Final Project 2

Introduction

Problem Statement

The current year has presented society with a challenge. Nobody was really prepared for the social distancing required due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Education has been one of the areas where regular activities have been affected the most. Educators have faced the need for remote instruction. The rhythm of classes and activities for children are totally alien for parents and caregivers who find themselves unable to organize student’s routines. Children with behavioral challenges are part of this instance, including the group we decided to focus on. We decided to address the increase of on-task behavior during distance learning time in gifted students with ADHD at the elementary level.

This change is particularly meaningful to us because, as educators, we want our students to successfully engage in academic learning time outside of the classroom setting. Schools’ boundaries have expanded, and parents need to be aware of the needs of their children to be able to comply with the continuing education outside the classrooms. Parents were not ready for this situation, especially those with children who demand a lot more time and attention.

Based on the current news provided through sources of media, when asked regarding the current situation and how to handle learning issues, other educators agree that the classroom setting is the most successful one when it comes to knowledge acquisition because in this setting, students have less distractions than at home. Another concern that educators have in relation to this matter is that in the home setting there is no classroom schedule and/or structure. Additionally, caregivers are not trained on teaching skills and most of the time responses to exercises/tests can be biased by their help and/or other environmental distractors.

Applying behavioral intervention programs to keep students focused and engaged on tasks can be a method to successfully increase their academic learning time. Therefore, we decided to state the following hypothesis for the research: Can behavioral intervention programs keep students focused during distance learning to achieve academic results similar to classroom environments?

Literature Review

The main criteria for the selection of the literature were the innovative approach of the referred subject, and the resemblance to the strategies applied. All referenced articles carried out extensive research in the area pertaining to the chosen topic. The challenges of current situations have highlighted the use of resources to continue education in a non-traditional model, which is particularly troublesome for gifted students with ADHD.

Riley, McKevitt, Shriver, and Allen (2011) proposed a study on the increase of on-task behavior through the use of teacher attention on a fixed-time schedule. The aforementioned article addressed an increase in time on-task during distance learning by using teacher attention. It explains the effectiveness of the fixed-time attention delivery during the learning process while increasing students’ on-task behavior and decreasing their off-task behavior. The study used subjects in general public schools and without limitations to its target. It revealed that a fixed-time schedule is effective to get responses from students and it improves their understanding of the process. The research study also revealed teacher attention is a positive element to shape positive learning behaviors.

Karrie and Godwin (2016) carried out yet another study pertaining to the off-task behavior of elementary school children. They found that there are three main elements (i.e., environment, gender, class and peer intervention), that could affect the on-task behavior of children. This research provided ways to analyze how environmental distractions affect the time on task behavior of students.

On the same line of research regarding time on task and success in education, Lee (2018) had some relevant findings pertaining to our topic. This study found that students with higher Self-Regulating Learning (SRL) capacity had longer time-on-task that is continuous by off-task exercises than students who did not have enough SRL capacity. These results represent the relationship between time on task and online classes. This study showed how time on task responses are interrupted in online classes.

Park (2018), referring to distance learning, showed that, after one semester, students who were engaged with legitimate plan/advancement-based learning exercises demonstrated an essentially higher number of social collaborations with the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle) and Learning Management System (LMS) than students engaged with bona fide conversation based learning exercises. Therefore, it was concluded that there is a direct relationship between course design/beliefs and motivation of students. We addressed the motivation element in the questionnaire proctored to the students.

More directly related to the subject of ADHD, Tycho and Dekkers, (2017), studied 54 children with ADHD and 57 without ADHD from elementary schools for a total 111 children from 9-13 years old. They used an activity design where, after recording initial responses, both groups were asked to respond on trials (i.e., a reinforcing or a non-reinforcing condition). Later, the responses were used as a measure to explain the motivation levels as well as behavioral activeness. The results stated that stronger time-on-task effects were found in children with ADHD as compared to children without ADHD on indices of basic attention. Thus, this provides evidence for the existence of a difference between the effect of time-on-task in children with and without ADHD. This paper also informed researchers on how children diagnosed with ADHD lack motivation for certain tasks.

