtained also was

higher than the F statistic needed for significance at the .01

level of confidence (>= 6.84). There were no statistically

significant interaction effects between group and sex. Hypothe-

sis Three was rejected.











Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Impatience Factor of the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale


Experimental Control
(1=70) (N=64)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

-2.143 5.578 -1.469 3.473


Table 5

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Impatience
Factor of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior
Rating Scale by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 15.31 15.31 0.69

Sex 1 37.40 37.40 1.68

Interaction 1 0.17 0.17 0.007

Residual 121 2697.56 22.29











Table 6

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Disrespect-Defiance Factor of the Devereux
Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale


Experimental Control
(N=71) (N=65)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

-2.718 4.838 -0.600 4.026


Table 7

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Disrespect-
Defiance Factor of the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 142.33 142.33 7.05

Sex 1 36.18 36.18 1.79

Interaction 1 15.07 15.07 0.74

Residual 121 2444.45 20.20


p <.05 (also p <.01)







Hypothesis Four: Irrelevant-Responsiveness


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding the variable of Irrelevant-Responsiveness, as meas-

ured by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

An inspection of Table 8 indicates that subjects who received

the DCPG had a lower mean gain score on the Irrelevant-

Responsiveness factor (-1.620) than the subjects in the control

group (-0.923). A lower score on this factor is indicative of

more on-tasks behavior in the classroom. Therefore, the DCPG

group showed more improvement than the control group.

However, the analysis of variance data reported in Table

9 indicates no statistically significant difference between

the experimental and control groups. There were no statis-

tically significant interaction effects between group and sex.

Each of the F values was lower than the F statistic needed for

significance at the .05 level of confidence ( '3.91). There-

fore, Hypothesis Four was not rejected.



Hypothesis Five: Problem Behavior


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding classroom behavior, as measured by teachers on the

Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist. Table 10

indicates that subjects who received the DCPG had a lower mean

gain score on the Walker Problem Behavior Identification Check-

list (-6.775) than the subjects in the control group (-4.656).











Table 8

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Irrelevant-Responsiveness Factor of the Devereux
Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale


Experimental Control
(N=71) (N=65)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

-1.620 2.978 -0.923 3.801









Table 9

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Irrelevant-
Responsiveness Factor of the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 15.86 15.86 1.36

Sex 1 11.72 11.72 1.00

Interaction 1 0.04 0.04 0.003

Residual 121 1414.36 11.69





54

A lower score on this instrument is indicative of less problem

behavior in the classroom. Thus, the DCPG group showed more

improvement than the control group.

However, the analysis of variance data reported in Table

11 indicates no statistically significant difference between

the experimental and control groups. There were no statis-

tically significant interaction effects between group and sex.

Each of the F values was lower than the F statistic needed for

significance at the .05 level of confidence (- 3.91). There-

fore, Hypothesis Five was not rejected.



Hypothesis Six: Self-Esteem


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding self-esteem, as measured by students on the Cooper-

smith Self-Esteem Inventory. An inspection of Table 12 indi-

cates that subjects who received the DCPG had a higher mean

gain score on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (8.030)

than the subjects in the control group (-3.651). A higher

score on this instrument is indicative of greater self-esteem.

Therefore, the DCPG group showed more improvement in self-

esteem than the control group.

The analysis of variance data reported in Table 13 indi-

cates a statistically significant difference between the

experimental and control groups. The F value (15.71) was

higher than the F statistic needed for significance at the .05

level of confidence (- 3.91). The F value obtained also was











Table 10

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist


Experimental Control
(N=71) (N=64)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

-6.775 13.811 -4.656 12.887











Table 11

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Walker Problem
Behavior Identification Checklist by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 182.85 182.85 1.01

Sex 1 85.73 85.73 0.47

Interaction 1 22.83 22.83 0.13

Residual 121 21849.84 180.58













Table 12

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory


Experimental Control
(N=67) (N=63)
Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

8.030 16.688 -3.651 15.136


Table 13

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Coopersmith
Self-Esteem Inventory by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 4168.55 4168.55 15.71

Sex 1 3.61 3.61 0.01

Interaction 1 0.16 0.16 0.0006

Residual 121 32099.69 265.29

*p <.05 (also p <.01)





57

higher than the F statistic needed for significance at the .01

level of confidence ( 6.84). There were no statistically

significant interaction effects between group and sex. Hypothe-

sis Six was rejected.



Hypothesis Seven: Disruptive Behavior


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference between the DCPG group and the control group

regarding classroom behavior, as measured by students on the

Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale. Table 14 indicates that

subjects who received the DCPG had a higher mean gain score

on the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (2.929) than the sub-

jects in the control group (1.032). A higher score on this

instrument is indicative of more positive behavior. There-

fore, the DCPG group had more positive perceptions of their

own behavior than the control group.

The analysis of variance data reported in Table 15 does

not indicate a statistically significant difference between

the experimental and control groups. There were no statis-

tically significant interaction effects between group and sex.

Each of the F values was lower than the F statistic needed for

significance at the .05 level of confidence (--3.91). There-

fore, Hypothesis Seven was not rejected.



Hypothesis Eight: Sex Differences


It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

differences between the sex of subjects in the DCPG and control













Table 14

Mean and Standard Deviation for the Gain Scores on the
Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale


Experimental
(N-=70)
Standard
Mean Deviation

2.929 6.678


Control
(N=63)
Standard
Mean Deviation

1.032 7.157


Table 15

Summary Table for Analysis of Variance for the Disruptive
Behavior Rating Scale by Group and Sex


Source of Sum of Mean F
Variance df Squares Square Value

Group 1 117.10 117.10 2.34

Sex 1 48.00 48.00 0.96

Interaction 1 42.79 42.79 0.86

Residual 121 6052.82 50.02






59

groups as measured by the seven dependent variables. An exami-

nation of Table 16 indicates that females had a higher mean

gain score on the Classroom Disturbance and Disrespect-

Defiance factors, as well as on the WPBIC. On the other four

dependent variables the males had higher mean gain scores.

