Disruptive Behaviors of Students

Hypothetical Case Study
Subjects
Two students, Jack and Bob, determined as aggressive by their educators and chosen using purposive sampling, made up the participants of the study. The two are, at present, enrolled in a behavioral support classroom setting. Neither has knowingly taken part in any research or been involved with self-monitoring or tactile prompt interventions. Both were enrolled in the very same class, require behavioral support, and suffer from various disabilities.
Setting
The setting of the research was a self-contained classroom, with the two students referred for serious behavioral issues. Both took part in a behavioral support unit-developed token-economy points system. For system maintenance, a fresh point sheet was utilized every day. Individual sheets illustrated frequency measure tables, for how many times each child displayed aggressive conduct. Sessions (of a ten-minute duration for each subject) were conducted in the course of routine scholastic instruction/teaching on regular school days, occurring thrice daily at the most. Information was collected either manually (i.e., on paper) or digitally (i.e., on a laptop). Information gatherers observed subjects as discreetly as they could. For decreasing reactivity, observers observed lessons for several weeks before gathering information for research. All subject response opportunities were recorded on the information acquisition form, in addition to whether or not participant response was right. Right responses implied those where the opportunity of dependent variable performance was followed by relevant behavior on the part of the staff (Petscher & Bailey, 2006).
On the other hand, a wrong response entailed opportunities not being followed by staff conduct, or if the staff’s conduct was improper, or if target responses were performed without any opportunity arising. The share of right behaviors was computed (number of right reactions/ (right reactions negative reactions) * 100%) at every session’s ending. The sole exception here involved bonus-point related information acquisition, recorded in the form of frequency data. In the intervention stages, independent variable occurrence, in addition to whether their absence or presence was deemed by the observer as right or wrong, was noted as well.
Baseline
Information was gathered in regular classroom settings. Subjects knew researchers were observing them but were unfamiliar with the study’s variables of interest. Subjects were observed as inconspicuously as could be, with a datasheet and clipboard utilized for recording subject opportunities to engage in target behaviors.
Appropriate dependent variable to be targeted from the graph with an operational definition
Dependent variables for the research were determined based on example, classroom observations, from specific educator requests. Pilot observations indicated every instructional assistant did, at times, display conducts of interest; however, their uniformity and regularity had to be dealt with. Staff conduct was all associated with a token-economy points system adoption.
Disruptive behavior management. A chance at addressing disruptive conduct on a student’s part was identified if the student physically or verbally disturbed others within the classroom. An appropriate reaction to the opportunity involved the subject telling the disruptive student in question to remove the relevant point from his/her record. Record is considered to be areas where points were accorded included sticking to directions, using polite gestures and language, abiding by classroom order, etc. Information was gathered and charted as a percentage of appropriate respondent conduct.
Encouraging Appropriate Conduct: Opportunities for urging students to engage in the right conduct in the class were identified if the student didn’t perform the required task for five seconds at a minimum. Teaching assistants were required to use this opportunity for redirecting the child to conduct him/herself appropriately. A right reaction implied the participant was taking a minute to instruct the child on precisely what conduct is required from him/her. This information was presented in the form of a percentage of the right participant conduct.
Appropriate independent variable to be used from the graph
Training. Low rates being determined upon visual baseline information analysis required a training session to be organized for discussing participant expectations. The study’s first author introduced study objectives, processes, expected outcomes, and dependent variables in a meeting with participants at a tiny office attached to the study setting. Tasks were made clear, and situations explained using modeling. Post-tests were administered to participants where they were required to pinpoint proper reactions and antecedents in writing. The half-hour sessions were terminated after each participant gave the right answers to every post-test question. Following training, information was gathered in a way similar to the baseline technique. This step was repeated until responses were found to be fairly consistent for every dependent variable and participant.
Self-monitoring, Encouragement, and Accurate Behavioral Reaction: Just after the final training session, the study’s first author had a brief meeting with the participants where self- monitoring form and pager use was explained. Participants were provided with the pager, which was to be placed in their pockets or clipped to their pants. Subsequently, the pager was activated with remote control.
Sessions were commenced with participants being reminded of reactions noted by observers and those prompted. The vibrating pager’s remote control was held by the second observer and experimenter. When an opportunity to respond arose (disruption management, delivering bonus points, or prompting the right behavior), observers gave participants 3-5 seconds for identifying this opportunity and reacting correctly. In the case of disruption management, opportunities arose when students disrupted others in the class. In case of delivery of bonus points, the opportunity involved 60 seconds going without any bonus points being awarded (this allowed participants a minute for locating the child performing any positive scholastic or social behavior before session culmination). In case of prompting proper student conduct, an opportunity arose when a child was clearly off task, though not disturbing other individuals in the classroom, through actions like closing their eyes on resting their head on the table. A participant who failed to react when given the opportunity was alerted via the remote control.
Implementation of the independent variable
Following intervention implementation for dealing with disruptions, and reaching a 100% level in three continuous sessions, the bonus point delivery intervention was introduced. Here, participants’ self-monitoring form, filled in upon session completion, also included the delivery of bonus points. Following fulfilling the target of one bonus-point delivery instance for a total of 3 sessions, the ‘prompting proper conduct’ intervention was initiated, with tactile prompt depending on chances of prompting student conduct. Thus, the final self-monitoring form included behavior as well. The participant self-monitoring form encompassing all behaviors has been depicted in figure 1.
Immediately upon session completion, participants were provided with a form, to be typically handed in within five minutes, though the maximum time of completion allowed was 30 minutes. This delay sometimes transpired when participants had to leave for escorting students or helping other staff members after session completion. In such instances, the form was to be filled, and feedback delivered the moment the participant came back to the classroom (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 2020).
In the form, participants had to check the appropriate boxes that corresponded to the percentage of chances where the right response was given. In the case of behavioral prompts, the participant had to recall personal responses to the prompt. Behaviors not prompted any longer implied the participant noted the share of times the need for responding was felt and the proper response given. Self-monitoring form accuracy was gauged and computed through noting right or negative reactions when compared with experimenter observations, followed by noting actual percentages behind the form, which was then handed back to participants for their perusal. Discrepancies were discreetly explained by the experimenter when displaying participant percentages. Feedback often entailed experimenters indicating the actual right percentage while stating, for instance, that this percentage would be marked for disruptive behavior management, as one chance was missed when the student slammed a book onto his desk.’
Design used
This research employed a study design of: multiple moving-treatment baselines across behaviors (Bailey & Burch, 2018; Barlow, Nock & Hersen, 2009). The baseline was succeeded by a training session, with the target behavior subsequently gauged until it was found to be fairly consistent in the case of every participant. Further, self-monitoring, prompting, and accuracy-related feedback was applied to disruption management – the study’s foremost dependent variable. After achieving consistent responses in the case of each participant, the intervention’s prompting element was eliminated from the foremost behavior. The whole treatment package of self- monitoring, accuracy feedback, and prompting was subsequently utilized in case of delivering bonus points – the second dependent variable. When, upon visual examination, delivery of bonus points was found to stand above or at the desired target steadily, the prompting element was eliminated from the delivery of bonus points and utilized in case of the last reaction, namely, prompting proper conduct. Hence, the prompting element moved from one behavior to the next, though accuracy feedback and self-monitoring persisted all through the course of the research.
Results
Jack: At the baseline stage, Jack did not portray any instance of disruptive aggressive conduct management, prompting the right student conduct following completion of the fourth session. The first training session was associated with scant improvements in required non-aggressive conduct delivery, with highly inconsistent improvements when it came to proper student conduct encouragement and aggressiveness management. In case of sequential introduction of prompting, accuracy feedback, and self-monitoring combined, individual reactions depicted explicit rises maintained upon discontinuation of tactile prompts with self- monitoring alone remaining in effect. At the maintenance stage, Jack’s conduct of appropriate target behaviors proved to be fairly more inconstant, though responding continued to be higher as compared to baseline levels in case of each of the three reactions. Every target conduct of Jack’s continued to be high following the removal of the prompting element. But upon extending the session duration to one hour in the maintenance stage, a decline in behaviors was observed. Prompting proper conduct increased following this initial decline, though only a total of three information collection sessions were conducted.
Bob: At the baseline stage, Bob did not display any occurrences of aggressive student conduct management, though displayed elevated prompted incorrect aggressive student conduct. After the first nine training sessions, he still did not improve in the area of delivering required non- aggressive conduct. Just as in Jack’s case, introducing tactile prompts and self- monitoring combined gave rise to swift, definite improvement in non-aggressive conduct manifestation from session ten onwards. Upon removal of tactile prompts, a 100% response was maintained in case of disruptive aggressive conduct management and prompting proper student conduct. However, the response proved to be more inconsistent upon extension of session duration at the maintenance stage.
Conclusions
Outcomes indicate that tactile prompts notified participants to pay attention and respond appropriately to student behavior. Proper target response delivery on participants’ part (for instance, disruptive conduct management after its occurrence) indicates their response was influenced by the collective stimulus of student conduct and tactile prompt. Maintenance of high target conduct levels following removal of tactile prompt indicates participants are now able to respond appropriately only to student conduct, potentially facilitated, over time, by self- monitoring.
Internal validity of the study
Independent variable impacts are replicated for several diverse participants. When every single-case study design logic element is demonstrated, participant-wide MB design controls for two or more primary internal validity threats such as (a) historical events (for instance, a staff or curricular modification within the class) which may concurrently impact several subjects and (b) maturation/exposure of participant to experimental/clinical setting and procedure (Carr, 2005).
The external validity of the study
Inter-Subject replication constitutes a key process in the establishment of an external study finding generality. Furthermore, the subject design-wide multiple baselines contribute to external study validity through several inter-subject replications.
Social validity of the study
Participants were required to complete anonymous questionnaires on their views regarding independent variables, their perceived improvements in their behavior, and whether or not they believed target behaviors proved helpful. They used a 5-point Likert scale to answer individual questions. According to one participant, the research and associated procedures were helpful, while according to the other, it was very helpful. The latter further noted that taking part in this research work helped save his relationship with his mother. Both participants marked every target conduct (disruption management, delivering bonus points, and prompting proper student behavior) as either important or exceedingly important.
References
Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2018). Research methods in applied behavior analysis, 2nd edition. Routledge.
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior for change (No. Sirsi) i9780205474554).
Carr, J. E. (2005). Recommendations for reporting multiple?baseline designs across participants. Behavioral Interventions: Theory & Practice in Residential & Community?Based Clinical Programs, 20(3), 219-224.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward W.L. (2020). Applied Behaviour Analysis (Third Edition). Pearson Education, Inc.
Petscher, E. S., & Bailey, J. S. (2006). Effects of training, prompting, and self?monitoring on staff behavior in a classroom for students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(2), 215-226.