Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Behavior article 2 - TH


Main Body
Dealing with difficult behaviors in the classroom can leave teacher feeling defeated and out of ideas at times. Authors Rappaport and Minahan working together offer some ideas and strategies to help deal with the different kinds of behavior students that are typically found in the classroom. The approach centers around the idea of what they call a FAIR plan. FAIR stands for “F is for understanding the function of the behavior, A is for accommodations, I is for interaction strategies, and R is for responses.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). The authors feel that teachers who adopt this plan “can discover that inappropriate behavior is malleable and temporary—and that they can help their students thrive.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). In addition, the use of the FAIR strategy has improved behavior of students who were on the verge of being sent out of the district or to isolated classrooms.
Function behavior, the first part of the FAIR acronym, deals with understanding the intent of the behavior. “Behavior analyst Mark Durand outlines four possible functions of behavior: to escape, to obtain a tangible thing, to engage in sensory activities, and to get attention.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). The authors also note that the behavioral student may not even be aware of the function. Understanding the function is essential to changing the student behavior.
Escape-motivated behavior occurs when a student attempts to avoid a task, demand, situation, or person.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). The author includes examples of this type of behavior such as running out of the classroom or arguing to get out of an activity. Sending the student to the office in this case can often reinforce the behavior as well.
            Sensory behavior is when the student is motivated by sensory input. “Things feel good, look good, taste good, or sound good. Humming loudly while writing, chewing on the end of a pencil, or standing rather than sitting while working are all typical behaviors that fall into this category.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). These behaviors tend to disrupt other students and interfere with learning.
Attention-motivated behavior involves the student seeking attention from an adult or peer. Examples include “the student being belligerent, screaming, or continually interrupting the teacher.” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). The authors note that this can be a positive behavior in an example of a student practicing their reading for teacher praise.
The authors note that negative attention can be better for some students than no attention at all. In addition, the students may know that the negative attention will be quick and predictable unlike positive attention. Some students have learned from home experiences or outside of the home experiences that by acting in an inappropriate manner they can also engage adults.
When behavior incidents do occur, the teacher will document it using an ABC note format. The ABC stands for: “A is for antecedent (what happens immediately before an incident); B is the description of the student's behavior; and C is for consequence (the staff member's or a peer's immediate response to the student's behavior).” (2012 Minahan & Rappaport). This documenting allows for the behaviors to be tracked and also can be analyzed to determine patterns or triggers for student behaviors. In addition, it contributes to a solution to the student behaviors.
When student behaviors are known, the accommodations piece looks to teachers to design or create an accommodation for the student. Interaction strategies deal with the communication between the teacher and the student. Reinforcement of positive behavior and a emphasis on negative tones and messages is key. Response is the final step and it focuses on the teacher response to the student behaviors. The authors note that how a teacher responds has a direct impact on whether the student behavior escalates. The teacher should remain calm and not reinforce the behavior function. Instead of arguing with a student it may be best to redirect them and then to walk away from the student.
The authors conclude that while teachers may feel they cannot control behaviors, using the FAIR strategy they will better understand the student motivations and that the behaviors will diminish as a result.
Conclusion
            I believe the authors present some very valid observations and I also believe that the FAIR strategy is sound in principal. In my classroom I believe I will use many of these strategies to deal with behavioral students. I think it is very key to understand the type of behavior the student is seeking. As the authors state once the motivation is known the instructor can determine the best way to redirect the student.
            I would like to see more overall data on the effectiveness of FAIR. The lack of support data in this article hurts the overall effectiveness of the strategy. I do commend the authors for presenting a number of different strategies to use based on the attention motivations of the student.
           

References

Minahan, J. & Rapparport, N. (2012) Cracking the Behavior Code. Education Leadership, 70(2). Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct12/vol70/num02/Cracking-the-Behavior-Code.aspx

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Behavior article 1



EDU 462
Tuesday 5:15 pm – 10:45 pm

Behavior article 1
T.H.

Main Body
            Jensen presents the case of how poverty is impacting student behaviors in the classroom. He states: In one study of 81,000 students across the United States, the students not in Title I programs consistently reported higher levels of engagement than students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). (Jensen 2013). He believes that this is fit evidence to suggest that students are impacted greatly by economic status. Jensen has identified seven key areas that impact student learners.
            Health and Nutrition is the first category mentioned. Jensen argues, “poor people are less likely to exercise, get proper diagnoses, receive appropriate and prompt medical attention, or be prescribed appropriate medications or interventions.” (Jensen 2013).
            Vocabulary, the next category, is often lower for socioeconomic students than middle class children. The reasoning is that typically these students are exposed to fewer words than middle class children.
            Teacher often view effort as lower in poor children and that lazy habits are learned from parents. This is often not the case as parents of lower economic children work just as many hours if not more than middle class ones. Researchers believe that the lower effort is more likely due to stress or depression.
            Hope and Growth Mind-Set is the 4th category. Students from lower social economic status often view the future and events in a negative manner. “being poor is associated with lowered expectations about future outcomes.” (Jepsen 2013).
            Cognition is the next category. Jepsen states how poor children often have cognitive problems, short attention span, distracted qualities and problems generating new solutions to problems.
            Difference 6 is relationships. Jepsen believes “When children's early experiences are chaotic and one or both of the parents are absent, the developing brain often becomes insecure and stressed. Three-quarters of all children from poverty have a single-parent caregiver.” (Jepsen 2013).  Poor children are also more likely to be reprimanded due to parent stress. They also have higher school failure and dropout rates.
            Distress is the final difference mentioned. Distress is a chronic stress, which tends to lead to extremes in behaviors. “Distressed children typically exhibit one of two behaviors: angry "in your face" assertiveness or disconnected "leave me alone" passivity. To the uninformed, the student may appear to be either out of control, showing an attitude, or lazy. But those behaviors are actually symptoms of stress disorders—and distress influences many behaviors that influence engagement.” (Jepsen 2013).
            Jepson provides sections for each of the differences to encourage educators to help and assist poor students in learning.
            I believe the author presents each of the differences in a very clean and concise manner. I also believe that low socio-economic students need a different type of instruction and that teachers need to understand the environment that they are from. I believe Jepsen offers great advice such as teaching students how to critically think and offer strategies such as solving real world problems using “if this, then that” strategies.
            In terms of cognition I agree with Jepsen that helping students focus on basic strategies is very important. When students are organized and have the strategies that they need they are in a much better place to be able to solve problems and learn.
            One final thought is that teachers need to be encouragers of students of all background types. Poor students are even more important as they may not get support at home.
           

References

Jensen, E. (2013) How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. Education Leadership, 70(8). Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may13/vol70/num08/How-Poverty-Affects-Classroom-Engagement.aspx