RUNNING HEAD

Evaluating the Impact of PBIS Rewards on School Climate: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis
Using Panorama Survey Data
_______________________
A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
______________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Special Education
_______________________
by
Paige Fischer Penrod
October 2025
© Fischer Penrod, 2025

Keywords: PBIS Rewards, School Climate, Token Economy, Quasi-Experimental Design,
Panorama Survey

2
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Committee Chair: Toni Mild
Department Chair, Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Derek Long, Ed.D.
Teacher
Pittsburgh Public Schools
Committee Member: Ashlea Rineer Hershey
Doctorate Program Coordinator, Special Education
Slippery Rock University

3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to evaluate the impact of
PBIS Rewards, a token economy platform embedded within the PBIS framework, on student and
staff perceptions of school climate at an elementary school in Pennsylvania between 2018 and
2022. The problem addressed in this study was the limited evidence regarding the effectiveness
of PBIS Rewards in improving student and staff perceptions of school climate. The central
research questions focused on determining the extent of which PBIS Rewards affected overall
perceptions of school climate, relationships and safety, student motivation and belonging, and
staff perceptions of leadership and support. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics,
independent samples t-tests, and multiple regression analyses to compare pre-implementation
(2018-2019) and post-implementation (2020-2022) survey results. Findings indicated that staff
consistently rated leadership and support highly, while student measures of motivation and
emotional regulation showed limited improvement over time. These results suggest while PBIS
Rewards contributed to climate stability, it did not significantly impact deeper student socialemotional outcomes.

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of
my family, friends, colleagues, and dissertation committee.
To my husband, Zach, thank you is truly not enough. You dealt with my late nights,
many tears, and many, many edits, and all along the way, you reminded me that I can do it. To
my son, Sullivan, so much of this is for you. I hope to make you proud.
Dr. Mild, I honestly could not have done this without you. You were in my corner every
time, pushing me, coaching me, and I could not be more grateful.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................5
4.1 Descriptive Statistics by Construct and Year.............................................................. 75
4.2 Regression Predicting Student Motivation Constructs ............................................... 77
4.3 Independent Samples T-tests ...................................................................................... 79
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................5
2.1 MTSS Model............................................................................................................... 27
2.2 PBIS Rewards Mobile Application ............................................................................. 52
4.1 Descriptive Statistics by Construct and Year.............................................................. 76
4.2 Regression Predicting Student Motivation Constructs ............................................... 78
4.3 Independent Samples T-tests ...................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................10
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
Special Education.............................................................................................................. 10
Laws that Govern Special Education .................................................................... 10
Behavioral Disorders ............................................................................................ 11
Practices used Prior to PBIS ............................................................................................. 12
What is PBIS? ................................................................................................................... 13
Token Economies.............................................................................................................. 14
PBIS Rewards ................................................................................................................... 15
School Climate .................................................................................................................. 16

6
Problem and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 17
Existing Research.............................................................................................................. 17
Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 18
Limitations of this Study ................................................................................................... 19
Definitions of Important Terms/Acronyms ...................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................23
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 23
Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 23
School Climate ...................................................................................................... 23
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports ....................................................... 24
Three Tiers of PBIS .............................................................................................. 25
Tier 1 ..................................................................................................................... 28
Tier 2 ..................................................................................................................... 31
Tier 3 ..................................................................................................................... 33
PBIS Implementation ............................................................................................ 35
Token Economies.................................................................................................. 37
Relating School Climate to PBIS and Token Economies ..................................... 37
Review of Relevant Research ........................................................................................... 38
School Safety and PBIS paired with Token Economies ....................................... 38
School Safety and School Climate ........................................................................ 40
Academics with PBIS and Token Economies ...................................................... 41
Discipline with PBIS and Token Economies ........................................................ 43
Physical Environment and PBIS with Token Economies ..................................... 45

7
Building Relationships with PBIS and Token Economies ................................... 46
Limitations of PBIS and Token Economies Research .......................................... 47
Opposing Views .................................................................................................... 48
Token Economy: PBIS Rewards ..................................................................................... 49
Awarding Points.................................................................................................... 50
Spending the Points............................................................................................... 53
Tracking and Reporting ........................................................................................ 53
Summary and Looking Forward ....................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................56
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 56
Proposed Methodology ..................................................................................................... 56
Implementation ..................................................................................................... 56
T-Tests .................................................................................................................. 58
Regression Analysis .............................................................................................. 59
Justification ........................................................................................................... 59
Participants and Setting......................................................................................... 59
Procedures ............................................................................................................. 60
Timeline ................................................................................................................ 64
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 64
Surveys .................................................................................................................. 64
Validity ................................................................................................................. 65
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 65
Surveys .................................................................................................................. 65

8
Coding ................................................................................................................... 66
Site Permission.................................................................................................................. 67
District and School Authorization ........................................................................ 67
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................... 68
Presentation of Results ...................................................................................................... 68
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 69
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................................71
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 71
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 74
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 74
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 74
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 75
Research Question 4 ............................................................................................. 76
Summary of Results .......................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................................82
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 82
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 82
Analyses and Findings Research Question 1 ........................................................ 82
Analyses and Findings Research Question 2 ........................................................ 84
Analyses and Findings Research Question 3 ........................................................ 85
Analyses and Findings Research Question 4 ........................................................ 86
Interpretations of Findings ................................................................................................ 87

9
Implications....................................................................................................................... 87
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 88
Recommendations for further research ............................................................................. 88
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 89
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................90
APPENDIX A: Letter of Approval ..............................................................................................101
APPENDIX B: Surveys ...............................................................................................................102
APPENDIX C: Figures ................................................................................................................103
APPENDIX D: Tables .................................................................................................................108

10
Chapter 1
Introduction
According to a July 2022 report by the National Center for Education Statistics, over 80
percent of US schools reported an increase in negative behaviors and a negative impact on
student socio-emotional development after the COVID-19 pandemic (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2022, para. 1). In the presence of these negative behaviors, students and
teachers across school systems may see their school's climate and culture negatively impacted.
Given the severe increase in negative behaviors across the US, an analysis of interventions,
supports, and resources and how school climates are being affected may benefit US schools. This
work provides a review on the specific use of positive behavioral interventions and supports
(PBIS) and token economies to look at the effects on school climate.
Special Education
According to the Purdue Online Writing Lab (2021), special education is defined as “a
set of services provided to students who experience exceptional learning needs” (para. 1). These
learning needs may consist of a learning disability, speech or language impairment, intellectual
disability, autism spectrum disorder, or other health impairment. Learning needs may also
address behavioral disorders.
Laws that Govern Special Education
In the 1970s, along with the introduction of legal mandates like the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Yell et.al., 1998, p. 220), policymakers and educational stakeholders noticed a need for
specially designed instruction (instruction specifically designed for students with disabilities in
mind) in schools for children with disabilities. There was a realization that all children were
unique, and they did not necessarily learn or behave in the same ways. Upon this realization,

11
education and specially designed instruction for students with disabilities in public schools was
making its way to the forefront of courts across the country. This was the time for change and the
time for modern special education to be born. In 1975 Congress would pass the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), or what would become Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) the first law that protected children with individual learning
needs. This law would be reauthorized throughout the 1980’s, and 1990’s, with the last revision
occurring in 2004.
In June 1997, President Bill Clinton signed the Individuals with Disabilities Act
Amendments of 1997 (Yell et al., 1998, p. 219). Kern et al. (2020) state: The IDEA includes key
principles for the education of students with disabilities, ranging from where a student should be
educated (e.g., Least Restrictive Environment) to the development of an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) crafted by an IEP team that includes parents as equal members. The
most important legal principle of the IDEA is the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
mandate. FAPE supports the education of students with disabilities at no cost, ideally in their
neighborhood public schools as appropriate. (p. 1)
This 1997 reauthorization also included new language not seen before, Positive Behavior
Intervention and Supports. Today, we continue to update and revise the law as necessary to align
with the constantly evolving landscape of education.
Behavioral Disorders
Behavioral disorders involve a pattern of disruptive behavior in children that affects how
they function in the classroom. These behaviors often manifest as inattention, hyperactivity,
impulsivity, and defiance (Better Health Channel, 2025).

12
In the early 1980’s educational stakeholders noticed a need for more programs that
focused on interventions for students with behavioral needs. “The reinstatement of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 began to address those needs
through the establishment of the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports”
(Sugai et al., 2012, p. 1).
Practices used prior to PBIS
Before Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) became common in
schools, disciplinary practices were generally more punitive and less structured around proactive
support. Some common approaches included zero-tolerance policies, reactive discipline models,
behavior contracts and point systems, corporal punishment (in some places), and individualized
education plans (IEPs) for behavior issues.
Zero-tolerance policies imposed strict, often mandatory punishments for a variety of rule
violations, ranging from minor infractions to more serious offenses. This could lead to
suspensions or expulsions, regardless of the context or individual student needs. Zero-tolerance
policies gained traction in the 1990s, with federal initiatives like the Gun-Free Schools Act
(1994), which mandated automatic expulsion for students caught with firearms. Soon, these rules
applied to a lot of different offenses, often without considering the situation or how bad it was.
They often resulted in suspensions, expulsions, or calls to the police (Skiba, 2000; American
Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008).
Schools relied more on reactive discipline models, where interventions happened after
negative behavior occurred, focusing on punishment (like detention or suspension) instead of
preventing the behavior.

13
While some schools adopted systems like behavior contracts and point systems, they
were typically reserved for students with specific needs rather than applied across the entire
school. Mostly used in special education, these strategies faced criticism for their lack of
consistency and sometimes reinforcing negative labels (Sugai & Horner, 2002, p. 26).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) required schools to make
individualized plans to meet the needs of students with disabilities, but not for the whole school
or to stop problems before they happen (Yell et al., 1998, P. 226-227), which is how behavioral
IEPs came to be.
PBIS represented a shift away from these reactive and punitive approaches. It introduced
structured, evidence-based frameworks focused on teaching and reinforcing positive behavior
school-wide, creating a more inclusive, preventive, and supportive school environment.
What is PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports)?
PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) took off in the late 1990s and
early 2000s, and it continues to be implemented in over 25,000 schools across the country
(Center on PBIS, 2021).
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is a three-tiered framework that helps
students behave by teaching them a set of good behaviors, which is also known as a behavioral
matrix (Center on PBIS, 2021). This includes but is not limited to students with behavioral
disorders. Therefore, both special education students and general education students can benefit
from this framework.
By establishing school-wide positive expectations for students to follow, Tier 1
(Universal Prevention) addresses the majority of students' (about 80%) behaviors. These Tier 1
expectations are modeled, taught, and encouraged by staff. Tier 2 (Targeted Prevention) is used

14
to address some students’ (between 10-15%) behaviors. Tier 2 goes deeper than Tier 1 and
focuses on smaller groups of students that have a risk of developing problem behaviors.
Typically, Tier 2 interventions will provide students with small group instruction that focuses on
self-regulation and social skills (Center on PBIS, 2021). Lastly, Tier 3 (intensive, individualized
prevention) addresses a small group of students’ (1-5%) behaviors. Tier 3 is typically individual
therapy sessions, where students continue to work on self-regulation and social skills. The goal
of PBIS is to provide a safe and supportive school environment and improve a school’s climate,
making it a place where students have a desire to be instead of being required to.
Token Economies
Token economies and PBIS are often paired to support one another because the token
economies reinforce the expected behaviors within the PBIS behavioral matrix. The concept of
token economies has existed for centuries but entered the educational sector somewhere around
the 19th century (Ivy et al., 2017). In contrast, PBIS was implemented for the first time in the
1990s. Ivy et al. (2017, p. 709) define a token economy as “a complex system of reinforcement
in which some medium of exchange (i.e., a token) is used to purchase various goods, services, or
privileges.” Token economies have three major components in the context of education: (1) the
behavior the student exhibits, (2) the token or points earned for exhibiting the desired behavior,
and (3) exchanging the token for a desired reinforcing reward or preferred activity (Ackerman et
al., 2020). There are many token economies used in today’s classroom, some implemented and
created by teachers, schools, and districts, and others that can be purchased that have specifically
been made to be used in the classroom, including Class Dojo, LiveSchool, and PBIS Rewards.

15
PBIS Rewards
PBIS Rewards, an “automated schoolwide PBIS management system” (PBIS Rewards,
2021), is a specific digital token economy designed to help students, teachers, and staff track,
redeem, and reward appropriate and positive behaviors in school (PBIS Rewards, 2021). With
this digital function, teachers, students, and even parents can access the application on their
phones, computers, or tablets, and it can be utilized schoolwide, with teachers having access to
all students. With this program, students and teachers don’t have to keep track of the points
because they are logged into the system, and students can ‘spend’ within the online school store.
Similarly to a debit card system, students have a certain number of points or ‘money’ earned to
spend on priced items within the school store.
The program’s intent is to store and track the students’ data while supporting the school’s
PBIS framework to improve school climate by being quick, easy, and efficient. “As a prevention
strategy, PBIS Rewards can help schools by providing a practical and effective way to reward
and encourage students to act responsibly, show respect, and follow safety rules and guidelines”
(Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [PBIS] Rewards, 2021, para. 13).
In January 2022, a personal interview was conducted by Paige Fischer through Microsoft
Teams with Pat Heck, CEO of Motivating Systems, LLC, the creators of PBIS Rewards. Mr.
Heck identified background information on how PBIS Rewards began and how it continues to
grow today. Mr. Heck stated that initially version 1 of PBIS Rewards was in one school, and that
school had simple identification badges with QR codes on them. Teachers could scan the QR
codes to reward their students, and those students could use those points to spend in their school
store. Mr. Heck continued that, from there, the company developed a digital application for
teachers to download in 2015. In 2015 and into 2016 the company began selling the digital

16
software and application to schools around the country. When asked about what makes PBIS
Rewards different Pat Heck said “while in the past, and even in some schools and districts still
today they are relying on non-digital systems where students may earn some sort of physical
object representing a point or token for positive behavior, these may be classroom specific,
school specific, or even used district wide, but this can be difficult to manage. PBIS Rewards
digital aspect helps save teachers time and can help keep both teachers and students organized”.
Today approximately 3,300 schools in the United States and 25 schools in Australia are using
PBIS Rewards (P. Fischer, Microsoft Teams Interview, January 7, 2022).
School Climate
School climate refers to how the teachers, students, and the community view the school.
Thapa et al. (2013, p. 358) state, “School climate is based on patterns of people’s experiences of
school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning
practices, and organizational structures.” School climate can directly and indirectly impact
students' social and emotional needs and behaviors, whether positive or negative. Horner, Sugai,
and Anderson (2010) suggest that Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) can
positively impact school climate by fostering a safe, supportive, and productive environment
through proactive behavioral management and the reinforcement of positive behaviors. Their
research indicates that implementing PBIS can lead to reductions in problem behaviors and
improvements in school climate indicators, such as student-teacher relationships and overall
perceptions of school safety. In this study the researcher plans to review if PBIS can help to
promote and develop a positive school climate and improve student behavior.

