Confidential

Classroom Observation

Name: John West School: Northside Elementary School

Date of Birth: 12/17/2014 Classification: Unclassified
Age: 7 Evaluator: Ashley Maynard
Grade: 2nd Date of Report: 1/19/2022
Parents: Robert & Nancy West Date of Observations: 12/10/2021, 1/7/2022, &
1/13/2022

Confidentiality:
All participant’s identifying information has been altered for confidentiality purposes.

Current Observation Results & Discussion:

The Behavior Observation System for Students in Schools (BOSS) was used to measure John’s
levels of academic engagement and off-task behavior during instruction. John was observed on
six different occasions across settings (i.e., classroom and special area class). Additionally, John
was observed while different subjects were being taught (i.e., math, word study, writing, and
morning routine). Recording of John’s behavior was made in 15-second intervals. At every fifth
interval, a male peer was also randomly selected to be rated by the observer to serve as a point of
comparison. Ideally, students should present as engaged for more intervals than they are off-task.
Engagement is broken down into two categories actively engaged (AET) and passively engaged
(PET). Off-task behaviors are broken down into three categories off-task motor (OTF-M), off-
task verbal (OFT-V), and off-task passive (OFT-P).

Average Levels of Engagement & Off-Task Behaviors

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
John Peer
AET PET OFT-M OFT-V OTF-P

1
West, John
 AVERAGE OF ALL OBSERVATIONS
John Peer
Active Engaged (AET) 23% 84%
Passive Engaged (PET) 11% 4%
Off-Task Motor (OFT-M) 38% 2%
Off-Task Verbal (OFT-V) 30% 6%
Off-Task Passive (OFT-P) 5% 5%

12/10/2021 (9:00-9:30) MATH & WORD STUDY

BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 20% 87%
PET 12% 0%
OFT-M 27% 0%
OFT-V 45% 7%
OFT-P 8% 7%

12/10/2021 (2:00-2:30) SPECIAL

BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 32% 80%
PET 15% 7%
OFT-M 17% 7%
OFT-V 38% 7%
OFT-P 0% 0%

1/7/2022 (9:30-10:00) WRITING

BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 27% 67%
PET 8% 7%
OFT-M 53% 7%
OFT-V 15% 0%
OFT-P 5% 13%

1/7/2022 (10:00-10:30) WORD STUDY

BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 0% 93%
PET 0% 0%
OFT-M 100% 0%
OFT-V 13% 7%
OFT-P 0% 0%

1/13/2022 (8:30-9:00) MORNING ROUTINE

BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 33% 87%
PET 10% 7%
OFT-M 20% 0%
OFT-V 35% 0%
OFT-P 7% 7%

2
West, John
 1/13/2022 (9:00-9:30) MATH
BEHAVIOR John Peer
AET 25% 87%
PET 20% 0%
OFT-M 13% 0%
OFT-V 33% 13%
OFT-P 10% 0%

Active Engaged Time (AET):

Active engaged time is defined as those times when the student is actively attending to
the assigned work. Examples include writing, reading aloud, raising a hand, talking to the
teacher about assigned material, talking to a peer about assigned material, or looking up
information relevant to the task. Based on the six different BOSS observations, John was
actively engaged in academics significantly less when compared to his peers. He was
observed to be actively engaged 23% of the time whereas his classroom peers were
actively engaged approximately 84% of the time. John’s level of active engagement is
approximately 60% less than his classmates.

Overall, John’s level of active engagement can be described as inconsistent and varied
depending upon the activity. For example, John’s level of engagement was the highest
during special area class and morning routine. During special area class, library, the
students were working on logging into the computers for the first time. During the
classroom morning routine, students engaged in morning meeting which entailed
answering a greeting, would you rather question of the day, and a game of heads up seven
up. John appeared eager to join in during these times. He actively participated in the
activity, answered questions, and was a helper to other students. This is consistent with
teacher report that John is more willing to participate in activities that he has an interest
in. During non-preferred activities, such as word study and writing John’s active
engagement was significantly lower. Throughout the observations, John struggled to
actively engage in both whole group and individual non-preferred activities. In addition,
his ability to attend to tasks for an extended period of time was significantly lower than
his classroom peers. John appeared to benefit from additional adult support. When
working with an adult John’s level of active engagement and work completion increased
significantly. For example, during writing, John worked one-on-one with Mrs. Patterson
for a few minutes. When he received this individualized support, he was able to increase
his focus and complete part of the task. John appeared to enjoy the adult attention, which
is consistent with teacher report.

