By Special Learning
A student looks at a twenty-problem worksheet. The pencil stops. The head goes down.
You can try something today without cutting the work: change how it arrives. If the student has an IEP, 504 plan or behavior plan, start there.
For each move below, you try it first and watch what happens. Then you learn its name, from applied behavior analysis (ABA), and why it may have worked.
Before you start, write down two numbers for a few days: how long the student takes to start, and how many problems get done. That's your baseline.
Move 1: How do I break up a worksheet without lowering expectations?
Try it. Keep the same twenty problems. Hand them out as four sets of five, on separate strips or with the rest folded under. After each finished set, the student takes a short break you agreed on ahead of time: stretch, sharpen a pencil, get a drink.
Watch. Does the student start sooner? Get through more sets?
What you just did. You used an antecedent strategy. An antecedent is whatever comes right before a behavior. You left the learning goal alone and changed what the student sees first. The break after each set is the other half. That's a consequence: it follows the work, and it may make finishing worth it. Your numbers can show whether anything changed.
Why it can work. The number of problems hasn't changed. What changed is how much stands between the student and the next break, and that may be why starting gets easier. In basic research with pigeons, the pause after each reward grew as the work required for the next reward grew (Felton & Lyon, 1966). Applying that to a worksheet is our reasoning, not a finding.
Twenty problems put the finish line far away. Five put it close.
What the research shows. In a general education math class, shortening the task reduced off-task behavior that served to escape the work. Off-task behavior that served to get attention didn't change (Moore et al., 2005). In a public school, breaks on a fixed schedule cut disruption and raised engagement for two junior high students (Waller & Higbee, 2010).
Neither tested this exact move. The first really did shorten the task, after an assessment of why the behavior happened. The second gave breaks by the clock, not for finished work. So treat Move 1 as a reasoned adaptation, and watch your two numbers.
Those are small studies, and smaller sets can't fix work that's too hard. Three third graders spent more time on task with passages where 93 to 97 percent of the words were known than with harder or easier ones (Treptow et al., 2007).
Where it goes wrong. If breaks keep coming right after shutdowns, shutting down may become the way work ends. If it then happens more often, that's negative reinforcement: a behavior grows because it makes something unpleasant stop. The same process can work for you. If finishing happens more once a break follows it, getting out of the work for a while may be part of why.
So build breaks in, after a finished set. That doesn't mean refusing a break to a student who's struggling. Distress and safety always come first. The goal is to make finishing and asking pay off better. In two studies below, behavior improved without taking escape away (Slocum & Vollmer, 2015; Davis et al., 2012).
A break alone may not be enough. In one study, breaks for following instructions didn't work for three of five participants, while a small food item worked for all five (Slocum & Vollmer, 2015). That study tested food, not praise, with children ages 4 to 8. For your student, find what they actually value, which may be specific praise or something they enjoy.
Also teach the student to ask. Functional communication training teaches a way to ask that does the job the behavior was doing (Carr & Durand, 1985; Tiger et al., 2008). In one classroom study, teachers gave a 30-second break with a preferred activity when students asked, with strong results for three of four students (Davis et al., 2012). Honor the ask every time at first (Tiger et al., 2008). Your BCBA, school psychologist, behavior specialist or student support team can help stretch it later.
Move 2: How do I offer a choice without giving up the assignment?
Try it. Ask, "Word problems or equations first?" Both answers lead to the same work. You can also offer pencil or pen.
Watch. Is starting easier once the student has picked?
What you just did. You used choice making, another antecedent intervention. The learning goal stays. The student gets some control.
Why it can work. People pick what they prefer. Choice may also carry value of its own. When three people chose only the order of their tasks, behavior improved for each (Kern et al., 2001).
What the research shows. Across 13 single-subject studies with 30 participants, choice reduced challenging behavior (Shogren et al., 2004). In a study of seven students, the reason behind the behavior mattered. Choice substantially reduced behavior that served to escape tasks. It had no effect on behavior that served to get attention (Romaniuk et al., 2002).
A review of 26 K-12 studies found that choice raised academic behavior and lowered disruption. It still classified choice as "insufficient evidence" under Council for Exceptional Children standards, partly because of small participant numbers (Royer et al., 2017). So it's worth trying, and unproven as a general rule.
Where it goes wrong. "Finish this or lose recess" is a threat. Offer two or three real options you're glad to accept.
Try offering the choice before the work starts. During a shutdown a choice may not help: youth in one interview study described some decisions as stressful when they felt frozen (Phung et al., 2021). Follow this student's lead.
Move 3: Should I start with easy problems?
Try it. Add one or two items the student already knows at the top. Keep all the assigned problems. Follow the easy items with something this student values, such as specific praise, then go straight to the next item. Keep an easier item coming every few harder ones.
Watch. How long is the pause before the first hard item? Does the student keep going?
What you just did. Opening with easy items borrows from behavioral momentum and the high-probability (high-p) sequence. Mixing them throughout is task interspersal.
Why it can work. Behavioral momentum is the tendency for behavior to keep going after conditions change, and a greater rate of reinforcement means greater momentum (Mace et al., 1988). A high-p sequence offers requests the student is very likely to do right before one that's harder. The research says "compliance." In a classroom, think "getting started."
What the research shows. Three single-digit problems before multi-digit ones shortened the pause for two students in an alternative school (Belfiore et al., 1997). Two middle schoolers stayed on task longer with easy items mixed in, and accuracy on the harder items didn't change (Calderhead et al., 2006). Among middle schoolers with learning disabilities, significantly more rated an assignment with extra brief problems as less effort and picked it for homework, though it held more work (Wildmon et al., 2004).
A review of 22 K-12 studies classified high-p sequences as "potentially evidence based" (Common et al., 2019).
Where it goes wrong. Skip the reinforcement and you may lose the effect. For two participants, the harder request got done more often only when the easy ones were followed by reinforcement (Zuluaga & Normand, 2008).
The easy items must be easy for this student, so check them against real work (Lipschultz & Wilder, 2017). Keep the gap short: the effect depended on the hard request following right after (Mace et al., 1988). One or two items is a lighter version of a formal sequence, which runs three to five requests (IRIS Center, n.d.).
The sequence sometimes fails (Lipschultz & Wilder, 2017). For two people whose self-injury served to escape instruction, the sequence alone made things worse (Zarcone et al., 1994). Intense behavior belongs with your team.
What is "shutting down" telling us?
All three moves start with the A in ABC: antecedent, behavior, consequence. Moves 1 and 3 also use the C, with a break or praise after the work. A major review identified 28 evidence-based practices for autistic children, youth and young adults. Antecedent-based interventions were one, supported by 49 studies, 47 of them single-case (Hume et al., 2021).
"Shutting down" isn't a technical term. Behavior analysts ask what a behavior does for the person, and some behavior may work as communication (Carr & Durand, 1985). The task is a good first place to look, because it's the part you control. A student may be saying:
- "This is too much." Escape from instruction is a common reason (Geiger et al., 2010). These moves fit it best.
- "Notice me." Low adult attention can set off behavior too (Carr & Durand, 1985). Shorter tasks and choice didn't change behavior that gets attention in the studies above, so try planned attention.
- "I don't know how." A skill gap needs teaching.
- "I'm overwhelmed." In interviews with eight autistic children and youth, researchers used the youths' own words, "feeling frozen," for shutdown and inertia. Youth described knowing what was expected and being unable to do it, and the researchers found these experiences are often misunderstood by neurotypical adults (Phung et al., 2021). When that's what's happening, it isn't refusal. Stop, give time, and plan the next step with the student later.
- "Something else is going on." Sleep, pain, illness, hunger or a hard morning can change how the same work lands. If the pattern doesn't fit the task, check in with the student and your team.
A worked example
This example is made up to show how the pieces fit. It isn't a real student.
A fifth grader puts their head down at a daily twenty-problem math page. For a week, the teacher logs minutes to start and problems finished.
On Monday, the same twenty problems arrive as four strips, five assigned problems each. Each strip opens with two extra facts the student got right last week. The teacher asks, "Word problems or equations first?" After each strip: "You finished that set," then two minutes at the drawing table, which the student picked. The teacher practices a "break, please" card with the student.
After two weeks, the teacher compares the numbers. If they're moving, the sets slowly stretch from five assigned problems to six. If not, the log goes to the team. Because everything changed at once, the teacher won't know which piece helped. That's fine for now.
When should I bring in my school team?
Bring your numbers when:
- the behavior could hurt the student or someone else
- distress continues or grows
- nothing changes after a fair try
- you think the reason is something other than the task
- you want a support to stay
- the shutdowns come with low mood or worry about safety, which goes to the school counselor the same day
They may suggest a functional behavior assessment, which looks at why the behavior happens.
These moves keep all the assigned work. For a student with an IEP or 504 plan, cutting problems or changing goals, services or accommodations is different, and it isn't a change to make on your own. Under IDEA, when behavior gets in the way of learning, the IEP team must consider positive behavioral interventions and supports. Changes go through the IEP team or a written amendment agreed to by the parent and the district (34 CFR § 300.324). If the IEP already names breaks or a behavior plan, follow it.
Where do I go next if I want to learn more?
If one of these worked, look at what you did. You took a baseline, changed something, and measured. That's how a person starts in this field: something worked, and they wanted to know why.
Your next step is our free guide, ABA in the Classroom. Section 2 holds these moves alongside routines and priming. Other sections cover reinforcement, visual supports, simple data and working with BCBAs.