Thus, it appears that males and females scored approximately

equal.


Means for the


Table 16

Gain Scores by


Sex of Subject


Variable

Classroom
Disturbance

Impatience

Disrespect-
Defiance

Irrelevant-
Responsiveness

WPBIC

SEI

DBRS


Male
N Mean


-1.62

-1.45


74 -2.16


Female
N Mean


-1.56

-2.26


62 -1.16


-1.05

-6.24

2.68

2.72


-1.56

-5.18

2.00

1.24


Thus previous analysis of variance data presented on

Tables 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 indicates no statistically

significant differences between sexes on the seven dependent

variables. None of these F values exceeded the F statistic

needed for significance at the .05 level of confidence (-33.91).

Therefore, Hypothesis Eight was not rejected.







Summary of Results


The DCPG group scored more positively on all dependent

variables than did the control group. Statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence were found on

the Disrespect-Defiance factor of the Devereux Elementary School

Behavior Rating Scale and on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inven-

tory. No statistically significant differences were found

between experimental and control groups on the other five

dependent variables. No significant differences were found

between sexes on any of the dependent variables. No signifi-

cant interaction effects between group (experimental-control)

and sex (female-male) were found on any of the seven dependent

variables.












CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION



Research Summary


The purpose of this study was to measure the therapeutic

effectiveness of a developmentally based group counseling unit,

the Disruptive Child's Play Group (DCPG) on third grade chil-

dren who were exhibiting disruptive behavior in the classroom.

Specifically the study examined eight hypotheses regarding the

subjects' classroom behavior and self-esteem.

Disruptive third graders were selected from 13 schools

in Alachua County, Florida. From this group an experimental

group (N=71) and a control group (N=66) were randomly selected

from a separate list of boys and girls for each school. There

were 62 girls and 75 boys in the research.

The study lasted a total of eight weeks. During the first

week, the counselor from each of the 13 schools randomly

assigned students to experimental and control groups. During

the second week, each counselor collected preassessment data.

The teachers of children in the study were asked to complete

the items related to four factors of the Devereux Elementary

School Behavior Rating Scale and the entire Walker Behavior

Problem Identification Checklist. The subjects completed the

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and the Disruptive Behavior

Rating Scale.






62

Over the next five weeks the treatment, the DCPG, was led

by the elementary counselor in each school. The control group

received no treatment during that time. During the eighth week,

the same criterion measures as in the preassessment were

administered for pcstassessment.

The data collected were analyzed by multiple regression

analyses to determine the effects of the two independent vari-

ables (group and sex of subject) on each of the dependent

variable measures. These data related directly to the following

hypotheses:

1. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Classroom Disturbance, as meas-
ured by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior
Rating Scale.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

the experimental and control groups indicated no statistically

significant differences at the .05 level of confidence.

Hypothesis One was not rejected.

2. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Impatience, as measured by the
Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

The analysis of variance indicated no statistically signifi-

cant differences between the mean gain scores of the experimental

and control groups at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis

Two was not rejected.

3. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Disrespect-Defiance, as measured
by the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating
Scale.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of






63

the experimental and control groups indicated a statistically

significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothe-

sis Three was rejected.

4. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
the variable of Irrelevant-Responsiveness, as
measured by the Devereux Elementary School
Behavior Rating Scale.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

the experimental and control groups indicated no statistically

significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothe-

sis Four was not rejected.

5. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
classroom behavior, as measured by teachers on
the Walker Problem Behavior Identification
Checklist.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

the experimental and control groups indicated no statistically

significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothe-

sis Five was not rejected.

6. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
self-esteem, as measured by the Coopersmith
Self-Esteem Inventory.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

the experimental and control groups indicated a statistically

significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothe-

sis Six was rejected.

7. There will be no significant difference between
the DCPG group and the control group regarding
classroom behavior, as measured by the Disruptive
Behavior Rating Scale.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

the experimental and control groups indicated no statistically






64

significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothe-

sis Seven was not rejected.

8. There will be no significant differences in
the criterion measures on the basis of sex.

The analysis of variance comparing the mean gain scores of

boys and girls on the dependent variables indicated no statis-

tically significant difference at the .05 level of confidence.

Hypothesis Eight was not rejected.



Discussion of Results


Two statistically significant results which may have far-

reaching implications for students, teachers, and school

counselors were obtained in this study.

There was a significant difference in the mean gain scores

between the experimental and control groups on the Coopersmith

Self-Esteem Irnventory. Both boys and girls in the experimental

group improved their self-concept significantly.

The DCPG was not specifically designed to increase self-

concept yet this was a significant result. Perhaps this result

was due to the DCPG's focus on understanding and accepting

feelings. According to Wittmer and Myrick (1974), as a child

is made aware of his own and other people's feelings, he tends

to become less guilty, less afraid, and less anxious about his

feelings. Therefore, he does not have to deny an important

part of himself and increase in self-concept may result.

Another possibility is that the group experience itself,

rather than the actual activities, caused the increase in self-





65

concept. It may be that the peer interaction in a nonthreatening

environment provided the opportunity for positive growth. Per-

haps it was the special attention the experimental group was

receiving from the counselor that caused improvement. In a

replication of this study, the addition of a placebo group that

would spend time with the counselor but would not receive

structured treatment would test the possibility of this

explanation.

This result is important since there is a substantial

amount of evidence which indicates that children with more

positive self-concepts are less anxious, better adjusted,

more popular, more effective, more honest, and less defensive

than children with lower self-concepts (McCandless, 1961).

A study by Coopersmith (1959) with fifth and sixth grade chil-

dren indicated a correlation of .36 between a positive self-

concept and school adjustment. Children who received the DCPG

treatment improved their self-concepts thereby opening the

door toward greater school and social adjustment.

There also was a significant difference in the mean gain

scores between the experimental and control groups on the

Disrespect-Defiance factor of the Devereux Elementary School

Behavior Rating Scale. Both the boys and the girls in the

experimental group improved significantly. The items in this

factor measure the extent to which a child exhibits open dis-

respect for or resistance to the school, the subject matter

being taught, and the teacher. This kind of behavior directly

relates to disruptive behavior as described in this study.