Our last reference focuses primarily on the use of peer-mediated intervention in children with ADHD. Nines (2010) analyzed and replicated procedures using peer attention delivery as an intervention in afterschool programs. The author determined how interventions affect the population’s behavior. Findings of this result showed that off-task behavior is sensitive to attention from peers. Thus, we may conclude that the intervention of peer in learning behavior is helpful. Thus, the study demonstrated that it is good to conduct both functional analysis and a peer-mediated intervention in an afterschool program. This research has addressed the same issue with addition of peer intervention. We used this article for its research findings about the effect of peer intervention on the behavior of children diagnosed with ADHD. Therefore, it provides evidence of peer intervention as an agent of behavior change.

Methodology: Action Research Project

Participants

The study used two subjects, both gifted students who have been diagnosed with ADHD, attending second grade at the elementary level in a public school. Student A was an 8-year-old Hispanic male, and Student B was an 8-year-old Hispanic female. Both came from functional families. High activity levels, difficulty remaining focused for long periods of time, and limited attention spans, are common to young children in general. However, in children diagnosed with ADHD the aforementioned behaviors are noticeably greater in comparison with neurotypical aged children, and they can also interfere in the individual’s performance in daily living skills, academic tasks, and social interactions in different settings.

Procedures

We proctored a Needs Assessment to appropriately establish the variables of our study and to assess the needs and expectations of our population. Therefore, the Needs Assessment helped us to design an accurate Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) by using different instruments to collect necessary data of the students’ particular needs. The assessment is an effective tool that helps researchers to identify the major problems and come up with desirable solutions in order to improve the behavior of the identified students (Grande et al., 2017). According to Nayahangan et al. (2017), this organized review helps to give an overall understanding of different functions performed at individual level, as well as the organizational level, so as to overcome problems (e.g., ADHD), thus improving learning at the elementary level.

The data collection was carried out implementing several instruments. First, we proctored a questionnaire to the population addressing the topic of distance learning and their perception of specific areas such as time and workload. Then, in the case of the caregivers, we proctored the Questions About Behavior Function (QABF), which is a widely used indirect assessment tool designed to assist mental health practitioners in assessing the function of maladaptive behaviors in individuals diagnosed with a developmental disability. This questionnaire allowed us to establish the functions of the maladaptive behavior displayed by both students, and to acquire a more precise and reliable information from the caregivers. Finally, we used an Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence chart, also known as ABC recording model, for the periods of direct observation with the students. An ABC Chart is used to organize information over several observation sessions by recording the types of behaviors observed and the events that precede and follow the behavior. Observing and recording ABC data assisted us in forming the hypothesis statement and gathering evidence that the function maintaining a problem behavior has been identified.

The techniques used both qualitative and quantitative approaches to combine a more comprehensive outcome. We could therefore identify the challenges, capabilities, environmental factors, and functions to be addressed and measured during the study.

After using qualitative methods (ABC recording, QABF assessment, and survey), the following maladaptive behaviors were identified as barriers to completion of academic tasks during distance learning:

· Bolting: any instance when the student runs away more than 10 feet from the working area to another part of the setting without safety implications.

· Off-task: any instance of the student engaging in any tasks other than the assigned task or ongoing activity (e.g., looking around the room, playing with items) for more than 10 seconds following a demand.

· Task refusal: any instance of student refusing to comply with instructions, requests, academic tasks.

The BIP included a data collection chart reflecting the frequency of occurrence of the maladaptive behaviors described above.

Our critical question was the actual effect of the interventions to increase time on task behavior during distance learning. This target is particularly meaningful to us because, as educators, we want our students to successfully engage in academic learning time outside of the classroom setting. We intend to increase the on-task behavior during distance learning time at the home setting. The BIP comprised the corresponding interventions to target the maladaptive behaviors according to their functions. Despite the notion of the school as the ideal setting for learning acquisition for gifted students, we propose that children can also learn in home settings when in possession of the appropriate resources (e.g., parent training). Applying behavioral intervention programs to keep them focused and engaged on tasks can be a method to successfully increase their academic learning time.

The study was completed in five weeks; we collected the baseline data and proctored the Needs Assessment during the first week. Data was graphed weekly. Data sheets for collection of maladaptive behaviors and replacement programs, and charts analyzing the resulting data for student A and Student B independently (refer to Appendix A), have been completed.

Interventions

The study was conducted from Monday, May 4th, 2020 to Friday, June 5th, 2020. The following is the schedule of instruments used:

· Monday 4th: Proctoring QABF to caregivers

· Tuesday 5th: Proctoring Questionnaire to students

· Wednesday 6th: Engaging in ABC recording and taking Baseline

· Thursday 7th: Engaging in ABC recording and taking Baseline

· Friday 8th: Engaging in ABC recording and taking Baseline

The remaining four weeks, we collected data during two in-home sessions weekly (two hrs. each).

