Module 3_Muro

Chapter 7 contains a variety of useful resources.  One that stood out to me was the section under OPERANT CONDITIONING: TRYING NEW RESPONSES.  This section talked about environmental influences.  More specifically, the steps involved in behavior, which is known as antecedent–behavior–consequence, or A–B–C (Kazdin, 2008) (p. 267).  I have quite a bit of experience with this concept.  Many paraprofessionals may be required from time to time to collect data on their students.  This is the type of data I needed to collect for the last student that I was assigned to.  Many of my co-workers would always say the same thing to me when they would see me around the school with my student and he was exhibiting his problematic or violent behaviors.  They would always ask me if I thought this was the right environment for him.  Each time I would answer the same; I was not qualified to make that decision.

I was one-on-one, or a dedicated aide to this student, so I was with him throughout his entire school day.  The only exception was his lunch period.  I had my lunch when he did.  I was provided with an A–B–C checklist to record data.  Every day I had to briefly describe my students’ actions under the appropriate fields.  These fields were categorized under three sections.  The first section was antecedents.  This would be what occurred prior to the type of behavior my student had exhibited.  The second was behavior.  For this section, there was a list of predetermined options for me to choose from. 

These options included: spitting, kicking, bolting, punching, and scratching, to name a few.  The last column was for consequences, for which there was also a list of options to choose from.  In addition to each column, there was also several time options.  The times ranged anywhere from one minute to over three hours.  This was to communicate the length of time my student exhibited a certain behavior.  This student would exhibit behaviors ranging from slightly defiant to very disruptive and extremely violent.  There have been instances where a simple redirection of tasks would lead to my student exhibiting problematic behaviors.  “As behavior is ongoing, a given consequence becomes an antecedent for the next A–B–C sequence” (p. 267).  There were times when he would become agitated when anyone would redirect his attention.  He started becoming more and more defensive with redirection of menial tasks, such as pushing in his chair or raising his hand before speaking. 

Another interesting section that really resonated with me, was EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION DELIVERY (p. 271).  I think I was able to relate most to this part of the text.  In the past, my authority has been undermined by co-workers in the past more times than I can count.  Almost every time this occurred was when a student that I was assigned to was given instruction from me, and then conflicting instructions from a teacher.  When this happens, it only confuses that student even further.  These types of situations send a clear message to that or any student, that he or she can choose the more desirable option that they are being presented with.  In this dynamic, one person is constantly playing the “bad cop” to someone else’s “good cop.”  Another problem I have encountered multiple times in the workplace is when teachers who do not set concrete expectations for their classroom will constantly ask students what they would like to do, instead of telling them what they will be doing.  “One important antecedent to increase positive student responses is the type of instructions you give.  Research on effective instruction delivery (EID) has found instructions that are concise, clear, and specific, and that communicate an expected result are more effective than vague directions. Statements work better than questions” (p. 271). 

Last, I really enjoyed the section that discussed using TOKEN REINFORCEMENT SYSTEMS for students for more challenging students.  “Token reinforcement systems are complicated and time-consuming. Generally, they should be used in only three situations: (1) to motivate students who are completely uninterested in their work and have not responded to other approaches; (2) to encourage students who have consistently failed to make academic progress; and (3) to deal with a class that is out of control. Some groups of students seem to benefit from token economies more than others. Students with intellectual disabilities, children who have failed often, students with few academic skills, and students with behavior problems all seem to respond to the concrete, direct nature of token reinforcement” (p. 277-278).  I am very familiar with using token reinforcement systems with students that I have been assigned to and otherwise.  I agree with the information in the textbook.  These kinds of token reinforcement strategies should really be used on students who do not respond to the typical types of reinforcement that most students get.  I have also seen the negative side of these systems, in which students can become immune to so much reinforcement that it almost has no effect on them.  It is almost as if they are not looking forward to these systems because they already know that their chances of receiving tokens from certain teachers are pretty good.  They can also result in triggering a special needs student who is prone to angry or even aggressive outbursts when they do not receive token reinforcements.