66

Therefore, it appears that the DCPG did facilitate some positive

behavior in the classroom.

The two significant results stated above could possibly

be related. As previously stated, a positive self-concept may

lead to more positive behaviors within the classroom. In this

study, the DCPG facilitated improvement in the children's self-

concepts which, in turn, may have facilitated the reduction of

their disrespectful and defiant attitudes toward school. More

research is needed to determine whether the DCPG treatment or

the improvement in self-concept actually caused the more posi-

tive classroom behaviors.

The main goal of the DCPG was to decrease disruptive

behaviors in the classroom. Statistically significant results

were obtained only on the Disrespect-Defiance scale of the

Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. Other types

of disruptive behavior such as hitting, fighting, teasing, etc.

did not decrease significantly. However, there was a noted

trend of improvement (i.e.,less disruptive) of the DCPG group

for all such behaviors as measured by the criterion instruments.

Since a positive trend was noted, perhaps some modifica-

tions of the DCPG would lead to statistically significant

results. Such modifications may include increasing the number

of sessions, increasing the number of sessions per week, and/or

increasing the amount of time per session.

Another possible explanation for the lack of decrease in

disruptive behaviors may be counselor ineffectiveness. Such

ineffectiveness may be the result of the counselor's lack of





67

skill, enthusiasm, and/or preparation for the sessions. Perhaps

additional training sessions before starting the DCPG would help

eliminate these problems.

It also was difficult to be sure whether counselors

administered the instruments as they were instructed to by

this researcher. The counselors were told to read each item

of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and the Disruptive

Behavior Rating Scale to each child to insure that the child

understood what was being asked. The counselors also were

asked to explain the Devereux Elementary School Behavior

Rating Scale and the Walker Problem Behavior Identification

Checklist to the teachers. The counselors were asked to check

the instruments to make sure teachers and students correctly

marked all the items of their respective instruments. In a

few cases this procedure was not completely followed. Some

students and teachers left out items which therefore had to

be recorded as missing data. Since this researcher could not

have been on hand to help administer the instruments at each

school, he is not certain that all the counselors read the

items to the children.

A replication of this study with other modifications might

be worthwhile. Since students' self-esteem was enhanced and

their defiance and hostility toward school reduced, it would

be interesting to include academic performance as a dependent

variable.

It also would be valuable to do a follow-up study at

various time intervals after completion of the DCPG. Perhaps







by administering the instruments a month after and then six

months after the DCPG treatment, it would be possible to

determine whether there are long-term effects of the unit.

In order for such a follow-up to be done it would be necessary

to start the study toward the beginning of the school year.

This study was done with disruptive third grade children.

The study should be replicated using other elementary grade

children to determine if positive results can be obtained with

other grades. In addition, it is possible that structured

play process, as used in the DCPG, can be effective with other

target populations such as children from divorced homes, shy

children, or low academic achievers.

The results of this study imply that counselors using

structured play process can have some positive effects on the

attitudes of disruptive children. However, the DCPG, in its

present form, did not significantly reduce disruptive behavior.

Perhaps with modification of the unit a decrease in disruptive

behaviors would be achieved. The DCPG does, in its present

form, significantly increase self-concepts in disruptive

children. Such a change in self-concept may be the first step

toward improving classroom behavior.











APPENDIX A


TEACHER GUIDELINE LETTER



January 10, 1977

Dear Third Grade Teacher,

During the next few weeks the elementary guidance coun-
selor in your school will be offering a structured group
counseling unit for disruptive children. This program is part
of a research study on group counseling with elementary school
disruptive children.
Your counselor will need your help in selecting the chil-
dren to participate in the group and to fill out pre- and post-
data for the children selected. Please submit the names of
six children in your class (3 boys and 3 girls) who you feel
exhibit the most disruptive behavior. By disruptive behavior,
it is meant behavior which is socially unacceptable in a
classroom such as shouting, hitting, teasing, tripping others,
kicking, running around, throwing objects, disturbing others,
hurting others' feelings, and verbal abuse. Be sure to choose
your most disruptive children, children who exhibit this kind
of behavior most frequently.

Sincerely,


Robert T. Bleck
Elementary Guidance Counselor
Littlewood Elementary School



Teacher:

The children I have selected are:

Girls Boys

1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.











APPENDIX B

OUTLINE OF TOPICS COVERED AT PRELIMINARY COUNSELOR MEETING



The following topics were covered by the researcher at a

meeting held on January 6, 1977, the week before this study

began. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the study

to the participating counselors.


I. Brief introduction to the study and explanation of its
purpose.

II. Counselors check their folders for the following materials:

A. Sample paper bag puppet

B. Plain paper bags (10)

C. Sample name tag

D. Teacher guideline letters (6 copies)

E. Random number table

F. DCPG unit

G. Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (12 copies)

H. Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (12 copies)

I. Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist
(12 copies)

J. Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale
(12 copies)

K. Time schedule

III. Explanation of the population and sample selection
procedures.

A. Counselors should give each third grade teacher
in their school a copy of the teacher guideline
letter and explain it to them.







1. Counselors should tell teachers not to
choose educable mentally retarded or
emotionally disturbed special education
students.

B. Counselors should use random number table to randomly
assign students to control and experimental groups.

C. Counselors should send teacher guideline letters back
to researcher, making sure the name of their school
is on the envelope.

IV. Explanation of each session of the DCPG unit.

V. Explanation of the administration and scoring of the
instruments for both pre- and postassessment data.

A. Counselors were told they would be given copies of
the instruments for the postassessment during the
seventh week of the study.

B. Counselors should send the instruments to the
researcher in an envelope with the name of their
school on it after they finish scoring the
instruments.

VI. Explanation of monitoring process.

A. Counselors were told that the researcher would call
them on the telephone or visit them if necessary
once a week to discuss their progress in the study.

VII. Explanation of the time schedule for the study.












APPENDIX C

SCHEDULE FOR THE DCPG RESEARCH STUDY



It is important to the validity of this study as well as

helpful to the researcher to maintain the same time schedule

in each school. In order to do this a schedule is provided

here. Your cooperation in following this schedule as closely

as possible will be greatly appreciated.


January 7 or January 10:
Give out and explain teacher letter.

January 11 through January 14:
Week 1--Population and sampling procedures.

January 16 through January 21:
Week 2--Arrange a time for DCPG group to meet.
Collect and score preassessment instruments.
Send preassessment data to researcher.

January 24 through January 28:
Week 3--Sessions 1 and 2 of the DCPG.

January 31 through February 4:
Week 4--Sessions 3 and 4 of the DCPG.

February 7 through February 11:
Week 5--Sessions 5 and 6 of the DCPG.

February 14 through February 18:
Week 6--Sessions 7 and 8 of the DCPG.

February 21 through February 25:
Week 7--Sessions 9 and 10 of the DCPG.

February 28 through March 4:
Week 8--Administer and score postassessment instruments.
Send postassessment instruments to researcher.

Please note: There is no school for students on
January 24 and February 21. If you
have a session scheduled for those
days you will need to reschedule it.












APPENDIX D


CHECKLIST FOR


MONITORING COUNSELOR PROGRESS IN DISRUPTIVE
CHILD'S PLAY GROUP SESSIONS


Session


2 3


4


Counselor's name
Phone number_ _
Counselor's name
Phone number


Counselor's name
Phone number


7 8 9 10


Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number
Counselor's name
Phone number_ _


3------~ 1 I I I I I












APPENDIX E


THE DISRUPTIVE CHILD'S PLAY GROUP



Robert T. Bleck
Littlewood Elementary

Goals:

1. Help the child to decrease the frequency of disruptive
school behavior.

2. Help the child to clarify and accept feelings.

3. Help the child to demonstrate consideration of other's
feelings and needs.

4. Assist the child to investigate socially acceptable
coping behaviors.

5. Help the child to improve peer and teacher relationships.

Session I

Objectives:

1. The children will learn the names of all other
members of the group.

2. The group will discuss cooperatively some rules for
group discussion.

3. The children will model from clay something they
have that means a great deal to them.

4. The children will share their clay models with the
group.

Materials: A large fistful of clay for each child, chart paper
or poster board, and a magic marker.

Activities:

1. Name Game. The counselor asks, "Is there anyone in
the group who can name everyone else?" All those who
wish to try are given the opportunity. The counselor
also tries to name every child. If anyone can name
all the first names he or she is then asked to name
all the surnames.







2. Discussion rules. The counselor says, "Knowing each
other's names is just the first step for working well
in groups. Sometimes people have trouble working in
groups if they don't agree on some basic rules. What
are some easy rules that might help our discussions
to be better?" The counselor should elicit the
following basic rules from the group:

(a) One person speaks at a time
(b) Raise your hand if you wish to speak
(c) Anything said is O.K.
(d) Listen to and think about what others say
(e) Anything said in the group is private for
the group only

As the group decides on the rules, the counselor
writes them on a chart which will be hung up for the
remainder of the sessions to remind the children of
the rules.

3. Clay modeling. The counselor explains, "We are just
beginning to get to know each other. There are some
things we can see about each other; for example, the
way we dress, the color of our eyes, and how we wear
our hair. However, we all have information about
ourselves that maybe only a few people know. A good
way to learn about each other is to share some of
this information." The counselor passes out clay to
each child while giving the following directions:
"I'm giving each of you some clay and I would like
you to make something that you have that means a
great deal to you. I might make my baseball glove
because I have played many good baseball games with
it. Someone else might make their favorite doll.
Try to think of something you have that really means
a lot to you and make it out of clay." When every-
one is finished, the counselor encourages the group
members to share what they have made and give
reasons for their selection. Similarities and
differences in choices are pointed out.

Session [I



1. The children will review the rules for group discussion.

2. The children will have the opportunity to self-disclose
morr of themselves by drawing an animal that is most
like themselves and sharing it with the group.


Materials: Paper and crayons.







Activities:

1. Review of rules. The counselor hides the rule chart
from Session I so the children may not see it. The
counselor begins by saying, "Let's see how good your
memories are. Last session we came up with some
rules for good group discussions. Would someone
tell us one." The counselor gives group members a
chance to tell all the rules from Session I. Then
the counselor says, "You have such good memories:
I'm going to put our rule chart back on the wall so
you may look at it if you have trouble remembering
a rule later on."

2. Animal drawings. The counselor introduces this
activity by saying, "Last session we began getting
to know each other by sharing clay models of some-
thing we have that means a lot to us. Today we
are going to learn more about each other. I'm
going to hand out a piece of paper and some crayons.
I would like you to put your name on the paper and
draw one animal that you feel is most like you.
For example, I might draw a lion because when I get
angry I growl at people. Someone else I knew drew
a bear because he was very lazy and liked to sleep.
Another person I knew drew a mouse because she
loved to eat cheese. Other people drew deer because
they were as gentle as little deer. Remember, try
to think of an animal that is most like you." When
everyone finishes their drawing the counselor
encourages group members to share their animals.
Similarities and differences are pointed out.

Session III

Objectives:

1. Each child will tell at least one thing he learned
about someone else in the group.

2. The group will cooperatively write two lists of
feelings words, one of pleasant feelings and the
other unpleasant feelings.

3. Each child will choose a feeling word from the lists
and act it out in a game of charades.

Materials: Chalkboard or chart paper and a magic marker.

Activities:

1. What have we learned. The counselor says, "We have
learned some new things about each other. Who would
like to tell us one new thing they learned about







someone in this group." Each child who wishes to,
states at least one new thing he learned about
another group member.

2. Feeling words. The counselor continues, "Another
way to understand ourselves and others is to under-
stand and share our feelings. Now, we are going to
list as many feelings as we can think of. We'll
make two lists, one for pleasant feelings and one
for unpleasant feelings. Let's list as many as we
can." As the children name a feeling, the counselor
uses the blackboard or chart paper to write the
feeling on the appropriate list. If the children
are having difficulty listing feelings, the coun-
selor may ask questions such as, "How do you feel
on your birthday? How do you feel when you are
losing a game?"

3. Feelings charade. After the children list as many
feelings as they can, the counselor says, "I want
a volunteer to choose a feeling from either list,
whisper it to me, and act out what you would do
and how you would look if you were feeling that
feeling. The other members of the group will try
to guess which feeling you are acting out. Who
would like to be first?" If the children are
hesitant, the counselor might act out a feeling
for them first to demonstrate. Each child who
wants to should be given the opportunity to act
out a feeling.

Session IV

Objectives:

1. The children will paint a picture showing a time
they were in an argument or fight at school.

2. The children will paint a picture showing a time
their teacher was mad at them or punished them.

3. The children will share and discuss their pictures
with the group.

Materials: Paper, paint, paintbrushes.

Activities:

1. Picture painting. The counselor gives each child
two pieces of paper, paint, and paintbrushes. The
counselor says, "Today I'd like everyone to paint
two pictures. The first one should be a picture
of a time you were in an argument or fight at
school. The second one should be a picture of a







time your teacher was mad at you or punished you.
You will have 10 minutes to do your paintings.
You may begin now." The counselor should encour-
age the children as they paint.

After everyone cleans up the counselor says, "We
would all like to see each others' paintings, so
let's take turns showing our pictures and telling
about them." Each child should explain the inci-
dent he has painted while holding his painting so
others can see it. The counselor should ask the
children such questions as:
1) Why did you get into that fight or argument?
2) How did you feel when the fight or argument was
over?
3) What could you have done to have avoided the fight
or argument?
4) Why was your teacher mad at you?
5) Do you think your teacher was right to be mad?
6) How did you feel when your teacher was angry?
How do you think your teacher felt?
7) What could you have done so that your teacher
would not have been angry?

Session V

Objectives:

1. The children will roleplay potentially disruptive
behavior situations.

2. The children will discuss feelings evoked by each
situation.

3. The children will roleplay alternative responses
to each situation.

4. The children will discuss the consequences of each
alternative.

Materials: Toy trucks, dolls, and jacks.

Activities:

1. Roleplay problems. The counselor introduces this
activity by saying, "We all find ourselves in situa-
tions which get us angry, so angry we may want to
hurt someone else. Everybody gets angry. I want to
do some acting now. I will be the director and tell
what story we will act out. I will need you to be
the actors. The first story we will act begins like
this: You and a friend are playing catch on the
playground. Someone comes up behind you and pushes
you so that you will drop the ball and then starts
laughing at you.







"Now I need some volunteers to be the children in
this story." The counselor assigns parts to chil-
dren and has them do the roleplay while the others
in the group watch. If the children are having
trouble roleplaying, the counselor, or another
group member, may suggest dialog or action. Each
roleplay will last about 3 minutes.

After the roleplay situation the counselor leads
a discussion focusing on the feelings and behaviors
of each character. The counselor then asks the
members to suggest alternative ways of dealing with
the enacted problem. The counselor then asks for
volunteers to re-enact the situation using the new
alternatives. As before, a discussion of feelings,
behaviors, and consequences will follow.

As time allows, any of the following roleplay situa-
tions can be acted and discussed in the same manner:

(a) You ride your bicycle by a person in your
class that you don't like. As you ride by
him he calls you a stupid pig.
(b) Your parents blame you and punish you for
something you did not do (breaking a lamp).
(c) Your brother or sister takes one of your
favorite new toys without asking you. Then
he or she accidentally breaks it. You come
in just in time to see your brother or sister
trying to fix it.

Session VI

Objectives:

1. The children will make "teacher and student" puppets.

Materials: Six small paper bags with no writing on them,
crayons, magic markers, glue, scissors, scraps
of colored construction paper.
Optional: Yarn, ribbon, tissue paper, material,
or other scraps.

Activity:

1. Making puppets. The counselor should set up art
materials around a large table so that children will
have to share materials but still have enough room
to work. Each child should be given a paper bag,
markers, glue, and scissors. The rest of the material
should be shared. The counselor says, "We are all
going to make puppets. Five of us are going to make
'student' puppets and one of us is going to make a
'teacher' puppet." I need a volunteer to make the







teacher puppet." The counselor chooses one group
member to make the teacher puppet.

The counselor then explains how to make a paper
bag puppet (it is helpful to have a sample made
so the children can easily see how it is done).
"Before you begin, let me give you some directions.
Do not unfold your bag. The bottom flap of the
bag will be the face and moving part of the puppet."
The counselor demonstrates as he is speaking. "You
may decorate your puppet anyway you wish. You might
want to use colored paper or material for clothes.
You might like to use yarn or tissue paper for hair.
Remember, you are making student puppets and a
teacher puppet. Be sure to put a face on your
puppet." The counselor helps the students as they
make their puppets. When the children are finished
the counselor collects the puppets so that they
may be used in the next session.

Session VII

Objectives:

1. The children will develop a list of problem situations
at school which might evoke disruptive behavior.

2. The children will select from the list the three
situations which are of most concern to them.

3. The children will dramatize the selected situations
through the puppeiplay.

4. The children will discuss feelings portrayed through
the puppetry.

5. The children will dramatize alternative ways of
dealing with the problem situations and discuss the
consequences of each alternative.

Materials: The puppets which were made in Session VI, black-
board or chart paper, and markers.

Activities:

1. Brainstorming problems. The counselor says, "During
the last few weeks we have talked about some situa-
tions which may cause us to get angry. Last time I
made up the situations and you acted them out. This
time, I'd like you to think of problem situations
that you face at school. For example, you may be
standing in line to get your lunch and someone butts
in line in front of you. We will list as many prob-
lems as we can think of. Don't be afraid to mention
any problem which comes to your mind, as long as it







happens in school." The counselor lists the problems
on the blackboard or on chart paper as each child
contributes one.

