Decreasing Negave Behaviors in the Classroom · 2019-01-17 · – Idenfy and teach replacement behaviors that meet the same funcon as the problem behaviors • Idenfy and tell students

Decreasing Nega,ve Behaviors in the Classroom

In this PPT …

•  An overview of •  Hierarchy of strategies to reduce problem behavior

•  Differen,al Reinforcement •  Ex,nc,on •  Response Cost •  Time out & Think Time •  Reprimands •  Overcorrec,on

Punishment •  “The con,ngent presenta,on of a s,mulus immediately following a response, which decreases the future rate and/or probability of the response” (Alberto & Troutman, 2009, p. 426).

•  Example: Time‐out from free play (preferred ac,vity) aWer hiXng and hiXng decreases

•  To be defined as a “punisher”, there must be a decrease in the behavior

(Alberto & Troutman, 2009)

Decreasing Undesirable Behavior

Consider … •  Restric,veness •  Intrusiveness •  Effec,veness There are a range of strategies to use before using punishment to reduce problem behavior.

How Do I Decide? •  Protect student rights •  Less disrup,on to environment

–  Student –  Teaching

•  Determine what is maintaining the behavior? –  Must teach REPLACEMENT BEHAVIORS

•  Mild aversives can be added to reinforcement‐based procedures –  Reprimand –  Time‐Out

Avoid Warn/threaten Lecture/nag

Hierarchy of Interven,ons to Reduce Problem Behavior •  Informal Methods – Redirec,on – Proximity

•  Level I: Differen,al Reinforcement (Providing Reinforcement)

•  Level II: Ex,nc,on (Removal of Reinforcement) Punishment •  Level III: Response Cost and Time Out (Removal of Desirable S,muli)

•  Level IV: Presenta,on of Aversive S,muli (Alberto & Troutman, 2009)

Level I: Differen,al Reinforcement

•  Differen,al Reinforcement of Lower Rates of Behavior (DRL)

•  Differen,al Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)

•  Differen,al Reinforcement of Incompa,ble Behavior (DRI)

•  Differen,al Reinforcement of Alterna,ve Behavior (DRA)


DRL Example: Ethan is a very bright student and raises his hand to make a comment an average of 15 =mes during a 15‐min interval. This is not an inappropriate behavior but one that the teacher wants to occur less frequently. Using DRL, the 15 min period is divided in to 3, 5‐min intervals. Ethan can earn a reward if he only raises his hand 2 or fewer =mes each interval.

•  Advantages: – Gradual approach to behavior change

•  Disadvantages: – Not appropriate for violent or dangerous behaviors

DRL is about decreasing but not elimina4ng a behavior

•  Steps 1. Collect Baseline: How

oWen does behavior occur during a specific ,me period?

2. Establish reduc,on goal 3. Reinforce at end of ,me

period (full or par,al session) if behavior occurred at goal or beder.

4. Shape the behavior by changing criterion or interval length


DRO Example: Jasmine keeps geIng out of her seat during whole class instruc=on. This is very disrup=ve, so the teacher decides to use DRO. Jasmine is told that she can earn a token if she does not get out of her seat during the 15‐min instruc=onal period. On Monday, Jasmine did not get out of her seat, but she sat in her seat and made rude comments. According to DRO, she should s=ll earn the token.

•  Disadvantages: –  Reinforces the absence of a

behavior –  Requires a powerful reinforcer –  Student may inadvertently be reinforced for other problem behaviors

“Reinforcement is con4ngent upon the nonoccurrence of a behavior throughout a specified 4me period.” (Alberto & Troutman, 2009, p. 369)

•  Steps 1.  Iden,fy problem

behavior 2.  Iden,fy ,me

interval 3.  Reinforce at end of

interval if behavior does not occur

4.  Full sessions or shorter intervals


DRA Example: Ashed throws his work sta=on materials when he wants a break. He is taught how to use his communica=on devise to request a break. Ashed does not get a break unless he uses his communica=on devise to appropriately request a break. •  Advantages:

–  Not just reinforcing an absence of behavior

–  Can be used to teach & reinforce a more acceptable replacement behavior that serves the same func,on as the problem behavior

Reinforce demonstra4on of an appropriate behavior in place of an inappropriate behavior

•  Steps 1.  Determine

replacement behavior 2.  If needed, teach

replacement behavior 3.  Collect baseline data

on both the problem behavior and the replacement behavior

4.  Decide on schedule of reinforcement


DRI Example: Ashed throws his work sta=on materials when he wants a break. He is receives a token when he is using his materials appropriately.

