{"title":"Editorial: Special issue on education and behavior.","authors":"Darlene E. Crone-Todd","doi":"10.1037/H0100717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100717","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"13 1","pages":"2-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. This paper describes the theoretical framework that formed the guiding foundation for the development of Headsprout® Reading Comprehension and to our approach to understanding and teaching thinking.
{"title":"Thinking through text comprehension I: Foundation and guiding relations.","authors":"T. Layng, Melinda Sota, Marta Leon","doi":"10.1037/H0100706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100706","url":null,"abstract":"Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. This paper describes the theoretical framework that formed the guiding foundation for the development of Headsprout® Reading Comprehension and to our approach to understanding and teaching thinking.","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"3-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking are defined and described as teachable repertoires. This paper describes work performed at a school serving special needs children, Morningside Academy, that has resulted in specific procedures developed over the past 15 years. These procedures include modifying “Think Aloud Pair Problem Solving”(after Whimbey & Lochhead, 1991) methods developed for college students so that they can be taught to young learners and by teaching a repertoire of “Fluent Thinking Skills” (Robbins, Layng, & Jackson, 1995) that emphasizes inquiry through questioning.
{"title":"Problem Solving, Reasoning, and Analytical Thinking in a Classroom Environment","authors":"Joanne K. Robbins","doi":"10.1037/H0100710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100710","url":null,"abstract":"Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking are defined and described as teachable repertoires. This paper describes work performed at a school serving special needs children, Morningside Academy, that has resulted in specific procedures developed over the past 15 years. These procedures include modifying “Think Aloud Pair Problem Solving”(after Whimbey & Lochhead, 1991) methods developed for college students so that they can be taught to young learners and by teaching a repertoire of “Fluent Thinking Skills” (Robbins, Layng, & Jackson, 1995) that emphasizes inquiry through questioning.","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"40-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For this special issue of the Behavior Analyst Today (BAT), invitations were sent out to various behavioral listservs to recruit articles related to behavior analysis and thinking. I pitched this idea to then co-Lead Editors Tom Zane and Mary Jane Weiss when I was an associate editor for BAT. They enthusiastically supported this idea, and it seemed like an ideal transition for the issue as I took the helm as incoming Lead Editor. It seems that "thinking" is often discussed in teaching behavior analysis, but not something that we often take the time to write about in these terms. As I have written previously, thinking about the ways in which thinking can be assessed and shaped is important (Crone-Todd, 2007). As we received manuscript submissions for consideration, I was struck by the care and thought given to written about thinking from a behavioral perspective. As we know, Skinner (1957) devoted a chapter to thinking in Verbal Behavior; however, it remains one of those topics that is not well represented in our field Since behaviorism takes a physically monist position with respect to mental and physical behavior, the processes involved in private thinking, reasoning, feeling, and other private experiences are considered to be controlled by the same respondent and operant principles and procedures as our public behaviors. However, as Skinner and others have pointed out, scientifically studying our private events is very difficult: They are indeed only truly observable to one individual. This fact makes procedural reliability methods commonly used in our field, such as inter-observer reliability, impossible to carry out. Despite this difficulty, it is also the case that behaviorists study the outcomes of behavior. Under different conditions, we study whether or not students are likely to produce different products of thinking