To address maladaptive behaviors during distance learning, several interventions were designed. First, we implemented preventive strategies/antecedents’ manipulations strategies to remove environmental triggers to maladaptive behaviors detected during observation.

More accurately, off-task environmental triggers were managed by keeping the workspace clean and removing any object/edible that could be a distractor from the area the client was working on the academic activities. We also made sure Student A used the bathroom and drank water and/or ate before he had to sit in the work area to complete the activities. Finally, we set up the computer or paper activity that the student was going to work on before delivering the instruction.

To manage task refusal, frequent breaks were provided in order to decrease motivating operations to escape from tasks. We decided to advise students of what was coming after the academic activity (highly preferred reinforcer); a timer was used to mark the beginning and end of the breaks and advised the client the amount of time that they had left during the activities. This strategy helped with transitions from a preferred activity to a non-preferred one. Another intervention was to develop a sequence interspersing preferred subjects’ activities with non-preferred ones.

To reduce the episodes of Student B engaging in bolting, we decided to accommodate the work space by placing the desktop far from the door(s). We sat next to the student (no more than 6 ft. away to block the behavior and redirect her to the activities).

The interventions selected to target maladaptive behavior were the following:

DRA: “(…) reinforcement is delivered for a behavior that serves as a desired alternative to the behavior targeted for reduction and withheld following instances of the problem behavior (e.g., reinforcing completion of academic worship items when the behavior targeted for reduction is talk-outs)” (Cooper et al., 2014, p. 5). As an alternative behavior, the students were taught to escape appropriately by verbally requesting a break.

Premack Principle: “a principle that states that making the opportunity to engage in a high probability behavior contingent on the occurrence of a low frequency behavior will function as reinforcement for the low frequency behavior” (e.g., if you finish this assignment, then you can play in your iPad) (Cooper et al., 2014, p. 13).

Token Economy: a system whereby participants earn generalized conditioned reinforcement (e.g., chips, points) as an immediate consequence for a specific behavior; participants accumulate tokens and exchange them for items and activities from a menu of back up reinforcers (Cooper et al., 2014, p. 18). For student A, we created a five-response token board using Roblox characters as a generalized conditions reinforcer, and for student B we used different types of flowers as a theme for the token board.

Escape Extinction: Behaviors maintained with negative reinforcement are placed on escape extinction when those behaviors are not followed by termination of the aversive stimulus; emitting the target behavior does not enable the person to escape the aversive situation (Cooper et al., 2014, p. 6).

Besides applying interventions, it is necessary to teach the students an appropriate alternative behavior (i.e., replacement behavior):

· Appropriate escape for Student A and B (requesting for a break)

· Stay on task for Student A (L1: 5min; L2: 8min); Student B (L1: 1min; L2: 2Min)

· Following instructions for Student A and B (L1: within 10 sec; L2: Within 5 sec; L3: Immediately)

· Stay seated in a designated area only for Student B (L1: 1min; L2: 2Min; L3: 3min), due to the incidents of Bolting.

Methods used were a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The graphs used showed the progress of the variables as a steadily increasing curve during the four weeks that described the actual events as progress happened.

Findings

This was an exploratory study to determine the validity of several strategical interventions to target the maladaptive behavior affecting time on task during distance learning of gifted students with ADHD in elementary school. The Needs Assessment led us to accurately create a BIP. The data collected proved the positive effect of the interventions in targeting maladaptive behaviors and increasing appropriate responses.

The results of the questionnaire proctored to both students show that Student A is happy about distance learning; he preferred Mathematics and found Science as the most challenging. Data revealed that Student A considered that the amount of activities is higher in the home setting than in the school and it takes about 20 minutes for him to complete each task. He found paper assignments more difficult than on-screen activities.

Student B referred to be worried about distance learning. Her favorite subject was Mathematics and the most challenging one was Grammar. Student B indicated spending about 10 minutes to complete a task and found on screen activities easier than on paper assignments. Both subjects prefer in person classes and wanted 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.

The primary function of behaviors determined by the QABF was escape. The ABC chart backed up the results obtained in the QABF by corroborating escape as a consequence of maladaptive behavior.

In the case of task refusal, for Student A, it was observed a decreasing trend from baseline (an average of 5 incidents per session) to 2 incidents during the fourth week of BIP implementation. Also, the off-task behavior slightly decreased from 7 incidents on baseline to 6.