17
Problem and Purpose
The need for a school climate to be positive, welcoming, and safe is more important now
than ever before, with students and staff still reeling from the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic. However, it is also important that schools design programs that are effective and
implemented with fidelity.
In analyzing the data, this research intends to investigate the effects of a token economy
(PBIS Rewards), paired with a school’s PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports)
program, and how it affects a school climate.
It is the intent of the researcher to answer the following questions:
•

How does the implementation of PBIS Rewards within a PBIS framework impact overall
perceptions of school climate as measured by the Panorama Survey?

•

What is the relationship between student participation in PBIS Rewards and reported
levels of school safety, teacher-student relationships, and peer interactions?

•

To what extent does PBIS Rewards influence student engagement, motivation, and sense
of belonging in school?

•

How do teachers and staff perceive the effectiveness of PBIS Rewards in reinforcing
positive behavior and improving school climate?

Existing Research
Though research on PBIS paired with token economies and their effect on school climate
is limited, there is little to no existing research on how a digital application like PBIS Rewards
specifically affects a school’s climate. The first digital PBIS rewards systems began emerging in
the early 2010s, as schools increasingly adopted digital tools to enhance the Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework. These early systems provided schools with online

18
platforms to manage behavior tracking, reward points, and data analysis, replacing traditional
paper-based methods. PBIS Rewards is one of the earliest and most widely recognized digital
PBIS platforms, launched in 2015.
While exact figures on the number of schools using PBIS Rewards are not readily
available, the application has been adopted by thousands of schools nationwide as part of the
broader shift to promote positive, supportive school climates and reduce disciplinary issues
(PBIS Rewards, 2021).
Historically, general educational research indicates that PBIS and token economies are
powerful tools. When PBIS and token economies are paired, they have a positive effect on
school climate (Educational Success Expert, 2023). However, more research is needed on PBIS
combined with token economies and its effects on school climate. Additional research on the
PBIS Rewards software and digital application is also needed to further examine its effects on a
school climate. The Literature Review section of Chapter 2 will explore existing research
studies.
Significance of the problem
This research’s priority of investigating whether a digital token economy (PBIS Rewards)
poses a significant effect on a school climate is significant to the current body of research. More
specifically investigating PBIS Rewards, due to the limited amount of peer-reviewed research on
the specific program. According to the Center on PBIS (2021), there are over 25,000 schools
across the country utilizing PBIS. The specific number of schools using PBIS paired with a token
economy is not readily available, but tools like PBIS Rewards have been widely adopted across
thousands of schools, indicating broad use in conjunction with PBIS frameworks.

19
Limitations of this study
Although PBIS is present in over 25,000 schools across the country, with token
economies also taking place in many of those schools and PBIS Rewards in 3,300 schools, this
study will only evaluate a single school, therefore limiting the size of the study. This is a smallscale study only including one school in Pennsylvania, with about 500 students and 41 teachers.
This study can only establish a basis for PBIS Rewards' effects on school climate at this school.
There isn’t a comprehensive database tracking how many PBIS schools specifically use token
economies, as schools have flexibility in customizing their PBIS frameworks. However, token
economies are a common component, especially in schools serving younger students or students
with special needs. While exact statistics on how many schools in the United States specifically
use PBIS in combination with token economies are not readily available, some general data and
trends can be concluded.
Definitions of Important Terms/Acronyms
Behavioral Disorders: “Any persistent and repetitive pattern of behavior that violates
societal norms or rules, seriously impairs a person’s functioning, or creates distress in others.
The term is used in a very general sense to cover a wide range of disorders or syndromes”
(American Psychological Association [APA], 2021).
Behavior Matrix: “...behavior matrix is a simple table that defines concise and positive
expectations in various settings. It can also be used to explain classroom routines and
configurations” (PBIS rewards, 2021)
“Buy-in”: “acceptance of and willingness to actively support and participate in
something” (Merriam-Webster, 2021).

20
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act): The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children
with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those
children (IDEA, 1997).
Morale: defined as “the level of enthusiasm, sense of purpose, or confidence in the
worthiness of a goal that can affect a person’s or a group’s overall performance in working
toward that goal, especially when under pressure” (APA, 2021).
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A “three-tiered, researchbased framework designed by each school, increasing positive and decreasing negative behavior”
(PBIS Rewards, 2021).
PBIS Rewards: A digital token economy software used in tandem with a school’s own
PBIS framework (PBIS Rewards, 2021).
Peer Mentor: Someone who provides guidance, support, and encouragement to another
person, typically in a similar age group, social context, or professional level.
Relationships: defined as “a continuing and often committed association between two or
more people, as in a family, friendship, marriage, partnership, or other interpersonal link in
which the participants have some degree of influence on each other’s thoughts, feelings, and
actions” (APA, 2021).
Teaching-Learning Process: defined as “a transformation process of knowledge from
teachers to students. It is referred to as the combination of various elements within the process
where an educator identifies and establishes the learning objectives, develops teaching resources,
and implements the teaching and learning strategy” (Munna et al., 2021, p. 1).

21
School Climate: defined as “based on patterns of people’s experiences of school life and
reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and
organizational structures” (Thapa et al., 2013, p. 358).
Special Education: defined as “a set of services provided to students who experience
exceptional learning needs” (Purdue University, 2021).
Supports: “assist, help” (Merriam-Webster, 2021).
Token Economy: defined as “a complex system of reinforcement in which some
medium of exchange (i.e., a token) is used to purchase various goods, services, or privileges”
(Ivy et al., 2017, p. 709).
Summary
Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions (PBIS) was born from lawmakers and
educational stakeholders noticing a need for programs that were designed to support and assist
students with special education needs, and specifically students with behavioral needs. It has
since evolved and has made its way into thousands of schools across the country, along with
token economies. The program's evolution has coincided with a technological revolution,
unleashing a plethora of software and digital applications such as PBIS Rewards to aid teachers
and students in utilizing these programs.
Throughout this study we will focus on how the influence of these aspects (PBIS, token
economies, and PBIS Rewards) has affected school climate by collecting data for a small-scale
study at one school in Pennsylvania.
The next chapter examines existing research on PBIS, token economies, school climate,
and PBIS Rewards. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the research, delves into its
historical background, and explores the impact of each of the elements on students, teachers, and

22
school communities. Chapter 3 dives into what the study will entail— proposed research
methodologies, implementation, participants and setting, procedures, timeline, data collection,
district authorization, and what the presentation of results will look like. In Chapter 4, the reader
can expect to see the results of the research, and Chapter 5 will present a complete summary of
all findings.

23
Chapter 2
Introduction
According to the National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (2021),
school climate is a broad term that involves looking comprehensively at students’ educational
experiences. School climate is “the product of a school’s attention to fostering safety; promoting
a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment; and encouraging and maintaining
respectful, trusting, and caring relationships” (National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning
Environments, 2021). Developing a positive school climate is often where Positive Behavior
Intervention Supports (PBIS) can support, intervene, and help schools develop practices to
continue a positive school climate. With PBIS presently implemented in over 25,000 schools
across the country (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2021), it is
important to understand how and why PBIS works, including how and why it is effective on
overall school climate, as well as what kinds of token economies can help improve and support
these types of programs.
Literature Review
School Climate
Many may wonder: ‘Why is school climate so important?’ A safe and supportive school
climate is a direct reflection of a school’s success (Charlton et al., 2021). School climate refers to
how the teachers, students, and the community view the school.
School climate has many facets, including safety, academics, discipline, environment,
and relationships between staff and students. Charlton et.al. (2021, p.185) refers to safety as “the
absence of bullying, harassment, social aggression, substance abuse, physical aggression, and
other forms of violence”. Academics simply refers to the school's expectations for students and

24
the quality of instruction. The school climate encompasses clearly defined behavioral
expectations of students, as well as models of expected behaviors from staff and adults.
Discipline is handled by positive reinforcement and acknowledgment granted to students for
following through with the expected behaviors after the provision of clearly defined,
understandable behavior expectations. Environment simply refers to the school’s physical space.
Charlton et.al. (2021, p. 185) describes environment as being “…most directly related to the
physical conditions at school, whereas aspects of the social environment are spread between the
safety and engagement domains”. Lastly, school climate refers to relationships (i.e., a mutual
respect) between staff and students. The facets of school climate (e.g., safety, academics,
discipline, environment, and relationships between staff and students) have a direct impact on
schools’ PBIS programming.
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports
In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), included an amendment that
referenced educational settings to use “positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and
supports”. This was the catalyst that catapulted PBIS to where it is today.
What is Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS)? PBIS is implemented in
tens of thousands of schools across the United States and worldwide. It is a program designed to
improve a school’s systems, data, and practices to help students be more successful (Center on
PBIS, 2021). This multifaceted program teaches staff how to eliminate problem behaviors by
encouraging students to replace problem behaviors with more positive behaviors. For example, a
problem behavior a student may be having is leaving the classroom when the student becomes
frustrated with difficult work. The school staff would obviously like to replace this behavior with

25
the student not leaving the classroom, and PBIS can help assist in replacing the problem behavior
by positively reinforcing the replacement behavior.
PBIS uses a tiered system approach that evaluates students based on their individual
needs, degree of problem behaviors, and student background. By design, PBIS cannot be
introduced and learned by staff in a single day. PBIS is a pledge that a school takes to change
overall student behavior. The three-tiered system makes evident the need for a strong foundation,
one of the most important aspects of PBIS. This entails providing a PBIS team that can create
this initial groundwork. PBIS teams typically consist of an administrator, at least one teacher, a
school counselor, and at least one parent per school building; however, these teams can differ
from school to school. It is the responsibility of the PBIS team to begin the roll-out of any
programs related to PBIS; including classroom behavior management professional
developments, different types of token economies, and trainings focused on implementing PBIS
in the classroom. The PBIS teams helps to foster these strong foundations to implement the
program in their schools with fidelity. (Center on PBIS, n.d.; SchoolAI, 2025).
Three Tiers of PBIS
According to the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (2021), PBIS is
a three-tiered framework that helps support students' behavioral needs at various levels. The
three-tiered behavioral support system looks as follows:
Tier 1 (Universal Support): PBIS establishes a school-wide system of expectations,
focusing on proactive strategies to promote positive behavior for all students. This includes
teaching, modeling, and reinforcing expectations, which helps create a safe and respectful school
climate.

26
Tier 2 (Targeted Support): At this level, PBIS provides additional supports for students
who need more than universal interventions. Targeted group interventions focus on specific
behavioral challenges, like social skills training or check-in/check-out (CICO) programs.
Tier 3 (Individualized Support): PBIS incorporates individualized, intensive interventions
for students with the most significant behavioral challenges, often involving personalized
behavior support plans (Sugai & Horner, 2010; Center on PBIS, 2021). See Figure 2.1 below for
a full example of the MTSS model, and the 3 tiers of support.

27
Figure 2.1
MTSS Model

Note: This figure shows the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) three-tiered
systems of support.
Figure 2.1. Image. Adapted from PBIS Rewards (2021).

28
Tier 1
The first tier establishes routines and practices for over 80 percent of students, known as
primary and universal interventions. Schoolwide positive expectations and behaviors are defined
and taught to all students; these may include, but are not limited to, being prompt and on time for
school and classes, being kind to others, showing integrity in classwork, and being respectful of
teachers and peers. To establish and reinforce positive expectations and behaviors in a school
setting, PBIS frameworks often use clear, simple guidelines that promote consistency and clarity
for all students. Here’s how these school-wide expectations might look:
Be Prompt and Prepared
•

Expectation: Arrive on time to school and to all classes, with the necessary materials
ready.

•

Example Teaching: Teachers might explain that being prompt shows respect for
others’ time and readiness to learn. Students practice setting up their materials
quickly at the start of class.

Be Kind and Considerate
•

Expectation: Treat others with kindness, helping to create a supportive environment.

•

Example Teaching: During the school day, teachers could model respectful ways of
communicating and recognize students for small acts of kindness throughout the
week.

Show Integrity in Your Work
•

Expectation: Complete assignments honestly and to the best of your ability.

29
•

Example Teaching: Teachers discuss why integrity is crucial for personal growth, and
students practice this by committing to do their own work and asking for help when
needed, rather than copying.

Show Respect to Teachers, Peers, and Property
•

Expectation: Listen when others are speaking, follow classroom rules, and take care
of school property.

•

Example Teaching: This can include role-playing respectful responses or practicing
active listening in small group activities.

In a PBIS framework, these behaviors are frequently revisited, reinforced with
recognition or rewards, and consistently applied across all school environments (e.g., classrooms,
hallways, cafeteria). This type of structured support helps students understand expectations,
builds positive habits, and promotes a welcoming school climate (Center on PBIS, 2021; Sugai
& Horner, 2010).
A strong Tier 1 foundation in Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
establishes clear, consistent behavioral expectations and supports that are provided to all students
across school settings. Key components of a robust Tier 1 include:
Clearly Defined Expectations:
School-wide expectations (such as “Be Safe, Be Respectful, Be Responsible”) are created
collaboratively and are simple, positive, and understandable for students of all ages. These
expectations are then visibly posted and reinforced throughout the school (Sugai & Horner,
2010).

