Blog 3:
Still using the Carma White case below, 1) indicate several alternative instruments and procedures you could use to conduct a Functional Behavioural Analysis (FBA). 2) Assume that you have gathered information in your FBA to confirm the behaviours described below. Write a hypothesis for each behaviour using “when X occurs, student does Y, to achieve Z.”
In Carma White’s case, there are several alternative instruments and procedures one could use to conduct a Functional Behavioural Analysis (FBA). A functional analysis could be used to identify and confirm relationships between behaviour and environment, the social influences on behaviour could be addressed, and physiological reasons for the behaviour could be considered.
From the information provided, it is evident that some of Carma’s behaviours occur while at school, and some occur at home. A functional analysis would enable Carma’s teachers and parents to better understand the specific context under which each behaviour occurs. A Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST) could be used in the school to observe and record the consistency or inconsistency of undesirable behaviours across a variety of settings. For example, Carma’s behaviour might be more severe or occur more frequently in certain subjects, classrooms, or times of day. As these relationships are established, Carma’s teachers will be better prepared to help motivate her or find strategies to minimize the targeted behaviours.
Carma’s teachers could also keep track of the social reinforcement that may occur as a result of the misbehaviour. As Carma gets in arguments with her mom in the mornings, keeping the parents informed during this process would also be important, and it might be helpful to give the parents an example checklist to use at home. At school, Carma’s teachers could analyze whether some form of interaction occurs during the behaviour, whether the behaviour occurs during periods where attention is being given, and if consequences or rewards influence the behaviour. As well, Carma’s behaviour should be recorded during both individual and group work. This information could be used to determine how social aspects influence Carma’s behaviour, and help her teachers form new ways of decreasing the behaviour.
It may also be important to consider the possibility of physiological reasons for Carma’s behaviour. As Carma is constantly late for the bus, the rushing in the morning may result in missing breakfast. This might be a factor in the behaviour issues and lack of focus. Carma’s teachers should monitor whether the behaviour occurs in high and low cycles, if it increases when Carma is ill, or if it changes after lunch and recess breaks. With more details about Carma’s situation, there may be a simple approach to handling the behaviour, such as offering snacks and hydration.
Hypotheses for Behaviours:
“Mom states she has trouble getting Carma out of bed in the morning and frequently has to drive her to school as she has missed the bus.”
When coercion to wake up occurs, student misses the bus to achieve attention (missing the bus results in spending more time with mom driving to school).
“When you give the class directions to follow, Carma becomes argumentative and refuses to comply.”
When the class is given directions to follow, the student becomes argumentative and non-compliant to achieve escape (from doing an aversive task such as schoolwork) OR to achieve power (as she is able to control the situation through the behaviour, resulting in a sense of power).
“Carma swears frequently in class and when you reprimand her she denies it was her or if caught red handed, she just laughs claiming it’s not a big deal.”
When reprimands are given for inappropriate behaviour (swearing), student denies the behaviour to achieve attention (from peers) or power (as she feels the rules do not apply to her).
“Carma’s interactions with peers are very negative and frequently end with her losing her temper and yelling at them.”
When peer interaction occurs, student loses temper to achieve power (over peers) or attention (from teacher).
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Blog 2
Blog Assignment #2
Use the posted article, “Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behaviour” (Salend & Sylvestre, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 37, No. 6, pg 32 - 39) and classroom discussions to complete this blog.
1. Describe the first three strategies from the reading that you would employ to reduce oppositional / defiant behaviours displayed by Carma as described below. Be specific. For example, if you are going to ‘establish and teach rules’, what rules would you put in place and why.
2. Which of the strategies provided in the reading would you be least likely to use and why?
In the article, “Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behavior,” Salend & Sylvestre use a case study of an oppositional and defiant student named Justin to explore ways that oppositional and defiant behavior can be decreased. The article describes various strategies that encompass efforts from the family, a team including the teacher, and the student. For Carma White, the first three strategies from the reading that I would employ to reduce oppositional/ defiant behavior are: encouraging family collaboration and communication, address student learning and motivational needs, and provide social skills instruction. While I support the article and believe all of the guidelines can be effective, the strategies I would be least likely to use might include accessing prereferral services, offering attribution training, and learning more about oppositional and defiant behaviors.
