|Infusing Behavioral Interventions into Classroom Settings|
|Thursday, November 29, 2001|
|3:00 PM–3:50 PM |
|Cloister of the Cypress Hall|
|Area: EDC; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis|
|Chair: Barbara Mallette (SUNY College at Fredonia)|
|Discussant: William R. Jenson (University of Utah)|
|Abstract: The New Millennium poses significant instructional challenges for all educators. Teaching a rapidly diversifying student population with an ever-expanding curriculum to higher levels of application and generalization will be challenging enough. Doing so in the absence of substantially more instructional support may prove even more daunting. It is clear, therefore, that classroom teachers need more powerful instructional interventions. Interventions that not only "work", but also that are feasible to implement on a class-wide basis and that are socially acceptable to pupils, teachers, and the community at large. One source of such intervention strategies may emerge from the collaborative interactions between the classroom teachers and applied researchers. This symposium will present two presentations that address the use of behavioral interventions in classrooms settings. Findings from two research studies will document improvements in student performance as well as acceptability by the students involved. Ease of implementation will be addressed. Discussion will touch upon the generalization of the strategies to other classroom and groups of students.|
|The Application of Self-Monitoring Techniques in Regular and Special Education Settings|
|DOUGLAS LLOYD (Silver Creek Central School District), Barbara Mallette (SUNY College at Fredonia)|
|Abstract: Classroom teachers today are faced with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds as well as students with different academic, behavioral, and social needs. When the students have attention deficits and/or learning disabilities, the academic and behavioral challenges become more demanding (Bos & Vaugh, 1998). These students often require accommodations in instructional and behavioral interventions. For the most part, teachers and support personnel implement these accommodations and behavior management programs. Even if the management plans are developed and executed collaboratively, the classroom teacher usually maintains control of the plan. However, the ultimate goal for students with learning difficulties should be to self-manage their own academic and behavior performance (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992). Self-management approaches can include components that require the students to self-monitor their behavior (Schloss & Smith, 1994). Both general and special education teachers report that they use strategies that not only produce the desired effects on their students but also ones that are relatively easy to implement and that can be generalized to other settings without difficulty (Smith, Young, West, Morgan, & Rhode, 1988).
This presentation will present several self-monitoring systems that have been successfully used in regular and special education classrooms. The procedures involved in the planning and implementation of these strategies will be shared as well as the data generated by the students involved. Consumer satisfaction results regarding students' perceptions of the strategies will be displayed. Generalization to other classrooms as well as other age groups will be presented. In addition, a procedure for evaluating other self-monitoring techniques for ease of implementation, age appropriateness, and situational feasibility will be included. References Bos, C. S. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Schloss, P. J. & Smith, M. A. (1994). Applied behavior analysis in the classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., West, R. P., Morgan, D. P., & Rhode, G. (1988). Reducing the disruptive behavior of junior|
|Collaborative Research Projects that Extend Behavioral Interventions into Secondary General Education Classrooms|
|BARBARA MALLETTE (State University of New York at Fredonia), Lawrence J. Maheady (State University of New York at Fredonia), Gregory F. Harper (State University of New York at Fredonia), Jean Michielli-Pendi (Dunkirk City School District)|
|Abstract: Classroom teachers must become more effective and efficient decision-makers in the use and evaluation of those educational strategies to which their students are most responsive or make the greatest academic and interpersonal gains (Greenwood & Maheady, 1997). One approach that can help teachers learn to do this is called an "alternating teaching design" (Barlow & Hayes, 1979) in which pupils are exposed to varying instructional methods within relatively short time periods. Student outcomes, be they academic and/or interpersonal, can be represented graphically by the specific instructional method employed to see if there are differences. On the basis of student performance, teachers can select and continue to employ those methods that produce the greatest gains in pupil outcomes.
This presentation will present the results of an alternate teaching design involving three instructional strategies employed in a sixth grade regular education Science class. The research was a collaborative effort between a classroom teacher and three researchers. The teacher systematically alternated three teaching approaches. Whole Group Question-Answer, Numbered Heads Together, and response cards Formative and summative measures will indicate that failure rates were significantly reduced under the Numbered Heads Together and Response Cards conditions. In addition, student response rates were significantly higher under these two conditions than under the Whole Group Question-Answer strategy. Consumer satisfaction ratings strongly favored the Numbered Heads Together and Response Cards approaches.
References: Barlow, D. & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs. (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
Greenwood, C. R. & Maheady, L. (1997). Measuring change in student performance: Forgotten standard in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 265-276.|