Passive Engaged Time (PET):

Passive engaged time is defined as those times when the student is passively attending to
assigned work. Examples include: listening to a lesson, looking at an academic
worksheet, silently reading assigned material, looking during instruction, and listening to
a peer respond to a question. John’s level of passive engagement was slightly higher
when compared to his peers. He appeared to be passively engaged in the classroom
activity around 11% of the time whereas his peers were passively engaged around 5% of
the time.

3
West, John
John’s passive engagement included looking at the board, attending to his teacher, and
listening to peers. John’s highest level of passive engagement occurred during math while
Mrs. Patterson was completing an example problem on the board. During this time, he
faced the front of the classroom and followed along in his accompanying worksheet. As
stated before, John’s level of engagement is likely correlated with his interest in the topic.
Math is a preferred subject for John, therefore, has a positive impact on his ability and
willingness to attend.

Off-Task Motor (OFT-M):

Off-task motor behaviors are defined as any instance of motor activity that is not directly
associated with an assigned academic task. Examples include student out of seat, aimlessly
flipping the pages of a book, manipulating an object unrelated to the academic task, touching
another when unrelated to the academic task, drawing or writing not related to the academic task,
and turning around in seat. On average, John engaged in off-task motor behaviors approximately
38% of the time. This is significantly higher when compared to his peers who engaged in this
behavior approximately 2% of the time.

One of John’s most frequent off-task motor behaviors was getting up out of his seat. John often
got up from his desk and wandered around the room to look at and touch various items in the
classroom (i.e., posters, books, materials, etc.). John was also observed moving around the
classroom to engage in conversation with peers and Mrs. Patterson. Another common off-task
motor behavior John engaged in was playing with materials unrelated to the assigned activity
(i.e., blocks, papers, pencils, tape, etc.). Mrs. Patterson’s responses to John’s off-task motor
behaviors was variable. She utilized different strategies including ignoring the behavior, praising
students engaged in on-task behavior, verbal redirection, and proximity. For example, during one
of the observations, John spent the entirety of the lesson sitting in the calming corner playing
with fidget toys while the class was seated on the carpet doing a whole class word study activity.
In this situation, Mrs. Patterson provided multiple verbal prompts for John to join the group.
Some of these prompts were providing positive praise to students engaged in on-task behaviors
and others were more directed specifically to John. When John did not respond to the verbal
prompts, Mrs. Patterson walked over to John to redirect him more individually (i.e., set a timer
and once the timer goes off he rejoins the group). During this observation, John was non-
responsive to the different strategies used by Mrs. Patterson.

It appeared as though John’s off-task motor behaviors served two different functions. The first is
a need to move and the second is work avoidance. When faced with a non-preferred academic
task, John would choose to engage in an off-task motor behavior to avoid completing work.
Lastly, John appeared to experience difficulty following directions. Throughout the observations,
Mrs. Patterson would provide the class with verbal directions, and John would not always
respond/react. He appeared to have difficulty following the group expectations and many times
would engage in an activity of his choice instead (i.e., drawing/coloring during writing time or
sitting in the back of the room while the class was on the carpet). Classroom interventions for
John’s off-task motor behaviors include a seat cushion and fidget tool, with some success.

4
West, John
Off-Task Verbal (OFT-V):
Off-task verbal behaviors are defined as any audible verbalizations that are not permitted and/or
are not related to an assigned academic task. Examples include making an audible noise (i.e.,
whistling, humming), talking to others unrelated to the academic task, talking about assigned
tasks when prohibited by the teacher, making unauthorized comments or remarks, and calling out
answers when not permitted. John engaged in off-task verbal behaviors approximately 30% of
the time, compared to his peers who engaged in this behavior 6% of the time.

One of John’s most common off-task verbal behaviors was calling out. John appeared to struggle
to raise his hand when wanting to share information with the class or ask a question. At times,
his comments and questions were related to the content being covered by the teacher, and other
times they were unrelated. John’s calling out behavior appeared to have a combination of
functions. At times, his shouting out appeared to be impulsive in nature, meaning he did not have
the self-control to raise his hand. For example, when Mrs. Patterson would finish giving
directions, he would shout out a question that he had. Other times, calling out served as a way for
him to obtain the attention of his peers and the teacher. For example, during one of the
observations, another teacher entered the classroom and John repeatedly yelled the teacher’s
name until he obtained a response.

