TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER’S PERCEPTION OF A TIER 1 POSITIVE
BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION AND SUPPORTS (PBIS) FRAMEWORK

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education (EdD)

John Patrick Shaffer Jr.
California University of Pennsylvania
June 2022

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

ii

© Copyright by
John P Shaffer
All Rights Reserved
June 2022

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

iii

California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

We hereby approve the capstone of

John Patrick Shaffer Jr.

Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Dr. Todd Keruskin
Associate Professor
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair

Dr. Michael Robinson
CLSD Director of Secondary Education
Doctoral Capstone Faculty External Chair

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

iv

Dedication
I am dedicating this Doctoral Capstone Project to the people who have been in my
life, who have supported me through the good times and the rough times, not only during
this journey but also during my career and personal life. To my colleagues who have
listened to me preach about my topic, complain about my topic, and be excited or
frustrated about a portion of this process, I truly appreciate you. To my Mom, thank you
for always believing in me, pushing me to do my best, and telling me to accomplish what
I started. To my Dad, who is not here, but I feel his presence all the time, thank you for
instilling in me my work ethic, my drive to finish what I started, and to never give up
even if it is hard. Lastly, to my wife, Jennifer, and children, Colin, Emersyn, and Nolan,
thank you for taking this journey with me; thank you for allowing me to complete this
process that I thought I would never complete. Furthermore, thank you for being so
patient with me when I was frustrated or tired, and thank you for just being there to
brighten my day when I needed it the most. I love you all, and you cannot imagine how
important all of you are in my life, and during this journey.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

v

Acknowledgements
To begin with, I would like to acknowledge my family, friends, and colleagues
who have been by my side during this journey. Thank you for being a sounding board
and a positive influence in my life during this process. I would like to thank California
University of Pennsylvania and all of the Education Department for providing the
opportunity to complete this Doctoral Capstone Project and Program. Dr. Todd
Keruskin, my internal chair, it has been a pleasure to work with you during this last year.
You have made this journey very smooth and I appreciate your patience through all the
emails, zoom calls, and just overall communication we have had; you have eased my
fears and worries more times than you can imagine. Dr. Michael Robinson, my external
chair, thank you for being someone I can trust; your support and honest feedback during
this journey has been greatly appreciated. Dr. Jennifer Stumphy for answering my
questions and being a sounding board, additionally, helping me with this process. Your
calmness and constant positive encouragement was greatly appreciated. Mrs. Emma
Lebo for taking the time to edit my Doctoral Capstone Project. I will never have the
ability to thank everyone or acknowledge everyone, but understand I am very
appreciative of the continued support that I received throughout the process as I
completed this Doctoral Capstone Project.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ xiv
CHAPTER I Introduction ....................................................................................................1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Cornwall-Lebanon School District Overview ................................................................. 1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 7
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................... 9
Research Question 2 .................................................................................................... 9
Research Question 3 .................................................................................................... 9
Desired Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 9
Reflection of the Financial Implications ......................................................................... 9
Building Assistant...................................................................................................... 10
Detention Monitor ..................................................................................................... 11
Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Principal .............................................................................. 11
Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Teacher ............................................................................... 12

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

vii

Professional Development for PBIS Training ........................................................... 12
Incentives for Students .............................................................................................. 12
Alternative Placements .............................................................................................. 13
Alternative Program Used Within The School .......................................................... 13
Description of Indirect Cost .......................................................................................... 14
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER II Review of Literature ...................................................................................16
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16
History of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) ................................. 16
Zero Tolerance ........................................................................................................... 18
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) .................................................. 20
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) ................................................ 21
The Purpose of PBIS ..................................................................................................... 22
Applied Science ......................................................................................................... 23
Human Behavior ........................................................................................................ 28
Schools Utilizing PBIS ................................................................................................. 43
Characteristics of PBIS ......................................................................................................44
PBIS Tiers ..................................................................................................................... 47
PBIS Tier 1 ................................................................................................................ 49
PBIS Tier 2 and 3 ...................................................................................................... 53

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

viii

Potential Obstacles of PBIS ...............................................................................................57
Validity of PBIS ............................................................................................................ 57
Barriers of PBIS ............................................................................................................ 60
Administrative Support.............................................................................................. 60
Staff Buy-In ............................................................................................................... 61
PBIS Misunderstandings ........................................................................................... 63
PBIS Sustainability .................................................................................................... 64
High School Setting ................................................................................................... 69
Student Management ..................................................................................................... 70
Inclusive Discipline or Proactive Discipline ............................................................. 71
Exclusive Discipline or Reactive Discipline ............................................................. 74
Summary ............................................................................................................................76
CHAPTER III Methodology ..............................................................................................79
Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 80
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) ............................................................................. 81
Setting and Participants ............................................................................................. 81
CCHS PBIS Framework ............................................................................................ 85
Research Need ............................................................................................................... 86
Action Research ............................................................................................................ 88
SPBD Survey Validity .................................................................................................. 97

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

ix

Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 109
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 109
Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 109
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 109
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 110
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 112
Data Utilization ........................................................................................................... 113
Validity ........................................................................................................................ 114
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 119
CHAPTER IV Data Analysis and Results .......................................................................121
Overview ..................................................................................................................... 121
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 122
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 122
Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 122
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 122
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 122
Results ......................................................................................................................... 124
SPBD Survey Results .............................................................................................. 124
Research Question One: What is the perception of high school teachers towards a
Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? ............... 131

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

x

Research Question Two: What impact does teacher perception have on student
recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? ....................... 140
Research Question Three: What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a
Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? .................................................... 150
Discipline and Wings of Praise Data ....................................................................... 163
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 167
CHAPTER V Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................169
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 169
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 169
Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 169
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 169
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 170
Facilitators ............................................................................................................... 172
Barriers .................................................................................................................... 176
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 187
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 188
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 190
References ........................................................................................................................192
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................204
Appendix A Institutional Review Board Letter ...............................................................205

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

xi

Appendix B Cornwall-Lebanon School District Research Permission Letter ................206
Appendix C SPBD Survey Consent Form .......................................................................207
Appendix D Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline Survey....................................209
Appendix E PBIS Semi-formal Interview Consent Form................................................218
Appendix F PBIS Semi-formal Interview Questions.......................................................220

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1 Negative School Climate Cycle......................................................................... 34
Figure 2 Positive School Climate Cycle ......................................................................... 35
Figure 3 Definitions of key Terms in Perceptual Control Theory ................................... 39
Figure 4 The Closed Loop: The Basic Unit of Control within PCT ............................... 41
Figure 5 Tiered Continuum of Behavior Support ............................................................ 48
Figure 6 Factors impacting sustainability identified in previous research ...................... 68
Figure 7 Outcomes of PBIS ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 8 Breakdown of Cedar Crest High School’s Professional Staff ........................... 83
Figure 9 Breakdown of Teachers within their Department ............................................. 84
Figure 10 Example List of Professional Staff, Email, and Number ................................ 94
Figure 11 Example of Randomized Selected Professional Staff Members and SemiFormal Interview Procedures ............................................................................................ 95
Figure 12 Data Collected During Phase 2 of SPBD Exploratory Factor Analysis ........ 103
Figure 13 The Five Factors of the SPBD Survey .......................................................... 105
Figure 14 HLM Analyses Data Collected in Phase 3 Relationship to Key Variables ... 106
Figure 15 Threats to External Validity .......................................................................... 116
Figure 16 SPBD Total Participants ................................................................................ 126
Figure 17 Question 23 – Level of Understanding .......................................................... 127
Figure 18 Question 24 – Hours of Professional Development ...................................... 128
Figure 19 Question 25 – PD Helpfulness ...................................................................... 129
Figure 20 Question 26 – Level of Support or Commitment .......................................... 130
Figure 21 Question 27 – Communication ...................................................................... 131

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

xiii

Figure 22 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 1 ....................... 135
Figure 23 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 2 ....................... 143
Figure 24 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 3 ....................... 153
Figure 25 Cedar Crest High School Discipline Data 2018-2022 School Years ............ 164
Figure 26 Cedar Crest High School Discipline for 2018-2022 School Years per
Discipline Consequence .................................................................................................. 166
Figure 27 SPBD Core Item Summary ........................................................................... 171
Figure 28 PAYS Question 15, Positive Feedback from Teachers ................................. 177

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

xiv

Abstract
This action research doctoral capstone project investigates the perceptions of a high
school staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework that was previously implemented into the
school. The importance of this action research was to determine the next steps needed
within the implementation and progression of the PBIS framework. The research
questions posed tried to identify the perceptions of high school staff members, how does
the perception of the staff member’s impact recognizing students on a Tier 1 level, and
the level of buy-in by the staff. These questions were analyzed by utilizing qualitative
and quantitative convergence style of research, which allowed the researcher to
triangulate the results for each research question. The methods used to obtain this data
were through the Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) Survey, created
by Dr. Laura Feuerborn of the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT) and Dr. Ashli
Tyre of Seattle University, an interview of staff members, discipline data compiled from
the researched high school’s student management system, and PBIS data from the same
high school. Results showed three major threads, the first was buy-in by staff members,
the second was continued administrative support and communication, and the last was the
level, high school, in which the PBIS framework was implemented. This action research
created opportunities for the researcher to continue evaluating the PBIS framework
implemented, and other avenues to research, such as the student’s perception.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

1
CHAPTER I
Introduction

Background
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) implemented a Positive Behavior Intervention
and Support (PBIS) framework named Wings of Praise (WofP) during the 2018-2019
school year. Wings of Praise was implemented with no formal professional development
for the staff. This framework has now been implemented into two additional schools
within the district, the Cedar Crest Middle School and South Lebanon Elementary School
with subtle age appropriate adjustments. All of these schools are within the CornwallLebanon School District (CLSD). The area the Researcher would like to investigate are
the perceptions of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework, how this
perception impacts students either in a positive or negative way, and how to increase the
support of the teachers towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework at a high school level.
Teacher support within the PBIS framework is constituted as completing a recognition
slip with which a teacher praises a student for meeting a level of expectation within the
high school setting. Tier 1 systems, data, and practices impact everyone across all
settings. They establish the foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and
preventing unwanted behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Cornwall-Lebanon School District Overview
Cornwall-Lebanon School District is described in the CLSD Comprehensive Plan
(Cornwall-Lebanon School District, 2019) as the following:
Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the south-central part of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and encircles the city of Lebanon. It is part of the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

2

beautiful Lebanon Valley, bound on the north by the Blue Mountains and on the
south by the South Mountains. The center of the district is located about 25 miles
equidistant from Harrisburg to the west, Reading to the east, and Lancaster to the
south.
With a student population of approximately 4798, Cornwall-Lebanon
School District is the largest of six school districts in Lebanon County. Along
with the other Lebanon County districts, it is a member of the Lancaster-Lebanon
Intermediate Unit 13. The Lebanon County Career and Technology Center is
located within District boundaries.
The school district comprises a growing and diverse population. The racial
diversity of students enrolled in the district is 82.28% White; 9.23% Hispanic or
Latino of any race; 4.0% Black or African American; 2.04% Asian; .33% Pacific
Islander; 2% Multi Racial; .01% Native American. Gender breakdown is 49.02%
female, 50.98% male. Currently, 746 students receive special education services,
or 15.55% of the student population. In the CLSD, 96.7% of the students speak
English as their primary language; the remaining 3.3% represent English
Language Learners. Free/Reduced lunch represents 35.4% of the student
population as determined by free (31.3%) and reduced (4.1%) lunch participants.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District is composed of the townships of South
Lebanon, North Cornwall, West Cornwall, and North Lebanon, in addition to the
boroughs of Cornwall and Mount Gretna, and a portion of the city of Lebanon
known as Fairview Heights Annex. Mt. Gretna is a beautiful summer resort area
popular for its well-known summer theater, summer art show, and active

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

3

Chautauqua cultural programs. The Whitaker Center, Giant Center, Lebanon
Community Theater and the Hershey Theater offer cultural arts and
entertainment. Lebanon Valley College and Harrisburg Community College
(Lebanon campus) also offer educational opportunities, within a short driving
distance of our district.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the heart of Pennsylvania
Dutch Country, local heritage includes people from many national origins. The
district consists of 70 square miles inhabited by more than 31,000 residents,
including those living in several planned retirement communities. In addition,
there are many nursing homes and personal care communities throughout the area.
The school district is unique in Pennsylvania in that both the school district
population and the number of residents has increased in size. The school district
encircles an urban center which will continue to affect our demographics.
Lebanon County has a vibrant industrial community. According to the
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Workforce Information &
Analysis data (2017), the Cornwall-Lebanon School District is the fourth largest
employer in Lebanon County. Other top ten industries in the area include the
Federal Government; Farmer's Pride, Inc.; Wellspan Good Samaritan Hospital;
Lebanon School District; Wellspan Philhaven; Walmart; Swift Transportation
Company AZ; and State and County Government. Other notable industries
include Bayer US, LLC; Lebanon Seaboard Corporation; New Penn Motor
Express, Inc.; GPU Energy; AES Ironwood (natural gas power plant); the Daniel

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

4

Weaver Company (Lebanon Bologna); smaller companies; business parks; and
many excellent family farming operations.
A community-based educational foundation, the Falcon Foundation,
supports and enhances educational and enrichment opportunities (social, cultural,
and athletic) for all people in the Cornwall-Lebanon community. Since its
incorporation in 2000, the Foundation has supported many students and staff
members with grants and awards. Many capital projects throughout the District
were made possible by their contributions, including: Automated External
Defibrillators (AEDs) for each district building; TV studio development and new
equipment; auditorium sound equipment; continuous technology equipment and
upgrades throughout the District; Earl Boltz Field scoreboard; grants to
community groups to build lavatory/storage/refreshment stand facilities at the
playing fields on school property near each of the four elementary schools;
upgrades to CCHS planetarium; tennis court lights; and underwriting The Falcon
Perch – Coffee shop for work based learning program.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District can boast of a proud heritage with its
educational roots reaching deep into the early history of America. As early as
1740, the settlers of this area established a school near Fontana. The little oneroom, red brick schoolhouse (and some stone ones, too) had become permanent
parts of the landscape by 1865. By 1890, a graded course of study had been
introduced.
Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, three high schools were in
operation: (1) Bismarck (Quentin), (2) Hebron, and (3) Cornwall. At first, these

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

5

schools offered only two years of secondary instruction; but by 1927, three years
was standard for the three buildings. Construction of two, new modern
consolidated schools at Iona and Cornwall was completed by 1927, and the
curriculum was increased to four years.
In 1952, the school districts of West Cornwall, North Cornwall and
Cornwall Borough signed Articles of Agreement to form a jointure of the three
districts. North Lebanon Township entered the jointure in 1958, and South
Lebanon Township became a member in 1961, at which time a formal application
was made by the Cornwall-Lebanon Suburban Joint School System to the
Department of Public Instruction to build Cedar Crest High School.
Because the concept of the new high school varied from state standards,
special permission was sought and received from the State Board of Education
and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to construct a compact climatecontrolled building, the first of its kind in Pennsylvania.
The groundbreaking ceremony for Cedar Crest High School was held in
March of 1964. Although Cedar Crest High School came into existence in
September of 1965, the students coming to the high school that Fall did not enter
the new building on East Evergreen Road, as it had not yet been completed.
During the 1965-66 school term, all students in grades 10, 11, and 12 attended
classes in the Cornwall High School building. By the spring of 1966, the building
was completed and commencement exercises for the Class of 1966 were
conducted in the gymnasium of the new Cedar Crest High School building.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

6

In July 1966, a merger of all the districts in the jointure and Mt. Gretna
was effected, and the name was changed to Cornwall-Lebanon School District,
now operating under a nine-member school board and a district superintendent.
The District buildings currently include: Cedar Crest High School; Cedar Crest
Middle School; and Cornwall, Ebenezer, South Lebanon, and Union Canal
elementary schools.
The school district is home to a number of historically famous or
nationally known sites:


Cornwall Iron Furnace, the only preserved charcoal, cold-blast iron
furnace in the Western Hemisphere, is located in Cornwall. Cannon and
shot were manufactured there to support George Washington during the
Revolutionary War. The sturdy stone homes in nearby Miners Village are
typical of 19th century industrial villages in this National Historic District.



Union Canal Tunnel, the oldest transportation tunnel in the United States,
was cut through solid rock with pick, shovel, and crowbar, and completed
in 1827 at a length of 729 feet. It is the centerpiece of Union Canal Tunnel
Park, a popular 110-acre recreational area.



Farmers Market in Historical Lebanon occupies the original 1892 farm
market building which has been preserved to the beauty of its 19th century
birth, while creating a twenty-first century shopping experience. A variety
of quality farm produced and handmade items are available for purchase.
In addition to WellSpan Good Samaritan Hospital and Lancaster General

Health, the District also is home to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

7

WellSpan Philhaven. A professional medical/dental park is centrally located in
the District. Access to other fine medical facilities and hospitals, such as the Penn
State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, are within a short driving distance.
Shopping opportunities include several multi-store shopping areas and
many large stores, such as Walmart Supercenter, Home Depot, and Lowe’s. A
variety of eateries are available, as well as, fine dining establishments, such as
Tony’s Mining Company, Inn 422, Trattoria Fratelli, and Timbers Dinner Theatre.
(pp. 4-7)
Purpose of Study
The need to research this topic relies on the implications it could have within
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS). An assistant principal spends a great deal of time
managing student behaviors using negative reinforcement. In the last four years, the
Researcher has utilized a system of positive reinforcement, which was a different
approach to student discipline. All staff members within a high school setting can make
assumptions regarding discipline being proactive and not reactive. As part of this study,
the Researcher wants to consider if student misconduct is affected because of teacher
perception regarding a PBIS framework. Thus, ideally, as discipline is affected, the
school can then focus more on curriculum, teacher development, and increasing
opportunities for students all around. PBIS has demonstrated to effectively enhance
social behavior outcomes in order to promote positive school climates, while contributing
to academic success (Hall et al., 2016).
This topic has been locally developed and implemented by the Researcher for the
past three years. The idea behind PBIS is to increase and recognize the positive behavior

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

8

of students within the school. Since the framework has been instituted within the High
School, there has been minimal change, even a decrease of PBIS utilization. During the
2018-2019 school year, the high school staff of interest submitted 3073 recognition cards,
in the 2019-2020 school year, the same high school staff submitted 1442 recognition
cards up to the date of March 20, 2020, at which time schools were shut down due to
COVID 19. During the 2020-2021 school year, the same high school submitted 1410
recognition cards, the lowest number submitted over the 3 year period. The Researcher
would like to investigate why the decline of teacher participation occurred. What
obstacles or barriers exist that result in non-buy-in or disengagement?
The program implemented in the 2018-2019 school year was called Wings of
Praise (WofP). Wings of Praise is a Tier 1 PBIS framework used locally in the CornwallLebanon School District (CLSD) and at CCHS. The foundation of WofP is to engage
students who are meeting the expectations of the building based off CCHS’s PRIDE
matrix, and provide recognition for their efforts. PRIDE is an acronym, which stands for
P – Personal Responsibility, R – Respect, I – Integrity, D – Dedication, and E –
Excellence. Having local knowledge there is a need in researching the following aspects
of PBIS within a high school setting. These aspects include, the perception of the teacher
utilizing the PBIS framework, how recognition cards are used, and the understanding of
the staff’s perspective and evaluation of this PBIS framework. By cross-referencing and
utilizing the data, the Researcher will then have an action plan to help improve the
framework and examine possible professional development opportunities of a Tier 1
PBIS framework within a high school setting.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

9

Research Questions
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?
Research Question 3
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?
Desired Outcomes
The desired outcome of the research is to determine the perception of the teachers
within Cedar Crest High School. Utilizing this information will provide direction for the
Tier 1 PBIS framework WofP which has been implemented into different schools within
CLSD. Positive or negative, the data collected from this research will provide a roadmap
of what can be accomplished next. The desired outcome of the research will help answer
the questions, “How can the WofP framework be improved and generate staff buy-in
within the high school setting to increase school climate and culture?
Reflection of the Financial Implications
The majority of the WofP framework is supplemented by donations made by local
businesses who want to be involved with the school district. The administration for the
three (3) schools in which WofP is implemented fundraised $19,100.00 during the 20192020 school year; as of now the WofP account has just over $11,000.00 remaining for the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

10

2021-2022 school year. This amount could change depending on fundraising during the
2021-2022 school year. These fundraising efforts took the majority of the burden off the
school district to create and run the PBIS framework, in regard to the incentives, different
programs put on for the students, and maintaining positive opportunities for the students.
There are aspects of the PBIS framework that will not take the complete financial burden
off CLSD. These would be based off student behavior and how each school, particularly
in this investigation the high school, deals with those behaviors. Within the high school,
there are five different positions that work on student discipline. Four of those positions
exist due to negative student behavior within the high school; those positions include the
In School Suspension Coordinator, the high school detention monitor, Cedar Crest Cyber
(C3) Principal, and the C3 Teachers. The goal of this doctoral capstone project is to
understand the perception of the high school professional staff regarding a Tier 1 PBIS
framework, such as WofP and increase their use of it. By enhancing staff usage of WofP,
negative behavior could be reduced within the high school, which could ultimately lessen
the need for some of the following positions.
Building Assistant
In School Suspension (ISS) within CCHS is proctored by a Building Assistant.
At CCHS there is always a need for an ISS Coordinator; but this position could be used
within other areas of our school. Therefore, this position would be a dual role within the
high school, and ISS would only be used on certain days. The salary, benefits, retirement
benefits, and FICA are set costs that exist with the position as long as the school district
employs that position.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

11

Detention Monitor
This position is utilized 165 days of the school year, or four days a week during
the school year, and for one hour and 15 minutes each day at the professional rate of one
of the CLSD teachers. If the perception of WofP has an impact, this will drop the amount
of time needed for detentions within the building. The majority of the detentions within
the high school are for the following reasons: Classroom disruptions, minor code of
conduct infractions, tardiness to school or class, etc. If WofP usage increased, each of
these infractions could decrease, which could reduce the role of the detention monitor to
a lesser number of days during the week. The positive impact would be better behavior
and the district would save money by reducing the professional rate of hours needed to
pay for the teacher who proctors detention.
Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Principal
The C3 Principal position was a new position starting in the 2021-2022 school
year. C3 is utilized in a multitude approach, meaning it instructs our students who
choose to learn online on a virtual platform; but it will also be a platform that is used as
an alternate placement for our students who continually have behavioral problems within
the high school. A portion of the C3 Principal’s duties is to create the students’ schedule
and assist the students in any capacity to ensure that students are successful on the virtual
platform. This includes the students come to school periodically for check-ins and for
other instructional purposes. Additionally, the students who are placed on C3 due to
behavior, mandatorily come to school on certain days of the week to allow C3 staff to
connect with these students. The salary, benefits, retirement benefits, and FICA are set
costs that exist with the position as long as the school district employs that position.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

12

Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Teacher
The C3 teacher, again a new position in the 2021-2022 school year, is utilized to
educate students within alternative settings as well as students on CLSD’s C3 virtual
platform. The C3 teachers’ duties are to educate the students who are willingly
participating in our C3 program and alternative placed students. C3 teachers have an
opportunity to work with students who are in an alternative setting both in person, when
they come to school, and online. The salary, benefits, retirement benefits, and FICA are
set costs that exist with the position as long as the school district employs that position.
Professional Development for PBIS Training
Creating a professional development program to ensure professional staff can
implement and sustain a PBIS framework was analyzed and developed congruent with
the data collected within the research. An administrator or a PBIS team member supplied
the professional development. The hours spent on planning and presenting went toward
the teachers professional hours needed for Act 48, additionally, the administrator had a
duty to provide professional development to their staff; thus, this was a net zero financial
cost to the district. The only cost associated with professional development was the
supplies needed.
Incentives for Students
The incentives needed for students were a low cost to the budget, due to the
amount of donations raised for WofP. There was a nominal amount accrued due to
donation money being completely used throughout the year. Normal years this will be a
net zero budget item.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

13

Alternative Placements
Unfortunately, there are times when the school support staff has done everything
they can to try and help a student be successful within the confines of that school. When
all of those measures have been met and the behavior has still not changed, a student is
placed in an alternative placement outside the district. An example placement would be
Yellow Breeches Educational Center or YBEC. YBEC is predominately reserved for
students with Emotional Support needs, but it is a program utilized when needed. The
cost of this program is $30,268.61 per student. In addition, the school district pays
$6,786.67 in transportation costs. The goal of this research is to understand the
perception of the professional staff regarding WofP, and how students are praised for
positive behavior. WofP essentially is for all students. In this situation with our
Emotional Support students however, if positive behaviors are built within the school and
classrooms, the need for YBEC decreases and CLSD will not need any spots within the
educational center.
Alternative Program Used Within The School
As with alternative placements for students, CCHS has brought alternative
programs into the high school to help with students’ responses, and actions during the
school year. For example, CCHS has used Compass Mark a Science-Based Addiction
Prevention company to come and speak with students regarding smoking, attendance, and
just overall behavior. With increased desires to start moving away from punitive
discipline, creating a relationship with an organization such as Compass Mark gives
CCHS the opportunity to work with students in a positive manner and not in a negative
way. The amount budgeted for this type of programming can change depending on the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

14

need. In the past, CCHS has used their services and has approximately budgeted $2,000.
Ultimately, this could change.
Description of Indirect Cost
The indirect costs for understanding the perception of the professional staff
regarding a PBIS framework were very minimal. The only cost associated with the
research were to have an independent researcher conduct the interviews. This was
negotiated between the Researcher and the interviewer. The researcher, covered that
cost. The only other indirect cost was the time taken to completely analyze the data from
a survey and an interview that took place. Understanding the perception of the
professional staff also took time to delineate and create recommendations.
The equipment and supplies used in this research were a computer and the
internet to complete the survey and a computer to transcribe the interviews. The research
based online survey was free through a research developer (SPBD Support); the
developer was looking at analyzing staff perceptions of behavior and discipline (SPBD)
regarding PBIS. The survey was used to gather information from school staff to help
school teams implement school wide PBIS and make determinations as to what is needed
if they have a PBIS framework already implemented.
The idea of this research was to create a positive impact to the school and school
district while at the same time keep the financial burden on the school as low as possible.
Summary
Chapter I set the stage for how CCHS utilizes PBIS in a functional aspect and
how it can increase positive student behavior. This chapter also explained part of the
financial implications student behavior has within a high school setting. Chapter II

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

15

begins to showcase: the reviewing of peer reviewed journal articles and research
regarding PBIS and the implications it can have with in school setting, specifically a high
school setting. It explains how PBIS is not a curriculum but a framework to be molded
and utilized as needed. The remaining chapters work through the methodology, data
analysis and findings, and other recommendations of the doctoral capstone research
project. Specifically the research focuses on the perception of teachers towards a Tier 1
PBIS framework within a high school. Utilizing this information will direct the next
steps that could be taken within high school settings.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

16

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
Introduction
There are many aspects of a high school that is outside the realm of just facts and
learning. As students progress through their teenage years and into young adulthood,
there are many factors that impact their days and situations within a school setting. The
school setting allows students to learn positive behaviors, how to navigate peer conflict,
and provides a safe environment for them to make mistakes that will not jeopardize the
rest of their lives. “Many high school struggle to address issues related to school climate
and bullying and thus are turning to school-wide applications of a multi-tiered system of
supports (MTSS) as a framework for addressing these concerns” (Bradshaw et al., 2015,
p. 480). Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is one of those MTSS
frameworks that have been implemented into many schools across the country (Bradshaw
et al., 2015). As schools work toward moving away from exclusionary discipline, such as
Out of School Suspension, In School Suspensions, and expulsions, to more inclusionary
acknowledgement of expectations and behavioral management, PBIS will provide the
framework of success (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
History of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
The early stages of behavioral supports or interventions started in the 1900’s in
schools specifically for court ordered youths. These “training schools” were locations for
youths with behavioral and emotional disorders: Similar to today’s standards in which
students might be placed within residential facilities (Austin et al., 2016).
Unfortunately, there is not much research done within the early 1900’s regarding

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

17

behavioral supports and interventions to treat youths with behavioral issues. By the late
1900’s there was more information regarding the alternative treatments for youths within
group homes or residential facilities (Austin et al., 2016).
In the 1970’s and 80’s more exclusionary discipline styles were used within
schools and other facilities. Zero tolerance is an example of those more exclusionary
discipline styles. The concerns grew about exclusionary practices and limited
participation by recipients, which resulted in the studying of behavioral applied science
and positive behavior supports (Carr et al., 2002; Cooper et al., 2019; Sugai, 2015; Sugai
& Horner, 2020). As behavioral science became more prevalent, the development and
research of effective procedures for creating schools and classrooms that were more
proactive behaviorally started to reduce and replace reactive corporal punishment
standards (Sugai & Horner, 2020). During the 21st century, PBIS has become a
prominent framework within schools across the United States. PBIS emphasizes a whole
school behavioral approach to instill a positive learning community (Horner & Macaya,
2018). Horner and Macaya (2018) found, “Schools are encouraged to define their local
social standards (i.e., expectations), actively teach those standards, consistently
acknowledge appropriate behavior, and provide clear, consistent and quick instructional
correction for behavior errors.” (p. 664). As PBIS utilizes this framework approach, it
has been and is currently being implemented into over 26,000 schools in the United
States, and being adapted and applied in 21 other countries (Horner & Macaya, 2018;
Kelm et al., 2014).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

18

Zero Tolerance
In the 1980’s the term “zero tolerance” was used within drug enforcement that
punished all offenders and offenses severely, no matter how minor the infraction was in
the situation (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). By the early 1990’s schools and school boards
throughout the country started to adopt zero tolerance as policies, even to include not
only drugs and weapons but obedience offenses, such as disrespect and disruptions, as
well (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). As zero tolerance was used dropouts increased and a
level of increased fear and compliance issues arose from these policies. Virtually no data
suggest that zero tolerance policies reduce school violence, and some data suggest that
certain strategies, such as strip searches or undercover agents in school, may create
emotional harm or encourage students to drop out (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). As zero
tolerance was used, punitive punishments were not changing the behavior within the
schools, it was not teaching students about negative behaviors, it was just exuberating the
idea of negative behavior creates negative consequences. Skiba and Peterson (1999)
wrote:
Children whose families set no limits for them soon become uncontrolled and
uncontrollable. In the same way, schools and classrooms in which aggressive,
dangerous, or seriously disruptive behaviors are tolerated will almost inevitably
descend into chaos. Yet the indiscriminate use of force without regard for its
effects is the hallmark of authoritarianism, incompatible with the functioning of a
democracy, and certainly incompatible with the transmission of democratic values
to children. If we rely solely, or even primarily, on zero tolerance strategies to
preserve the safety of our schools, we are accepting a model of schooling that