30
Teaching and Reinforcing Expected Behaviors:
Just like academic subjects, expected behaviors are taught explicitly. Teachers and staff
model, practice, and discuss these behaviors with students in various settings (classrooms,
hallways, cafeterias). Reinforcement comes through specific praise, recognition systems, and
positive reinforcement to encourage adherence to expectations (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Consistent Consequences and Reinforcement:
Positive reinforcement (e.g., verbal praise, points, or tokens) encourages desirable
behaviors, while consistent responses address minor misbehaviors. The system’s consistency
across all classrooms and non-classroom settings makes expectations predictable, reinforcing
fairness and accountability (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Data-Driven Decision-Making:
Behavioral data is gathered and analyzed regularly to identify trends and assess the
effectiveness of Tier 1 supports. Office discipline referrals (ODRs) or minor behavior incidents
may be tracked to monitor both individual and school-wide behavior, helping educators adjust
practices to better meet student needs (Sugai et al., 2000).
Family and Community Engagement:
Engaging families and community members in PBIS helps reinforce the behavioral
expectations outside of school. Communication with families about school-wide expectations
and student achievements strengthens the connection between home and school, creating a
supportive environment (Center on PBIS, 2021).
A Positive School Climate:
Tier 1 PBIS helps build a positive school climate where students feel safe, respected, and
ready to learn. By prioritizing proactive behavior management, PBIS fosters inclusivity,

31
belonging, and academic engagement, contributing to overall school success (Bradshaw et al.,
2012).
In essence, a strong Tier 1 provides a universal, proactive approach to behavior
management, promoting positive behavior, improving school climate, and reducing behavioral
issues across the board.
Tier 2
The second tier is used for a smaller portion of students (i.e., about ten percent of
students typically require Tier 2 interventions). In Tier 2, students receive Tier 1 supports but
benefit from more concentrated and focused guidance. Students are referred to Tier 2 supports to
help target unwanted behaviors before they become more severe. “Tier 2 supports often involve
group interventions with ten or more students participating. Specific Tier 2 interventions include
practices such as social skills groups, self-management, and academic supports” (Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2021).
A strong Tier 2 in Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) provides
targeted support for students who need additional help beyond the universal Tier 1 interventions.
It focuses on addressing specific behaviors with structured, small-group interventions that
prevent the escalation of issues. Here are the main components of a robust Tier 2 support system:
Data-Based Identification:
Students are identified for Tier 2 supports based on behavior data, teacher
recommendations, or screening tools. Common indicators include attendance records, office
discipline referrals (ODRs), and academic performance data. This systematic identification
ensures that students receive the necessary support before behaviors escalate (McIntosh &
Goodman, 2016; Sugai et al., 2010).

32
Targeted, Evidence-Based Interventions:
Tier 2 interventions are structured programs that provide additional guidance to small
groups of students with similar needs. Common Tier 2 interventions include Check-In/CheckOut (CICO), social skills training, and self-management programs. These programs are evidencebased, meaning they have been tested and shown to be effective for improving behavior
outcomes (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Consistent Progress Monitoring:
Data collection is ongoing to assess students’ response to Tier 2 interventions. Progress
monitoring helps ensure that interventions are effective and allows teams to make timely
adjustments. Monitoring includes tracking attendance in interventions, behavioral improvements,
and changes in academic engagement (Fairbanks et al., 2007).
Structured Support and Regular Feedback:
Tier 2 supports include frequent feedback and structured support to help students practice
positive behaviors. For example, the CICO intervention provides students with regular check-ins
with an adult mentor at the start and end of each day, promoting positive reinforcement and
accountability. Consistent feedback helps students internalize and reinforce behavioral
expectations (Hawken et al., 2007).
Involvement of Families and Caregivers:
Engaging families in Tier 2 interventions reinforces the behaviors being taught at school.
Families can be informed about the goals of the intervention and how they can support their
child’s behavior at home. This involvement strengthens the consistency of the intervention
across settings (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Clear Pathway to Tier 3:

33
If Tier 2 supports are not effective, a process is in place for identifying students who may
need individualized, intensive Tier 3 support. This pathway ensures that students who need more
help receive it promptly, with data from Tier 2 informing their Tier 3 intervention plans (Sugai et
al., 2010).
A strong Tier 2 PBIS system provides structured, small-group support based on data,
incorporates frequent monitoring and feedback, and engages families to reinforce positive
behaviors. This proactive approach helps prevent the need for more intensive interventions while
promoting a supportive school climate.
Tier 3
Tier 3 supports are the most intensive. Tier 3 supports are typically appropriate for one to
five percent of students experiencing difficulties with Tier 1 or Tier 2 supports. Tier 3 focuses
more on students at the individual level and provides supports specifically designed for each
student. “Tier 3 practices stem from strong foundations in Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports. With both
tiers in place, schools are free to organize individualized teams to support students with more
intense needs” (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2021). Some tier 3
supports may include behavior plans, more individual motivation and engagement, and getting
staff and family involved to assist in motivating the student (Petrasek, M. et. Al., 2021).
A strong Tier 3 system in Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) offers
intensive, individualized support for students who exhibit persistent behavioral challenges
despite receiving Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions. Tier 3 focuses on tailoring interventions to each
student’s specific needs through comprehensive planning and close monitoring. Key components
include:
Individualized, Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA):

34
A thorough FBA is conducted to understand the function of a student’s behavior—why
the behavior occurs and what environmental factors influence it. The FBA process includes
collecting data, observing behavior, and analyzing triggers and consequences to inform a tailored
support plan (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Center on PBIS, 2021).
Comprehensive Behavior Intervention Plans (BIP):
Using FBA results, a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is developed with specific
strategies to address the student’s unique needs. This plan includes personalized interventions,
reinforcement strategies, and skills training designed to replace challenging behaviors with
positive alternatives. The BIP is implemented consistently across all settings, ensuring that
support is integrated within the student’s entire school day (Sugai et al., 2010).
Increased Support and Monitoring:
Students in Tier 3 receive intensive support, with frequent check-ins and real-time
feedback to reinforce desired behaviors. Continuous progress monitoring is essential, as it allows
teams to assess the effectiveness of the intervention and make timely adjustments. Behavioral
data, such as frequency and severity of incidents, is tracked closely to guide modifications to the
BIP (Hawken et al., 2009).
Collaboration with a Multi-Disciplinary Team:
Tier 3 interventions involve a team of professionals, including teachers, school
counselors, behavior specialists, and often family members. This collaboration ensures that all
aspects of the student’s needs are addressed, from academic to social-emotional support. Multidisciplinary input helps create a comprehensive and cohesive support plan (McIntosh &
Goodman, 2016).
Family and Community Involvement:

35
Engaging the family is critical at Tier 3. Parents and caregivers are involved in the
planning and implementation of the BIP, creating consistency between school and home
environments. Community resources, such as mental health services, may also be involved to
address any external factors contributing to the student’s behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021).
Focus on Skill-Building and Self-Regulation:
Beyond addressing problem behaviors, Tier 3 interventions often focus on teaching selfregulation and coping skills that the student can generalize to various settings. Skills such as
emotional regulation, social interactions, and conflict resolution are taught to help the student
gain long-term success and independence (Sugai & Horner, 2009).
Pathway for Reintegration into Tier 2:
As students make progress, Tier 3 interventions are gradually reduced, with the goal of
reintegrating them into Tier 2 or Tier 1 supports as appropriate. This transition is carefully
monitored to ensure the student’s success is sustained, allowing them to continue benefiting from
PBIS at a less intensive level (Hawken et al., 2009).
Having a strong Tier 3 system in PBIS means being data-driven, collaborative, highly
individualized, with a focus on skill-building.
PBIS Implementation
One of the most important components of PBIS is implementation. Each year,
educational stakeholders such as teachers, administrators, and support staff often encounter
multiple programs, yet they receive minimal accompanying training. To make sure PBIS is
implemented correctly and effectively, the PBIS team must ensure that teachers and other staff
members that interact daily with children are well-trained in the practice. Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) training for teachers focuses on equipping them with

36
strategies to promote positive behavior and create a supportive learning environment. This is
going to entail a solid understanding of the PBIS Framework; research indicates that a clear
understanding of the PBIS framework is crucial for effective implementation (Sugai &
Simonsen, 2012). There must be data collection and analysis; effective data collection is
essential for monitoring progress and making informed decisions about interventions (Sugai et
al., 2010). A plan for crisis prevention and management must be in place; training in deescalation techniques is vital for managing challenging behaviors safely (Brackett et al., 2019).
Ensuring fidelity in PBIS implementation is critical for achieving desired outcomes (Gage et al.,
2018), and continuous professional development is important for sustaining effective PBIS
practices (Lewis et al., 2015). It is crucial to the effectiveness of PBIS that they are prepared with
the skill set to implement all aspects of PBIS (Scaletta et.al., 2020; Tyre et.al., 2021; Feuerborn
et.al., 2016; Tillery et.al., 2010).
As with any program, often teachers, administrators, and other educational stakeholders
are hesitant with the planning and implementation of new school programs; PBIS is no different.
Concerns often include planning and implementation time, concerns with other staff's
implementation (especially if they do not support the PBIS philosophy or do not buy into the
program), lack of training, disagreement with the philosophies of PBIS, lack of support from
other staff and administration, and resource availability (Feuerborn et.al., 2016; Tyre et.al., 2021;
Scaletta et.al., 2020; McIntosh et.al., 2015; Tillery et.al., 2010).
Teachers, administrators, and other educational stakeholders typically feel more
confident with programs when there is an evidence-based plan in place. Feurborn et al. (2016),
also reported that teachers feel more convinced about PBIS programs when the following criteria
are met: time for collaboration, provision of appropriate resources, a disciplined system in place,

37
administrator support, consistency, specific procedures, clearly defined expectations, time to
develop student-teacher relationships, and implementation of an acknowledgment system.
Token Economies
Token economies are essential for any effective PBIS program. Ivy et.al. (2017, p.709)
refers to a token economy as “a complex system of reinforcement in which some medium of
exchange (i.e., a token) is used to purchase various goods, services, or privileges”. Typically,
these goods or services are not otherwise available (Ackerman et.al., 2020). As token economies
relate to PBIS, ‘goods’ and ‘rewards’ may include activities, such as extra recess, technology
time, a movie, homework tickets, lunch with a teacher, lunch with a principal, or tangible
rewards such as a snack, stickers, toys, games, etc. Token economies are often used in relation to
PBIS to acknowledge students’ positive behaviors at school.
Relating School Climate to PBIS and Token Economies
There is an obvious relationship between PBIS, token economies, and positive school
climate. Both PBIS and token economies are tools that help shape a positive school climate.
PBIS provides the framework for behavioral expectations, and token economies offer a tangible
system for reinforcing those behaviors.
There is a strong link between the climate of a school and the use of Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS), especially when a token economy system is added. Research
involving 204,701 students across 288 middle and high schools indicates that the fidelity of PBIS
implementation correlates positively with improved perceptions of school climate and reduced
office discipline referrals (ODRs) (Elrod et al., 2022; Anderson, 2022). The same research
concluded that the use of token economies—where students earn tokens for demonstrating
positive behavior—can enhance the effectiveness of PBIS by providing immediate, tangible

38
rewards, contributing to a more positive school climate (Elrod et al., 2022; Anderson, 2022).
Over time, schools with sustained PBIS implementation, particularly when paired with a token
economy, demonstrate ongoing improvements in climate, suggesting that early positive
experiences with PBIS can predict better fidelity in later years (Elrod et al., 2022; Anderson,
2022).
By using positive reinforcement strategies, such as a token economy, schools can create
a climate where students feel supported, motivated, and acknowledged for their efforts (PBIS
Rewards, 2021). With both PBIS and token economies, schools focus on preventing misbehavior
through positive reinforcement rather than relying on punitive measures, which often contributes
to a safer, more nurturing climate.
PBIS creates a structured, consistent approach to behavior management, while token
economies provide specific mechanisms for rewarding positive behavior. Together, they support
the creation of a positive school climate that enhances learning and promotes student well-being.
Review of Relevant Research
School Safety and PBIS paired with Token Economies
A Boolean search using PBIS AND school safety, PBIS AND token economy AND
safety, PBIS AND school climate, as well as PBIS AND token economy AND school climate,
was executed through ERIC, Sage Journals, Academic OneFile, and Academic Search Ultimate
in June 2021.
A primary focus of PBIS is producing school environments that promote safety (Cressey
et.al., 2018). According to Swain-Bradway et al. (2013) over 18,000 schools implementing PBIS
reported an improved perception of overall school safety. What specific areas within PBIS paired
with token economies help support school safety?

39
The Center on PBIS (2021) maintains that PBIS is built in a way that supports student
behavior; this behavior (e.g., the lack of bullying, harassment, aggression, and violence) pertains
to their safety. It is built on the idea that positive behavior can be taught and reinforced just like
academic skills. The framework is designed to create an environment that encourages positive
behavior, reduces negative behavior, and supports students’ social and academic growth. The
key components of this framework that encourage school safety include the three-tiered system
of support, data driving the decision-making, teaching of expectations, positive reinforcement,
consistent consequences for the problematic behaviors, focus on school climate and building
relationships, family and community engagement, and professional development for staff.
Research shows that combining Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
with token economies can significantly enhance perceptions of school safety among students and
staff. Implementing PBIS effectively leads to improved school climate, which is closely linked
to increased perceptions of safety. Schools that consistently apply PBIS strategies often report
lower rates of disciplinary incidents, which contributes to a safer environment for students (Gage
et al., 2018; Heiniger et al., 2022).
Token economies serve as a motivational system that rewards students for demonstrating
positive behaviors. This reinforcement not only encourages students to engage in desired
behaviors but also helps to create a structured and predictable environment, which is essential for
feelings of safety (Heiniger et al., 2022). By providing clear expectations and immediate
rewards, token economies contribute to a supportive atmosphere that can deter negative
behaviors that threaten safety. The implementation of token economies within a PBIS framework
has been shown to reduce problem behaviors and increase prosocial behaviors. This reduction in
disruptive behaviors directly correlates with a safer school environment, as students feel more

40
secure when they are not exposed to negative interactions (Gage et al., 2018; Heiniger et al.,
2022).
Longitudinal studies suggest that schools with sustained PBIS and token economy
practices not only see immediate improvements in safety perceptions but also benefit from
ongoing positive behavioral trends among students. This suggests that initial successful
experiences can lead to a more comprehensive sense of safety and support within the school over
time (Heiniger et al., 2022).
These findings underscore the importance of PBIS and token economies in fostering a
safe and positive school environment. By reinforcing positive behaviors and creating a
supportive climate, schools can enhance student well-being and safety.
School Safety and School Climate
School safety and school climate are closely interconnected concepts that significantly
influence each other. School Climate refers to the overall atmosphere of a school, including the
quality of interactions among students, staff, and parents, as well as the school's values, norms,
and physical environment (Cohen et al., 2009). Positive school climate fosters supportive
relationships and a sense of belonging. School safety encompasses both physical safety
(protection from violence, bullying, and accidents) and psychological safety (freedom from fear
and emotional distress) (Thapa et al., 2013).
A positive school climate contributes to enhanced feelings of safety among students.
When students perceive their environment as supportive and respectful, they are more likely to
feel secure, leading to better emotional and academic outcomes (Blum & Libbey, 2004).
Conversely, schools with a negative climate can lead to feelings of fear and anxiety among
students, which can impede learning (Thapa et al., 2013).

