Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Group Hatboats

Facilitator: Megan Roux Alayna Patten

Jenna Bakker
Marisa Montini
Joshua Schade

Individualized Behavior Plans

During the first few meetings, my group focused on task avoidance and participation.

After collaborating on two main behavior issues seen in a classroom, we decided to turn our

attention toward individualized behavior plans. As a future educator, it is essential to understand

behavior plans, how they work, and how to implement them. We each were tasked with finding

an article that relates to individualized behavior plans.

After each group member summarized their article, we talked about whether or not we

have seen individualized behavior plans in our placements. We discussed how the behavior plans

we noticed in our schools were minimal and easy to implement. Our schools focus on

acknowledging and rewarding positive behavior, which seems to really improve classroom

management, therefore, not needing intense behavior plans. Most of the behavior plans we see

involved things such as, check in/check out and having students self-assess their own behaviors

to determine logical consequences and why consequences were needed. As a group, we

concluded that these behavior plans were effective in our classrooms.

Everybody in this group came to the meeting prepared, bringing with them an article to

share and participating in the discussion. After our meeting time, each group member provided a

summary and citation to the article they provided for the discussion. In my opinion, everyone

deserves an A for their efforts and involvement in this collaboration.

Jenna Bakker

Effects of Immediate Performance Feedback on Implementations of Behavior Support Plans

This study focused on the teacher’s side of behavior plans, and whether or not providing

teachers performance feedback on the accuracy of their behavior plan implementations makes a

difference. Observations of the teacher specific to each behavior plan occurred once every two

weeks, and each observation ended in a brief meeting with the teacher about coaching and what

they did right/wrong. The study resulted that performance feedback for teachers did improve the

effectiveness of 4 out of 5 individual behavior plans.

Codding, R. S., Feinberg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace, G. M. (2005). Effects of immediate

performance feedback on implementation of behavior support plans. Journal of applied

behavior analysis, 38(2), 205-19.

Alayna Patten

Comparing Individual Behavior Plans from Schools With and Without Schoolwide Positive

Behavior Support: A Preliminary Study

The purpose of this preliminary study was to investigate the effectiveness of schoolwide

positive behavior support (or SWPBS) in comparison with traditional responses to behavior

problems. SWPBS prioritizes preventative strategies to reduce negative behavior. For example,

there is a lot of emphasis placed on school-wide cohesion. In other words, it is critical that the

implementation of researched behavioral practices are occurring consistently throughout the

entire school. Another preventative strategy used is regular universal screening to identify

students who need more support. In conclusion, SWPBS works to build a positive school culture

where prosocial behaviors are explicitly taught and reinforced. The overall results of the study

demonstrated that SWPBS was more adequate than traditional methods (such as a time-out),

however, there were some limitations that existed in the study, suggesting that more research

should be conducted and staff training in SWPBS should persist.

Medley, N., Little, S., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Comparing Individual Behavior Plans from Schools

With and Without Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 17(1), 93-110. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41824426

Marisa Montini

An Investigation Multi-tiered Behavioral Interventions on Disruptive Behavior and Academic Engagement of

Elementary Students

In this study, four students were given two types of intervention strategies to try to help with their

behavioral issues in the classroom. The first intervention, Check-In Check-Out (CICO), was used to help make

students aware of their behavior throughout the day. The students were given a daily progress report (DPR).

With this report the students were asked to complete a five step process to help with accountability. The first

step asked students to check in with a school staff member when the entered the building, step two was to

receive feedback of their behavior throughout the day, the third step asked students to check out with a school

staff member when leaving school, the fourth step required the students to check in with their parents and

review the day, and the fifth step required students to return the DPR the following day. This intervention is

most successful when teachers are able to maintain student behavior because of the attention given.

The second intervention used was function-based self-monitoring (FBSM). This intervention is used

to identify the individual student’s behavior to do tasks. These tasks include: altering antecedent variables,

teaching replacement behaviors, and/or altering consequence variables. This study focused on the self-

monitoring aspect because all three of the tasks above can be accomplished through this intervention. FBSM

allows students to assess their own behaviors which will then be use to find appropriate tools to assess their

behavior. After finding the right tools, students will be able to identify the consequences of why this behavior

is occurring and to remind students of expected behaviors. This intervention has shown a decrease in

classroom behavior problems and an increase in student engagement.

Bunch-Crump, K. R., & Lo, Y. (2017). An Investigation of Multitiered Behavioral Interventions on

Disruptive Behavior and Academic Engagement of Elementary Students. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 19(4), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717696939

Megan Roux

Function-Based Intervention Planning: Comparing the Effectiveness of FBA Function-

Based and Non-Function-Based Intervention Plans

This study focused on comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based intervention

planning and non-function based intervention plans in two middle school students. The

researchers looked at the changing rates of problem behaviors after implementation of

these intervention plans, and they concluded that the FBA function-based intervention

plans were more effective in reducing problem behaviors. These intervention plans are

focused on positive behavior supports, such as adding rewards for desired behavior and

consequences for undesired behavior.

Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-Based Intervention Planning:

Comparing the Effectiveness of FBA Function-Based and Non—Function-Based Intervention

Plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224–236.

Joshua Schade

Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management

This study approaches the idea of behavior from the following viewpoint:

If antisocial behavior is not changed by the end of grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic

condition much like diabetes. That is, it cannot be cured, but managed with the appropriate

supports and continuing intervention" (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995, p. 6).

And further provides what it thinks is the best course of action as outlined in five major steps:

Parent training, Social skill training, Academic and curricular restructuring, Proactive

management, and Individual behavioral interventions and calls this system “Effective Behavioral

Support” (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). The main claim on the article is that it pushes for schoolwide

policy to make expectations resoundingly clear with support from parents to help solve the

problem behaviors so that they are managed in the long term.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive

schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1-24. Retrieved from