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

19

implicitly teaches students that the preservation of order demands the suspension
of individual rights and liberties. As we exclude ever-higher proportions of
children whose behavior does not meet increasingly tough standards, we will
inevitably meet many of those disruptive youths on the streets. In choosing
control and exclusion as our preferred methods of dealing with school disruption,
even as we refrain from positive interventions, we increase the likelihood that the
correctional system will become the primary agency responsible for troubled
youths. Ultimately, as we commit ourselves to increasingly draconian policies of
school discipline, we may also need to resign ourselves to increasingly joyless
schools, increasingly unsafe streets, and dramatically increasing expenditures for
detention centers and prisons. (p. 381)
As zero tolerance was being utilized within the schools around the country, new
ideas needed to be generated to increase positive interactions due to behaviors. Conflict
resolution and the idea of school-wide behavioral management programs began to take
form. By researching behavioral management programs, schools reverted away from
zero tolerance to increase the opportunities to work with students on behavior and not just
consequences. Discipline is inevitable, but with behavioral plans such as Positive
Behavior Supports (PBS), PBIS or School Wide PBIS (SWPBIS) those disruptive
students were neutralized easier and quicker. School safety teams or behavior support
teams, composed of regular and special education teachers, personnel from related
services, administrators, and parents, ensure a consistent and individualized response to
disruptive students (Wager, 1993; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Individual behavior plans
and a functional assessment process for developing those plans provide consistent

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

20

consequences for offenders and teaches disruptive youngsters alternatives to aggression
(Skiba et al., 1998; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). In short, effective interventions emphasize
building positive prosocial behaviors rather than merely punishing inappropriate
behaviors (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
Zero tolerance ultimately had an adverse effect toward schools in the 80’s through
90’s. As ideals changed so did the thinking regarding what was best for schools. Zero
tolerance did nothing more than create hostility and had no or a very small amount of
positive impact on education. In contrast, long-term, comprehensive planning and
prevention can build safe and responsive schools overtime by emphasizing what
American education has always done best: teaching (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
PBIS has been defined, described, and even studied ever since its introduction in
the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997) (Sugai & Horner,
2020; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). During the 1980s, a need was identified for improved
selection, implementation, and documentation of effective behavioral interventions for
students with behavior disorders (BD) (Gresham, 1991; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012; Walker
et al., 1996). IDEA connected PBIS and Response to Intervention (RTI) as inclusion
measured used within classrooms. The idea for PBIS was to make changes within
classrooms and the school setting when students were being disciplined in exclusionary
ways. Instead of suspensions and expulsions, students who were having behavioral and
emotional issues within schools, IDEA was looking at more therapeutic supports within
the confines of the school and classroom. RTI intended to do likewise with respect to
disabilities that impacted academics (Bornstein, 2017; Jimerson et al., 2015). Both RTI

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

21

and PBIS prioritized giving all students access to high-quality instruction for academics
and clear expectations for behavior as precursors to any further examination of learning
or behavior that may go awry (Bornstein, 2017).
IDEA specifically speaks to students with disabilities within the classrooms of
schools across the United States. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) is a law that makes available free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible
children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related
services to those children (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2021).
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS)
PBIS has had many different forms since the 1980s. It started as interventions for
students with behavior disorders (BD), moved into positive behavior supports (PBS), and
then into more the recent nomenclatures of PBIS or school wide positive behaviors and
supports (SWPBS). Within the 1980s, as previously stated there was a need for BD
improvements and increased behavioral interventions (Gresham, 1991; Sugai &
Simonsen, 2012; Walker et al., 1996). Moving into the 1990s, the reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997, a grant to establish a national Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, which provided opportunities to increase
evidenced based practices that could help students with BD (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012).
Now within the 2000s, there are over 25,000 schools utilizing PBIS as of 2018 (Center on
PBIS, 2021).
Again, initially established to disseminate evidence-based behavioral
interventions for students with BD, the National Technical Assistance (TA) Center on
PBIS shifted focus to the school-wide behavior support of all students, and an emphasis

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

22

on implementation practices and systems (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). As a result, PBIS is
defined as a framework not a curriculum, intervention, or manualized approach that can
be purchased within educational standards (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai et al., 2000).
The idea of PBIS being defined as a framework is to allow all schools to adopt the key
assumptions of the framework and for enhancing the implementation of an evidencebased interventions allowing students to understand and achieve how to behave to
minimize the negative learning behaviors of all students (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai
et al., 2000). The important aspect to come out of this idea is that PBIS is a framework,
not a curriculum, or intervention practice.
The Purpose of PBIS
As schools phase out zero tolerance concepts, effective discipline plans had to be
still implemented into schools. Skiba and Peterson (1999) wrote, “we must begin with
long-term planning aimed at fostering nonviolent school communities.” (p. 382). First,
programmatic prevention efforts, such as, conflict resolution and school wide behavior
management can help establish a climate free of violence. Thus setting the tone for
schools to look at behavior in a different light, and not in such a punitive setting.
PBS is a term generally used within the ideals of PBIS to help achieve the
behavioral changes wanted to be seen within a social setting (Sugai et al., 2000).
Additionally, PBS is defined as an applied science using educational methods to increase
a student’s or individual’s behavioral management abilities and allow that person to
create changes within their behavioral methods. Thus, first enhancing the individuals
quality of life and, second, to minimize his or her problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002;
Koegel et al., 1996). Positive behavior includes all those skills that increase the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

23

likelihood of success and personal satisfaction in a normal academic, work, social,
recreational, community, and family setting. The idea of support encompasses all those
educational methods that can be used to teach, strengthen, and expand positive behavior
and all those systems change methods that can be used to increase opportunities for the
display of positive behavior (Carr et al., 2002). The idea of PBIS is to help change
behaviors of individuals prior to creating a negative behavior. Carr et al. (2002, p. 5)
wrote:
The primary goal of PBS is to help an individual change his or her lifestyle in a
direction that gives all relevant stakeholders (e.g., teachers, employers, parents,
friends, and the target person him- or herself) the opportunity to perceive and to
enjoy an improved quality of life.
An important but secondary goal of PBS, Carr (2002, p. 5) continued, is to render
problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective by helping an individual achieve
his or her goals in a socially acceptable manner, thus reducing, or eliminating altogether,
episodes of problem behavior.
Applied Science
The ideals of PBIS having a link to applied science or applied behavior analysis
dates back to B. F. Skinner. Skinner’s research suggested managing problem behaviors is
more effective when utilizing reinforcements (Skinner, 1938; Wanzek, 2011). Skinner’s
research was based on the idea of the law of effect, meaning an individual’s behavior
with positive consequences tends to be repeated, but an individual’s behavior with
negative consequences tends to be not repeated (Wanzek, 2011). Skinner proposed that
as behaviors evaluated in the laboratory were regulated by operant and respondent

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

24

doctrine, the behavior of humans in the real world likely would be affected as well
(Dixon et al., 2012; Kearney, 2015; Lattal & Perone, 1998; Skinner, 1953 as cited in
Dean, 2018). The core idea of PBIS has been to increase the positive behavior of
students and continually remove or negate the negative behaviors.
PBIS also has interrelations to respondent conditioning. Ivan Pavlov, conducted
animal research within laboratories within the 1800s and 1900s. As an innovator of
respondent conditioning, he found that dogs could be stimulated just by the sight of or the
preparation of food without direct physical contact with the food (Kazdin, 2013; Pierce &
Cheney, 2013; Skinner, 1984 as cited in Dean, 2018). Respondent conditioning relates to
PBIS by having an instinctive reaction to positive behaviors, thus decreasing the negative
behaviors due to no response.
As PBIS has evolved throughout time within applied behavioral analysis, it has
begun to draw on different interrelated fields, such as, ecological psychology,
environmental psychology, and community psychology (Carr et al., 2002). Due to this
interrelatedness, three theoretical principles within community psychology have been
created. Carr et al. (2002), wrote:
The first principle embodies the idea that since people in community settings are
interdependent, clinically significant change occurs in social systems and not just
in individuals. This notion, a major theme in ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989 as cited in Carr et al., 2002), manifests itself in PBS with
the idea that the focus of intervention must be on changing problem context, not
problem behavior. We must move beyond blaming the victim to holding societal
contexts accountable. The second principle embodies the idea that producing

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

25

change is not simply a matter of implementing specific techniques; rather, change
involves the reallocation of resources such as time, money, and political power.
Thus, administrative support, interagency collaboration, funding mechanisms, and
commonality of mission philosophy are critical variables in the change equation
(Dunlap et al., 2000; Knoster et al., 2000; Sailor, 1996 as cited in Carr et al.,
2002). The third principle embodies the idea that an individual’s behavior,
appropriate or inappropriate, is the result of a continuous process of adaptation
reflecting the interface between competence (a property of individuals) and
context (a property of environments). (p. 11)
Applied science or behavior analysis has made two major contributions to PBS
(Carr et al., 2002). First, it has provided one element of a conceptual framework relevant
to behavior change, and second, and equally important, it has provided a number of
assessment and intervention strategies (Carr et al., 2002). While researching applied
behavioral science, there are three concepts that evolve around PBS. PBS was developed
on the notion of the three-term contingency (stimulus-response-reinforcing consequence),
the concepts of setting event and establishing operations, and the notions of stimulus
control, generalization, and maintenance (Carr et al., 2002; Chance, 1998; Miltenberger,
1997). Additionally, applied behavior analysis helped develop educational methods such
as shaping, fading, chaining, prompting, and reinforcement contingencies as well as a
wide array of procedures for reducing problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002; SulzerAzaroff & Mayer, 1991).
When referring to contingencies, the idea is multifaceted. Many different
concepts can be termed a reinforcement contingency, but PBIS affectively looks at

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

26

different contingencies to obtain optimum behavior from all of the students. Simonsen et
al. (2008, p. 362) stated:
A continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior refers to a range
of evidence-based strategies that focus on identifying and recognizing appropriate
classroom behavior. The continuum should include the use of simple (i.e.,
contingent specific praise) as well as more complex (i.e., class-wide group
contingencies) strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior.
Examples of different strategies used in this manner would be the following (Simonsen et
al., 2008, p. 362):
1. Specific contingent praise is a positive statement, typically provided by the
teacher, when a desired behavior occurs (contingent) to inform students
specifically what they did well.
2. Group reinforcement contingencies are employed when a common
expectation is set for a group of learners and a common positive outcome is
earned by engaging in the expected behavior. Three main types of group
contingencies are: (a) dependent (the outcome for the whole group depends
on the behavior of a smaller subset of that group), (b) interdependent (the
outcome for the whole group depends on the behavior of all students), and (c)
independent (the outcome of each student depends on his or her behavior).
3. Behavior contracts are written documents that specify a contingency
(relationship between behavior and consequence). That is, a behavior contract
defines the expected behavior and outcomes for engaging or not engaging in
expected behavior.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

27

4. Token economies are used when students earn tokens (e.g., points, poker
chips, etc.), contingent upon desired behavior, that can be cashed in for a
back-up reinforce (e.g., desired items, activities, attention from preferred
people, etc.).
Token economies will be researched at more depth later in this literature review, but
group reinforcement contingencies and token economies are discussed together because
the research shows these two practices are used synonymously with one another or with a
combination of both practices (Simonsen et al., 2008). Simonsen et al. (2008, p. 363)
explains, group contingencies and token economies have broad evidential support when
used in classroom settings; their use includes:
a. Increased positive and decreased negative verbal interactions (Hansen &
Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008).
b. Decreased transition time (Yarbrough et al., 2004 as cited in Simonsen et al.,
2008).
c. Increased achievement, appropriate classroom behavior, and peer social
acceptance (Nevin et al., 1982 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008).
d. Increased student attention (Jones & Kazdin, 1975 as cited in Simonsen et al.,
2008).
e. Decreased inappropriate behavior (Main & Munro, 1977 as cited in Simonsen
et al., 2008).
f. Decreased talk-outs and out-of-seat behavior (Barrish et al., 1969 as cited in
Simonsen et al., 2008).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

28

g. Increased student preparedness for class and assignment completion
(McCullagh & Vaal, 1975 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008).
Lastly, there is a multicultural aspect to systems change. Carr et al. (2002, p. 11),
wrote, “in sum, the systemic, community-based, multicultural aspects of PBS lead
naturally to a consideration of multiple theoretical perspectives that, in turn, guide the
continued evolution of this approach.” The concept of multicultural systems changes
indicates that PBS or PBIS can be manipulated within the framework so it is effectively
implemented within the current system.
Human Behavior
Behavioral science researched by individuals such as Skinner, Pavlov, and
Thorndike, who studied and researched operant conditioning, all resulting in the ideals
that behavior is dependent on inherent influences and environmental involvement
(O'Reilly et al., 2014; Pierce & Cheney, 2013; Skinner, 1938; Zilio, 2016 as cited in
Dean, 2018). Within their research four main ideas or contingencies of reinforcement
were discovered. These four contingencies were positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment (Dean, 2018; Dixon et al.,
2012; Foxall, 2016; Loovis, 2016; Pfiffner & Haak, 2015; Pierce & Cheney, 2013 as
cited in Dean, 2018). The concept is as the environment changes, behavior will change as
well.
Sugai (2015) stated,
In 2013, the PBIS Center enhanced the application of the framework logic in the
following manner: …to define, develop, implement, and evaluate a multi-tiered
approach to Technical Assistance that improves the capacity of states, district and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

29

schools to establish, scale-up and sustain the PBIS framework. Over the past 16
years, evidence of the value of the PBIS framework has been documented in two
important ways. First, researchers internal and external to the PBIS Center have
reported the impact of the PBIS tiered intervention framework and its empirically
based practices. Results suggest that when the framework is implemented with
fidelity, schools can experience (a) reductions in rates of major disciplinary
infractions and aggressive behavior; (b) improvements in concentration, prosocial
behavior, and emotional regulation; (c) improvements in academic achievement;
(d) enhancements in perceptions of organizational health and safety; (e)
reductions in teacher-reported bullying behavior and peer rejection; and (f)
improvements in perceptions of school climate. The second, in the past 16 years
more than 21,000 (as of 2015) schools in the United States received training on
PBIS practices and systems by first-, second-, or third-generation trainers
associated with the PBIS Center. (pp. 3-4)
During this time period the PBIS Center adopted what was called an applied behavior
analytic (ABA) perspective (Sugai, 2015). ABA had five core principles regarding PBIS.
Sugai (2015), explained the principles by the following:
First, biology and learning history are acknowledged as what an individual brings
to a given setting, situation, or interaction. Second, while some behavior is
involuntary (i.e., antecedent elicited and no prior learning history), most behavior
displayed by an individual is learned (i.e., prior learning history, antecedent
emitted, and consequence maintained). Third, the probability of a given behavior
occurrence is influenced by an individual’s behavior fluency (i.e., learning

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

30

history) and features of the immediate setting or environment (i.e., antecedent and
consequence stimuli). Fourth, behavior is lawful and predictable (i.e., individual
is likely to emit behavior under specific conditions and not under others). Fifth,
the probability of a given behavior occurrence is affected by manipulating
environmental factors (i.e., manipulating conditions affects probability of
behavior occurrences). The basic process is related to the behavior of an
individual or the behaviors of individuals who are part of a group or organization
(e.g., classroom, school, district, or state). For example, behavior increase or
acceleration is related to positive or negative reinforcement. Teaching social
skills is grounded in the establishment of stimulus control. Maintenance and
generalized use of a social skill is associated with transfer of stimulus control.
Replacing one behavior for another is approached as a situation requiring
understanding and manipulation of competing stimulus control. (p. 6)
Basically, changing the environment either positively or negatively will create a
behavior. Ideally, using PBIS, the goal is to emphasize and establish appropriate
behavior expectations and effective behavior management practices for students and
educators (Sugai, 2015).
Positive and Negative Reinforcements. The idea of a positive and negative
reinforcement can be determined in many different ways. The standards of a positive
reinforcement is to engage students to continue making necessary changes within the
behavior to meet the appropriate expectations of either the school, society, or within their
family. The standard of a negative reinforcement is to disengage students from
continuing to make negative behavior to meet the appropriate expectations of either the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

31

school, society, or within their family. According to Thorndike's (1911) law of effect,
responses that lead to favorable consequences increase in frequency or reinforcements,
and those that have neutral consequences or lead to unfavorable ones become less
frequent (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Positive and negative reinforcements were being
studied between the times of 1911 with Thorndike, and 1960’s with Mowrer. Within the
research, it was stated that treatments became distinguished when motivational variables
were introduced (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Baron and Galizio (2005), explained in reward
training (an earlier label for positive reinforcement), the response not only produces a
stimulus but also produces a stimulus that evokes pleasure or satisfaction. They
continued by stating, by comparison, escape-avoidance training (negative reinforcement)
involves arrangements in which the response reduces pain, anxiety, or some other forms
of discomfort or distress (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Along with Thorndike, Skinner, as
previously discussed, introduced the theory of operant conditioning. This is a system of
learning which occurs by associating rewards and punishments with positive and negative
reinforcements (Kelly & Pohl, 2018). Positive and negative reinforcements can be
associated with both good and bad behavior. Kelly & Pohl (2018) explains this concept
by the following representation,
If Kate does all her homework and behaves well during a particular week, the
teacher may reward Kate with extra playing time and the removal of a low grade.
In this instance, the addition of extra playing time is a positive reinforcement,
while the removal of a low grade is an example of a negative reinforcement.
However, if Kate misbehaves and does not do her homework, the teacher might
punish her by taking away her cell phone and making Kate stay an extra hour

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

32

after school. The removal of the cell phone is an example of negative
punishment, while staying an extra hour after school is an example of positive
punishment. (p. 23)
Baron and Galizio caution the way the terms positive and negative reinforcements used
within their contexts. When connecting positive and negative reinforcements with PBIS,
the aspect of these terms are meant to be present within an environmental event or action,
such as, a teacher positively reacting to a student’s behavior within a classroom. An
environmental event or action is a different reinforcement than a cognitive or
physiological happening (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Kelly and Pohl (2018) point out that
research indicates that positive behavior modification techniques are more effective than
punishment. Structured positive and negative reinforcement foster learning by reducing
classroom disruptions, increasing student attention, and creating a positive school
climate.
SWPBS emphasizes familiar procedures, such as operational definition of
behavioral expectations, active instruction, consistent positive reinforcement, and a
continuum of consequences that minimize reinforcement of problem behavior (Anderson
& Scott, in press; Sugai & Lewis, 1999; Sugai et al., 2009 as cited in Horner et al., 2010).
Due to these SWPBS procedures, a school’s climate is either positively or negatively
affected. There are four general components of School climate: teaching and learning,
relationships, safety, and institutional environment and structure (La Salle & Freeman,
2014 as cited in Sugai, 2015). As these four components interact with each other,
research states the components affect what students, school personnel, and family

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

33

member report as representing positive and negative school climate (Sugai, G., La Salle
& Freeman, 2014 as cited in Sugai, 2015). Sugai (2015), states:
From a behavior analytic perspective, school climate is described as an
environment in which the behaviors of students and educators are maintained by
positive and negative reinforcement contingencies. (p. 12)
The perception of positive and negative reinforcements when used in the context of a
descriptor refers to the actions, such as give and take. But when positive and negative
reinforcements are used as descriptors for school climate or behavior they refer to
appropriate and inappropriate behaviors (Sugai, 2015). When specifically looking at
positive and negative school climate, there are basic student behaviors that describe each
environment, which ultimately interweave with positive and negative reinforcements.
Sugai (2015) explains negative school climate as the following:
A negative school climate, inappropriate student behavior (e.g., disruptive, verbal
abuse, teasing harassment, crying, running away, noncompliance, aggression) is
associated with reactive adult behavior (e.g., removal from instruction, school
detention, suspension, restitution, verbal reprimands, threats of punishment).
Student behavior is maintained by escape from or avoidance of aversive (negative
reinforcements) and/or access to reinforces (positive reinforcements). (p.13)
Figure 1 depicts a negative school climate (Sugai, 2015, p. 13):

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

34

Figure 1
Negative School Climate Cycle

Sugai (2015) explains positive school climate as the following:
A positive school climates, appropriate student behavior (e.g., compliance, asking
for assistance, problem solving, following directions, task engagement) is
associated with positive adult behavior (e.g., praise, encouragement, feedback,
smiles). Student behavior is maintained by escape from or avoidance of aversive
events and/or access to reinforces. (p. 13)
Figure 2 depicts a positive school climate (Sugai, 2015, p. 14):

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

35

Figure 2
Positive School Climate Cycle

By examining positive and negative reinforcements, the behavior of students and the
climate of the school can be determined. Having a positive school climate will increase
the opportunities for academic growth and positive behavioral management.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Positive and negative reinforcements can
help with changing the behavior of students, as showcased above, but intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations play a role with the behavior of students and the success of PBIS
within a school setting. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are defined as those for which
there exists no recognizable reward except the activity itself (Akin-Little & Little, 2009;
Deci & Ryan, 1985). An intrinsically motivated person does not need external controls to
motivate him or her to complete a task or behave a certain way. Behavioral researchers
have assumed that between the two types of motivations, either intrinsic or extrinsic,
having intrinsic motivation is of greater value (Fair & Silvestri, 1992 as cited in Akin-

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

36

Little & Little, 2009). Extrinsic reinforcement and motivation has a connotation of being
controlling, creating pressure and tension, and is believed to result in low self-esteem and
anxiety. But intrinsic motivation is said to enable people to feel competent, selfdetermining, and results in creativity, flexibility, and spontaneity (Akin-Little & Little,
2009).
When looking at PBIS or positive and negative reinforcements within a classroom
or school there are different aspects when intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are involved.
Extrinsic reinforces can be linked to positive reinforcements within classrooms such as
verbal praise, token economies, group contingencies, and contracts (Akin-Little & Little,
2009). Akin-Little and Little (2009, p. 86), state “there is a resistance to utilize extrinsic
motivators within classrooms due to an impression of motivation of students will not
work with “bribing” students.” Akin-Little and Little (2009) continue with:
When education personnel extol the use of extrinsic reinforcement in the
classroom, the motive is clearly not to “bribe” children and youth, but to increase
appropriate academic and social behavior. The goal is obviously not to decrease
intrinsic motivation within students, but to reinforce the positive behaviors of
students. (p. 86)
The goal of PBIS is exactly this idea, provide opportunities for students to know what
they are doing correct with a “token” and provide both positive extrinsic reinforcements
and cultivate intrinsic motivation within the students.
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). To counter the ideals of behavioral science
and look at behavioral or perceptual control from a different vantage point, Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT), which has been known since Aristotle was researched. It is a

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

37

theory that people act so as to get what they want, in the face of unpredictable events in
the world in which they live (Taylor, 1999). The idea of PCT has been not been studied
or researched as much as the theories of “stimulus-response”, which is the notion that
people will tend to behave the same way when confronted with the same pattern of
stimulation from the outer world, or on the “cognitive’ notion that people preplan their
actions to achieve their goals (Taylor, 1999). W.T. Powers, as cited in Taylor (1999),
stated in the early 1950s, “Acting to get what is wanted is the defining characteristic not
only of humans and other animals, but also of engineered control systems.” PCT’s
overarching theory is all organisms look to survive, and they need to stabilize their inner
chemistry or self as their surroundings are changing. This mode of survival is very
similar in schools, particularly high schools. There are different ways organisms can
survive. One is a semi-permeable barrier around themselves; but they cannot be shut off
from the outer world or they would die. The second, Taylor (1999) explains in the
following way:
The organism must be able to sense important states of the environment; it must
be able to compare the sensed states with desirable conditions for those states; and
it must be able to act to influence them so that it can bring about and maintain the
desirable conditions. “To sense” means to alter some internal state, such as a
chemical concentration or a neural firing rate, in correspondence with changes of
something in the environment. In PCT, such an internal state is called a
“perceptual sign”, and the value of a perceptual signal is a “perception”. To
stabilize a state near some reference condition is the technical definition of
“control”. When an organism is countering the disturbances from the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

38

environment around them, it is controlling its perceptions. “Perception”, in PCT
carries no connotation of consciousness. PCT has a core tenet: “All behavior is
the control of perception”. The actions that stabilize the perception may vary
dramatically as the environment influences change, but a well-controlled
perception varies only when its reference value changes. (p. 434)
Controlling the perceived environment around someone is the central concept of
PCT (Alsawy et al., 2014). People try and control their perceived environments so they
can make their experience match their internal goal state or reference value (Alsawy et
al., 2014). Alsawy et al. (2014), explains PCT in the following example:
Keeping a comfortable distance from someone we are talking to, we would need
to move further away if the other person comes closer than our preferred distance,
but we would need to move closer if they exceed our preferred distance. In this
way an equilibrium distance is maintained. This is called a negative feedback
loop because the discrepancies are fed back to the environment through action to
act against the elements of the environment that lead experience to deviate from
the desired value. The loop is analogous to the homeostatic control systems in the
body that maintain physiological variables (e.g., body temperature, blood glucose)
within an ideal range. The PCT model contrasts starkly with the traditional
approach put forward in traditional cognitive and behavior models whereby a
stimulus is processed to trigger an observable behavior, and no feedback system
to regulate internal goals states is explicitly implicated. (p. 336)
Figure 3 below is an explanation of terms within the theory of PCT (Alsawy et al., 2014,
p. 337):

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

Figure 3
Definitions of key Terms in Perceptual Control Theory

39

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

40

The study of PCT has been mainly in the field of human performance. This is the
nexus with PBIS; within these studies, the main facet was for the participants to keep
some aspect of their environment ‘on target’ and use their actions to dynamically
eliminate aspects of their environment that would lead them away from their goal
(Alsawy et al., 2014). An example study was for an individual to keep a cursor using
either a mouse or joystick on a vertical line, as the line was moving, Alsawy et al. (2014)
states regarding the task, and other tasks alike,
Consistently, and across a wide variety of tasks, participants manage to do this to
the extent that the perception (a stimulus in traditional terms) they are controlling
(e.g., to keep a cursor aligned) has no direct effect on their behavior, indicated by
low correlations between the stimulus and the behavior. Thus, a PCT model is
favored in contrast to the standard model proposed by existing theories that would
predict a close correlation between stimulus and behavior. (p. 338)
PCT is stating, in terms of education, that students can control or be taught to control
their behavior even if there is a wide variety of stimulus entering into their environment
during the day. This theory explains the ideals of teaching students the correct behavior
to ensure they can maintain a positive environment within the school. PBIS’s framework
fits within the perspective of PCT, as PBIS’s premise is to increase positive behavior and
have the students control their own behaviors. PCT states that there are multiple control
systems that are hierarchically organized and these explain how complex skills are
managed and personal goals are achieved (Alsawy et al., 2014). W. T. Powers specifies
there are 11 levels such as needs, desires, wants, values, rules, standards, beliefs,
principles, and ideal selves (Alsawy et al., 2014).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

41

Figure 4 below explains that a closed loop is the basic unit of control within PCT
(Alsawy et al., 2014, p. 338). Additionally, Figure 4 explains that the process an
organism goes through within their inside system also has an environmental influence.
The depiction shows how the body regulates the environmental change to balance itself
back to being just right through the use of neurological signals, to create a muscle action,
thus keeping the organism under control of his or her perception.
Figure 4
The Closed Loop: The Basic Unit of Control within PCT

Again, this is a different theory of how students can learn to control their
behaviors even when their environments are constantly changing. This theory can be

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

42

taught through the use of PBIS. Powers (1998, 2005 as cite in Lanoue, 2009) states the
connection that basic learning was reorganization and that only through reorganization
can basic operations be modified. School discipline systems were developed based on
reflecting a belief that behavior was a result of a cause that was controlled by forces
beyond one’s control (Bourbon, 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). With this belief system,
teachers use rewards and negative reinforcement, such as detentions or suspensions to
control student behavior (Lanoue, 2009). Lanoue (2009), explained how PCT is utilized
within the scenario:
PCT theorists indicated that doing something to children did not teach them how
to figure out a different way to do things or act (Ford, 1994 as cited in Lanoue,
2009). Using PCT, a student disruption was the act of a student who was
controlling perceptions and disrupting the perceptions of other students or the
teacher (Bourbon, 1998; Ford, 1994 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). In PCT, a student
may not have understood that the behavior exhibited influenced another student or
teacher and that the real cause of the disturbance was due to the impact on others
resulting in the conflict (Bourbon 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). Therefore, the
act of trying to control another person did not teach responsible thinking; rather, it
taught students how to manipulate others (Ford, 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009).
(p. 46)
School personnel who understand the concept of PCT create conversations with students
at the systems level of values (beliefs) level, and connect their references and ideals of
the situation around those beliefs. Thus, PCT allows the teacher to teach the students to

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

43

think about what they want and how they were getting what they wanted as it relates to
the expectations of the class (Lanoue, 2009).
Schools Utilizing PBIS
When thinking about a PBIS framework, the initial thought process applied to
elementary and middle schools. Over the last two decades, PBIS has been introduced and
implemented with fidelity within high schools across the United States (U.S.) and within
Pennsylvania (PA). As of 2018 the Center on PBIS states there are roughly 28,000
schools utilizing PBIS (Center on PBIS, 2021). In researching high schools, an article
written in January of 2017 stated there were 3,138 high schools implementing PBIS,
which represents approximately 8% of all schools across the U.S. implementing PBIS
(Freeman et al., 2017). Introducing the PBIS framework within high schools enhances
school climate by addressing behavior problems, and improving attendance (Bradshaw et
al., 2014; Bohanon et al., 2012; Bohanon et al., 2006; Bohanon-Edmonson, Flannery,
Eber, & Sugai, 2004; Flannery, Fenning, Kato, &McIntosh, 2011; Freeman et al., 2015 as
cited in Freeman et al., 2017). As the framework is introduced with fidelity within the
high school it can also assist in social skill instruction, violence prevention, and bullying
programs (Bradshaw, 2013 as cited in Freeman et al., 2017). There are variables within a
high school that can slow the process of implementing PBIS. Examples include the size
of high schools, the number of students within the high schools, and the
departmentalization of a high school (Flannery et al., 2014; Freeman et al., 2017).
Pennsylvania has approximately 10 schools recognized for implementing PBIS
with fidelity based off the statistics from Pennsylvania Positive Behavior Support
(PAPBS) (PAPBS, 2021). PAPBS is the overarching leadership of PBIS within PA. As

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

44

schools introduce PBIS into their schools, PAPBS can be utilized as a network to help
with training and technical assistance of implementation. PAPBS’s mission states they
support schools and their family and community partners to create and sustain
comprehensive, school-based behavioral health supports systems in order to promote the
academic, social and emotional well-being of all Pennsylvania’s students (PAPBS, 2021).
Creating opportunities on a national level such as the Center on PBIS and at a state level
such as PAPBS, provide for opportunities for schools to implement the PBIS framework
effectively and with fidelity.
Characteristics of PBIS
The implementation and characteristics of PBIS are ideally introduced within a
school over a period of time. PBIS is not a bought boxed curriculum or intervention,
PBIS is an evidenced based framework which uses a multi-tiered system of support
(MTSS) approach (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai and Horner
(2020), recognize that PBIS over the years has been influenced by four important ideas.
The first idea, during the 70s and 80s, included the introduction and integration of applied
behavior analysis. The idea of applied behavior analysis and positive behavior supports
was being integrated into more schools because the continuation of exclusionary behavior
practices with a result of limited participation by the students (Sugai & Horner, 2020).
The second idea, during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, included teachers learning there was more
success with student behavior by explaining and teaching the classroom expectations, and
reducing the use of corporal punishments. Along with the classroom expectations, such
as positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors and increased attention to selfmanagement, the change within classroom instruction helped student behaviors within

