![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/rtf.png)
Case Study of 2nd Grade ASD Nest Student | |
File Size: | 211 kb |
File Type: | doc |
Jennifer Ortiz
SPEDE 777
Case Study
Background Information:
Devin is a second grade ASD Nest student in a New York City Public school. Devin demonstrates slightly below average academic achievement but his deficits in the areas of communication and social interaction directly affect his academic progress. The included information on Devin’s developmental domains was gathered through teacher interview and observation across multiple settings.
i. Language/Communication:
a. Receptive Language: It was reported through teacher interview that Devin’s receptive language was age and grade appropriate.
b. Expressive Language: Devin prefers to communicate non-verbally. His responses, when verbal, often consist of incomplete sentences. He is more prone to share his ideas when he is not directly questioned. He speaks with a low volume voice, almost inaudible at times, making it difficult for partners or classmates to hear his responses. Devin asks few questions and needs support and prompting to request help or assistance with tasks. Devin typically requires support in initiation and to sustain conversations with others.
ii. Cognition: Devin is performing below average in reading. He was assessed using
the Fountas and Pinnell and came in at an E/F level when the average for his grade level is considered G/H. His struggle areas include decoding and while he has a high sight word recognition score he demonstrates difficulty transferring the skill to his reading. He struggles with comprehension strategies as well like inference, prediction and retelling. However, it is difficult to take the assessment of these skills as a full display of his abilities because Devin does not respond well to direct questioning and is typically reluctant to respond to teachers. Math is Devin’s strongest subject where he tested at an average level in counting, numerations, addition and subtraction. Writing presents difficulty for Devin. He is unable to sustain writing stamina because of an unconventional pencil grasp. He demonstrates difficulty blending and encoding sounds in his writing as well.
iii. Motor Skills: Parents reported to teachers that Devin has experienced good health
with no known allergies, need for medications and no hearing or vision problems.
a. Gross Motor: Skills are age appropriate. At times demonstrates difficulty starting or stopping when responding to a signal. Also has difficulty pacing himself during movements, displays extraneous movements and difficulty noting his force.
b. Fine Motor: Devin displays deficits in the area of fine motor skills. He has an awkward pencil grasp that hinders his ability to keep pace with his peers during writing activities. He demonstrates difficulty manipulating small objects and uses too much or too little pressure when using objects that require fine motor control.
iv. Adaptive Skills: Devin demonstrates appropriate adaptive skills. He is able to
independently toilet, eat, dress and clean up after himself. His ability to tie his shoelaces independently is developing steadily. He can cut independently but requires a reminder to hold the scissors correctly and typically cuts with the paper placed on the table held down by his other hand.
v. Social/Coping Skills: Devin is becoming more aware of social group roles and
interactions. He is starting to greet teachers and therapists when given wait time, language supports and modeling by other peers. Devin is steadily increasing the number of turns he takes communicating in conversations however still struggles with initiating conversation and responding to direct questions. Devin sometimes purposely carries out actions he knows to be unexpected and inappropriate while referencing an adult to gage reactions to his behavior. With supports Devin is learning to reference peers and adults to notice non-verbal indicators such as body language and facial expression. Devin communicates in fragmented incomplete sentences. He shows inconsistency following teacher directives and requires frequent repetition. Devin falls behind in class activities because of his high distractibility but can often coordinate his actions and determine expectations by referencing peers.
Observation:
Devin was observed for two days and across multiple settings and it became evident that Devin possessed good foundation for skills in attending and remaining on task. One weakness noted that hindered his ability to enact these skills was his high visual distractibility. When Devin was sitting in a whole group mini lesson he required frequent prompting to break a fixed gaze or a fidgeting behavior that had captured his attention. These behaviors kept him from focusing on the speaker and the task at hand. As a result, Devin was frequently lagging when it came to knowing where the class was in an activity or lesson.
For example in math whole group mini-lesson Devin was observed to fixate his gaze on a section of the carpeted area that was raised because of the smart board wire. Devin’s classmates were taking turns in a circle responding to a number fact game. When it came to Devin he was unaware and required a verbal prompt (name was called) that was accompanied by a tap on the shoulder from a peer. He then had to look at the board and figure out what the class was doing so he could give a response to the teacher. Devin’s classmates became restless and one student said, “Devin never pays attention.”
During another observed occurrence in a reading workshop mini lesson with the entire class, Devin was twisting his shoelaces, a behavior that is typical for him during whole group, when the class was asked to do a turn and talk about one of the aspects of the story. Devin did not appear to hear the directive and his assigned turn and talk partner expressed some frustration (a long sigh) at having to prompt him. She then had to catch him up to speed regarding their task. The duo was unable to hone in on the assigned topic before it was then time to share.