41
Research indicates that schools that promote a positive climate experience a lower rate of
disciplinary issues, such as bullying and violence, thus improving overall safety (Gage et al.,
2018). Effective behavioral interventions, like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS), enhance both school climate and safety by creating structured environments that
encourage positive behaviors (Horner et al., 2015).
The relationship between school climate and safety can create a feedback loop. A safe
school environment enhances a positive climate, which in turn can lead to even greater feelings
of safety. For example, when students feel safe and supported, they are more likely to engage in
prosocial behaviors, further enhancing the school climate (Cohen et al., 2009; Gage et al., 2018).
Community engagement and parental involvement play crucial roles in shaping both
school climate and safety. When parents and community members actively participate in school
activities, it fosters a sense of collective responsibility, enhancing the overall atmosphere and
safety of the school (Thapa et al., 2013).
Academics with PBIS and Token Economies
A Boolean search using PBIS AND academics, PBIS AND token economy AND
academics, PBIS AND school climate, as well as PBIS AND token economy AND academics,
was executed through ERIC, Sage Journals, Academic OneFile, Taylor & Francis Online, and
Academic Search Ultimate in June 2021.
A basis for PBIS is to support and improve overall academic outcomes for all students
(Center on PBIS, 2021). Due to the nature of PBIS (i.e., encouraging students to do their best and
achieve expected and desired behaviors), it is evident that improved academics would be a
desired behavior. When paired with a token economy, this could have a significant impact on a

42
school’s overall academic outcomes. Several studies were examined to consider how PBIS may
impact academics.
In a study completed by Kelm et al. (2014), researchers looked at the impact of an
implemented PBIS program on academic achievement in an elementary school in Canada.
Researchers examined academic achievement by analyzing scores on an achievement test. The
researchers identified a positive increase in the participating schools’ scores after the
implementation of PBIS and greater academic achievement than the district as a whole.
Rogers (2020) wrote a dissertation exploring the effects of PBIS on academics. Rogers
(2020) conducted research at a suburban middle school in California. He looked at the impact of
PBIS on academics, behavior, and attendance. Rogers’ (2020) findings suggested that PBIS
increased overall academic achievement. “The correlations yielded statistically significant results
with positive correlation coefficient values ranging from .087 to .774. The strongest positive
correlation was thus between average student perceptions about their school and perceptions of
PBIS implementation. This positive correlation shows that as students’ perceptions of PBIS
implementation increase, so do the average student's perceptions about their schools” (Rogers,
2020, p. 82).
A long-term, 9-year study was completed by Madigan et al. (2016). Madigan et. al.
(2016) evaluated the association between PBIS and academic achievement. The study matched
twenty-one elementary, middle, and high schools with twenty-eight control schools. The study
used a quasi-experimental design in which academic gains were assessed. When compared,
results indicated that schools in which PBIS had been implemented had a notable improvement
in overall academic achievement.

43
All three studies demonstrate a positive relationship between PBIS implementation and
academic achievement. They emphasize the importance of fidelity in the implementation of
PBIS programs to achieve desired outcomes. Each study underscores the need for ongoing
support and training for educators involved in PBIS initiatives.
However, Madigan et al. conducted a long-term evaluation over nine years, while Kelm
et al. focused on a specific case study in Canada, and Rogers concentrated on middle school
students with a mixed-methods approach. Rogers was the only one of the three studies that
looked at equity issues in the context of PBIS. He suggested that different groups of students
might benefit from the program in different ways, which was an idea that wasn't really looked
into in the other two studies. While Madigan et al. and Kelm et al. primarily used quantitative
data analysis, Rogers incorporated qualitative interviews to provide a deeper understanding of
the student and teacher experiences with PBIS.
Discipline with PBIS and Token Economies
A Boolean search using PBIS AND discipline, PBIS AND token economy AND
discipline, PBIS AND token economy AND school climate, as well as PBIS AND school
climate, was executed through ERIC, Sage Journals, Academic OneFile, and Academic Search
Ultimate in June 2021.
PBIS has changed how school officials, teachers, and staff view discipline and has
introduced a new focus: how to modify students’ behaviors and support students struggling with
behavioral issues. This is in stark contrast to their former zero-tolerance policies, reactive
discipline models, behavior contracts and point systems, corporal punishment, and using
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for behavior issues.

44
PBIS emphasizes a preventative framework, aiming to reduce problem behaviors before
they escalate. When paired with token economies, schools focus on reinforcing positive
behaviors rather than merely punishing negative ones. This proactive approach encourages a
more supportive school climate and reduces the need for traditional disciplinary actions, such as
suspensions or expulsions (Gage et al., 2018; Simonsen et al., 2012). Gage et al. (2020)
examined growing evidence that has made determinations on how PBIS can affect school
suspensions. Students are only aware of what is expected of them when behavior expectations
are clearly defined and reviewed. Gage et al. (2020) suggest that with PBIS programs in place,
behavioral data is more efficiently collected; therefore, it is easier to track which tier should be
used to intervene with a student’s behavior. With great consensus, researchers within this study
indicated that PBIS can have a powerful and positive impact on reducing disciplinary issues.
Flannery et al. (2014) analyzed the effects of PBIS on problem behaviors in high schools.
This large-scale study of 36,653 students measured problem behaviors and fidelity of
implementation between participating schools and comparison (control) schools. Researchers
recruited schools and trained staff and then performed the three-year study. Over the three-year
period, researchers observed a significant decline in problem behaviors in the participating
schools and observed an increase in problem behaviors in the comparison schools. The study
highlights that PBIS can be an effective approach for managing and reducing problem behaviors
in high schools, provided it is implemented with fidelity. It reinforces the importance of schoolwide consistency, data-driven strategies, and administrative support for achieving positive
behavioral outcomes.
Additional studies have shown that schools implementing PBIS alongside token
economies report significant decreases in office discipline referrals. By providing immediate

45
rewards for positive behaviors, token economies can motivate students to adhere to behavioral
expectations, thereby minimizing incidents that require disciplinary measures (Horner et al.,
2014; Kelm et al., 2014).
The pairing of PBIS with token economies has led to a fundamental shift in how schools
handle discipline, moving towards more constructive, supportive practices that prioritize positive
behavior and community building over punitive measures. This holistic approach not only
improves behavioral outcomes but also fosters a healthier school environment for both students
and staff.
Physical Environment and PBIS with Token Economies
A Boolean search using PBIS AND environment, PBIS AND token economy AND
environment, PBIS AND token economy AND school climate, as well as PBIS AND school
climate, was executed through ERIC, Sage Journals, Academic OneFile, and Academic Search
Ultimate in June 2021.
PBIS emphasizes clear expectations for behavior in various school settings (e.g.,
classrooms, hallways, cafeterias). When token economies are implemented, schools often create
organized areas for displaying behavioral expectations and the associated rewards. This structure
helps students understand where and how to behave appropriately, leading to a more organized
and functional physical environment (Horner et al., 2014).
Schools implementing PBIS and token economies often utilize visual supports, such as
posters, charts, and signage that illustrate expected behaviors and the reward system. These
visual aids enhance the physical environment by providing constant reminders of behavioral
expectations, reinforcing positive behaviors, and making it easier for students to navigate their
school environment effectively (Gage et al., 2018).

46
With token economies, schools may designate specific areas for students to redeem their
tokens for rewards (e.g., a prize box or a "store" where students can trade tokens for items).
Creating these spaces fosters a sense of community and excitement while encouraging positive
behavior. These areas can also serve as a motivational hub for students, making the environment
feel more engaging and supportive (Kelm et al., 2014).
A well-structured environment that reinforces positive behaviors can increase student
engagement. When students feel supported by their physical environment—through visual cues,
designated reward areas, and clear behavioral expectations—they are more likely to participate
actively in classroom activities and school life (Madigan et al., 2016).
Recognizing and rewarding positive behaviors can make the overall physical
environment feel more welcoming and safer. When students see that their positive actions lead to
tangible rewards, they are likely to engage more positively with their surroundings. This change
can lead to a reduction in negative behaviors, which often contribute to a chaotic or
uncomfortable environment (Rogers, 2020).
Building Relationships with PBIS and Token Economies
A Boolean search using PBIS AND building relationships, PBIS AND token economy
AND relationships, PBIS AND token economy AND school climate, as well as PBIS AND
school climate, was executed through ERIC, Sage Journals, Academic OneFile, and Academic
Search Ultimate in June 2021.
One of the most important facets of PBIS is its impact on relationships between school
staff and their students. Though teachers have always had the ability to recognize positive
behaviors, PBIS supports the activity and makes it easier to recognize students for performing
specific positive behaviors.

47
In Petrasek’s et.al. (2021) article “Enhancing motivation and engagement within a PBIS
framework. Improving Schools”, researchers discuss how PBIS can enhance relationships.
“Educators have the opportunity to better understand students’ personalized motivation, develop
positive relationships that support the development of motivational systems, model healthy
motivation and enthusiasm, maximize the effectiveness of external reinforcement as it is
delivered, enhance social factors that facilitate motivation, and support the long-term
development of an intrinsic value for learning and achieving” (Petrasek et.al., 202, p. 2). By
embedding these strategies into the PBIS framework, educators can create a more engaging and
motivating learning environment that supports positive student behavior and academic
achievement.
A dissertation completed by Cochran (2013), assessed the impact of PBIS on perceptions
of student-teacher relationships. As previously addressed, Cochran (2013) also stated that
students’ overall school experience is influenced by their relationships with their teachers. The
researcher used the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) and the Teacher-Student
Relationship Inventory to evaluate the quality of student-teacher relationships. Overall, the
findings suggest that effective PBIS implementation may lead to improved perceptions of student
behavior and strengthened teacher-student relationships, contributing to a more positive
educational environment.
Limitations of PBIS and Token Economies Research
Although there is research on PBIS and token economies in relation to school climate,
there is little understanding of how each aspect of school climate is impacted by PBIS and token
economies when paired together. Even still, there is little peer-reviewed research on PBIS
Rewards, specifically.

48
Limitations within this specific research topic also include the lack of data on PBIS
impact on schools' physical environments. Multiple research studies throughout this review
evaluated only a small sample size containing less than 1,000 participants and therefore cannot
necessarily be generalized.
Additional research is needed in the area of PBIS when paired with token economies and
their effects on school climate. Categorically, additional research is needed to determine the
effectiveness of the PBIS Rewards system across a wider range of schools and with more
students.
Opposing Views
While Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is widely recognized for its
positive impact on school climate, some peer-reviewed studies have identified potential
challenges and limitations. A study by Bradshaw et al. (2010) found that the effectiveness of
PBIS is closely tied to its faithful implementation. Inconsistencies or deviations from the
prescribed framework can lead to suboptimal outcomes, which may negatively impact
perceptions of school climate. Research by Pitts (2017) indicated that while PBIS may have
positive effects during its implementation, there might be limited residual benefits once students
transition to subsequent educational levels where PBIS is not in place. This suggests that the
positive impacts on school climate may not persist without continuous reinforcement.
These findings underscore the importance of consistent and faithful implementation of
PBIS, as well as the need for ongoing support to maintain its positive effects on school climate.
Additionally, while most researchers would agree that PBIS has had a positive impact on
school climate, they may not agree that it has had a positive impact on each area of school
climate. Gage et.al. (2015) reported in their review of “Academic Achievement and School-Wide

49
Positive Behavior Supports” that PBIS does not affect academic achievement. “Although the
potential exists, SWPBS cannot alone solve the academic achievement challenges pressuring our
schools, especially at the school level” (Gage et.al., 2015, p. 207).
Wilson (2015) argues that PBIS has its limitations in regard to sociocultural values and
data collection procedures. Wilson (2015, p. 92) contends that due to PBIS’s top-down tiered
approach, and that typically administrators and school leaders are choosing the select behaviors
that students should strive towards, and the behaviors they chose may not necessarily reflect the
“culture of the student body”. According to a recent article written by Will (2020) for Education
Week, 79.3% of educators identify as white. Therefore, Wilson asserts that, “school
administrators may be more likely to select behaviors associated with their own Eurocentric
culture” (Wilson, 2015, p. 92) and those behaviors may not be a direct reflection of student’s
cultural norms. Wilson (2015) cites a second problem: students must engage in unwanted
behaviors to be placed within Tier 2 and access more mental health services. Consequently, if a
student is not displaying unwanted behaviors but is still in need of mental health services, they
may not receive them because mental health services are restricted to Tier 2.
Token Economy: PBIS Rewards
PBIS Rewards is an “automated schoolwide PBIS management system” (PBIS Rewards,
2021). This program is designed to make the implementation of PBIS in the classroom easier and
use a token economy to acknowledge appropriate behaviors, focusing more on the positive
behaviors and less on the negative (PBIS Rewards, 2021). The goal of PBIS Rewards (2021) is
to simplify the implementation of PBIS and make tracking students behavior more accessible
through their reporting system. In theory, this program should enable students and administrators
to track, report, and reward behaviors more efficiently.

50
“Reinforcement and recognition of positive student behavior is planned and implemented
systematically within a PBIS framework. Reinforcement refers to any stimulus that strengthens
or increases the probability of a specific response” (Petrasek et.al., 2021, p.7). This is where a
program that reinforces PBIS can assist.
Awarding Points
PBIS Rewards, in its design, allows for school staff to identify when students are
demonstrating positive behaviors anytime and anywhere with its simple application. The
program is quick and efficient and allows staff to give students immediate recognition for
demonstrating positive behaviors. PBIS Rewards pairs with schools’ data systems such as
Classlink or Clever (digital attendance programs that track class rosters of students, staff
members, and student information). The program is able to incorporate students’ information,
staff information, and class lists into automatically generated groups and store new and inactive
students up to date. Schools that do not use digital attendance programs need to manually input
information on students and staff.
Staff can download the application to their mobile device or log in to the program’s
website using an internet browser. Once staff accesses PBIS Rewards, they can add specific
classes to their ‘My Groups/Favorites’ which allows staff to easily find students to award points
to. The application also has a feature that enables staff to search for any student in the school.
When it comes to awarding points, it is up to the individual schools to decide what they
are awarding points for as far as their PBIS framework. Each school determines which behaviors
students must exhibit to earn points. PBIS Rewards’ token economy structure is designed to be
paired with PBIS. Therefore, schools typically award points for behaviors associated with their
specific PBIS behavioral matrix. These behavioral matrixes include three to five short but

51
effective expectations for students. These may include, but are not limited to, showing empathy,
being kind, being proactive, being on time, having materials, being prepared, or sharing. For this
particular study, the school’s behavioral matrix expectations include the following within their
PBIS framework: Be Proactive, Put First Things First, Begin with the End in Mind, and Show
Empathy. Staff can simply select which behavior to award for, as referenced in figure 2.2 below.

