Functional Behavioral Assessment C Hamilton

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 62 | Comments: 0 | Views: 449
of 8
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Functional Behavior Analysis Report
EEX 6625 November 6, 2011

Bernadette Harris University of North Florida College of Education & Human Services Graduate School

Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that C’s cognitive behavior is unintentional. I believe the environmental antecedent to by physiological; that is to say that I believe C has a processing disorder that affects his comprehension of material presented to him. My hypothesis about his aggressive behavior toward his peers is diversion. I believe that the antecedent is that C is frustrated by his processing problems and his inability to answer comprehension questions. I believe that as a manifestation of this frustration, and in an effort to divert attention away from his processing problem, he is acting out to shift the focus of his peers and teacher. I believe that the maintaining reinforcer of the cognitive behavior is a lack of interest and motivation on C’s part, and the maintaining reinforcer of the aggressive behavior is that it successfully relieves him of having to continue his reading instruction. Proposed Interventions According to Literature Study: According to Mattison (2008), students with reading disabilities often also have emotional disabilities, which attests to things like outwardly aggressive behaviors. Sadly, according to Mattison (2008), many times academic testing is performed in an isolated fashion and the ED is overlooked. Therefore, the recommended first intervention is a comprehensive cognitive and academic battery of testing in order to identify any and all issues, rather than isolating one and neglecting to identify another. According to Wallach (2011), an important intervention to use with students with suspected or confirmed auditory processing deficits is explicit reading instruction. The student should be taught self-monitoring strategies such as decoding, using context clues to pronounce unfamiliar words, and explicit vocabulary and word instruction. This includes breaking down words and sounds, and reteaching letter and word sounds, digraphs and blends. According to Boudreau and Costanza-Smith (2011) another aspect to be considered with comprehensive processing deficits is the student’s working memory and the demands that the child’s current curricular instruction is placing on those demands. The language being used to give instruction / question, the rate the instruction is being delivered at, as well as the cognitive demand of

the amount of information to be processed. Using simpler language, and “chunking” the instructions and tasks into smaller, more manageable may be necessary in working with students with processing disorders and reading disabilities. In this study, Boudreau and Costanza-Smith also cite that grade level text and complex narratives (such as those in a fifth grade basal reader), may place too high of a cognitive demand on these students. Therefore, curriculum resources may need to be adjusted and the text these students required to read and respond to may need to be changed to one that places less cognitive demands. According to a study conducted by Powers & Mandal (2011), guided oral reading is a very intricate part of Response to Intervention for students who demonstrate low reading comprehension. Small group and one-on-one guided reading instruction on a daily basis improves fluency and comprehension. According to Powers & Mandal, consistent and frequent practice of grade level reading material is the most effective intervention for these students. Their extensive study measured explicit components of student reading ability, including comprehension, word attack and vocabulary recognition. This intervention suggestion is again supported by Spencer & Manis (2010) , who conducted a study of middle school students with severe reading disabilities. They used a control group of students who received one-on-one reading instruction from teachers and paraprofessionals daily. They were given DRA testing, timed fluency reading tests. Based on the results of those, the students’ instructional reading level was identified and they were given the same text to reread over and over until they improved their fluency. In the study, Spencer & Manis noted that with increased fluency, the students demonstrated increased comprehension. Their experimental group worked with Great Leaps, a reading intervention online program focused on improving fluency.

Functional Behavioral Assessment: Part 1 (Description)
Date: Nov. 1, 2011 Page 1 of 3 Student Name: C . Hamilton DOB: 12/15/1999 Case Manager: B. Harris Data Sources:  Observation |  Student Interview | Teacher Interview |   Parent Interview | Rating Scales | Normative Testing    Description of Behavior : low processing, inability to stay focused and demonstrate comprehension of material; not completing assignments, unable to answer questions either orally or in written format, even with open book to help, in reading Setting(s) in which behavior occurs: Classroom and ESE room
Frequency: Daily

Intensity: requires

daily one-on-one instruction and prompting in reading, student becomes frustrated when he cannot answer questions and has begun acting out aggressively toward his peers
Duration:

90 minute reading block and beyond

Describe Previous Interventions: small

group instruction, frequent prompting and redirecting by teacher, assigned peer buddy, paired reading activities with peer buddy, sent to ESE teacher to complete reading assessments
Educational impact: student

is currently failing reading and language arts and teacher has been unable, with help of parent, to identify a motivator to improve interest/focus. Student appears, in the opinion of the ESE teacher, to have a severe processing problem.

Functional Behavioral Assessment: Part 2
Name: ____C. Hamilton__ (Function) Date: ______________ Page ____ of ____

Function of Behavior : Specify hypothesized function for each area checked below.  Affective Regulation/Emotional Reactivity: C does not seem interested in demonstrating understanding and most times will not even answer simple yes/no questions when asked; he also seems to have either a complete lack of interest or doesn’t believe he can answer. Cognitive: C demonstrates no understanding of content in reading materials; misidentifies story theme, main idea, author’s purpose, causes and effects, etc. Reinforcement:Despite interviewing both C and his father, I have yet to identify an effective reinforcer to improve his effort or ability to demonstrate comprehension Antecedents: regular class routines, such as morning warm-up, readers’ workshop format, whether in small groups, pairs, or guided reading with teacher Consequences: C has had to miss attending resource class, has a failing grade in reading and language arts, and his outward aggressive behaviors are increasing. Modeling: The behaviors being displayed are not being modeled for C by any  of his peers. Even the ESE students who frequently work in the same small guided group do not display these. As for the aggressive behaviors, these are also not being modeled in school, as this class is made up of students who do not demonstrate these types of behaviors. C transferred from an inner city school where he attended for four years. It is very likely that these behaviors, especially the aggression issue, may have been modeled by his peers at that school. The school is in a very low socioeconomic area with primarily African American students. Family Issues: Up until this school year, C lived in his mother’s primary custody  and had very poor school attendance. His CUM folder does not indicate any RTI programs or behavioral modification plans in place, nor did C have an IEP or 504 Plan in his file. He did, however, repeat a grade. His father attained custody of him shortly before the beginning of the current school year, and seems to have been unaware of his academic difficulties. Although the father seems to be well educated and a very capable parent, even after two interviews with the father, C is still not completing homework assignments regularly. Physiological/Constitutional : C demonstrates an almost excessive need for  physical contact. He cannot walk past any of his teachers or adult figures that he works with on a regular basis without insisting on hugging them. He is very tall and a bit “awkward” in stature for his age, but he doesn’t seem to feel selfconscious about this around his peers.

Communicate need: C seems to be saying “I just don’t understand any of this  and I’m not really interested in trying to.” He is very “slow moving” in his general body movement as well as his cognitive awareness. Curriculum/Instruction: In an effort to improve C’s cognitive behaviors during  one-on-one and small group work, he has been assigned peer work buddies, and allowed to work in a variety of heterogeneous groups. In these settings, he also does not contribute to the task or take part in group assignments. His partner or peers end up having to complete the assigned task entirely without his input. One example is a group writing project that the students worked on for several weeks. C was to contribute at least a few paragraphs to the story, but his peers could not get him to participate and provide any ideas. Finally, he was assigned a peer buddy who gave him a great deal of prompting and supplied a fair amount of the text for him, allowing him to just minimally contribute to his own writing piece. His peers were producing 4-10 pages of writing. C’s finished piece was one side of one page. In math, he demonstrates only a slightly better ability to do computations and solve problems independently, although when asked to explain his reasoning or how he arrived at an answer, he does not respond.

Behavioral Intervention Plan
Date: Nov. 1, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Student Name: C. Hamilton DOB: 12/ 15/ 1999 Case Manager: B. Harris Behavior: inability to process/demonstrate comprehension of content learned in reading and language arts; outward aggression toward peers (see pg. 1, 2) Expected Outcome(s): With Tier 2 RTI interventions, C will be able to demonstrate some comprehension of grade level reading material and produce writing pieces with modified length and content requirements Goal(s): 1) to demonstrate comprehension of text and identify main idea, author’s purpose, cause and effect relationships and identify context clues to enable C to make accurate predictions and inferences and summarize texts with 70% accuracy. 2) to answer comprehension questions about text read with 70% accuracy, with prompting from teacher 3) to be able to complete a written reading selection assessment with coaching/ oral questioning and help from teacher with 70% accuracy 4) to be able to compose a one to two-page persuasive, descriptive and expository essay, with prompting and coaching from teacher in a one-on-one setting with 70% accuracy Intervention(s): RTI Tier 2 & Tier 3: 1) student will work DAILY with teacher one-on-one and in small guided groups for 100% of reading with teacher assistance 2) student will take written assessments in ESE room with one-on-one guidance from ESE teacher 3) student will work DAILY one-on-one and in small guided groups for 100% of writing and language arts instruction, with teacher assistance 4) student will be referred to child study team for educational and psychological testing and possible 504 Plan 5) student will meet with guidance counselor weekly to discuss aggression issues with peers 6) Comprehensive Cognitive & Ability Testing administered 7) word work with ESE teacher weekly to expand/develop vocabulary 8) reading materials will be adjusted to assess cognitive ability and alternate texts that place less cognitive demand on working memory may be used Frequency of Intervention: see above Person Responsible: classroom teacher, ESE teacher and guidance counselor =

Review Notes * Review Codes: GA = Goal Achieved | C = Continue | DC = Discontinue Expected Review Dates: __________ | __________ | __________ Signatures: _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ References: Boudreau, D. & Costanza-Smith, A. (2011). Assessment and treatment of working memory deficits in school-age children: the role of the speechlanguage pathologist. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 152-166. Mattison, R.E. (2008). Characteristics of reading disability types in middle school students classified ED. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 34(1), 27-41. Powers, K. & Mandal, A. (2011). Tier III assessments, data-based decision making and interventions. Contemporary School Psychology, 15. Spencer, S.A. & Manis, F.R. (2010). The effects of a fluency intervention program and comprehension outcomes on middle school students with severe reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 76–86. Wallach, G.P. (2011). Peeling the onion of auditory processing disorder: a language/curricular-based perspective. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42(3).

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close