I believe that all students can benefit from having consistency between home and school. For Carma especially, encouraging family collaboration and communication might also help strengthen the relationships between family members. Because both of Carma’s parents have full time jobs, and may not provide the structure and support that she needs consistently, a behavior contract can establish rules with appropriate consequences. Carma’s brothers, who are older and more independent, could also be involved, as they likely model some behaviors such as swearing. It would be important to include Carma, as well as both parents (if possible) in the process of creating a contract, to give her a sense of ownership and make the family aware of the strategies in place. Carma continually misses the bus in the morning because she knows it will result in spending more time with her mom. As well, she engages in arguments in the morning because it is a method (albeit ineffective) of communicating with her mom. A behavior contract might help Carma’s mother model alternative ways to communicate and resolve conflicts.
Carma’s high scores in math and English suggest that her main struggles are not academic, despite struggling in some classes. She also has difficulty getting out of bed in the morning; her apathy could be the result of uninteresting or unchallenging lessons. Addressing Carma’s learning and motivational needs might help her be more successful and enthusiastic about school. Carma’s above average intelligence indicates that class work may not provide her with enough challenges. Carma might benefit from differentiated teaching practices such as working with an older mentor, doing more complex versions of curricular tasks, or doing independent research on topics of interest. Providing Carma with meaningful learning experiences could minimize resistance when doing schoolwork is requested. As well, more relevant projects may increase Carma’s willingness to become involved in the instructional process ( i.e. giving presentations to the class) and take ownership of her own learning.
Increasing Carma’s motivation could be complemented by helping to increase her social skills. Giving Carma social skills instruction will help her work collaboratively, make constructive responses to peer opinions, and help resolve conflicts amicably. Non-competitive group work will also assist Carma in discovering her strengths, and develop coping mechanisms for frustration. A teacher could enhance the benefits of group work by modeling positive behavior with other teachers and students, and encouraging student reflections. Carma’s teacher might ask questions such as “what did you do to get along with others? And how did the others feel?” (Salend & Sylvestre, 2005) that could be answered verbally or through writing.
As Salend & Sylvestre suggest, using a combination of these techniques would be most effective in dealing with oppositional / defiant students. The techniques that I would use more as supports to the main strategies of an intervention plan are: accessing prereferral services, offering attribution training, and learning more about oppositional defiant behaviours. The reason I would not access prereferral services immediately is that if Carma’s behavior is able to be controlled without this step, it may not be necessary. As Carma’s cognitive abilities have already been tested, and under the assumption that her behaviors are not linked to a medical condition, prereferral services may not be needed if the teacher is able deal with the behavior alone. Attribution training might have a minimum effect on Carma, as she is in grade seven and likely has some understanding of how behaviors influence success. As well, effort may not necessarily reflect performance for Carma; because of her above-average intelligence, minimal effort may yield high scores.
Works Consulted:
Salend and Sylvestre (2005). Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behaviour. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 37, No. 6, pg 32-39
Use the posted article, “Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behaviour” (Salend & Sylvestre, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 37, No. 6, pg 32 - 39) and classroom discussions to complete this blog.
1. Describe the first three strategies from the reading that you would employ to reduce oppositional / defiant behaviours displayed by Carma as described below. Be specific. For example, if you are going to ‘establish and teach rules’, what rules would you put in place and why.
2. Which of the strategies provided in the reading would you be least likely to use and why?
In the article, “Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behavior,” Salend & Sylvestre use a case study of an oppositional and defiant student named Justin to explore ways that oppositional and defiant behavior can be decreased. The article describes various strategies that encompass efforts from the family, a team including the teacher, and the student. For Carma White, the first three strategies from the reading that I would employ to reduce oppositional/ defiant behavior are: encouraging family collaboration and communication, address student learning and motivational needs, and provide social skills instruction. While I support the article and believe all of the guidelines can be effective, the strategies I would be least likely to use might include accessing prereferral services, offering attribution training, and learning more about oppositional and defiant behaviors.
I believe that all students can benefit from having consistency between home and school. For Carma especially, encouraging family collaboration and communication might also help strengthen the relationships between family members. Because both of Carma’s parents have full time jobs, and may not provide the structure and support that she needs consistently, a behavior contract can establish rules with appropriate consequences. Carma’s brothers, who are older and more independent, could also be involved, as they likely model some behaviors such as swearing. It would be important to include Carma, as well as both parents (if possible) in the process of creating a contract, to give her a sense of ownership and make the family aware of the strategies in place. Carma continually misses the bus in the morning because she knows it will result in spending more time with her mom. As well, she engages in arguments in the morning because it is a method (albeit ineffective) of communicating with her mom. A behavior contract might help Carma’s mother model alternative ways to communicate and resolve conflicts.
Carma’s high scores in math and English suggest that her main struggles are not academic, despite struggling in some classes. She also has difficulty getting out of bed in the morning; her apathy could be the result of uninteresting or unchallenging lessons. Addressing Carma’s learning and motivational needs might help her be more successful and enthusiastic about school. Carma’s above average intelligence indicates that class work may not provide her with enough challenges. Carma might benefit from differentiated teaching practices such as working with an older mentor, doing more complex versions of curricular tasks, or doing independent research on topics of interest. Providing Carma with meaningful learning experiences could minimize resistance when doing schoolwork is requested. As well, more relevant projects may increase Carma’s willingness to become involved in the instructional process ( i.e. giving presentations to the class) and take ownership of her own learning.
Increasing Carma’s motivation could be complemented by helping to increase her social skills. Giving Carma social skills instruction will help her work collaboratively, make constructive responses to peer opinions, and help resolve conflicts amicably. Non-competitive group work will also assist Carma in discovering her strengths, and develop coping mechanisms for frustration. A teacher could enhance the benefits of group work by modeling positive behavior with other teachers and students, and encouraging student reflections. Carma’s teacher might ask questions such as “what did you do to get along with others? And how did the others feel?” (Salend & Sylvestre, 2005) that could be answered verbally or through writing.
As Salend & Sylvestre suggest, using a combination of these techniques would be most effective in dealing with oppositional / defiant students. The techniques that I would use more as supports to the main strategies of an intervention plan are: accessing prereferral services, offering attribution training, and learning more about oppositional defiant behaviours. The reason I would not access prereferral services immediately is that if Carma’s behavior is able to be controlled without this step, it may not be necessary. As Carma’s cognitive abilities have already been tested, and under the assumption that her behaviors are not linked to a medical condition, prereferral services may not be needed if the teacher is able deal with the behavior alone. Attribution training might have a minimum effect on Carma, as she is in grade seven and likely has some understanding of how behaviors influence success. As well, effort may not necessarily reflect performance for Carma; because of her above-average intelligence, minimal effort may yield high scores.
Works Consulted:
Salend and Sylvestre (2005). Understanding and Addressing Oppositional and Defiant Classroom Behaviour. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 37, No. 6, pg 32-39
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Blog 1
Blog #1
Using the Teacher Variance Approach chart, which approach most closely represents what you currently believe about children with behavioural or emotional disorders?
How has/ will that belief impact your interactions with challenging behaviours you encounter?
Hyman’s comparison of the Teacher Variance Approaches offers a general set of philosophies that could be applied to dealing with discipline issues in a classroom. In his table, Hyman provides opportunities for the reader to identify with the following approaches to discipline: Behavioural/ Cognitive-behavioural, Psychodynamic/ interpersonal, Humanistic, Biophysical, and Ecological/ Systems. While, as a pre-service teacher, the ecological model most closely represent my beliefs about children with behavioural or emotional disorders, I also believe that none of the models should be used in isolation. All of the approaches that Hyman has put forth have validity; a teacher should use his/ her discretion and relationship with the student to extract the most appropriate diagnoses and strategies for each unique situation.
I take issue with using any of Hyman’s models as sole means of discipline or positive behaviour development. The Behavioural/ Cognitive-Behavioural is over-simplified in suggesting that changing behaviour is simply a matter of using positive reinforcement to reduce undesirable behaviour. I fully support Skinner in that positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment, but if Premack’s arguments on reinforcement being relative are considered, the intervention techniques may not be effective. For example, a student who has undergone severe trauma physically or emotionally may not respond to reinforcements, even positive ones, in a way that is comparable to another student. As well, students with certain conditions, such as Tourette’s syndrome may not be physically able to produce acceptable behaviours consistently, regardless of the reinforcement being applied. The other possible danger of this method is that if a reward is used, the motivation of the student (to display acceptable behaviour) could decrease once the reward system ends. Therefore, the Behavioural/ Cognitive-Behavioural approach should be used either in combination with other methods, or when anecdotal records indicate that the positive behaviour shows evidence of persisting.
I believe in the Psychodynamic/ Interpersonal model to the theoretical extent that behaviour and personality generally reflect experiences and relationships. However, a main argument against this model is that many people go through similar experiences, yet their overall behaviours are different. For instance, some people who grow up in poverty continue to perpetuate statistics, while others are able to become successful. According to Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (2010), “low income is statistically linked with a variety of poor outcomes for children...[such as] academic failure, emotional distress, and unwed childbirth in adolescence.” Nevertheless, the countless success stories in the media (Oprah Winfrey for example), and in real life have demonstrated that this is not always the case. Another potential problem with this model is that according to Hyman, diagnosis involves analysis of the student record and obtaining a history of the child and child-rearing practices. Certainly, this could be advantageous in some situations, but difficulties might arise when dealing with a student who is adopted (in a closed adoption) or new to the country.
I do identify with the optimistic Humanistic approach, where the theory is that people are born “blank slates” and have the potential to be good and competent. Again, however, the theory relies on the assumption that factors that diminish worth are always reversible, when such cases as Susan Wiley (more commonly known as Genie Wiley) have shown us that they are not. To summarize, Susan Wiley was a severely neglected and abused child who was strapped to a potty-chair from ages 1-13. She was left in an isolated room and rarely spoken to; she also rarely spoke. When she was discovered, a group of scientists attempted to work with her to disprove the Lenneberg hypothesis that language acquisition must occur before puberty. In the end, this case actually confirmed what Lenneberg had proposed.
The biophysical model definitely has merit, especially for conditions such as asthma and diabetes, however for Attention Deficit Disorder medication may not be the best option. Smith (2008) indicates that medication for ADD is designed to help deal with symptoms such as poor focus, but is not a cure and works differently for everyone. Medication could also have side effects and end up causing more problems for students. For these reasons, I believe that if medication or changes in diet are introduced, they should be accompanied by common sense strategies for discipline such as consistency and offering choices.
The ecological/systems approach provides the most opportunity to incorporate other methods and decide on intervention plans based on each specific case. As a result, more opportunities exist to help meet the needs of a variety of students, rather than treat all students with the same methods. The focus this model has on restructuring classroom and school environments could be expanded to include not only the physical aspects of an environment, but also ways that discipline and reinforcement are displayed. For instance, a student may show evidence of improved behaviour after being exposed to more sunlight, but would likely also benefit from generous praise and predictable consequences. I also relate to this method because it accounts for various learning styles, which can also impact behaviour. When I encounter challenging behaviours in a classroom, I will be especially sensitive to the different needs of each student. As a result, I will take possible solutions from several of the models, as well as develop strong positive relationships with the students.
Works Consulted:
Berlina, A. (2004). Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis. Retrieved from
Duncan, G., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Consequences of Growing Up Poor. Retrieved from
Smith, M., Cutter, D., and Segal, J. (2008). ADD/ ADHD Medications: Are ADHD drugs right for you or your child? Retrieved from
Using the Teacher Variance Approach chart, which approach most closely represents what you currently believe about children with behavioural or emotional disorders?
How has/ will that belief impact your interactions with challenging behaviours you encounter?
Hyman’s comparison of the Teacher Variance Approaches offers a general set of philosophies that could be applied to dealing with discipline issues in a classroom. In his table, Hyman provides opportunities for the reader to identify with the following approaches to discipline: Behavioural/ Cognitive-behavioural, Psychodynamic/ interpersonal, Humanistic, Biophysical, and Ecological/ Systems. While, as a pre-service teacher, the ecological model most closely represent my beliefs about children with behavioural or emotional disorders, I also believe that none of the models should be used in isolation. All of the approaches that Hyman has put forth have validity; a teacher should use his/ her discretion and relationship with the student to extract the most appropriate diagnoses and strategies for each unique situation.
I take issue with using any of Hyman’s models as sole means of discipline or positive behaviour development. The Behavioural/ Cognitive-Behavioural is over-simplified in suggesting that changing behaviour is simply a matter of using positive reinforcement to reduce undesirable behaviour. I fully support Skinner in that positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment, but if Premack’s arguments on reinforcement being relative are considered, the intervention techniques may not be effective. For example, a student who has undergone severe trauma physically or emotionally may not respond to reinforcements, even positive ones, in a way that is comparable to another student. As well, students with certain conditions, such as Tourette’s syndrome may not be physically able to produce acceptable behaviours consistently, regardless of the reinforcement being applied. The other possible danger of this method is that if a reward is used, the motivation of the student (to display acceptable behaviour) could decrease once the reward system ends. Therefore, the Behavioural/ Cognitive-Behavioural approach should be used either in combination with other methods, or when anecdotal records indicate that the positive behaviour shows evidence of persisting.
I believe in the Psychodynamic/ Interpersonal model to the theoretical extent that behaviour and personality generally reflect experiences and relationships. However, a main argument against this model is that many people go through similar experiences, yet their overall behaviours are different. For instance, some people who grow up in poverty continue to perpetuate statistics, while others are able to become successful. According to Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (2010), “low income is statistically linked with a variety of poor outcomes for children...[such as] academic failure, emotional distress, and unwed childbirth in adolescence.” Nevertheless, the countless success stories in the media (Oprah Winfrey for example), and in real life have demonstrated that this is not always the case. Another potential problem with this model is that according to Hyman, diagnosis involves analysis of the student record and obtaining a history of the child and child-rearing practices. Certainly, this could be advantageous in some situations, but difficulties might arise when dealing with a student who is adopted (in a closed adoption) or new to the country.
I do identify with the optimistic Humanistic approach, where the theory is that people are born “blank slates” and have the potential to be good and competent. Again, however, the theory relies on the assumption that factors that diminish worth are always reversible, when such cases as Susan Wiley (more commonly known as Genie Wiley) have shown us that they are not. To summarize, Susan Wiley was a severely neglected and abused child who was strapped to a potty-chair from ages 1-13. She was left in an isolated room and rarely spoken to; she also rarely spoke. When she was discovered, a group of scientists attempted to work with her to disprove the Lenneberg hypothesis that language acquisition must occur before puberty. In the end, this case actually confirmed what Lenneberg had proposed.
The biophysical model definitely has merit, especially for conditions such as asthma and diabetes, however for Attention Deficit Disorder medication may not be the best option. Smith (2008) indicates that medication for ADD is designed to help deal with symptoms such as poor focus, but is not a cure and works differently for everyone. Medication could also have side effects and end up causing more problems for students. For these reasons, I believe that if medication or changes in diet are introduced, they should be accompanied by common sense strategies for discipline such as consistency and offering choices.
The ecological/systems approach provides the most opportunity to incorporate other methods and decide on intervention plans based on each specific case. As a result, more opportunities exist to help meet the needs of a variety of students, rather than treat all students with the same methods. The focus this model has on restructuring classroom and school environments could be expanded to include not only the physical aspects of an environment, but also ways that discipline and reinforcement are displayed. For instance, a student may show evidence of improved behaviour after being exposed to more sunlight, but would likely also benefit from generous praise and predictable consequences. I also relate to this method because it accounts for various learning styles, which can also impact behaviour. When I encounter challenging behaviours in a classroom, I will be especially sensitive to the different needs of each student. As a result, I will take possible solutions from several of the models, as well as develop strong positive relationships with the students.
Works Consulted:
Berlina, A. (2004). Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis. Retrieved from
Duncan, G., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Consequences of Growing Up Poor. Retrieved from
Smith, M., Cutter, D., and Segal, J. (2008). ADD/ ADHD Medications: Are ADHD drugs right for you or your child? Retrieved from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
