Why Methodology Is Important in Achieving Behavioral Goals
Why Methodology Is Important in Achieving Behavioral Goals by Adrian Pasos
There’s hope in managing the behavior of children with autism. Methodology shows a blueprint of how behavior management principles support the effectiveness of well-planned intervention procedures. Specialist teachers play a critical role in developing and implementing such plan. A well-developed plan is as important as a well-implemented plan. For this reason, methodology works. Success is technically and virtually impossible without methodology.
The way children with autism learn opens up opportunities for a special needs educator to use a number of strategies with a common purpose. But it’s not that easy – at least not as easy as following a procedure “by the book.” A child with autism has other needs that either get in the way of learning or, on the other hand, serve as powerful tools for learning. Experience in teaching children with autism would eventually send the message that the child’s “special needs” may be used to his own advantage. Most of these other “needs” usually refer to the child’s behavior issues, which fall under either behavior deficits or behavior excesses.
Understanding Behavior Management Principles
Knowledge of behavior management principles leads to the formulation of logical methodology. Understanding how the application of these principles work, the teacher can be sure that behavioral objectives can be planned and, therefore, achieved with satisfactory evidences.
Behavioral procedures have proven to be the most effective for achieving planned response-pattern changes in autistic students. Thus, operant conditioning and other behavioral procedures have been successfully employed in a variety of settings to:
1. Decrease aggressive behavior (Brown, Pace & Becker, 1969; Knoll & Simpson, 1979) 2. Increase social interactions (Koegel, Firestone, Kramme & Dunlap, 1974;
There’s hope in managing the behavior of children with autism. Methodology shows a blueprint of how behavior management principles support the effectiveness of well-planned intervention procedures. Specialist teachers play a critical role in developing and implementing such plan. A well-developed plan is as important as a well-implemented plan. For this reason, methodology works. Success is technically and virtually impossible without methodology.
The way children with autism learn opens up opportunities for a special needs educator to use a number of strategies with a common purpose. But it’s not that easy – at least not as easy as following a procedure “by the book.” A child with autism has other needs that either get in the way of learning or, on the other hand, serve as powerful tools for learning. Experience in teaching children with autism would eventually send the message that the child’s “special needs” may be used to his own advantage. Most of these other “needs” usually refer to the child’s behavior issues, which fall under either behavior deficits or behavior excesses.
Understanding Behavior Management Principles
Knowledge of behavior management principles leads to the formulation of logical methodology. Understanding how the application of these principles work, the teacher can be sure that behavioral objectives can be planned and, therefore, achieved with satisfactory evidences.
Behavioral procedures have proven to be the most effective for achieving planned response-pattern changes in autistic students. Thus, operant conditioning and other behavioral procedures have been successfully employed in a variety of settings to:
1. Decrease aggressive behavior (Brown, Pace & Becker, 1969; Knoll & Simpson, 1979) 2. Increase social interactions (Koegel, Firestone, Kramme & Dunlap, 1974;
Bibliography: Ando, H. (1977). Training autistic children to urinate in the toilet through operant conditioning techniques. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia. 7(1), 151-163. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Bersoff, D., & Grieger, R. (1971). An interview model for the psychosituational assessment of children’s behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41(3), 483-493. Birnbrauer, J.S. (1968). Generalization of Punishment Effects: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, I. 201-211. Brown, R.A., Pace, L.S., & Becker, W.C. (1969). Out of the classroom: Treatment of extreme negtivism and autistic behavior in a six-year-old boy. Exceptional Children, 36(2), 115-122. Clark-Hall, M., Collier, H., Fayman, K., Grinstead, J., Kearns, P., Robie, D., & Rotton, M. (1976). Responsive parent training manual. LAWRENCE, KS: H&H Enterprises, Inc. Foxx, R.M., & Azrin, N.H. (1973) The elimination of outside self-stimulatory behavior by overcorrection. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6. 1-12. Kerr, N., Meyerson, L., & Michael, J. (1965). A procerdure for shaping verbalizations in a mute child. In L.P. Ull,am & L. Brown (Eds.), Case studies in behavior modification (pp. 366-370). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Koegel, R.L., Firestone, P.B., Kramme, K.W., & Dunlap, G. (1974). Increasing spontaneous play by suppressing self-stimulation in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 11(1). 95-109. Koegel, R.L., Glahn, T.J., & Nieminen, G.S. (1978). Generalization of parent-training results. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 11(1), 95-109. Newman, R., Whorton, D., & Simpson, R. (1977). The modification of self-stimulatory verbalizations in an autistic child through the use of an overcorrection procedure. AAESPH Review. 4(4), 399-406. Patterson, G.R. (1974). A basis for identifying stimuli which control behaviors in natural settings. Child Development, 45, 900-911. Plummer, S., Baer, D., & LeBlanc, J. (1977). Functional considerations in the use of procedural time-out and an effective alternative. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis. 10. 689-705. Repp., A.C., & Deitz, S.M. (1974). Reducing aggressive and self-injurious behavior of institutionalized retarded children through reinforcement of other behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 313-326. Risley, T.R. (1968). The effects and side-effects of punishing the autistic behaviors of a deviant child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 21-34. Risley, T., & Wolf, M. (1967). Establishing functional speech in echolalic children. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 5, 73-88. Simpson, R.L., & Sasso, G.M. (1978). The modification of rumination in a severely emotionally disturbed child through an overcorrection procedure. AAESPH Review, 3, 145-150. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan. Strain, P.S., Kerr, M.M., & Ragland, E.U. (1979). Effects of peer-mediated social initiations and prompting/reinforcement procedures on the social behavior of autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 41-53. Tate, B.G., & Baroff, G.S. (1966). Aversive control of self-injurious behavior in a psychotic boy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 4(4), 281. Wheeler, A.J., & Suzler, B. (1970). Operant training and generalization of a verbal response form in a speech-deficient child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 3, 139-147.