behavior. In Education, these products might include test scores on exams, or some assessment of the quality of their papers or other written work. In this issue, the contributing authors offer a variety of ways in which thinking can be studied as a product of behavior. The first three inter-related articles are based on the work of T.V. Joe Layng, Melinda Sota, and Marta Leon, who have been studying text comprehension. In the first article (Layng, Sota, & Leon, 2011), reading comprehension is discussed in terms of two different repertoires: verbal and investigative. This approach will be of general interest to readers in terms of how to look at complex human behavior, and is a good introduction to the foundation for this work at Headsprout. The second article (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011) covers content analysis of the products of the complex set of verbal and investigative repertoires. There is also a call to assessment at the beginning of instruction so that those who are teaching text comprehension can start where the student is at, and thereby are more likely to shape the complex repertoires involved. In the third article
在本期《今日行为分析师》(BAT)的特刊中，我们向各种行为列表网站发出了邀请，以招募与行为分析和思考相关的文章。当我还是BAT的副主编时，我向当时的联合主编Tom Zane和Mary Jane Weiss提出了这个想法。他们热情地支持这个想法，这似乎是一个理想的转变，因为我作为即将上任的首席编辑掌舵。在教学行为分析中，“思考”似乎经常被讨论，但我们通常不会花时间用这些术语来写。正如我之前所写的，思考思维可以被评估和塑造的方式是很重要的(Crone-Todd, 2007)。当我们收到提交的手稿供考虑时，我被从行为角度思考的写作所给予的关心和思考所打动。我们知道，斯金纳(1957)专门用了一章来讨论言语行为中的思维;然而，在我们的领域中，这仍然是一个没有很好地代表的话题。因为行为主义在精神和身体行为方面采取了物理一元论的立场，涉及私人思考、推理、感觉和其他私人体验的过程被认为是由与我们的公共行为相同的应答者和操作原则和程序控制的。然而，正如斯金纳和其他人指出的那样，科学地研究我们的私人事件是非常困难的:它们确实只能被一个人真正观察到。这一事实使得在我们的领域中常用的程序可靠性方法，如观察者间可靠性，无法实施。尽管存在这种困难，行为主义者研究行为的结果也是如此。在不同的条件下，我们研究学生是否可能产生不同的思维行为产物。在教育方面，这些产品可能包括考试成绩，或者对论文或其他书面作业质量的一些评估。在本期中，特约作者提供了多种方法，可以将思维作为行为的产物进行研究。前三篇相互关联的文章是基于T.V. Joe laying, Melinda Sota和Marta Leon的工作，他们一直在研究文本理解。在第一篇文章(laying, Sota， & Leon, 2011)中，我们从两种不同的方式来讨论阅读理解:口头阅读和调查性阅读。在如何看待复杂的人类行为方面，这种方法将引起读者的普遍兴趣，并且是对Headsprout这项工作的基础的良好介绍。第二篇文章(Sota, Leon， & laying, 2011)涵盖了复杂的口头和调查性曲目集产品的内容分析。此外，还呼吁在教学开始时进行评估，这样那些教授文本理解的人就可以从学生所在的位置开始，从而更有可能形成所涉及的复杂曲目。在第三篇文章(Leon, Layng， & Sota, 2011)中，介绍了如何编程和扩展的综合。强调为成功的学习创造条件不应该从行为的角度逃避读者。第四篇文章，由Louis Svenningsen和Joseph Pear(2011)，描述了两个实验，其中计算机辅助个性化教学系统(CAPSI)在教授大学水平的学生批判性思维技能方面显示出有效性。使用PSI课程来教授批判性思维是很重要的，因为行为教学方法经常被批评为只教授低阶技能。…
{"title":"Editorial: Introduction to Special Issue on Thinking and Behavior","authors":"Darlene E. Crone-Todd","doi":"10.1037/H0100711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100711","url":null,"abstract":"For this special issue of the Behavior Analyst Today (BAT), invitations were sent out to various behavioral listservs to recruit articles related to behavior analysis and thinking. I pitched this idea to then co-Lead Editors Tom Zane and Mary Jane Weiss when I was an associate editor for BAT. They enthusiastically supported this idea, and it seemed like an ideal transition for the issue as I took the helm as incoming Lead Editor. It seems that \"thinking\" is often discussed in teaching behavior analysis, but not something that we often take the time to write about in these terms. As I have written previously, thinking about the ways in which thinking can be assessed and shaped is important (Crone-Todd, 2007). As we received manuscript submissions for consideration, I was struck by the care and thought given to written about thinking from a behavioral perspective. As we know, Skinner (1957) devoted a chapter to thinking in Verbal Behavior; however, it remains one of those topics that is not well represented in our field Since behaviorism takes a physically monist position with respect to mental and physical behavior, the processes involved in private thinking, reasoning, feeling, and other private experiences are considered to be controlled by the same respondent and operant principles and procedures as our public behaviors. However, as Skinner and others have pointed out, scientifically studying our private events is very difficult: They are indeed only truly observable to one individual. This fact makes procedural reliability methods commonly used in our field, such as inter-observer reliability, impossible to carry out. Despite this difficulty, it is also the case that behaviorists study the outcomes of behavior. Under different conditions, we study whether or not students are likely to produce different products of thinking behavior. In Education, these products might