52
Figure 2.2
PBIS Rewards Mobile Application, 2021

Note: This figure shows part of the PBIS Rewards Mobile Application, with a checklist
of the school's behavioral expectations.
Figure 2.2 Image. Adapted from PBIS Rewards (2021).

53
Spending the Points
It is the school’s responsibility to determine how students are able to spend the award
points they earn. PBIS Rewards offers an optional school store, teacher store, event, and raffle.
Schools have the option to “place” items within their school store and the program allows
students to “shop” online or in person. If the school places items within the school store feature,
they can record inventory, give the item an image, and record how many points each item is
worth. Teachers are also able to run their own individual store out of their classroom, and this
works the same for their store. Schools can also choose to raffle off specific items, such as
school gear, or big-ticket items such as bicycles, televisions, or phones. The students purchase
raffle tickets with their points for a chance to win items. The program also enables schools to
hold events such as pep rallies or games and allows students to purchase tickets to the events
with their points.
Tracking and Reporting
PBIS Rewards simplifies tracking and reporting in schools by using a digital platform to
award and track points for positive student behaviors. Teachers, staff, and administrators can
monitor individual, class, and school-wide behavior trends through real-time reports. The system
includes tools like a digital store for redeeming points, event management for participation
tracking, and parent communication via an app for transparency. Advanced analytics help
identify behavior patterns and guide data-driven decisions to enhance PBIS implementation and
school climate. This streamlined process makes recognizing and reinforcing positive behavior
more efficient and effective. Through the PBIS website and PBIS Rewards application, staff can
monitor each of their students by selecting the reports tab or clicking the students tab.

54
Summary and Looking Forward
This chapter explored the relationship between Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS), token economies, and their impact on school climate, safety, academics, and
discipline. It examines PBIS implementation, its benefits, challenges, and the role of token
economies in reinforcing positive behaviors.
PBIS uses a three-tiered system of support: Tier 1: Universal supports for all students to
promote positive behavior. Tier 2: Targeted interventions for students requiring additional
behavioral guidance. Tier 3: Intensive, individualized supports for students with persistent
behavioral challenges.
PBIS teams, consisting of administrators, teachers, counselors, and parents, are
responsible for implementing programs, offering professional development, and establishing
token economies to reinforce positive behaviors.
Token economies are systems of reinforcement where students earn tokens for exhibiting
positive behaviors, which they can exchange for goods, privileges, or rewards. Examples include
extra recess, tangible items, or access to special events. These systems enhance the effectiveness
of PBIS by providing immediate, tangible incentives for positive behavior.
School climate refers to the overall atmosphere of a school, encompassing safety,
academics, discipline, environment, and relationships. PBIS plays a crucial role in fostering a
positive school climate by teaching and reinforcing behavioral expectations, creating safer
environments, and promoting respectful relationships among students and staff.
PBIS improves perceptions of safety by reducing problem behaviors (e.g., bullying,
violence) through proactive reinforcement and structured behavioral expectations. Studies
demonstrate a positive correlation between PBIS implementation and improved academic

55
outcomes due to reduced behavioral disruptions and increased engagement. PBIS shifts the focus
from punitive measures to proactive strategies, significantly reducing disciplinary referrals and
promoting a supportive environment.
PBIS fosters a well-structured physical environment through visual cues (e.g., posters)
and dedicated spaces for recognizing positive behaviors, creating an organized and welcoming
atmosphere. However, PBIS effectiveness relies heavily on faithful implementation and ongoing
professional development. Concerns include inconsistencies in application, resource availability,
and the potential misalignment of behavior expectations with students' cultural norms. Critics
argue that PBIS's tiered approach may limit access to mental health services for students not
exhibiting visible behavioral issues.
PBIS Rewards is a digital platform designed to streamline the implementation of PBIS. It
allows staff to award, track, and report points for positive behaviors in real-time. Students can
use points to purchase items, participate in events, or enter raffles, fostering motivation and
engagement. The system includes advanced analytics, parent communication tools, and features
to enhance data-driven decision-making.
PBIS, when paired with token economies, positively impacts school climate, safety,
academics, and discipline. However, successful outcomes depend on consistent implementation,
cultural sensitivity, and adequate resources. The PBIS Rewards system provides a modern,
efficient way to enhance PBIS programs and support positive behavioral outcomes.
In the next chapter, we will begin exploring the methodology used to complete the study.
Specifically, it will provide a generalized picture of the participating school, review research
questions related to the study's hypothesis, identify procedures, and review quantitative methods
used to describe the data collected.

56
Chapter 3
Introduction
This study uses a quantitative, almost experimental method to look at how PBIS Rewards
work in a PBIS framework to change the school climate, as measured by the Panorama Survey.
The study will compare pre- and post-implementation survey data and use statistical methods
like t-tests and regression analysis to assess changes over time. By analyzing both existing and
newly collected Panorama Survey data, this research aims to provide meaningful insights into
how PBIS Rewards contributes to school climate improvement and fosters positive behavioral
outcomes for students.
The research will focus on answering the following research questions:
•

How does the implementation of PBIS Rewards within a PBIS framework impact overall
perceptions of school climate as measured by the Panorama Survey?

•

What is the relationship between student participation in PBIS Rewards and reported
levels of school safety, teacher-student relationships, and peer interactions?

•

To what extent does PBIS Rewards influence student engagement, motivation, and sense
of belonging in school?

•

How do teachers and staff perceive the effectiveness of PBIS Rewards in reinforcing
positive behavior and improving school climate?

Proposed Methodology
Implementation
This study is a quantitative, quasi-experimental study designed to examine the impact of
PBIS Rewards within a PBIS framework on school climate as measured by the Panorama
Survey. According to the American Psychological Association (2021), quantitative research

57
involves the systematic collection and analysis of numerical data to understand phenomena, test
hypotheses, and make predictions, and a quasi-experimental design is an empirical study that
aims to evaluate the effect of an intervention or treatment on a target population without the use
of random assignment.
This study will utilize quantitative measures to examine the impact of PBIS Rewards
on school climate and related outcomes. Both existing and newly collected data from the
Panorama Survey will be analyzed to assess student engagement, motivation, and staff
perceptions of the school environment. To evaluate change over time, the study will
employ a quasi-experimental, pre-post design by comparing school climate perceptions
before and after the implementation of PBIS Rewards. In addition, a cross-sectional design
will be incorporated to explore relationships between student participation in PBIS
Rewards and various school climate factors, providing further insight into the program’s
effectiveness.
Quantitative measures will include the following:
A. Using existing and new Panorama Survey data to measure school climate, student
engagement, motivation, and staff perceptions.
B. Compares pre- and post-implementation data to assess changes in school climate
perceptions over time.
Quasi-experimental design will include the following:
A. Examining the pre- and post-implementation data, the study follows a pre-post quasiexperimental design, analyzing changes in school climate perceptions before and after
PBIS Rewards implementation.

58
B. A cross-sectional design will be used, analyzing relationships between PBIS Rewards
participation and school climate factors.
With the study following a quasi-experimental design using pre-post or cross-sectional
comparisons, the analysis will focus on statistical methods that assess the impact of PBIS
Rewards implementation on school climate as measured by the Panorama Survey. This study
will use t-tests and regression analysis to assess the impact of PBIS Rewards implementation on
school climate as measured by Panorama Survey data. Below is a breakdown of each method and
how it will be applied.
Statistical analysis for this study will include both t-tests and regression analysis to
evaluate the impact of PBIS Rewards on school climate. Paired and independent samples t-tests
will be used to compare mean differences in school climate perceptions before and after the
implementation of PBIS Rewards (pre-post design), as well as between groups of students with
high versus low levels of participation in the program (cross-sectional design). These tests will
help determine whether the changes observed are statistically significant.
In addition, regression analysis will be conducted to examine the predictive relationship
between PBIS Rewards participation and various school climate factors. This method will allow
for the control of relevant variables such as grade level, gender, and prior perceptions of school
climate, providing a more precise understanding of the strength and nature of the relationship
between program participation and school climate outcomes.
T-tests (Paired and Independent Samples)
A. To compare mean differences in school climate perceptions before and after PBIS
Rewards implementation (pre-post design) or between students with high vs. low PBIS
Rewards participation (cross-sectional design).

59
B. Helps determine whether the implementation of PBIS Rewards has a statistically
significant effect on school climate factors.
Regression Analysis
A. To predict the effect of PBIS Rewards participation on school climate factors while
controlling for other variables (e.g., grade level, gender, prior school climate
perceptions).
B. Helps quantify the strength of the relationship between PBIS Rewards participation and
school climate.
Justification
A true experimental design (RCT) is not feasible because students cannot be randomly
assigned to PBIS Rewards vs. non-PBIS Rewards conditions. A quasi-experimental approach
allows for a structured examination of how PBIS Rewards impacts school climate using realworld school data. A purely quantitative approach ensures objectivity, replicability, and
generalizability of the findings.
Participants and Setting
The study will take place at an urban prekindergarten through 8th grade school in
Pennsylvania with approximately 500 students enrolled (i.e., 250 male, 251 female).
Approximately 83.64% of students are economically disadvantaged, and the student body is
composed of 317 African Americans, 107 Caucasians, 62 multi-racial, <5 Hispanics, <5 Asians,
<5 American Indians, and <5 Pacific Islanders.
In grades kindergarten through 8th grade, there are 41 teachers (i.e., 37 females, 4 males),
13 paraprofessionals (i.e., 11 females, 2 males), two interventionalists (i.e., 2 female), one
learning environmental specialist (i.e., 1 female), two guidance counselors (i.e., 1 female, 1

60
male), one acting principal (i.e., 1 male), and two assistant principals (i.e., 2 female).The
school’s pre-kindergarten population will not be represented in this study as this group did not
implement the PBIS Rewards program into daily learning and academics.
Data will be collected from the Panorama Survey, which is collected yearly by the school
district. According to Panorama Education (2021), the Panorama Student Survey is a researchbased tool designed to gather student perceptions on various aspects of their educational
experience, including school climate, teaching effectiveness, and social-emotional learning.
Developed through a collaboration between researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education and Panorama Education, the survey aims to provide educators with actionable
insights to enhance student outcomes. The survey encompasses nineteen key topics, such as
pedagogical effectiveness, classroom climate, student engagement, and growth mindset. It is
structured into scales—groups of related questions—that allow educators to customize the
survey based on the topics they consider most relevant. The Panorama survey does not survey
students in grades kindergarten through 2nd grade; therefore, students in grades kindergarten
through 2nd grade will not have data collected.
The Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey enables school and district leaders to gather
insights into educators' professional, social, and emotional needs. This tool is intended to foster
productive conversations between teachers and school leaders on topics such as well-being,
professional learning, cultural competency, school leadership, and school climate (Panorama
Education, 2021).
Procedures
To effectively address the research questions, this study will follow a structured data
collection and analysis methodology using both Panorama Survey data and PBIS Rewards

61
participation records. The process begins with defining the study population, which includes all
students participating in PBIS and PBIS Rewards within the selected school building.
Additionally, educators and support staff involved in the implementation of PBIS, as well as
school administrators responsible for overseeing school climate initiatives, will be included.
Prior to data collection, the study will secure all necessary ethical approvals, including
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at both the school district and university levels.
Following approval, the next step involves identifying and aligning relevant Panorama
Survey metrics with the research questions. Existing Panorama data will be extracted and
mapped to the specific constructs needed for analysis. For example, to examine the impact of
PBIS Rewards on school climate, survey constructs such as School Climate, School Safety,
Engagement, and Teacher-Student Relationships will be analyzed. To explore the relationship
between PBIS Rewards participation and school safety or peer interactions, constructs like Sense
of Belonging and Peer Interactions will be considered. Student motivation and engagement will
be assessed through indicators such as Growth Mindset and Motivation, while staff perceptions
will be measured using constructs related to Leadership, Feedback, and Professional Learning.
Data collection will involve retrieving the existing 2018-2022 Panorama survey results
for students, teachers, and staff. These data will be segmented by grade level, demographic
variables, and PBIS participation levels to ensure robust analysis.
Quantitative data analysis will compare survey responses collected before and after the
implementation of PBIS Rewards. Paired and independent samples t-tests will be used to
evaluate changes in perceptions of school safety and climate over time, while regression analysis
will help determine the extent to which PBIS Rewards participation predicts outcomes such as
engagement, motivation, and teacher-student relationships, controlling for relevant variables.

62
Finally, the study will interpret and report the findings by triangulating the quantitative
data to identify key trends. Specifically, the analysis will focus on whether PBIS Rewards
participation is associated with improved perceptions of school climate and student motivation.
The results will be summarized in a report featuring data visualizations and practical
recommendations to strengthen PBIS implementation and improve school-wide practices.
Below is a step-by-step breakdown of the procedures.
Step 1: Define the Study Population
A. Students: All students participating in PBIS and PBIS Rewards at this specific school
building.
B. Teachers and Staff: Educators and support staff who interact with students and are
responsible for PBIS implementation.
C. Administrators: School leadership responsible for overseeing PBIS and school climate.

Step 2: Obtain Permissions & Ethical Approvals
A. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval at the school district and University level. All
data that will be acquired is existing data. Data is generalized and has no identifiable
characteristics, therefore no consent from participants is required.
Step 3: Identify and Align Panorama Survey Metrics
A. Extract relevant existing Panorama Survey data.
B. Align survey constructs with research questions:
Research Question

Relevant Panorama Survey
Constructs

63
Impact of PBIS Rewards on school

School Climate, School Safety,

climate

Engagement, Teacher-Student
Relationships

Relationship between PBIS Rewards

School Safety, Teacher-Student

participation and school safety, peer

Relationships, Sense of Belonging, Peer

relationships

Interactions

Effect of PBIS Rewards on student

Student Engagement, Growth Mindset,

motivation and engagement

Motivation, Sense of Belonging

Teacher/staff perceptions of PBIS

Staff-Leadership Relationships, School

Rewards

Climate, Feedback & Coaching,
Professional Learning

Step 4: Data Collection
A. Retrieve Existing Panorama Survey Data
1. Obtain most recent Panorama survey results for students, teachers, and staff.
2. Segment data by grade level, demographics, and PBIS participation.
Step 5: Data Analysis
•

Quantitative Analysis
o Compare Panorama survey responses.
o Pre- vs. post-PBIS Rewards implementation.

•

Statistical tests:
o T-Test: Compare school safety perceptions before vs. after PBIS Rewards.

64
o Regression analysis: Assess the impact of PBIS Rewards on school safety,
engagement, and teacher-student relationships.
Step 6: Interpretation & Reporting
1. Triangulate findings by comparing quantitative survey data.
2. Identify key trends:
a. Does PBIS Rewards participation correlate with improved perceptions of school climate?
3. Prepare a report summarizing findings with:
a. Data visualizations (charts, tables).
b. Practical recommendations for PBIS improvements.
By following these procedures, researchers can systematically analyze how PBIS Rewards
affects school climate, safety, engagement, and student motivation using Panorama Survey data.
Timeline
After the acquisition of IRB approval at the school district level, as well as Slippery
Rock’s IRB approval, data collection will take place in the Summer (i.e., July) of the 2025
school year. Data analysis will take place immediately following (i.e., Summer of 2025).

Data Collection
Surveys
For the data collection within this study, teachers and students will fill out the Panorama
survey (see Appendix B, which is a requirement by the school district. The Panorama Education
Surveys are research-based surveys designed to gather feedback from students, teachers, and
staff to improve school climate, teaching effectiveness, and student success. They are commonly
used in K-12 schools to assess social-emotional learning (SEL), school culture, and instructional

65
practices. The Panorama Teacher Survey collects feedback from educators on their experiences,
perceptions, and the school environment. It is designed to help schools improve teacher
engagement, professional development, and overall effectiveness. The Panorama Student Survey
gathers feedback from students about their learning experiences, relationships, and perceptions
of their school. It helps educators understand students' social-emotional needs, engagement, and
the effectiveness of school programs.
The Panorama survey is a 15 to 20-minute-long online survey; parents within this district
can opt out if they do not want their child to participate. Within this school district, the Panorama
is given twice a year, once in the fall and once in the spring. Only results collected in the spring
of 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Therefore, during district IRB approval, a formal request to
collect Panorama survey data will be submitted.
Validity
The research questions and objectives were evaluated for validity through a pilot study in
June 2021. The pilot study reviewed the school's Panorama data from 2020-2021 school year.
Content validity was established, as the questions covered all relevant parts of the subject to be
measured. The research questions were found to be valid and did not require much adjustment
and therefore were adopted for data collection.
Data Analysis
Surveys
The Panorama survey has predetermined questions with fill-in-the-bubble responses.
Responses will be coded by questions. Similarly, to analysis of the questionnaires, major patterns
found within the surveys will be evaluated to gain a generalized understanding of participants'
feelings, so that general conclusions can be made.

66
Coding
Since this study relies on numerical data from the Panorama Survey, the best approach to
coding and analyzing the data involves assigning numerical values to categorical responses,
organizing data into structured datasets, and applying statistical techniques. Below is a step-bystep breakdown of the coding process:
1. Data Preparation and Organization
A. Importing Data
a. Data will be collected from:
i.

Panorama survey results (Likert-scale responses)

ii.

Demographic information (e.g., grade level, gender, prior engagement)

b. The data will be compiled in an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.
2. Coding Survey Responses (Dependent Variables)
A. Coding School Climate Variables (Dependent Variables)
a. Panorama survey responses typically use Likert scales (e.g., 1-5 scale for
agreement or perception). These responses will be numerically coded as:
Survey Response

Numerical Code

Strongly Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neutral

3

Agree

4

Strongly Agree

5

b. Example school climate measures:
i.

Student Engagement Score (1-5 scale)

67
ii.

School Safety Perception Score (1-5 scale)

iii.

Teacher-student relationship score (1-5 scale)

This coding system allows for mean comparisons, t-tests, and regression analysis.
3. Statistical Analysis and Application
A. T-Tests
a. Independent t-test : compare different groups of students based on school
climate perceptions.
B. Regression Analysis
a. Simple Linear Regression:
i.

Examines whether certain school climate factors predict overall
engagement.

b. Multiple Regression:
i.

Controls for grade level, prior engagement, and gender.

Site Permission
District and School Authorization
The school district requires all researchers to make research requests to the internal
review committee prior to the collection of data. Permissions will be requested to the school
district, through the District’s Office of Research and Evaluation, and a “Data Request” will be
submitted.
Slippery Rock University also requires all students conducting research to apply with the
Institutional Review Board (IRB), prior to the collection of data. According to the Slippery Rock
University website (2021) students must complete the following steps to apply to the IRB:

68
●

Determine if the project meets the definition of human subject research;

●

Read through the Responsibilities of the Principal Investigator section;

●

Complete the required training course on the protection of human participants in
research;

●

The IRB subscribes to the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Online
Training Program to comply with this regulation;

●

Determine the level of review;

●

Complete the IRB Application Form found on the Forms tab;

●

Complete any necessary consent forms and/or appendices to your application;

●

Submit your IRB Application Form and any other necessary appendices and
documentation of CITI training to the IRB Office, 008 Old Main (Slippery Rock
University Campus).

Confidentiality
The Panorama Survey results acquired from the district by researchers are entirely
anonymous. The results from the survey, once given to the researchers from the district are
completely generalized, and there will be no identifiable data of participants.
Presentation of Results
The findings from this study will be visually represented using a combination of charts,
tables, and graphs. Results will be presented in a PowerPoint document. Each subset of data
collection research and analysis will have its own combination of charts, tables, and graphs. This
presentation will be represented within Chapter 4 of this review.

69
Limitations
The current study is limited due to multiple factors. Although the case study will be
representing approximately 300 students and 41 teachers, it only represents one school’s
findings. Therefore, this should be considered a small-scale study, and findings may not be
generalized.
This study follows a quasi-experimental design, meaning participants are not randomly
assigned to control and experimental conditions. In addition, due to the novelty of the PBIS
Rewards program, little peer-reviewed research currently exists about the program’s
effectiveness on school climate.
This study is also dependent on Panorama Survey responses, which are self-reported
measures of student engagement, school safety, and teacher-student relationships. Students and
teachers may respond in ways they think are expected rather than providing fully honest answers.
Additionally, other school-wide initiatives, external factors, or prior experiences could influence
the school climate outcomes measured in the study. The Panorama Survey is also a standardized
tool designed to measure perceptions, but it may not capture all nuances of school climate.
School climate is a complex, multi-faceted construct, and using only survey-based metrics may
oversimplify how PBIS influences school climate.
Summary
The current study intends to investigate the effects of the newly implemented PBIS
Rewards program, paired with the participating school’s already implemented PBIS program, on
the school’s climate. This study will be qualitative in nature and use a grounded theory approach
to code categories and build a theory. Data will be collected using the Panorama survey. Data
will be analyzed and coded according to generalized patterns of participants’ feelings. Before

70
data collection begins, the school district’s Interval Review Committee and Slippery Rock
University’s IRB will need to approve all aspects of the research.
In the next chapter, the research begins to examine the results of the data collection and
delve further into what the data represents.

71
Chapter 4
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of quantitative analyses examining the impact of
PBIS Rewards on school climate, safety, student engagement, and staff perceptions at an
elementary school in Pennsylvania between 2018-2022. Across the 2018–2022 survey period,
participation in the Panorama School Climate and Social-Emotional Learning surveys remained
consistently strong among both students and staff. Student participation was particularly robust,
averaging 140-160 respondents per survey administration, providing a reliable representation of
the school community. The 3–5 student cohort ranged from 117 to 176 participants per survey,
while the 6–8 student cohort ranged from 87 to 163 participants. The highest levels of
participation occurred in Fall 2018 and Spring 2019, when 176 and 170 elementary students,
respectively, completed the survey. These initial years reflect strong engagement and reliable
baseline data.
Participation among staff remained steady as well. Teacher response rates ranged from 45
to 49 participants each spring, providing a stable, representative voice of instructional staff
across years. Paraprofessionals, while a smaller group, consistently contributed between six and
eight responses each year, adding valuable perspectives to the overall climate analysis. Although
the paraprofessional sample is small, its consistency provides meaningful qualitative insight into
school culture and perceptions of support.
A notable dip in participation occurred during the 2020–2021 school year, coinciding
with the COVID-19 pandemic and the disruptions caused by remote and hybrid learning. Student
participation decreased to 128 (grades 3–5) and 103 (grades 6–8) in Fall 2020, and then again to
117 and 87, respectively, in Spring 2021. These declines mirror national trends in reduced

72
engagement during periods of remote instruction. However, by Spring 2022, participation levels
nearly returned to pre-pandemic norms, with 161 younger students and 117 middle-grade
students completing the survey, suggesting improved stability and re-engagement among
students.
Overall, the dataset demonstrates strong and consistent participation across five years and
multiple stakeholder groups. With total respondents often exceeding 250–300 individuals per
survey administration, the sample is sufficiently robust to support meaningful statistical analysis.
The consistency of teacher and student participation across time enhances comparability between
years, while the inclusion of paraprofessionals enriches the triangulation of perspectives on
school climate and social-emotional learning. Given this breadth and stability of participation,
the following statistical analyses can be interpreted with confidence in their reliability and
representativeness.
Results are organized by research question and presented using multiple levels of
statistical analysis, including descriptive statistics, inferential tests, and visualizations to illustrate
key findings. Descriptive statistics summarize the overall patterns in the data—such as means,
standard deviations, and percentage changes—allowing the reader to understand general trends
before deeper analyses are introduced. Inferential tests, including t-tests and regression analyses,
were then used to determine whether the observed differences between groups or time periods
were statistically significant and not due to chance. Finally, visualizations, such as charts and
graphs, were incorporated to provide a clear, accessible representation of these quantitative
results and to highlight patterns across implementation years and participant groups.
For reference, the results in this chapter are organized according to the following research
questions:

73
RQ1: What is the impact of PBIS Rewards on overall perceptions of school climate?
RQ2: How does PBIS Rewards relate to perceptions of school safety, teacher–student
relationships, and peer interactions?
RQ3: What is the effect of PBIS Rewards on student motivation, engagement, and sense
of belonging?
RQ4: How do teachers and paraprofessionals perceive the effectiveness of PBIS Rewards
on school climate?

The data were analyzed using a series of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques
to examine the impact of PBIS Rewards on student and staff perceptions of school climate. First,
descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were computed for each
Panorama construct across pre-implementation (2018–2019) and post-implementation (2020–
2022) periods. These statistics provided a foundational understanding of central tendency—that
is, the average or most typical response within each group—and variability, which reflects the
degree of spread or consistency in participants’ responses. In this context, measures of central
tendency (e.g., the mean) indicate the general level of agreement or perception for each construct
(e.g., Growth Mindset, Social Awareness), while measures of variability (e.g., the standard
deviation) show how much participants’ views differ within each group. Together, these
descriptive statistics helped establish whether participants’ perceptions were relatively uniform
or widely dispersed before and after PBIS Rewards implementation. To assess whether
differences between the pre- and post-implementation periods were statistically significant,
independent-samples t-tests were conducted for each construct. This allowed testing of mean
differences across time while accounting for differences in group sizes, with effect sizes

74
quantified using Cohen’s d to assess the magnitude of change between pre- and postimplementation groups. Cohen’s d provides a standardized measure of how substantial the
observed difference is—beyond simply determining whether it is statistically significant—by
expressing the mean difference in terms of standard deviation units. In addition, multiple
regression analysis was used to explore predictors of student motivation, specifically Growth
Mindset. Multiple regression is a statistical technique that examines how two or more
independent variables jointly predict a single dependent variable. This study allowed for the
assessment of how grade level, gender, and implementation period (pre vs. post) each
contributed to variations in Growth Mindset scores, while controlling for the influence of the
other factors. This method helps identify which variables have the strongest relationship with
student motivation and whether changes in Growth Mindset can be meaningfully attributed to the
implementation of PBIS Rewards. Collectively, this analytic strategy allowed for both general
comparisons of pre- and post-implementation climate perceptions and a more nuanced
understanding of the factors influencing student motivation.
Research Questions
Research Question 1
RQ1: What is the impact of PBIS Rewards on overall perceptions of school climate? To
address this question, student constructs including Growth Mindset, Self-Efficacy, SelfManagement, Social Awareness, Grit, and general school climate items were analyzed across
semesters. Table 4.1 presents descriptive statistics by construct and year.
Research Question 2
RQ2: How does PBIS Rewards relate to perceptions of school safety, teacher–student
relationships, and peer interactions? The construct of Supportive Relationships was used as a

75
proxy for interpersonal dynamics. These perceptions are reflected within the Social Awareness
construct shown in Table 4.1. Results indicate consistently high ratings of relationships across
semesters (73–84%), with no statistically significant changes following PBIS Rewards
implementation.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics by Construct and Year
Construct

Group

2018-2019 (M, SD)

2020-2022 (M, SD)

Growth Mindset

Students 3-5

52.0 (4.5)

62.5 (3.8)

Self-Efficacy

Students 6-8

58.0 (5.2)

60.0 (4.7)

Social Awareness

Students 3-5

67.0 (6.0)

69.0 (5.5)

Challenging Feelings

Students 6-8

__

50.0 (4.0)

Teacher Leadership

Teachers

64.0 (5.8)

83.0 (4.9)

Community Support

Paraprofessionals

80.0 (4.2)

85.0 (3.6)

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Pre-implementation years = 2018–2019; Postimplementation years = 2020–2022.
Research Question 3
RQ3: What is the effect of PBIS Rewards on student motivation, engagement, and sense
of belonging? Constructs analyzed included Growth Mindset, Grit, Self-Efficacy, Learning
Strategies, Emotion Regulation, and Challenging Feelings. Growth Mindset rose from 52% in
2019 to 63% in 2019–2020 but plateaued thereafter. Challenging Feelings remained low (50–
55%) across the post-implementation period, indicating ongoing difficulty with emotional
regulation and belonging. Figure 4.1 illustrates these trends.

