Journal Article Review on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

              There is a lot of research and information about Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  Today I chose to review a journal article entitled Misbehavior or Missed Opportunity?  Challenges in Interpreting the Behavior of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.  I will give a brief summary of the article, the connections I made through the reading materials, personal experiences, and some final thoughts about the article.  It is an intriguing topic to discuss in our society today. 

                The article is very reader friendly, and an interesting perspective.  Students with ASD are being diagnosed in increasing numbers each year, and dramatically over the last decade (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011).    Everyone seems to be talking about autism.  They each have an opinion about ASD and what is to blame for its rapid growth. This article looks at the perceptions of children with ASD in the classroom and challenges our thoughts on whether the behaviors exhibited are misbehavior or missed social opportunities. 

                They do this by observing a young girl with ASD in a typical kindergarten classroom.  The child is working on a math paper with a para.  The child starts to interact with another boy in the classroom, mimicking the teacher by asking the boy questions using an alphabet book.  Although it is obvious that the para feels the child is “off-task” and tries to redirect the child back to the math page, the child repeatedly tries to go back to the interaction with the boy.  The boy engages the girl appropriately, but the behavior is redirected by both the teacher and the para.  In the end, the girl finishes the math paper with no assistance, and re-engages the boy in the teacher/student role playing they were doing.

                The question was then posed whether the behavior was misbehavior or an attempt by the young girl to engage socially with her classmate.  Since the math page was of no academic concern, the article questions whether the interaction should have been encouraged rather than redirected.  If the goal of the student with ASD is to be able to help them integrate appropriate social behaviors with their peers, then we need to take a further look into how to go about encouraging that when it happens.  What we are currently interpreting as “misbehavior” might actually be a missed learning opportunity.  Thus, the para missed reinforcing a critical instructional goal for the girl. 

                The 2004 IDEA mandates that teachers implement evidence-based practices.  However, there are challenges with accomplishing this mandate in the classroom.  Teachers may not know how to go about implementing these practices due to a lack of adequate training and clear descriptions. 

Many early childhood settings include not only children with ASD, but also children with other developmental disabilities, students at-risk, and/or typically developing peers.  A number of evidence-based practices identified for young children with ASD have not yet been applied to children with other disabilities or their typically developing peers (Stahmer, 2007) (Hart & Whalon, 2013).

Teachers need to realize if they want to change the behaviors of the student, they need to change something that they are doing first.  Or, they need to change the way that they are looking at and interpreting the child’s behavior.  This presents a challenge for teachers to find opportunities within the school day to encourage natural social communication for children with ASD.  Children in the early childhood years are at a critical point in their development for learning social communication skills.  If we don’t learn how to promote these skills early on, the child with ASD is at a real disadvantage.  The article concludes that peer-mediated instruction, scripts, and providing choices for students with ASD are all strong evidence-based practices that encourage social communication skills in young children with ASD.   

                My personal experience with children with ASD would definitely concur with the need for appropriate social communication skills development.  The child I had in kindergarten, with no para, was on the spectrum.  She would yell, run away, kick, and spit almost daily.  It was very difficult to deal with her behaviors while still attending to the needs of the rest of the class.  I don’t think that proper integration of children with ASD in the general education classroom can take place without the help of a para.  I do feel that the communication barriers, and the ways that she was trying to communicate with me, were likely misunderstood to some extent.  On the other hand, the young man in middle school who I tutored, was not as non-compliant as my kindergarten student.  Adam was very bright, but the hormonal changes of adolescence were hard to control and he was therefore unable to attend school.  He would hide when he felt overwhelmed by a situation.  Teaching him one-on-one made his behavior easier to manage, but practicing his social skills was obviously limited.  

                In conclusion, this article brings up a valid point about the way we interpret behavior.  Children with ASD may not be misbehaving as we would first perceive.  It may be their unique way of handling a desire to interact with their classmates or teachers.  Therefore, we need to seek opportunities in which to encourage these spontaneous social interactions and navigate them in appropriate ways.  It is important to have clear goals, and make sure that all the educational professionals are on the same page.  I like how the article ended, so I leave you with this quote.  “Strategies such as using peer-mediated interventions, scripts, and choice can provide educators with practical tools that can positively impact the social communication skills of children with ASD while also promoting the academic learning of all children.” (Hart & Whalon, 2013)

References:

Hart, J., & Whalon, K. (2013).  Misbehavior or missed opportunity?  Challenges in 

          interpreting the behavior of young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. 

          Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 257-263.

http://exproxy.trnty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=87783993

Journal Article Review on Behavioral Disorders

The purpose of this article review is to discuss the outcome of Check-in, Check-out (CICO) interventions for students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders.  The article review will start with an overview of the research, a summary of the findings, and the limits that the article addresses.  Discussion about connections to our classroom textbooks, personal experiences, and a general critique of the article will follow.