2. Ranking problems. The counselor then says, "Now
let's decide which three of these situations
bother us the most by taking a vote." The group
then votes on which situations bother them the
most. The three situations which receive the most
votes will be dramatized by puppetplay.

3. Puppetplay problems. The counselor says, "Now we
are going to use our puppets to act out the first
situation. I need some volunteers to be in this
first situation." The counselor chooses children
to act out each part with their puppets. If the
children are having trouble with their puppetplay,
the counselor, or another group member, may con-
tribute dialog or action. Each puppetplay will last
about 3 minutes.

After the puppetplay situation, the counselor leads
a discussion focusing on the feelings and behaviors
of each character. The counselor then asks the
members to suggest alternative ways of dealing
with the enacted problem. The counselor asks for
volunteers to re-enact the situation using the new
alternatives. Again, a discussion of feelings,
behaviors, and consequences will follow.

The counselor proceeds in a similar manner for the
other two puppetplay situations. If time permits,
the children may dramatize other situations on
their list.

Session VIII

Objectives:

1. The children will learn to cooperate with each other
by participating in the puzzle experience.

2. The children will share their feelings about the
puzzle experience.

Materials: Three puzzles (each puzzle contains 15 pieces and
forms a 9" by 6" picture), three blindfolds.

Activities:

1. Puzzle experience. The counselor shows the group
three puzzles all put together and says, "Here are
three simple puzzles which I'm sure all of you could
put together. I would like three of you to each put







a puzzle together, and then the other three will
get a chance to try." The counselor takes the
puzzles apart and lets each child take a turn at
putting the puzzles together.

Next the counselor says, "That was simple enough.
Now we're going to play a game. I'm going to blind-
fold each of you and ask you to put the puzzle
together with the blindfold on. I challenge anyone
to do this within two minutes. I would like three
volunteers to go first." The counselor blindfolds
the first three children, sits them down in front
of their puzzle, and gives them a starting signal.
After two minutes the counselor says stop. Then
the other three children take their turn. After
this experience, the counselor leads a discussion
on how the children felt about it.

Next the counselor says, "Now we are going to change
this game. I want each of you to choose a partner
and sit next to him." After the children find a
partner the counselor continues, "I'm going to
blindfold one person from each pair and ask that
person to put the puzzle together with the help
of his partner. The partner may help the blindfolded
person put the puzzle together in any way except
actually putting the pieces on the puzzle board
himself. The partner can give directions, hand
puzzle pieces to the blindfolded person, and guide
the blindfolded person's hand. Are there any
questions?" The counselor answers any questions
the children may have. Then the counselor blindfolds
one child from each pair and gives the puzzle pieces
to the other partner. A starting signal is given
and the children begin the task. The children should
be given ample time to complete the task. Roles
should be reversed so that the other child also may
experience being blindfolded and helped.

A discussion of feelings evoked by the experience
follows. The counselor concludes the session by
summarizing the feelings mentioned, pointing out
similarities and differences and saying, "We all
feel angry and frustrated at times, like when we
were blindfolded and tried to put the puzzle together
ourselves. But we have learned that if we cooperate
with someone else we can often solve our problems.
When we worked in partners we were able to put the
puzzle together. We completed the puzzle by coop-
erating even though we couldn't do it ourselves."







Session IX

Objective:

1. The children will model out of clay an object they
wish to give to a partner and explain their selection
to the group.

Material: A large fistful of clay per student.

Activity:

1. Clay modeling. The counselor begins by saying, "I
would like each of you to choose a partner and sit
together." After the children are sitting in
partners, the counselor gives each child some clay.
"Now that we have gotten to know each other better,
I want you to think about your partner. Try to
think of something you would give him if you could
give him anything in the world. One girl I know
made a puppy for her partner because she knew her
partner always wanted a dog. One boy gave to his
partner a magic pencil that always wrote neatly
because he knew his partner had a messy handwriting.
When you have thought of something you'd like to
give your partner make it out of clay. Be prepared
to explain what you have made." The counselor helps
the children as they make their clay objects.

After all the children have finished the counselor
says, "Now we are going to take turns giving our
objects to each other and explaining why we are
giving them to our partner." Each child gives and
explains his object. The counselor points out dif-
ferences and similarities in the objects, the
reasons for giving the objects, and the feelings
behind the reasons.

Session X

Objective:

1. The children will give positive feedback to each other.

Materials: Colored magic markers, at least a 5" by 14" piece
of poster board for each student.

Activity:

1. Strength bombardment. The counselor says, "We know
each other well enough to tell each other some good
things about each other. I'm giving each of you a
piece of poster board and some magic markers. You
are to use the magic markers to write your first name







on your poster board. Make sure you write it big
enough to be seen easily." The counselor helps
those who need it while the children make their
name tags.

When everyone is finished, the counselor says, "I
want everyone to pass their name tag to me. I'm
going to pick one name tag out at a time. I will
hold it up so we can all see the name on it. I
want each of you to tell the person whose name tag
I chose something good about him or her. For
example, you might say, 'You have pretty hair,' or
'You have a good sense of humor,' or 'You like to
help others.' As each of you say something good
to the person, I will write it down on his name tag
so that he may keep it and remember it." The coun-
selor chooses a name tag and gives each child a
turn to say something good about that person. The
child whose name tag is chosen listens to what the
others say about him. The counselor proceeds in a
similar manner until each child's name tag has been
chosen. After the children get their name tags
back, the counselor encourages those who wish to
share their feelings with the group asking such
questions as:
1) How did it feel to hear others say nice things
about you?
2) Were you surprised at anything that was said
about you?
3) How did it feel to tell someone something nice?
4) Can you think of anyone outside of this group
who you would like to say something nice to?











APPENDIX F

THE DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE



by

Robert T. Bleck


Name Date

Teacher Grade

School

Directions: Circle the word in parentheses that best describes
your behavior for the past two weeks.

1. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) do what I'm
supposed to do.

2. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) argue with
other children.

3. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) make fun
of or laugh at other children.

4. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) poke or
push other children.

5. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) take some-
thing that belongs to someone else without asking.

6. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) follow my
teacher's directions.

7. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) fight with
other children.

8. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) complete my
school work on time.

9. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) am punished
by my teacher.

10. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) get my
teacher angry with me.





86
11. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) talk when
I'm not supposed to.

12. I (rarely) (sometimes) (often) (almost always) shout out
in class.











REFERENCES


Amster, F. Differential uses of play in treatment of young
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1943, 13,
62-68.

Axline, V. M. Play therapy. New York: Ballantine Books, 1947.

Bandura, A., & Houston, A. Identification as a process of
incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1961, 63, 311-318.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. Imitation of film-mediated
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. (a)

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. Vicarious reinforcement
and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 67, 601-607. (b)

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. Adolescent aggression. New
York: Ronald Press, 1959.

Barclay, J. Effecting behavior changes in the elementary
classroom. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14,
240-247.

Baruch, D. One little boy. New York: The Julian Press, 1952.

Becker, W. Consequences of different kinds of parental
discipline. In M. Hoffman & L. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of
child development research (Vol. 1). New York: Russel
Sage, 1964, 169-205.

Berlyne, D. Arousal and reinforcement. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 1967, 15, 1-100.

Biasco, F. The effects of individual counseling, mulLiple
counseling, and teacher guidance upon the sociometric
status of children enrolled in grades four, five, and
six. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27, 223.

Bleck, R., Gumaer, J., & Loesch, L. C. Counselors in the class-
room: The feelings class. The Humanist Educator, 1976,
14, 88-93.







Brembeck, C. S. The discovery of teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.

Brown, P., & Elliot, R. Control of aggression in a nursery
school class. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
1965, 2, 103-107.

Buss, A. H. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1961.

Buss, A. H. Physical aggression in relation to different
frustration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963, 62, 1-7.

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi experimental
designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Carkuff, R. R. Helping and human relations, Vol. 1, Selection
and training. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.

Clement, P. W., & Milne, D. Group play therapy and tangible
reinforcers used to modify the behavior of eight-year-old
boys. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 301-312.

Clements, T. A study to compare the effectiveness of individual
and group counseling approaches with able underachievers
when counselor time is held constant. Dissertation Abstracts,
1963, 24, 1919-1920.

Cole, N. R. Exploring psychodrama at fifth grade level. In
R. B. Haas (Ed.), Psychodrama and sociodrama in American
education. Beacon, N.Y.: Beacon House, 1949, 243-245.

Conn, J. H. Play interview therapy of castration fears.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1955, 25, 747-754.

Coopersmith, S. A method for determining types of self-esteem.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 52, 87-94.

Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman & Co., 1967.

Creange, N. C. Group counseling for underachieving ninth graders.
School Counselor, 1971, 18, 179-185.

Crider, M. M. A study of the effectiveness of group guidance
upon personality conflict and reading retardation.
Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 26, 4438.

Cross, G., & Robinson, J. A model for structured group experi-
ences. Unpublished manuscript, 1973.

Crow, M. L. A comparison of three group counseling techniques
with sixth graders. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling,
1971, 6, 37-42.




_______________ 4








Davis, R. G. Group therapy and social acceptance in a first-
second grade. Elementary School Journal, 1948, 42, 219-223.

Davitz, J. The effects of previous training on postfrustration
behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 47, 309-315.

Dinkmeyer, D. Guidance and counseling in the elementary
school: Readings in theory and practice. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Dinkmeyer, D., & Caldwell, E. Developmental counseling and
guidance: A comprehensive school approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, 0., & Sears, R.
Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1939.

Eldridge, M. S., Barcikowski, R. S., & Witmer, J. M. Effects
of DUSO on the self-concepts of second grade students.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1972, 2, 256-259.

Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, 1963.

Faust, V. The counselor-consultant in the elementary school.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

Frank, L. K. Play in personality development. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1955, 25, 576-590.

Freud, S. Civilization and its discontents. London: Hogarth,
1930.

Gagne, R. M. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Gazda, G. M., Duncan, J. A., & Meadows, M. E. Group counseling
and group procedures--report of a survey. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1967, 6, 305-310.

Ginott, H. G. Group psychotherapy with children. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Ginott, H. G. Teacher and child. New York: MacMillan Company,
1972.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. Unraveling juvenile delinquency.
New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1950.

Goodenough, F. Anger in young children. Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1931.

Gumaer, J., Bleck, R., & Loesch, L. C. Affective education
through role playing: The feelings class. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1975, 53, 604-608.








Hansen, J. C., Niland, T. M., & Zani, L. P. Model reinforce-
ment in group counseling with elementary school children.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 4~, 741-744.

Harms, E. Play diagnosis: Preliminary considerations for a
sound approach. In G. M. Gazda, Group counseling. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, 68.

Hartmann, H., Kris, E., & Loewenstein, R. Notes on the theory
of aggression. In A. H. Buss, The psychology of aggres-
sion. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, 188.

Hewett, F. M. The emotionally disturbed child in the classroom.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968.

Hinds, W. C., & Roehlke, H. J. A learning approach to group
counseling with elementary school children. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 49-55.

Hokanson, J., Willers, K., & Koropsak, E. The modification of
autonomic responses during aggressive interchange. Journal
of Personality, 1968, 36, 386-404.

Hollenberg, E., & Sperry, M. Some antecedents of aggression
and effects of frustration in doll play. Personality,
1951, 1, 32-43.

Howard, W., & Zimpfer, D. G. The findings of research on group
approaches in elementary guidance and counseling. Elemen-
tary School Guidance and Counseling, 1972, 6, 163-19.

Issac, S., & Michael, W. B. Handbook in research and evalua-
tion. San Diego, Cal.: Robert R. Knapp Co., 1971.

Jensen, G. E. Small-group counseling for under-achieving
primary school children. In H. I. Driver (Ed.), Counseling
and learning through small group discussion. Madison,
Wisc.: Monona Publications, 1958, 286-290.

Jersild, A. Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence.
American Psychologist, 1951, 6, 122-126.