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

45

the classroom (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Scott, 2017; Scott, Hirn, & Cooper, 2017;
Simonsen & Myers, 2015; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1996 as cited in Sugai & Horner,
2020). The third idea, during the 90s, used a tiered system of behavioral prevention as a
positive framework. This three tiered framework became the PBIS “multi-tiered
behavioral framework” as it is today (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai & Horner (2020),
explained that in 2014, “the PBIS effort was extended more formally to issues related to
school safety, bullying and antisocial behavior, trauma-based school recovery, and
integration of school mental health and PBIS.” (p. 121). The final idea is based on the
idea of implementing PBIS with high fidelity across all schools, districts, and states,
using a system of logic implementation researched by Fixsen and colleagues (2005)
(Sugai & Horner, 2020). Within the logic of implementation, Fixsen and colleagues
stated and emphasized a need for a leadership team to establish the different functions
needed with the PBIS framework or any program of interventions (Fixsen et al., 2005;
Sugai & Horner, 2020). The idea of logical implementation of PBIS regarding the
leadership team is discussed later in the literature review. The point of the fourth idea is
in order to create a high-level fidelity within a PBIS framework, the leadership team has
to be invested in the process for the framework to be effective. These four important
ideas have helped evolve PBIS into the framework which is utilized in schools, districts,
and states today (Sugai & Horner, 2020).
The process of implementing PBIS as a MTSS can be broken down into five
stages. Sugai and Horner (2020) states, “reviewing the stages of implementation is
helpful for teams as they (a) assess where they stand, (b) define specific next steps, and
(c) establish a long-range plan.” (p. 124). PBIS utilizes Fixsen et al. (2005) five dynamic

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

46

stages which include: exploration, installation, initiation, full implementation, and
sustained and scaled implementation (Sugai & Horner, 2020). As a leadership team
looks to implement the PBIS framework or any initiative, the first three steps are standard
with any integration. Within the literature review, stages four and five are the focus.
Stage four is PBIS full implementation, and factors in a comprehensive
implementation of a continuum of practices and systems across classrooms and school. It
also involves the use of data related to student outcomes and team based continuation of
implementation and monitoring of the framework (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai &
Horner (2020) states:
In the case of a school, all students and all educators across all school settings
experience a positive, preventive, and constructive social and educational climate
in which common vision, language, and routine have been formally established
(universal or Tier 1). Acknowledging that some students may present risk factors
for academic or social difficulties (often both), additional supports (e.g., more
time, practice, and adaptions or combinations of them) are layered on top of Tier
1 efforts and delivered to groups of students (targeted or Tier 2) and individual
students (indicated or Tier 3). (p. 124)
Stage five represents sustaining and scaling PBIS implementation requirements to
a school and ensures the use of data to continually make the necessary changes to the
framework. There are different conditions that affect the implementation of PBIS; these
include the size of the school, experience of the leadership team, and resources (Sugai &
Horner, 2020). PBIS implementation is fluid; implementation can move between the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

47

different stages as staff and students change and the school or district wants to
differentiate its implementation process of the framework.
Each stage is important. However, within this literature review stage, four will be
looked at in more depth, particularly implementation of the three Tiers. Tier 1 is the
focus of this Capstone Research Project, the implementation and whom it affects is a
defining aspect. Tier 2 and 3 will be discussed within this literature review, but not as indepth, due to the nature of the Capstone Research Project.
PBIS Tiers
PBIS is broken down into three tiers; each tier is represented differently within
research. Tier 1 can be represented as Primary Tier or Primary Intervention, Tier 2 can
be represented as Secondary Tier or Secondary Intervention, and Tier 3 can be
represented as Tertiary Tier or Tertiary Intervention. During this literature review, each
tier will be represented as Tiers either 1, 2, or 3. Figure 5 by Sugai (2015, p. 7) simply
explains each Tier within PBIS:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

48

Figure 5
Tiered Continuum of Behavior Support

Horner and Macaya (2018, p. 665) and Horner et al. (2010, p. 4) respectfully state there
are key assumptions for guiding a school’s capacity of adoption and those assumptions
are listed as:
a) Students learn how to behave, both well and poorly, and this means positive
behaviors need to be taught to minimize problem behaviors,
b) Effective schools not only teach positive behaviors, but monitor and
acknowledge those behaviors,
c) Investing in prevention of problems is more effective and efficient than being
reactive to negative behaviors,
d) Effective behavior supports need to take place at appropriate tier level,
e) Organized behavior supports needs to occur throughout the school, and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

49

f) Behavioral support “practices” will be used with fidelity and sustainability
when linked to the supportive organization system (PBIS Framework).
Each tier within the PBIS framework meets the needs of specific students. Once those
initial tiers do not meet the needs of the students any longer, the idea of MTSS becomes
evident. As those students need help and transition from one tier to the next, the supports
within the different tiers change to help with the level of support needed (Horner &
Macaya, 2018).
PBIS Tier 1
Tier 1 or Primary Intervention is implemented across the entire school and is
meant to have an impact on all students, in all settings (Horner et al., 2010). Horner and
Macaya (2018) defines the goal of Tier 1 as, “to establish the preventative foundation for
a positive, school-wide climate.” (p. 665). The Center on PBIS explains Tier 1 systems,
data, and practices impact all students across all settings, and these systems establish the
foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and preventing unwanted behaviors
(Center on PBIS, 2021). There are five core principles guiding Tier 1 PBIS: effectively
teaching the students the appropriate behaviors, proactive behavioral interventions, use of
research based and validated interventions, monitor student behavior, and collect and
utilize data to make all decisions on behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner et al., 2010;
Horner & Macaya, 2018).
In order to sustain the five core principles, a school or district needs to first secure
a PBIS Framework Leadership team. This leadership team consists of a school
administrator, classroom teachers, and student representation (especially within a high
school). Center on PBIS (2021) states representatives on the team need to have the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

50

following skillsets: behavioral expertise, coaching expertise, knowledge of student
academic and behavior patterns, and knowledge of how the school operates across all the
grade levels. Ideally, the team should meet regularly throughout the year to discuss
continual action planning and data review.
Horner and Macay (2018) discuss there are eight core features of Tier 1. The first
core feature is the leadership team, which has been discussed. The second, is creating
three to five positively stated school-wide behavioral expectations (Center on PBIS,
2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). These expectations should drive what are positive
behaviors within a school. In the past couple of years, acronyms have guided who the
school is and what the expectations are within the building. For example, a school could
use PRIDE as their three to five expectations; PRIDE is an acronym for P-Personal
Responsibility, R-Respect, I-Integrity, D-Dedication, E-Excellence. These expectations
are actively taught, are the core values within a school, and apply to all people within the
building (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). “The key is that teaching
behavioral expectations is proactive, and occurs for all students. The process for teaching
behavioral expectations is adjusted to fit the developmental level of the student, such as
more collaborative and peer-based in high school” (Horner & Macaya, 2018, p. 666).
The third core feature is regularly acknowledging students positive and
appropriate behavior. Center on PBIS (2021) states,
A school’s Tier 1 team determines how to acknowledge students positively for
doing appropriate behaviors. Schools adopt a token system in addition to offering
specific praise when students do what is expected. No matter the system, it
should be linked to school-wide expectations, used across settings and within

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

51

classrooms, used by 90% or more of all school personnel, and available to all
students within the school. (p. 14)
Negative behavior will still occur within schools. However, by utilizing the PBIS
framework, successful schools can create opportunities for students to be acknowledged
for appropriate behaviors at least four or five time as often as the negative behaviors
(Horner & Macaya, 2018). Proactively acknowledging positive behavior increases
school climate and culture.
The fourth and fifth core features focus on how to define and respond to negative
classroom or school behavior. Policies and procedures are put into place explaining how
to respond to a negative behavior, such as addressing office-managed offenses versus
classroom management offenses. Such policies maintain consistency for both the student
and the school personnel in the application of Tier 1 (Center on PBIS, 2021). School
disciplinary codes and classroom management often over-emphasize consequences to
manage negative student behavior; however, within the PBIS framework it should be the
opposite. PBIS under estimates the negative behavior and over-estimates the proactive,
positive, preventative efforts (Horner & Macaya, 2018).
The sixth core feature is the collection and use of data to drive the decisionmaking process regarding behavioral support. The utilization of data can answer central
components of PBIS, such as, “Are the practices put in place working,” and “Are
students benefiting from PBIS?” (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018).
Schools using PBIS have procedures that are highly effective and efficient for collecting,
summarizing, and using data (Horner et al., 2018 as cited in Horner & Macaya, 2018).
The seventh core feature is bullying prevention. Horner and Macay (2018) state:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

52

Recent bully prevention efforts indicate high success when students are taught a
response to bullying behavior that eliminates social attention, and an alternative
social routine if someone indicates to you that you are engaging in bullying (Ross
& Horner, 2009 as cited in Horner & Macaya, 2018). This has led to adding to
PBIS Tier 1 core features the teaching of how students should respond when they
are faced with (or witness) problem behavior performed by others. Students need
a routine for responding to problem behavior that limits the attention and social
recognition that too often maintains bullying behaviors. Teaching this routine
proactively to all students makes a difference in the level of inadvertent reward
for peer-maintained bullying behavior. (p. 668)
The last core feature is family engagement. Within the PBIS Leadership team,
there should be representation of parents and families. Center of PBIS suggests
opportunities to provide ongoing collaboration with these stakeholders should happen at
least once a year, if not more. These interactions help with input on culturally
responsiveness and reflection of the community (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner &
Macaya, 2018).
As Tier 1 indicates, there is an intricacy of implementing the PBIS framework.
The Center on PBIS recommends establishing Tier 1 within your school or district prior
to moving onto more supportive interventions. Establishing a positive foundational
system, which all other tiers are built upon, has to be the PBIS Leadership’s teams main
priority (Center on PBIS, 2021). Horner et al. (2010) suggests:
The conceptual logic of PBIS does not support the expectation that building social
support would lead to improved reading, math, or writing skills. Rather, the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

53

expectation is that establishing a predictable, consistent, positive, and safe social
culture will improve the behavioral engagement of students in learning, and that if
this engagement is coupled with a functional curriculum and effective teaching,
academic outcomes will be more likely. (p. 8)
PBIS Tier 2 and 3
As stated, the review of literature for Tier 2 and 3 will not be as in-depth but just a
generalization of each tier. This is due to the nature of the Capstone Research Project;
the focus is on Tier 1, so to not deflect the attention from Tier 1 onto Tier 2 and 3. This
does not change the significance of Tier 2 and 3 in the PBIS Framework and the
implementation process for each tier.
Unlike Tier 1 where all students are impacted, Tier 2 or Secondary Prevention
will serve, depending on the research, approximately 15% of the student population
within the school (Bruhn et al., 2014). Tier 2 supports are meant to help students in
which Tier 1 has been ineffective and more targeted interventions are needed (Bruhn et
al., 2014; Center on PBIS, 2021). Tier 2 PBIS focuses more attention on targeted
interventions or Behavior Education Programs (BEP), such as social skills groups, selfmanagement, and academic supports (Center on PBIS, 2021; Crone et al., 2010). The
Center on PBIS (2021) identifies targeted interventions have the following
characteristics:
a. Continuously available
b. Accessible within 72 hours of referral
c. Very low effort by teachers
d. Aligned with school-wide expectations

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

54

e. Implemented by all staff/faculty in a school
f. Flexible and based on assessment
g. Function-based
h. Allocated adequate resources
i. Student chooses to participate
j. Continuously monitored
Examples of different Tier 2 supports or BEP’s are Check and Connect, Checkin/Check-out, First Step to Success, Think Time and many others (Center on PBIS, 2021;
Crone et al., 2010; Horner et al., 2010). In order for Tier 2 supports to work, a school
needs to have a solid Tier 1 foundation. The foundational systems of Tier 2 are very
similar to Tier 1, as mapped out by the Center on PBIS. The leadership team establishes
systems and practices needed for students requiring additional supports. Once those are
established, a team member with behavioral management experience will determine the
best support or BEP for the defined student(s). Students are identified using a screening
process, different strategies to identify students could be office discipline referrals
(ODF), screening instrument scores, teacher nominations, parent and support service
recommendations, and formative assessments (Center on PBIS, 2021; Crone et al., 2010).
To create fidelity using a Tier 2 support, the team needs to continually collect and
monitor the data, which allows the team to determine if the student should continue
within the support, should the support be modified, or should the student move on or fade
out of the selected intervention (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Overall, Tier 2 interventions are to increase student and adult connections, thus
allowing the opportunity to proactively support the student using positive reinforcement

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

55

multiple times of the day. This goes for both behavior and academic supports. As
students learn to regulate on their own, when, where, under what condition, and the data
supports a positive response to the intervention, students can move or fade out of Tier 2
(Center on PBIS, 2021).
Lastly, Tier 3 or Tertiary Preventions are for the 1-5% of students in which both a
tier 1 or tier 2 intervention or supports do not create a connection for the student (Center
on PBIS, 2021). Tier 3 students receive more intensive, individualized supports to help
them improve their behavioral and academic outcomes (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner et
al., 2010). The Center on PBIS (2021) identifies students who benefit from Tier 3
supports as students with developmental disabilities, autism, emotional and behavioral
disorders, and students with no diagnostic label at all.
Again, Tier 3 practices are built from a strong Tier 1 and Tier 2 foundation of
supports. The foundational systems of Tier 3 supports include a multi-disciplinary
team(s); this team has members from the administration, behavioral coach or
representative, and others with behavioral knowledge (Special Education Department)
(Center on PBIS, 2021). The team documents the student(s) behavior by implementing a
functional behavior assessment (FBA) plan. The FBA usually includes strategies, based
on the Center on PBIS (2021), which prevent unwanted behavior, teach appropriate
behavior, positively reinforce appropriate behavior, reduce rewards for unwanted
behavior, and ensure the student is safe (Bruhn et al., 2014; Center on PBIS, 2021;
Horner et al., 2010; Horner & Macaya, 2018). Horner et al. (2010) states the following
regarding an FBA:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

56

The primary purpose of an FBA is to guide the design of a comprehensive
intervention. The literature base on effects of function-based support consists
almost entirely of single-subject studies documenting rigorous functional control,
which is not surprising given that interventions are individualized for each
student. Function-based support is among the areas with strongest empirical
support (Carr et al., 1999; Didden et al., 1997; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, &
Richman, 1982/1994; Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1968-2009 as cited in
Horner et al., 2010). This research shows that interventions guided by FBAs can
be implemented with fidelity and result directly in a reduction in problem
behavior and improvement in desired behaviors (Brooks, Todd, Tofflemoyer, &
Horner, 2003; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003; Crone, Hawken, &
Bergstrom, 2007; Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998; Ervin, Kern, Clarke,
DuPaul, Dunlap, & Friman, 2000; Fairbanks et al., 2007; Grow, Carr, & LeBlanc,
2009; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, &
Falk, 1994; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Lucyshyn et al., 2007; Newcomer &
Lewis, 2004; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009; Smith & Sugai, 2000 as cited in
Horner et al., 2010). (p. 10)
Tier 3 students, as per Center on PBIS, receive more intensive, individualized supports,
which is to help improve their behavioral and academic outcomes within schools (Center
on PBIS, 2021).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

57

Potential Obstacles of PBIS
Validity of PBIS
As educational programs, initiatives, and ideas come and go, a potential obstacle
for PBIS is the validity of the program. Research question 3 for this Capstone Research
Project states, “What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS
framework at the high school level”? At the high school level, implementing a program
or initiative with validity creates sustainability within the program. Bruhn et al. (2014)
states:
Schools implementing PBIS are often confronted with concerns from a variety of
educational stakeholders about school climate, teaching behavioral expectations,
the role of reinforcement, and labeling students. Administrators should be
prepared to respond to these concerns with theoretical and empirical evidence.
And, they need tools for faculty to reflect upon and improve PBIS
implementation. Effective PBIS implementation involves (a) positive social
interactions between students, teachers, and administrators; (b) behavioral
expectations taught in a socially- and age-appropriate way; (c) a variety of
methods for reinforcing students for demonstrating positive behavior, and (d)
teams using fidelity and student-level data to drive instructional decisions. (p. 13)
Another characteristic of validity is Social Validity. The definition of social
validity “is a measurement of how well a social program is embraced by those who are
targeted to benefit from it” (Marchant et al., 2013). In the late 70s, Montrose Wolf began
using social validity as an objective measure into behavioral science; along with this
concept, three areas of validation in which society would need to ensure the work is true

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

58

were identified. Those three areas were the social significance of identified treatment
goals, the social appropriateness of procedures utilized within those treatment goals, and
the social importance of the research effects and results of those goals (Marchant et al.,
2013; Wolf, 1978). Social validity is incorporating all stakeholders in the process of
researching an initiative, planning the implementation, and ensuring the fidelity of the
initiative (Marchant et al., 2013). Marchant et al. (2013) states:
Stakeholders participation is fundamental to the success of PBIS. Moving from
the traditional expert-driven methodology to a stakeholder-driven methodology,
PBIS encourages a collaborative system (Marchant et al., 2013; Sugai et al., 2000)
which functions as a support network, undoubtedly contributing to its success
with systems level change (Carr et al., 2002; Marchant et al., 2013; Sugai et al.,
2000). In PBIS, for example, decisions are developed, implemented, and
evaluated by the school system as a whole, fostering ownership and social validity
among its key stakeholders (Scott, 2007 as cited in Marchant et al., 2013). This
direct involvement encourages stakeholders to make informed choices which
contributes to the program’s validity. Social validity assessments are vital
components in overall evaluations of PBIS programs because this assessment
piece informs researchers on a fundamental attribute of PBIS implementation and
development – stakeholder participation. (p. 7)
Having social validation of an initiative is very important within an educational setting,
especially where the stakeholders, such as teachers, staff, administrators, and the students
are influenced by the initiative. If there is not buy-in with the initiative, or if the initiative

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

59

is not communicated properly, it will not have the social validation needed to be effective
within an educational setting (Filter & Brown, 2019; Marchant et al., 2013).
Through their research, Filter and Brown (2019) discuss personal support and
active support. This concept of support for PBIS is important to validate the
implementation and continued success of a PBIS framework implemented into schools.
Filter and Brown (2019) state:
Personal support is present when a person verbally expresses beliefs and attitudes
that support a program or intervention, such as SWPBIS. Active support is
present when a person verbally expresses a willingness to do the work that is
involved in implementing the program or intervention.” (p. 41)
Within Filter and Brown’s research, they were interested in quantitative data that
supported “buy-in” or “commitment” by school staff. They completed this task by
utilizing the PBIS Action and Commitment Tool (PBIS-ACT) (Filter & Brown, 2019).
Their research included 912 responses and in a very crude form. They stated that 80% of
the staff with different factors to include, stated it was important to have “buy-in” and
“commitment” to functionally have PBIS implemented into a school (Filter & Brown,
2019).
In summary, implementing PBIS depends on both the validity of the framework,
and the social validity of the stakeholders. Filter and Brown (2019) states,
Implementation depends on the efforts of frontline service providers, such as
teachers and staff, who make the choice to implement the specific strategies.
Each of these frontline implementers will naturally vary in the extent to which
they buy-in to PBIS in general and the degree to which they are committed to

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

60

actual work involved in implementing the strategies (Feuerborn, Tyre, & King,
2015; Filter, Sytsma, & McIntosh, 2016 as cited in Filter & Brown, 2019). (p. 40)
As validity is researched and determined, this may pose as just one barrier to
implementing PBIS within schools.
Barriers of PBIS
The three research questions of this Doctoral Capstone Research Project all relate
in part to barriers that could impede the implementation of a PBIS framework. In
reviewing the literature, five main topics continue to be prominent, especially within a
high school setting. Those barriers are administrative support, buy-in from staff, a
misunderstanding of PBIS, sustainability, and PBIS in a high school setting.
Administrative Support
As initiatives are brought to districts, they are typically rolled out from the top
down. Unfortunately the administration is involved from the beginning, which often
hinders staff buy-in (McIntosh et al., 2016). The administration does, however, play an
important role in the success of a PBIS framework initiative. This role includes
allocating resources, prioritizing staff development, funding, and even providing time for
teachers to collaborate with each other (Coffey & Horner, 2012; Kam et al., 2003;
Richter, Lewis, & Hagar, 2012 as cited in McIntosh et al., 2016). Additionally, the lack
of administrative support has been linked to low conceptual understanding of PBIS,
balancing initiatives, and creating a dependency of assistance which all create barriers
within the PBIS framework (Debnam et al., 2013; McIntosh et al., 2016). Coffey and
Horner (2012) define administrator support as strong leadership helping the
implementation of PBIS by providing direction, motivation, facilitating collaboration,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

61

supporting communication between staff members, and affirming that PBIS is a school
priority (Rao, 2020). If this support is lacking or nonexistent for the implementation and
sustainability, then principal support has been indicated to be a barrier (Andreou et al., in
press; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009; Kincaid, Childs, Blasé, & Wallace, 2007;
Lohrmann et al., 2008; McIntosh et al., 2014 as cited in McIntosh et al., 2016).
Staff Buy-In
Staff buy-in can be hindered by many different aspects that relate to PBIS.
However, for a PBIS framework to functionally work with a school setting, staff need to
be on board (Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Through research by
Tyre and Feuerborn (2021), McIntosh et al. (2014), it is indicated that staff support or
“buy-in” is a main variable for full, sustainable implementation of PBIS. Resistance by
staff can come in many different facets and can be complex which relate to individual,
systemic, and/or PBIS related issues (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017). For example Tyre and
Feuerborn (2021) state:
Resistance may be a result of staff perceptions that schoolwide PBIS is not
necessary or effective for the students in their school, in sufficient resources, or
disagreements with the use of rewards (e.g., Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrmann et al.,
2008; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017 as cited in Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Staff
resistance can lead to poor moral and a lack of cohesion among staff, low rates of
fidelity, and ultimately lackluster student outcomes. Tyre and Feuerborn (2017)
have found that 94% to 97% of staff voice their support for implementing PBIS
when asked directly via a survey, in this case the Staff Perceptions of Behavior
and Discipline (SPBD) survey, but supportive staff also have implementation

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

62

concerns. Staff are also concerned about diverse systemic implementation issues,
such as inadequate time and resources, poor school climate, and lack of staff
cohesiveness and leadership of the change effort (Feuerborn et al., 2018; Tyre &
Feuerborn, 2017, p. 42).
Merchant and Miramontes (2013) cited Kincaid et al. (2007) completed research
describing perceived barriers, and found of the 21 different themes, half of those issues
were associated with staff buy-in. “More specifically, lack of staff buy-in was
characterized by poor communication, resulting in miscommunications and confusions
surround simple procedures and desired goals.” (p. 8).
In researching the literature, there are three main points of staff buy-in “misses”
that continually become prevalent. The three concepts are misconceptions,
misapplications, and misalignments of philosophy within the PBIS framework (Tyre &
Feuerborn, 2021). Misconceptions of PBIS are categorized by having a lack of
knowledge or outright misunderstanding of the framework. This can be misrepresented
by staff thinking that by providing some type of token or posting classroom behavioral
expectations within their classrooms are effective uses of the PBIS framework (Tyre &
Feuerborn, 2021). The lack of understanding and knowledge leads to the
misconceptions. “Misapplication of PBIS occurs when staff concerns arise from PBIS
practices applied incorrectly, incompletely, or with low fidelity” (Tyre & Feuerborn,
2021). Misalignments of philosophy are explained by Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) in the
following fashion:
Occur when concerns arise from conflicts between a staff member’s belief system
and the principles that underpin the PBIS framework. An example of

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

63

misalignment would be: “If students cannot behave in my classroom, there
should be another place for them.” The quote here suggests a reliance on
exclusionary discipline to correct student behavior issues, which conflicts with the
inclusive orientation of PBIS. Misalignments of philosophy are important to
detect because they can interfere with implementation of the PBIS framework.
Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) cite e.g., Durlak & DuPre (2008) by stating educators
are more likely to implement an approach when it is compatible with their own
philosophy. (p. 44)
Misalignments explains negative staff buy-in, especially when the philosophies of the
staff member does not meet the PBIS framework’s philosophy.
PBIS Misunderstandings
Barriers due to misunderstandings of PBIS are held at the administrative level.
When staff is not appropriately trained, not given enough time, or does not receive
enough assistance, a barrier of not understanding how to implement a PBIS framework
with fidelity is created. This lack of knowledge and understanding creates a level of
apathy to the framework and staff start to look at PBIS as just another initiative (Bambara
et al., 2009; Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Yeung et al., 2016). Tyre and Feuerborn (2021)
explain the following:
PBIS misses can be anticipated and prevented with appropriate staff engagement
and support in the change process. Teams can start this process by asking staff to
directly share their understandings and beliefs regarding PBIS. Misses thrive in
environments with poor communication, isolation, and distrust. Hence,
schoolwide PBIS leadership teams must advocate for, and secure, high-quality

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

64

professional development and coaching opportunities that are carefully calibrated
to the needs of staff in their buildings, build knowledge and skills, and provide
time and space for staff to collaborate, build trust, and support one another. This
professional development should include both classified and certified staff and
adhere to the principles of adult learning. (p. 49)
Breaking down the misunderstanding of PBIS depends on the administrative
support provided through the process. Professional development continually provides
opportunities for staff members to understand how to implement and sustain PBIS within
their classrooms and school with fidelity. The professional development provided must
be diversified for the different styles of students within each classroom as well (Tyre &
Feuerborn, 2021). Additional to professional development, giving staff a voice, and
having them be included during the implementation of a PBIS framework provides more
opportunities of investment to ensure fidelity of the framework at the staff level
(Bambara et al., 2009; Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021).
PBIS Sustainability
Sustainability for any new initiative takes time and effort to ensure the lasting
aspects of any program or framework put into place. This is no different with PBIS.
Yeung et al. (2016) cited McIntosh et al. (2009) by stating sustainability may be defined
as “durable, long-term implementation of a practice at a level of fidelity that continues to
produce valued outcomes.” (p. 328). There is limited research on the sustainability of
PBIS, but what has been researched is sustainability of PBIS is not just about the length
of implementation, but also involves quality, integrity, and contextual factors of that
implementation (Yeung et al., 2016). Bambara et al. (2009) stated:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

65

More specifically, what are the factors that impede or facilitate sustained adoption
such that PBIS becomes an integral part of daily school routines and results in
successful outcomes? Drawing from the sustainability research conducted on
other research-based educational practices, these factors could be categorized into
three areas (Vaugh, Klingner, & Hughes, 2000 as cited in Bambara et al., 2009):
(a) practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes about intervention effectiveness, including
their beliefs about how practices can benefit them directly and their own ability to
implement practices; (b) opportunities for practitioners to integrate their
experiential knowledge with research-based practices, as well as opportunities to
acquire a deep understanding of research-based practices; and (c) contextual or
systems variables that place demands on practitioners’ daily functioning in school
such as school policies, schedules, organization, and resources (e.g., Brownell,
Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000;
Klinger, Ahwee, & Pilonieta, 2003; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert,
2006 as cited in Bambara et al., 2009). (p. 162)
These three main factors are very similar to staff buy-in barriers, which were previously
explained.
Practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes about interventions can be a very decisive
barrier within a high school. As programs are rotated, attitudes towards new initiatives or
frameworks (PBIS) can create resistance from staff. Research has identified staff
resistance based on different social contextual variables, such as, too many school
initiatives, and personal belief barriers, such as, lack of perceived need for PBIS, personal
autonomy infringement, or differences in philosophy regarding classroom management

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

66

(Bambara et al., 2009). Bambara et al. (2009) completed a research study on this idea of
staff perceived barriers; they found 92% of the participants thought establishing a school
culture in which all members shared a common understanding and appreciation for PBIS
was the most pervasive theme within their study. (p. 167). Bambara et al. (2009) stated:
The general view was that the absence of a supportive school culture,
characterized by a general lack of knowledge or awareness of PBIS activities, as
well as long-held conflicting beliefs, values, and practices of school personnel,
made it extremely difficult for team members to carry out PBIS for individual
students with any impact or sustainability. (p. 167)
Bambara et al. (2009) continued by explaining the importance of a supportive school
culture and how to create sustainability:
First, most participants (80%) in their study, stressed the importance of educating
the entire school community about the basic tenets and processes of PBIS.
Participants stressed that schoolwide trainings should include sufficient
information to explain what PBIS is, how it is carried out, and how it can benefit
all students. Second, sharing the work of PBIS teams and their success with the
greater school community was viewed as an important enabler, not only for
reduce feelings of team isolation but also to provide evidence that individualized
PBIS does work. Experiencing, sharing, and seeing success creates a snowball
effect in which school personnel are more willing to be involved and try new
strategies and in turn experience ‘transformative’ success themselves. (p. 169)
Sustaining programs is key to ensure that the benefits created during the implementation
process are not lost. Additionally, there are financial, time, and resource variables which

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

67

exist with any new framework or initiative put into place (McIntosh et al., 2011 as cited
in Yeung et al., 2016).
Yeung et al. (2016) completed a systematic review highlighting key issues
impacting the sustainability of PBIS. Figure 6 illustrates the factors impacting
sustainability (Yeung et al., 2016, p. 151):

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

Figure 6
Factors impacting sustainability identified in previous research
Study

Factors impacting sustainability

Taylor-Greene and Kartoub (2000)







Defined improvement goals
Administrator support
Teamwork
Positive reinforcement (e.g., rewarding students for desirable behavior)
Formative evaluation

Sugai and Horner (2006)





School leadership
Administrator support
Student reward systems

Lohrmann et al. (2008)







Administrator support
Skepticism
Hopeless about change
Philosophical differences
Disenfranchisement

Bambara et al. (2012)








School culture
Administrator support
Structure and use of time
Professional development
Support for professional practice
Family and student involvement

Forman et al. (2009)









Administrator support
Teacher support
Financial resources
High-quality training and consultation
The alignment of interventions with school philosophy, goals, polices, and
programs
Visibility of outcomes and impact
Turnover in school staff and administrators

Bambara et al. (2012)



Time for planning, implementing and meeting as a team

Coffey and Horner (2012)










Administrator support
Communication
Data-based decision making
Coaching and training
Staff buy-in
Teaming
Resources
Turnover

Hume and McIntosh (2013)