Figure 1. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the occurrence of task refusal per session.

Figure 2. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the occurrence of off-task behavior per session.

Goals were also depicted in the graphs. Replacement 1 was to teach Student A to Appropriate Escape by requesting a break. With the interventions designed, Student A improved from an average of 20 of % opportunities during baseline to 80% at the end of the fourth week. Another goal that was taught to Student A was to following instructions within certain time after it was delivered. Different levels were set to decrease the amount of time that the student started complying with the task after the demand was placed (L1: within 10 sec; L2: Within 5 sec; L3: Immediately). Student A stayed at L1, but with a higher percentage of opportunities: baseline 50% and by the end of the fourth week he was following instructions within ten seconds at 85% of opportunities. Finally, it was observed an increasing trend in stay on task, in which Student A progressed from an average of five minutes on task at 50% of opportunities during baseline to 8 minutes at 100% of opportunities reaching L2.

Figure 3. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of appropriate escape per session.

Figure 4. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of following instructions per session.

Figure 5. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of stay on task per session.

In the case of task refusal, for Student B, it was observed a decreasing trend from baseline (an average of 6 incidents per session) to 4 incidents during the fourth week of BIP implementation. Also, Bolting behavior also decreased from 6 incidents during baseline to 3 at the end of the treatment period.

Figure 6. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the occurrence of task refusal per session.

Figure 6. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the occurrence of Bolting per session.

Replacement 1 was also to teach Student B to Appropriate Escape by requesting a break. With the interventions designed, Student B improved from an average of 10% opportunities during baseline to 50% at the end of the fourth week. Another goal that was set for Student B was to following instructions within certain time after it was delivered. Different levels were established to decrease the amount of time that the student complied with the task demand after it was placed (L1: within 10 sec; L2: Within 5 sec; L3: Immediately). Student B stayed at L1, but with a higher percentage of opportunities: baseline 30% and by the end of the fourth week he was following instructions within 10 seconds at 45% of opportunities. An increasing trend in stay on task replacement was observed, in which Student B progressed from an average of 1 minute on task at 70% of opportunities during baseline to 2 minutes on task at 70% of opportunities reaching L2. Finally, for Student B, a fourth replacement was included for Bolting behavior in which she was required to stay seated on a designated area for a certain amount of time (L1: 1min; L2: 2Min; L3: 3min). During baseline, Student A remained seated for 1 min at 80% of opportunities and by the end of the period, she was able to remained seated for 1 min at 100% of opportunities.

Figure 7. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of appropriate request for break per session.

Figure 8. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of following instructions per session.

Figure 9. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of stay on task behavior per session.

Figure 10. Line Graph. This figure demonstrates the average of opportunities of stay seated on designated area per session.

Further Reflection and Continuing Questions about Our Action Research Journey

After conducting our research, we were able to determine how off-task behavior, bolting, and task refusal could be modified through changes in the workspace, provisory routines, clear advice and timely interventions applied. The main goal of increasing time on task during distance learning was met. It was supported for an increase trend in the replacement behaviors and decreasing trend in the maladaptive behaviors targeted.

This study proves how a systematic implementation of a BIP can lead to improvement on increasing the amount of time that students are engaged in academic activities during distance learning time.

Conclusions

Upon starting the research and stating its goals, we encountered some limitations such as the limited amount of time to implement the BIP (last 5 weeks of academic year) and the limited number of participants due to COVID-19 mandatory quarantine and social distancing. Although, 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 population. Likewise, we would like to implement alternating treatment design to define the most accurate and effective intervention in various settings; that would comprise classroom settings as well. We propose to establish a comparative study which includes the analysis of time on task during distance learning in children without ADHD in contrast with our target population. 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. 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.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

i. How do you feel about distance learning?

Happy worried sad

ii. Did you do well in your last online task?

Yes

No

iii. What part of distance learning do you prefer?

iv. What part of distance learning do you not prefer?

v. What’s your favorite subject?

vi. Do you think is too much work?

No

Yes

vii. How long does it take you to finish a lesson on the computer?

viii. What do you prefer more online or in person lessons?

ix. Are you able to ask for help to your teacher?

No

Yes

x. What score do you want to achieve in the next exam?

xi. What is more difficult for you on-paper or on-screen assignments?

xii. How do you feel about homework given by your teacher?