include test scores on exams, or some assessment of the quality of their papers or other written work. In this issue, the contributing authors offer a variety of ways in which thinking can be studied as a product of behavior. The first three inter-related articles are based on the work of T.V. Joe Layng, Melinda Sota, and Marta Leon, who have been studying text comprehension. In the first article (Layng, Sota, & Leon, 2011), reading comprehension is discussed in terms of two different repertoires: verbal and investigative. This approach will be of general interest to readers in terms of how to look at complex human behavior, and is a good introduction to the foundation for this work at Headsprout. The second article (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011) covers content analysis of the products of the complex set of verbal and investigative repertoires. There is also a call to assessment at the beginning of instruction so that those who are teaching text comprehension can start where the student is at, and thereby are more likely to shape the complex repertoires involved. In the third article","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. The analytical and reasoning skills necessary to demonstrate reading comprehension can be systematically taught by analyzing the verbal and investigative repertoires involved and then arranging instructional contingencies designed to build and extend those repertoires. This paper describes the programing of such contingencies, drawing from the conceptual foundation outlined for reading comprehension (Layng, Sota, & Leon, 2011) and the analysis of the repertoires involved (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011).
阅读理解可以被认为是一种复杂的人类表现，涉及两种综合的技能:口头技能和调查性(生成)技能。通过分析所涉及的口头和调查性技能，然后安排旨在建立和扩展这些技能的教学偶然事件，可以系统地教授展示阅读理解所需的分析和推理技能。本文从阅读理解概述的概念基础(laying, Sota， & Leon, 2011)和所涉及的曲目分析(Sota, Leon， & laying, 2011)出发，描述了这些偶然事件的编程。
{"title":"Thinking through Text Comprehension III: The Programing of Verbal and Investigative Repertoires","authors":"Marta Leon, T. Layng, Melinda Sota","doi":"10.1037/H0100708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100708","url":null,"abstract":"Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. The analytical and reasoning skills necessary to demonstrate reading comprehension can be systematically taught by analyzing the verbal and investigative repertoires involved and then arranging instructional contingencies designed to build and extend those repertoires. This paper describes the programing of such contingencies, drawing from the conceptual foundation outlined for reading comprehension (Layng, Sota, & Leon, 2011) and the analysis of the repertoires involved (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011).","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"21-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. This paper describes an analysis of these repertoires in terms which can ultimately inform the design of programs to teach them, using the analysis and design of Headsprout ® Reading Comprehen
{"title":"Thinking through Text Comprehension II: Analysis of Verbal and Investigative Repertoires.","authors":"Melinda Sota, Marta Leon, T. Layng","doi":"10.1037/H0100707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100707","url":null,"abstract":"Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. This paper describes an analysis of these repertoires in terms which can ultimately inform the design of programs to teach them, using the analysis and design of Headsprout ® Reading Comprehen","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"12-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two experiments were conducted to assess an online version of Keller’s personalized system of instruction, called computeraided personalized system of instruction (CAPSi), as part of a blended learning design with regard to course knowledge and critical thinking development. in Experiment 1, two lecture sections of an introduction to University course received a CAPSi assignment while two received an extra paper assignment. in Experiment 2, one lecture section of an introduction to University course received a CAPSi assignment while another lecture section was assigned a research paper. in the two experiments the CAPSi sections consistently outperformed the sections with which they were compared, indicating that CAPSi is a viable option in higher education.
{"title":"Effects of Computer-Aided Personalized System of Instruction in Developing Knowledge and Critical Thinking in Blended Learning Courses.","authors":"L. Svenningsen, J. Pear","doi":"10.1037/H0100709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100709","url":null,"abstract":"Two experiments were conducted to assess an online version of Keller’s personalized system of instruction, called computeraided personalized system of instruction (CAPSi), as part of a blended learning design with regard to course knowledge and critical thinking development. in Experiment 1, two lecture sections of an introduction to University course received a CAPSi assignment while two received an extra paper assignment. in Experiment 2, one lecture section of an introduction to University course received a CAPSi assignment while another lecture section was assigned a research paper. in the two experiments the CAPSi sections consistently outperformed the sections with which they were compared, indicating that CAPSi is a viable option in higher education.","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"12 1","pages":"33-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Increasingly, fluency is being recognized as a critical outcome of instruction for learners with autism. Binder (1996) defined fluency as "the fluid combination of accuracy plus speed that characterizes competent performance" (Binder, 1996, p. 164). In the classroom, fluent performance would be exemplified by highly accurate and quick responses that require seemingly low effort (more automatic) on the part of the learner. From a teaching perspective, this concept represents a departure from measuring learning outcomes based solely on percent of correct responses which is the basis of discrete trial instruction (DTI). While DTI is a proven and effective teaching method for learners with autism, the reliance on percent correct achievement may overlook a learner's latencies in response time and/or difficulties in the motor response itself. These deficits are common among learners with autism and the use of ratebuilding instruction and timed practice to achieve greater fluency in responses may help overcome some of these performance deficits. Why is it important to focus on remediating these deficits? Fluency problems in learners with autism can manifest in many ways including effortful or laborious motor responses, long durations of responses and long latencies in responding, all of which can result in poor learning and social outcomes. For example, in a classroom setting, if a learner is asked a question by the teacher and fails to respond within an appropriate amount of time or the response is disorganized, it is assumed she is not prepared or does not know the answer. For many with autism, such difficulties with responses are common, even when the student knows the answer. As a result, missed opportunities to participate in learning and group instruction occur. Slow response times may also impact the degree to which a student can keep up with the larger group. Both speed of response and accuracy impact how well a learner integrates into an educational environment. If a student can correctly do all the problems on a math worksheet, but takes three times the amount of time to complete it as other students in class, he or she will inevitably fall behind. Endurance and perseverance in responses are also important instructional outcomes to consider to ensure that students with autism can perform skills for sufficiently functional lengths of time. While time to complete academic tasks will vary significantly depending on the activity, fluency-based instruction focuses on building overall performance endurance, which will, in turn, increase the likelihood that a student will persevere through longer tasks. This is especially important for learners with autism, who tend to have fleeting attention, brief effort, and difficulties with sustaining responses. It is important to build the duration of responses and increase their ability to sustain their effort. If they can engage in activities for longer periods of time, opportunities for obtaining reinforceme
{"title":"The Importance of Fluency Outcomes in Learners with Autism.","authors":"M. Weiss, Nicole Pearson, K. Foley, S. Pahl","doi":"10.1037/H0100704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100704","url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly, fluency is being recognized as a critical outcome of instruction for learners with autism. Binder (1996) defined fluency as \"the fluid combination of accuracy plus speed that characterizes competent performance\" (Binder, 1996, p. 164). In the classroom, fluent performance would be exemplified by highly accurate and quick responses that require seemingly low effort (more automatic) on the part of the learner. From a teaching perspective, this concept represents a departure from measuring learning outcomes based solely on percent of correct responses which is the basis of discrete trial instruction (DTI). While DTI is a proven and effective teaching method for learners with autism, the reliance on percent correct achievement may overlook a learner's latencies in response time and/or difficulties in the motor response itself. These deficits are common among learners with autism and the use of ratebuilding instruction and timed practice to achieve greater fluency in responses may help overcome some of these performance deficits. Why is it important to focus on remediating these deficits? Fluency problems in learners with autism can manifest in many ways including effortful or laborious motor responses, long durations of responses and long latencies in responding, all of which can result in poor learning and social outcomes. For example, in a classroom setting, if a learner is asked a question by the teacher and fails to respond within an appropriate amount of time or the response is disorganized, it is assumed she is not prepared or does not know the answer. For many with autism, such difficulties with responses are common, even when the student knows the answer. As a result, missed opportunities to participate in learning and group instruction occur. Slow response times may also impact the degree to which a student can keep up with the larger group. Both speed of response and accuracy impact how well a learner integrates into an educational environment. If a student can correctly do all the problems on a math worksheet, but takes three times the amount of time to complete it as other students in class, he or she will inevitably fall behind. Endurance and perseverance in responses are also important instructional outcomes to consider to ensure that students with autism can perform skills for sufficiently functional lengths of time. While time to complete academic tasks will vary significantly depending on the activity, fluency-based instruction focuses on building overall performance endurance, which will, in turn, increase the likelihood that a student will persevere through longer tasks. This is especially important for learners with autism, who tend to have fleeting attention, brief effort, and difficulties with sustaining responses. It is important to build the duration of responses and increase their ability to sustain their effort. If they can engage in activities for longer periods of time, opportunities for obtaining reinforceme","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"245-252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Moors, Amy B. Weisenburgh-Snyder, Joanne K. Robbins
Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI) refers to a recent innovation in education utilizing a multitiered service delivery model with two overlapping functions: first, to identify students who are struggling in the classroom and remediate academic deficits, and second, to distinguish between students who are behind due to a history of poor instructional experiences and those in need of special education services for remediation of an actual learning disability. (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). RtI promotes a new focus on teaching and learning, focusing on how responsive students are to instruction. The term as originally coined, "Responsiveness" places the agency or label of special education on the teaching methodologies and measures student responsiveness to those procedures. RtI was derived from the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), which states that "in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a Local Education Agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process" [Section 614 (b)(6)(B)]. As such, RtI offers an alternative to the traditional practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on a pronounced dual discrepancy between intellectual capacity (as determined by intelligence tests) and academic proficiency in various subjects (as determined by achievement tests). RtI is not mandated, but IDEA 2004 now prohibits states from requiring this discrepancy model. In many ways, RtI constitutes a profound paradigm shift in the way that students with educational problems are perceived and taught in the classroom. According to the traditional approach, if a significant dual discrepancy is observed between intelligence test scores and achievement scores, the problem is generally considered to exist within the student. The student is then labeled with a learning disability and committed to the special educational system. If a significant discrepancy is not observed, the student returns to the general education classroom. Due to strict qualification guidelines related to the current provision of special education services, funding to provide additional support to students that are only marginally failing is not generally available. Yet, it's clear that without an effective intervention, the deficits are only likely to increase. For this reason, the dual discrepancy model is often referred to as the "wait-to-fail" model and has come under increasing widespread criticisms as being an ineffective and inadequate framework for special education (Francis et al., 2005). In contrast to the dual discrepancy approach, the RtI framework emphasizes identifying and supportng all students with pronounced academic deficits. This change in perspective of how to provide services has even led to a new term, "the enabled learner" (Tilly, 2006) and is creating a challenge for our school psychologis
{"title":"Integrating Frequency-Based Mathematics Instruction with a Multi-Level Assessment System to Enhance Response to Intervention Frameworks.","authors":"A. Moors, Amy B. Weisenburgh-Snyder, Joanne K. Robbins","doi":"10.1037/H0100703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100703","url":null,"abstract":"Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI) refers to a recent innovation in education utilizing a multitiered service delivery model with two overlapping functions: first, to identify students who are struggling in the classroom and remediate academic deficits, and second, to distinguish between students who are behind due to a history of poor instructional experiences and those in need of special education services for remediation of an actual learning disability. (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). RtI promotes a new focus on teaching and learning, focusing on how responsive students are to instruction. The term as originally coined, \"Responsiveness\" places the agency or label of special education on the teaching methodologies and measures student responsiveness to those procedures. RtI was derived from the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), which states that \"in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a Local Education Agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process\" [Section 614 (b)(6)(B)]. As such, RtI offers an alternative to the traditional practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on a pronounced dual discrepancy between intellectual capacity (as determined by intelligence tests) and academic proficiency in various subjects (as determined by achievement tests). RtI is not mandated, but IDEA 2004 now prohibits states from requiring this discrepancy model. In many ways, RtI constitutes a profound paradigm shift in the way that students with educational problems are perceived and taught in the classroom. According to the traditional approach, if a significant dual discrepancy is observed between intelligence test scores and achievement scores, the problem is generally considered to exist within the student. The student is then labeled with a learning disability and committed to the special educational system. If a significant discrepancy is not observed, the student returns to the general education classroom. Due to strict qualification guidelines related to the current provision of special education services, funding to provide additional support to students that are only marginally failing is not generally available. Yet, it's clear that without an effective intervention, the deficits are only likely to increase. For this reason, the dual discrepancy model is often referred to as the \"wait-to-fail\" model and has come under increasing widespread criticisms as being an ineffective and inadequate framework for special education (Francis et al., 2005). In contrast to the dual discrepancy approach, the RtI framework emphasizes identifying and supportng all students with pronounced academic deficits. This change in perspective of how to provide services has even led to a new term, \"the enabled learner\" (Tilly, 2006) and is creating a challenge for our school psychologis","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"226-244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jessica Singer-Dudek, JeanneMarie Speckman, Robin Nuzzolo
The Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling, or CABAS[R], model of education has been in existence for almost three decades. CABAS[R] is a data-driven, researchbased system that takes into account the interdependent relationship between teachers, students and their parents, and school supervisory personnel, whose primary function is to train and mentor teachers to continually apply the principles and tactics of the science of behavior to ensure student success. A university graduate training program ensures that the training incorporates the latest scientific findings and consultation to board certified schools by CABAS[R] Professional Advisory Board members, who are themselves senior behavior analysts and research scientists, ensures the accurate implementation of all components of the CABAS[R] model. Students are at the center of the system and it is continuous measurement of their behaviors that provides evidence of the effectiveness of the system. CABAS[R] also includes a behavioral parent education program (please refer to Greer, 2002 or Greer, Keohane, & Healy, 2002) for a full description of these CABAS[R] components). All those involved are responsive to student data, at the level of the individual child, classroom, or school as a whole. CABAS[R] is a cybernetic system, at the heart of which lie the students. Our students' achievement is directly tied to their teachers' expertise (Greer, 2002; Greer, et al, 2002). Students learn only as fast as their teachers can teach them. The amount of instruction received (measured in learn units, described later in this paper) and the number of objectives achieved by students is a direct measure of teacher behavior. And, those objectives are tied directly to state standards, so our teachers are accountable at all levels for the achievement of their students. Our model is designed such that, just as teachers are responsible for their students' achievement, teacher mentors and behavior analyst supervisors are responsible for the performance of their teachers. And beyond that, CABAS[R] consultants and university faculty are responsible for the performance of teacher mentors and behavior analysts. CABAS[R] meets the criteria set forth by the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB), including: 1) accountability for results, as evidenced by a set of measures reflecting both teacher and student performance across the entire school year, 2) scientifically-based instruction, as evidenced by the use of tactics from the research literature of the science of behavior, 3) highly qualified teachers and teaching assistants, accomplished through a three-tiered personalized system of instruction that includes a teacher training and observation component as well as other outcome-based measures of teacher expertise, and 4) assessment of individualized student progress, including the use of criterion-referenced assessments and curricula tied to state standards. The CABAS[R] model also contains components whi
行为分析在学校教育中的综合应用(Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling，简称CABAS)这一教育模式已经存在了近30年。CABAS[R]是一个数据驱动的、基于研究的系统，它考虑了教师、学生及其家长和学校管理人员之间的相互依存关系，其主要功能是培训和指导教师不断应用行为科学的原则和策略，以确保学生的成功。大学毕业生培训计划确保培训包含最新的科学发现和咨询，由CABAS[R]专业顾问委员会成员(他们本身就是高级行为分析师和研究科学家)向董事会认证的学校提供咨询，确保准确实施CABAS[R]模型的所有组成部分。学生是系统的中心，对他们行为的持续测量为系统的有效性提供了证据。CABAS[R]还包括一个行为父母教育计划(请参阅Greer, 2002或Greer, Keohane， & Healy, 2002)，了解这些CABAS[R]组成部分的完整描述)。所有相关人员都对学生数据做出响应，无论是在个别孩子、教室还是整个学校的层面上。CABAS[R]是一个控制论系统，其核心是学生。我们的学生的成绩与他们的老师的专业知识直接相关(Greer, 2002;Greer等人，2002)。学生只能按照老师教他们的速度学习。接受的教学量(以学习单位衡量，本文稍后将介绍)和学生实现的目标数量是衡量教师行为的直接指标。而且，这些目标直接与州标准挂钩，因此我们的教师在各个层面上都对学生的成就负责。我们的模型是这样设计的，就像教师对学生的成就负责一样，教师导师和行为分析主管对教师的表现负责。除此之外，CABAS[R]顾问和大学教师对教师导师和行为分析师的绩效负责。CABAS[R]符合《不让一个孩子掉队法》(NCLB)规定的标准，包括:1)对结果负责，通过一系列反映整个学年教师和学生表现的措施来证明;2)基于科学的教学，通过使用行为科学研究文献中的策略来证明;3)高素质的教师和助教;通过三个层次的个性化教学系统来完成，包括教师培训和观察部分，以及其他基于结果的教师专业知识措施，以及对个性化学生进步的评估，包括使用标准参考评估和与州标准挂钩的课程。CABAS[R]模型还包含了满足对教学反应模型(RTI) (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003)定义的组件，其中1)评估所有学生的曲目和能力，2)监测对教学的反应，3)分析数据并确定行动方案，4)所有有关干预的决策都针对特定学生进行个性化处理，5)密切监测战术实施的完整性。RTI模式中的干预是多层次的，对干预没有反应的学生将转向更严格或不同层次的干预。我们的决策分析协议，在本文后面描述，旨在分析教学环境中的学习问题，并根据学习问题存在的地方(例如，缺乏先决技能;动机，教学历史，条件强化)。总之，CABAS[R]教育模式将教育学科学应用于教与学的各个方面。．．．
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of the CABAS Model of Education at the Fred S. Keller School: A Twenty-Year Review.","authors":"Jessica Singer-Dudek, JeanneMarie Speckman, Robin Nuzzolo","doi":"10.1037/H0100705","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100705","url":null,"abstract":"The Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling, or CABAS[R], model of education has been in existence for almost three decades. CABAS[R] is a data-driven, researchbased system that takes into account the interdependent relationship between teachers, students and their parents, and school supervisory personnel, whose primary function is to train and mentor teachers to continually apply the principles and tactics of the science of behavior to ensure student success. A university graduate training program ensures that the training incorporates the latest scientific findings and consultation to board certified schools by CABAS[R] Professional Advisory Board members, who are themselves senior behavior analysts and research scientists, ensures the accurate implementation of all components of the CABAS[R] model. Students are at the center of the system and it is continuous measurement of their behaviors that provides evidence of the effectiveness of the system. CABAS[R] also includes a behavioral parent education program (please refer to Greer, 2002 or Greer, Keohane, & Healy, 2002) for a full description of these CABAS[R] components). All those involved are responsive to student data, at the level of the individual child, classroom, or school as a whole. CABAS[R] is a cybernetic system, at the heart of which lie the students. Our students' achievement is directly tied to their teachers' expertise (Greer, 2002; Greer, et al, 2002). Students learn only as fast as their teachers can teach them. The amount of instruction received (measured in learn units, described later in this paper) and the number of objectives achieved by students is a direct measure of teacher behavior. And, those objectives are tied directly to state standards, so our teachers are accountable at all levels for the achievement of their students. Our model is designed such that, just as teachers are responsible for their students' achievement, teacher mentors and behavior analyst supervisors are responsible for the performance of their teachers. And beyond that, CABAS[R] consultants and university faculty are responsible for the performance of teacher mentors and behavior analysts. CABAS[R] meets the criteria set forth by the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB), including: 1) accountability for results, as evidenced by a set of measures reflecting both teacher and student performance across the entire school year, 2) scientifically-based instruction, as evidenced by the use of tactics from the research literature of the science of behavior, 3) highly qualified teachers and teaching assistants, accomplished through a three-tiered personalized system of instruction that includes a teacher training and observation component as well as other outcome-based measures of teacher expertise, and 4) assessment of individualized student progress, including the use of criterion-referenced assessments and curricula tied to state standards. The CABAS[R] model also contains components whi","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"253-265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：