            The article was a systematic review of previous research done on the CICO intervention strategy.  In the final analysis, it looked at 28 different studies; 8 of which were group design and 20 single subject design.  All of the studies they looked at had to meet the same seven criteria:

·         CICO was implemented school-wide

·         Included a DPR or similar to record daily progress monitoring of students

·         Use of data for decision making and evaluating the success of the intervention

·         Students had to check-in with a staff member every morning

·         Students had to check-out with the same staff member at the end of the day

·         The intervention had to provide multiple feedback opportunities throughout the day on the behavior being monitored

·         Experimental control had to be demonstrated

In a typical school setting, most students would be able to handle a Tier I behavior management structure.  Approximately, 5-15% of the students would need a Tier II intervention model, while 5-7% of the student body would need a Tier III intervention.  This article focused on the Tier II students using the CICO behavior intervention.  For those unfamiliar with the CICO model, the general method consists of having a student, who is at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders, check in with a staff member each morning.  This staff member would make sure that the student had the Daily Progress Report (DPR) from the day before, homework, pencils, paper, and other supplies needed for the day.  The student would be given a new DPR with the behavioral expectations clearly listed, which the student would use to check in with each teacher throughout the day.  The different content teachers would provide feedback regarding the child’s behavior.  At the close of each day, the child would return to the designated staff person and would check out.  The points would be tallied for the day and recorded on an electronic charting system, and the DPR would be sent home with the child for the parents to review and sign.  At the check-out, if the student met the daily goals, a small reward would be given to the student.

“CICO is one of the most widely implemented Tier II interventions” (Hawken, 2014) used in schools today.  Out of the 28 studies, 64% were conducted in grades K-5, while 36% were conducted in grades 6-12.  The article found that there was some level of success using the CICO procedures, especially in group settings.  21 out of 28 studies favored the use of CICO as an intervention for at risk students.  It was a little less effective when based on single subject participants.  It was also noted that the elementary students found greater success using this method than their secondary student counterparts.  The article questioned whether this was due to the steps used in the CICO procedure and the social implications to the secondary students.  It also notes that “CICO was designed to be a Tier II, targeted intervention, rather than an intensive, individualized intervention” (Hawken, 2014).  While some problem behaviors are reduced using CICO, some students may need more intervention that what this model allows. 

As noted in our textbook reading in Chapter 6, the students who would likely be considered at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, and receiving a plan such as CICO, are those exhibiting externalization of their problems.  A CICO plan would not be effective for students with internalization issues.   However, I think that the benefit of having a consistent person to check in/out with each day, clearly stated expectations, and frequent feedback would definitely benefit a child exhibiting emotional and behavioral disorder problems. 

The person carrying out the CICO should make sure to be fully engaged in the child’s schedule, and make sure that their case load is not overloaded with students.  Although this article did not focus on studies where the classroom teacher was performing the CICO, it might be more beneficial at the elementary level for the general education teacher to fulfill this role.  I can also understand the need for modification and more research to be done using CICO at the secondary level.  The needs of the students and their development may not be a great fit for this method, unless it is modified to be more socially discreet.  Overall, the article was informative, but very difficult to understand in parts due to the extensive charts and wording of research terminology. 

Reference:

Hawken, L.S., Bundock, K., Kladis, K., O’Keeffe, B., & Barrett, C.A. (2014) Systematic 

       review of the check-in, check-out intervention of students at risk for emotional and 

       behavioral disorders.  Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 635658.

http://ezproxy.trnty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=991              27161

Review of Journal Article on Intellectual Disabilities (ID)

Today I would like to review a journal article regarding children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and their impact in general education classrooms.  This article specifically looks at the academic performance of children with and without inclusion of a child with intellectual disabilities.  The article contains a lot of previously noted research regarding academic outcomes, much of which is limited and is varied in description.  The outcomes of previous studies indicate that there is predominately no negative effects to the academic achievements of general education students without disabilities when they are educated in the same classroom with a child with intellectual disabilities. 

The research that this article is citing was done in Switzerland; “one of the least inclusive countries in Western Europe (EADSNE ,2010)” (Dessemontet & Bless, 2013, p.23).  They used two groups of student pairs; 202 students from the second and third grades in each group, half boys/half girls, and classroom size of 18-23 students.  The noted difference was that one of these groups of 202 students contained one student per classroom who was identified with mild to moderate intellectual disability.  No students with multiple or physical disabilities were allowed in the control groups.  Pre- and post- academic testing was done in the areas of literacy and math, and indications of low-, normal-, and high-achievers were identified.  The research also accounted for social and economic similarities and differences within the groups.  Each of the children identified with ID spent at least 70% of their school day in the general education classroom.