Frequent school team meetings
Presentation of data to school staff
Access to an external coach or consultant
Duration of implementation

Mathews et al. (2014)





Regular acknowledgement of expected behaviors
Matching instruction to student ability
Access to additional support

McIntosh et al. (2013)






School priority (manifested as strong administrator support and better team
functioning)
Team use of data
District priority
Capacity building





Administrator support
Regular team meetings
High priority of PBIS

McIntosh et al. (2014)

68

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

69

As Yeung et al. points out, there are many factors that will impact the sustainability of
implementing PBIS into a school. Four essential interconnected dimensions rose to
create sustainability of PBIS. These four dimensions are: (1) ongoing professional
development and technical assistance, (2) administrator support for school team, (3)
emphasis on classroom-level implementation fidelity, and (4) effective evaluation of
implementation fidelity and sustainability (Yeung et al., 2016). Maintaining these
dimensions within a PBIS framework increases the opportunity to sustain the framework
within a school setting.
High School Setting
It can be more difficult implementing a PBIS framework in a high school setting
due to different factors, like, how teenagers develop, the setup of high schools, and higher
expectations of behavior management compared to other levels of schooling (Flannery et
al., 2020; Macy & Wheeler, 2021). Flannery et al. (2020) wrote an article associated
with the Center on PBIS that explained, “it’s easier for faculty and staff to teach and
acknowledge the positive behavior of elementary and middle school students than to
establish an age-appropriate, effective system for acknowledging high school students.”
(p. 2). Positive behaviors need to be recognized at all levels to create a positive school
culture. Flannery et al. (2020) states:
High school faculty and staff often feel hindered in their options for
acknowledging student positive behavior. The result is not only do students
report that their positive behavior is under appreciated, but adults in high school
indicate they are aware that they are not acknowledging student behavior. (p. 4)

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

70

Acknowledgement of all students is critical within a PBIS framework, particularly within
a Tier 1 PBIS framework. There are student populations that go unnoticed due to not
being a dominant population within the school. Particularly at the high school level;
when expectations are high for behavior, in some situations students are not
acknowledged due to meeting an arbitrary level of expectation. This creates a barrier
within a high school setting for PBIS to be greeted with high fidelity. Flannery et al.
(2020) discusses five elements of a high school acknowledgement system. These five
core elements are (1) schoolwide commitment and logic, (2) data system to guide
decisions, (3) a recognition rhythm, (4) faculty and staff acknowledgement of student
behavior, and (5) student acknowledgement of student behavior. Along with the five
core elements, there has to be an effort in which all school staff members recognize and
acknowledge the positive behaviors being displayed.
Student Management
Student management is one of the most difficult aspects for a teacher within a
classroom. Setting expectations within a classroom and maintaining those expectations
can depend on the students within the class and how the teacher manages their behaviors.
Managing student behavior can be a difficult process for both seasoned teachers and new
teachers alike. PBIS is framework of evidenced-based intervention strategies, which tries
to help give consistency not just within the classroom but also throughout the school to
help manage student behavior in a positive aspect. Implementing PBIS allows teachers to
teach the expected behaviors wanted within their classrooms, but also what is expected
throughout the school. Thus, PBIS creates consistency and high expectations for students
in all situations within the school (Feuerborn et al., 2019; Gage et al., 2020).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

71

Inclusive Discipline or Proactive Discipline
Inclusive discipline or proactive discipline is the basis of a PBIS framework.
Teaching students the proper behavior wanted within a school and implementing
evidence-based interventions allows for positive reinforcement towards students (Gage et
al., 2020; Horner & Macaya, 2018). The research questions of this Doctoral Capstone
Project specifically focus on the Tier 1 level of PBIS, Gage et al. (2020) state, “at the
universal, or Tier 1 level, PBIS focuses on the use of proactive and preventive discipline
practices, which focuses on positive reinforcement instead of punishments.” (p. 42).
Netzel and Eber (2003) explained:
Being proactive does take time out of one’s schedule; however, when comparing
the amount of time invested in proactive strategies to the amount of time and
emotional energy expended to reactively respond to misbehavior, it is clear that
the proactive approach can be more time and energy efficient. (p. 74)
Ideally, inclusive discipline creates dialog and conversations between school staff and
students prior to moving toward more exclusionary options of discipline (Netzel & Eber,
2003). Those exclusionary options are detentions, suspensions, or other office discipline
referrals (ODR’s). PBIS tries to introduce options that are different than ODR’s and
more towards positive interactive options, such as a token economy or other initiatives
like Restorative Practice (RP).
Restorative practices mirror or parallel PBIS by creating core values based on the
needs of the school, decreases inappropriate behaviors, holds individuals or groups
responsible for their behaviors, and restores positive staff and student relationships

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

72

(Evanovich et al., 2020). Evanovich et al. (2020) explains how RP and PBIS intersect
with one another:
Similar to PBIS, RP provides a set of strategies that can be used for building
community and responding to challenging behavior. Both approaches rely on
whole-school models that emphasize prevention and positive responses to
challenging behavior. When RP strategies are integrated into existing PBIS
frameworks, the support for teacher implementation of proactive practices is
increased, and strategies to support student behavior change are explicit and
increased. (p. 29)
Creating opportunities for proactive practices and teaching the elements of socialemotional behavior skills remains the key to PBIS (Evanovich et al., 2020). RP is just
one option that can be used within PBIS. Another example of how to create positive
interactions with students and to maintain positive behavior would be utilizing a token
economy.
Token economy is a strategy within a PBIS framework to acknowledge and
reinforce positive behaviors for students. As students are exhibiting positive behaviors,
school staff can acknowledge these behaviors by recognizing the students for meeting the
expectations or core values within the PBIS framework. These recognitions can be as
simple as a slip of paper with the student’s name on it, in which that student can obtain a
prize if their name is pulled in a drawing (Menousek, 2011; Netzel & Eber, 2003).
Research by Scott and Barrett (2004) and Bohanon et al. (2006), as cited in Menousek
(2011), states as token economies are implemented within high schools, there is a
decrease of ODR’s with a lower amount of both minor and major infractions. The use of

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

73

a token can be extremely powerful and useful when engaging students for both
appropriate academic and social behavior (George et al., 2007; McLaughlin & Malaby,
1972; Miller, George, & Fogt, 2005 as cited in Menousek, 2011). However, questions
arise for the successful implementation of a token economy system used to reinforce
students within a PBIS framework. Thus future needs for research in this area arise,
particularly the use of tickets for acknowledging appropriate behavior.
Overall, PBIS is very effective at moving discipline away from exclusionary to
inclusionary. It does not mean that exclusionary discipline should not be utilized within a
school setting. One of PBIS’s essential elements is for school leadership teams to
implement a consistent use of consequences when behavioral expectations are not met
(Leach & Helf, 2016). The Center on PBIS (2021) states the following five school-wide
practices:
1. Document a shared vision and approach to supporting and responding to student
behavior in a mission or vision statement.
2. Establish 3-5 positively-stated school-wide expectations and define them for each
school routine or setting.
3. Explicitly teach school-wide expectations and other key social, emotional, and
behavioral skills to set all students up for success.
4. Establish a continuum of recognition strategies to provide specific feedback and
encourage contextually appropriate behavior.
5. Establish a continuum of response strategies to provide specific feedback, reteach contextually appropriate behavior, and discourage contextually
inappropriate behavior. (p. 5)

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

74

These five practices and particularly the fifth one explains there has to be a set of
expectations for the students to meet. If not met, the discouragement of that behavior
should be met as well, referring to a consequence.
Exclusive Discipline or Reactive Discipline
Exclusionary discipline has been researched extensively by researchers such as
Horner et al. (2009), Bradshaw et al. (2010), Noltemeyer et al.(2015), Losen and Martin
(2018), Gage et al. (2020), Center on PBIS (2021), and many more, and all of the
research, state the same idea: exclusionary discipline fails the student (Gage et al., 2020).
Exclusionary discipline, refers to discipline such as suspensions, whether in-school
suspension (ISS), out-of-school suspension (OSS), expulsions, and even detentions.
“Research demonstrates the deleterious outcomes associated with disciplinary exclusions,
including more incidents of exclusion, poor academic performance, and increased risk for
contact with juvenile justice” (Noltemeyer et al., 2015 as cited in Gage et al., 2020, p.
42). The continuing reduction of exclusionary discipline can be curbed by the use of
PBIS and its evidenced based multi-tiered framework. Bradshaw et al. (2012) as cited in
Gage (2020) found that schools that implement PBIS has had a statistical decrease in
disruptive and negative behavior, and showed an increase in prosocial behaviors (p. 43).
Gage et al. (2020) backed that finding by stating evidence from research they conduced
which read:
We found that schools implementing universal (Tier1) SWPBIS with fidelity and
either Tier 2 or Tier 3 with fidelity (Gold) or all three tiers with fidelity
(Platinum) reported significantly fewer OSS than propensity score matching
(PSM) schools not implementing SWPBIS. (p. 48)

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

75

The Center on PBIS website explains what PBIS is and how it can positively
affect schools at all levels. The Center on PBIS (2020) states the following about PBIS:
PBIS is not a curriculum you purchase or something you learn during a one-day
professional development training. It is a commitment to addressing student
behavior through systems change. When it is implemented well, students achieve
improved social and academic outcomes, schools experience reduced
exclusionary discipline practices, and school personnel feel more effective. (p. 2)
Figure 7 by the Center on PBIS (2020, p. 6) is an explanation of how PBIS can help with
the outcomes schools want to achieve through the use of the framework.
Figure 7
Outcomes of PBIS

Creating an environment of decreased exclusionary discipline is the ultimate goal behind
the PBIS framework and the goal of every school that implements PBIS. Increasing
opportunities to decrease exclusionary discipline is a concern for schools; PBIS is one of
those opportunities to help decrease ISS’s, OSS’s, and expulsions, particularly in high

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

76

school (Gage et al., 2020). By creating an environment of decreased exclusionary
discipline the chance for students to be successful both academically and behaviorally
will ultimately increase (Gage et al., 2020).
Summary
The literature review shows PBIS has become an integral aspect of education to
help reduce behavior concerns but also assists with social emotional situations within
schools. Increasing opportunities for staff members to create a positive school
environment is key when implementing the framework. Filter and Brown (2019) wrote:
The core school-wide strategies of implementing PBIS include (a) establishing
three to five positively stated behavioral expectations, (b) teaching the behavioral
expectations, (c) providing written and verbal reminders to engage in expected
behaviors, (d) creating a system to acknowledge students when they engage in
expected behavior expected behavior, and (e) using a predictable and responsive
system for addressing behavior violations (Sugai & Horner, 2002 as cited in Filter
& Brown, 2019). (p. 40)
With over 25,000 schools in the United States implementing the PBIS framework, this
literature review expounds on the validity of this frameworks utilization both in social
validity and instrumental validity.
In examining the research questions of this Doctoral Capstone Project, the
literature review has demonstrated justification for each question and presented both
supportive and alternative research for each question. The research questions for this
doctoral capstone research project are:
Research Question 1:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

77

What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
The research within the literature review explains the barriers that can be created
within a school setting. Whether those barriers are philosophical based or due to the
nature of a high school setting, the perceptions of teachers can range. Researchers of a
Tier 1 PBIS framework highlight that not only do these barriers need to be broken and
understood to enhance the quality of the PBIS framework, but also to increase positive
perceptions of the framework as well. Thus, an opportunity for positive social validity
toward the implemented PBIS framework has been created.
Research Question 2:
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?
Token economies, when used properly, creates positive school culture, as stated
within the literature review. Not only does increasing recognition of students benefit the
perception of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, but it also creates positive reinforcement
opportunities for all students within a school setting. Creating a positive school culture
increases opportunities for learning, and decreases student management within
classrooms. The impact of teachers on student recognitions is crucial within a Tier 1
PBIS framework at the high school level. The literature review ties these implications
together with research.
Research Question 3:
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

78

Again, the literature review explains the different barriers within PBIS that break
down the reasons why teachers do not participate within a PBIS framework. However,
the literature review also explains the research behind the behavioral science that
supports PBIS. From Skinner to the more recent researchers such as Sugai, Horner,
Bradshaw, and many others, the literature review showcases how their research is
supported by behavioral science and why PBIS is successful at utilizing the research
being completed in this field. Moving away from zero tolerance to a more inclusive and
intrinsic motivational style perpetuates the ideas of PBIS and why it is so powerful within
school settings. Creating opportunities for staff members to understand the science
behind PBIS is explained in the literature review.
As this doctoral capstone project moves into Chapter III Methodology, utilizing
both a survey (SPBD Survey) and an informal interview process, it expands on how a
PBIS framework can make positive changes within a high school setting. Particularly, it
moves away from exclusionary discipline to more inclusive engagement of students and
understanding the perception of teachers utilizing a PBIS framework.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

79

CHAPTER III
Methodology
This chapter connects chapter two to the methods used to answer the research
questions of this doctoral capstone project. As written in chapter two the evidence shows
there is a need for behavioral management within school settings. Using the historical
value of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) explained in the literature
review, the perception of the high school staff toward a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a
high school setting was studied. High schools are studied very little within PBIS
research; this is largely due to the setup of a high school, the age of the students, and the
ideology/philosophy of the staff (Flannery et al., 2020; Macy & Wheeler, 2021). Chapter
III explains that the utilization of a mix-methods approach and a convergent parallel
design (QUAL + QUAN) of data collection is the anticipated way of completing this
research. This chapter explains the tools utilized to obtain the data needed to answer the
Doctoral Capstone Research questions. Those tools are the Staff Perceptions Behavior
and Discipline or SPBD survey, which was developed by Dr. Laura Feuerborn at the
University of Washington, Tacoma, and Dr. Ashli Tyre at Seattle University, and a semiformal interview, developed by the Researcher. An independent person, with doctoral
research experience, delivered the semi-formal interview. Lastly, the setting was
explained the participants of the research to give a well-rounded understanding of the
research being conducted. Chapter II provided the research needed to connect the
importance and the need to study the perceptions of teachers within a high school setting.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

80

Purpose
Cornwall-Lebanon School District (CLSD) is located in the south-central part of
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and encircles the city of Lebanon. The center of the
district is located about 25 miles equidistant from Harrisburg to the west, Reading to the
east, and Lancaster to the south.
With a student population of approximately 4798, CLSD is the largest of six
school districts in Lebanon County. The school district comprises a growing and diverse
population. The racial diversity of students enrolled in the district is 82.28% White;
9.23% Hispanic or Latino of any race; 4.0% Black or African American; 2.04% Asian;
.33% Pacific Islander; 2% Multi Racial; .01% Native American. Gender breakdown is
49.02% female, 50.98% male. Currently, 746 students receive special education services,
or 15.55% of the student population. In the CLSD, 96.7% of the students speak English
as their primary language; the remaining 3.3% represent English Language Learners.
Free/Reduced lunch represents 35.4% of the student population as determined by free
(31.3%) and reduced (4.1%) lunch participants.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch
Country; local heritage includes people from many national origins. The district consists
of 70 square miles inhabited by more than 31,000 residents. The school district is unique
in Pennsylvania in that both the school district population and the number of residents is
increasing in size because of the desirable living arrangements within the district. The
school district encircles an urban (Lebanon City) center, which continues to affect
demographics.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

81

Cedar Crest High School (CCHS)
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS), along with the Educational Service Center
(Administration Building), and Cedar Crest Middle School, are located almost right in the
middle of the school district. CCHS consists of 9th through 12th grades, has
approximately 1,548 students, that is made up of 52.4% male students and 47.6% female
students. CCHS’s demographics regarding Race/Ethnicity are 75.1% White, 16.2%
Hispanic, 3.6% Black, 3.1% two(2) or More Races, 2.0% Asian, and 0.1% Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The school has 36.0% of the students identified as
economically disadvantaged, 13.0% of the students are identified as special education,
3.3% of the students are connected to the military, 2.1% of the students are English
language learners, 0.8% of students are identified as homeless, and 0.3% of students are
listed within a foster care.
Setting and Participants
Cedar Crest High School’s professional staff was the subject of this doctoral
capstone project. The Researcher submitted a plan to utilize the staff of CCHS to the
Internal Review Board (IRB) of California University of Pennsylvania; this plan was
accepted and approved for research on June 31, 2021 (Appendix A). Additionally, the
Researcher submitted a plan and petitioned CLSD’s Superintendent to ensure the
research could be completed within CCHS. Cornwall-Lebanon School District’s
Superintendent, Dr. Philip L. Domencic on July 22, 2021 (Appendix B), approved the
submitted plan, which indicated the Research would survey the Professional Staff and
conduct semi-formal interviews with members of CCHS’s professional staff.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

82

Cedar Crest High School has a wide range of experience within the professional
staff. The range of years are one (1) to over 20 years of experience. There are two (2)
staff members retiring at the end of the 2021-2022 school year; this is significant because
this is the school year in which this doctoral capstone project was completed. Having the
ability to obtain their input, even on a confidential basis per the Staff Consent Form, still
allowed institutional knowledge to be added into this study. Figure 8 gives a breakdown
of the professional staff:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

83

Figure 8
Breakdown of Cedar Crest High School’s Professional Staff
Professional Staff

Gender
Male
Female
Total Gender of Professional Staff
Members
Positions
Superintendent
Director of Secondary Education
Director of Pupil Services
Director of Technology
High School Principal
High School Assistant Principals
High School Athletic Director
Teachers
High School Counselors
School Psychologist
Social Worker
High School Nurses
Special Education Liaison
Teacher Assistants
Administrative Assistances (HS)
Community Relations Coordinator
Athletic Trainer
Administrative Assistant
(Superintendent)
Administrative Assistant (Director of
Secondary Education)
Permanent Substitutes
School Resource Officers
Technology Assistants
Maintenance
Total Professional Staff Positions in
CCHS

Number
of Staff
n

Percentage

72
88
160

45
55

1
1
1
1
1
3
1
108
5
1
1
2
1
8
9
1
1
1

0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
1.875
0.625
67.5
3.125
0.625
0.625
1.25
0.625
5
5.625
0.625
0.625
0.625

1

0.625

2
2
7
1
160

1.25
1.25
4.375
0.625

%

Total Number
of Participants
N

N = 160

Note: N=160. This figure represents the number of participants per their gender and the
position held within the Professional Staff of CCHS. It also breaks down the staff
percentages per each position, this showing the largest group of staff members by
percentage.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

84

Per Figure 8, the largest group within the professional staff group are the teachers.
Figure 9 explains the total number of teachers (N=108) and how they are broken
down within each department of CCHS. This information is not broken down into class
taught as that information did not pertain to this doctoral capstone project. Also, Figure 9
creates an understanding of how CCHS’s teachers are broken down by department.
Figure 9
Breakdown of Teachers within their Department
Department

Art
Business
Cyber (C3)
English
Family Consumer Science
History
Librarian
Mathematics
Music
Physical Education
Science
Special Education
Technology Education
World Languages
Total Teachers within each
department

Number
of
Teachers
n
3
5
1
12
4
12
1
12
3
6
13
21
9
6
108

Percentage Total Number
of Teachers
of Teachers
within each
department
%
N
2.77
4.63
0.93
11.11
3.70
11.11
0.93
11.11
2.77
5.56
12.04
19.44
8.33
5.56
N = 108

Note: N=108. This figure represents the number of teachers within each of the
departments at Cedar Crest High School. Additionally, this gives a good representation
as to how many teachers are within each department.
The literature review explained the importance of staff buy-in towards a PBIS
framework. Breaking down the largest portion of the staff gives an indication of which

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

85

department places the greatest importance on a PBIS framework. Feuerborn et al. (2015,
p. 1) states the following:
Shifting from a traditional model of discipline to SWPBS requires a substantial
change in the practices of staff, and obtaining full staff support and commitment
to SWPBS can be a challenging endeavor. In the past decade, several studies
have underscored the importance of staff support in all stages of implementation.
In their interviews of team representatives from high and low implementing
schools, Kincaid, Childes, Blasé, and Wallace (2007), as cited in Feuerborn et al.,
2015, found that lack of staff support was the most frequently identified barrier to
achieving full implementation. Team leaders reported that misunderstanding,
philosophical beliefs incongruent to SWPBS, and limited knowledge of behavior
principles were all factors influencing the implementation of SWPBS in their
schools. In a follow-up study, SWPBS facilitators identified major barriers of
implementation at the universal level including teacher skepticism that SWPBS
was needed, a belief that SWPBS was ineffective, and philosophical difference
with the core elements of SWPBS, such as equating external positive
reinforcement with bribery and overreliance on punishment (Lohrmann, Forman,
Martin, & Palmieri, 2008 as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015).
The importance of understanding the largest portion of the professional staff deeply roots
the understanding of the research questions for this particular capstone project.
CCHS PBIS Framework
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) implemented a Positive Behavior Intervention
and Support (PBIS) framework named Wings of Praise (WofP) during the 2018-2019

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

86

school year. Wings of Praise was implemented with no formal professional development
for the staff. This framework has now been implemented into two additional schools
within the district, the Cedar Crest Middle School and South Lebanon Elementary School
with subtle age appropriate adjustments. All of these schools are within the CLSD. The
problem the Researcher would like to investigated was to evaluate the perceptions of high
school teacher towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework, how this perception impacts WofP
either in a positive or negative way, and how to increase the support of the teachers
towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework at a high school level. Teacher support within the
PBIS framework is constituted as completing a recognition slip, either in paper form or
via an online form, and praising the student for meeting a level of expectation within the
high school setting. Tier 1 systems, data, and practices impact everyone across all
settings. They establish the foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and
preventing unwanted behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Research Need
The need to research this topic relies on the implications it could have within
Cedar Crest High School (CCHS). An Assistant Principal spends a great deal of time
managing student behaviors using negative reinforcement. In the last four years, the
Researcher has managed the discipline with the inclusion of a PBIS framework theory.
Assumptions can be made regarding discipline being proactive, and not reactive by all
staff members within a high school setting. As part of this study, the Researcher wanted
to consider if student misconduct is affected because of teacher perception regarding a
PBIS Tier 1 framework. Thus, ideally, as discipline is affected, the school can then focus
more on curriculum, teacher development, and increasing opportunities for students all

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

87

around. PBIS has been demonstrated to effectively promote positive school climates to
enhance social behavior outcomes while contributing to academic success (Hall et al.,
2016).
Wings of Praise was implemented in the 2018-2019 school year. Wings of Praise
is a Tier 1 PBIS framework used locally in CLSD and at CCHS. The foundation of WofP
is to engage all students who are meeting the expectations of the building; this is
congruent with CCHS’s PRIDE matrix, and provide recognition for their efforts. PRIDE
is an acronym, which stands for P – Personal Responsibility, R – Respect, I – Integrity, D
– Dedication, and E – Excellence. Having local knowledge, there is a need in
researching the following aspects of PBIS within a high school setting: the perception of
the teacher utilizing the PBIS framework, how WofP slips are used, and the
understanding of the staff’s perception and evaluation of this PBIS framework. By
converging two data points and triangulating the data, the Researcher created an action
plan to help improve the overall framework of the Tier 1 PBIS framework within CCHS.
This topic was locally developed and implemented by the Researcher for the past
four years. The idea behind a Tier 1 PBIS framework was to increase and recognize the
positive behavior of all students within CCHS. Since WofP was instituted within CCHS,
there was minimal change, even a decrease of PBIS Tier 1 utilization. During the 20182019 school year, CCHS submitted 3073 WofP slips, in the 2019-2020 school year
CCHS submitted 1442 WofP slips, up to the date of March 20, 2020. This date is
significant because at that time schools moved to a virtual setting due to COVID 19.
CCHS then went to an online Microsoft Forms to submit WofP slips; from April 2nd
through June 6th an additional 408 slips were submitted, thus bringing the total for the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

88

2019-2020 school to 1850 slips. The 2020-2021 school year overall saw an even greater
decrease of WofP submitted of 1412 slips. The 2021-2022 school year, which was not
completed during the writing of this doctoral capstone project, has submitted 177 WofP
slips at the beginning of the second semester, January 25, 2022. The 2021-2022 school
year was on track to be the lowest amount of WofP slips given in the four (4) years of the
Tier 1 PBIS framework being implemented at CCHS. The Researcher wanted to
investigate why the decline of teacher participation occurred, and what obstacles or
barriers existed that resulted in non-buy-in or disengagement?
Action Research
The Researcher utilized an action research with a mixed methods approach and a
convergent parallel design (QUAL + QUAN) of data collection to complete this doctoral
capstone research. The mixed methods approach was utilized to gain enough data both
qualitatively and quantitatively for this research. Almalki (2016, pp. 289-290) states,
Educational research can be described as “…critical enquiry aimed at informing
educational judgements and decisions in order to improve action” (Bassey, 1999;
cited in Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2010, p. 8 as cited in Almalki, 2016) which is
conducted carefully and systematically (Picciano, 2004 as cited in Almalki,
2016). Educational research covers a wide spectrum of things from the
administratin and structure of education, to issues of equality and social justice,
the curriculum, assessment, special educational needs, creativity and the impact of
education on the economy (Gardner, 2011 as cited in Almalki, 2016). The British
Educational Research Association (BERA) (2013 as cited in Almalki, 2016),
believes that educational research should support the development of education in

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

89

the future, as well as highlighting what works a the present time (endorsed by
Whitty, 2006; Wallen & Fraenkel, 2011; James, 2012 as cited in Almalki, 2016),
which concurs with the ideas of Newby (2013 as cited in Almalki, 2016) who
believes that there are three reasons for engaging in educational research – to
explore current and potential issues, to influence policy decisions, and to evaluate
and progress classroom practices.
The idea of completing mixed methods research within an educational setting to obtain
data in the exploration of potential issues and how to build on classroom practices was
the main reason for the Researcher. The Researcher utilized a qualitative plus
quantitative mixed methods of research to have a broad perspective of high school staff
members. Almalki (2016, p. 291) cited Burke Johnson et al. (2007, p. 123) explaining
mixed method research in the following manner:
…the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combine
elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of
qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference
techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and
corroboration.
Furthermore, utilizing this style of data collection and additionally adding in a
convergence approach of analyzing the data, created opportunities for weaknesses,
strengths, and the ability to offset biases within the research (Almalki, 2016).
Triangulation mixed methods design explained by Creswell & Clark (2007 as cited in
Almalki, 2016, p. 292) states:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

90

The triangulation design is one which seeks to gather complimentary yet
distinctly different data on the same topic which can then be integrated for
analysis and interpretation. The benefits are it makes intuitive sense to gather
information from different sources, utilizing different methods, which work
together as an efficient design. The challenges are it lies in the considerable effort
and expertise that is required to draw everything together and the potential for
further research and/or investigation being required as a result of discrepancies
within the data sets.
Trying to interpret the perception of high school staff members was another reason as to
why a mixed methods convergent research style was used to quantify data points.
Almalki (2016, p. 294) cited Creswell and Clark (2014, p. 12) stating:
“We are social, behavioral, and human sciences researchers first, and divisions
between quantitative and qualitative research only served to narrow the
approaches and the opportunities for collaboration.” Almalki (2016) continues, it
would seem churlish to deny the opportunities for researchers and society in
general to have a greater understanding of the issues which face education today,
irrespective of whether discoveries are made as a result of qualitative, quantitative
or mixed methods research.
Qualitative and quantitative data was provided by utilizing the Staff Perceptions
of Behavior & Discipline (SPBD) survey to determine if there were any common threads
through CCHS regarding a Tier 1 PBIS framework. The SPBD survey was sent to each
of the CCHS’s Professional Staff which totaled 160. The breakdown of professional staff
members is listed in Figure 8. The SPBD survey consent form (Appendix C) and the

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

91

SPBD survey (Appendix D) was first distributed to CCHS’s Professional Staff via email
on December 10, 2021. Cedar Crest High School has an email list created for the school
called ProStaffH;, this is the email list utilized to distribute the SPBD consent form and
survey. Additionally, the survey was distributed to the CCHS’s Professional Staff via
email, again on December 22, 2021, and January 26, 2022. The purpose of sending this
document out multiple times was to try to increase the amount of responses for the
optional survey. Within the additional emails sent, the Researcher stated if “you”,
meaning the professional staff members, have taken this survey please disregard this
email. In making this request, the Researcher was ensuring the same professional staff
member was not completing the survey for a second time. This maintained the validity of
the survey to just the number of Professional Staff Members who completed the survey
only once. Ilieva et al. (2010), stated there is “a significant advantage of email survey
because of the speed of data collection. Additionally, it is very low cost to the researcher
and instant access to a wide audience, irrespective of their geographical location.” Ilieva
et al. (2010, p. 372) states:
A major concern in online surveys regarding the validity of the data collected on
the web stems from the sampling frame (Ray et al., 2001 as cited in Ilieva et al.,
2010), which is represented predominantly by a computer-literate population
rather than ‘appropriate’ for the survey sample. A significant positive impact on
the data quality was the easy contract and instant feedback from the email
respondents. Having just received a message from a researcher requesting further
information or clarification on some points, an instant replay from the respondent
saves the effort of explaining the issue again and introducing the problem. The

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

92

same is valid vice versa when clarification and additional information is requested
for the respondents.
The Researcher additionally collected qualitative data obtained by administering a
semi-formal interview to members of the professional staff. The Researcher’s purpose
behind the semi-formal interview was to collect raw perception data from individual staff
members regarding WofP. McIntosh and Morse (2015, p. 7) states there are advantages
and disadvantages in using a semi-structured interview:
Among the advantages are the following: (a) The presence of the interviewer
gives structure to the interview situation. Communication is optimized because
both verbal and non-verbal communication is possible. (b) The physical presence
of the interviewer may allow him or her to discern any discomfort or unease on
the part of the respondent and offer a break or emotional support, hence face-toface may be more ethical way to conduct the research. Disadvantages may
include the following: (a) Participants feel inhibited when asked to respond to
sensitive questions face-to-face – more socially desirable answers and
conventional answers may be given than when a self-administered questionnaire
is utilized. (b) Unwanted interviewer affect is maximized in this type of
interview. (c) Conducting this type of interview is costly in terms of time and
money.
These advantages and particularly the disadvantages were reduced by having a thirdparty individual conduct the interviews.
McIntosh and Morse (2015, pp. 9-10) state the following to corroborate the use of
a semi-structured interview:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

93

Semi-structured interviews are the most common qualitative research method to
be used in mixed-method designs – those that integrate qualitative and
quantitative research (Bryman, 2006; Morse, 2012; Povee & Roberts, 2015 as
cited in McIntosh and Morse, 2015). As well as, results of SSI research
constitute descriptive summaries that are valuable primarily as end-products and,
secondarily, as entry points for future study. The end-product is knowledge –
either confirmation or correction of that which already exists or discovery of new
knowledge. Results of SSI research may seem simple, that is, “mere” concrete
description rather than abstract and theoretical.
The semi-structured interview, provided additional qualitative data to converge
with the SPBD survey. By converging these two sets of data, the Researcher triangulated
the information to obtain similar and supporting conclusions. A third-party person
conducted the semi-structured interviews, this was done to increase the validity of the
interview. The third-party person, who conducted the interviews, has her doctorate, so
she understands the confidentiality and procedures used within educational research. The
initial set-up to select the professional staff members was created by the Researcher. The
Researcher created a list of all 160 professional staff members at CCHS in a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet from the ProStaffHS email list. Once the list of professional staff
names and emails were listed, the Researcher gave each of the professional staff members
a number. Figure 10 shows an example of the professional staff member list.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

