Action Research
Running head: ACTION RESEARCH 1
NEEDS ASSESSMENT 18
Action research
Name
Tutor
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In my classroom I have some students who reveal off-task behavior towards certain activities. Students have interrupting work and visiting socially instead of collaborating on the learning projects. This off-task behavior may be an effect of the students’ lack of experience and knowledge in self-discipline. This research project aims at examine the effects of antecedent and consequent strategies to decrease the student off-task behaviors and increase their compliance with academic tasks. The study took place in the students’ home throughout the distance learning program because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The literature review examine factors that influence students’ off-task behaviors. This information help research apply best interventions for increasing on-task activities.
The Data collection process took place through event recording tool, functional assessment screening tool, and observation. These methods helped me identify the off-task behaviors and way to minimize them. The event recording tool allows research to record behavior in real-time. Using the FAST approach and the observation, I could find different factors that influence student off-task actions during home learning sessions. Some factors that reduce concentration are complexity of the homework, duration of the work, lack of stimulating learning conditions, and amount of work given to autism students. I selected different behavioral consequences and antecedents interventions. Some of the behavioral antecedent intervention are audio stimulus, use of fixed-time schedule, and high probability sequence. The behavioral consequence interventions used are “differential negative reinformacement of alternative behaviors (DNRA)” and the premack principle.
After completing the literature review, I chose to study which interventions are effective in reducing the off-task behaviors in the two students. Different researchers shows that the two learning theories decrease the off-tasks behaviors. I will use the cognitive learning theory in refining the classroom rules. For the behavioral learning theory, I plan to use observation to find the cause of distraction, student reactions, and results of students’ reaction.
Problem statement
The use of these tools will assist in identifying several vital aspects that will inform the best way to increase the on-task behaviors with autism particularly when looking at the task refusal behaviors. The two tools are also easy to understand and will require minimal training when it comes to collecting the valuable data. The assessment involves various students who are learning from home and have autism. The students are more likely to engage in off-task behaviors. The researcher seeks to alter the task refusal behaviors that have been portrayed by the students. The off-task behavior is detrimental to the learning outcomes of the students (Leblanc et al., 2016). It is important to make sure that the students are controlled so that they acquire new skills and become independent. The first tool that was used was the FAST tool to assess the participants and identify the right ones for the study. The second tool, Events Recording Tool, was used in giving insight on current learning gaps in home. The Events Recording tool was used over a period to carefully collect the data.
Chapter two
Literature review
Off-task/On-task Behavior
Autism leads to students having some form of off-task behavior, which affects their learning. Off-task behavior is where the student or child is engaging in inappropriate interactions with their immediate environment that is against the instruction. It is critical to understand how to increase the on-task behavior for autistic students when they are learning at home.
The variety of interventions or intervention approaches that can be and have been effectively applied to disruptive, off-task behaviors is considerable. DuPaul, Wyandt, & Janusis (2011) provided a comprehensive review of these interventions, the most common of which were identified as medications and behavioral interventions. The behavioral interventions, those based on learning theory, were further characterized being antecedent- or consequence-based ones.
Behavioral Antecedent and Consequent Strategies
There are various behavioral antecedent and consequent strategies that can reduce the task refusal behavior (Pellecchia et al., 2020) and can be useful when the students are engaging in distance learning sessions at home.
Behavioral antecedent strategies are the people, events, and things that come immediately before the problem behavior. In behavioral antecedent strategies, antecedent stimuli are manipulated to evoke appropriate behaviors to differentially reinforce them and reduce inappropriate behaviors that interfere with appropriate behaviors (Miltenberger,2013). A number of antecedent strategies have been developed to address off-task behaviors in children with autism. Four commonly utilized strategies to enhance on-task behavior are the delivery of reinforcement on a fixed-time (FT) schedule (sometimes referred to as noncontingent reinforcement or NCR), the high probability sequence, reducing task demands by modifying the length and/or difficulty of assignments, and giving students choices of which assignments or steps to complete first.
NCR involves giving the student access to a reinforcer frequently enough that they are no longer motivated to exhibit disruptive behavior to obtain that same reinforcer. It consists of allowing students to take small breaks during the presentation of non-desirable tasks. Research has shown that NCR decrease disruptive behavior and increase the time engaged in tasks and the compliance to academic instructions (Carr et al., 2000; Kodak, Miltenberger, & Romaniuk, 2003; Waller, & Higbee, 2010). High probability request (high-p) sequences consist of having students consistently comply with several directions to perform desirable behaviors, and that momentum persists when a subsequent direction is changed to a perceived undesirable behavior. High-p have been an effective intervention for improving compliance and work completion for students who display challenging behaviors (Maag, 2020).
Reducing task demands by modifying the length and/or difficulty of assignments has been proven to decrease triggering behaviors in children with ASD. Reducing task length, allows children with ASD to decrease any frustrations they could be feeling from the lengthy, difficult task thus minimizing challenging behaviors that may be exhibited for the purpose of escaping the situation (Luke, 2017). Offering children with ASD choices between activities (e.g., working on math or English), instructional materials (e.g., using a pen or pencil), or environmental arrangements (e.g., where to sit) has been shown to reduce challenging behavior maintained by escape from task demands (Rispoli et al., 2013).
Behavioral consequent strategies are techniques that can be used after the behavior occurs to decrease the reinforcement and provide the student with alternative behavior. Two behavioral consequence interventions that are effective in reducing off-task behaviors are Premack Principle and differential negative reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DNRA).
Premack (1959, as cited in Maag, 2020) principle states that a high-probability behavior can be contingent upon the occurrence of a low-probability behavior. A high-probability behavior is one that students have a greater likelihood of engaging in when they have free access to preferred activities or objects. High preference activities will be used to reinforce the participation of the students in low preference activities (e.g., school assignments and homework).
The differential negative reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DNRA) consists of allowing the students to exit the non-preferred activities for some minutes when they request a break in an appropriate manner (using his words appropriately or using a gesture). RDNA has been used in a wide variety of studies to decrease behavior problems maintained by negative reinforcement and to increase appropriate behaviors, which substitute for behavior problems (Golonka et al., 2000; Marcus y Vollmer, 1995; Piazza, Moes y Fisher, 1996, Roberts, Mace y Daggett, 1995; Etak Steege, 1990, as cited in Miltenberger, 2013).
Reinforcement is a common effective practice that has been used in combination with the other strategies explained above. The teacher and parents may reinforce on task behaviors with praise or a token that would later be traded in for a desired reward. Reinforcement describes the connection between a student’s behavior and a consequence for that behavior. The consequence is only considered reinforcing if it increases the chance that the student will engage in the behavior again in the future (Wong et al., 2014). An example of using reinforcement in the classroom or at home is a teacher or parent providing an attention-seeking student with a high-five when the student completes a task. In this example, the student likes the attention received when he or she completes the task, and therefore is more likely to continue completing tasks, in order to keep getting those high-fives. Reinforcement is used when the behavior is positive, and the adult wants it to continue. Research showed that the use of positive reinforcement such as a positive behavior-specific note to take home increased on-task behavior of a first-grade student (Bayles, 2020).
Chapter three
Methodology
Sample Population
The population being studied comprised of students with autism. During this Covid-19 pandemic, these students are learning from home. However, due to their medical condition, this population tends to engage in off-task behaviors during learning rather than indulge in on-task behaviors. Often, this population appears disinterested with the learning process and is constantly distracted by activities that are unrelated to school work. The population also portrays task refusal behaviors. When asked to do specific activities, members of the population outright decline to do so.
Consequently, these characteristics result in members of this population having poor learning outcomes (Leblanc et al., 2016). The students have a low capacity of being independent, obtaining new skills, and socializing. Members of this population often have problems with development in sensory processing, creative play, social interaction, and communication; both verbal and non-verbal. Thus, they tend to have problems interacting with peers and educators. They can also fail to properly articulate their needs to the educators, such issues make them engage in off-task behaviors due to their inability to interact well with others.
Research Methods Used
There is the utilization of two assessment tools. First, there is the “Functional Assessment Screening Tool” (FAST), which allows the researcher to seek out the diverse elements that affect the behaviors of the students with autism during learning. The tool ensures the researcher can appraise each participant in the population sample and select the ones best suited for the purposes of the study. FAST is crucial in enabling the researcher know if the maladaptive behavior in the population sample is maintained or not. The tool has two sections. First, there is the Informant-Client section, which collects data on the interactions between these two stakeholders. Second, there is the section for Problem Behaviors Information, which collects information regarding the severity, and frequency of the behavior of the participants.
Second, there is the use of event recording, which allows the researcher to collect and note down all the relevant information regarding the behaviors of the students with autism in real time. This tool is essential in shedding light on the learning gaps that plague the home learning environment. It will collect data on the frequency at which undesirable activities among the students occur. The research will use the tool at specific time periods and make tally marks whenever students engage in maladaptive behaviors.
These tools are crucial to the success of the study as they not only complement each other but ensure that the frequency of any pertinent information regarding the behaviors being observed is recorded accurately. Additionally, these tools are relatively simple to apply and the researcher required very little training to understand their use. It is also worth pointing out that the researcher will make use of consequence and antecedent strategies to minimize the students’ task refusal inclinations. Teach replacement skills will also be applied in the research with students expected to adapt to the desired behaviors. Examples include following of defined instructions and the skill of task-sitting.
Critical Question
“What factors influence the students’ off-task behaviors?”
Behavior analysts assert that the refusal to carry out tasks by special needs students is a maladaptive behavior, which negatively impacts their ability to attain academic success and perform conventional activities of daily living (ADLs). By finding a good answer to this critical question, behavior analysts and educators can alter the off-task behaviors of students and ensure they have numerous opportunities to attain their academic and social goals. Additionally, answering this question is vital in advocating for the inclusion of special needs students in the community. Despite having a limiting mental condition, students with autism deserve to have prime opportunities not only in school but in society as well.
Reason for Conducting the Study
The researcher wishes to alter the task refusal behaviors portrayed by the members of the population sample. The objective is to minimize such behaviors while enhancing how the students comply with activities and demands that they do not like. This is crucial because such an alteration in behavior is significant to future educators and behavior analysts. The refusal of the students to conduct on-task activities is detrimental to their wellbeing as it adversely affects how they socialize, acquire new skills, learn, and become independent.
Therefore, the researcher wishes to conduct this study not only to observe the undesirable behaviors of students with autism but also get insight that will facilitate the making of recommendations of corrective actions, which can reverse or minimize the students’ actions. In turn, the study results will have serious implications for the wellbeing of stunts with autism. If carried out successfully, the study will promote actions that facilitate improved student performance in school and social life as well.
Needs Assessment
Through the use of the FAST and Event Recording Tools, the researcher will gather the relevant data, which can be used to come up with techniques of enhancing on-task behaviors of the individuals in the population sample. Also, the data will shed insight on how best to minimize task-refusal behaviors. These two needs assessment tools have been selected based on the aforementioned research objective. More so, these tools have been selected because they do not entail comprehensive training and are simply to comprehend and apply.
Baseline Data
Prior to the commencement of the altering the students’ behaviors, the researcher will first collect data of the students’ undesirable behaviors. It is vital to collect such data before the beginning of the intervention because it allows for comparison of behaviors prior to and after the intervention strategies. This way, one can note whether the interventions are effective or not. The baseline data will cover the students’ interest in learning, their probability of engaging in off-task behaviors, their concentration levels in class, and their propensity to refuse to engage in learning activities. The change that the study wishes to subject the participants to is expected to be completed within six months. The change on the task refusal behaviors is expected to be attained in all the areas that the student interacts with others, be it in school, in society, or at home.
Research Site
The research site will be the homes of the students or the places they are placed for home-schooling. This is possible since the research is being carried out during the COvid-19 period whereby many parents are opting to home-school their children. After getting consent from caregivers or parents, the researcher will visit the homes of the students with autism at the specific times when they are undergoing learning. However, the research has to inform all the stakeholders of all the activities that will occur during the research process to ensure the parents/caregivers make accommodation for these activities. Both the FAST and Event Recoding tools will be used at the research sites.
Intervention
The data collection strategies and sources you used, when the data collection occurred (dates of implementation and/or data collection, length of study); our research involved qualitative data source and quantitative data sources using a mixed-methods design.
Quantitative: Questionnaire (Functional Behavior Assessment Tool)
The action research involved open-ended response questionnaire to the Likert scale questions. The questions were “what kind of rewards does your child respond to?” “Would you try different reinforces?” and what do you when the student express off-task behavior? It is clear that Student B responded positively to the reinforcement technique while student A did not get any reinforcement. This illustrate the need for appropriate reinforcement to be used with the autism student.
Graphs
During the 14 days, the parent helped collect data on the behavioral pattern observed. The study involved the use of checklist by placing tally mark every time a student display off-task behavior. At the end of the intervention, the total marks per behavior were counted per student to make the final count. The total were imputed in table to create XY graph.
Data collection
The study took six weeks from May 11 to June 20. The first two weeks (May 11-May 23) we record the data of off-task behaviors to construct a baseline for each student. The following weeks we implement the antecedent and consequence interventions and teach replacement skills in each session that we work with the students during distance learning sessions (from Monday to Saturday). Different tools were used to collect data in this research: direct observation, behavior at home checklist, parent survey, and interview. These tools were used according to the following order:
· Applying and analyzing the parents’ surveys.
· Conducting home observation and then data analysis.
· Collect data in baseline and analyze the data.
· Implement the intervention plan
· Collect data during the intervention and analyze the data
Contents of the data collected
· Parent survey
The reason for using the parent survey is to determine if the parents were aware of their students’ off-task behaviors. The survey was administered by the researcher. The parent was able to choose options to fill the survey.
· Baseline sessions data
The survey recorded a number of occurrences of the off-task behaviors among the students. Each session consisted of 90 minutes. The number of sessions is fourteen session involving both baseline session and intervention. The intervention sessions data was recorded from observations. Student A express ignorance to demands by avoiding eye contact with instructor and materials, and not following instructions by moving away from the area and/or making noises or vocalizing out of context. This behavior starts after 3 minutes of the delivery of the demand and ends when he complies, or the demand is removed. Student B expressed same behavior as student: ignorance to demands by avoiding eye contact with instructor and materials, and not following instructions by moving away from the area and/or making noises or vocalizing out of context. This behavior starts after 3 minutes of the delivery of the demand and ends when he complies, or the demand is removed.
Student A
|
Antecedent |
Behavior |
Consequence |
|
The student was doing a math task involving multiple steps |
The student moved away from the table |
The student’s mother yelled at the student and said him that he should finish the task |
|
The mother told the student that it was time to start his school tasks
|
He avoided eye contact with his mother and continued watching TV. |
The mother allowed the student to continue watching TV |
Student B
|
Antecedent |
Behavior |
Consequence |
|
The student was doing a social studies task of large duration |
The student began to make loud noises and vocalizations out of context |
The student’s father told the student that he could finish the task later |
|
The father presented the student different school tasks and told him the order in which he should complete them |
The student avoided eye contact with materials and ran away from the table |
The father gave the students 10 minutes to start to complete the tasks. |
Methods for analyze, interpret, and deconstruct the data
The data collection process began with implementing alternating treatments in the two students and this was after getting consent from the parent of the participating students.
Data analysis
The total number of initiation during the data collection session were recorded and then converted into graph. The data was analyzed through visual inspection, where student behavioral patterns were examined to determine the effects of intervention. The visual inspection was meant to help assess the impact of intervention by checking the changes in mean frequencies of target behavior.
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
Many studies were analyzed and reviewed to determine what strategies have been successful in decreasing the off-task behaviors for children struggling with ASD. Parents can intervene on these behaviors by implementing different strategies into the life of the students. ABI strategies such as evidence-based practices, highly preferred activities, and differential negative reinforcement of other behaviors are proven to be effective. The antecedent-based intervention that are successful in decreasing off-task behaviors include: providing each child with choices, structuring the children to be aware of time expected to complete their tasks, incorporating highly preferred activities into the student program, decreasing the instruction time, modifying complexity of task, task variation such as giving novel tasks into the students. These strategies have proven that they help decrease off-task behaviors in ASD students. The antecedent-based intervention prevent triggers of off-task actions.
The evidence-based strategies that can be used among the students with ASD include the use of token economy, antecedent based intervention, and functional behavior assessment. There are merits of implementing the antecedent-based strategies. One of them is that there are many strategies to try when addressing the off-task behavior. When dealing with the autism, one strategy can be successful for a day and not the other. Parents should be familiar with the different strategies in the event on strategy is unsuccessful. Another advantage of antecedent-based strategies is that parents can use many strategies, which helps reduce the likelihood of off-task behavior. Parents should consider that autistic students have different needs and react differently to different strategies. In trying these strategies, trial and error approach can be used because different strategies can be successful to different students.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
In this study, various approaches were used by the two parents can it was noted that these strategies decrease off-task behaviors. Whether the autism student is highly functional or active, different strategies can be tried and modified to fit the child levels. It is imperative for parents to know each child have different reaction and therefore, some strategies are more beneficial than others. Parents should observe the ASD child cognitive level to determine which strategy is appropriate. Data should be taken for several weeks to determine the antecedent to the off-task behavior. With the help of the data, parents can decide the strategy to use to reduce the escape behaviors. This imply that some interventions are appropriate to some children, some interventions need to be used individually, while other should be combined to reduce the effects of escape behaviors.
The research shows that some strategies such as: allowing ASD students to make choices, use of token or reinforcements, tolerance of delay, reducing time spent in instruction, and functional behavior assessment may help decrease the off-task behaviors. Moreover, the researcher should investigate the reason or benefits to the replacement behavior in ASD children. This will be beneficial in choosing the intervention. More studies should explore different strategies and their effectiveness in dealing with different age groups of students with autism.
Implications
The parent survey and the intervention confirmed that the student involved in the intervention strategy expressed positive reinforcement that helped him to complete the task. One of the main implication from the research is that some reinforcement such as a break from the task work for the student B. A student may be motived by different activity and taking break from some tiring activities may reduce off-task behavior. As demonstrated by student B, knowing the child’s preferred activity is important in developing modification plan that increase on-task commitment. Another implication of this study is that reinforcement activities can fade in autistic children. From the parents, variety of techniques is important to keep the ASD student engaged. The use of single reinforcement strategy devalue over time. The implication is that it is important to vary the reinforcement activities. This point to the need for parents and teachers to engage with the student to known when the motivation become less attractive and effective.
The final implication from this study is that social praise is important. For example, when student A was doing math task, he decided to move away from the table. The student’s mother yelled at him and reprimand him to finish the task. The parent of student B used different approach, giving different task and relaxed options on how and when to finish the task. In conclusion, individualized positive reinforcement results in high task completion rates in students with autism. Changing the order of completing assignment, giving compliments or token will likely reduce off-task behavior. Parents should be engaged with the students, know their motivation, and use different behavioral reinforcement to increase on-task behaviors.
References
Bayles, B. (2020). Using Positive Reinforcement to Increase On-Task Behavior of a First Grade. Eastern Illinois University
Bernard, R., & Hammel, A. (2017). Good Teaching on Steroids: Assessments of Music Teaching and Learning with Students on the Autism Spectrum.
Carr J.E., Coriaty S., Wilder D.A., Gaunt B.T., Dozier C.L., Britton L.N., Avina C., & Reed C.L. (2000). A review of "noncontingent" reinforcement as treatment for the aberrant behavior of individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21(5), 377-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00050-0
Kodak T., Miltenberger R.G, & Romaniuk C. (2003). The effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent escape on compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 379–382. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-379
LeBlanc, L. A., Raetz, P. B., Sellers, T. P. & Carr, J. E. (2016). A proposed model for selecting measurement procedures for the assessment and treatment of problem behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 77-83.
Maag, J.W. (2020). Are High-Probability Request Sequences as Low an Intensity Intervention as Portrayed? Journal of Education and Learning; 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n2p1
Miltenberger, R.G. (2013). Behavior Modification. Principles & Procedures. Piramide Editions.
Rispoli, M., Lang, R., Neely, L., Camargo, S., Hutchins, N., Davenport, K., & Goodwyn, F. (2013). A comparison of within- and across-activity choices for reducing challenging behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(1), 66-83. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9164-y
Waller, R.D., & and Higbee, T.S. (2010). The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 149–153. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-149
DuPaul, G.J.; Weyandt, L.L..; Janusis, G.M. (2011). ADHD in the Classroom: Effective Intervention Strategies. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 35-42.
LeBlanc, L. A., Raetz, P. B., Sellers, T. P., & Carr, J. E. (2016). A proposed model for selecting measurement procedures for the assessment and treatment of problem behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 77-83.
Luke, K.A. (2017). Strategies to assist in decreasing escape-maintained behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorder (Master's Thesis).
Pellecchia, M., Marcus, S. C., Spaulding, C., Seidman, M., Xie, M., Rump, K., ... & Mandell, D. S. (2020). Randomized trial of a computer-assisted Intervention for children with autism in schools. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(3), 373-380.
Appendix
|
Demands and instructions presented |
Target Behavior
Off-task behavior |
Topographic definition Defined as ignoring demands by avoiding eye contact with instructor and materials, and not following instructions by moving away from the area and/or making noises or vocalizing out of context. This behavior starts after 3 minutes of the delivery of the demand and ends when he complies, or the demand is removed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
15 |
|
x |
x |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
X |
|
|
x |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
x |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
x |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
x |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
5 |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
x |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
x |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Days |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
Total per day |
27% |
20% |
27% |
33% |
27% |
20% |
|
20% |
13% |
13% |
20% |
13% |
20% |
|
13% |
7% |
7% |
7% |
13% |
7% |
|
|
|
Total per week |
|
|
|
|
|
26% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
Demands and instructions presented |
Target Behavior
Off-task behavior |
Topographic definition Defined as ignoring demands by avoiding eye contact with instructor and materials, and not following instructions by moving away from the area and/or making noises or vocalizing out of context. This behavior starts after 3 minutes of the delivery of the demand and ends when he complies, or the demand is removed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
15 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
12 |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
7 |
|
x |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
x |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
1 |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
Days |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Total per day |
33% |
27% |
40% |
33% |
27% |
27% |
33% |
27% |
40% |
27% |
33% |
33% |
40% |
40% |
|
27% |
33% |
20% |
27% |
20% |
20% |
|
|
Total per week |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25% |
|
off-task behavior
STUDENT A
Measurement Type: Percentages Measurement Units: weeks
Off-task behavior 05/10-05/23/2020 05/24-05/30/2020 05/31-06/06/2020 06/07-06/13/2020 06/014-06/20/2020 BL 39 33 26 17 9
% of opportunities
off-task behavior
STUDENT B
Measurement Type: Percentages Measurement Units: weeks
Off-task behavior 05/10-05/23/2020 05/24-05/30/2020 05/31-06/06/2020 06/07-06/13/2020 06/014-06/20/2020 BL 33 25 17 10 5
% of opportunities