Power point presentation

Student A

Replacements

Student B

Replacements

Findings

This is an exploratory study to determine the validity of several strategical interventions addressing the maladaptive behavior around on-task time in home settings of gifted children with ADHD in elementary school age. The initial tool used, that is, the needs assessment led us to accurately create a BIP (Behavior Intervention Plan) which daily measurement of behavior markers gave us relevant insight. The data collected proved the positive effect of the interventions in steady results of improved management.

As we studied Park, 2017, we can use her experiences as the referred research describes behavioral interaction of students in two different learning courses. That shows that different designing of courses explores participants to different behavioral responses thus there is a direct relationship between course design/beliefs and response of students. The discoveries infer that while planning an online course, it must include learning assignments, streamlining students' conduct association succession to augment their learning viability.

In this paper, the results of assessing both subjects show a difference in their initial stand towards distant learning. While subject A refers to be happy about it, this setting makes subject B worried. Both subjects refer positive results in their last online activity and prefer Mathematics. Their dislikes differ, for subject A Science is challenging while Grammar poses the greater try for student B Regarding amount of work and time, there is a curious deviation. Whereas subject A considers it is a lot of work and spends 20 minutes doing it, subject A doesn’t consider it a lot and spends 10 minutes at online homework. We realized both subjects’ commitment to work is different, and this is a baseline to consider when observing following data collection.

Both subjects prefer in person classes and want to get A in their next homework. This speaks of a concern about in home session and good motivation. They both rely on teacher for help. While subject A expresses a contradictory point of view when considering on paper assignment more difficult and remaining happy about online classes; subject B is consistent with concerns about online tasks and being worried about the online learning.

The primary function of behavior determined by the QABF as the maintaining behavior was escape. When reading how often proctored responded in that manner, the measurements showed a decrease in the use of this maladaptive trait. In student A it decreased from 7 to 5, while for B it went from 10 to 2. Regarding the desired replacement with appropriate escape, the percentage moved from 30 to 80 for student A, while student B moved from 20 to 50. These results prove the positive incidence of the management strategies. The ABC results show a steady decrease of function of behavior: escape response and an increase in the desired goal.

For subject A, the frequency of task refusals had fluctuations moving from an initial 7 to 5 to 3 and down to 1. Subject B, on the other hand, started task refusal at frequencies moving from 8 to 5, later 3, and finally 4.

Goals are also depicted in the graphs. Goal 1 was appropriate escape. With the interventions designed, student A manage to move from a 20-30 % baseline to reach levels up to 80% and more with a steady 70% through week 3. On the other hnd, student B managed to move from a 0 to 10 % baseline to 20 % steady in week 2, and up to 50 % by the end of the search. Goal 2, Stay on task experienced similar improvement with the best numbers in week 3 at 98 % for both students A and B. Following instruction as the last common goal behaved with a steady increase from 57% baseline up to 86% for student A by the conclusion of study. Student B showed a mild improvement of 10% above his 30 % baseline.

Conclusions

To wrap up, we would say as teachers we will keep logs on the daily activities fostering, or not, improvement of behavior. The baseline measurement is also another powerful tool we intend to continue using, to determine the starting point of a new class/term. Assessments are multiple, and we want to try the efficacy of several questionnaires available, as children respond in very specific ways that we must further explore. Since the results showed the positive impact of intervention strategies applied to maladaptive behaviors and a subsequent increase of appropriate behaviors we feel compelled to continue along this line of inquiry.

In the future, we would like to extend the interventions to larger and more diverse samples. Likewise, we would like to try alternative treatment design to define the most accurate and effective intervention in various settings; that would comprise classroom settings as well. This line of research could be useful to determine the precision of strategies as related to different population groups, settings, length of study, study subjects, and many other determinant variations.

We are intended to continue to search through the databases of our institution to find related papers. The use of case studies provides a valuable source of information regarding the potential variations of results in such studies. We trust the observation of empirical events can provide a body of knowledge providing the baseline for further explorations.

We encourage our classmates to research. This is a positive practice that keeps our practice alive. Students respond to the quality of our attention, communication skills combined with research methods can create a collaborative environment rendering excellent results.

Our personal experience using intervention strategies to mitigate the negative impact of change in the teaching-learning environment from a classroom to the in home setting has provided us with a new understanding of teaching methods and resources. The clarity of the interventions and their direct use based on the initial assessment and developed through the ongoing measurements is a journey we will pursue in the future as active teachers to foster a fulfilling career.

References

Grande, G. E., Austin, L., Ewing, G., O'Leary, N., & Roberts, C. (2017). Assessing the impact of a Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) intervention in palliative home care: a stepped wedge cluster trial. BMJ supportive & palliative care, 7(3), 326-334 Retrieved from https://spcare.bmj.com/content/7/3/326.short

Karrie, E., Godwin A., M. V. (2016). Off-task behavior in elementary school children. Elsevier, pp.129-137

Lee, Y. (2018). Effect of uninterrupted time-on-task on students’ success in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Elsevier, pp.175-180

Nayahangan, L. J., Konge, L., Schroeder, T. V., Paltved, C., Lindorff-Larsen, K. G., Nielsen, B. U., &Eiberg, J. P. (2017). A national needs assessment to identify technical procedures in vascular surgery for simulation-based training. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 53(4), 591-599. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107858841730059X

Nines, M. D. (2010). Use of Peer-Mediated Intervention in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, pp. 547-551.

Park, S. (2017). Analysis of Time-on-Task, Behavior Experiences, and Performance in Two Online Courses with Different Authentic Learning Tasks. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 213-233.

Riley, J. L., B. M. (2011). Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered on a Fixed-Time Schedule. Psychology Faculty Publications, vol. 217.

Tycho J. Dekkers, J. A.-a. (2017). Time on task effects in children with and without ADHD: depletion of executive resources or depletion of motivation? Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, pp.1471-1481.

Problem Behaviors Bolting

Bolting 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 5 6 6 7 6 6 10 4 6 3 2 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20

Weeks

Frequency of occurrence

Appropiate Escape (Requesting for a break)

Appropiate Escape (requesting for a break) 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5

Weeks

Percentage

Stay on Task

Stay on Task 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 1 0.8 0.9

Weeks

Percentage

Stay seated on a designated area

Stay seated on a designated 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 1 0.8 1

Weeks

Percentage

Following Instructions

Following Instructions 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4

Weeks

Percentage

Problem Behaviors Task Refusal

Task Refusal 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20 3 5 6 7 4 3 5 4 3 3 1 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20

Weeks

Frequency of occurrence

Problem Behaviors Off-Task

Off-Task 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20 9 5 7 7 9 6 7 7 4 6 5 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20

Weeks

Frequency of occurrence

Appropiate Escape (Requesting for a break)

Appropiate Escape (requesting for a break) 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8

Weeks

Percentage

Stay on Task

Stay on Task 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.7 0.8

Weeks

Percentage

Following Instructions

Following Instructions 5/11/20 5/13/20 5/18/20 5/20/20 5/25/20 5/27/20 6/1/20 6/3/20 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8

Weeks

Percentage

Problem Behaviors Task Refusal

Task Refusal 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20 7 5 7 8 7 5 8 6 5 3 4 5/6/20 5/7/20 5/8/20 5/12/20 5/14/20 5/19/20 5/21/20 5/26/20 5/28/20 6/2/20 6/4/20

Weeks

Frequency of occurrence