Jones, E. The life and work of Sigmund Freud Vol. 2, Years of
maturity, 1901-1919. New York: Basic Books, 1955.

Koenig, F. G. A group therapy experiment in a city elementary
school. Understanding the Child, 1949, 18, 40-44.

Kranzler, G. D., Mayer, G. R., Doyer, C. 0., & Munger, P. F.
Counseling with elementary school children: An experi-
mental study. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44,
944-949.

Krumboltz, J. D., & Thoresen, C. E. Behavioral counseling:
Cases and techniques. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1969.







Lerche, M. E. Seven sessions with failing students. School
Counselor, 1968, 1, 382-385.

Loesch, L., Myrick, R., & Cross, G. Unpublished instrument
used in schools in Alachua County, Florida, for an
accountability study, 1975.

Loewenstein,R. The vital or somatic instincts. In A. H. Buss,
The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1961, 188.

Lorenz, K. On aggression. New York: Bantam Books, 1966.

Mahler, C. A. Group counseling in the schools. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1969.

Maslow, A. H. Deprivation, threat and frustration. Psycho-
logical Review, 1941, 48, 364-366.

Mayer, R. G., Kranzler, G. D., & Matthes, N. A. Elementary
school counseling and peer relations. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 360-365.

McCandless, B. Children and adolescence: Behavior and develop-
ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.

Millar, S. The psychology of play. Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1968.

Moulin, E. K. The effects of client-centered group counseling
using play media on the intelligence, achievement, and
psycholinguistic abilities of underachieving primary
school children. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling,
1970, 5, 85-98.

Moustakas, C. E. Psychotherapy with children. New York:
Harper, 1959.

Muro, J. Play media in counseling: A brief report of experi-
ence and some opinions. Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 1968, 3, 104-110.

Myrick, R. D., & Haight, D. A. Growth groups: An encounter
with underachievers. School Counselor, 1972, 20, 115-121.

Myrick, R. D., & Haldin, W. A study of play process in
counseling. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling
Journal, 1971, 3, 256-265.

Newcomer, B. L., & Morrison, T. L. Play therapy with institu-
tionalized mentally retarded children. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 78, 727-733.

Ohlsen, M. M. (Ed.) Counseling children in groups--a forum.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973.







Ohlsen, M. M., & Gazda, G. M. Counseling underachieving bright
pupils. Education, 1965, 86, 78-81.

Orlando, R., & Bijou, S. W. Single and multiple schedules of
reinforcement in developmentally retarded children.
Journal of Experiments and Analysis of Behavior, 1960,
3, 339-348.

Patterson, G., Littman, R., & Bricker, W. Assertive behavior
in children: A step toward a theory of aggression.
Monographs in Social Research in Child Development, 1967,
32, 5-6.

Pellar, L. Models of children's play. Mental Hygiene, 1952,
36, 66-83.

Piaget, J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York:
Norton, 1962.

Quay, H. Remediation of the conduct problem child in the
special class setting. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32,
509-515.

Redl, F., & Wineman, D. The aggressive child. Glencoe, Ill.:
The Free Press, 1957.

Rosenzweig, S. An outline of frustration theory. In J. McV.
Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders. New
York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Schiffer, A. L. The effectiveness of group play therapy as
assessed by specific changes in a child's peer relation.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967, 32, 219-220.

Schiffer, M. A therapeutic play group in a public school.
Mental Hygiene, 1957, 41, 185-193.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child-
rearing. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.

Shatter, R. An investigation of the effectiveness of a group
therapy program, including the child and his mother for the
remediation of reading disabilities (Doctoral dissertation,
New York University, 1956). Dissertation Abstracts, 1957,
72, 1032. (University Microfilms No. 00-20295)

Skinner, B. F. The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1968.

Slavson, S. R. Differential methods of group therapy in rela-
tion to age levels. Nervous Child, 1945, 4, 196-210.

Solomon, J. C. Active play therapy: Further experiences.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1940, 10, 763-781.








Spivack, G., & Swift, M. Devereux elementary school behavior
rating scale manual. Devon, Penn.: The Devereux
Foundation, 1967.

Strickler, E. Educational group counseling within a remedial
reading program (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts, 1965,
25, 5129-5130. (University Microfilms No. 65-01284)

Thomas, G. M. Using videotaped modeling to increase attending
behavior. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1974,
9, 35-40.

Thombs, M. R., & Muro, J. J. Group counseling and the socio-
metric status of second grade children. Elementary School
Guidance and Counseling, 1973, 2, 194-197.

Updegraff, R., & Keister, M. A study of children's reactions
to failure and an experimental attempt to modify them.
Child Development, 1937, 8, 241-248.

Waelder, R. The psychoanalytic theory of play. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 1933, 2, 208-224.

Walker, H. M. Walker problem behavior identification check-
list manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services,
1970.

Walters, R., & Brown, M. Studies of reinforcement of aggression:
III, Transfer of responses to an interpersonal situation.
Child Development, 1963, j3, 563-571.

Warner, R., Niland, T., & Maynard, P. Group counseling with
elementary school children. Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 1971, I, 248-255.

Warner, R. W., Niland, T. M., & Peters, M. E. Model-reinforcement
group counseling with elementary school children. Elemen-
tary School Guidance and Counseling, 1971, 5, 249-255.

Wells, C. G. Psychodrama and creative counseling in the elemen-
tary school. Group Psychotherapy, 1962, 15, 244-252.

Whelan, R. The relevance of behavior modification procedures
for teachers of emotionally disturbed children. In P.
Kroblock (Ed.), Interventions approaches in education of
emotionally disturbed children. Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1966.

Winkler, R. C., Tregland, J. J., Munger, P. F., & Kranzler, G.D.
The effects of selected counseling and remedial techniques
on underachieving elementary school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 384-387.





94

Wittmer, J., & Myrick, R. D. Facilitative teaching: Theory
and practice. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear
Publishing Company, Inc., 1974.

Zipf, S. Resistance and conformity under reward and punishment.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 102-
109.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs