**ABSTRACT**

*In this study, the effect of behaviour modification techniques on pupils’ disruptive behaviour and performance in primary Mathematics in Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District, Nigeria was investigated. To achieve this purpose, four specific objectives and corresponding research questions were raised to guide the study. Four null hypotheses were also postulated to guide the study. The pre-test post-test quasi experimental non-equivalent group design was employed and used for this study. The population of the study was 46,071 pupils in 384 public primary schools. Multistage sampling technique was used to select a sample size of 74 primary three pupils from six intact classes. Disruptive Behaviour Rating Scale and Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) were used as instruments for the study. The face and content validity of the instruments were determined by experts in Psychology, Mathematics, Measurement and Evaluation. The Cronbach Alpha statistical analysis was used to determine reliability coefficient for Disruptive Behaviour Rating Scale which yielded coefficient indices of .81and 84 respectively, while Kuder Richardson Formula 20 was used to determine the internal consistency of Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) which yielded a coefficient index of .79. Mean and standard deviation scores were used to answer the research questions, while analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the hypotheses. The study revealed that modeling and time-out techniques were found to be effective in reducing the incidents of disruptive classroom behaviour and improving pupils’ performance in primary Mathematics. It was concluded from the findings of this study, that two techniques should be adopted in re-addressing disruptive classroom behaviour and academic performance among primary school pupils. Based on the findings of the study, the researcher recommended, among others, that efforts should be made by all school authorities and stakeholders in education to reduce to the barest minimum the occurrence of disruptive behaviour in the classroom by organizing training for both experienced and newly employed teachers on the use and application of modeling and time-out techniques in modifying pupils’ disruptive behaviour. Teachers should be cautious while using punishment so that it does not adversely affect pupils’ academic performance.*

**KEYWORDS:** Disruptive Behaviour, Behaviour Modification, Modeling and Timeout

**INTRODUCTION**

The major aim of education as spelt out in the Nigeria National Policy on Education is the acquisition of appropriate skills, social abilities and competences as equipment for the individual to live in and contribute to the development of the society (Federal Ministry of Education, 2013).For any meaningful learning to take place, teachers have to learn to manage or modify classroom disruptive behaviour and at the same time provide the learners with a suitable framework for gainful social interaction. This is why behaviour is a matter of concern to all school psychologists and teachers because behaviour to some extent determines good or bad school performance. This being the case, it is necessary for teachers to know and understand how to alter unacceptable behaviour for the purpose of gainful academic exercises.

According to Levin and Nolan (1996) and Wallace (2011), disruptive behaviour is any behaviour which presents a barrier to learning or inhibits the achievement of the teacher’s purpose. It is disadvantageous to the learning process of other pupils, retards the ability of the teacher to teach most effectively and diverts the energy and resources of the teacher away from the objectives of the day. Disruptive behaviour causes a lot of problems to the teacher, pupils, and the school at large. When a pupil or group of pupils present disruptive behaviour, their learning process is not only affected, but that of others too, given the fact that the learning environment is affected negatively. In a disruptive class, the quality of attention paid by pupils is poor as the teacher will be distracted by their interruptions. Pupils’ comprehension of the course content is impacted by what is going on around them. When other pupils engage in extraneous conversation during lessons, they and others around them are distracted from the class activity (Seidman, 2005).

Mathematics has been highly rated among other subjects and for that reason, it has been described as the queen of all sciences and servant to all discipline (Dahiru, 2010). In spite of all these importance accorded Mathematics in the society, there exist low levels of Mathematics attainment of learners at every segment of the educational system in the country. Competency in Mathematics learning is vital and sustainable to every individual’s meaningful and productive life. Mathematics is a science of magnitude and number as well as the science that sustains the daily practices of man. It is the science subject that acts as pivot on which national development and wealth of any nation is created. Mathematics learning is very important in enhancement and sustainability of human existence because Mathematics is all about finding solutions to human problems and physical challenges. All these are indications that Mathematics is useful in domestic and business deals, scientific discoveries, technological breakthrough, problem-solving and decision making in different situations in life (Usman &Nwoye, 2010). It may be due to these vital usefulness of Mathematics that Nigerian government made the study of Mathematics compulsory at all the levels of system of education in Nigeria by National Policy on Education (2013) provision. Poor academic performance in Mathematics is a result attributed to disruptive behaviour. The disruption of the flow of instruction may affect pupils’ satisfaction with the instructor and the general performance of pupils in the class (Meyers, Bender, Hill &Thomas, 2006). Learners through the distraction lack understanding of the subject matter being taught.

In the past years, several methods have been employed to correct disruptive behaviour. However, researches significantly show more disadvantages than advantages. This is the need for classroom behaviour modification techniques. Behaviour modification techniques are set activities by which the teachers promote appropriate pupils’ behaviour and eliminate inappropriate pupils’ behaviour, develop interpersonal relationship and a positive socio-emotional climate in the classroom, establishes and maintains an effective productive classroom organization. Various disruptive behaviour displayed by pupils in the classroom enables the teacher choose from time to time that best behaviour modification technique to achieve the major or overall aim of primary education. This includes modelling and time-out.

Modeling which is a name for any intervention procedure induces simulation of observed skills or behaviour by exposing the target individual to a model correctly demonstrating the target skill or behaviour via a video-recording or role play (Mason, Davis, Boles & Goodwyn, 2013). Bilias-Lolis (2006) in a study found out that self-modeling was found to have large decreases in the target behaviour for all 3 participants, with treatment effects becoming more pronounced at the time of follow-up. In the same vein, Ukwueze (2010) also found out that modeling techniques of counseling is effective in improving the academic performance of pupils who are talented in extra-curricular activities. Nwamuo (2010) revealed that the modeling technique was superior to the control group. There was significant difference in the performance of the treated group and the control and finally, the result at a one-month follow-up showed a significant difference in reduction of impulsiveness.

Another behaviour modification technique is time-out. Time-out is a remote place in the classroom as well. It is a form of temporary banishment. For instance, if a pupil is usually off task or avoids turning in homework, the pupil is first threatened and to make the threat real, the pupil has to be banished to time-out that is temporarily removed from the usual place of sitting with his friends and moved over to a remote place for few weeks. During the working periods, the pupil has to be reminded of his isolated sit. He/she has to understand that if he wants to come back and join his friends, he has to have two weeks of quietly working on his own to make up.

In a related study Buijs and Admiraal (2012), found out that the differences between boys and girls in time on task and the class participation read that there were no significant differences between boys and girls in increase in time on task and in class participation between the pre-test and all post-tests. Anyebe (2016) also found out that modeling technique is effective in reducing disruptive classroom behaviour among secondary school students, time-out technique is effective in reducing disruptive classroom behaviour among senior secondary school students. Donaldson and Vollmer (2011) who used four subjects wanted to find out the difference in the effect of time-out with release and without release. In release the culprit served time-out for a period of time, while in non-release, the subject served time-out for the whole period of the class lesson.

These techniques are relevant in every learning environment because of the important roles they play. This makes way for efficient use of time. Less time will be spent on dealing with disruptive behaviour and teacher’s self-efficacy will be improved which will also contribute to promote pupils sense of efficacy, fostering their involvement in class activities and their efforts in facing difficulties (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, and Hannay, 2001). Much repetition is avoided and topic will be covered before examination. It corrects rather than punish pupils; it makes pupils take responsibility for their own behaviour as well as reducing the rate of disruption in the classroom hence enhancing the free flow of instruction which in turn leads to retention and improvement in academic performances. This study sought to intervene for pupils who display disruptive behaviour, such as, bullying and homework avoidance and poor academic performance in primary Mathematics. Hence, the researchers deems it necessary to investigate the effect of behaviour modification techniques on pupils’ disruptive behaviour and performance in primary Mathematics in Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District, Nigeria

**STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM**

Going by media reports, official reports and education stakeholders’ comments, there seem to be an increase in acts of violence among pupils in recent times (Anyebe, 2016). Excessive behavioural disruptions to classroom instruction and low Mathematics performance are problems at elementary school. The manifestation of disruptive behaviour among pupils these days seem to be on the increase(Seidman, 2005). These include antisocial behaviour and delinquent behaviour among children and these have brought about unprecedented level of juvenile delinquency in Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District, Nigeria. Could it be that teachers are not able to control such disruptive behaviour or that the techniques are not effective? An observation of what goes on in schools today seems to reveal that disruptive behaviour manifested by pupils are to a large extent, either completely unchanged or ineffectively changed. This is inimical to the system because disruptive behaviour in the classroom has the capacity to impede the teaching and learning process if not properly checked. The goal of education is beyond making individuals acquire knowledge and skills but also to make individuals worthy in character. The most conspicuous evidence of classroom management is the kind of behaviour exhibited by the pupils. The moment pupils are seen to be unruly in the classroom, the teacher is adjudged to lack classroom control.

In addition, previous methods used in managing disruptive behaviour punished pupils rather than correct the behaviour; such methods included beating, corporal punishment, spanking, suspension. In reality, beating accordingly does indeed stop misbehaviour in the short term and is not capable of totally correcting the behaviour and is not reliable. Due to experience and researches, it is discovered that disruptive behaviour is better corrected than punished (Anyebe, 2016). Therefore, new behaviour modification techniques have been developed to correct disruptive behaviour exhibited by pupils. Hence, the researcher deems it necessary to investigate the effect of behaviour modification techniques on pupils’ disruptive behaviour and performance in primary Mathematics in AkwaIbom North-East Senatorial District, Nigeria.** **

**PURPOSE OF THE STUDY**

The study investigated the effect of behaviour modification techniques on pupils’ disruptive behaviour and performance in primary Mathematics in Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District. Specifically, the objectives were:

- Ascertain the mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- Determine the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- Determine the mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- Ascertain the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**RESEARCH QUESTIONS**

This study answered the following research questions:

- What is the mean difference in the bullying behavior of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?
- What is the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?
- What is the mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?
- What is the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?

**RESEARCH HYPOTHESES**

\The following null hypotheses were formulated to guide this study and tested at 0.05 level of significance:

- There is no significant mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- There is no significant mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- There is no significant mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.
- There is no significant mean difference in the Mathematics performance pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**RESEARCH METHOD**

This study adopted quasi-experimental research design and was carried out in Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District. The population consisted of 46,071 primary pupils in 384 public primary schools. The sample for this study consisted of 74 primary three pupils in four intact classes of public primary schools selected through multistage sampling technique. The instruments used for data collection for this study were Bullying Behaviour Rating Scale (BBRS), Home Work Avoidance Behaviour Rating Scale (HWABRS) and Mathematics Performance Test (MPT). The instruments were used for pretest and posttest on the pupils identified with disruptive behaviour selected for this study. Bullying Behaviour Rating Scale (BBRS) and Home Work Avoidance Behaviour Rating Scale (HWABRS) consisted of 10 items each to measure bullying behaviour and rate pupil’s attitude to homework. The items were measured on a 4 point Likert type scale of Never Occur – 1, Sometimes – 2, Frequent – 3, Very frequent – 4. Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) was a researcher-made test designed based on the scheme of work for the term with the help of the teachers in primary three. Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) had 15 questions and each question was scored 2 marks with a total of 30 marks. Also, the researchers developed treatment package on behaviour modification techniques and lesson plans on Mathematics that were used throughout the treatment programme The instruments were used for pretest and posttest on the pupils identified with disruptive behaviour selected for this study. The instruments were validated by experts and Cronbach Alpha statistical analysis was used for reliability,.81 for Bullying Behaviour Rating Scale, and .84 for Home Work Avoidance Behaviour Rating Scale respectively, while Kuder Richardson Formula-20 was used to determine the internal consistency for Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) which yielded a coefficient index of .79.

In regards to experimental procedure, the researchers trained the teachers on the steps involved in the use of modelling and time-out techniques for the teachers in the treatment groups. Three research assistants were recruited for the experimental groups. The participants were diagnosed of exhibiting disruptive behaviour after being subjected to the classroom teachers’ rating, and researcher’s rating using Disruptive Behaviour Rating Scale (DBRS), which served as pre-test. The Mathematics Performance Test (pretest) was also administered to these selected pupils. Thereafter, the actual treatment commenced in which the pupils in the experimental group were taken through the modeling and time-out techniques. The pupils in control groups were exposed to conventional technique as contained in the treatment package and guide.

In the modeling technique, the teacher or model acted out a play on the appropriate behaviour as the children watched, 15 minutes before the start of each lesson. Pupils watched the teacher model a particular behaviour (demonstrative) on non- violence man. The pupils were then encouraged to practice the modeled behaviour with the teacher in a kind of joint performance and eventually graduated to or became part of the ultimate behaviour.

For time-out technique, pupils were asked to turn in their homework; pupils who failed to submit their homework were given an isolated seat in a remote area of the classroom called time-out. The treatment span was a period of six (6) weeks and were in four (4) stages – recruitment, pre-test, treatment, post-test administered to the participants using the same instruments earlier administered as pretest by teachers under the supervision of the researchers and the research assistants. Mean and standard deviation were used for answering research questions while analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used testing the hypotheses at .05 level of significance.

**RESULTS**

**Research Question One**

What is the mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?

**Table 1: Pretest- Post test and mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modeling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**** **

Table 1 shows that mean difference in bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. The result shows that the pretest mean bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique (experimental group) was 29.31 with a standard deviation of 2.84 and a posttest mean of 17.36 with a standard deviation of 2.13. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the experimental group was -11.95 with effect size of 4.81. On the other hand, the pretest mean bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) was 27.81 with a standard deviation of 2.00 and a posttest mean of 29.50 with a standard deviation of 2.94. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the control group was 1.69 with effect size of 0.67. From this result, it can be deduced that pupils with bullying behaviour exposed to modelling technique (experimental group) had less mean bullying behaviour while those exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) had higher mean bullying behaviour. This implies that the modelling technique seems potent in modifying bullying behaviour in pupils than the conventional behaviour modification technique that is the use of corporal punishment** **

**Research Question Two**

What is the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modeling

technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?

**Table 2:** **Pretest- Posttest and mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modeling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique **

Table 2 shows the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. The result shows that the pretest mean Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to modelling technique (experimental group) was 7.78 with a standard deviation of 2.48 and a posttest mean of 16.21 with a standard deviation of 2.89. The difference between the pretest and posttest Mathematics performance mean scores for pupils exposed to the experimental group was 8.43 with effect size of 3.14. On the other hand, the pretest Mathematics performance mean scores for pupils exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) was 8.50 with a standard deviation of 3.14 and a posttest mean of 8.75 with a standard deviation of 2.72. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the control group was 0.25 with effect size of 0.08. From this result, it can be concluded that pupils with bullying behaviour exposed to modelling technique (experimental group) had higher mean Mathematics performance scores while those exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) had less Mathematics Performance mean score. This implies that the modelling technique seems effective in enhancing learning and improving academic performance among pupils than the conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Research Question Three**

What is the mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?** **

**Table 3: Pretest- Posttest and mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**** **

Table 3 shows the mean difference in homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. The result shows that the pretest mean homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique (experimental group) was 30.33 with a standard deviation of 2.14 and a posttest mean of 17.33 with a standard deviation of 2.65. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the experimental group was -13.00 with effect of size of 5.43. On the other hand, the pretest mean homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) was 28.38 with a standard deviation of 1.98 and a posttest mean of 27.75 with a standard deviation of 7.04. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the control group was -0.81 with a effect size of 0.17 which indicated a high practical significance. From this result, it can be said that pupils with homework avoidance behaviour exposed to time-out technique (experimental group) had less mean homework avoidance behaviour while those exposed to the conventional behaviouralmodification technique (control group) had higher mean homework avoidance behaviour. This implies that the time-out technique seems potent in modifying homework avoidance behaviour in pupils than the conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Research Question Four**

What is the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique?

**Table 4: Pretest- Posttest and mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behavior modification technique**

Table 4 shows the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. The result shows that the pretest mean Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to time-out technique (experimental group) was 9.00 with a standard deviation of 2.08 and a posttest mean of 17.00 with a standard deviation of 2.84. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean Mathematics performance scores for pupils exposed to the experimental group was 8.00 with effect size of 3.25. On the other hand, the pretest mean Mathematics performance scores for pupils exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) was 7.42 with a standard deviation of 2.83 and a posttest mean of 8.57 with a standard deviation of 2.97. The difference between the pretest and posttest mean for pupils exposed to the control group was 1.15 with effect size of 0.39. From this result, it can be said that pupils with homework avoidance behaviour exposed to time-out technique (experimental group) had higher Mathematics performance mean score while those exposed to the conventional behaviour modification technique (control group) had less Mathematics performance mean score. This implies that the time-out technique seems effective in improving academic performance among pupils than the conventional behavioural modification technique.

**HYPOTHESES TESTING**

**Hypothesis One**

There is no significant mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Table 5: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the significant mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**

The result in Table 5 shows that an F-ratio of 256.448 with an associated probability value of 0.000 was obtained with regards to the mean difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. Since the associated probability of 0.000 was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis one was rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the bullying behaviour of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Hypothesis Two**

There is no significant mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupil exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Table 6: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupil exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**** **

The result in Table 6 shows that an F-ratio of 169.887 with an associated probability value of 0.000 was obtained with regards to the mean difference in the Mathematics performance of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique. Since the associated probability of 0.000 was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis two was rejected. This implies that there is a significant mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to modelling technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Hypothesis Three**

There is no significant mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Table 7: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**

The result in Table 7 shows that an F-ratio of 23.588 with an associated probability value of 0.000 was obtained with regards to the mean difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique Since the associated probability of 0.000 was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis three was rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the homework avoidance behaviour of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Hypothesis Four**

There is no significant mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**Table 8: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique**

The result in Table 8 shows that an F-ratio of 110.76 with an associated probability value of 0.000 was obtained with regards to the mean difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique Since the associated probability of 0.000 was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis four was rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the Mathematics performance scores of pupils exposed to time-out technique and those exposed to conventional behaviour modification technique.

**DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS**

In hypothesis one it was found out that significant mean difference exists between the pre-test and post-test, mean scores of the subjects that were exposed to modelling. This showed that modelling technique can bring about reduction in the bullying behaviour of pupils. This finding is in agreement with the work of Bilias-Lolis (2006) who found that self-modelling was found to have large decreases in the target behaviour for all 3 participants, with treatment effects becoming more pronounced at time of follow-up.

In the same vein, hypothesis two testing revealed significant mean difference between the pretest and post test mean scores of the subjects that were exposed to modelling technique. When their mean scores were compared with the mean scores of those in the control group the difference was remarkable. These findings indicate that modelling as a treatment technique is capable of enhancing learning and improving academic performance of pupils. By this the hypothesis which states that there is no significant effect of modeling on Mathematics performance of pupils with bullying behaviour is rejected. This means that modelling is capable of improving academic performance of pupils.

The study in revealing that modelling technique is effective in the treatment of pupils’ academic performance confirmed the work of Ukwueze (2010) who found out that modeling technique of counseling is effective in improving the academic performance of pupils who are talented in extra-curricular activities. The findings are also in agreement with Nwamuo (2010) who that found significant difference in the academic performance of the treated group and the control.

In hypothesis three, it was found out that significant mean difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the subjects that were exposed to time-out technique and conventional behaviour modification technique. The finding of this study is also in confirmation with the works of Anyebe (2016) who used time-out technique with secondary school pupils in reducing disruptive behaviour and found it effective. In the same vein, hypothesis four testing revealed significant mean difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the subjects that were exposed to time-out technique and conventional behaviour modification technique. The finding is also in agreement with Donaldson and Vollmer (2011) who used four subjects wanted to find out the difference in the effect of time-out with release and without release. In release, the culprit served time-out for a period of time, while in non-release, the subject served time-out for the whole period of the class lesson.

**CONCLUSION**

Disruptive behaviour causes a lot of problems to the teacher, pupils, and the school at large. When a pupil or group of pupils presents disruptive behaviour, their learning process is not only affected, but that of others too, given the fact that the learning environment is affected negatively. In a disruptive class, the quality of attention paid by pupils is poor as the teacher will have to deal with their classmates and the interruptions. Pupils’ comprehension of the course content is impacted by what is going on around them. When other pupils engage in extraneous conversation during lessons, they and others around them are distracted from the class activity. Poor academic performance is a result attributed to disruptive behaviour. The disruption of the flow of instruction may affect pupils’ satisfaction with the instructor and the general performance of pupils in the class. Because of this, teachers used certain techniques to reduce these disruptive behaviour such as corporal punishment, beating, suspension, which was not yielding any positive result in the long run. From the findings of this study, it can be concluded that the modeling and time-out techniques were found to be effective in reducing the incidents of disruptive classroom behaviour and improving Mathematics performance of primary school pupils in Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District, Nigeria.** **

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

On the basis of the findings of this study, the researcher therefore makes the following recommendations:

- Efforts should be made by all school authorities and stakeholders in education to reduce to the barest minimum the occurrence of disruptive behaviour in the classroom by organizing training for both experienced and newly employed teachers on the use and application of modeling and time-out techniques in modifying pupils’ disruptive behaviour.
- Pupils should not be left out; they should be intimated on what is expected of them at the beginning of every school year.
- Parents and guardians should be intimated on these techniques and encouraged to apply them at home to fasten the behaviour modification process of their wards.
- Psychologists, counselors, teachers and school heads should be exposed to training in the use of modelling and time-out techniques in reducing disruptive classroom behaviour.

**REFERENCES**

Anyebe, V. (2016).Effects of modeling and time-out techniques on disruptive classroom behaviour among secondary school students in Otukpo, Benue State, Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 204p.

Bilias-Lolis, E. (2006). Exploring the utility of self-modelling in managing challenging classroom behaviour of students with intellectual deficits. Ph.D Thesis University of Connecticut, Connecticut, 96p.

Buijs, M., & Admiraal, W. (2012). Home-work assignments to enhance student engagement in Secondary Education, 115phtpp://www.springerlink.com (Retrieved on 11th May 2018)

Dahiru, B. M. (2010). Practical approach to the teaching of directed numbers of operations. ABACUS: Journal of the Mathematics Association of Nigeria 35 (1): 106-114.

Donaldson, J. M., &Vollmer, T. R. (2011). An evaluation and comparison of time-out procedures with and without release contingences. Retrieved 10/06/2018 from htt://www.ncbi.n/m.nib.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3251271.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013).National Policy on Education. Abuja: NERDC

Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (1996).Principals of classroom management: a professional decision-making model. London: Allyn & Bacon.

Mason, R., Davis, H., Boles, M., & Goodwyn, F. (2013). Efficacy of point-of-view video modeling: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 333–345.

Meyers, S. A., Bender, J., Hill, E. K., & Thomas, S. Y. (2006). How do faculty experience and respond to classroom conflict? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3):180-187.

Nwamuo, P. A. (2010). Effect of cognitive modelling in the reduction of impulsive behaviour among the primary school children. Ife Psychologist, 18 (1): 74-84.

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of k-3 students. Elementary School Journal. 102(2): 141-156.

Seidman, A., (2005). The learning killer: Disruptive student behaviour in the classroom. Reading Improvement Spring, 42: (1), 92-114

Ukwueze, A.C. (2010). Effects of cognitive and modeling techniques of counseling on students study behaviour and academic achievement. Ph.D Dissertation Ebonyi State University, 125p

Usman, B. R., & Nwoye, T. C. (2010).The importance of Mathematics in our society. Ibadan: Nul Publishers.

Wallace, S. (2011) Managing behaviour in the lifelong learning sector (2nd Edition). Great Britain: MPG Books Group, 193p.

**Authors: KINGSLEY E. NWACHUKWU, Ph.D, ****NDIFREKE O. JONAH, ****IMMACULATA G. UMOH, Ph.D**