The findings of the research by Dessemontet & Bless ( 2013) “indicate that there was no statistically significant difference between the progress of low-, average-, and high-achieving pupils in classrooms with or without inclusion (p.27).  These results seem to support previous research done, indicating that inclusion does not necessarily have a negative effect on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities.  Therefore, supporting inclusion for students with mild to moderate ID in the general education classroom.

 However, the researchers admit that several variables should be noted about this situation.  The quality of the teachers, the number of students with other disabilities other an ID were neither indicated nor followed, there was only one child with ID per classroom, and these studies were all conducted at the primary level.  It is hard to say what type of outcomes you may have if some of these conditions were to change; such as, more severe ID students or students with physical disabilities, a higher number of inclusion students per classroom, limited or poor quality instructors or paraprofessionals, or behavioral disorders.  Since the variables were closely controlled for this study, it is difficult to say what other research may find if you were to broaden the scope. 

There is also limited research in the secondary education setting.  As students age, the expectations of the students become more complex and independent.  It is unclear whether students with multiple disabilities, or more severe ID, would affect the academic performance of their peers in these settings.  I’m also curious about the impact that behavior would have across the school years. 

The article spoke briefly of the negative effects that general education students without disabilities had when they were grouped with peers with disabilities.  There was a negative outcome for non-disabled students when placed in a more cooperative learning setting where students with disabilities were included.  Also, the influence of support within the classroom and school were noted briefly.  General education classroom teachers who collaborated often with special educators, and who were given quality and quantity in support were much more successful.

This was a very thorough article.  It was well explained and thought out.  The research and finding could be a bit cumbersome to get through, but the background, methods, results and conclusions were complete.  The article also did a great job in identifying the limitations within the article.  It did not account for all situations that arise within the classroom, as described above, but were quick to note such things.  Much more research needs to be done to find out the impact of inclusion on all types of students, but variables are difficult to predict and control.

References

Sermier Dessemontet, R., & Bless, G. (2013). The impact of including children with intellectual disability in general education classrooms on the academic achievement of their low-, average-, and high-achieving peers. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38(1), 23-30. 

            Retrieved from http://ezproxy.trnty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=85430823

Review of Journal Article on ADHD

                The journal article that I chose to review was focusing on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  The title of the article is ADHD in the Classroom: Effective Intervention Strategies.  The authors’ purpose of the article is to address the need for effective school-based interventions that correlate with behavior, academics, and home-school communications.  It address the issues of the whole ADHD child.  The article stresses the need for collaboration between the classroom teachers and the school professionals in order to state the current problems and come up with effective solutions.  It does not undermine the need for strong home-school communication either. 

                The authors strongly suggest that interventions work best when the behaviors and academic issues are identified and addressed as early as possible.  They suggested clear and applicable strategies in the areas of behavioral interventions, self-regulation interventions, academic interventions, and home-school communication programs that classroom teachers can put into place immediately.  They go into detail to explain the most effective interventions in each of these categories and what research has shown to be the outcome of these methods.  A strong component in each method includes starting as early as possible, consistency, and balance of proactive praise with reactive consequences. 

                The article continues by discussing the difficulties that children with ADHD face socially.  Peer-relationships are influenced by the behaviors exhibited by the ADHD students.  There is limited research on social relationships for students with ADHD, which makes interventions difficult to develop and address.  Consistency is also hard to manage when the students are encountering social situations in and out of school.

                The article concludes with a strong endorsement for collaborative consultation between the classroom teacher and the school psychologist.  The authors site research which suggests positive outcomes in both behavior and academics when this collaboration takes place effectively. 

                I feel this article is extremely relevant.  It lists very applicable suggestions and I can see that these strategies would be helpful within the general education classrooms.  While I understand that identifying the issues and applying interventions early creates a more favorable outcome, sometimes the child is not diagnosed early on.  I think this happens especially with the inattentive, non-hyperactive children.  They tend to slip through the cracks in the early years, because they are compliant and don’t cause a disruption within the classroom.  Their issues are not often identified until middle school or later, when they are expected to function more independently.   In these situations, the article does not really offer suggestions for intervention strategies to use with secondary students.  It does address this failure in the very last sentence of the article, calling for more research.   

                Overall, this was a very worthwhile article to read.  I would recommend it to parents and classroom teachers, as well as other school professionals.  It might even be worth the time for those with higher functioning ADHD.  It offers a lot of detailed research, but ultimately it offers hope.

Reference:

DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., & Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the Classroom: Effective Intervention Strategies. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 35-42.