|
| Functional Analyses in Public School Settings |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 1:30 PM–2:50 PM |
| Gardner |
| Area: EDC/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Michael M. Mueller (Mississippi State University) |
| Discussant: T. Steuart Watson (Mississippi State University) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Review of historical and current issues in functional analysis in school settings.
Learn new functional analysis conditions and when their implementation would be useful in classroom settings.
Learn the use and issues around using concurrent operants analyses in classroom settings. |
| |
| Current Issues Regarding the Use of Functional Analyses in Classroom Settings: Overcoming the Barriers |
| MICHAEL M. MUELLER (May South), James W. Moore (May South) |
| Abstract: Several limitations such as lack of teacher training, time to conduct the analyses, lack of ecological validity, etc. have been used by some regarding the use of experimental analyses in classroom settings. Data will be provided that refute the above claims and demonstrate that classroom-based functional analyses are both appropriate and very managable for classroom personnel to implement with consultant assistance. Further, the results of several analyses will be presented and discussed. |
| |
| Using Innovative Functional Analysis Conditions in School Settings: Variations on Traditional Analyses |
| MICHAEL M. MUELLER (May South), James W. Moore (May South) |
| Abstract: In some contexts within school settings, using functional analysis methodologies that are based on, but are slightly different than, those described in Iwata et al. (1982) are appropriate, including times when functional analysis is conducted with different (more typical) populations, in different demand contexts, on less severe behavior, or to investigate times in which multiple reinforcers may be occurring together. Data sets investigating escape and attention in demand contexts will be presented. Two different examples will include investigating "escape-to-attention” conditions in classrooms. Because teacher attention is often delivered at the same time that a child is escaping academic tasks, functional analyses were conducted to determine which variable (escape or attention or both) was responsible for reinforcing the behavior. This study presents two classroom-based functional analyses in which escape-to-attention conditions were used. Another case example will include analysis results in which preference of tangible items was manipulated to investigate whether preference of restricted items led to differential rates of property destruction. All data from each analysis were collected in actual case consultation and used for clinical decision making in the schools. |
| |
| The Use of Concurrent Operant Analysis in the Classroom Setting |
| JAMES W. MOORE (May South), Michael M. Mueller (May South) |
| Abstract: Recent research has demonstrated the impact of response co-variation in classroom settings. Past studies have noted that as certain behaviors increase, a corresponding decrease in other behaviors are observed. Traditional methods of functional analysis, in which single behavioral contingencies are manipulated systematically, may not fully capture co-variation. In the current paper, a variation of functional analysis using a concurrent operant arrangement is offered as a means to study co-variation within classroom settings. Teachers within general education classrooms implemented concurrent operant analyses to determine the influence of multiple variables (i.e., teacher attention, task demands) on the problem behavior of 4 school-aged boys within classroom demand situations. Results suggested that teacher attention functioned as a reinforcer or a punisher for behavior that competed with problem behavior. Two students displayed higher rates of problem behavior and lower rates of engagement when their teachers provided praise for engagement. These students conversely demonstrated lower levels of problem behavior and higher engagement when the teacher attended to disengagement, regardless of the type of teacher attention involved. Two students displayed the highest levels of problem behavior and the lowest levels of engagement when disengagement produced teacher reprimands. Unlike the first two students, they also displayed higher levels of engagement and lower levels of problem behavior when engagement produced teacher praise. |
|
| |