76

Figure 4.1

Note: This figure shows the results from Table 4.1 in a visual chart. This chart displays
mean pre- and post-implementation scores for each construct. The chart illustrates both the
stability and gaps across constructs.
Research Question 4
RQ4: How do teachers and paraprofessionals perceive the effectiveness of PBIS Rewards
on school climate? Teacher and paraprofessional responses indicated consistently strong
perceptions of leadership and community support. Teacher Leadership rose from 64% in 2019 to
89% in 2021, then stabilized at 77% in 2022. Community Support remained stable at 80–85%.
Figures 4.2 and 4.3 present staff-student comparisons and a focused look at students’ emotional

77
regulation challenges. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 visually complement the statistical results presented
in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 by illustrating how PBIS Rewards affected both staff and student
perceptions of school climate constructs. The visual representation in Figure 4.2 provides an
immediate understanding of the direction and relative strength of the predictors, highlighting
where meaningful differences occurred across demographic variables. This visualization of
Figure 4.3 emphasizes that the most meaningful impacts of PBIS Rewards were observed among
staff leadership and elementary-level student motivation, rather than across all groups equally.
Table 4.2
Regression Predicting Student Motivation Constructs
Predictor

B

SE

β

t

p

Grade Level

-2.1

0.75

-.29

-2.8

.007**

Gender (F=1)

0.9

0.62

.12

1.45

.152

Year

1.75

0.7

.25

2.49

.015*

(Post=1)

Note. DV = Growth Mindset composite. Adjusted R² = .21, F(3, 120) = 11.34, p < .001.

78

Figure 4.2

Note: This figure shows the results from table 4.2 in a visual chart. This regression results
chart illustrates predictors of Growth Mindset.

79

Table 4.3
Independent Samples t-Tests (Pre vs. Post Implementation)
Construct

Group

t(df)

p

Cohen’s d

Growth Mindset

Students 3-5

2.15 (85)

.034*

0.42

Self-Efficacy

Students 6-8

0.76 (90)

.448

0.10

Social

Students 3-5

0.98 (77)

.331

0.14

Teachers

3.27 (42)

.002**

0.68

.314

0.18

Awareness
Teacher
Leadership
Community

Paraprofessionals 1.02 (39)

Support

Note. Results represent independent-samples t-tests comparing pre-implementation
(2018–2019) and post-implementation (2020–2022) mean scores for each construct. Positive t
values indicate higher post-implementation means. Cohen’s d values represent standardized
effect sizes, where 0.20 = small, 0.50 = medium, and 0.80 = large effects. p < .05 (*) indicates
statistical significance at the 5% level; p < .01 (**) indicates statistical significance at the 1%
level.

80
Figure 4.3

Note: This figure shows the results from table 4.3 in a visual chart. This horizontal bar
chart shows the magnitude of pre- and post-differences across constructs.
Summary of Results
This chapter presented the results of the quantitative analyses examining the impact of
PBIS Rewards on school climate, as measured by Panorama survey constructs. Data were
analyzed across pre-implementation (2018–2019) and post-implementation (2020–2022) periods,
organized by research question.
Descriptive statistics provided an overview of changes in mean scores across student,
teacher, and paraprofessional groups. Findings showed measurable increases in Growth Mindset
and Teacher Leadership, while Self-Efficacy, Social Awareness, and Community Support
remained relatively stable. Independent-samples t-tests identified statistically significant

81
differences for Growth Mindset and Teacher Leadership, indicating improvement following
PBIS Rewards implementation.
Regression analysis was conducted to explore predictors of student motivation, with
Growth Mindset serving as the dependent variable. Results indicated that grade level and
implementation period were significant predictors, suggesting variation in student motivation
across age groups and over time.
Visual representations, including Figures 4.1 through 4.3, illustrated changes across
constructs and compared pre- and post-implementation data. These figures highlighted both the
magnitude of the changes and the relationships between the predictor variables and the outcome
measures.
Overall, Chapter 4 summarized the statistical results for each research question and laid
the quantitative foundation for interpretation. The next chapter, Chapter 5, will provide a detailed
discussion of these findings, connecting them to the existing literature, theoretical framework,
and implications for practice.

82
Chapter 5
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of PBIS Rewards on school climate,
safety, engagement, and staff perceptions at a Pennsylvania school from 2018 through 2022.
Using Panorama survey data, this study investigated whether PBIS Rewards produced
measurable changes in students’ social-emotional learning (SEL) competencies and school
climate perceptions, and how those perceptions compared with those of teachers and
paraprofessionals.
Summary
Analyses and Findings Research Question 1
The descriptive analysis in Table 4.1 indicated measurable improvements in Growth
Mindset, Self-Efficacy, and Social Awareness following the implementation of PBIS Rewards.
These findings suggest that students experienced more positive perceptions of school climate,
but the gains were moderate rather than substantial. The descriptive analysis in Table 4.1 showed
notable improvements in Growth Mindset, Self-Efficacy, and Social Awareness following the
implementation of PBIS Rewards. Mean scores for Growth Mindset increased from 52.0 (SD =
4.5) in 2018–2019 to 62.5 (SD = 3.8) in 2020–2022, a 10.5-point rise with a moderate effect size
(d = 0.42). Self-Efficacy rose slightly from 58.0 (SD = 5.2) to 60.0 (SD = 4.7), and Social
Awareness went up from 67.0 (SD = 6.0) to 69.0 (SD = 5.5); both changes had small effect sizes
(d = 0.10 and 0.14, respectively). These findings suggest students felt somewhat more positive
about the school climate after PBIS Rewards. However, the improvements were modest rather
than significant, showing that perceived benefits were meaningful but limited in scope across the
different areas.

83
This pattern may reflect PBIS Rewards’ primary focus on reinforcing observable
behaviors, which might not fully capture more profound changes in motivation or sense of
belonging. For example, while Growth Mindset scores increased by 10.5 points (from M = 52.0
to M = 62.5, SD = 4.5–3.8), showing a moderate effect size (d = 0.42), Self-Efficacy and Social
Awareness showed only minor gains of about two points each (d = 0.10 and d = 0.14,
respectively). These modest improvements suggest that although students reported slightly
higher engagement and more positive attitudes after PBIS Rewards implementation, the changes
were not significant enough to indicate deep internalized change. External factors, notably the
COVID-19 pandemic, may also have influenced the consistency of students’ perceptions of
connectedness and safety during the post-implementation period. Recent studies have shown that
pandemic-related school disruptions altered students’ experiences of belonging, safety, and
emotional connection with teachers and peers. Adolescents who reported lower connectedness
before the pandemic exhibited greater declines in well-being and perceptions of school safety
during remote and hybrid instruction (Widnall et al., 2022). Similarly, Bryce et al. (2022) found
that interruptions to daily routines and peer interactions weakened students’ perceptions of
support and hope during remote learning. These relational disruptions extended to educators as
well—teachers and staff reported lower relational engagement and self-efficacy, which likely
shaped how students perceived emotional safety at school (Yang et al., 2021). A descriptive
analysis from the U.S. Department of Education (2021) further confirmed modest but
inconsistent changes in school-climate ratings during the pandemic, suggesting that fluctuating
instructional formats and uncertainty may have contributed to variability in student perceptions.
Taken together, these contextual factors likely explain some of the moderate rather than
substantial shifts observed in student outcomes during the PBIS Rewards implementation period.

84
Research question 1 asked: What is the impact of PBIS Rewards on overall perceptions
of school climate? To address this question, student constructs including Growth Mindset, SelfEfficacy, Self-Management, Social Awareness, Grit, and general school climate items were
analyzed through the Panorama Survey across semesters. These constructs collectively measure
student social and emotional learning competencies, engagement, and climate perceptions over
time. Comparing pre- (2018–2019) vs. post-implementation (2020–2022) allowed for an analysis
of school climate shifts. Findings indicated that student perceptions of overall school climate
constructs, including Growth Mindset, Self-Efficacy, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and
Grit remained in the moderate range (50-70%) throughout the study period. While Growth
Mindset showed a temporary increase between 2019 and 2020, overall climate scores plateaued.
These findings suggest the PBIS Rewards may have had limited long-term impact on students’
perceptions of school climate.
Analyses and Findings Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined the relationship between PBIS Rewards and perceptions
of school safety, teacher–student relationships, and peer interactions. These areas are reflected
within the Panorama construct of Social Awareness, which captures empathy, respect, and
relationship quality. The results in Table 4.1 showed relatively stable ratings across both pre- and
post-implementation periods, suggesting that PBIS Rewards helped maintain, but not
significantly enhance, perceptions of safety and relationships. This finding implies that relational
climate may rely more heavily on interpersonal consistency and communication than on extrinsic
recognition systems alone. Schools may therefore consider embedding structured opportunities
for dialogue, peer collaboration, and reflection into PBIS frameworks to strengthen social
connectedness and belonging (Allen et al., 2018; McCabe, 2024).

85
Research Question 2 asked: How does PBIS Rewards relate to perceptions of school
safety, teacher–student relationships, and peer interactions? The Supportive Relationships
construct was used as a proxy for interpersonal dynamics. In this context, interpersonal dynamics
refer to the patterns of interaction, communication, and connectedness that develop among
individuals within the school environment—specifically how students relate to teachers and
peers, how they perceive emotional support, and how safe and included they feel in daily
interactions. The results provided data on these relationship-based aspects of school climate,
capturing how safe and connected students felt. While “safety” was not explicitly labeled as a
construct in the Panorama survey, related dimensions, such as relationships and social
awareness, served as validated proxies. Results indicated consistently high ratings of
relationships across semesters (73–84%), with no statistically significant changes following
PBIS Rewards implementation.
Analyses and Findings Research Question 3
The regression analysis in Table 4.2 explored how PBIS Rewards participation related to
student motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging, with Growth Mindset serving as the
outcome variable. Results indicated that grade level was a significant negative predictor, with
older students reporting lower motivation and engagement scores. Conversely, the postimplementation year was a significant positive predictor, demonstrating moderate gains in
motivation following PBIS Rewards adoption. These findings align with previous research
showing that Tier-1 PBIS and token-economy strategies have strong effects in elementary
settings. Still, results tend to be more mixed or depend on implementation in secondary schools.
A large randomized trial involving 37 elementary schools found significant PBIS effects on
behavior and self-regulation, including reductions in aggressive behavior and better emotion

86
regulation (Bradshaw et al., 2012). In contrast, studies in high schools report smaller or fidelitydependent effects (Flannery et al., 2014). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of token
economies also show significant effects in K–5 classrooms, supporting the idea that
reinforcement-based systems are most effective with younger students (Kim et al., 2022; Maggin
et al., 2011). Additional motivational research indicates that as students grow into adolescence,
conditions that support autonomy—those encouraging choice, relevance, and selfdetermination—become increasingly important for maintaining engagement (Ryan & Deci,
2000, 2020). These developmental changes explain why PBIS strategies in middle and high
schools may need to rely less on tangible rewards and more on intrinsic motivators that foster
student ownership and internalized behavior regulation.
Research question 3 asked: What is the effect of PBIS Rewards on student motivation,
engagement, and sense of belonging? Constructs analyzed included Growth Mindset, SelfEfficacy, Grit, Learning Strategies, Emotion Regulation, and Challenging Feelings. Growth
Mindset rose from 52% in 2019 to 63% in 2019-2020 but plateaued thereafter. Challenging
Feelings remained low (50-55%) across the post-implementation period, indicating ongoing
difficulty with emotional regulation and belonging.
Analyses and Findings Research Question 4
Research Question 4 investigated teacher and paraprofessional perceptions of PBIS
Rewards' effectiveness in improving school climate. As illustrated in Table 4.3, both Teacher
Leadership and Community Support constructs improved post-implementation. Teacher
Leadership showed a statistically significant increase (p < .01), reflecting stronger staff
collaboration and collective efficacy. These results suggest that PBIS Rewards can serve as a
unifying structure that enhances professional cohesion and shared accountability.

87
Paraprofessional ratings improved slightly but less dramatically, perhaps due to limited
participation in data review or decision-making processes. Future training and PBIS team
structures should intentionally include all staff to ensure consistent implementation and equitable
engagement.
Research question 4 asked: How do teachers and paraprofessionals perceive the
effectiveness of PBIS Rewards on school climate? Teacher and paraprofessional responses
indicated consistently strong perceptions of leadership and community support. Teacher
Leadership rose from 64% in 2019 to 89% in 2021, then stabilized at 77% in 2022. Community
Support remained stable at 80-85%.
Interpretation of Findings
These results align with prior research suggesting that token economies and PBIS
frameworks can improve surface-level behavior and engagement (Ivy et al., 2017) but may have
limited impact on deeper constructs of belonging, motivation, and emotional regulation (Kelm et
al., 2014; Madigan et al., 2016). The gap between staff and student perceptions is consistent with
Flannery et al. (2013), who found that staff often perceive PBIS implementation as more
effective than students report experiencing. While PBIS Rewards appears to reinforce behavioral
consistency and stability, it may not address independently critical issues such as student mental
health, coping strategies, or intrinsic motivation.
Implications
The results suggest that PBIS Rewards is most effective when it is supported by strong
social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives. Schools could strengthen PBIS implementation by
integrating lessons and activities that help students build coping skills, regulate emotions, and
develop a stronger sense of belonging. This finding also points to a gap between how staff and

88
students perceive school climate, emphasizing the need for more open dialogue. Facilitating
structured discussions and incorporating student perspectives into PBIS planning can help bridge
that gap and make the program more meaningful for all stakeholders. Additionally, older
students reported lower levels of engagement and SEL-related perceptions, suggesting that
middle schools may need to adapt PBIS approaches to focus more on autonomy, peer influence,
and intrinsic motivation. Finally, using data for continuous improvement is key; schools should
review Panorama results each year to identify areas, such as emotional regulation or challenging
feelings, that need further support. This data-driven approach allows PBIS implementation to
evolve beyond basic reward systems toward a more comprehensive model that supports lasting
behavioral and emotional growth.
Limitations
This study relied on schoolwide pre-post analysis without individual-level tracking,
limiting causal inference. Some constructs were measured indirectly (e.g., safety inferred from
relationships). Additionally, OCR extraction introduced minor data reliability concerns, though
trends were validated through consistency across semesters.
Recommendations for further research
Future research should conduct longitudinal tracking of individual students to assess
within-student growth under PBIS Rewards. It should also explore mixed methods designs
(quantitative surveys and qualitative focus groups) to capture the student’s voice. Researchers
should also compare PBIS Rewards schools with those using alternative SEL/behavior
frameworks, and investigate differential effects by grade level, gender, and other demographics
to refine implementation strategies.

89
Conclusions
Overall, the results demonstrate that PBIS Rewards contributes to positive behavioral
consistency and a more cohesive school culture, though its effects on deeper emotional
constructs are more limited. This reinforces theoretical perspectives within PBIS literature,
suggesting that SEL (social and emotional learning) and relational strategies must complement
external reinforcement to achieve holistic improvements in school climate. Differences between
elementary and middle-grade outcomes further highlight the importance of developmental
adaptation. Future research should explore longitudinal models to assess sustained outcomes and
qualitative studies to capture staff and student perspectives on motivation, belonging, and climate
over time.
This study demonstrated that PBIS Rewards provided consistency and stability in school
climate perceptions but did not produce significant long-term improvements in student SEL
constructs. Staff viewed leadership and climate positively, while students continued to struggle
with emotional regulation and belonging. These findings highlight the importance of
supplementing PBIS Rewards with targeted SEL (social and emotional learning), and mental
health supports to address the deeper social-emotional needs of students.
In conclusion, the expanded analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that
PBIS Rewards can be a valuable component of a multi-tiered support system when implemented
with fidelity and complemented by SEL programming. By continuously integrating data,
promoting student voice, and engaging all staff in collaborative reflection, schools can sustain
and expand the positive outcomes achieved through PBIS frameworks.

90
REFERENCES
Ackerman, K. B., Samudre, M., & Allday, R. A. (2020). Practical Components for Getting the
Most from a Token Economy. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(4), 242–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919892022
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to
know about fostering school belonging: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 30(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance
policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American
Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American
Psychological Association. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from
https://dictionary.apa.org/.
Anderson, N. F. (2022). Associations between stakeholder perceptions of school climate and
fidelity of implementation of key features of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports framework in rural schools. Boise State University Theses and Dissertations.
https://doi.org/10.18122/td.2009.boisestate
Better Health Channel. (n.d.). Behavioural disorders in children. Retrieved May 14, 2025,
from https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/behavioural-disorders-inchildren
Brackett, M. A., Mojsa-Kaja, J., & Rojas, A. (2019). Emotional intelligence and social-emotional
learning: A global perspective. The Journal of Emotional Intelligence, 10(1), 1-14.

91
Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2010).
Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in
elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of
Children, 33(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0108
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5),
e1136-e1145.
Bryce, C. I., & Fraser, A. M. (2022). Students' perceptions, educational challenges and hope
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Child: care, health and development, 48(6), 1081–1093.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13036
Center on PBIS. (2021). Positive behavioral interventions and supports. University of Oregon.
https://www.pbis.org
Charlton, C. T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C. V., & West, R. (2021). A Systematic Review of the
Effects of Schoolwide Intervention Programs on Student and Teacher Perceptions of
School Climate. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(3), 185–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720940168
Childs, K. E., Kincaid, D., George, H. P., & Gage, N. A. (2016). The Relationship Between
School-Wide Implementation of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports and Student
Discipline Outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715590398
Cochran, C. J. (2013). Closeness and conflict in schools: positive behavioral interventions and
supports (PBIS) and teacher perception of student behavior and student-teacher rapport.

92
Doctor of Education (EdD). 15.
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/edd/15
Council for Exceptional Children. (2023). Practical components for getting the most from a
token economy. Retrieved from exceptionalchildren.org
Cressey, J. M., Whitcomb, S. A., McGilvray-Rivet, S. J., Morrison, R. J., & Shander-Reynolds,
K. J. (2018). Handling PBIS with Care: Scaling up to School-Wide Implementation.
Professional School Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800104
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dutton Tillery, A., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General Education Teachers’
Perceptions of Behavior Management and Intervention Strategies. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708330879
Educational Success Expert. (2023, January 5). Transforming school culture: Utilizing a PBIS
token economy for lasting positive change. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from
https://www.educationalsuccessexpert.com/post/transforming-school-culture-utilizingtoken-economy-within-pbis-for-lasting-positive-change
Elrod, B. G., Rice, K. G., & Meyers, J. (2022). PBIS fidelity, school climate, and student
discipline: A longitudinal study of secondary schools. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2),
376-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22513
Erickson, M., & Gresham, F. (2019). Measuring Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Behavior
Using the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders in Middle School Students.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 119–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426618763110

93
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention:
Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3),
288-310.
Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A Qualitative Analysis of Middle and High
School Teacher Perceptions of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(4), 219–
229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716632591
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518775735
Fischer, P. (2022, January 7). Personal Communication [Personal Interview].
Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem
behavior in high schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 111–124. https://doiorg.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1037/spq0000039
Gage, N. A., Scott, T. M., & Sugai, G. (2018). A meta-analysis of the effects of tiered
interventions on academic and behavioral outcomes in students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 43(3), 347-360.
Gage, N. A., Sugai, G., Lewis, T. J., & Brzozowy, S. (2015). Academic Achievement and
School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(4),
199–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207313505647

94
Gage, N. A., Beahm, L., Kaplan, R., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Lee, A. (2020). Using Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports to Reduce School Suspensions. Beyond Behavior,
29(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295620950611
Gage, N. A., Whitford, D. K., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). The effects of Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports on school-wide discipline: A systematic review. Behavioral
Disorders, 43(1), 5-14.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and
experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4),
539–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539
Gorski, D. (n.d.). What is RTI? What is Response to Intervention (RTI)? | RTI Action Network.
Retrieved December 12, 2021, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti.
Hawken, L. S., O'Neill, R. E., & MacLeod, K. S. (2007). The use of function-based interventions
for students with escape-maintained problem behaviors: A differential-effects analysis.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 195-202.
Hawken, L. S., O'Neill, R. E., & MacLeod, K. S. (2009). The behavior education program: A
check-in, check-out intervention for students at risk. Guilford Press.
Heiniger, S. N., Tucker, K. A., Hott, B. L., & Randolph, K. M. (2022). Classroom
Reinforcement Systems: Using Token Economies to Foster Independence. Beyond
Behavior, 31(3), 151–162. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1177/10742956221108359
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for schoolwide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1-14.

95
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. J. (2014). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
17(4), 223-235.
Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (1997). Retrieved
from https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ17/PLAW-105publ17.pdf
Ivy, J. W., Meindl, J. N., Overley, E., & Robson, K. M. (2017). Token Economy: A Systematic
Review of Procedural Descriptions. Behavior Modification, 41(5), 708–737.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517699559
Kelm, J. L., McIntosh, K., & Cooley, S. (2014). Effects of implementing school-wide positive
behavioural interventions and supports on problem behaviour and academic achievement
in a Canadian elementary school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(3), 195212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514537651
Kern, L., Yell, M. L., & Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS). (2020). IDEA & Students with Disabilities. In Technical Assistance
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Technical Assistance Center
on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Kim, J. Y., Fricchione, T., & Poteat, V. P. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis of token
economy programs in K–5 classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 90, 45–63.
Lewis, K. E., & Sugai, G. (2015). The role of professional development in implementing
effective school-wide positive behavior support systems. Education and Treatment of
Children, 38(2), 237-256.

96
Madigan, K., Cross, R. W., Smolkowski, K., & Strycker, L. A. (2016). Association between
schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and academic achievement:
A 9-year evaluation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(7-8), 402-421.
Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic
evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with
challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 529–548.
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI
and PBIS. Guilford Press.
McCabe, E. M., Kaskoun, J., Bennett, S., Meadows-Oliver, M., & Schroeder, K. (2024).
Addressing School Connectedness, Belonging, and Culturally Appropriate Care for
Newly Immigrated Students and Families. Journal of pediatric health care : official
publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, 38(2),
233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2023.10.001
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Buy-In. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved January 4,
2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy-in
Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Teaching and Learning Process to Enhance Teaching
Effectiveness: A Literature Review. Online Submission, 4(1), 1–4.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, July). Student behavior in U.S. public schools in
the 2021–22 school year. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022103.pdf
NVivo. Qualitative Data Analysis Software | NVivo. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2022, from
https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

97
Panorama Education. (2021, July 3). User Guide Panorama Student Survey.
https://www.panoramaed.com/panorama-student-survey
Panorama Education. (2021, July 3). User Guide Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey.
https://www.panoramaed.com/panorama-teacher-survey
PBIS Rewards. (2021). https://www.pbisrewards.com/.
Petrasek, M., James, A., Noltemeyer, A., Green, J., & Palmer, K. (2021). Enhancing motivation
and engagement within a PBIS framework. Improving Schools.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13654802211002299
Pitts, R. (2017). The impact of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on school
climate, student achievement, and discipline. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects.
Gardner-Webb University.
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-Level Positive Behavior
Supports in Schools Implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying Areas for Enhancement.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39–
50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459079
Rogers, J. S. (2020). Behavior, Academics, and Equity: The effects of Positive Behavior
Intervention System on Middle School Students. (Publication No. 28091533) [Doctoral
dissertation, Concordia University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

98
Scaletta, M., & Hughes, M. T. (2020). Administrators’ Perception of Their Role in School-wide
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Implementation. Journal of School
Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620972062
SchoolAI. (2025). PBIS framework: A complete guide to understanding & implementing.
Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://schoolai.com/blog/pbis-framework-a-completeguide-to-understanding-implementing
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, J., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2012). Evidence-based
practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education
and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 199-221.
Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice.
Indiana Education Policy Center.
Springer. (2021). Independent contingency and token economy at recess to reduce aggression.
Retrieved from link.springer.com
Swain-Bradway, J., Swoszowski, N.C., Boden, L.J., & Sprague, J.R. (2013). Voices from the
Field: Stakeholder Perspectives on PBIS Implementation in Alternative Educational
Settings. Education and Treatment of Children 36(3), 31-46. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0020
Sugai, G., Freeman, R., & Simonsen, B. (2010). Preventing school violence: The PBIS
framework. Journal of School Violence, 9(3), 287-299.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive
behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1–2), 23–50.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v24n01_03

99
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support: Implementers’
blueprint and self-assessment. University of Oregon, Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports.
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). PBIS in alternative schools: The importance of the social
context. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 183-198.
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012, June 19). Positive behavioral interventions and supports:
History, defining features and misconceptions. Retrieved from www.pbis.org
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A Review of School
Climate Research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2021). Ten Common Misses in PBIS Implementation. Beyond
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295621996874
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2021). Changes in school
climate during COVID-19 in a sample of Pennsylvania public schools (REL 2021XXXX). U.S. Government Printing Office.
What is special education? Purdue University Online. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2021, from
https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/what-is-special-ed.
Widnall, E., Winstone, L., Plackett, R., & Kidger, J. (2022). Impact of school and peer
connectedness on adolescent mental health and well-being outcomes during the COVID19 pandemic: A longitudinal panel survey. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6140.

100
Will, M. (2020, November 19). Still mostly white and female: New federal data on the teaching
profession. Education Week. Retrieved October 2, 2021, from
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/still-mostly-white-and-female-new-federal-data-onthe-teaching-profession/2020/04.
Wilson A. N. (2015). A Critique of Sociocultural Values in PBIS. Behavior analysis in
practice, 8(1), 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0052-5
Yang, C., Manchanda, S., & Greenstein, J. D. (2021). Educators’ online teaching self-efficacy
and compassion fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic: The dual roles of “connect.”
School Psychology, 36(6), 504–513.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Bradley, M. (1998). The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act and students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Requirements, issues, and
implications. Behavioral Disorders, 23(2), 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019874299802300205
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The Legal History of Special Education: What
a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932598019004

101

APPENDIX A: LETTER OF APPROVAL

102

APPENDIX B: SURVEYS
Due to the sheer size of the surveys, they have been linked to this dissertation. Below are the
links to both the samples of the Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey and the Panorama Student
Survey.
Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey
Panorama Student Survey

103

APPENDIX C: FIGURES
Figure 2.1
MTSS Model

Note: This figure shows the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) three-tiered
systems of support.

104

Figure 2.2
PBIS Rewards Mobile Application, 2021

Note: This figure shows part of the PBIS Rewards Mobile Application, with a checklist
of the school's behavioral expectations.
Figure 2.2 Image. Adapted from PBIS Rewards (2021).

105

Figure 4.1

Note: This figure shows the results from Table 4.1 in a visual chart. This chart displays
mean pre- and post-implementation scores for each construct. The chart illustrates both the
stability and gaps across constructs.

106

Figure 4.2

Note: This figure shows the results from table 4.2 in a visual chart. This regression results
chart illustrates predictors of Growth Mindset.

107

Figure 4.3

Note: This figure shows the results from table 4.3 in a visual chart. This horizontal bar
chart shows the magnitude of pre/post differences across constructs.

108

APPENDIX D: TABLES
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics by Construct and Year
Construct

Group

2018-2019 (M, SD)

2020-2022 (M, SD)

Growth Mindset

Students 3-5

52.0 (4.5)

62.5 (3.8)

Self-Efficacy

Students 6-8

58.0 (5.2)

60.0 (4.7)

Social Awareness

Students 3-5

67.0 (6.0)

69.0 (5.5)

Challenging Feelings

Students 6-8

__

50.0 (4.0)

Teacher Leadership

Teachers

64.0 (5.8)

83.0 (4.9)

Community Support

Paraprofessionals

80.0 (4.2)

85.0 (3.6)

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Pre-implementation years = 2018–2019; Postimplementation years = 2020–2022.

109

Table 4.2
Regression Predicting Student Motivation Constructs
Predictor

B

SE

β

t

p

Grade Level

-2.1

0.75

-.29

-2.8

.007**

Gender (F=1)

0.9

0.62

.12

1.45

.152

Year

1.75

0.7

.25

2.49

.015*

(Post=1)

Note. DV = Growth Mindset composite. Adjusted R² = .21, F(3, 120) = 11.34, p < .001.

110

Table 4.3
Independent Samples t-Tests (Pre vs. Post Implementation)
Construct

Group

t(df)

p

Cohen’s d

Growth Mindset

Students 3-5

2.15 (85)

.034*

0.42

Self-Efficacy

Students 6-8

0.76 (90)

.448

0.10

Social

Students 3-5

0.98 (77)

.331

0.14

Teachers

3.27 (42)

.002**

0.68

.314

0.18

Awareness
Teacher
Leadership
Community

Paraprofessionals 1.02 (39)

Support

Note. Results represent independent-samples t-tests comparing pre-implementation
(2018–2019) and post-implementation (2020–2022) mean scores for each construct. Positive t
values indicate higher post-implementation means. Cohen’s d values represent standardized
effect sizes, where 0.20 = small, 0.50 = medium, and 0.80 = large effects. p < .05 (*) indicates
statistical significance at the 5% level; p < .01 (**) indicates statistical significance at the 1%
level.