Behavior Intervention Plan for Academic Setting

Behavior Intervention Plan
Based on the information provided, the target behavior is disruptive
behavior demonstrated by the third grade elementary student. Disruptive
behavior refers to inappropriate behavior (Gordon & Browne, 2004). It is
behavior that interferes and distracts the teaching-learning process in
the classroom. The rights of the other students to have a peaceful
learning environment are interfered with. For instance, if a disruptive
student continually makes noise when the teacher is explaining a concept
the other students might fail to understand the concept well (Steege &
Watson, 2009). This may end up making all the students in the classroom
score poorly in tests. Disruptive behavior affects other students
physically and psychologically (Gordon & Browne, 2004). It is,
therefore, necessary that the school administration detect cases of
disruptive behaviors early enough and explore ways of contain such
behaviors.
When trying to assess the behavior of a disruptive child the antecedent
assessment can be an appropriate model that the school may apply (Steege
& Watson, 2009). Under this model, the disruptive student will be
exposed first exposed to easy academic tasks and later on to difficult
academic tasks whereby he or she receives low amounts of peer or teacher
attention. The students will then be observed how he or she will react
to the task. Alternatively the child can be with a list of difficult
academic tasks to make a choice on which he or she will comfortably
handle and be given breaks in between the time allocated to complete the
academic tasks (Steege & Watson, 2009). For the case where the student
is exposed to an easy, and a difficult the score for the difficult and
the easy tasks are compared at the end of the assessment. If the student
scores high marks in the easy task and low marks in the difficult tasks,
it indicates that the child has the tendency of diverting attention to
other issues when faced with a difficult academic task.
However, if the child scores poorly in both the easy and the difficult
tasks it indicates that the child has developmental problem and requires
special attention. For the case where the student is given a list of
difficult tasks and breaks in between the time allocated for task
completion, an observation will be made on the willingness of the
student to go and complete the task after going for a break. If the
child is unwilling, it indicates that he or she likes diverting
attention to easier tasks when exposed to difficult problems (Steege &
Watson, 2009).
From the description above, the difficult academic tasks form the
discriminative stimuli and the simple academic task and the breaks
between in between the time the student is required to complete the task
form the motivating operation. With the difficult test, the student
feels that it is torturous, and opts to engage in other activities that
are less demanding like moving up and down disturbing other students
(Steege & Watson, 2009). When the same student is given a simple task,
the student feels that things are working and concentrates more in doing
the assigned task and engages less in disruptive behavior.
Use of the antecedent stimuli assessment helps teachers to understand
the actual cause of the disruptive behavior of students. Use of the
discriminative stimuli and the motivating operations bring out the
deeper character of a child when exposed to different stimuli. With the
student being left mostly to his or her own devices, he or she responds
to stimuli in a natural way (Steege & Watson, 2009). For instance, in
the model described above the student with disruptive behavior was
subjected to a task in which the teacher and the peers paid very little
attention to the disruptive student. When the student is left alone
without any punishment or consequences, the student makes deliberate
step think about his or her behavior and when exposed to such a
situation for a considerable duration he or she discovers himself or
herself.
When exposed to asset of discriminative stimuli, the student tends work
on the chosen stimuli keenly because no forced him or her to choose the
stimuli. For instance, in the second case where the student was to be
given a list of difficult academic task, he, or she is likely to work
towards completion of the task because, in his or her mind, it rings
that it was a personal choice and therefore the task has to be completed
even it proves to be very challenging. This helps the assessor to attain
reliable outcomes that can be used to come up with workable solutions to
correct the disruptive behavior of the student (Steege & Watson, 2009).
The use of motivating operations in antecedent stimuli assessment acts
as control and assist in bring out the behavior of the student when
exposed to varying stimuli (Steege & Watson, 2009). In the case where a
student is exposed to a simple task, the assessor gets to know if the
low score in the difficult task is deliberate or unavoidable. The
motivating operations also reinforce the students desire to act on tasks
or situations exposed to him or her. This is displayed when a bright
disruptive student is given a task that he or she can easily handle and
totally concentrates on the task and stop disturbing the other students.
When assessing target behavior use of consequences and conditions play
an important role in ensuring that the outcomes of the assessment are
valid. For the case of a disruptive student positive reinforcement,
negative reinforcement and automatic reinforcement may have led to more
valid results. Giving the student some motivation make a student put
more effort in order to accomplish tasks assigned to him or her.
Consequences for failure to accomplish the assigned will also force the
student to attend the assigned task in order to avoid them.
When conducting an assessment on disruptive behavior one can employ
positive reinforcement by promising the subject that by accomplishing a
certain task within given period, there will be a reward. This will
motivate the student to work harder in order to get the reward. In a
case where a student is given a difficult task, the assessor can promise
the student that if he or she completes the task and score good marks he
or she will be rewarded. This way, the result for will be double sided
because the assessor will be able to gauge the full potential of the
student and the student will be motivated to be working on difficult
tasks and get solution (Bray & Kehle, 2011).
Besides using positive reinforcement, the assessor can use negative
reinforcement by warning the student that failure to complete the task
there will be consequences for it. In such a case, the student will
struggle with the difficult task in order to avoid the consequences that
can together will failure to complete the assignment. The student with
disruptive behavior will be forced to forego distracting the class and
totally concentrate with getting a solution to the academic task
assigned to him or her (Bray & Kehle, 2011).
When assessing the behavior of a student with disruptive behavior the
elements of the SMIRC model (discriminative stimulus, motivating
operations, individual variables, response, and consequence) have to be
put into consideration. A discriminative stimulus should be used to
trigger the learner’s reaction to a difficult academic task that
requires a lot of concentration and thinking (Bray & Kehle, 2011). The
stimulus forms the major problem that the disruptive student tries to
evade by disturbing other students in the school. In the case that was
described on the use of Antecedent stimuli to assess the disruptive
behavior of a student, the easy academic task formed the motivating
factor to the student.
Since the student will be able to complete the easy task without putting
much effort, he or she becomes motivated in concentrating on the class
work. On the same case, the ability of the student to score good marks
both on the easy task and the difficult task depended on the individual
difference from one child to another. The naturally bright students with
disruptive behavior will score high marks on the easy academic task
while less academically gifted disruptive student will score low marks
in both the easy and the difficult academic tasks (Bray & Kehle, 2011).
The response in the case of difficult and the easy task will be the
reaction by the student to the task assigned to him or her. The reaction
will highly be influenced by the motivating operation and discriminative
stimulus the student is subjected to (Bray & Kehle, 2011). For instance
if the difficult task is extremely hard the student will automatically
turn to his or her disruptive behavior.
When a student with disruptive behavior is being subjected to a
functional assessment the assessor should respect the rights of the
student being assessed. The assessor should make the student feel that
he is not being discriminated from the rest of the class. The student
should be given the freedom to express his ideas on the assessment
process. When applying the negative reinforcement, the consequences
should be moderate to avoid the student from going through distress when
working on the difficult task assigned to him or her (Bray & Kehle,
2011). In fact, it is better to let the student experience automatic
reinforcement that will make him or her realize the need for
concentrating on school work without any other person’s intervention.
The assessor should also practice responsibility and fidelity when
subjecting the student to the assessment. If the assessor is a teacher,
he should follow teaching work ethics and take responsibility of
anything that may happen during the assessment. The assessor should not
expose the student to the tasks that are beyond his or her ability
because this may end up affecting the child psychologically and
emotionally. The assessor should not take advantage of the assessment
process to sexually, emotionally, or psychologically harass the student
instead he or she should offer the appropriate support to the student
and guide him or her where necessary.
References
Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2011). The Oxford handbook of school
psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, A. M., & Browne, K. W. (2004). Beginnings and beyond:
Foundations in early childhood education. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Steege, M. W. & Watson, T. S. (2009).Conducting school-based functional
behavioral 
assessments: A practitioner`s guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 2
BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1