94

Figure 10
Example List of Professional Staff, Email, and Number
Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name
Professional Staff Name

Staff
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Note: Figure 10 depicts an example of how the professional staff members name, email,
and number were listed; in this figure, the Researcher removed the name for
confidentiality purposes.
To decrease biasness and increase validity in this process, the Researcher then sent via
email the created Excel spreadsheet list (Figure 10) to a CLSD Technology Specialist to
create a randomized list of numbers that correspond to each staff member. The
technology specialist completed this task by utilizing a Microsoft Excel function, which
allows someone to randomize information contained within a certain column of the Excel
spreadsheet. That Microsoft Excel function is the following: =INDEX($Column
Letter:$Column Letter, RANDBETWEEN(1,COUNTA($Column Letter:$Column
Letter)),1). The CLSD technology specialist sent this updated list to the interviewer, thus
allowing her to proceed with interviews. The list has never been shared with the
Researcher, thus decreasing the biasness of the interviews.
Figure 11 is an example of the created list the technology specialist sent to the
interviewer. Additionally listed in Figure 11 are the procedures the Researcher created

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

95

for the Interviewer. As stated in Figure 11, the Researcher and the Interviewer created a
set of procedures for the semi-structured interviews.
Figure 11
Example of Randomized Selected Professional Staff Members and Semi-Formal Interview
Procedures

Note: Figure 11 depicts an example of the list given to the Interviewer from the CLSD
Technology Specialist. This figure shows how the number assigned to the Professional
Staff Member were randomly selected, these numbers correlate to a name and email on
the original master list depicted in Figure 10. Additionally, the procedures for the semistructured interviews are listed on this figure.
Utilizing the created Excel list (Figure 11) the interviewer connected with the
professional staff member number 1, which in this example was professional staff
member #86. Again, each staff member had a number, which correlated to the master list
of professional staff (Figure 10). As the interviewer connected with professional staff
member #86, the interviewer asked #86 if he or she wanted to volunteer for semi-formal

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

96

interview. If #86 volunteered for the semi-formal interview, the interviewer provided
#86 with the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview
Consent Form (Appendix E). The consent form explained the purpose and procedures of
the interview; it also explained confidentiality was very important in this process. To
continue with the confidentiality, #86 was asked to sign the consent form, which was then
be put into an envelope by the interviewer with only the number on the outside of the
envelope; again this created a layer of reduced biasness and confidentiality for the
process. After the consent form was completed, the interviewer conducted the interview
utilizing the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-Formal Interview
Questions (Appendix F). If #86 did not consent to the interview, then there was no
pressure put onto the professional staff member to be interviewed. The interviewer then
moved onto the next staff member listed on the randomized list (Figure 11). The
randomly selected staff member list had 25 listed staff members; the purpose of this was
to ensure the interviewer had enough staff members to choose from if there were
individuals who did not consent to the interview. If additional staff members needed to
be added to the list, the CLSD Technology Specialist did so. The interviewer continued
with this process until they had interviewed approximately 8-12 professional staff
members. The number of interviews selected was 8 because that represented 5% of the
160 professional staff members, and 12 represents 7.5% of the 160 professional staff
members. If the total number of semi-formal interviews was within the 5% to 7.5% this
would give a substantiated amount of data, which represented the professional staff
accordingly or contained enough saturation of staff members to ensure discovery of all
unique opinions of the group (Cober & Adams, 2020). The consenting professional staff

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

97

members understood that each of the interviews was audio recorded for control and
accuracy purposes. The audio recording allowed the Researcher to transcribe the
interview, utilizing an online transcription program called Veed. Transcribing the
interviews provided the Researcher the ability to find threads within the interview to
triangulate the data back to the SPBD survey.
SPBD Survey Validity
After researching the survey tools available to obtain data regarding perception of
high school staff members, the Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD)
Survey was exactly the tool needed for this research. “At the high school level, more
than any other grade level, there is an expectation of positive student behavior” (Bohanon
et al., 2009; Feuerborn and Chinn, 2012; Walker et al., 1996 as cited in Macy & Wheeler,
2021). Because of this expectation of positive student behavior, there has to be complete
buy-in by the staff to ensure a PBIS framework is effective (Macy & Wheeler, 2021).
The Researcher asked three research questions that all revolved around this concept of
perception. Those research questions were as follows:
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

98

Research Question 3
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?
As the Researcher evaluated the perception of the staff within CCHS, there was a need to
quantify those perceptions. The SPBD survey did just this.
The SPBD survey was co-developed by Dr. Laura Feuerborn and Dr. Ashli Tyre.
As per the SPBD website (Feuerborn & Tyre, 2022), Dr. Laura Feuerborn is a Professor
at the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT), and a Faculty Fellow in Social
Emotional Learning, and a Nationally Certified School Psychologist, and Dr. Ashlie Tyre
is a Professor and Director of the School Psychology at Seattle University. Feuerborn et
al. (2015, p. 1) state:
Shifting from a traditional model of discipline to SWPBS requires a substantial
change in the practices of staff, and obtaining full staff support and commitment
to SWPBS can be challenging endeavor. In the past decade, several studies have
underscored the importance of staff support in all stages of implementation. In
their interviews of team representatives from high and low implementing schools,
Kincaid, Childs, Blase, and Wallace (2007 as cited in Feuerborn et al. 2015)
found that lack of staff support was the most frequently identified barrier to
achieving full implementation. Team leaders reported that misunderstandings,
philosophical beliefs incongruent to SWPS, and limited knowledge of behavioral
principles were all factors influencing the implementation of SWPBS in their
schools.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

99

Again, the main focus of this study was to understand the perception of the staff within
CCHS. Additional studies completed show, the most pervasive barrier of proper
implementation of SWPBS were teachers perceptions of the framework (Bambara,
Nonnemacher, & Kern, 2009 as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015) There are multiple types
of survey tools that focus solely on PBIS, such as the School-wide Evaluation Tool or
SET. This tool assesses and evaluates how PBIS is utilized across an academic year.
Additionally, Todd et al. (2012, p. 8) states in the SET manual:
The SET was designed:


To determine the extent to which schools are already using Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions Support (SW-PBIS),



To determine if training and technical assistance efforts result in
fidelity of implementation when using SW-PBIS, and



To determine if use of SW-PBIS procedures is related to valued
change in the safety, social culture, and violent behavior in
schools.

The SET does not look at the perception of PBIS among the staff, it is a determination
tool utilized when looking at how PBIS was and is being used within a school setting.
Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 2) explanation of the SPBD survey justify why it was used for
this capstone research:
Researchers, teacher educators, administrators, behavior support coaches, and
leadership team members may be better equipped to help staff shift to SWPBS if
they were able to reach a deeper understanding of staff needs and their
perceptions of behavior and discipline. The Staff Perceptions of Behavior and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

100

Discipline (SPBD) survey was developed to help teams assess staff beliefs about
behavior and discipline and their perceptions of schoolwide expectations, school
climate, systemic supports, and resources.
The SPBD survey has been analyzed to ensure the development of the tool has
been evaluated, the internal validity of the core items it represents is valid, and the
analysis of relationships between the core items and key school and staff variables,
including level of SWPBS implementation, school level, staff knowledge, support, and
training are valid (Feuerborn et al., 2015).
In 2015 Dr. Feuerborn, Dr. Tyre, and Dr. Joe King developed and evaluated the
SPBD tool. This was completed in three phases: Phase 1, or SPBD Survey
Development, was completed utilizing a literature review of SWPBS and the systems
change literature bases. The search strategies were to identify relevant literature through
PsycInfo and ERIC databases using the following terms: positive behavior supports,
discipline reform, staff perceptions, school improvement, organizational change, system
change, staff resistance, and implementation science (Feuerborn et al., 2015). Phase 2
used the reference lists of the articles within the search to obtain additional articles.
Phase 3 examined books regarding SWPBS and systemic change. The last literature
review they completed was, “to explore the “research,” “publications,” and “resources”
links within SWPBS and systemic change websites” (Feuerborn et al., 2015). Utilizing
their findings, Feuerborn et al., were able to create content validity regarding the SPBD
survey by piloting it within an 11 school study group and 188 staff surveys (n = 188)
completed. In addition, Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 4) state:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

101

Three administrators, six support personnel including SWPBS coaches and school
psychologists, two university faculty with systemic change and SWPBS expertise,
and six graduate students provided feedback on content of the survey by
answering the following questions:


Do you feel this survey assesses the staff-related factors that can affect
buy-in and implementation of SWPBS?



Are there items you would add or delete?



Do you feel this survey would help you plan and implement SWPBS in
your school?

Also, they were asked to provide feedback on the working:


Did you find any of the items confusing or difficult to understand?



If so, how might we improve the clarity or readability of the items?

Items were revised in accordance to the feedback received. Also, three Likerttype scale items were added to address salient themes that emerged in responses
to the open-ended items in the piloting phase. Specifically, because staff
frequently commented on the need for students to be more responsible for their
own behavior, for fellow staff members to implement SWPBS more consistently,
and for administrators to get “tougher” on behavioral violations, items were added
to the survey to assess these perceptions directly.
Phase I of the developmental process showcased that the content of the SPBD is valid
due to the literature review performed by the researchers and the piloting process they
completed to ensure the SPBD content was viable for its purpose.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

102

Phase 2 addressed at the internal validity of the survey. “Exploratory factor
analysis of the survey items was conducted after the survey was revised to determine how
the survey items might best be grouped into subscales” (Feuerborn et al., 2015, p. 4).
Figure 12 is a depiction of Feuerborn et al. (2015) Table 1 describes the participating
schools, which were 36 schools from nine districts in Western Washington. All of these
schools were implementing or preparing to implement SWPBS, after the majority of
them (30 out of 36) had completed the SET. As the schools were completed the SET, the
researchers asked if the schools would complete a survey on the understanding of staff
perceptions related to behavior, discipline, and SWPBS. As stated in the note section of
Figure 12, 1,210 SPBD survey responses were completed.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

103

Figure 12
Data Collected During Phase 2 of SPBD Exploratory Factor Analysis

Feuerborn et al. (2015) states the following about the results they obtained from SPBD
survey responses received:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

104

The core 24 items on the SPBD were subjected to principal components analysis
(PCA) using SPSS Version 21. Prior to performing the PCA, the suitability of
data for factor analysis was assessed. Data with missing cases were excluded
pairwise and 94% of cases had no missing data. Overall, the analysis revealed
strong internal consistency for the SPBD, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .80. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of
many coefficients .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) value was .83,
exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s
(1954) Test of Sphericity exceeded statistical significance, which supported the
factorability of the correlation matrix. PCA was performed utilizing an
orthogonal varimax rotation and revealed the presence of five components with
eigenvalues exceeding 1. Review of the five factors revealed a theoretical fit with
the literature on SWPBS and systemic change. Therefore, it was decided to retain
all five components for the final survey. (pp. 6-7)
The UCLA Advanced Research Computing: Statistical Methods and Data Analytics
(2021) states the following about the Cronbach’s alpha:
The Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely
related a set of items are as a group. It is considered to be a measure of scale
reliability. A “high” value for alpha does not imply that the measure is
unidimensional. If, in addition to measuring internal consistency, you wish to
provide evidence that the scale in question is unidimensional, additional analyses
can be performed. Exploratory factor analysis is one method of checking

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

105

dimensionality. Technically speaking, Cronbach’s alpha is not a statistical test –
it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). (p. 1)
Glen (2016) on Statistics How To, explains Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin in the following manner:
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test is a measure of how suited your data is for
Factor Analysis. The test measures sampling adequacy for each variable in the
model and for the complete model. The statistic is a measure of the proportion of
variance among variables that might be common variance. The lower the
proportion, the more suited your data is to Factor Analysis. (p. 2)
The five factors utilized as part of the SPBD survey are represented in Figure 13 along
with their coefficient alphas.
Figure 13
The Five Factors of the SPBD Survey

Note: Factor I. Teaching and acknowledging expectations (.72), Factor II. Systems:
Resources, supports and climate (.73), Factor III. Implementation integrity (.73), Factor
IV. Philosophical views of behavior and discipline (.68), and Factor V. Systems:
Cohesiveness and openness to change (.66). The coefficient alphas are slightly different
for the research completed in 2015 because in 2019 Feuerborn et al. conducted additional
research and modified the five factors.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

106

Phase 3 undertook the analyzation of relationships to key variables. “Multilevel
modeling was used to explore the relationship of the SPBD to school and staff-level
variables” (Feuerborn et al., 2015, p. 7). In Phase 3 Feuerborn et al. utilized only the
schools that completed the SET. Out of the 36 schools that were targeted, 30 schools
utilized the SET, which yielded 993 survey responses to analyze. The data analyzed
considered the following variables: SWPBS implementation level (total SET score),
school level, level of understanding of SWPBS, level of support for SWPBS, and hours
of training, Feuerborn et al. models were fitted using STATA software (StataCorp, 2013
as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015) (Feuerborn et al., 2015). The researchers used the
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Analysis, Figure 14 shows a depiction of
Feuerborn et al. (2015) Table 4 which represents the HLM analysis of SPBD.
Figure 14
HLM Analyses Data Collected in Phase 3 Relationship to Key Variables

Feuerborn et al. (2015), interpretation of this data was explained as follows:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

107

Table 4 (Figure 14) summarizes the results of the three-level model and depicts
estimate changes as the variables were added. Each added variable significantly
improved the model fit. In Model 1, the SPBD was significantly related to the
SET. Model 2 revealed a significant relationship between the SPBD and SET
scores and school level. Participant variables related to SWPBS were added in
Model 3, including level of understanding of SWPBS, level of support for
SWPBS, and hours of SWPBS professional development. When these variables
were added to the model, a significant relationship between the SPBD and the
SET was no longer found. Instead, we found significant relationships among
school level, knowledge or understanding of SWPBS, commitment or support of
SWPBS, and hours of training. Whereas a direct relationship was found between
the scores on the SPBD and staff support, hours of training, and level of
understanding, an inverse relationship was found between SPBD and school level.
As staff support for SWPBS, number of hours of training, and level of
understanding increased, SPBD scores also increased. However, as level of
school increased, SPBD scores decreased.
This information explained there was concurrent validity of the SPBD and provided
insight between staff perceptions of SWPBS and level of SWPBS implementation in the
school, amount of training received, and understanding of SWPBS (Feuerborn et al.,
2015). Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 9) states:
Results also revealed an inverse relationship between staff perceptions of SWPBS
and the level of school; as school level increased staff scores on the SPBD

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

108

decreased, this indicates that staff in elementary schools may have more positive
perceptions of SWPBS than staff in secondary schools.
In highlighting the three phases used to develop and test the SPBD Survey, the
Researcher was confident in both the internal validity and the concurrent validity of the
SPBD survey. Having the validity regarding the survey increased the validity of the
research within this capstone project. To add additional strength to the SPBD Survey,
Dr. Feuerborn, Dr. Tyre, and Mladen Zecevic completed a factor validation on the survey
in 2019. The two research questions that were posed in 2019 by Feuerborn et al. (2019)
were:
RQ1 – Is the existing SPBD factor structure confirmed with a broader sample, or
is an alternative factor structure more psychometrically sound?
RQ2 – What is the internal consistency of each factor of the SPBD?
Feuerborn et al. (2019) state within their discussion:
The current results statistically confirmed the internal consistency and overall
factor structure in a manner consistent with the SPBD’s development. As
compared with the sample used in previous research (i.e., Feuerborn et al., 2015),
the current sample included data from more diverse geographical regions, more
secondary schools (37 cf. 11), schools with higher proportion of students
receiving free and reduced-price lunch, and contained more schools overall (147
cf. 36). Despite the differences in the two samples, the current findings are
consistent with the findings of previous research. In light of the present findings,
we refined the factor structure of the SPBD by moving one item from Factor V to
Factor I, resulting in an improvement in both fit and factor loadings (as shown

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

109

and referenced in Figure 13). Besides a better statistical fit, the new structure
provided a better theoretical fit because the degree to which staff believe behavior
plans work well in their school is more conceptually relevant to Factor I (i.e.,
perceptions of the effectiveness of, and need for teaching and acknowledging
expectations) than Factor V (i.e., perceptions of staff cohesion and openness to
change). As compared with the previous findings (Feuerborn et al., 2015), the
current findings not only supported the hypothesized structure of the instrument
but also revealed similar to more robust internal consistency and convergent
validity. Respectively, structure and internal consistency were supported by the
acceptable fit index along with equivalent or higher Cronbach’s alphas.
Convergent validity was indicated by significant factor loadings. (p. 36)
Ultimately, the SPBD Survey helped establish contextual fit between CCHS’s PBIS
framework WofP and recommendations which are discussed in Chapter 5 of the capstone
project.
Research Questions
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?
Research Question 3

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

110

What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?
Data Collection
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? The Researcher collected both qualitative
and quantitative data to analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher
utilized surrounding this question were the SPBD survey and the Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) semi-formal interview. The SPBD survey gave both
quantitative data and qualitative data and the semi-formal interview provided additional
qualitative data. These two data collection tools were conducted congruently over the
course of three months (January, February, and March). Because the capstone project
was a qualitative and quantitative convergent study, the Researcher converged the data
points together to analyze the trends within each subset of data. In addition, the
Researcher triangulated the information collaboratively to show how it related to the
literature review. This process allowed the Researcher to analyze perceptions of teachers
towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework.
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level? The Researcher collected qualitative data to
analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher utilized were the SPBD
survey and the PBIS semi-formal interview. The SPBD survey included multiple choice
questions, Likert scale questions (Totally agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, Somewhat

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

111

disagree, Disagree, Totally disagree), and open-ended questions regarding the perceptions
of the staff towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework. The SPBD survey had 35 questions (8
multiple choice, 24 Likert scale, and 3 open-ended), which took the staff an average of
10-15 minutes to complete the survey. The Researcher coded the answers to try to find
threads of commonality regarding staff perceptions either positive or negative.
The semi-formal interview was completed by 5 professional staff member, who
were randomly selected. The interview questions were transcribed and then coded to
analyze any commonalities to the answers. The interview was composed of 7 questions
with subset questions under question 3 (one subset), 4 (two subset), 5 (two subset), 6 (two
subset), and 7 (one subset), and took approximately 6-12 minutes.
Research Question 3
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level? The Researcher collected qualitative and quantitative data to
analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher utilized were the PBIS
semi-formal interview questions, the SPBD survey, and the data obtained from the PBIS
recognition slips. The Researcher applied the number of WofP given based on each
professional staff member, which gave quantitative data pertaining to staff buy-in. The
Researcher also evaluated at which PRIDE expectations the students met during the
2020-2021 school year. This data point provided quantitative data linked to the staff’s
perception and student impact. The Researcher analyzed the data by converging the
appearing threads within each tool, thus showcasing the staff perceptions of the PBIS
framework.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

112

Data Analysis
The data collected in the capstone project included both qualitative and
quantitative data which was organized in a convergent parallel design. The Researcher
analyzed both types of data separately. Utilizing both sets of data analysis at the same
time, the Researcher was provided with additional opportunities evaluate the research
questions further.
The research questions focused on the perception of the staffs’ personal
evaluation towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports framework
within a high school setting. The Researcher coded the qualitative data from both the
SPBD survey open-ended answers and the PBIS semi-formal interview responses to
determine common themes in order to establish categories of interest to support both the
correlation and summary to the research questions.
The Researcher will then analyzed the quantitative data by comparing the number
of PBIS recognition slips given out by teachers and the number of teachers that did not
give out PBIS recognition cards. The Researcher broke down the statistics into the Mean,
Median, and Mode to measure how those PBIS recognition slips were given out
pertaining to the PRIDE expectations.
The quantitative data provided the Mean, Medium, and Mode of each domain
along with the respective specific questions within the survey. The domains and
additional information of the SPBD survey were broken down as follows:


Domain 1 – Teaching and Acknowledging Expectations – 5 questions



Domain 2 – Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate – 5 questions



Domain 3 – Implementation Integrity – 3 questions

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

113



Domain 4 – Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline – 5 questions



Domain 5 – Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change – 4
questions

Additionally, the SPBD survey measured strengths and needs, these were broken down as
follows:


Knowledge and Training – 3 questions



Level of Support for SWPBS (PBIS) – 1 question



Communication – 1 question

Lastly, there were three quantitative questions that were correlated.
The data collected helped determine if the teachers’ perception of a Tier 1 PBIS
framework in a high school setting, measured from the three research questions, had any
correlation to the PBIS effectiveness.
Data Utilization
Quantitative data was utilized to determine if there was an increased or decreased
amount of discipline and to identify the purpose for each individual WofP. The
quantitative data distinguished between the positive or negative impact toward the
students based off teacher perception of the Tier 1 PBIS framework. In addition, the
quantitative data provided general data on whether teachers were participating in the
PBIS framework. In the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years, CCHS only recorded
which student received a WofP recognition slip, in the 2020-2021 school year, CCHS
recorded both who received a WofP recognition slip and the reason as to why the student
received the slip. Specifically, the 2020-2021 school year, data allowed the Researcher to
do a comparative data analysis between the two data points: discipline and recognition

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

114

slips. Additionally, the 2020-2021 school year provided intel on the level of participation
of teachers by analyzing who completed a PBIS recognition slip and who did not
throughout the year.
From this data, the Researcher developed an action plan that included,
professional development, ways to increase recognitions, change to the existing PBIS
framework, and the creation of a leadership team at all levels of instruction in the school
district. The Researcher utilized the data to develop quality programing for Cedar Crest
High School and the Cornwall-Lebanon School District.
Validity
There were two types of validity utilized in this capstone research project. The
first was external validity. With the use of the SPBD survey, which showed internal and
concurrent validity, the capstone research project had the ability to generalize the
findings of the study to other professional staff members. The external validity
corresponded to the use of the SPBD survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview, and the
relationship to the literature review explaining how teacher buy-in creates a positive PBIS
framework. Bhandari (2020, pp. 1-3), states:
External validity is the extent to which you can generalize the findings of a study
to other situations, people, settings and measures. In other words, can you apply
the findings of your study to a broader context? The aim of scientific research is
to produce generalizable knowledge about the real world. In qualitative studies,
external validity is referred to as transferability.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

115

Bhandari explains different threats towards external validity within research. Figure 15
explains the different types of threats towards external validity within research (Bhandari,
2020).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

116

Figure 15
Threats to External Validity
Relation to Doctoral Capstone
Project

Does the Doctoral
Capstone
Research meet the
threat?

The sample is a representation of
the professional staff within CCHS.

No

No unrelated event happened to
influence the outcomes.

No

Experimenter
effect

The characteristics or
behaviors of the
experimenter(s)
unintentionally
influence the
outcomes.

The Researcher distributed the
SPBD survey via email,
additionally; no personal
information was collected to tie
back to a professional staff
member. The Researcher also, had
a third party person create the
randomized staff numbers and had
a third party person complete the
PBIS semi-formal interviews.

No

Hawthorne
effect

The tendency for
participants to change
their behavior simply
because they know
they are being studied.

The Researcher has reduced the
amount of biasness for this
capstone project by the methods
used to collect the data.

No

Testing effect

The administration of
a pre- or post-test
affects the outcomes

No pre- or post-tests were used
within this capstone project.

No

Aptitudetreatment

Interactions between
characteristics of the
group and individual
variables together
influence the
dependent variable.

There is no potential risk, but there
might be a feeling of
uncomfortableness, as some
individuals do not like to give
negative feedback or information
toward the capstone project topic.

No

Situation
effect

Factors like the
setting, time of day,
location, researchers'
characteristics, etc.
limit generalizability
of the findings.

The SPBD survey was distributed
via email, which allowed the
professional staff member to take it
on their time. The PBIS semiformal interview was an agreed
upon time between the interviewer
and the interviewee.

No

Threat

Sampling bias

History

Meaning
The sample is not
representative of the
population.
An unrelated event
influences the
outcomes.

Note: Threat and Meaning were obtained from Bhandari (2020), Relation to Doctoral
Capstone Project and “Does the Doctoral Capstone research meet the threat?” are an
analysis of each aspect of Threat and Meaning.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

117

Bhandari (2020, p. 29) states there are several ways to counter threats to external
validity:


Replications counter almost all threats by enhancing generalizability to
other settings, populations and conditions.



Field experiments counter testing and situation effects by using natural
contexts.



Probability sampling counters selection bias by making sure everyone in a
population has an equal chance of being selected for a study sample.



Recalibration or reprocessing also counters selection bias using algorithms
to correct weighting of factors within study samples.

Figure 15, explains how each threat can be countered and how the external validity is
high within the research.
The second type of validity is Population validity. Bhandar (2020, pp. 5-6)
explains population validity in the following manner:
Population validity refers to whether you can reasonably generalize the findings
from your sample to a larger group of people (the population). Population
validity depends on the choice of population and on the extent to which the study
sample mirrors that population.
Population validity existed within this capstone research, because it can be replicated
within other high schools with similar sample populations. Additionally, CCHS’s
professional staff members supported a high population validity because of the vast
differentiation of characteristics within the sample population (Bhandari, 2020). These
characteristics included: different sexes, different ages, different years of experience,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

118

ethnicity, and how many years they taught either at CCHS or within education. Along
with high population validity, the sampling method used to select professional staff
members for the PBIS semi-formal interview created opportunities for strong inferences
regarding the data. McCombes (2019, para. 14-26) explains probability sampling
methods in the following manner:
Probability sampling means that every member of the population has a chance of
being selected. It is mainly used in quantitative research. If you want to produce
results that are representative of the whole population, probability sampling
techniques are the most valid choice.
There are four main types of probability sample.
1. Simple random sampling – every member of the population has an equal
chance of being selected. The sampling frame should include the whole
population. To conduct this type of sampling, tools like random number
generators or other techniques that are based entirely on chance can be used.
2. Systematic sampling – is similar to simple random sampling, but it is usually
slightly easier to conduct. Every member of the population is listed with a
number, but instead of randomly generating numbers, individuals are chosen
at regular intervals.
3. Stratified sampling – involves dividing the population into subpopulations that
may differ in important ways.
4. Cluster sampling – also involves dividing the population into subgroups, but
each subgroup should have similar characteristics to the who sample.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

119

Simple random sampling was utilized for this capstone project to select the professional
staff members for the PBIS semi-formal interview. This provided opportunities for the
Researcher to sample from all of the professional staff members and not just a selected
few.
Summary
Chapter III has linked the research within the Literature Review to the processes
used in data collection and analysis that supported the answering of the three research
questions posed within this doctoral capstone project. Chapter IV will enhance the data
collected by the qualitative/quantitative mixed method action research. This chapter has
explained the purpose of the study, the need for the study, the action research that has
been completed, the surveys and semi-formal interviews utilized, how the data was
collected, and the validity behind the research. The in-depth explanation regarding the
SPBD survey was needed to ensure the Researcher had the validity to utilize the survey
to collect the perceptive data needed to answer each of the research questions.
Furthermore, the data collected from the semi-formal interview gave additional support to
the research questions.
Based on the research, it is important to have total buy-in to ensure a PBIS Tier 1
framework will work within a building. The SPBD survey and the semi-formal interview
provided this information from the staff to be analyzed and gain a deeper knowledge of
what is needed moving forward with Wings of Praise within CCHS. Analyzing this data
on a convergent parallel process provided sufficient information to have a positive impact
on the current PBIS Tier 1 framework already in place within the high school.
Additionally, this allowed the Researcher to address the financial applications of this

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

120

capstone project within Chapter V. The ultimate goal of this project was to understand
the perceptions of the staff toward PBIS within the high school and to effectively
continue to build a workable Tier 1 framework, in order to ultimately ensure a positive
school climate and culture. Chapter IV gives a detailed analysis and interpretation of the
results of the SPBD survey and the common threads because the SPBD open-ended
questions and the semi-formal interviews.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

121

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
Overview
The information in Chapter IV represents the analysis and synthesis of the data
collected from two different evaluation tools that allowed the Researcher to extrapolate
the perceptions of the staff at Cedar Crest High School regarding Wings of Praise
(WofP), a Tier 1 PBIS framework. The two evaluation tools included the Staff
Perception Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) survey and a semi-formal interview, which
were chosen to meet the needs of the research questions. Perception of Wings of Praise
is a priority within CCHS to ensure the school is building on the climate and culture of
the building. Additionally, the Researcher was interested in if this PBIS framework made
an impact in the high school. Creating opportunities to positively reinforce expected
behaviors has become challenging due to Covid-19 and the methods students are
assimilating back into the traditional school day. An analysis of the data has provided an
opportunity for the Researcher to understand the perceptions of the staff and utilize the
data to drive improvements to the climate and culture within Cedar Crest High School
(CCHS).
Each research question was designed to support a critical evaluation of the culture
and climate in the building and ultimately the connections teachers make with their
students within CCHS. The idea of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, such as WofP was
generated not only to provide opportunities to build on that climate and culture, but also
to promote opportunities to make connections with the students. This process was
completed by acknowledging students could exhibit optimal positive behaviors and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

122

recognizing the students’ efforts of meeting expectations. The focus of this study was
determining the perceptions of high school teachers towards PBIS, the impact of those
perceptions on student recognitions, and the teacher’s level of buy-in to this framework.
The analysis of the data provided the perceptions of the teachers within CCHS, and gave
a starting point for how to continue and build Wings of Praise in a positive fashion.
Research Questions
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?
Research Question 3
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?
Each research question (RQ) was specifically represented and linked to the SPBD
survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview, and to the WofP data. Utilizing the data
collected, the Researcher was able to triangulate those results to provide a complete
interpretation of the findings.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data was collected through the use of a survey and interview, as well
as quantitative data, was collected from professional staff who are currently employed at
CCHS. A detailed list of the professional staff was provided in Chapter 3, Figure 8.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

123

Figure 8 summarized the largest group within the professional staff are the teachers. A
list of departments for the teachers and the number of teachers in each department were
listed within Figure 9. Exploratory data analysis (EDA) was utilized to analyze the data
collected within this capstone research project. Komorowski et al. (2016, p. 185) state
the following about EDA:
EDA is a fundamental early step after data collection and pre-processing where
the data is simply visualized, plotted, manipulated, without any assumptions, in
order to help assessing the quality of the data and building models. “Most EDA
techniques are graphical in nature with a few quantitative techniques. The reason
for the heavy reliance on graphics is that by its very nature the main role of EDA
is to explore, and graphics gives the analysts unparalleled power to do so, while
being ready to gain insight into the data. There are many ways to categorize the
many EDA techniques (Kaski, 1997 as cited in Komorowski et al., 2016).”
According to Howard Seltman of Carnegie Mellon University (2012 as cited in
Komorowski et al., 2016), “loosely speaking, any method of looking at data that
does not include formal statistical modeling and inference falls under the term
exploratory data analysis”.
EDA was chosen for this capstone research project because the data collected mainly
consisted of perception data and in analyzing this data, it produced many visuals
representing the perceptions and viewpoints of the participants.
Additional to EDA, student discipline was evaluated from each of the school
years from 2014-2022 to see if there was a positive or negative regression that correlated
to the number of WofP slips handed out. Again, discipline information was extrapolated

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

124

from CCHS’s student information system, Skyward, and correlated to the number of
WofP slips handed out during each of the years in which WofP was implemented within
CCHS. This data provided information about the climate and culture of the school.
Lastly, WofP information was detailed, explaining how many slips were handed
out to each grade and how those slips correlated to PRIDE. PRIDE is the core values of
CCHS and provides the expectations for the building. PRIDE represents Personal
Responsibility, Respect, Integrity, Dedication, and Excellence; these core values
determine the expectations for each aspect of CCHS, from the classroom, to the buses, to
even the cafeteria. Analyzing this data showcased what core values the students met.
The final step of analyzing the data presented was triangulation of the qualitative
and quantitative data.
Results
SPBD Survey Results
The SPBD survey was sent to 159 professional staff members at the high school,
68 staff members consented to completing the survey. Feuerborn & Tyre (2022, para. 1)
state the SPBD survey is the following:
The SPDB is an anonymous, online survey completed by certified and classified
staff who work directly with students. The SPBD helps schools understand staff
beliefs about behavior and discipline, including their beliefs about schoolwide
expectations, school climate, and supports and resources. Understanding staff
perceptions enables schools to better support staff while planning and
implementing schoolwide positive behavior supports (SWPBS).

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

125

There were three (3) areas SPBD measures. The first was staff support for implementing
SWPBS and it assessed staff perceptions and beliefs in five domains:
Domain 1: Teaching & Acknowledging Expectations
Domain 2: Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate
Domain 3: Implementation Integrity
Domain 4: Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline
Domain 5: Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change.
The second area of measurement were the four areas that are critical to the successful
implementation of SWPBS, which include knowledge, training, support or buy-in, and
communication. The last area of measurement were open-ended questions, giving the
staff a voice to allow for concerns, strengths, and needs for the school. These three areas
of measurement were completed by the use of a Likert scale survey, and within this
survey Feuerborn, Tyre, and Beaudoin break down the data and indicated whether there
were facilitators or barriers within the data. Facilitators identified a strength to be
highlighted and used as building blocks, and barriers that impede a successful
implementation and require further investigation.
Total participation for the SPBD survey was 68 respondents (n=68) or 42.8% of
the professional staff; this was recorded by the first identifier question which is
represented by Figure 16. The largest group that participated in the survey were teachers
at 77.9%. Certified support (e.g., counselor, school psychologist) were second with
8.8%. Classified staff (e.g., office staff, kitchen staff) were next with 7.4%. Lastly,
administrators and other (nurse) rounded out the last two groups at 4.4% and 1.5%
respectively.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

126

Figure 16
SPBD Total Participants

Note: N=68 total participants to complete the survey.
The next set of data represented the strengths and needs represented within the
SPBD survey. Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 12) explains the strengths and needs in the
following representation:
An inventory of current practices can highlight areas of existing capacity and
areas in need of improvement. Identifying staff strengths and practices that are
currently working well respects the knowledge and activities of staff. Also, it can
reduce the amount of change necessary to reach and sustain implementation.
Question 23, Figure 17, identifies the level of understanding the staff within
CCHS had toward PBIS. The chart is broken down into Certificated and Classified staff
members; combined 72.1% of the staff had a “Basic; I could implement” understanding
of PBIS, 16.2% stated they had a “High; I could teach others”, and 11.8% had “Limited; I
would need to learn more” capacity.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

127

Figure 17
Question 23 – Level of Understanding

Question 24, Figure 18, represents the amount of professional development (PD),
in hours, the staff had in the area of PBIS. Between certified and classified staff
members 51.5% indicated they had zero (0) hours of PD. Breaking this down between
the two groups certified staff members stated 48.4% had zero (0) PD and 83.3%
classified had zero (0) PD on PBIS. The data showed the second highest total is 2-3
hours of PD for certified staff members at 25.8% and then one hour at 16.1% for certified
and 16.7% for classified. The data revealed there is a need for PD regarding PBIS.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

128

Figure 18
Question 24 – Hours of Professional Development

Question 25, Figure 19, explains how if a staff member had PD in PBIS, was the
information received helpful; 37.1% of certified staff members stated yes, with 16.7% of
classified staff members stating the same. Twenty one percent (21.0%) of certified staff
members stated no, which questions the level of buy-in for that group of certified staff
members.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

129

Figure 19
Question 25 – PD Helpfulness

The next few data points correlate to staff support. “Staff support for
implementing PBIS, or staff buy-in, is associated with their actual level of
implementation. In the literature, it is generally acknowledged that successful
implementation requires 80% or more of staff to support, and show a commitment to
implementation” (Feuerborn et al., 2022, p. 14).
Question 26, Figure 20, indicates current levels of support or commitment by the
CCHS staff. Analyzing the data, 88.2% of the staff either strongly agreed, agreed, or
disagreed but will not resist this effort. This measurement met what the literature stated a
school should have for support of a PBIS framework. Understanding there is support for
the PBIS framework within CCHS is critical, but 8.1% of the certified staff members
strongly disagreed with this effort. Additionally, 9.7% of the certified staff members
disagreed with this effort but will not resist it, that is 17.8% of the certified staff members
do not buy-in to the PBIS framework at CCHS. Commitment is a strength of PBIS; thus,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

130

this analysis shows room for growth and additional information needed to follow up on
how to increase that buy-in by all staff members at CCHS.
Figure 20
Question 26 – Level of Support or Commitment

The last data point within strengths and needs is communication. “Clear and
timely communication to all staff is necessary for successful implementation of PBIS.
When concerns about communication are voiced by staff, investigating those barriers to
clear lines of communications is needed” (Feuerborn et al., 2022, p. 16).
Question 27, Figure 21, explains the rate of communication within CCHS. The
data states 48.5% of all staff felt communication within CCHS was adequate, 27.9% felt
that it needed improvement, and 22.1% stated that it was good. Of the certified staff
members, 50.0% felt CCHS has adequate communication, which indicated they tend to
be aware of changes before they occur. A concerning data point was the classified staff
members who perceived the communication within CCHS as poor or they are unaware of

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

131

changes that affect staff and students. This is a concern because communication is key
for all aspects of CCHS, so this data point needs further investigation.
Figure 21
Question 27 – Communication

Research Question One: What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier
1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified six Likert-style questions
from the SPBD survey (2, 3, 4, 7, 18, and 21), which correlated to RQ1. These questions
identified the perception of the high school staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework. All
professional staff who completed the survey (N=68) completed each of the questions
associated with RQ1.
SPBD survey questions two, three, and four pertain to Domain 1 of the SPBD
survey. Domain 1, Teaching and Acknowledging Expectations, as stated by Feuerborn et
al. (2022, p. 2):
Assesses staff beliefs about the effectiveness of and need for PBIS. When staff
feel PBIS is needed and effective, they are more apt to support implementation.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

132

However, it may not be sufficient for PBIS to be perceived as effective when
implemented in other schools. Staff must also perceive PBIS as compatible with
the staff and students in their school.
SPBD survey question two asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “schoolwide
behavior supports may work in other schools, but I doubt it will work in ours.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question only 1.6%, and disagreed 98.4%. The
classified staff did not agree with this statement, 0.0%, and disagreed 100.0%. The total
between the two groups was 1.5% agreed, and 98.5% disagreed.
SPBD survey question three asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “we
should not have to teach students how to behave in school.” The certificated staff agreed
with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified staff agreed with this
question 16.7%, and disagreed 83.3%. The total between the two groups was 17.6%
agreed, and 82.4% disagreed with this question. This question was indicated as a
facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted
and can be used as a building block.
SPBD survey question four asked the staff, if they agreed or disagreed with, “I
resent being asked to do one more thing”, corresponding to the implementation of WofP.
The certificated staff agreed with this question 11.3%, and disagreed 88.7%. The
classified staff did not agree with this question, and they disagreed 100.0%. The total
between the two groups was 10.3% agreed, and 89.7% disagreed with this question.
SPBD survey question seven pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD survey. Domain
2, Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 4):

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

133

Assesses staff beliefs about administrative leadership, school climate, and
resources to support and sustain PBIS. It is important to secure supports and
resources such as materials, space, technology, time, and training for the staff. It
is also important that staff are aware these supports and resources exist and know
they will be provided to them long-term.
SPBD survey question seven asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I have trust
in my administrator’s ability to lead us through change.” The certificated staff agreed
with this question 72.6%, and disagreed 27.4%. The classified staff agreed with this
question 83.3%, and disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 73.5%
agreed, and 26.5% disagreed with this question.
SPBD survey question 18 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD survey. Domain 4,
Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p.
7):
Assesses staff beliefs about student behavior and discipline. Misperceptions,
misunderstandings, and outright disagreement with the philosophy of PBIS can
create difficult barriers to the implementation of PBIS. Often, resistance is due to
misinformation and misunderstandings about PBIS. These may be remedied
through targeted professional development and open discussions.
SPBD survey question 18 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “If students are
not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept any discipline at school.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question 33.9%, and disagreed 66.1%. The classified
staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two
groups was 33.8% agreed, and 66.2% disagreed with this question.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

134

SPBD survey question 21 pertained to Domain 5 of the SPBD survey. Domain 5,
Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p.
9):
Assesses staff perceptions of the ability and willingness of the whole staff to work
together to change for the greater good of the school community. PBIS requires
collaboration; therefore, a climate of mutual support, cohesiveness, and
professional trust is essential to achieving sustained implementation.
SPBD survey question 21 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “My
colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified
staff agreed with this question 50.0%, and disagreed 50.0%. The total between the two
groups was 20.6% agreed, and 79.4% disagreed with this question. This question was
indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may
impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation.
Lastly, Figure 22 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ1.
This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ1 in
the SPBD survey.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

Figure 22
SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 1

135

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

136

SPBD Open-ended Responses. The SPBD survey had three open-ended
questions which provided the 68 professional staff members the opportunity to elaborate
on their perception of CCHS’s PBIS framework WofP. RQ1 correlated to open-ended
question 29 and 100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which
asked the staff what was needed to make WofP better? Within each of the open-ended
questions, three themes or trends emerged in the staff’s responses. The three themes
were buy-in from all staff members, administrative support, and the ability of PBIS
implementation based on the high school level.
Multiple staff members addressed the first theme of buy-in from all staff
members. Staff member #1 wrote, “Whole team approach”, staff member #29 stated, “A
set of school-wide rules and consequences that all teachers agree upon and enforce.
Higher expectations for student behavior and not rewarding the very basics of decency.”
Additionally, staff member #33 stated, “Staff buy-in for both rewards and punishments.
More importantly, understanding that what works for some teachers in their classrooms
might not work for others. One size fits all rules and regulations seem to end up dividing
more than uniting.” Staff member #37 added to this concept, “I think everyone on the
faculty has to be on the same page. We are not. Hats are not allowed in the school;
however, kids wear them in the hallway, in the lunchroom, and in certain classrooms. If
hats aren’t allowed, then no one should allow them.” Lastly, on the theme of buy-in, staff
member #41 wrote, “More support from all teachers, it has to be an all or nothing.”
Adding to that idea staff member #65 stated, “I believe that consistency is needed to
make it better. Also, both students and teachers need to know the “why” to really buy-in
and commit to PBIS.”

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

137

The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline,
ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework, and school wide behavior. Staff
member #26 stated, “Clearer expectations and follow-through with consequences on the
administrative end. Discipline consequences cannot always fall back on the teacher’s
plate.” Staff member #30 added, “Things will get better when there is consistency from
the top down, meaning administrators must set the rules and expectations, stick with
them, and work with the teachers to implement them. Administrators need to support
teachers and vice versa all the time. Classroom rules must be consistent throughout the
building, and currently they are far from it. Staff should feel safe and supported at all
times, otherwise, these negative feelings trickle into the classrooms.” Staff member #36
wrote, “Clear expectations and clear plan that is communicated to everyone. Monitoring
of implementation to ensure fidelity.” Staff member #50 continued with this idea by
adding, “More public praise, a tighter rein on enforcing the rules, and increased
administrative presence.” Lastly, staff member 60 concluded by stating, “More support
from the teachers and students.”
The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question was the grade level (HS) in
which WofP framework was implemented. With different philosophies regarding
discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level can be complex in
implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #55 emphasized this point by stating,
“Caring and compassionate teachers who are more interested in working with students
and families, rather than just controlling them.” Two staff members supported this theme
by, staff member #56 stating, “Revamping of classroom teaching techniques.” and staff

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

138

member #64 stating, “Creating better rapports and relationships with students who are
consistently involved in disciplinary actions.”
Interview Responses. The PBIS semi-formal interview was again utilized to
give a voice to the staff members and to obtain an introspective view to WofP
specifically within CCHS. As stated in Chapter 3, a third party individual conducted
these interviews. They used a process of identifying and obtaining consent from
professional staff members. During a two month time period, five (5) professional staff
members consented to the PBIS semi-formal interview. Different reasons such as, “I’m
not comfortable with doing an interview”, or “I’m not interested” were the reasons as to
why only five (5) professional staff members completed the interview. Even though,
only five (5) professional staff members consented, the Researcher was confident there
was enough saturation to meet the expectations of this action research capstone project
and still maintain validity.
The Researcher identified two interview questions (3, and 5) that correlated to
RQ1. PBIS semi-formal interview question three asked the professional staff member,
which will be denoted by a number, did he or she have an understanding of PBIS? Staff
member #34 stated:
My understanding is enough to implement some things and enough to ask some
questions. I don’t know that I would be capable of teaching a professional
development or something like that at that level, but I’ve read some about it and
I’ve been able to try different things over the course of my career. Some that
have worked out very well. Others have been kind of hit or miss.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

139

Staff member #29 stated, “It’s a reward system for students who show exemplary
behavior or go above and beyond to do well in the eyes of the teacher, and the teacher
offers positive reinforcement through the use of some reward.” Staff member #48 added
by stating, “I understand that this is a behavior modification program to encourage
students to behave in a positive way, to reward people for the things that they’re doing
that are behaviors we want to see in the school.” Staff member #92 had this
interpretation, “So, It is pretty much what it sounds like. It’s a way to reinforce positive
behaviors, recognize them and try to improve school culture.” Lastly, staff member #137
had a small knowledge of PBIS. Staff member #137 stated, “Basically, helping students
with positive behavior, you know, giving them some kind of reward. I believe to help
with that behavior.
PBIS semi-formal interview question five asked the professional staff members,
from their perspective, if they thought Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was
effective at the high school level. Staff member #34 stated:
I think it can be effective. I think for the population of students that I teach
primarily, which are honors level and AP level students, the feedback that I have
gotten from them when trying to implement this in my classroom and what I see
in the hallway is that it’s embarrassing. They do not like it, and I’ve tried to
continue to implement it as to be a team member of the Falcon community and to
try and talk them through why it’s to be seen as positive. But frankly, some of
them, when I’ve given them Wings of Praise, have thrown them directly in the
garbage. Or I think they see it as embarrassing because that’s generally the
population of students who all they want is a thank you or they don’t even want

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

140

the thank you. They feel that they should do the right thing because it’s the right
thing to do without a reward of some sort.
Staff member #29 stated, “It's good enough right now. We should keep doing it and try to
make it more streamlined, more efficient, and less time consuming. Make it easy for
students to understand that we respect and appreciate their efforts, to motivate and inspire
students.” Staff member #48 stated:
Everyone likes to be recognized for a job well done. So in terms of is there a way
to effectively recognize students, sure I think it does meet that. But the
implementation at this point is so sporadic, I think from so many of us that it’s
probably not as effective as it could be. I know sometimes I struggle with just the
time I think about wanting to do it, but then it’s a time issue for me. And the kids
that you want to praise are the ones that are probably already getting praised in a
lot of classes. I don’t want to praise someone if they just do one random good
thing, but then the rest of the week it’s all negative behavior to me. It needs to be
more of an ongoing thing.
Staff member #92 added, “It doesn’t seem particularly effective to me.” Lastly, staff
member #137 stated, “I don’t think it’s as effective as it could be. Again, I think it’s kind
of geared towards now doing what is expected.”
Research Question Two: What impact does teacher perception have on student
recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level?
SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified seven Liker-style questions
from the SPBD survey (5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16), which correlated to RQ2. These
questions identified the impact a teacher’s perception has on student recognition in a Tier

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

141

1 PBIS framework within a high school level. All professional staff who completed the
survey (N=68) completed each of the questions associated with RQ2.
SPBD survey question five pertained to Domain 1 of the SPBD survey, and it
asked staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I feel that rewarding students is the same as
bribing them.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 14.5%, and disagreed
85.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 0.0%, and disagreed 100.0%. The
total between the two groups was 13.2% agreed, and 89.7% disagreed.
SPBD survey question 10 pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD survey, and it
asked staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Schoolwide behavior support is likely to be
yet another fad that comes and goes in this school.” The certificated staff agreed with
this question 14.5%, and disagreed 85.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question
33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 16.2% agreed, and
83.8% disagreed. This question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator
indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block.
SPBD survey questions 12, and 13 pertained to Domain 3 of the SPBD survey.
Domain 3, Implementation Integrity, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 6), “Ask staff
to report the extent to which they currently implement the schoolwide disciplinary plan.
A position to note is that people tend to over-report their own levels of implementations.”
SPBD survey question 12 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Currently, I
acknowledge/reward students for meeting the agreed upon schoolwide behavior
expectations.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 45.2%, and disagreed
54.8%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The
total between the two groups was 47.1% agreed, and 52.9% disagreed.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

142

SPBD survey question 13 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with,
“Currently, I apply the agreed upon schoolwide disciplinary consequences.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question 59.7%, and disagreed 40.3%. The classified
staff agreed with this question 16.7%, and disagreed 83.3%. The total between the two
groups was 55.9% agreed, and 44.1% disagreed.
SPBD survey questions 14, 15, and 16 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD
survey. SPBD survey question 14 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with,
“When problem behaviors occur, we need to get tougher.” The certificated staff agreed
with this question 35.5%, and disagreed 64.5%. The classified staff agreed with this
question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 35.3%
agreed, and 64.7% disagreed.
SPBD survey question 15 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The
students at this school need to be held more responsible for their own behavior.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question 79.0%, and disagreed 21.0%. The classified
staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two
groups was 77.9% agreed, and 22.1% disagreed.
SPBD survey question 16 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with,
“Parents in the community do not seem to care about how their children behave at this
school.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 9.7%, and disagreed 90.3%. The
classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between
the two groups was 11.8% agreed, and 88.2% disagreed. This question was indicated as
a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was
highlighted and can be used as a building block.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

143

Lastly, Figure 23 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ2.
This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ2 in
the SPBD survey.
Figure 23
SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 2

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

144

SPBD Open-ended Responses. RQ2 correlated to open-ended question 28 and
100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which asked the staff,
“When it comes to behavior and discipline, what is working well in CCHS?” Again,
within each of the open-ended questions, three themes or trends emerged in the staff’s
responses. The three themes were buy-in from all staff members, administrative support,
and the ability of PBIS implementation based on the high school level.
Buy-in by staff members represented the first theme of these open-ended
responses. Staff member #17 stated, “From my experience, positive reinforcement seems
to work better than consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned
detention tend to have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.”
Staff member #21 added, “Making connections with student to avoid behaviors” and staff

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

145

member #35 responded “Making connections and following through with what is said.”
Staff member #42 related to this question in the following manner:
The biggest thing I observe has to do with teacher/student relationships. I think
that a lot of teachers work really hard to build relationships with our kids and
most of the time we do a good job with that. These relationships often can help
with behavior in our classroom. And in all honesty, 90% of the kids in our school
are good kids. It is unfortunate those 10% ruin it for everyone else.
A few staff members remarked on WofP, staff member #45 stated, “the positive
reinforcement of good behaviors works well.” Staff member #59 and #60 both stated
acknowledging the students with a WofP is a positive within CCHS. Staff member #64
exemplified this theme by stating, “I think we need to create a better rapport with
students when it comes to discipline. We can just give the students detention and ISS,
but if we are not creating relationships with the student, it limits behavior problems.”
The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline,
ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework and school wide behavior. Staff
member #3 stated, “Strong classroom management from certain teachers who have high
expectations for their students.” Staff member #10 stated the following about
administrative support:
Clear expectations in the beginning of school works as does the focus on positive
behaviors discussed and enforced throughout the year. Discipline needs to be
instantaneous to be affective as does praise. Our school does it's best to deal with
a situation right away. In Special Education, we use other forms of discipline,
like lunch detentions for students who do not break a school rule, but maybe a

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

146

classroom rule. This works well for our students. After school detentions do not
for most of them. Administration stands behind this use since it is not interfering
with the standard discipline. I like that one administrator is following each kid
through all 4 years too!
Staff member #20 explained their perception regarding this theme in the following way:
I'm sure the Wings of Praise programs we have been implementing have done
some degree of good. Some students really get excited when they receive them. I
hear from students the fears of being ineligible, losing driving privileges, or losing
senior option privileges if their grades or behaviors are poor. I think these are
good deterrents, and perhaps they are more effective than traditional Detention,
ISS, or OSS. Organizations like NHS and Renaissance reward good grades, so I
believe in their effectiveness as well. I think students respect and generally like
our administrators. When our administrators speak, students usually listen.
Furthermore, parents seem to be largely cooperative. Perhaps more
communication from administrators to students and parents via weekly
announcements over TV or intercom, Twitter messaging, emails, or assemblies
could help communicate expectations, praises, and displeasures more frequently.
I think the Falcons Connect program is a great idea. I'm not sure it has reached its
full potential, but I think it can ultimately be beneficial to students.
Overall, staff member #63 stated this final thought about this theme, “Administrators and
faculty seem to be very supportive of each other.”
The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question was the grade level (HS) in
which WofP framework was implemented. Again, with diverse philosophies regarding

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

147

discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level can be complex in
implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #12 made this statement:
It feels like behaviors are starting to get more severe and the students realize
consequences are not working to deter negative behaviors. My perception is that
we have loosened too much and the students (maybe just a select few) are really
taking advantage and making life miserable for their peers and staff.
Staff member #30 wrote the following:
I do not think that behavior and discipline are working well at our school. I am
not sure that any "thing" is working well. As long as rules are not followed and
expectations are not met more consistently, we will continue to have increased
struggles in both areas. Teachers are worried about behavior and discipline in the
classrooms on a daily basis. I try to begin each day with a fresh, positive attitude
and hope for the best. When I began teaching in the district, I did not feel this
way. I felt much more positivity. I love my district and my profession, as it is
"home" to me. In turn, I will continue to put my best foot forward as an educator
and give my students one-hundred percent.
However, to add to staff member #30, staff member #33 had this statement:
I basically give detention for two reasons - cutting class or something so blatantly
disrespectful that it can't be ignored or turned into a teachable moment. I've got to
say I have very few behavioral issues in my class. A little respect and
understanding that high school kids are going to say and do dumb things but those
can be teachable moments rather than handing out a blanket punishments goes a
long way.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

148

Staff member #50 concluded this theme with this statement, “PBIS is working, however
the level of discipline has diminished, allowing some students to be frequent offenders.”
As the staff members completed the open-ended questions, this question had an indicator
as a facilitator within the SPBD survey. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that
was highlighted and can be used as a building block.
Interview Responses. The Researcher identified one interview question (4) that
correlated to RQ2. PBIS semi-formal interview question four asked the professional staff
member, if they thought Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was effectively
implemented into CCHS? Staff member #34 responded:
I feel that Wings of Praise is a good idea in theory, and I really like the idea of
rewarding students for doing things. However, I think that there needs to be more
community buy in from all of the colleagues to make it actually effective. I also
think it’s a little heavy on the carrots and not enough on the stick, and I realized
that it is a positive behavior modification system. I understand that, but it cannot
exist in a vacuum, it has to exist. We have to be rewarding students for very
positive things, but also holding kids accountable when they are making mistakes
and guiding them to the possibilities.
Staff member #29 stated:
The idea is good. The execution has been decent and I'd like to say that when it
first came out, I thought it was a good system. I thought it rewarded students well.
There were some just inherent flaws in the system, and I don't really know how
we could have done it necessarily so that all the flaws would have been taken out.
It started as a paper based, so you know, I write a Wings of Praise for someone

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

149

and they're happy about it. I kind of felt almost pressure to write it for the whole
class. You know, if the whole class did well why am I going to single out and
single out student in second row seat two and not the one in the third row? It
would also, you know, if one student went above and beyond I would write
double Wings of Praise, and then the other students might look on that student
with some degree of contempt as like: well, I did the same thing, I did my own
versions of something good there, why are they getting rewarded? Where's mine?
Why do they have five wings of praise? Where's mine? The system is good. Was
it was it effective? I think it had good rewards. I think a lot of kids, kind of liked
it, but I just don't know that it could have been as effective as it could have been.
We went to the online system, but to me, at least, it wasn't well communicated
how to do that. In the everyday course of business you are preparing lesson plans,
preparing assessments, trying to grade or holding classes, running activities, and
getting Schoology up to date. You know, the time was definitely an issue. You
know, it's one more thing, that I didn't really have time to do, especially if I wasn't
sure how to do it online or write them up. Every time you write one out by hand,
it's probably at least 45 seconds of writing and you'll write out five. Okay. Well,
there's 5 minutes that are just wasted.
Staff member #48 answered with the following:
I think the initial implementation went well and it was well received by teachers.
We were probably more apt to distribute Wings of Praise to students at that point
because it was new it was novel. Students were excited about it, I think at this
point it’s kind of morphed into something that there seem to be so few students

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

150

getting them and teachers doing it because we are so busy and so overwhelmed
with everything else that it’s probably not as effective as it was in its initial stages.
Staff member #92 stated, “I know that I personally find it difficult to fully participate in
the Wings of Praise program.” Lastly, staff member #137 answered this question with:
I think it was somewhat effective the first year. I think some of the students were
excited about it. But, I think it kind of struggled with the teachers were giving
them for the stuff they should do normally. And so it became you're doing what
you're required to do anyway, so we'll just give you a Wings of Praise.
Research Question Three: What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a
Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level?
SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified nine Likert-style questions
from the SPBD survey (1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 20, and 22), which correlated to RQ3.
These questions identified the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS
framework at the high school level. All professional staff who completed the survey
(N=68) completed each of the questions which associate with RQ3.
SPBD survey question one pertains to Domain 1 of the SPBD survey, and it asked
the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I do not have time to teach the schoolwide
behavioral expectations.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 11.3%, and
disagreed 88.7%. The classified staff agreed with this question 16.7%, and disagreed
83.3%. The total between the two groups was 11.8% agreed, and 88.2% disagreed. This
question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a
strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

151

SPBD survey questions six, eight, and nine pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD
survey. SPBD survey question six asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The
climate at the school is positive.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 30.6%,
and disagreed 69.4%. The classified staff agreed with this question 50.0%, and disagreed
50.0%. The total between the two groups was 32.4% agreed, and 67.6% disagreed. This
question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this
finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation.
SPBD survey question eight asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with,
“Overall, I am satisfied with my job.” The certificated staff agreed with this question
74.2%, and disagreed 25.8%. The classified staff agreed with this question 83.3%, and
disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 75.0% agreed, and 25.0%
disagreed.
SPBD survey question nine asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I
believe CCHS has (or will have) the necessary resources to support schoolwide positive
behavior support.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 43.5%, and disagreed
56.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The
total between the two groups was 45.6% agreed, and 54.4% disagreed. This question was
indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may
impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation.
SPDB survey question 11 pertains to Domain 3 of the SPBD survey, which asked
the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Currently, I teach the agreed upon schoolwide
behavior expectations (PRIDE) to students.” The certificated staff agreed with this
question 50.0%, and disagreed 50.0%. The classified staff agreed with this question

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

152

33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 48.5% agreed, and
51.5% disagreed.
SPBD survey question 17 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD survey, and asked
the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe we should reserve rewards for
students exceeding expectations, not simply for meeting them.” The certificated staff
agreed with this question 61.3%, and disagreed 38.7%. The classified staff agreed with
this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two groups was 61.8%
agreed, and 38.2% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A
barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and
requires further investigation.
SPBD survey questions 19, 20, and 22 pertained to Domain 5 of the SPBD
survey. SPBD survey question 19 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The
staff tends to resist change with concerns such as “We don’t do it that way here”.” The
certificated staff agreed with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified
staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two
groups was 19.1% agreed, and 80.9% disagreed.
SPBD survey question 20 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “This
school has successfully implemented change efforts in the past.” The certificated staff
agreed with this question 30.6%, and disagreed 69.4%. The classified staff agreed with
this question 83.3%, and disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 35.3%
agreed, and 64.7% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A
barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and
requires further investigation.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

153

SPBD survey question 22 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I
suspect that my colleagues will not (or are not) consistently implementing the agreed
upon schoolwide behavior plan (PRIDE and WofP).” The certificated staff agreed with
this question 38.7%, and disagreed 61.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question
33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 38.2% agreed, and
61.8% disagreed.
Lastly, Figure 24 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ2.
This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ2 in
the SPBD survey.
Figure 24
SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 3

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

154

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

155

SPBD Open-ended Responses. RQ3 correlated to open-ended question 30 and
100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which asked the staff
their concerns about WofP? Again, within each of the open-ended questions, three
themes or trends emerged from the staff’s responses. The three themes were buy-in from
all staff members, administrative support, and the ability of PBIS implementation based
on the high school level.
Buy-in by staff members represented the first theme of these open-ended
responses. Staff member #1 stated, “We need the whole faculty and staff to promote this.
Even with 2 bad apples, it is ineffective.” Staff member #5 stated:
Its just another thing that will come and go like the rest of our programs. Many
kids think it’s a joke and therefore give up on trying to receive positive behavior
supports. Seems elementary, not something that HS students will care about in
the long run.
In contrast to staff member #5, staff member #6 stated the following:
I do believe that the majority of the students in our school appreciate and feel
good when they are recognized for positive behavior. I do feel that it should not
be overused. In other words, given out randomly just for the sake of giving out

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

156

praise. I do feel it should be for something that is a recognizable change in the
specific student. Now, that may have levels depending on specific student. What
is a major accomplishment for one student may be a consistent behavior for
others. I also am concerned for those students who do not exhibit an interest in
receiving rewards or make fun of others who do. When I recognize a student for
a positive behavior, it is sincere and not just to hand them some kind of "atta boy"
I do not mind trying to find things in students to support the plan, but I do feel it
should be sincere and mean something. As a rule, I try to recognize students for
their behaviors and I feel the majority of the staff creates the atmosphere of
acceptance, worth, and support of the students.
Staff members #28 answered the question in this way, “If implemented, it needs to be
embraced by everyone. Teachers can’t take the approach, well I do it this way. That
happens a lot when programs or changes are implemented, I see many teachers just do
their own thing.” Staff member #36 added to this idea by stating, “As with all
schoolwide supports, it takes a complete buy in by stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents,
students, administrators) for it to be effective. Resistance to change is expected.” Lastly,
the following staff members #39, #46, #50, and #60 all stated the same concept of, “this
will work ONLY if 100% of teachers will support and follow the guidelines,” or “it is
useful, but only if the entire staff is onboard.”
The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline,
ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework, and school wide behavior. Staff
member #10 stated:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

157

Like any behavior supports, there needs to be consistency and we need to follow
the code of conduct. There is great inconsistency in how this is done across the
board, from earbuds, to phones in class, to dress code, we are not following the
behavior code the students signed and we are not getting support from
administration in these areas. We are letting Facebook opinions by students and
parents determine our enforcement of these behavioral codes. We need to stick to
what we require. Positive Behavior Supports will work only when the students
see consistency. Either we all do it, or we do not. I think the Wings of Praise is
only effective if used sparingly. Some kids were getting like one a day and others
never got them an entire year. Seriously, I made a list and only went through it
once for the year, or semester classes. I found 1 thing each kid did well or
improved on. That way they all got one from me for the year.
Staff member #13 had the following perspective, “I do not necessarily agree that
expectations should be overly rewarded. That being said, I do see merit in making sure
we are praising positive behavior with the end goal of seeing more of the same behavior.”
Staff member #20 added to this same idea in the following way:
I think the Wings of Praise program is a step in the right direction, but inherently
flawed. The over-achievers likely do not get the recognition they deserve, while
the under-achievers get praised for merely meeting goals (while their overachieving peers do this routinely.) It's difficult, as a teacher, to recognize some
students with a Wings of Praise form while not giving it to others. Some of our
best students will go months at a time without being recognized, while other
students get over-recognized. Teachers don't know which students have gotten

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

158

Wings of Praise (or how many), so there will be inequality. The lottery system of
prizes is not bad, nor great. I wonder how much incentive students really have to
excel above and beyond when getting a wings of praise is not guaranteed, and
even if it does happen, actually being drawn to win a prize is a longshot. I've also
seen several students who have a pile of Wings of Praise in their bags. They
received the recognitions, but did not submit them to be signed and entered into
drawings, rendering the whole process moot. This all said, it's a worthy program
that should continue to be implemented despite its flaws.
Staff member #30 stated their perception of support in the following manner:
I do not think that our school has a set of positive behavioral supports that is
predominately followed by staff members because our school lacks consistency in
most things. There are too many inconsistencies with discipline or the lack
thereof. Discipline is flimsy at our school; there are too many exceptions.
Teachers and administrators are not on the same page. I never know if I will be
supported when I want to issue disciplinary actions. I ask myself, "Will this
administrator support my decision?" I do not know the answer to this question.
The school has become too lenient, so behaviors have worsened and expectations
are not being met consistently.
Lastly, staff members #48 and #58 stated the following about the concerns for WofP, “It
does not seem consistent. Does not seem publicized much WITHIN the school”, and “I
believe consistency is a major problem. Some teachers use PBIS rewards for anything
and everything which hinders what we are trying to accomplish.”

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

159

The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question regarding WofP concerns is
the grade level (HS) in which WofP framework was implemented. Again, with different
philosophies regarding discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level
can be complex in implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #2 made this
statement, “I think students should be acknowledged for meeting expectations and
rewarded for exceeding expectations. I think they also should be held accountable when
expectations are not met.” This perception was very evident within this question. Staff
members #15, #17, #56, #63, and #66 all had the same perceived notion as staff member
#2. Staff member #44 has the following concern regarding WofP:
I am concerned that students are being rewarded for doing what they should.
Verbal positive reinforcement and discussion should be used versus "carrots"
(physical rewards). If students are given physical rewards for doing what they
should be doing anyway then they expect to be rewarded every time they do
something good. We need to try to instill in them an intrinsic motivation for
doing good.
Lastly, staff member #65 stated the following about the idea of WofP being in the high
school:
I am concerned that this plan, while appropriate for younger students, is a little
too elementary for high school students. It seems like it might be more effective
if implemented at the elementary school, so that by the time students reach the
high school level, they understand what appropriate and inappropriate behavior
looks like. Another concern is that teachers are not consistent with the positive

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

160

behavior supports that are currently in place. Many haven't completely "bought
in" to the idea which makes them hesitant to implement it across the board.
Interview Responses. The Researcher identified two interview questions (6 and
7) that correlated to RQ3. PBIS semi-formal interview question six asked the
professional staff member if they had given any WofP out to students? Staff member #34
stated:
I have given some out this year. Yeah. Since it’s been implemented, I have given
Wings of Praise out. I’ve done them for things such as helping a student when
they spill things out of their backpack. I’ve given Wings of Praise for just being a
good human, just being generally awesome and polite and friendly and just
wonderful. That’s been met with sometimes kids are really thankful, sometimes
kids eye roll and they’re like whatever about it. So it’s been met with mixed
reviews.
Staff member #29 stated:
I haven’t been as good this year. I think I started off the year probably more so
giving them out and then I’m, you know, you reach a point like, oh, shoot, haven’t
given out any so maybe I’ll hand out five or ten and then that is not equitable.
But also I think the administration has been less in our faces about it, less
reminding us. I mean, honestly, I would appreciate emails saying like, hey,
remember to do that. Here's our, our process of doing it for, you know, maybe a
weekly reminder like a small goal or something. It seems like admin, through
their actions or through their lack of committed communication about it, has been

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

161

kind of putting it on the backburner, so I’ve been putting it on the backburner and
is just not a high priority right now.
Staff member #48 stated:
So just for simplicity sake, I have issued them, but I’ve done it electronically this
year and I did it in one of my classes. So either for a perfect score on a test or
because they seem to have mastered the concept, and what I did was I create a
badge for those students so they would get the notification in Schoology. We talk
about it a little bit, I didn’t make a big deal about it, it was just kind of, hey, I
wanted to let you know I issued you a wings of praise and I think that they
appreciated it but it wasn’t like a he production in the class and I just don’t have
the time to physically write out each one of them. I can type a lot faster and when
they were all doing the same thing I could just copy and paste it from one to the
next so that was a time saver to me.
Staff member #92 stated, “I feel like I pretty consistently try to reinforce positive
behavior with, thank you, smiles, good jobs, but I rarely remember to actually fill out a
Wings of Praise.” Lastly, staff member #137 stated the following:
I've given out a handful of them over the last couple of years. And it was for them
doing things that were above and beyond what the student was already required,
such as assisting other students needed, picking up trash in the hallways that
wasn't theirs, etc... Things that, in my opinion, are not necessarily required of the
student.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

162

PBIS semi-formal interview question seven asked the professional staff members,
“If the district provided professional development on PBIS would it be beneficial?” Staff
member #34 stated:
I think personally we have a lot on our plates right now and I think something else
would have to go for us to be able to implement this effectively. So if you’re
going to add in more professional development on this, then something else needs
to be like a plate needs to be removed. I think that for this type of professional
development you could have us do it at our own pace. Something that we could
do it doesn’t have to be a three hour or eight hour training is something that we
could if we wanted more information here’s how you could implement this. So
you could provide the scaffolding to the staff if you wanted to take that route. I
guess that approach to it.
Staff member #29 answered the question in the following way:
No, more consistent communication, more tangible rewards. And I'm not saying
bribes, but like you know, little lottery drawings at every faculty meeting taking
out a teacher's name. Hey, this teacher has given Wings of Praise. I don't know if
there's a way to track it online, but maybe give some sort of recognition to the
teacher that's provided the most or had good feedback. I don't want professional
development. But, you know, I think email communication, faculty meeting
recognition and just being more consistent with the messaging and also more
forthcoming with online Wings of Praise giving procedures.
Staff member #48 stated, “I’m always welcome to training, I think as a teacher I’m
interested in growing my craft and becoming better at what I do and becoming more

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

163

effective so whatever I can do I’m willing to do it and to learn more.” Staff member #92
stated, “Maybe I don't know, the hard thing for me is, I don't know how to do this
regularly. It comes up occasionally, but it's hard to remember to do it, and I don't know
how to make it routine.” Lastly, staff member #137 answered this question in the
following way, “I would. I'm always up here for training and learning new things. I
would like to see maybe a framework, a better framework of what constitutes a Wings of
Praise so that we're all on the same page.”
Discipline and Wings of Praise Data
Discipline Data. The last quantitative data points analyzed for this capstone
research project were CCHS discipline data obtained from our student information
system (Skyward), and WofP data. Discipline data of CCHS for the school years 20142015 – 2021-2022 was utilized to analyze a correlation between Wings of Praise use and
discipline within CCHS. Figure 25 represents the discipline data analyzed within CCHS.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

164

Figure 25
Cedar Crest High School Discipline Data 2018-2022 School Years

Note: This figure displays the reduction of discipline when Wings of Praise slips were
implemented during the 2018-2022 school years.
The 2014-2021 school years data was extrapolated on the same date, March 13 to
ensure validity in the data; 2021-2022 school year data was extrapolated on February 16,
2022. Even with this difference in extrapolation date, the 2021-2022 school year still
showed an increase in discipline, which correlates with a low number of WofP slips
given to students. During the 2018-2019 school year, 3073 WofP slips were handed out
to students. The data depicts a drop of consequences between 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
school year, the first year of WofP. Addressed are the most dramatic decreased
consequences: Detention – 2 – 136 to 85, In School Suspension – 1 – 76 to 55, In School

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

165

Suspension 2 – 83 to 64, Out of School – 3 – 24 to 12, and Saturday Detention – 56 to 29.
In the 2019-2020 school year, 1850 WofP slips were given to students and a reduction in
consequences continued, particularly in the number of Detentions – 2 – 86 to 79, In
School Suspensions – 1 – 55 to 38, In School Suspensions – 2 – 64 to 50, and Saturday
Detentions – 29 to 24. In the 2020-2021 school year, 1412 WofP slips were given and
while there was a reduction in some discipline areas, there was an increase in other
discipline areas. For example, there was a reduction in Saturday Detentions – 24 to 7, but
an increase in In School Suspension – 1 – 38 to 40, and In School Suspension – 5 – 6 to
8. The 2021-2022 school year, during which all students returned to CCHS, showed an
increase in every discipline category, except for Detention – 10. Additionally, the 20212022 school year marked 203 as the lowest number of WofP slips given to students.
Figure 26 showcases Figure 25 in bar-graph format, only the years that WofP
slips were handed out are depicted to show the continued decrease in the more prominent
consequences used within CCHS. These consequences were Detention – 1, Detention –
2, In School Suspension – 1, In School Suspension – 2, In School Suspension – 3, and
Saturday Detentions.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

Figure 26
Cedar Crest High School Discipline for 2018-2022 School Years per Discipline
Consequence

166

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

167

Wings of Praise Data. Wings of Praise data was utilized to analyze what aspect
of PRIDE the students were exhibiting the most during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022
school years. CCHS did not keep Wings of Praise PRIDE data during the 2018-2019 and
2019-2020 school years. The 2019-2020 school year CCHS documented the number of
WofP slips per grade; out of the 1850 WofP slips given, 647 (35%) were given to 9th
grade students, 426 (23%) were given to 10th grade students, 329 (18%) were given to
11th graders, and 448 (24%) were given to 12th grade students. The 2020-2021 school
year CCHS documented 1412 WofP slips given, 265 (19%) were given to 9th grade
students, 444 (31%) were given to 10th grade students, 376 (27%) were given to 11th
grade students, and 327 (23%) were given to 12th grade students. Additionally, PRIDE
was documented; 435 (31%) WofP slips were given for Personal Responsibility, 152
(11%) WofP slips were given for Respect, 205 (15%) WofP slips were given for
Integrity, 290 (20%) WofP slips were given for Dedication, and 330 (23%) WofP slips
were given for Excellence. The 2021-2022 school year CCHS documented 203 (through
2/16/22) WofP slips given; 26 (13%) were given to 9th grade students, 60 (29%) were
given to 10th grade students, 69 (34%) were given to 11th grade students, and 48 (24%)
were given to 12th grade students. PRIDE displayed 69 (34%) WofP slips were given for
Personal Responsibility, 24 (12%) WofP slips were given for Respect, 7 (3%) WofP slips
were given for Integrity, 16 (8%) WofP slips were given for Dedication, and 87 (43%)
WofP slips were given for Excellence.
Summary
Chapter IV has illustrated the perceptions of CCHS’s staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS
framework. With the use of the SPBD survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

168

analyzing CCHS discipline data, and analyzing WofP data, these data points support the
research questions posed within this action research project. The data collected
additionally offered an understanding of the professional staff’s perception on WofP, and
provided additional interest points that will need to be further researched.
The Researcher used multiple qualitative and quantitative data collection
methods, such as a Likert style survey with open-ended questions (SPBD), interviews
(PBIS Semi-formal Interview), discipline data and WofP information to support the
research questions. The data was triangulated through the collection and analysis of
multiple data sets. These methods gave the participants multiple opportunities to explain
their perceptions of WofP, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, throughout the study.
Chapter IV presented 68 participants for the SPBD survey and open-ended
questions, and five participants for the PBIS semi-formal interview. Using the data
collected from the instruments, in conjunction with the additional discipline and WofP
data collected, the Researcher gained the ability to provide conclusions to support the
results. Chapter V discusses these conclusions, along with recommendations to further
the action research within CCHS and CLSD and a description of the fiscal implications
that student behavior can bring onto a school district.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

169

CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This capstone action research study was designed to understand the perceptions of
high school staff members within Cedar Crest High School towards a Tier 1 PBIS
framework, Wings of Praise. Chapter V summarizes the results of the study and answers
the following research questions:
Research Question 1
What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework?
Research Question 2
What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1
PBIS framework on the high school level?
Research Question 3
What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework
at the high school level?
Additionally, Chapter V will specifies the SPBD survey results, particularly the
facilitators and barriers that were identified in the study. Focusing on these nine areas of
growth will provide future recommendations and provide an opportunity to build on this
capstone action research study, along with other recommendations, which will be
presented. Additionally, this chapter summarizes the positive and negative perceptions of
a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a high school setting, based on WofP data and discipline
data. Lastly, a description of how the research will influence CCHS positively and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

170

improvements that will continue to build WofP within the high school and the district is
discussed.
Conclusions
The Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) survey provided
pertinent data to showcase the perceptions of CCHS’s high school staff. Within the
survey, alerts and recommendations per staff responses triggered either a facilitator
symbol or a barrier symbol. These alerts were specific to the strengths and needs of the
staff within CCHS. Facilitators signified a finding of strength that can be highlighted and
used as a building block within the school. Barriers signified a finding of need or this
finding may impede a successful implementation of PBIS into the school and may need
to be investigated more. Figure 27 identifies each of the facilitators and barriers within
CCHS’s SPBD survey conducted. Each of these questions pose both a recommendation
as to how to move this study forward, and the changes that can be made to the study in
further research.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

171

Figure 277
SPBD Core Item Summary

Note: There are four (4) facilitators listed, and five (5) barriers listed, which correspond
to the questions triggered within the SPBD survey.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

172

Facilitators
Question one, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “I
don’t have time to teach the schoolwide behavioral expectations” was designated as a
facilitator. The majority of staff members disagreed (88%) with this question, which
revealed they do have time to teach behavioral expectations, thus making it a priority in
their perception. This building block is great for CCHS, as teacher buy-in is integral for
PBIS. A questions to consider is, “Do staff prioritize teaching social, emotional, and
behavioral expectations?” A recommendation for this question is to continue to engage
staff members to purposefully teach their classroom management within each of their
classes. CCHS is building on this recommendation by adding additional professional
development specifically about PBIS and the importance within each classroom.
Explaining classroom expectations based on the school's core values (PRIDE) is essential
in a PBIS framework. The professional development provided will specifically engage
staff members in how a PBIS framework is implemented within a classroom and the
importance of buy-in by all staff. Additionally, it will dive into the importance of
maintaining a consistent message throughout the school. This is particularly important
within a high school setting due to the diverse philosophical views of staff members,
physicality of the building in terms of the size, the age of the students, and the idea of a
token society. The perception of staff members is important to ensure positive
professional development can be implemented with fidelity.
The second facilitator the SPBD survey identified was question three, which
asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “We should not have to teach
students how to behave at school.” The majority of staff again disagreed (82%) with this

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

173

question. Most staff in the school believe it is within their job responsibilities to teach
behavioral expectations. A follow-up question to consider is “Do staff feel that teaching
behavior is their responsibility?” Students have to understand a teacher’s expectations
within their classroom. Chapter II discusses many examples of research regarding
communication and the importance of explaining classroom expectations or behavioral
expectations to students. If students understand the expectations, then teachers have a
baseline to hold them accountable. Within this action research, PRIDE outlines the core
values of CCHS and provide a basic overview of CCHS’s behavioral expectations. A
recommendation for this question and facilitator is to continue to give teachers the
opportunity to understand a PBIS framework through professional development
opportunities. Additionally, CCHS has to create a PBIS team. Creating a PBIS team is
imperative to ensure the framework continues in a positive direction. This team needs to
include administration, staff members, and students, thus meeting the needs of everyone
within CCHS. The Center on PBIS (2021) explains how this team establishes the
systems and practices for Tier 1. Furthermore, they monitor school-wide data, create a
framework for all students, ensure everyone has access to the supports within the
framework, and evaluate overall effectiveness of the implemented framework. They are
a foundational aspect of implementing a Tier 1 PBIS framework into any school. It is
clear from the data presented in this research, the high school setting creates many
challenges for complete buy-in from staff and students overall.
The third facilitator the SPBD survey identified was question 10, which asked
staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “Schoolwide behavior support is likely to
be yet another fad that comes and goes in this school?” The majority of the staff (83.8%)

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

174

disagreed with this question, which indicates they do support WofP and feel it can be a
long-term effort. Establishing WofP as a long-term priority is an important
implementation strategy for CCHS. Staff member #17 made a very pertinent statement
regarding this concept, “From my experience, positive reinforcement seems to work
better than consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned detention tend to
have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.” Creating the buy-in
among the staff is important and also builds a great foundation for the continued
implementation of WofP throughout CCHS.
The fourth and last facilitator the SPBD survey indicated was question 16, which
asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “Parents in the community don’t
seem to care about how their children behave at school?” The majority of staff (88.2%)
disagreed with this statement, which indicates the staff perceives that parents are
involved in their children’s behavior at school. This facilitator will be a useful aspect in
the continuation of complete buy-in within CCHS. Additionally, a recommendation is to
bring parents into the conversation on the PBIS committee. Parent input is valued to
ensure all stakeholders are involved in the Tier 1 implementation of a PBIS framework,
particularly in a high school. The reason it is important at a high school level is based on
the philosophical views of staff members, students, and administration. Parent perception
is powerful to ensure they understand the expectations of the high school to reinforce the
proper behaviors at home, thus creating a cooperative relationship with the school.
Creating a partnership with parents is a positive aspect of a strong Tier 1 PBIS
framework.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

175

The recommendations presented by the facilitators depict the strengths of WofP.
A staff member had a profound comment on staff buy-in which stated “Staff buy-in for
both rewards and punishments, more importantly, understanding that what works for
some teachers in their classrooms might not work for others. One size fits all rules and
regulations seem to end up dividing more than uniting.” Chapter IV indicated CCHS’s
staff has a basic understanding of PBIS (72.1%) and they could implement the
framework. It also showcased, 51.5% of the total staff has had zero (0) professional
development on PBIS, with 41.2% of the total staff who wanted to actively participate
and support WofP. This information foreshadowed the need of professional development
and the creation of a PBIS team at the district level and within each building that utilizes
the WofP framework. Due to the need, professional development has been created for
the staff to utilize during the summer after the 2021-2022 school year. Additionally,
CCHS’s discipline data identified that when WofP slips are used, discipline consequences
are reduced. The data presented in Chapter IV, provided guidance for the Researcher to
continue to build on the action research. The next steps, in regards to the facilitators, are
to establish a PBIS committee, continue to provide professional development
opportunities, and build off the positive perceptions formed for WofP. It is critical to
increase the buy-in by explaining to staff the importance of all being on the same page
regarding classroom expectations and school core values, and stress to them the
importance of creating a clear and concise message to students, families, and all
stakeholders. The high school provides a great learning opportunity for staff to utilize a
PBIS framework, and how to implement it with fidelity. This action research provides
opportunities to present data points on the perceptions of high school teachers towards a

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

176

Tier 1 PBIS framework. Furthermore, it provides the barriers in which a high school
setting and physicality of that setting affect the perceptions of high school teachers.
Barriers
The SPBD survey identified five barriers within CCHS and the implementation of
WofP. The first question identified as a barrier was question six, which asked the staff if
they agreed or disagreed with, “The climate at this school is positive?” The majority of
staff disagreed (67.6%) with this question which suggests there is a negative school
climate. A negative school climate can adversely affect morale and trust among
colleagues and administration, and it can lead to reactionary discipline practices.
Recommendations to increase school climate would be to identify the specific sources of
these perceptions. A staff member stated, “A set of school-wide rules and consequences
that all teacher agree upon and enforce, and higher expectations for student behavior and
not rewarding the very basics of decency” is a starting point into this perception. An
additional question asked the staff if, “They believe the climate is supportive?” The
SPBD’s open response nature exposed multiple staff members felt the administration
does not support them, that the entire staff needs to buy-into the framework or it will not
work, and that discipline within CCHS has become to lenient. These ideas or thoughts
are evidence of a negative climate within the school. Addressing these concerns and
perceptions has to be a main priority of the PBIS committee.
One data point that was unrelated to this capstone project but correlates to the
praising of students, climate, and culture of CCHS, was analyzed through the use of a
Pennsylvania Youth Survey (PAYS) which was given to 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grade
students of CLSD. This survey was distributed by CLSD in November, 2021. Question

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

177

15 of the PAYS survey asked students, in each of the grade listed if they agreed or
disagreed with, “My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.” Figure 28 depicts
the students’ answers and that in November of 2021, 36% of 10th grade students
answered either “YES!” or “yes” to the PAYS question, but 64% of 10th grade students
answered either “NO!” or “no”. It also indicates, 38% of 12th grade students answered
either “YES!” or “yes”, but 62% of 12 grade students answered “NO!” or “no.”
Figure 288
PAYS Question 15, Positive Feedback from Teachers

Note: The chart above displays data for the question: “My teachers praise me when I
work hard in school.” The chart presents data for two groups – students who marked
“NO!” or “no” to the item (light blue bar) and students who marked “YES!” or “yes” to
the item (dark blue bar).
Even though the PAYS survey was not directly linked to any of the research questions of
this action research, it correlates to the data points of 2021-2022 school year that as WofP
slips decreased, the number of consequences increased. Additionally, it correlates to the
qualitative data in regards to buy-in by the staff with supporting CCHS’s PBIS
framework WofP.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

178

The second barrier identified was question nine, which asked staff members if
they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe our school has (or will have) the necessary
resources to support schoolwide positive behavior support?” A large amount of the total
staff disagreed (54.4%) with this question. Staff may be hesitant to implement PBIS if
there is a lack of resources in which are allocated toward this framework. CCHS’s WofP
has grown with the use of invested funds from community businesses that were solicited
to assist in the future of students. The Researcher and a few other CLSD administrators
went to community businesses and did presentations explaining the importance of WofP,
and how it positively affected the community and businesses. The presentation
explained if the schools are proactive about student behavior, there would be an increase
in student citizenship, which would ultimately transfer to positive workforce. Having
students understand the importance of expectations, meeting those expectations, and
following through on those expectations creates employees who local businesses will
want to hire.
This barrier reveals that the financial implications that correlate to this doctoral
capstone research, are significant only on a high school level (such as resources used
because WofP is funded from private money), but also on a macro school level. Negative
student behavior can cause stressful financial situations if not addressed early and often.
The purpose of PBIS and an MTSS framework is to supply supports to students who are
struggling and being identified early. Gage et al. (2020, p. 42) states,
PBIS is a multi-tiered framework for preventing problem behavior before it
occurs and implementing evidence-based intervention services, based on data, for
students demonstrating school-based behavior problems. As the name suggests,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

179

PBIS focuses on the use of proactive and preventive discipline practices focusing
on positive reinforcement instead of punishments across all prevention and
intervention practices.
Unfortunately, the use of exclusionary practices are used to try to deter behaviors. These
styles of disciplinary practices tend to increase negative trends such as dropout, failing
grades, disassociation with school, and others. Noltemeyer et al. (2015, p. 224) states,
The rationale undergirding both OSS and ISS use is that these practices will serve
as punishment, decreasing the likelihood of future negative behaviors. However,
some students may actually find the conditions of school more punishing than
removal (Hyman, 1997 as cited in Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Although there is
evidence of negative outcomes associated with suspension, it is unknown how
much they affect academic achievement and school dropout.
Noltemeyer et al. (2015, p. 234) continues by stating,
In addition, although there were insufficient studies to analyze data on each
suspension type individually, a statistically significant positive relationship
between overall suspension rate and dropout rate emerged for OSS. The
unfavorable relationship between suspensions and both outcome variables is
consistent with a plethora of recent calls for shifts away from the use of
exclusionary discipline (e.g., Losen, 2011; Noltemeyer & Fenning, 2013 as cited
in Notemeyer et al. 2015).
As concerns grow around reactionary and exclusionary discipline perpetuating increase
dropout rates or students entering the juvenile justice system (Gage et al., 2020), the
financial implications for school districts could be great. For example, CLSD has

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

180

contractual agreements with Special Education placement facilities, such as a School for
Emotional Support students, which costs the district $25,000 per student within that
placement. Additionally, Gage et al. (2020, p. 46) completed a study in California and
his research states:
Another benefit of implementing PBIS with fidelity is the reduction in long-term
economic burden. We can assume that, if all schools implemented PBIS with
fidelity, in California, there would be a 9.87% decrease in OSS and, subsequently,
a $264,417,300 reduction in lifetime costs to the state of California for a studied
cohort of students. These figure were based on assumptions and extrapolations,
but the point remains that implementing PBIS with fidelity may have additive
impacts beyond the school by reducing suspension rates.
Within CLSD, this would mean the reduction of funds in multiple areas, which were
identified in Chapter 1 of this capstone research. Hence, it is importance to present this
information to local companies and business leaders to highlight the commitment CLSD
has towards WofP. Implementing support frameworks allows CLSD to help drive down
future costs to the district. It also creates positive civilians to work in the community,
and reduces chances that students will dropout or be connected with juvenile justice
system. A recommendation for this study is to complete a deep dive into ISS and OSS
data and determine if CLSD’s dropout rates have increased or reduced since the
implementation of WofP. The analysis of this research study shows a reduction of
exclusionary discipline when WofP are used.
The third barrier was question 17, which asked staff members if they agreed or
disagreed with, “I believe we should reserve rewards for students exceeding expectations,

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

181

not simply for meeting them.” The majority of staff members agreed (61.8%) with this
statement. CLSD staff may feel that rewarding students for simply meeting expectations
lowers standards and dilutes the value of rewards. Additionally, they may believe that
systems of extrinsic reinforcement or rewards are detrimental to students’ intrinsic
motivation. A recommendation for this barrier is to lead a discussion in extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, it is critical to not only address the misconceptions
that PBIS involves rewarding all students (Tier 1) for menial behaviors that do not
require effort, but also remind staff that some students work very hard to simply meet
expectations, and acknowledging their efforts encourages additional effort.
In completing this research study, a common theme at the high school level, that
kept arising was less buy-in from teachers. Teachers remarked on the open-ended
questions of the SPBD survey in the following manner:
“CCHS should worry less about the carrot and more about the stick.”
“I do not think students should be rewarded for doing what they are supposed to
be doing in school.”
“I believe that we are rewarding kids for doing the bare minimum of what they
are supposed to do and not having them suffer any consequences for inappropriate
or unacceptable behaviors. The real world does not work that way, and we are
doing a disservice to the students by taking away natural consequences. I
understand the idea of having everyone buy into the PRIDE theme, but do not
think it is pervasive enough, or reality based enough, to have the student make
real life connections.”

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

182

“I am concerned that students are being rewarded for doing what they should.
Verbal positive reinforcement and discussion should be used versus “carrots”
(physical rewards). If students are given, physical rewards for doing what they
should be doing anyway then they expect to be rewarded every time they do
something good. We need to try to instill in them an intrinsic motivation for
doing good.”
The idea of creating intrinsic motivation by not utilizing a token society is ultimately
flawed. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was discussed in Chapter 2, which explained
intrinsic motivation could be increased by extrinsic motivation. Teachers’ compensation,
for example, is extrinsic motivation; they complete a job and get paid. How is that any
different than praising a student for meeting the expectations of CCHS? The
recommendation for this barrier is to provide professional development that expresses the
importance of setting classroom expectations and having students meet those
expectations, explains the concept of PBIS and that consequences do not go away when a
student does not meet the classroom, school, or district expectations, and emphasizes that
positive behaviors, no matter how menial they are, will improve the culture and climate
of the school. This barrier is pervasive in a large high school setting due to the
physicality of the level and size of school. The students are older, teachers are more
concerned with the content being taught, and discipline is more reactionary and
exclusionary than proactive and inclusionary. Thus, the expectation of high school
students is that they should know how to act. However, students need to be taught what
the expectations are within each classroom, so they can meet those expectations. This
concept ties back to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. If a teacher explains, his or her

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

183

classroom expectations and the student meets those expectations through praising then
the students’ extrinsic motivation to meet that expectation again will increase. Ideally,
this will increase the students’ intrinsic motivation. Horner et al. (2010, p. 8) states the
following,
The expectation is that improving social behaviors leads to more student time in
instruction and greater academic engagement during instruction. Algozzine,
Putnam, and Horner (under review) build on this logic, arguing that good teaching
is linked to both improved academic outcomes and reduction in problem behavior.
Their point was that focusing on behavior support may improve academic
engagement and that focusing on effective teaching may improve social behavior.
While the basic mechanisms remain to be isolated, the link between
implementation of PBIS and combined improvement in both behavior and
academic performance was documented not just in descriptive reports (Luiselli,
Putnam, Handler, & Fienberg, 2005; McIntosh, Chard, Boland & Horner, 2006;
McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2006; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001;
Musscot et al., 2008 as cited in Horner et al. 2010) but also in randomized
controlled trials (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton & Leaf, 2009; Hoerner et al, 2009 as
cited in Horner et al. 2010). It is premature to claim that investing in PBIS is
causally associated with improved academic outcomes. In fact, the conceptual
logic does not support the expectation that building social support would lead to
improved reading, math, or writing skills. Rather, the expectation is that
establishing a predictable, consistent, positive, and safe social culture will
improve the behavioral engagement of students in learning, and that if this

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

184

engagement is coupled with a functional curriculum and effective teaching,
academic outcomes will be more likely.
Increasing students’ intrinsic motivation will ultimately match the goal of the teacher,
which is to have the ability to teach his or her content and not have to worry about
classroom discipline. This starts by making positive connections with the students,
supporting PBIS and WofP as an important framework in this process.
High school settings tend to have zero tolerance or reactive policies, which
increase exclusionary practices for behavior and decrease the climate and culture of the
school. By implementing of a PBIS framework, even in a larger high school, those
reactive policies can be changed. This is evident by focusing on the data analysis of
Chapter IV. As WofP were introduced and utilized in 2018-2019, the consequences of
the school decreased over the next few years, this was presented in Figure 25 and Figure
26. WofP ultimately proved the ideals of a PBIS framework, which explains if a high
school staff is proactive with behavioral management and increase the praise for students,
then there will be an increase in school climate and culture and a decrease of behavioral
consequences. The SPBD open-ended questions showcased these perceptions of the staff
by the following statements:
“From my experience, positive reinforcement seems to work better than
consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned detention tend to
have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.”
“Making connections with students to avoid behaviors.”
“Catching kids doing well and even exceeding expectations, not disciplining the
problem right away, actually finding out what is the cause of the problem.”

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

185

“I believe that our efforts to get to know students and understand them is the best
thing we have been doing over the past few years.”
“I think we need to create a better rapport with students when it comes to
discipline. We can just give the students detention and ISS, but if we are not
creating relationships with those students they will continue these behaviors post
high school.”
The fourth barrier that was identified was question 20, which asked staff members
if they agreed or disagreed with, “This school has successfully implemented change
efforts in the past.” The majority of the staff members disagreed (64.7%) with this
statement. A history of unsuccessful change efforts creates a barrier for PBIS. Staff is
less willing to invest in a new change effort knowing other efforts have failed. A
recommendation for this barrier is to learn from the past and continue to communicate the
reasons as to why WofP is important within CCHS. This needs to be expressed by
administration and the results of WofP distribution need to be communicated to all staff
members. An additional recommendation is to utilize the Student Perceptions of
Behavior and Discipline (StPBD) survey offered by Dr. Laura Feuerborn and Dr. Ashli
Tyre. Surveying the students’ perceptions of WofP would give additional data to
determine an appropriate way to continue with the framework within CCHS. The PBIS
committee could continue to grow WofP and then analyze this additional data.
The fifth and final barrier indicated within the SPBD survey was question 21,
which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “My colleagues and I share a
common philosophy for behavior and discipline.” Again, the majority of the total staff
disagreed (79.4%) with this statement. Differences in philosophy are beneficial when

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

186

objectively looking at different situations within a high school. Having candid
conversations regarding situational issues is an aspect of shared leadership that is needed
within a high school setting. The issue is when there is philosophical conflict; this
creates divides among staff and hinders the implementation of a PBIS framework. PBIS
can successfully be facilitated when staff perceives a shared vision among their
colleagues and feels they are working toward a common goal. A set of common
expectations can be identified within staff meetings or within a PBIS school committee.
Small work groups or professional learning communities can refine common expectations
or aspirations info specific goals, which can be reported back to the whole staff. This
idea was also a recommendation for this barrier; create a professional development
opportunity for the 2022-2023 summer in-service sessions to allow school staff to learn
about PBIS and how to properly implement it into the school and classrooms.
Additionally, within the professional development, staff could work on building common
expectations for the building, and then report this information back to administration.
Thus, a baseline, or a beginning set of expectations that each building can work from to
grow their own personal building expectations and core values, could be generated.
Providing the staff the opportunity to have a collective stake in the expectations could
create buy-in towards the PBIS framework. Furthermore, it could promotes a positive
perspective towards the schoolwide core values and expectations, so they are properly
taught throughout the building to create the consistency needed.
As per the SPBD survey open-ended questions, the CCHS staff had the following
to say regarding this barrier:

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

187

“We need the whole faculty and staff to promote this, even with two (2) bad
apples, it is ineffective.”
“Philosophically the idea (WofP) makes a great deal of sense, but I’m definitely
worried about consistency of application.”
“If implemented, it needs to be embraced by everyone. Teachers can’t take the
approach, well I do it this way. That happens a lot when programs or changes are
implemented, I see many teachers just do their own thing.”
“The big concern is that not all teachers will be on board. This will work ONLY
if 100% of teachers will support and follow the guidelines.”
“If everyone in the school is not on board with how we are going to implement
positive behavior, than it creates inconsistencies for the students.”
A recommendation for this barrier is to have a consistent message regarding WofP.
Additionally, there has to be departmental meetings and whole school conversations as to
how to continually implement WofP within CCHS. As evident in Figure 25 and Figure
26, there was less buy-in during the 2021-2022 school year from the teachers toward
WofP. COVID and the last two years of “school” may have changed the philosophical
viewpoints of the staff due to all the extra state requirements needed to have schools
open. Nevertheless, as the number of WofP slips decreased the increase of discipline
consequences increased. This correlation demonstrates as positive behaviors are not
recognized, negative behavior increases with reactionary discipline taking place.
Limitations
This result of the doctoral capstone project is subject to limitations which should
be considered as both part of the review of the research and guidance to further provide

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

188

additional data to analyze this specific topic. Along with the recommendations written
below, the following limitations could be utilized within future studies to provide
additional data to analyze this specific topic.
As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to the following
limitations:


Utilize the action research methods within a school that has a full PBIS
framework implemented.



Utilize the action research on a school that has a Tier 2 and/or 3 PBIS framework.



Utilize student data, such as grade, attendance, academic grades, Tier 1, 2, 3 at
risk students, discipline, demographic information, etc…



Utilize a school that had received proper training by PBIS trainers.



Utilize a student population that has knowledge of a PBIS framework.



Utilize a school that does not use a token society or rewards to correlate to
positive reinforcements, this will increase the data collected on intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation.



Transfer the action research across grade levels – Elementary and Middle School.



Utilize the action research on a school that employs other MTSS supports, such as
restorative practices (RP) and response to intervention (RTI), that complement
PBIS.

Recommendations
As this action research was completed, there were additional questions that arose
through the process; this opportunities to further this research were created particularly at
a high school level. The first and most pertinent question and recommendation is to

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

189

continue to research the reasons why high school teachers lose the buy-in factor towards
a PBIS framework. The research completed within this action research touched on
aspects of this question, such as, administrative communication, time, and the high school
level itself. There has to be more definitive answers regarding the time factor, what
causes the lack of time within the day to not praise students. Some answers within the
SPBD survey stated the staff did not have enough time to complete the WofP’s slips and
completing them is just another “thing on their plate.” Due to these aspects, there needs
to be further research to necessarily determine how to provide more dedicated time in the
school day for the staff to properly complete the work associated with PBIS.
The second recommendation to further this action research is to consider the
students’ perception of WofP. The students’ perception would be a very important
indicator, of how to understand and continue to increase the effectiveness WofP within
CCHS. The importance is to understand their level of knowledge of PBIS and MTSS
within the high school. Do they understand the purpose of WofP, and do they understand
completely the behavioral expectations of CCHS? Do they understand who to speak to if
there is a situation taking place within the school or do they feel comfortable with a staff
member because they have a connection or trust to speak out? Utilizing student input
would provide another form of feedback to consider which ultimately would support a
great understanding of both the strengths and areas of concerns of WofP.
Along with all of the recommendations that were explained within the
conclusions section of Chapter V, the last recommendation is to look at the exclusionary
forms of consequences within CCHS. Do these exclusionary practices, particularly ISS
and OSS have a significant negative effect on the students within CCHS? Do these

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

190

practices increase dropout rates, increased attendance issues, and how does this link to
students being associated with juvenile justice system? Knowing that zero tolerance
polices do not work, what is CCHS doing to incorporate Tier 2 and Tier 3 PBIS supports
into CCHS? Additionally, is CCHS adding restorative practices into its policies for
students who are suspended, either via ISS or OSS, to ensure they transition back into
CCHS in a positive manner. Students need to understand the expectations they have not
met, and how to remediate those behaviors. Adding MTSS supports into place will help
students, specifically at a high school level, to not continue to make those same
behavioral mistakes; this is the goal prior to them leaving high school.
Summary
In summary, the ability to complete a doctoral action research project within a
high school setting has been invaluable as a high school Assistant Principal. The
opportunities to understand the perceptions of teachers and understand their focus,
struggles, and comprehension of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, has given the Researcher the
opportunity to create Professional Development, an understanding of the need for a PBIS
committee, and a focus on how to grow Wings of Praise into a very effective and
productive PBIS framework. Additionally, it has provided new questions that need to be
answered regarding the direction of CCHS overall in terms of behavioral management
and the expectations of the students and staff. This research has not only increased
conversations taking place within CCHS, but also has created opportunities for change.
Wings of Praise needs to be broken down and re-built using the CCHS’s professional
staff’s input, the students’ input, the administration’s input, and the parents’ input, thus
creating fidelity and ownership of the framework. Additional measures to take are to

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

191

incorporate the Intermediate Unit into the process, so CCHS can be an accredited Tier 1
PBIS school. The action research completed in this doctoral capstone study is a great
beginning to this process!

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

192

References
Akin-Little, A., & Little, S. G. (2009). The true effects of extrinsic reinforcement on
“intrinsic” motivation. In A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. A. Bray, & T. J. Kehle
(Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies.
(pp. 73–91). American Psychological Association.
Almalki, S. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods
research—Challenges and benefits. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3),
288–296.
Alsawy, S., Mansell, W., Carey, T. A., McEvoy, P., & Tai, S. J. (2014). Science and
practice of transdiagnostic CBT: A Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) approach.
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 7(4), 334–359.
Austin, V. L., Malow, M. S., Josephs, N. L., & Ecker, A. J. (2016). The implications of a
system-wide positive behavioral intervention initiative: From design to successful
implementation (pp. 6–16). Lower Hudson Regional Special Education Technical
Assistance Support Center (RSE-TASC). https://rsetasc.pnwboces.org
Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based
individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 161–176.
Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (2005). Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the
distinction be preserved? The Behavior Analyst, 28(2), 85–98.
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of
individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a
classroom 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

193

Bhandari, P. (2020, May 8). Understanding external validity. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/external-validity/
Bornstein, J. (2017). Can PBIS build justice rather than merely restore order? In N. S.
Okilwa, M. Khalifa, & F. M. Briscoe (Eds.), Advances in race and ethnicity in
education (Vol. 4, pp. 135–167). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Debnam, K. J., & Lindstrom Johnson, S. (2015). A focus on
implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in high
schools: Associations with bullying and other indicators of school disorder.
School Psychology Review, 44(4), 480–498.
Bruhn, A., Hirsch, S., Gorsh, J., & Hannan, C. (2014). Simple strategies for reflecting on
and responding to common criticisms of PBIS. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 27, 13–25.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W.,
Anderson, J. L., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior
support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4(1), 4–16.
Center on PBIS. (2021). Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports.
https://www.pbis.org/about/about
Chance, P. (1998). First course in applied behavior analysis. Brooks/Cole.
Cober, W., & Adams, B. (2020). When interviewing: How many is enough?
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(1), 73–79.
Coffey, J. H., & Horner, R. H. (2012). The sustainability of schoolwide positive behavior
interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

194

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson
UK.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District. (2019). District comprehensive plan.
https://www.clsd.k12.pa.us/cornwall-lebanon-school-district/our-district/aboutus/district-comprehensive-plan/
Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in
schools, 2nd Ed.: The behavior education program. Guilford Press.
Dean, J. E. (2018). A mixed methods study of high school teachers’ and administrators’
perceptions of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports [Doctoral
dissertation, Columbus State University].
https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=th
eses_dissertations
Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Factors influencing staff
perceptions of administrator support for tier 2 and 3 interventions: A multilevel
perspective. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 116–126.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Plenum Publishing Co.
Dixon, D. R., Vogel, T., & Tarbox, J. (2012). A brief history of functional analysis and
applied behavior analysis. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Functional assessment for
challenging behaviors (pp. 3–24). Springer New York.
Evanovich, L. L., Martinez, S., Kern, L., & Haynes, R. D. (2020). Proactive circles: A
practical guide to the implementation of a restorative practice. Preventing School
Failure, 64(1), 28–36.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

195

Feuerborn, L. L., & Tyre, A. D. (2022). SPBD support: Staff and student surveys
assessing perceptions of behavior and discipline. SPBD Support.
https://spbdsupport.com/
Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & Beaudoin, K. (2022). The staff perceptions of behavior
and discipline (SPBD): Data summary report for Cedar Crest High School.
Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & King, J. P. (2015). The staff perceptions of behavior and
discipline survey: A tool to help achieve systemic change through schoolwide
positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(2), 116–
126.
Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & Zečević, M. (2019). Factor validation of the staff
perceptions of behavior and discipline (SPBD) survey. Remedial and Special
Education, 40(1), 32–39.
Filter, K. J., & Brown, J. (2019). Validation of the PBIS-ACT full: An updated measure
of staff commitment to implement SWPBIS. Remedial and Special Education,
40(1), 40–50.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Louis de la Parte Florida
Mental Health Institute Publication #231, University of South Florida.
http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu
Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of
implementation on problem behavior in high schools. School Psychology
Quarterly, 29(2), 111–124.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

196

Flannery, K. B., Horner, R., Hershfeldt, P., Martinez, S., & Salle, T. L. (2020). High
school acknowledgement systems. Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports. www.pbis.org
Foxall, G. (2016). Addiction as consumer choice: Exploring the cognitive dimension.
Routledge.
Freeman, J., Wilkinson, S., & Vanlone, J. (2017). Status of high school PBIS
implementation in the U.S. PBIS Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports,
OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 1–10.
Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N., Lombardo, M., & Anderson, L. (2020). The effect of
school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on disciplinary
exclusions: A conceptual replication. Behavioral Disorders, 46(1), 42–53.
Glen, S. (2016). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy from
StatisticsHowTo.com: Elementary statistics for the rest of us! Statistics How To.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/
Gresham, F. M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to
intervention. School Psychology Review, 20(1), 23–36.
Hall, N., Bohanon, H., & Goodman, S. (2016). Behavioral support: Research-based
program reduces discipline problems. American School Board Journal Online.
https://www.nsba.org/newsroom/american-school-board-journal/behavioralsupport
Hansen, S. D., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2005). Effects of a dependent group contingency
on the verbal interactions of middle school students with emotional disturbance.
Behavioral Disorders, 30(2), 170–184.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

197

Horner, R. H., & Macaya, M. M. (2018). A framework for building safe and effective
school environments: Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS):
Rámec pro budování bezpečného a efektivního prostředí ve škole: Pozitivní
intervence a podpora chování (PBIS). Pedagogická Orientace, 28(4), 663–685.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for
school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–
16.
Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2010). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros
and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 1–14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2021). U.S. Department of
Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2015). Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support.
Springer.
Jones, R. T., & Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Programming response maintenance after
withdrawing token reinforcement. Behavior Therapy, 6(2), 153–164.
Kelly, J., & Pohl, B. (2018). Using structured positive and negative reinforcement to
change student behavior in educational settings in order to achieve student
academic success. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and
Technological Sciences, 5(1), 17–29.
Kelm, J. L., McIntosh, K., & Cooley, S. (2014). Effects of implementing school-wide
positive behavioural interventions and supports on problem behaviour and

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

198

academic achievement in a Canadian elementary school. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 29(3), 195–212.
Koegel, L. K. E., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. E. (1996). Positive behavioral support:
Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Komorowski, M., Marshall, D. C., Salciccioli, J. D., & Crutain, Y. (2016). Exploratory
data analysis. Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records, 185–203.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43742-2_15
Lanoue, P. D. (2009). The effect of professional development in perceptual control theory
on administrator and teacher beliefs about classroom management [Doctoral
dissertation, Mercer University].
https://ursa.mercer.edu/bitstream/handle/10898/11490/3374150_1.pdf?sequence=
7&isAllowed=y
Leach, D., & Helf, S. (2016). Using a hierarchy of supportive consequences to address
problem behaviors in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(1), 29–
33.
Macy, M., & Wheeler, T. (2021). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Factors
that influence teacher buy-in. International Journal of Educational Organization
& Leadership, 28(1), 17–33.
Main, G. C., & Munro, B. C. (1977). A token reinforcement program in a public juniorhigh school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 93–94.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

199

Marchant, M., Heath, M. A., & Miramontes, N. Y. (2013). Merging empiricism and
humanism: Role of social validity in the school-wide positive behavior support
model. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(4), 221–230.
McCombes, S. (2019, September 19). An introduction to sampling methods. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/
McCullagh, J., & Vaal, J. (1975). A token economy in a junior high school special
education classroom. School Applications of Learning Theory, 7(2), 1–8.
McIntosh, K., Kelm, J. L., & Canizal Delabra, A. (2016). In search of how principals
change: A qualitative study of events that help and hinder administrator support
for school-wide PBIS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 100–
110.
McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semistructured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–12.
Menousek, K. M. (2011). A Comparison of the effects of two PBIS token reinforcement
systems on appropriately-engaged behavior [Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Southern Mississippi]. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/568
Miltenberger, R. G. (1997). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures. Cole
Publishing Company.
Netzel, D. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive to proactive discipline in an
urban school district: A change of focus through PBIS implementation. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 71–79.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

200

Nevin, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of group and individual
contingencies on academic performance and social relations of special needs
students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116(1), 41–59.
Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school
suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review,
44(2), 224–240.
PAPBS. (2021, September 21). Schoolwide PBIS.
https://papbs.org/SchoolwidePBIS.aspx
Rao, J. (2020). Preceived barriers and enablers to office discipline referrals in schools
implementing positive behavior interventions and supports. California State
University, Sacramento.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based
practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice.
Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to
safe schools? The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–382.
Skiba, R., Waldron, N., Bahamonde, C., & Michalek, D. (1998). A four-step model for
functional behavior assessment. NASP Communique, 26(1), 24–25.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. AppletonCentury.
Sugai, G. (2015). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Application of a
behavior analytic theory of action. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for
Schools, 1–20.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

201

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral
interventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations.
Exceptional Children, 86(2), 120–136.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott,
T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D.,
Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. B. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and
functional behavioral assessments in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 2, 131–143.
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive behavioral interventions and supports:
History, defining features, and misconceptions. Center for PBIS & Center for
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
https://www.hbgsd.us/cms/lib/PA50000648/Centricity/Domain/288/PBIS_.pdf
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Taylor, M. M. (1999). Editorial: Perceptual control theory and its application.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50(6), 433–444.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. The Macmillan
Company.
Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Phillips, D.
(2012). School-wide evaluation tool (SET) implementation manual. OSEP Center
on Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports, Effective School-Wide
Interventions.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

202

Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2017). The minority report: The concerns of staff
opposed to schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in their
schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 145–172.
Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2021). Ten common misses in PBIS implementation.
Beyond Behavior, 30(1), 41–50.
UCLA: Statistical consulting group. (2021). What does Cronbach’s Alpha mean?
Introduction to SAS. https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachsalpha-mean/
Wager, B. R. (1993). No more suspension: Creating a shared ethical culture. Educational
Leadership, 50(4), 34–37.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., &
Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior
patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209.
Wanzek, A. (2011). The role of a principal in establishing and maintaining positive
behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS): An ethnographic case study
[Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota].
https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3438&context=theses
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied
behavior analysis is finding its heart 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
11(2), 203–214.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

203

Yarbrough, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Lee, Y. J., & Lemmons, C. (2004). Decreasing
transition times in a second grade classroom: Scientific support for the timely
transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 85–107.
Yeung, A., Craven, R., Chen, Z., Mooney, M., Tracey, D., Barker, K., Power, A., Dobia,
B., Schofield, J., Whitefield, P., & Lewis, T. (2016). Positive behavior
interventions: The issue of sustainability of positive effects. Educational
Psychology Review, 28(1), 145–170.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

204

APPENDICES

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

205

Appendix A
Institutional Review Board Letter
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear John,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled “High School
teachers’ perception of a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS)
framework” (Proposal #20-035) has been approved by the California University of
Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 7/31/21 and the expiration date is 7/30/22. These dates
must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any
of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or
changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any
events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 7/30/22 you must
file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.

Regards,

Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

206

Appendix B
Cornwall-Lebanon School District Research Permission Letter

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

207

Appendix C
SPBD Survey Consent Form

Staff Perceptions of Behaviors & Discipline (SPBD)
Survey Consent Form
Dear Professional Staff Member,
My name is John Shaffer and I am currently pursuing my Doctorate in the Educational
Administration and Leadership Doctoral program at California University of
Pennsylvania. For my Doctoral Capstone Project, I am conducting a study to investigate
the perceptions of high school teachers regarding the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) framework Wings of Praise, and CCHS’s behavioral expectations
PRIDE. I am asking if you could complete a one-time survey that will provide valuable
research information as it relates CCHS’s PBIS framework, Wings of Praise.
In this SPBD survey, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perception of
a Tier 1, PBIS framework. You will also be asked about your perspective on professional
development and if it is needed regarding the implementation of the Tier 1 PBIS
framework.
The only personal information I will collect about you will be your ethnicity, this will be
utilized by SPBD Support. You are NOT required to answer this question or any
question that you do not feel comfortable answering.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to being employed as a full time
staff member within the Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Cedar Crest High School.
The survey consists of the following types of questions: multiple choice, Likert scale,
and open-ended. There is no potential risk if you are willing to complete the survey. In
addition, all the research data will be kept confidential.
Privacy is my number one concern, and all data that is collected will not be correlated
back to you, thus keeping all material confidential within this study.
If you do not want to participate please do not complete the survey. If you do agree to
participate in this study, please understand you have the right to stop at any point in time.
By completing the survey and submitting your answers at the end, you are giving your
consent to participate in this survey/questionnaire.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

208

You are being asked to participate in the SPBD survey that will take approximately 15-20
minutes to complete, this survey will be completed utilizing the following link:
Staff Perceptions of Behaviors & Discipline (SPBD) Survey
The benefits of this study and your participation will allow the Researcher to improve our
high school PBIS framework, and provide additional data to create a professional
development opportunities for our high school staff.
If you have questions about this Doctoral Capstone research investigation please contact
John Shaffer at sha9040@calu.edu or 717-585-1201. If you would like to speak to
someone other than the Researcher, please contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, California
University of PA Capstone Committee Faculty Chair, at keruskin@calu.edu.

Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board,
Proposal #20-035. This approval is effective 7/31/21 and expires 7/30/22.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

209

Appendix D
Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline Survey
Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline (SPBD)
Cedar Crest High School
The purpose of the SPBD is to gather your insights on current school disciplinary
practices and efforts to improve discipline through school wide positive behavior
supports (SWPBS or PBIS). Your honest input is valued. It will be used to guide future
practices. Your responses are confidential and cannot be connected to your name.
SWPBS or PBIS is a framework of multi-tiered behavior supports that includes defining,
teaching, and acknowledging expected behavior and applying consistent consequences
for violations of these expectations.
Question 1
Please indicate your role(s) at this school.
Certificated teacher
Classified staff (e.g., office staff, kitchen staff, security)
Certificated support personnel (e.g., counselor, school psychologist, speech &
language pathologist)
Administrator
Other
Question 2
What student grade level(s) do you work with?
Preschool
Kindergarten
1st grade
2nd grade
3rd grade
4th grade
5th grade
6th grade
7th grade
8th grade
9th grade
10th grade
11th grade

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

210

12th grade
Question 3
What is your race or ethnicity?
White
Black
Latino/Latina
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American
Multiple races
Other
I prefer not to say
Question 4
How many years of experience do you have in your current role?
Question 5
How many years have you worked in this building?
Question 6
I have trust in my administrator's ability to lead us through change.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 7
Schoolwide behavior support is likely to be yet another fad that comes and goes in this
school.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

211

Question 8
The climate at this school is positive.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 9
We should not have to teach students how to behave at school.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 10
I believe our school has (or will have) the necessary resources to support school wide
positive behavior support.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 11
I suspect that my colleagues will not (or are not) consistently implementing the agreed
upon school wide behavior plan.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 12

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

212

My colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 13
Overall, I am satisfied with my job.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 14
The students at this school need to be held more responsible for their own behavior.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 15
The staff at this school tends to resist change with concerns such as "We don't do it that
way here."
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 16
This school has successfully implemented change efforts in the past.
Totally agree

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

213

Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
I don't know
Question 17
I don't have time to teach the school wide behavioral expectations.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 18
School wide behavior supports may work in other schools, but I doubt it will work in
ours.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 19
Parents in the community don't seem to care about how their children behave at school.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 20
I believe we should reserve rewards for students exceeding expectations, not simply for
meeting them.
Totally agree

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 21
I feel that rewarding students is the same as bribing them.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 22
I resent being asked to do one more thing.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 23
If students are not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept any discipline at
school.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 24
When problem behaviors occur, we need to get tougher.
Totally agree
Agree

214

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

215

Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Question 25
When it comes to the concepts and procedures of positive behavior supports, my level of
understanding is:
Unfamiliar; I don't know what it is
Limited; I would need to learn more
Basic; I could implement
High; I could teach others
Question 26
If you are familiar with school wide positive behavior supports, please indicate your
current level of support or commitment.
I strongly disagree with this effort.
I disagree with this effort, but I will not resist it.
I agree with this effort, but I do not plan to participate in leadership or committee
work.
I strongly agree with this effort; I plan to actively support it.
I am unfamiliar with positive behavior supports.
Question 27
Currently, I teach the agreed upon school wide behavior expectations to students.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Currently, my school does not have a common set of student expectations.
Question 28
Currently, I acknowledge/reward students for meeting the agreed upon school wide
behavior expectations.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

216

Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Currently, my school does not have a common set of student expectations.
Question 29
Currently, I apply the agreed upon school wide disciplinary consequences.
Totally agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Totally disagree
Currently, my school does not have a common set of consequences.
Question 30
Over the past year, about how many hours of professional development in behavior
supports have you received?
Question 31
If you have received professional development in behavior supports, did you find it to be
helpful?
Yes
No
I have not received professional development in this area.
Question 32
Please rate the communication at this school.
Poor: I am unaware of changes that affect staff and students.
Needs improvement: I am sometimes unaware of changes.
Adequate: I tend to be aware of changes before they occur.
Good: Communication is clear and timely.
Question 33
When you think about schoolwide positive behavior supports, what concerns do you
have? Please be frank and answer in complete sentences.

Question 34

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

When it comes to behavior and discipline, what is working well in this school?

Question 35
What is needed to make it better?

Thank you for your assistance regarding this survey, I really appreciate your help.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me:
John P. Shaffer
California University of Pennsylvania
Sha9040@calu.edu

217

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

218

Appendix E
PBIS Semi-formal Interview Consent Form

Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports
(PBIS) Semi-formal Interview Consent Form
Dear Professional Staff Member,
My name is John Shaffer and I am currently pursuing my Doctorate in the Educational
Administration and Leadership Doctoral program at California University of
Pennsylvania. For my Doctoral Capstone Project, I am conducting a study to investigate
the perceptions of high school teachers regarding the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) framework Wings of Praise and CCHS’s behavioral expectations
PRIDE, and its impact on the high school.
In this semi-formal interview, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your years
of service at Cedar Crest High School (CCHS), your knowledge of Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and your perception of Wings of Praise a Tier 1, PBIS
framework. In addition, you will also be asked about your perspective on professional
development and if it is needed based off the implementation of Wings of Praise into
CCHS.
The only information I will collect about you will be how many years you have been
working at CCHS, and how many years you have been teaching overall.
You have been randomly selected to participate in this study due to being employed as a
full time teacher within the Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Cedar Crest High School.
I changed all names into numbers this making no identifying markers to your name. I
then utilized Microsoft Excel and a randomized function to select your number from a list
of all Teachers of Cedar Crest High School.
You will be asked to participate in the interview that will take approximately 20-25
minutes to complete. A third party individual, who has knowledge of conducting semiformal interviews, will complete this interview. The interviews will take place either in
the teachers’ classroom or in one of the conference rooms located in CCHS’s main office.
The interview consists of seven (7) questions. There is no potential risk, but there might
be a feeling of uncomfortableness, as some individuals do not like to give negative
feedback or information. Please understand, no one participating in this study is required
to answer any question of his or her choice. All participants, also, have the right to stop
their participation in the interview at any time without being questioned.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

219

Privacy is my number one concern, and no data that is collected will be correlated back to
you, thus keeping all material confidential within this study. Any interview information
will be kept on a secure server and password-protected and/or in a locked file or office at
all times.
You do not have to be interviewed for this study, if you do not want to participate please
just notify the interviewer and I can randomly select another teacher. If you do agree to
participate in this study, please understand you have the right to stop at any point in time.
By completing this Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal
Interview Consent Form, you are giving your consent to participate and have your
answers audio recorded for transcription for this Capstone research study.
The benefits of this study and your participation will allow the Researcher to improve the
PBIS framework, and provide additional data to create a professional development plan.
If you have questions about this Doctoral Capstone research investigation please contact
John Shaffer at sha9040@calu.edu or 717-585-1201. If you would like to speak to
someone other than the Researcher, please contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, California
University of PA Capstone Committee Faculty Chair, at keruskin@calu.edu.

I have read the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-form Interview
Consent Form. Any questions I have about participating in this Capstone Research study
have been answered and I agree to take part in this study. I understand that
participating in this study is voluntary, and I can stop my participation at any time and
for any reason without being questioned, during this study.
I agree to participate in this Capstone Research study, and by doing so, I have read this
form and understand all the expectations of this study.
Signature: ______________________________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________________________________

Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board,
Proposal #20-035. This approval is effective 7/31/21 and expires 7/30/22.

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS

220

Appendix F
PBIS Semi-formal Interview Questions

Positive Behavior Intervention and
Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview
Questions
1. Can you please tell me how many years have you been teaching for Cedar Crest High
School?
2. Can you please tell me how many years have you been teaching overall?
3. Do you have any understanding of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports or
PBIS?
i. If so what is that understanding?
4. Do you think Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was effectively
implemented into the high school?
i. If so, explain what was effective.
ii. If not how could it have been?
5. In your perspective, do you think Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, is
effective at the High School level?
i. If so, explain what is effective.
ii. If not how could it become effective in the high school?
6. Have you given any Wings of Praise out to students?
i. If so, how is the interaction with the students?
ii. If not please elaborate as to why you have not given any out.
7. If the school districted provided professional development on Tier 1 PBIS training,
would this be beneficial?
i. What would you like to see, particularly towards Wings of Praise to increase
participation within this framework?