Happy Worried Sad

Appendix 2: Questions About Behavioral Function

QABF Questions About Behavioral Function Timothy R. Vollmer & Johnny L. Matson

Rate each question on the following scale. Scoring on second page.

X 0 1 2 3 Does not apply Never Rarely Sometimes Often

___ 1. Engages in the behavior to get attention.

___ 2. Engages in the behavior to escape work or learning situations.

___ 3. Engages in the behavior as a form of “self-stimulation”.

___ 4. Engages in the behavior because he/she is in pain.

___ 5. Engages in the behavior to get access to items such as preferred toys, food or beverages.

___ 6. Engages in the behavior because he/she likes to be reprimanded.

___ 7. Engages in the behavior when asked to do something (brush teeth, work, etc.)

___ 8. Engages in the behavior even if he/she thinks no one is in the room.

___ 9. Engages in the behavior more frequently when he/she is ill.

___ 10. Engages in the behavior when you take something away from him/her.

___ 11. Engages in the behavior to draw attention to him/herself.

___ 12. Engages in the behavior when he/she does not want to do something.

___ 13. Engages in the behavior because there is nothing else to do.

___ 14. Engages in the behavior when there is something bothering her/him physically.

___ 15. Engages in the behavior when you have something he/she wants.

___ 16. Engages in the behavior to try to get a reaction from you.

___ 17. Engages in the behavior to try to get people to leave him/her alone.

___ 18. Engages in the behavior in a highly repetitive manner, ignoring this/her surroundings.

___ 19. Engages in the behavior because she/he is physically uncomfortable.

___ 20. Engages in the behavior when a peer has something he/she wants.

___ 21. Does he/she seem to be saying “come see me” or “look at me” when engaging in the behavior?

___ 22. Does he/she seem to be saying “leave me alone” or “stop asking me to do this” when engaging in the behavior?

___ 23. Does he/she seem to enjoy the behavior, even if no one is around?

___ 24. Does the behavior seem to indicate to you that he/she is not feeling well?

___ 25. Does he/she seem to be saying “give me that (toy, item, food)” when engaging in the behavior?

QABF Scoring

Attention

1. Engages in the behavior to get attention.

6. Engages in the behavior because he/she likes to be reprimanded.

11. Engages in the behavior to draw attention to him/herself.

16. Engages in the behavior to try to get a reaction from you.

21. Does he/she seem to be saying “come see me” or “look at me” when engaging in the behavior?

Escape

2. Engages in the behavior to escape work or learning situations.

7. Engages in the behavior when asked to do something (brush teeth, work, etc.)

12. Engages in the behavior when he/she does not want to do something.

17. Engages in the behavior to try to get people to leave him/her alone.

22. Does he/she seem to be saying “leave me alone” or “stop asking me to do this” when engaging in the behavior?

Non-social

3. Engages in the behavior as a form of “self-stimulation”.

8. Engages in the behavior even if he/she thinks no one is in the room.

13. Engages in the behavior because there is nothing else to do.

18. Engages in the behavior in a highly repetitive manner, ignoring this/her surroundings.

23. Does he/she seem to enjoy the behavior, even if no one is around?

Physical

4. Engages in the behavior because he/she is in pain.

9. Engages in the behavior more frequently when he/she is ill.

14. Engages in the behavior when there is something bothering her/him physically.

19. Engages in the behavior because she/he is physically uncomfortable.

24. Does the behavior seem to indicate to you that he/she is not feeling well?

Tangible

5. Engages in the behavior to get access to items such as preferred toys, food or beverages.

10. Engages in the behavior when you take something away from him/her.

15. Engages in the behavior when you have something he/she wants.

20. Engages in the behavior when a peer has something he/she wants.

25. Does he/she seem to be saying “give me that (toy, item, food)” when engaging in the behavior?

Appendix 3: Antecedent-Behavior Consequence Chart

ABC OBSERVATION FORM

Student Name: ____________________ Date: ___________________________

Observer: _________________________ Time: ___________________________

Setting: ___________________________ Staff: ___________________________

Task/Lesson: _________________________________________________________

The following are some examples of possible Antecedents, Behaviors and Consequences.

Please indicate the number in the columns above and make notes about what you saw.

Appendix 5: Behavior Data Collection Sheet for Student B

Appendix 5: Replacement Data Collection Sheet for Student A

Appendix 6: Replacement Data Collection Sheet for Student B

References

Cooper, Heron, & Heward. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.