If you finish the guide and want structured training, Intro to ABA: Level 1 is a course on the methods and techniques of ABA, built for the people who work with the child every day: parents and caregivers, teachers, paraprofessionals and behavior technicians. It is $199 for one person, or $99 a person for a school group of 10 or more. A 7-day trial covers the first 2 sessions, with no payment card.
Still curious about ABA as a field?
- If your school has a BCBA, ask them what they'd call what you just tried.
- Read how the momentum idea moved from the lab into treatment: Mace et al., 1988, free online.
- Take the IRIS Center's free module on why students behave as they do.
- See how the Behavior Analyst Certification Board describes the field. It calls behavior analysis "the science of behavior" and lists education among ABA's practice areas.
People grow in the field at different levels. The BACB offers three certifications: the RBT, for paraprofessionals; the BCaBA, at the undergraduate level; and the BCBA, at the graduate level. The BACB sets the requirements, and BCBA and BCaBA changes take effect January 1, 2027, so check there.
FAQ
Do I need to be a BCBA to do this? No. Changing how a worksheet is presented is everyday teaching. A formal assessment or a behavior plan belongs to the team.
Isn't this lowering expectations? The student does all the same work toward the same goal, plus a few quick items in Move 3. You changed how it arrives.
How long should a break be? There's no single number. Teachers in one study used 30 seconds (Davis et al., 2012). Start short and adjust.
Will this work for every student? No. Most of this evidence comes from small studies of particular students. Many of these students had disabilities, and many of the studies began with an assessment of why the behavior happened. Your two numbers can show whether anything changed for yours.
References
34 CFR § 300.324. Development, review, and revision of IEP (IDEA Part B regulations). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.324
Belfiore, P. J., Lee, D. L., Vargas, A. U., & Skinner, C. H. (1997). Effects of high-preference single-digit mathematics problem completion on multiple-digit mathematics problem performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(2), 327-330. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-327
Calderhead, W. J., Filter, K. J., & Albin, R. W. (2006). An investigation of incremental effects of interspersing math items on task-related behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15(1), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-005-9000-8
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111
Common, E. A., Bross, L. A., Oakes, W. P., Cantwell, E. D., Lane, K. L., & Germer, K. A. (2019). Systematic review of high probability requests in K-12 settings: Examining the evidence base. Behavioral Disorders, 45(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918800029
Davis, D. H., Fredrick, L. D., Alberto, P. A., & Gama, R. (2012). Functional communication training without extinction using concurrent schedules of differing magnitudes of reinforcement in classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711429597
Felton, M., & Lyon, D. O. (1966). The post-reinforcement pause. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9(2), 131-134. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1966.9-131
Geiger, K. B., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2010). Function-based treatments for escape-maintained problem behavior: A treatment-selection model for practicing behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3(1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391755
Hume, K., Steinbrenner, J. R., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M. N. (2021). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism: Third generation review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(11), 4013-4032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04844-2
IRIS Center. (n.d.). High-probability requests. Vanderbilt University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/bi2-sec/cresource/q1/p05/
Kern, L., Mantegna, M. E., Vorndran, C. M., Bailin, D., & Hilt, A. (2001). Choice of task sequence to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070100300102
Lipschultz, J., & Wilder, D. A. (2017). Recent research on the high-probability instructional sequence: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 424-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.378
Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(2), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1988.21-123
Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., & Kumar, K. (2005). Instructional adaptation in the management of escape-maintained behavior in a classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 216-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070040301
Phung, J., Penner, M., Pirlot, C., & Welch, C. (2021). What I wish you knew: Insights on burnout, inertia, meltdown, and shutdown from autistic youth. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 741421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741421
Romaniuk, C., Miltenberger, R., Conyers, C., Jenner, N., Jurgens, M., & Ringenberg, C. (2002). The influence of activity choice on problem behaviors maintained by escape versus attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(4), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-349
Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., Cantwell, E. D., & Messenger, M. L. (2017). A systematic review of the evidence base for instructional choice in K-12 settings. Behavioral Disorders, 42(3), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688655
Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention for problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(4), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060040401
Slocum, S. K., & Vollmer, T. R. (2015). A comparison of positive and negative reinforcement for compliance to treat problem behavior maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3), 563-574. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.216
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391716
Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087958
Waller, R. D., & Higbee, T. S. (2010). The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 149-153. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-149
Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., & Garrett, L. S. (2004). Enhancing assignment perceptions in students with mathematics learning disabilities by including more work: An extension of interspersal research. School Psychology Quarterly, 19(2), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.19.2.106.33310
Zarcone, J. R., Iwata, B. A., Mazaleski, J. L., & Smith, R. G. (1994). Momentum and extinction effects on self-injurious escape behavior and noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 649-658. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-649
Zuluaga, C. A., & Normand, M. (2008). An evaluation of the high-probability instruction sequence with and without programmed reinforcement for compliance with high-probability instructions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3), 453-457. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-453