Throughout the observations, John demonstrated a lack of social awareness or ability to “read the
room”. For example, when sharing an off-topic thought, he would not face a single person as if
he was having a conversation and would continue to talk, despite not receiving a response from
his classmates. Additionally, John was observed periodically making audible noises (i.e., siren
noises and airplane noises) that varied in volume level. In terms of peer responses, most students
in the class did not react or respond to John’s off-task verbal behaviors. However, these off-task
verbal behaviors did appear to be a distraction to the other students in the class, making it
difficult for them to attend to the academic task at hand. Mrs. Patterson’s responses to these off-
task verbal behaviors were variable. At times, she would redirect John when a verbal outburst
occurred and other times she did not acknowledge it. John’s responses to verbal redirections
from Mrs. Patterson were also variable. Occasionally, John would respond well and return to the
expected activity; however, many times he would ignore her and continued to call out.
Classroom interventions for off-task verbal behaviors include an incentive reward chart with
some success.

Off-Task Passive (OFT-P):

Off-Task Passive behaviors are defined as those times when a student is passively not attending
to an assigned activity for a period of at least 3 consecutive seconds. Included are those times
when a student is quietly waiting after the completion of an assigned task but is not engaged in
an activity authorized by the teacher. Examples include passively unattending to material, sitting
quietly in an unassigned activity, looking around the room, staring out the window, and passive
listening to others about unrelated issues. John’s level of off-task passive behaviors were
comparable to his peers. Both John and the other students in his class were observed to engage in
off-task passive behaviors approximately 5% of the time. John would sometimes look out the
window or around the room; however, this is not an area of concern as it occurs at a similar rate
as his peers.

5
West, John
Summary:
Overall, observations indicate that John demonstrated significantly less engaged behavior than
his classmates and a high percentage of off-task motor and off-task verbal behaviors. John’s
level of engagement varied depending on the activity/subject. He was actively engaged more
frequently during preferred activities (i.e., morning meeting and special area class) compared to
non-preferred activities (i.e., word study and writing). John did not appear to participate in
activities that were undesirable for him. Additionally, John appeared to benefit from more
individualized adult support. He was able to increase his attention and work completion when
supported by a teacher one-on-one. Without direct teacher support, John was often disengaged
from the instruction and/or activity. His ability to attend to instruction was noticeably less than
his classroom peers.
John engaged in a high level of off-task motor and verbal behaviors, which appear to correspond
with his level of engagement. When John was disengaged with the activity, he engaged in more
off-task behaviors. John’s main off-task motor behaviors included getting up out of his seat,
walking around the room, walking over to other students/teacher, and playing with materials.
John’s off-task motor behaviors appeared to serve two different functions, a need to move and
work avoidance. First, he demonstrated a high level of hyperactivity or in other words, an innate
need to physically move his body (i.e., potentially for some form of sensory input). Even when
passively engaged in the activity, John was often moving around the room. However, when faced
with a non-preferred academic task, John would choose to engage in an off-task motor behavior
to avoid completing work. Lastly, John appeared to have difficulty following directions and
being a part of the “group plan”.
John’s most common off-task verbal behaviors included calling out, engaging in off-topic
conversations, and making noises. John’s verbal behaviors at times were related to the topic (i.e.,
a question without a raised hand) and other times were unrelated. John’s off-task verbal
behaviors also appeared to have a combination of functions. At times, his shouting out/making
noises appeared to be impulsive in nature, meaning he did not have the self-control to raise his
hand. Other times, calling out/making noises served as a way for him to obtain the attention of
his peers and the teacher. John demonstrated a lack of social awareness and would often talk,
without facing a specific individual or receiving a response.
In conclusion, John’s level of engagement and off-task behaviors are areas of concern, and
disparate from his classroom peers. In terms of behavior function, John appears to have varying
levels of control. At times, his behaviors appear to be driven by his impulsivity, skill deficits,
and/or hyperactivity, and other times, his behaviors appear to be seeking attention and/or
avoiding non-preferred activities. Based on these observations, John requires additional adult
support and behavioral intervention.
Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Ashley Maynard
School Psychology Intern

6
West, John