Effects of a Collaborative Behavior Management Plan on Reducing Disruptive Behaviors of a Student with ADHD.

Freddy, a student diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder served for part of the school day in special education, was having difficulty staying on task. Teachers reported that Freddy was continuously getting up out of his seat, bothering classmates, and making verbal comments or requests without raising his hand. Observations were taken in 2 of his general education classes. A collaborative behavior management plan was developed to help Freddy stay ontask. The team found that allowing Freddy to enjoy one of his favorite activities, contingent upon a decrease in the disruptive behavior, was effective in maintaining the desired behavior of staying on-task and decreasing inappropriate behavior. In addition to Freddy’s inappropriate behavior changing in his regular education classroom, his behavior also improved in 3 of his special education classes. SUGGESTED CITATION: Burley, R. & Waller, R.J. (2005) Effects of a collaborative behavior management plan on reducing disruptive behaviors of a student with ADHD. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4) Article 2. Retrieved [date] from http://escholarship.bc. edu/education/tecplus/vol1/iss4/2 Attention/Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is described as “inappropriate levels of inattention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity” (Luiselli, 1991). ADHD is the most prevalent emotional and behavioral disorder among children and is the most controversial, with some professionals seeing these children as having developmental problems (Bateman, 1992) and others saying that better discipline would resolve the issue (Armstrong, 1995). The onset of ADHD is evident before the age of 7, effecting children both academically and socially, with no known cause or cure (Kauffman, 2005). Kauffman further states that possible causes of ADHD may include adverse reactions to food, genetics, or difficult temperament. Early intervention is key in preventing the escalation of disruptive behavior. Intervention may include any one or a combination of the following: behavior intervention, parent training, teacher training, cognitive strategy training, and medication. One difficulty with developing behavior management plans for students with ADHD is their hypersensitivity to reward and/or an insensitivity to punishment cues (Arnet, Fisher, & Newby, 1996). The assessment of ADHD should include a medical examination, a clinical interview, and parent/teacher ratings of behavior (Barkley, 1998). However, the primary means of assessing ADHD in school settings are teacher/ peer rating scales, direct observation, and interviews (DuPaul, Power, Anastopolous, & Reid, 1998). Glass and Wega (2000) indicate that the classroom is usually where problems are most evident. They suggest that the actual behavior problems may be related to classroom size and that some children are labeled as ADHD because teachers can not or do not want to make appropriate modifications. Some teachers express a preference that the students be removed from their classroom, while other teachers feel that medication is the best way to control the behavior. Behavior Management and Interventions When trying to develop a behavior management plan, it is important to first identify the target behavior (Marron, 2002). The following are important assessment issues to consider when selecting the behavior to modify: • What is the functional level of the child or what are they able to do? • Does the behavior interfere with the goals for the child? • Whose quality of life are you trying to change? • Are you going to be able to monitor the behavior to see if there is improvement? Various behavior management plans can be attempted; however, the first step needs to be the determination of the function of the behavior (or to determine why the child is behaving the way that he is). Disruptive behavior could serve a variety of functions, including the acquisition of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or stimulation/ sensory regulation (Repp, 1999). In the case of children with ADHD, it is more likely that the behavior is being maintained by either positive reinforcement, which may include attention seeking from either peers or an adult/teacher or negative reinforcement, which may include the escape of an activity or task. Different intervention plans need to be established for each child. For example, if the disruptive behavior is escape motivated, then changing the activities or allowing a choice may be enough to halt the behavior (Romaniuk et al, 2002). For example, four students studied by Carr and Durand (1985) were found to have different reasons for acting out. Two of the students were acting out to avoid the assignments, one was acting out for the attention of an adult, and the last student engaged in off-task behavior for both escape of the task and attention from the adult. All four students needed different intervention plans. Once the function of the behavior has been identified, a behavior management plan can be successfully designed. Various plans have been shown to be successful. Robinson, Newby, and Ganzell (1981) used a token economy system to increase student performance in a large classroom of underachieving hyperactive children. The students were 18 third-grade boys who were identified by teachers as hyperactive. The students worked together to learn new reading and vocabulary words. Students would earn tokens for the units completed correctly and then could use the tokens to play a game for 15 minutes. Results indicated that children completed nine times as many assignments when working with the token system. In another study, an elementary school student’s inappropriate behaviors were reduced using a token economy system (Higgins, Williams, & McLaughlin, 2001). This elementary school student was engaging in out-of-seat behavior, inappropriate talking, and off-task behavior. A plan was established whereby the student would earn check marks for appropriate behaviors. Those checkmarks were then turned into minutes that he could use for acquisition of rewards. Another intervention, class wide peer tutoring for students with ADHD, was found to be successful (DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998). In this study, peer tutoring increased active engagement times and reduced disruptive off-task behaviors. Fifty percent of the students showed greater academic success. The study included 19 students in grades 1-5. Teachers were trained on peer tutoring and then taught students the process. Tutoring pairs worked with each other 15 to 20 minutes per day three to four times per week. The teachers monitored the pairs and rewarded them if they followed the guidelines. Disruptive behavior has been shown to decrease with the use of a timer that provides students with a 30 second break for playtime after assigned tasks were completed (Jones, Drew, & Weber, 2000). A functional analysis was performed on an 8-year old boy to see what was reinforcing his behavior, attention or escape. It was determined that peer attention was maintaining the behavior. During the sessions with the non-contingent reinforcement (30 second break), his disruptive behavior decreased. Self-monitoring has been used to reduce problem behavior (Shimabukuro, Prater, Jenkins, Edelen-Smith, 1999). In this study, three male students that were diagnosed with ADHD learned self-monitoring techniques using graph forms. The three students made improvements with their academics and their on-task behaviors. Letting the child select the reinforcer has also been shown to be successful (McGee & Daly, 1999). Rewards are then selected based on the student’s preferences. Students can gain time for these activities or even gain tangible rewards contingent on the absence of the behavior or the presence of the desired behavior. The evidence suggests that functional behavior assessment (FBA) and positive behavior support plans can be effective when addressing a variety of behavioral issues. Providing supports within a framework of collaboration adds additional empirical support. In addition, this aligns with our philosophical orientation of inclusion of all students into the general education setting to the maximum extent appropriate. Therefore, this is the approach that was taken with the following case study. Student Background Information Freddy was a 13-year old male student diagnosed with ADHD. He was in the 6th grade in a rural Georgia middle school. Freddy was functioning within a normal intelligence range but was two grade levels behind his peers. He was not on any medication. He was being served in a special education classroom for science, social studies, and language arts and in a general education classroom setting for reading and math. At the beginning of the year, Freddy was only served in special education for language arts. At the request of his mother, Freddy was put in special education classes for science and social studies after the first progress report indicated that he was failing subjects. Freddy received a modified curriculum in both special education classes and accommodations in general education. His mother did not want Freddy to be in a self-contained classroom setting. Freddy’s reading teacher expressed concern with his disruptive behavior. He was bothering other students, blurting out comments, and getting out of his seat throughout the class period. His grades were dropping in reading and math. It was decided to first observe Freddy’s behavior in order to attempt to determine the function of his behavior. Freddy was observed in both of his general education classes. Phase IObservations The special education teacher, who had been trained in FBA, systematically observed Freddy in two of his regular education classes (reading and math), and collected data on the target behaviors. His reading class is the first period of the day and his math class is the third period. The following is a description of each classroom observation. Reading Class The o