•  Advantages: –  Physically impossible for student to be exhibi,ng both behaviors at the same ,me

–  Reinforcing a more acceptable replacement behavior

•  Considera,ons –  May be difficult to find a mutually exclusive behavior

Reinforce appropriate behavior that is topographically incompa4ble

•  Steps 1.  Determine

replacement behavior 2.  If needed, teach

replacement behavior 3.  Collect baseline data

on both the problem behavior and the replacement behavior

4.  Decide on schedule of reinforcement


Level III: Ex,nc,on “Withholding reinforcement for previously reinforced behavior to REDUCE the occurrence of the behavior” (Alberto & Troutman, 2009, p. 424)

Most oWen used to decrease problem behaviors that have been reinforced /maintained by teacher aden,on

Advantages –  Effec,vely reduces behaviors –  Long‐las,ng effects –  Aversive s,muli are not required

Disadvantages –  Takes ,me –  Not always easy to minimize aden,on for certain behaviors –  Expect ex,nc,on burst & spontaneous recovery –  Inappropriate behaviors are imitated –  Plan for ex,nc,on‐induced aggression –  Doesn’t generalize well


Using Ex,nc,on Effec,vely •  Iden,fy and control sources of reinforcement.

•  Withhold reinforcement from unwanted behavior.

•  Clearly specify the condi,ons for ex,nc,on. •  Maintain ex,nc,on condi,ons for a sufficient ,me.

•  Combine ex4nc4on with other procedures.

Level III: Removal of Desirable S,muli Response Cost •  Defined: Reduc,on of behavior through removal of reinforcer (con,ngent on problem behavior)

•  Example: taking away points, tokens, etc.

Time‐Out •  Defined: Not giving student the opportunity to receive reinforcement for a certain period of ,me

•  Types: –  Nonseclusionary –  Exclusionary –  Seclusionary


Response cost may be considered more favorable because it does not prevent student from receiving reinforcement or from par4cipa4ng in classroom ac4vi4es.

Level III: Response Cost •  Example: Use response cost in a token economy. –  10 tokens distributed to each student at the beginning of class. For each instance of off task, a token will be given back to the teacher

OR –  Points may be earned for keeping hands to self; walking away from a fight; using kind words instead of cursing; Points will be lost for cursing, figh,ng/hiXng; teasing/threatening

•  Steps –  Explain all details to students –  Always connect response cost to a reinforcement system –  Implement response cost immediately aWer target problem behavior occurs

–  Never let a student accumulate nega,ve points

(Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010)

Level III: Response Cost •  How is response cost different from ex,nc,on?

–  Reinforcement is taken away and not withheld (ex,nc,on)

•  Considera,ons for response cost –  Must be able to take away reinforcement –  What happens when a student has lost all reinforcement?

•  Teacher holds no con,ngencies over desired behavior once all reinforcement gone

•  Also consider: –  Have more posi,ve procedures been used before using response cost? –  Have the rules and expecta,ons been made clear? –  Has the teacher used modeling to demonstrate the target behaviors

that will be consequated and the appropriate responses when rewards are taken away?

–  Can teachers retrieve reinforcers? –  Can student receive reinforcers in addi,on to losing reinforcers?

(Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Kerr & Nelson, 2010)

Level III: Time‐out •  Removal of all sources of posi,ve reinforcement for a specified period of ,me con,ngent on a behavior

•  The correct term is actually “,me out from reinforcement”

•  Consider –  Amount of reinforcement in the “,me in” seXng versus the ,me out seXng

–  If classroom seXngs are not engaging or reinforcing, students my not mind going to ,me‐out


Level III: Types of Time Out Nonseclusionary –  Not removed from instruc,on –  Student denied access to reinforcement

 Put head on desk  Remove materials or teacher  Sit and watch (con,ngent observa,on)

–  Access to observa,on and modeling Exclusionary –  Removed from ac,vity –  No access to observa,on and modeling

Seclusionary –  Removal from classroom –  Total isola,on –  Reserved for more severe behaviors (Alberto & Troutman, 2009)

Level III: Time‐out Procedures for using ,me‐out •  Before using ,me‐out make sure that the “,me‐in” classroom is engaging and

reinforcing –  Provide at least 4 ,mes as much posi,ve reinforcement as correc,ve

consequences –  Iden,fy and teach replacement behaviors that meet the same func,on as

the problem behaviors •  Iden,fy and tell students which behaviors will result in ,me‐out •  Provide verbal warning that ,me‐out will be used if inappropriate behavior

does not change •  When sending student to ,me‐out, calmly tell students why and the length of

the ,me‐out –  If needed, gently lead student to ,me‐out –  Add on ,me or start ,me over if disrup,ve behavior con,nues –  Require student to clean up the environment if anything is disrupted –  Be prepared with back up consequence if student refuses to go to ,me‐out

(e.g. loss of privileges) •  Upon comple,on of ,me‐out, student returns to classroom ac,vity


Guidelines for Effec,ve Use of Timeout hdp://www.state.ky.us/agencies/behave/homepage.html

Alberto & Troutman, 2009 •  Involve IEP team in deciding if ,me‐out should be used

–  Use only as one component of a wide range of of behavioral interven,ons

•  Obtain wriden parent permission •  Follow local and state policies •  Do not engage in power struggles •  Avoid excessive use of ,meout •  Time outs should be brief •  Never lock a student in a closed seXng •  Maintain view of student at all ,mes •  Maintain thorough wriden records •  Evaluate whether ,meout is working

A Varia,on of Time‐Out: Think Time

Steps: •  Calmly prompt student to engage in appropriate behavior •  If student does not comply, direct student to go to the think

,me area in designated classroom •  Student goes to another classroom with coopera,ng teacher

to complete the think ,me interven,on –  Rou,nes for this interven,on have been taught and prac,ced

•  The coopera,ng teacher debriefs the student –  Ask student to describe the behavior that resulted in think ,me –  If student does not, teachers says “I’ll get back to you” –  A debriefing form is used

•  Once student correctly debriefs, student returns to own classroom with debriefing form

(Nelson, 1996)

Think Time

•  Treats problem behavior as a chain, rather than an event – the goal is the catch the problem behavior early before it escalates

•  Tier 1 universal strategy to use in elementary or middle school classrooms

•  Iden,fy coopera,ng teacher •  Physically prepare classroom •  Inform parents •  Teach students –  Ra,onale –  Behaviors –  How to move –  Debriefing –  Rejoining

(Nelson, 1996)

Level IV: Presenta,on of Aversive S,muli

•  Uncondi,oned Aversive S,muli –  Defini,on: S,muli that result in pain or discomfort (e.g., spanking, water spray in face, physical restraint)

•  Condi,oned Aversive S,muli –  Defini,on: S,muli a person learns to experience as aversive as the result of being paired with an uncondi,oned aversive s,mulus (e.g., verbal reprimands associated with spanking)


Reprimands •  Most common aversive s,muli used in classroom •  Defined as “gestural or verbal rebuke of behavior” (p. 49) •  May include threat of consequence •  Appropriate reprimands give students feedback that

behavior is not acceptable and that punishment con,ngencies are in place

•  Use with cau,on •  Can be effec,ve when –  Not overused (no more than one every 4‐5 minutes) –  If consequence indicated & delivered –  Given in close proximity –  Used with specific statements (not requests or ques,ons)

–  Nonemo,onal

(Jenson & Reavis, 1997)

Level IV: Aversive S,muli

•  Disadvantages –  Teacher overuse and gradually increase intensity –  Nega,ve impact on student/teacher rela,onship –  Nega,ve modeling –  Student may strike back or withdraw

•  Use Effec,vely –  If (you …) then… –  Be quick and direct –  Use with reinforcement of appropriate behavior

(Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Jenson & Reavis, 1997)

Overcorrec,on Procedures to decrease problem behavior that focus on teaching appropriate behavior through mul,ple prac,ces (i.e., exaggerated experience)

Types of Overcorrec,on •  Res,tu,onal

–  Student restores/corrects beyond what he/she did –  Examples

•  Posi,ve‐Prac,ce –  Student engages in exaggerated correct prac,ce of behavior –  Examples

•  Nega,ve Prac,ce –  Student repeats problem behavior –  Not educa,ve!

•  Considera,ons –  Time consuming –  Physical contact & therefore physical aggression


Overcorrec,on •  Considera,ons

–  The overcorrec,on should occur immediately aWer the misbehavior

–  The amount of effort should be what is normally required of the task

–  Should not last long •  Other nega,ve outcomes

–  Can be ,me consuming –  Requires full aden,on from the teacher with the student –  May require physical contact & therefore physical aggression –  If student is praised during overcorrec,on, then student may

con,nue misbehavior to gain reinforcement •  Nega,ve Prac,ce

–  Student repeats problem behavior –  Not educa,ve so do not use


Council for Excep,onal Children with Behavioral Disorders

(CCBD)

The CCBD Chapter of CEC has published a statement on using punishment and other behavior reduc,on procedures:

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICIES FOR STUDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR

hdp://www.cec.sped.org/ScriptContent/Custom/miniSearch/searchResults.cfm?q=punishment

References Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1997). Reprimands and precision requests. In H. K. Reavis et al., (Eds.), Best prac=ces: Behavioral and educa=onal strategies for teachers (pp. 49‐55). Longmont, CA: Sopris West.

Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Nelson, J.R. (1996). Think =me strategy for schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Documents

Decreasing Negave Behaviors in the Classroom · 2019-01-17 · – Idenfy and teach replacement behaviors that meet the same funcon as the problem behaviors • Idenfy and tell students