This entry will serve as the springboard for discussions related to HW3:
As you embark on homework 3, it is within the context of ALL of the information you have previsously collected (questionaires, interviews, observations, records, ecological observations, etc.), plus one full session using the ABC observation form.
Description of setting: Here you will use information from the first part of HW1 along with additional descriptions of variables from the ecological form and interviews...here, it's okay to provide as much relevant information as possible.
Antecedents: Here, provide a discussion on factors (activities, demands, difficult tasks, uninteresting tasks, alone time, lack of attention, room too noisy, too much visual stimuli, etc.) that may be prompting the problem behavior...there may be more than one variable in play here...
Operational Definition: Use topography and at least one dimension from HW1...approved by Dr. A....and that you've refined in HW2 (detailed numbers related to the data you collected)
Consequence(s): Here, provide a description of what may be maintaining (positive or negative reinforcement) the problem behavior (based on ALL data you've gathered to this point). It is important to note that some behaviors may have multiple functions...
Time and day: The data you collected should provide some info on the day(s) and time(s) that increases the probability that the problem behavior may occur...if the data supports the notion that it is not the time or day as much as certain activities, it is appropriate to discuss that in this section.
Testable Explanation: Here you must discuss your testable explanation related to the problem behavior (hypothesis statement). This statement must be written in Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) format. An example of a testable explanation might be:
* When the student is given a difficult math assignment involving fractions (antecedent), the student engages in off task behaviors (behavior), which results in the student avoiding/delaying the task (consequence).
[Independent Variable = blue; Dependent Variable = Red].
This same testable explanation can be written for the replacement behavior as follows (assuming that the antecedent is NOT being modified, i.e., not being given tasks that are appropriate to student's performance level). It is important to note that the consequence of the problem behavior was negative reinforcement...this means that the replacement behavior MUST achieve the same FUNCTION:
* When the student is given a difficult math assignment involving fractions (antecedent), the student will engage in {a} requesting alternate assignment, {b} asking for break, or {c} asking for help (behavior), which results in the student avoiding/delaying/eliminating the task (consequence).
[Independent Variable = blue; Dependent Variable = Red].
Here's another testable explanation for the replacement behavior that the modifies the antecedent by providing the student tasks that are appropriate to student's performance level. Again, the consequence of the problem behavior was negative reinforcement...this means that even though you've modified the antecedent, once the student engages in the desired behavior (performing the task), the reinforcement MUST result in a similar FUNCTION (negative reinforcement):
* When the student is given a math assignment involving fractions at his ability level and with teacher support (antecedent), the student will engage in the assigned math task (behavior), which results in the student receiving some sort of negative reinforcement [free time, homework pass, etc] (consequence).
[Independent Variable = blue; Dependent Variable = Red].
Testing Strategy: Here you must provide a detailed description of the variable you plan on manipulating to determine of your hypothesis statement is correct.
* MANIPULATING THE ANTECEDENT: The last testable explanation noted above is a perfect example of how the antecedent is going to be modified by making sure that the curriculum is at the student's ability level and teacher support (a clear description of what that means is required)...to determine if indeed the hypothesis that difficult math tasks involving fractions truly is the ANTECEDENT to the problem behavior.
* MANIPULATING THE CONSEQUENCE: Another example is the testable explanation above that speaks to teaching the student the replacement behaviors [{a} requesting alternate assignment, {b} asking for break, or {c} asking for help] that allow him to still delay/avoid the task which will allow you to test your hypothesis that the student engages in the problem behavior to escape/avoid/delay an undesired behavior (CONSEQUENCE).
I hope this information helps...
13 comments:
From the observation that I have thus far completed, the antecedent that I will be looking at most closely is "given time to do independent work..." I could test this hypothesis (antecedent)by having a teacher/aide work with the student and measuring his off-task behavior OR I could compare his off-task behavior time while engaged in teacher instruction/guided practice to his off-task behavior time while engaged in independent practice.
The antecedent that I will look at would be the difficulty of the toy or activity that is given to my student. Another antecedent that I will observe is the noise within the daycare and the general activities the other kids are engaging in while the student is with the interventionist.
Based on the interviews that I have conducted, some possible consequences for this problem behavior is to avoid the activity or playing with that particular toy. However, another consequence may also be the attention she received from both the daycare personnel as well as the interventionist.
My testable explanation would be: When the student is given a difficult toy or activity, the student throws her toys at least six inches from her current location, which results in the student avoiding the activity or playing with that toy and receiving attention from the interventionist.
A testable explanation for my replacement behavior might be: When the student is given a difficult toy or activity, the student will hand the interventionist the toy, which results in the activity being terminated as well as attention from the interventionist.
Consequence(s): Here, provide a description of what may be maintaining (positive or negative reinforcement) the problem behavior (based on ALL data you've gathered to this point). It is important to note that some behaviors may have multiple functions...
There are several factors to what may be maintaining my 4-year-old client’s behavior (tantrum behavior=kicking, screaming, hitting, falling to the floor, taking clothes off, urinating/BM on himself, property destruction). One factor is positive reinforcement. He is being allowed access to whatever he wants when he begins engaging in these behaviors (a specific piece of the puzzle, being able to go last during a game). At the same time, negative reinforcement is in place, because he is being removed from the situation he did not want to be in, by engaging in these behaviors (an instruction is given to put his puzzle piece in; to take his turn). So he is engaging in these behaviors to 1) escape from doing what he has been instructed to do, or what naturally occurs (it’s his turn, but he knows that after that it will be my turn, and I will win), AND 2) be given access to something specific (having the last piece, winning the game).
Description of setting: Here you will use information from the first part of HW1 along with additional descriptions of variables from the ecological form and interviews...here, it's okay to provide as much relevant information as possible.
Interestingly, a description of setting is very appropriate, because the setting in which I work with my client is his home, where the behaviors are already being maintained by the mother and father. The parents are very inconsistent about following through with instructions/demands, and being in the environment where the child knows he typically gets away with engaging in the behaviors, I hypothesis, increases the potential for the behaviors to occur.
The antecedent I will be looking at with my student is "other students talking out". When there are other students talking out or yelling out in class the student is more likely to engage in out of seat behavior.
Another antecedent might also be that when the student's aide leaves he is more likely to engage in the behavior.
So here's a question...
I just started observing today and will do so all week and my student did not exhibit the behavior that I am focusing on. Now his teachers are telling me the behavior is "sporadic" so it is unclear if I will see the behavior at all this week. Do I go back and change everything? There are other behaviors going on: the student hits his peer tutor and hugs him too tight, the student puts his head on the desk to avoid work...I'm just not quite sure what to do. Any comments would be helpful.
another thing,
The replacement behavior for my student is not functional in this classroom I am observing. The student is included in a general ed English class where he does his own assignments different from the class and the peer tutor assists him the whole time one on one. My student's designated replacement behavior of "raising hand" doesn't really work because the student has zero interaction with the general ed teacher, something I was unaware of, and obviously doesn't need to raise his hand to interact with the peer tutor sitting right next to him. Once again, do I go back to the drawing board completely?
My student is a 3rd grade that has a problem behavior of being off task.
Description of setting: The class schedule is organized in having 60% small group, 10% independent work, 25% whole group and 5% one-on-one instruction.
Antecedents: The behavior of my student seems to occur when he is not receiving one-on-one attention, when another student irritates him or during any transition.
Consequence(s): The problem behavior is being maintained by the fact that every time he engages in an off task behavior he receives attention from the teachers/aides/peers.
Testable Explanation: When Jon is involved in his reading group where he is not receiving one-on-one attention his reading group (antecedent), Jon engages in off task behaviors (behavior), which results in Jon receiving attention from his teacher/aide/peer (consequence).
I am going to being doing a good amount of my observations this week and next week to collect my data. My only concern is that they are going to be changing my student’s schedule. While this is probably a good change, it will also, possibly change the antecedents. However, since I am just now collecting my baseline information, as long as the change is made before I begin collecting information, everything should be fine, right? Although, if the change is made after I begin my data collection does that mean I need to begin all over or do I have to just incorporate the change in my documentation?
The antecedent that I will look at is lack of attention. When the student is not getting attention from adults in the room he yells out.
Testable explanation: When "John" is not receiving attention from adults in the classroom (antecedent), John yells out (behavior), which results in receiving attention from adults in the classroom (consequence).
A testable explanation for my replacement behavior might be: When John is not receiving attention from adults in the room, John will raise his hand, and immediately receive adult attention.
Kendra
Don't give up just yet. See what your data yields. Often when I am taking baseline for a FBA, I don't get of the "right" data. And behaviors that I am targeting I am not able to provoke/evoke. The data you take will not be worthless, it is just another piece to your FBA.
I do agree that your replacement behavior may not achieve the same function, when there is no place for the child to use the replacement behavior. I would wait and see what your FBA results yield.
Of course, Dr. Alvarado may have a different suggestion! :)
Elizabeth
An antecedent that I was able to clearly define while observing today was asking the student to move to the green center. Before he transitions there, his aide has him chose between high reinforcers and writes it down for him on his token sheet so he knows that is what he will earn after green center is over. He goes there in the morning, around 9:45am, and in the afternoon at about 1:45pm. This center is where the students do either handwriting or touch math depending on the time of day. Upon being asked to go to green center, Joshua will stand up and walk over to the near vicinity of the center. He will then refuse to sit down, and hit his aide 1 time when she goes to physically prompt him to be seated. After the initial hit, he is reminded that he can take a break if he needs one. If he hits a second time, he is redirected to the break area where he has to read through the class rules about having nice mouth, nice hands, and nice feet.
My student's behavior is multi-dimensional. I think that the same behavior serves two purposes, both gaining teacher attention and task avoidance.
After more observations, I think that the consequences of the existing behavior serve as antecedents for that behavior to continue. For instance, my student cries and screams when other students are the focus of teacher attention during circle. When he cries and screams he gets teacher attention, usually in the form of redirection to another task. When this happens, the behavior starts all over again because he's trying to escape the newly assigned task. This makes separating antecedents and consequences difficult.
If focusing on the behavior to gain teacher attention only, my testable hypothesis would be:
When a teacher directs another student to complete a task during circle Chris cries and screams, resulting in Chris gaining attention from the teacher.
The testable hypothesis for the replacement behavior would be:
When a teacher directs another student to complete a task during circle Chris says "I want a turn too", resulting in Chris gaining attention from the teacher.
this session is closed.
Post a Comment