Evidently, Devin seemed to struggle more with checking in and maintaining focus when he was seated on the carpet for mini lessons with the whole group than in other settings. He demonstrated high distractibility including lack of eye contact, continual fidgeting (particularly with his shoelaces) and staring at inanimate objects for prolonged periods of time as opposed to following along with the class and speaker.
One weakness, also listed on his IEP, was an opposition to verbal instructional directives. However, Devin demonstrated great strength in his ability to refocus after a visual prompt that was not accompanied by a verbal directive. He was observed to respond effectively to visual supports across multiple settings (STI, Gym, and independent writing). In each of these settings Devin was shown a visual support or handed one and it resulted in an immediate response and refocus to the task. For example, during transitions Devin was assigned the position of door monitor but he was struggling with remembering to complete his job without constant reminders. The teachers created a visual reminder card for Devin that served as a non-verbal prompt when his job was approaching. He would be handed the card cue when the class was approaching the door and he would immediately get on task. This effectively eliminated the need to call Devin’s name and wait time for the class was eliminated all together.
Another observation of his response to visual cues occurred during independent work where Devin typically gets observably off task. He would engage in physical actions like twirling and staring at his pencil or leaning back in his chair. The teachers incorporated a nonverbal redirection with a behavior expectation desk chart. This prompt on his desk could be pointed to for an immediate silent reminder. The four-step card pictured the expectations sitting up, notebook open to task, pencil in hand, task in mind and when the card was referenced non-verbally, Devin would immediately return to task as opposed to the repetitive calling of his name that he would actively ignore.
Devin was observed to enjoy small group work, frequently smiling and finding a role in the group. He typically excelled in interactions when paired with more skillful conversation partners who implored him to give feedback and actively participate. Also, Devin appeared to be more focused when seated on the carpet in a circle possibly because his assigned spot was directly next to the teacher. He was noted to be most distracted when the class was seated in rows in spite of being in the front row possibly because he was located on the edge of the carpet opposite the teacher.
Goals and Objectives:
a) Description of Target Goals and Objectives
After observations and teacher interviews regarding Devin’s background and IEP it became clear that the deficits experienced in the areas of communication and social interaction are directly influenced by high visual distractibility and inability to attend for prolonged periods, particularly during whole group instruction. Ultimately, all of these factors are affecting overall academic progress and cognitive development. The identified target behavior centers around the idea of increasing Devin’s “check ins” and attending with the class/instructor more regularly during whole group lessons. The accompanying goal and objectives are as follows:
Goal: Devin will increase the amount of “check-ins” and attending behavior during whole group reading lessons.
Objective: Devin will check in during whole group reading lessons at least once every two minutes of the 12 minute lesson, given a visual prompt (with fading) from the teacher, 3 out of 5 lessons per week.
Objective: During whole group reading lesson, Devin will attend to the lesson for 7 minutes total and demonstrate attending behavior by remaining seated, keeping his body oriented to the speaker and looking at the speaker with fading visual check in prompts 3 out of 5 lessons per week.
b) Rationale for Goals and Objectives
The goal of increasing Devin’s check in and attending time was chosen because it was identified as being a hindering behavior during whole group lessons that was impacting his development in numerous domains. Socially, Devin’s classmates were demonstrating some frustration with him over his visual distraction during lesson time. Cognitively Devin was missing out on lesson instruction because he would become visually distracted and not attend to the speaker or lesson. According to DEC recommended practices all domains of development and learning are important and closely interrelating. Therefore, a child’s development and learning in one will influence and is influenced by their development in other domains (Sandall, Giacomini, Smith & Hemmeter, 2006). During observation the baseline collected in a time interval-recording format noted that Devin was observed to engage in fidgeting or visual distraction on average 8 minutes of a 12 minute lesson. Therefore a goal of checking in once every two minutes with fading prompts was believed to be attainable and realistic. One content area, reading whole group lesson, was selected to observe because the 12 minute lesson was fairly consistent in length, expectations, seating and instructional method.
Intervention:
a) Description
The intervention designed was a visual prompting system that was chosen because of Devin’s observably high response to visual supports. DEC recommended practices state that prompting and prompt fading procedures ensure acquisition and use of communicative, cognitive and social skills (Sandall et al., 2006). The intervention was introduced to Devin in a one on one setting. Devin was asked to help develop a list of rules/expectations for reading whole group that he should follow. The rules included sitting in his assigned spot, looking at the speaker, keeping his body still and his brain thinking about the lesson. Devin was asked to identify behaviors that would not be appropriate during the lesson. This list included talking to classmates, playing with his shoes and being distracted by objects around the classroom or the rug, his body included. The “Check-In” visual prompt was introduced and explained to Devin that when he was engaging in one of the behaviors he described as inappropriate for reading lesson we would be given this reminder. Devin then helped to develop a description of what he needed to do when the prompt was handed to him during reading. It was decided that he would stop what he was doing, redirect his body and attention to the speaker and lesson. To keep track of how many prompts Devin received per lesson, when he was handed a check-in prompt he would attach it to an index card that logged his “check-in” behavior. As a reminder Devin’s check-in checklist was on the back of the index card. At the end of the whole group lesson Devin would approach the observer and count the number of “check-in” prompts on his index card. If he received 5 or less Devin would earn one extra check on his caught being good check chart. The class established system required 5 checks to earn a trip to prize bin where Devin’s favorite “no homework for tonight” coupon was located. Devin realized that if he did all of his homework earning a check per night and all of the checks from the reading lessons he would get to earn the no homework coupon two times a week. If Devin earned six or more prompts on his index card he would not earn the extra check and would revisit the rules and expectations determined by him for his lesson attending behavior.
b) Rationale
Devin’s intervention was designed with a pre-existing class model, “caught being good” checks, and a reward system that Devin was observed to respond effectively to. The “no homework” coupon served as reinforcement. Devin’s strength in visual prompting and deficit in directives and questioning from adults supported a visual intervention format. By receiving and holding onto the visual prompts, Devin was also given power over his decision to knowingly exceed the amount of prompts that would forgo his check at the end of the lesson and ultimately lose an opportunity to earn a coupon. Devin also had the resource on the back of the index card, much like the reminder card at his desk, that detailed his expectations on the rug thereby eliminating the need for an adult to verbally prompt and remind him. Devin was cognitively able to create a list of behavior expectations as well as behaviors he should not engage in and these lists served as his personal reference for the reinforcements. By taking ownership of the intervention and creating expectations for himself Devin’s tendency to oppose or resist adult instructions was actively avoided.
c) Intervention Data-collection and Monitoring
Baseline date was collected for five days prior to the intervention implementation. The off task behaviors of staring at inanimate objects and fidgeting with shoelaces were logged on the start of every minute for the entirety of the 12 minute lessons. The time of day was consistent throughout as well as the content area observed. The intervention was implemented for six days and the same behavior log sheet was used to record the frequency of the same behaviors at the start of each minute. The index card was used to count how many visual prompts Devin required during the lesson. The pre and post intervention data were both logged to see the change in behavior frequency per day. The numbers of prompts per lesson for each day were also noted throughout the intervention. At the end of the six-day intervention period the data depicting frequency of off task behaviors and prompting frequency was compared to the pre-intervention data and showed how the high frequency behaviors prior to the intervention progressively decreased across the six day period. In addition to the behaviors decreasing as the intervention progressed there was also a notable decrease in the number of visual prompts Devin required to reduce the behavior indicating that he was actively conscious of the expectations he helped to established and elected to implement on-task behavior more independently.
Monitoring Progress and Response to Intervention
a) Subject’s behavior during baseline
During the baseline data collection Devin was observed to engage in two off task behaviors during whole group reading lesson. The behaviors were identified and defined as Fidgeting with Shoelaces (SL) which consisted of twirling, twisting and pulling of shoelaces when he should be attending to the speaker and Staring at Inanimate Objects (ST) when his gaze was directed at objects other than the speaker. Devin’s behavior frequency was observed in a time interval-recording format and the data was collected at the beginning of each minute in the 12-minute lesson. Devin demonstrated high frequency off task behavior and only engaged in the target positive behavior of Checking in defined as keeping his body oriented to the speaker as well as looking at the speaker 2-4 times of 12 opportunities per lesson. The data reflected that Devin was off task for more than half of the lesson everyday of the 5-day baseline observation period. Devin would frequently focus his gaze on objects across the room or on the carpet and orient his body away from the speaker. When called on, Devin would not be able to respond, causing frustration for his classmates because he needed to be caught up in the happenings of the lesson. When Devin was not fixated in gaze he would alternately engage in fidgeting with his shoelaces and refrain from attending to the lesson. He would untie them, twist them together, twirl them around his finger etc.
b) Subject’s Behavior During Intervention
After analysis of the data, the intervention proved to be successful in significantly decreasing Devin’s off task behaviors during the 12-minute reading lesson. According to the data collected Devin reached both objectives of the intervention. He was able to attend for 7 or more minutes total per lesson given fading prompts and he was able to check-in once every two minutes of the lesson. The data shows that Devin increased his check-in behavior from a frequency of 2-4 per lesson to 6 and more check-ins per lesson. His highest check-in frequency occurred on the final day of the intervention where he was observed to check-in 10 times with only 2 off-task behaviors noted. Devin was able to earn his reinforcement on five of the six days of the intervention. It is important to note that Devin arrived to school late on the Tuesday he did not earn his reinforcement and this may have impacted his response to the intervention on this day. On 5 of the 6 days in the intervention the data reflects that Devin was engaging in an off task behavior at the 5 minute point of the lesson. Devin was observed to independently reference the back of his index card for his behavior expectations whenever he received a visual prompt at this point. The data collected also recorded the number of prompts given per lesson and this too decreases as the intervention progressed from day to day. On the day that Devin did not earn his reinforcement the expectations and rules he developed were reviewed with him and he was able to independently identify what he could have done differently to earn his check.
d) Effectiveness of the Intervention
Based on the aforementioned data the intervention can be labeled as successful in reducing significant off task behavior for Devin during reading group. The reinforcer chosen and the level of cognitive self-awareness Devin presented were two factors that significantly heightened the success of the intervention overall. Devin was able to deduce that the check paired with his regular homework checks would enable him to obtain two “no homework” coupons per week and this proved to be a great motivator throughout the intervention. Devin demonstrated significant distractibility and off task behaviors during baseline and by the final day of the intervention his behaviors were almost nonexistent and he had increased in check-in behaviors from 2-4 per lesson to 10 at the end. One aspect of the intervention that made it more personalized for Devin was allowing him to determine and define what rules and expectations he should be following during the lesson. This empowered him and he took ownership of his expectations and truly, the intervention on a whole.
One area for improvement would be to have created more demanding goals and objectives for Devin. When looking at the baseline data, Devin was so frequently engaged in off task behaviors the objectives were designed to be challenging but attainable given that information. However, one influencing factor was Devin’s responsiveness to visual prompting. Prior to the intervention, Devin had been seen responding to a visual prompt at his desk but the other data on his high visual prompt responsiveness was based off of teacher interview. Therefore having only seen his responsiveness to visuals in one context the goals were established with that information in mind.
Ultimately, the intervention proved to benefit Devin’s check-in ability during one group of the day. The next step would be to carry the skills learned into the other whole group lessons. Devin struggles with generalization so perhaps the intervention would encounter points of transformation, much like any intervention. The reinforcement would need to be prolonged, possibly changed and expectations revisited to accommodate the differences that occur in other lessons not exclusive to reading. The future of this intervention is a work in progress as would be found with every intervention.
Devin’s Whole Group Reading Lesson Baseline Behavior Data
The chart below was used to observe the behaviors Devin engaged in throughout whole group reading lesson during baseline observation. The lesson occurs at the same time everyday, 9:00AM- 9:12AM. The two behaviors of fidgeting with shoelaces and staring at inanimate objects were high frequency behaviors identified during observation and through teacher interview. The target behavior of checking in was looked for throughout the observation to gain a baseline of the behaviors current frequency. The behaviors recorded were documented at the beginning of each minute following a time interval-recording format.
SPEDE 777
Case Study
Background Information:
Devin is a second grade ASD Nest student in a New York City Public school. Devin demonstrates slightly below average academic achievement but his deficits in the areas of communication and social interaction directly affect his academic progress. The included information on Devin’s developmental domains was gathered through teacher interview and observation across multiple settings.
i. Language/Communication:
a. Receptive Language: It was reported through teacher interview that Devin’s receptive language was age and grade appropriate.
b. Expressive Language: Devin prefers to communicate non-verbally. His responses, when verbal, often consist of incomplete sentences. He is more prone to share his ideas when he is not directly questioned. He speaks with a low volume voice, almost inaudible at times, making it difficult for partners or classmates to hear his responses. Devin asks few questions and needs support and prompting to request help or assistance with tasks. Devin typically requires support in initiation and to sustain conversations with others.
ii. Cognition: Devin is performing below average in reading. He was assessed using
the Fountas and Pinnell and came in at an E/F level when the average for his grade level is considered G/H. His struggle areas include decoding and while he has a high sight word recognition score he demonstrates difficulty transferring the skill to his reading. He struggles with comprehension strategies as well like inference, prediction and retelling. However, it is difficult to take the assessment of these skills as a full display of his abilities because Devin does not respond well to direct questioning and is typically reluctant to respond to teachers. Math is Devin’s strongest subject where he tested at an average level in counting, numerations, addition and subtraction. Writing presents difficulty for Devin. He is unable to sustain writing stamina because of an unconventional pencil grasp. He demonstrates difficulty blending and encoding sounds in his writing as well.
iii. Motor Skills: Parents reported to teachers that Devin has experienced good health
with no known allergies, need for medications and no hearing or vision problems.
a. Gross Motor: Skills are age appropriate. At times demonstrates difficulty starting or stopping when responding to a signal. Also has difficulty pacing himself during movements, displays extraneous movements and difficulty noting his force.
b. Fine Motor: Devin displays deficits in the area of fine motor skills. He has an awkward pencil grasp that hinders his ability to keep pace with his peers during writing activities. He demonstrates difficulty manipulating small objects and uses too much or too little pressure when using objects that require fine motor control.
iv. Adaptive Skills: Devin demonstrates appropriate adaptive skills. He is able to
independently toilet, eat, dress and clean up after himself. His ability to tie his shoelaces independently is developing steadily. He can cut independently but requires a reminder to hold the scissors correctly and typically cuts with the paper placed on the table held down by his other hand.
v. Social/Coping Skills: Devin is becoming more aware of social group roles and
interactions. He is starting to greet teachers and therapists when given wait time, language supports and modeling by other peers. Devin is steadily increasing the number of turns he takes communicating in conversations however still struggles with initiating conversation and responding to direct questions. Devin sometimes purposely carries out actions he knows to be unexpected and inappropriate while referencing an adult to gage reactions to his behavior. With supports Devin is learning to reference peers and adults to notice non-verbal indicators such as body language and facial expression. Devin communicates in fragmented incomplete sentences. He shows inconsistency following teacher directives and requires frequent repetition. Devin falls behind in class activities because of his high distractibility but can often coordinate his actions and determine expectations by referencing peers.
Observation:
Devin was observed for two days and across multiple settings and it became evident that Devin possessed good foundation for skills in attending and remaining on task. One weakness noted that hindered his ability to enact these skills was his high visual distractibility. When Devin was sitting in a whole group mini lesson he required frequent prompting to break a fixed gaze or a fidgeting behavior that had captured his attention. These behaviors kept him from focusing on the speaker and the task at hand. As a result, Devin was frequently lagging when it came to knowing where the class was in an activity or lesson.
For example in math whole group mini-lesson Devin was observed to fixate his gaze on a section of the carpeted area that was raised because of the smart board wire. Devin’s classmates were taking turns in a circle responding to a number fact game. When it came to Devin he was unaware and required a verbal prompt (name was called) that was accompanied by a tap on the shoulder from a peer. He then had to look at the board and figure out what the class was doing so he could give a response to the teacher. Devin’s classmates became restless and one student said, “Devin never pays attention.”
During another observed occurrence in a reading workshop mini lesson with the entire class, Devin was twisting his shoelaces, a behavior that is typical for him during whole group, when the class was asked to do a turn and talk about one of the aspects of the story. Devin did not appear to hear the directive and his assigned turn and talk partner expressed some frustration (a long sigh) at having to prompt him. She then had to catch him up to speed regarding their task. The duo was unable to hone in on the assigned topic before it was then time to share.
Evidently, Devin seemed to struggle more with checking in and maintaining focus when he was seated on the carpet for mini lessons with the whole group than in other settings. He demonstrated high distractibility including lack of eye contact, continual fidgeting (particularly with his shoelaces) and staring at inanimate objects for prolonged periods of time as opposed to following along with the class and speaker.
One weakness, also listed on his IEP, was an opposition to verbal instructional directives. However, Devin demonstrated great strength in his ability to refocus after a visual prompt that was not accompanied by a verbal directive. He was observed to respond effectively to visual supports across multiple settings (STI, Gym, and independent writing). In each of these settings Devin was shown a visual support or handed one and it resulted in an immediate response and refocus to the task. For example, during transitions Devin was assigned the position of door monitor but he was struggling with remembering to complete his job without constant reminders. The teachers created a visual reminder card for Devin that served as a non-verbal prompt when his job was approaching. He would be handed the card cue when the class was approaching the door and he would immediately get on task. This effectively eliminated the need to call Devin’s name and wait time for the class was eliminated all together.
Another observation of his response to visual cues occurred during independent work where Devin typically gets observably off task. He would engage in physical actions like twirling and staring at his pencil or leaning back in his chair. The teachers incorporated a nonverbal redirection with a behavior expectation desk chart. This prompt on his desk could be pointed to for an immediate silent reminder. The four-step card pictured the expectations sitting up, notebook open to task, pencil in hand, task in mind and when the card was referenced non-verbally, Devin would immediately return to task as opposed to the repetitive calling of his name that he would actively ignore.
Devin was observed to enjoy small group work, frequently smiling and finding a role in the group. He typically excelled in interactions when paired with more skillful conversation partners who implored him to give feedback and actively participate. Also, Devin appeared to be more focused when seated on the carpet in a circle possibly because his assigned spot was directly next to the teacher. He was noted to be most distracted when the class was seated in rows in spite of being in the front row possibly because he was located on the edge of the carpet opposite the teacher.
Goals and Objectives:
a) Description of Target Goals and Objectives
After observations and teacher interviews regarding Devin’s background and IEP it became clear that the deficits experienced in the areas of communication and social interaction are directly influenced by high visual distractibility and inability to attend for prolonged periods, particularly during whole group instruction. Ultimately, all of these factors are affecting overall academic progress and cognitive development. The identified target behavior centers around the idea of increasing Devin’s “check ins” and attending with the class/instructor more regularly during whole group lessons. The accompanying goal and objectives are as follows:
Goal: Devin will increase the amount of “check-ins” and attending behavior during whole group reading lessons.
Objective: Devin will check in during whole group reading lessons at least once every two minutes of the 12 minute lesson, given a visual prompt (with fading) from the teacher, 3 out of 5 lessons per week.
Objective: During whole group reading lesson, Devin will attend to the lesson for 7 minutes total and demonstrate attending behavior by remaining seated, keeping his body oriented to the speaker and looking at the speaker with fading visual check in prompts 3 out of 5 lessons per week.
b) Rationale for Goals and Objectives
The goal of increasing Devin’s check in and attending time was chosen because it was identified as being a hindering behavior during whole group lessons that was impacting his development in numerous domains. Socially, Devin’s classmates were demonstrating some frustration with him over his visual distraction during lesson time. Cognitively Devin was missing out on lesson instruction because he would become visually distracted and not attend to the speaker or lesson. According to DEC recommended practices all domains of development and learning are important and closely interrelating. Therefore, a child’s development and learning in one will influence and is influenced by their development in other domains (Sandall, Giacomini, Smith & Hemmeter, 2006). During observation the baseline collected in a time interval-recording format noted that Devin was observed to engage in fidgeting or visual distraction on average 8 minutes of a 12 minute lesson. Therefore a goal of checking in once every two minutes with fading prompts was believed to be attainable and realistic. One content area, reading whole group lesson, was selected to observe because the 12 minute lesson was fairly consistent in length, expectations, seating and instructional method.
Intervention:
a) Description
The intervention designed was a visual prompting system that was chosen because of Devin’s observably high response to visual supports. DEC recommended practices state that prompting and prompt fading procedures ensure acquisition and use of communicative, cognitive and social skills (Sandall et al., 2006). The intervention was introduced to Devin in a one on one setting. Devin was asked to help develop a list of rules/expectations for reading whole group that he should follow. The rules included sitting in his assigned spot, looking at the speaker, keeping his body still and his brain thinking about the lesson. Devin was asked to identify behaviors that would not be appropriate during the lesson. This list included talking to classmates, playing with his shoes and being distracted by objects around the classroom or the rug, his body included. The “Check-In” visual prompt was introduced and explained to Devin that when he was engaging in one of the behaviors he described as inappropriate for reading lesson we would be given this reminder. Devin then helped to develop a description of what he needed to do when the prompt was handed to him during reading. It was decided that he would stop what he was doing, redirect his body and attention to the speaker and lesson. To keep track of how many prompts Devin received per lesson, when he was handed a check-in prompt he would attach it to an index card that logged his “check-in” behavior. As a reminder Devin’s check-in checklist was on the back of the index card. At the end of the whole group lesson Devin would approach the observer and count the number of “check-in” prompts on his index card. If he received 5 or less Devin would earn one extra check on his caught being good check chart. The class established system required 5 checks to earn a trip to prize bin where Devin’s favorite “no homework for tonight” coupon was located. Devin realized that if he did all of his homework earning a check per night and all of the checks from the reading lessons he would get to earn the no homework coupon two times a week. If Devin earned six or more prompts on his index card he would not earn the extra check and would revisit the rules and expectations determined by him for his lesson attending behavior.
b) Rationale
Devin’s intervention was designed with a pre-existing class model, “caught being good” checks, and a reward system that Devin was observed to respond effectively to. The “no homework” coupon served as reinforcement. Devin’s strength in visual prompting and deficit in directives and questioning from adults supported a visual intervention format. By receiving and holding onto the visual prompts, Devin was also given power over his decision to knowingly exceed the amount of prompts that would forgo his check at the end of the lesson and ultimately lose an opportunity to earn a coupon. Devin also had the resource on the back of the index card, much like the reminder card at his desk, that detailed his expectations on the rug thereby eliminating the need for an adult to verbally prompt and remind him. Devin was cognitively able to create a list of behavior expectations as well as behaviors he should not engage in and these lists served as his personal reference for the reinforcements. By taking ownership of the intervention and creating expectations for himself Devin’s tendency to oppose or resist adult instructions was actively avoided.
c) Intervention Data-collection and Monitoring
Baseline date was collected for five days prior to the intervention implementation. The off task behaviors of staring at inanimate objects and fidgeting with shoelaces were logged on the start of every minute for the entirety of the 12 minute lessons. The time of day was consistent throughout as well as the content area observed. The intervention was implemented for six days and the same behavior log sheet was used to record the frequency of the same behaviors at the start of each minute. The index card was used to count how many visual prompts Devin required during the lesson. The pre and post intervention data were both logged to see the change in behavior frequency per day. The numbers of prompts per lesson for each day were also noted throughout the intervention. At the end of the six-day intervention period the data depicting frequency of off task behaviors and prompting frequency was compared to the pre-intervention data and showed how the high frequency behaviors prior to the intervention progressively decreased across the six day period. In addition to the behaviors decreasing as the intervention progressed there was also a notable decrease in the number of visual prompts Devin required to reduce the behavior indicating that he was actively conscious of the expectations he helped to established and elected to implement on-task behavior more independently.
Monitoring Progress and Response to Intervention
a) Subject’s behavior during baseline
During the baseline data collection Devin was observed to engage in two off task behaviors during whole group reading lesson. The behaviors were identified and defined as Fidgeting with Shoelaces (SL) which consisted of twirling, twisting and pulling of shoelaces when he should be attending to the speaker and Staring at Inanimate Objects (ST) when his gaze was directed at objects other than the speaker. Devin’s behavior frequency was observed in a time interval-recording format and the data was collected at the beginning of each minute in the 12-minute lesson. Devin demonstrated high frequency off task behavior and only engaged in the target positive behavior of Checking in defined as keeping his body oriented to the speaker as well as looking at the speaker 2-4 times of 12 opportunities per lesson. The data reflected that Devin was off task for more than half of the lesson everyday of the 5-day baseline observation period. Devin would frequently focus his gaze on objects across the room or on the carpet and orient his body away from the speaker. When called on, Devin would not be able to respond, causing frustration for his classmates because he needed to be caught up in the happenings of the lesson. When Devin was not fixated in gaze he would alternately engage in fidgeting with his shoelaces and refrain from attending to the lesson. He would untie them, twist them together, twirl them around his finger etc.
b) Subject’s Behavior During Intervention
After analysis of the data, the intervention proved to be successful in significantly decreasing Devin’s off task behaviors during the 12-minute reading lesson. According to the data collected Devin reached both objectives of the intervention. He was able to attend for 7 or more minutes total per lesson given fading prompts and he was able to check-in once every two minutes of the lesson. The data shows that Devin increased his check-in behavior from a frequency of 2-4 per lesson to 6 and more check-ins per lesson. His highest check-in frequency occurred on the final day of the intervention where he was observed to check-in 10 times with only 2 off-task behaviors noted. Devin was able to earn his reinforcement on five of the six days of the intervention. It is important to note that Devin arrived to school late on the Tuesday he did not earn his reinforcement and this may have impacted his response to the intervention on this day. On 5 of the 6 days in the intervention the data reflects that Devin was engaging in an off task behavior at the 5 minute point of the lesson. Devin was observed to independently reference the back of his index card for his behavior expectations whenever he received a visual prompt at this point. The data collected also recorded the number of prompts given per lesson and this too decreases as the intervention progressed from day to day. On the day that Devin did not earn his reinforcement the expectations and rules he developed were reviewed with him and he was able to independently identify what he could have done differently to earn his check.
d) Effectiveness of the Intervention
Based on the aforementioned data the intervention can be labeled as successful in reducing significant off task behavior for Devin during reading group. The reinforcer chosen and the level of cognitive self-awareness Devin presented were two factors that significantly heightened the success of the intervention overall. Devin was able to deduce that the check paired with his regular homework checks would enable him to obtain two “no homework” coupons per week and this proved to be a great motivator throughout the intervention. Devin demonstrated significant distractibility and off task behaviors during baseline and by the final day of the intervention his behaviors were almost nonexistent and he had increased in check-in behaviors from 2-4 per lesson to 10 at the end. One aspect of the intervention that made it more personalized for Devin was allowing him to determine and define what rules and expectations he should be following during the lesson. This empowered him and he took ownership of his expectations and truly, the intervention on a whole.
One area for improvement would be to have created more demanding goals and objectives for Devin. When looking at the baseline data, Devin was so frequently engaged in off task behaviors the objectives were designed to be challenging but attainable given that information. However, one influencing factor was Devin’s responsiveness to visual prompting. Prior to the intervention, Devin had been seen responding to a visual prompt at his desk but the other data on his high visual prompt responsiveness was based off of teacher interview. Therefore having only seen his responsiveness to visuals in one context the goals were established with that information in mind.
Ultimately, the intervention proved to benefit Devin’s check-in ability during one group of the day. The next step would be to carry the skills learned into the other whole group lessons. Devin struggles with generalization so perhaps the intervention would encounter points of transformation, much like any intervention. The reinforcement would need to be prolonged, possibly changed and expectations revisited to accommodate the differences that occur in other lessons not exclusive to reading. The future of this intervention is a work in progress as would be found with every intervention.
Devin’s Whole Group Reading Lesson Baseline Behavior Data
The chart below was used to observe the behaviors Devin engaged in throughout whole group reading lesson during baseline observation. The lesson occurs at the same time everyday, 9:00AM- 9:12AM. The two behaviors of fidgeting with shoelaces and staring at inanimate objects were high frequency behaviors identified during observation and through teacher interview. The target behavior of checking in was looked for throughout the observation to gain a baseline of the behaviors current frequency. The behaviors recorded were documented at the beginning of each minute following a time interval-recording format.
Devin’s Whole Group Reading Lesson Intervention Behavior Data
The chart below was used to observe the behaviors Devin engaged in throughout whole group reading lesson during the intervention. The lesson occurs at the same time everyday, 9:00AM- 9:12AM. The two behaviors of fidgeting with shoelaces and staring at inanimate objects were high frequency behaviors identified during observation and through teacher interview. The target behavior of checking in was visually prompted and the number of prompts per day are noted as well. The behaviors recorded were documented at the beginning of each minute following a time interval-recording format.
The chart below was used to observe the behaviors Devin engaged in throughout whole group reading lesson during the intervention. The lesson occurs at the same time everyday, 9:00AM- 9:12AM. The two behaviors of fidgeting with shoelaces and staring at inanimate objects were high frequency behaviors identified during observation and through teacher interview. The target behavior of checking in was visually prompted and the number of prompts per day are noted as well. The behaviors recorded were documented at the beginning of each minute following a time interval-recording format.
Behavior Graph: Displays frequency of off task behavior Devin engaged in throughout Baseline and Intervention.
Student: Devin
Behavior: Off Task Behavior- a total of the two behaviors that Devin engaged in when he was off task during whole group reading lesson. When Devin was observed to fidget with his shoelaces and/or stare at inanimate objects instead of checking-in with the speaker he was off task.
Student: Devin
Behavior: Off Task Behavior- a total of the two behaviors that Devin engaged in when he was off task during whole group reading lesson. When Devin was observed to fidget with his shoelaces and/or stare at inanimate objects instead of checking-in with the speaker he was off task.
Behavior Graph: Displays frequency of check in behavior Devin engaged in throughout Baseline and Intervention.
Student: Devin
Behavior: Checking In- when Devin’s body was oriented to the speaker and looking at the speaker
Student: Devin
Behavior: Checking In- when Devin’s body was oriented to the speaker and looking at the speaker
References:
Sandall,S., Giacomini, J., Smith B.J. & Hemmeter, M.L., (2006) DEC recommended practices toolkits: Interactive tools to improve practices for young children with special needs and their families. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood.
Sandall,S., Giacomini, J., Smith B.J. & Hemmeter, M.L., (2006) DEC recommended practices toolkits: Interactive tools to improve practices for young children with special needs and their families. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood.