Of all the classes I took in graduate school, two stick out to me the most. One (of course) was Behavioral Assessment and Interventions with Dr. Bacotti, which was the first academic exposure to the principles I had been trying to implement for the two years prior in various jobs. The fruits of this class make up many of the posts below. The other class was the practicum, where Mr. Pasternak taught strictly from his thirty plus years of experience as a behavior consultant in three school districts. No textbooks, just anecdotes. And some of the most practical information anyone's ever given me. The type of lessons and tools that I was able to put into place immediately, and which have saved my butt on a number of occasions.
These two men had two very different approaches to changing students' behaviors. Bacotti had a very clinical, scientific approach, which appeals to my analytical side. Pasternak had a very pragmatic, intuitive approach, which appeals to my rigidly logical side. The former used antecedents and consequences to analyze behavior; the latter used family history, environmental factors, sociology, and empathy (!) to analyze behavior. They were close friends and colleagues, poked fun at each others' methods (both worked), and never really came together for a compromise. At the end of the semester, I came away convinced that each method was correct, though never really being able to bring them together in my mind. How did they fit? If both methods were successful (largely because of the competence of the practitioners, granted), why couldn't they come together and hold hands?
I'm learning now that they can.
A gripe I've had with ABA for the longest time is that it seems to be a band-aid. It's too presumptive. You can't explain everything away by antecedents and consequences! Behavior is too complex! Are you really asking me to accept that the only explanation for any behavior is the causal effect of the event immediately before the behavior and the resulting event, whether good or bad? I thought that the pioneers in this branch of psychology were exasperated by the eerie postulations of Freud and others which were completely bereft of any supporting research, and so attempted to turn the study of behavior from a social science into a physical one.
I didn't give them enough credit.
The things I'm learning in my BCBA coursework are really satisfying, because I'm learning the complete story. Watson and Skinner and Michael haven't just come up with a pathway for left-brainers to enter the field of psychology (though they have helped!). They do acknowledge the importance of "private" behaviors, such as thoughts and dreams. They take into account motivating operations, such as hunger, deprivation, satiation, even boredom!
I know I'm just skimming across the surface here, largely because that's about as deep as I can go before I start confusing myself. But now I'm convinced more than ever before that these principles are the best, most thorough, most proven tools in any type of behavior management, whether it be parenting, teaching, coaching, managing, or dog training.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
new learnings, indeed
I am now out of grad school, hence the long hiatus in posts. Soon, however, I plan to be back in class. I'm looking towards obtaining the BCBA, or Board Certified Behavior Analyst status. This will entail 5 classes, about a year's worth of hours logged as supervised by a BCBA, and an exam. The BCBA is one of the few nationally recognized credentials in the field of behavior analysis. I hope to use this credential to begin the portion of my career where I take on more of a trainer's/supervisory role. I also hope to begin my foray into research, out of which will hopefully come the attainment of our shared goal, which is to be published by February 2013.
All this to say, there will be more papers to write, which you (whether you like it or not!) will have absolute freedom to ignore on this less-travelled website. Huzzah!
All this to say, there will be more papers to write, which you (whether you like it or not!) will have absolute freedom to ignore on this less-travelled website. Huzzah!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Tom Freston, Progressive Education and Dynavoxes
Strange juxtaposition, that.
Anyway, this is a catch-all post to complete my thoughts regarding private school placement and to answer some questions posed to my last post.
The very last line of the article I referenced has a quote from Freston supporter Gary Mayerson, director of the Autism Speaks federal legal appeals project: "Children with autism and other disabilities cannot afford to waste six months in an inappropriate placement. By that time, the damage has been done."
I agree with Mayerson. My post on early intervention describes his point. The problem is, and this is the case with every child who has ever attended public school, there's not enough tax money in the world to provide the perfect education for everybody. I can't fault Mr. Freston for applying his resources to get his son the right education (whatever that might be), but if he's arguing on principle, he's arguing too much. Sure, every child with special needs will benefit greatly from early intervention. Just don't demand it from public schools. Don't expect the government to supply your every need. If you want your child to receive certain services at a certain time, then be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket if the school doesn't come through for you.
Progressive Education is simply a philosophy of teaching which puts more of a focus on the student as an active learner. This has many different manifestations, but in a nutshell it is what's behind the advent of labs in schools, more hands-on learning opportunities, and less of a focus on lectures and textbooks, especially in the lower grades. Here's a more thorough description.
Mark had a great comment regarding technology in education with students whose disability prevents their verbal communication. Often times these students are trained to use a PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) book, which is generally a small binder with little icons velcroed in that they can take to construct sentences and request items. These can become cumbersome and overstuffed as students develop their vocabulary. One solution parents and educators have turned to is the Dynavox, which is a handheld computerized PECS system with a touchscreen. These things are awesome. You construct your sentence and it says it for you. I hear these things double as remote controls, among a number of other things. I agree, they do require lots of technical support, not to mention the price. Properly implemented, however, they pose limitless potential. It's a much better tool than a PECS book, especially for someone with a large vocabulary.
Anyway, this is a catch-all post to complete my thoughts regarding private school placement and to answer some questions posed to my last post.
The very last line of the article I referenced has a quote from Freston supporter Gary Mayerson, director of the Autism Speaks federal legal appeals project: "Children with autism and other disabilities cannot afford to waste six months in an inappropriate placement. By that time, the damage has been done."
I agree with Mayerson. My post on early intervention describes his point. The problem is, and this is the case with every child who has ever attended public school, there's not enough tax money in the world to provide the perfect education for everybody. I can't fault Mr. Freston for applying his resources to get his son the right education (whatever that might be), but if he's arguing on principle, he's arguing too much. Sure, every child with special needs will benefit greatly from early intervention. Just don't demand it from public schools. Don't expect the government to supply your every need. If you want your child to receive certain services at a certain time, then be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket if the school doesn't come through for you.
Progressive Education is simply a philosophy of teaching which puts more of a focus on the student as an active learner. This has many different manifestations, but in a nutshell it is what's behind the advent of labs in schools, more hands-on learning opportunities, and less of a focus on lectures and textbooks, especially in the lower grades. Here's a more thorough description.
Mark had a great comment regarding technology in education with students whose disability prevents their verbal communication. Often times these students are trained to use a PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) book, which is generally a small binder with little icons velcroed in that they can take to construct sentences and request items. These can become cumbersome and overstuffed as students develop their vocabulary. One solution parents and educators have turned to is the Dynavox, which is a handheld computerized PECS system with a touchscreen. These things are awesome. You construct your sentence and it says it for you. I hear these things double as remote controls, among a number of other things. I agree, they do require lots of technical support, not to mention the price. Properly implemented, however, they pose limitless potential. It's a much better tool than a PECS book, especially for someone with a large vocabulary.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Education & Technology
Small diversion, then I'll get back to Tom Freston.
The weekly newspaper The Economist is hosting an online debate regarding the use of technology in education. Two highly qualified specialists in the field of education were chosen to represent the proposition and the opposition. Readers can vote and post their opinions pro or con the proposition, and eventually a winner will be declared. Below is the proposition and what I left as a comment.
"Continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education."
Pro for the proposition. Though technology has added some new elements to education over the past two decades, it remains inconsequential in comparison to the many other developments in education and pedagogy. The introduction of technology to the classroom certainly has been influential, allowing students to bridge all kinds of divides which had been impassable otherwise. College students can learn from satellite locations, allowing them to access the education of their choice regardless of where they live. High school students more and more have the ability to pursue their dreams of being a newscaster or web designer through the introduction of state of the art multi-media classrooms in their schools. Students of the arts have increased access to forms of technology which accommodate their own muse in terms of audio, video, and the written word. Even young students with disabilities have benefited. Certain software programs (which have the patience and consistency no human could ever emulate), majoring on repetition and fluency, have taught otherwise unreachable young students how to read. The introduction of these technologies, however, adds little to the quality of most education because many of the groundbreaking applications of technology have been discipline-specific. In other words, where its impact has been most significant, the presence of new technology and new media in the classroom has been the object of the education, not the means. As a result, it sort of fades to the background behind the other more salient positive influences on education, namely the progressive education philosophy, inclusion of students with disabilities, and the continuous application of research to teaching methods.
The weekly newspaper The Economist is hosting an online debate regarding the use of technology in education. Two highly qualified specialists in the field of education were chosen to represent the proposition and the opposition. Readers can vote and post their opinions pro or con the proposition, and eventually a winner will be declared. Below is the proposition and what I left as a comment.
"Continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education."
Pro for the proposition. Though technology has added some new elements to education over the past two decades, it remains inconsequential in comparison to the many other developments in education and pedagogy. The introduction of technology to the classroom certainly has been influential, allowing students to bridge all kinds of divides which had been impassable otherwise. College students can learn from satellite locations, allowing them to access the education of their choice regardless of where they live. High school students more and more have the ability to pursue their dreams of being a newscaster or web designer through the introduction of state of the art multi-media classrooms in their schools. Students of the arts have increased access to forms of technology which accommodate their own muse in terms of audio, video, and the written word. Even young students with disabilities have benefited. Certain software programs (which have the patience and consistency no human could ever emulate), majoring on repetition and fluency, have taught otherwise unreachable young students how to read. The introduction of these technologies, however, adds little to the quality of most education because many of the groundbreaking applications of technology have been discipline-specific. In other words, where its impact has been most significant, the presence of new technology and new media in the classroom has been the object of the education, not the means. As a result, it sort of fades to the background behind the other more salient positive influences on education, namely the progressive education philosophy, inclusion of students with disabilities, and the continuous application of research to teaching methods.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The public school system: A bottomless well?
My wife directed me to this article in the WSJ.
In a nutshell, the article discusses Tom Freston (former CEO of Viacom) and his efforts in providing his son with learning disabilities a private school placement on the public school's budget. He argued multiple times against the city of NY(successfully) that his son should not have to go to public school first before being granted out-placement.
No doubt Mr. Freston's resources afforded him some very persuasive lawyers.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act posed as one of the most groundbreaking pieces of education related legislation in America's history. Up to that point, children with disabilities such as mental retardation or emotional disturbances were usually warehoused. Most were never educated. The EHA, now the updated and amended IDEA, attempted to change all of that. Under the new act, children with special needs were given the right to receive a "free appropriate public education," in an environment that is the least restrictive possible. For many children, this meant that they would be allowed placement in public schools along side of non-disabled students. This act was never made mandatory; the states individually decided whether or not they would participate, motivated by extra federal funds for saying yes. Also, provisions were made for those students whose more severe disabilities made for an ineffective public school placement. In those cases, the public school was required to fund the private education of those students who needed more specialized teaching methods.
Fast forward 30 years.
Federal funding having never reached promised levels, the increased population of students with special needs in public schools due to IDEA has put a stress on school district budgets everywhere. The quality of Special Education has reached remarkable levels and a whole new sector of research has been established, but the price has gone up, too. Public schools and the special education services they offer have begun to suffer.
Enter Tom Freston, who wants to put his 8 year old son with ADHD and other various learning disabilities directly into private school, which will cost his local public school district a whole lot more than what it would spend to keep him in. Mr. Freston argues that his son need not attend public school first before being granted private placement, because under IDEA his son has a right to an "appropriate education."
What Mr. Freston has left out of that phrase, which comes straight from the legislation itself, is the word "public." This means that Mr. Freston's son has a right to free public education first, not private. Only after the public school has had its trial and failed in providing an appropriate education should a student be eligible for private placement. The public school system can't afford any other arrangement.
My next post will focus on a theme briefly mentioned at the tail end of the article: the importance of early intervention. I will attempt to corral this case with previous posts of my own regarding that theme.
In a nutshell, the article discusses Tom Freston (former CEO of Viacom) and his efforts in providing his son with learning disabilities a private school placement on the public school's budget. He argued multiple times against the city of NY(successfully) that his son should not have to go to public school first before being granted out-placement.
No doubt Mr. Freston's resources afforded him some very persuasive lawyers.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act posed as one of the most groundbreaking pieces of education related legislation in America's history. Up to that point, children with disabilities such as mental retardation or emotional disturbances were usually warehoused. Most were never educated. The EHA, now the updated and amended IDEA, attempted to change all of that. Under the new act, children with special needs were given the right to receive a "free appropriate public education," in an environment that is the least restrictive possible. For many children, this meant that they would be allowed placement in public schools along side of non-disabled students. This act was never made mandatory; the states individually decided whether or not they would participate, motivated by extra federal funds for saying yes. Also, provisions were made for those students whose more severe disabilities made for an ineffective public school placement. In those cases, the public school was required to fund the private education of those students who needed more specialized teaching methods.
Fast forward 30 years.
Federal funding having never reached promised levels, the increased population of students with special needs in public schools due to IDEA has put a stress on school district budgets everywhere. The quality of Special Education has reached remarkable levels and a whole new sector of research has been established, but the price has gone up, too. Public schools and the special education services they offer have begun to suffer.
Enter Tom Freston, who wants to put his 8 year old son with ADHD and other various learning disabilities directly into private school, which will cost his local public school district a whole lot more than what it would spend to keep him in. Mr. Freston argues that his son need not attend public school first before being granted private placement, because under IDEA his son has a right to an "appropriate education."
What Mr. Freston has left out of that phrase, which comes straight from the legislation itself, is the word "public." This means that Mr. Freston's son has a right to free public education first, not private. Only after the public school has had its trial and failed in providing an appropriate education should a student be eligible for private placement. The public school system can't afford any other arrangement.
My next post will focus on a theme briefly mentioned at the tail end of the article: the importance of early intervention. I will attempt to corral this case with previous posts of my own regarding that theme.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
my own research design project
This was a follow up project to my article review, posted below. We were asked to create our own research design, complete with abstract, hypothesis, etc. etc. This was an exciting project for me because I hope to do things just like this when I'm in my prime and hopefully have come to a point in my career where I'm contributing to the research surrounding this field.
The Importance of Early Intervention in Children with Autism
Abstract: Forty children with autism of varying ages went under three months of individual instruction. These children, their parents, and the associated instructors took a total of 3 tests before and after the three month term. The test results from before and after the intervention were compared to determine how quickly these children developed in various ways. The researchers designed the process to determine the impact of aging on the children’s reception to intensive instruction.
Rationale: This topic is important to me because I have had experience teaching children with autism as young as three and as old as 9 years of age. I have also observed the result of early intervention in these children, as well as the result of the absence of early intervention. The difference I’ve seen between the two instances is significant. It is commonly accepted that the act of learning new things is easier the younger one begins the process. I hope to give scientific validity to that theory, in specific application to early intervention with children with autism.
Context: The study will take place in central Massachusetts. The small area in which the study will take place should not affect its generalizability to the rest of the world, as a child’s geographical location does not come to bear on his or her degree of disability. The home environment may influence a child’s development, however the briefness of the study should minimize the influence of any otherwise long-term effects. The research itself will amount to two days of testing: one at the beginning of the term and one at the end. The testing will occur in the home of the child, where the instruction will also be taking place.
Hypothesis: Children with autism who begin to receive services between the ages of 3 and 5 will make faster progress intellectually and behaviorally than those who begin to receive services after the age of 7.
Participants: The children amassed for the research will be arranged in two groups of about 20 according to age. Children between the ages of 3 and 5 will constitute one group, and children 7 and above will constitute the other group. The reason why I included a two year gap is because I did not want to compare groups with children who may only have been a few days apart in age. This control reinforces the age difference and therefore makes the distinction more prevalent. These children will have never received services prior to the research experiment. In this way, no other instruction could account for any development in the child’s behavioral or intellectual functioning during the 3 month term. The children in each group will represent the whole autism spectrum, with children who are high functioning all the way down to low functioning. This measure should help to generalize the findings.
The statistics for the two groups are as follows: The younger group contained 19 children, having an age range of 2 years (by design). The mean age was 4.1 years. The older group contained 21 children, having an age range of 6 years. The youngest children of the group were 7 years old, and the oldest child was 13. The mean age was 8.4 years. Pre-test scores found the children of each group at all points of the autism spectrum, from very low functioning to high functioning.
Ethics: All participants’ parents or guardians will be provided the opportunity to give informed consent. Tests will be administered by a licensed psychologist who keeps results confidential and anonymous. Test results will be categorized by age alone, with no regard to gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Those providing instruction will have proper credentials assuring their competence and professionalism.
Methodology:
Data collection: Use 3 tests for baseline and follow up: the Psychoeducational Profile (Revised), or (PEP-R), which assesses seven developmental areas and also the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of those with autism, the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, or (GARS), measuring autistic-related symptoms, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, or (VAB), measuring adaptive functioning. A licensed psychologist administers the PEP-R directly to the child, while the GARS and VAB tests are surveys taken by the parents or guardians. Reed, Osborne, and Corness (2007) used these tests in a study determining the efficacy of various instructional methods with a young autistic population. Use an interval of 3 months. Students will receive the ABA method of instruction due to its compatibility with children with autism (Schoen, 2003 p. 127), with an added element of small-group instruction as recommended by Reed, Osborne, and Corness (2007, p. 431).
Data analysis: Compare the children’s follow up scores with baseline scores. Compute and compare average score changes for each test between the two groups (for example: average PEP-R score change for young group compared with average PEP-R score change for older group).
Findings: After the three month term concluded and baseline and follow-up scores were compared, I decided that the hypothesis was not conclusively affirmed, as there was only a slight difference between the results of the two groups. The children of the younger group progressed slightly faster, however their improvements were not drastically different enough from the older group to confirm a true relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Conclusion and Implications: The results of the study were not decisive enough to go either way with the hypothesis. I imagine that if another researcher decided to do the same exact study, the results might favor the older group instead. One of the control variables that may have compromised the study was the amount of time between tests. As many teachers and instructors of children with autism know, progress is often very slow in comparison to the learning speed of typical children. Three months simply may not have been enough time to see any significant progress in any of the children, or at least not significant enough to allow one group to gain a decisive lead. In an effort to minimize outside influence, I may have minimized all influence, including the instruction itself. In addition, it is impossible to assure that all instructors move at the same pace as they instruct their children. Though all staff had similar credentials, the guarantee of identical performance is not there. And, to assign the whole project to one instructor to assure identical application of the teaching methodology is too much to ask of any human being! Finally, the ages of the children of both groups and their arrangement may have challenged the validity of the data. For example, the gap in age between the groups may not have been wide enough. Or, the range in age of the older group may have been too large. The one 13 year old may have put a positive skew on that group’s bell curve. There have been several studies of this kind which arrange the age groups in different ways (Corsello, 2005 p. 77). In one study Corsello (2005) cites, when groups are arranged above and below the age of 3, the difference is minimal. In other studies, age 4 or 5 makes the dividing line between successful early intervention and missed opportunity.
Another way to approach this kind of study is to take the macro approach, as opposed to the micro approach used here. One could utilize more of a longitudinal study, following groups of students over periods of years to see if early intervention makes a significant difference. Granted, there are more opportunities for other variables to gain control, however simply the length of time utilized would give the researchers the ability to observe drastic differences between groups that would not be visible in an abbreviated study like this one.
As previous studies have shown as well as having my own experience to fall back on, I would say this study would be worth doing over again, adjusting the groups more rigidly according to age, and lengthening the window of time between tests. With a better designed research project, I believe my original hypothesis will prove to be true.
The Importance of Early Intervention in Children with Autism
Abstract: Forty children with autism of varying ages went under three months of individual instruction. These children, their parents, and the associated instructors took a total of 3 tests before and after the three month term. The test results from before and after the intervention were compared to determine how quickly these children developed in various ways. The researchers designed the process to determine the impact of aging on the children’s reception to intensive instruction.
Rationale: This topic is important to me because I have had experience teaching children with autism as young as three and as old as 9 years of age. I have also observed the result of early intervention in these children, as well as the result of the absence of early intervention. The difference I’ve seen between the two instances is significant. It is commonly accepted that the act of learning new things is easier the younger one begins the process. I hope to give scientific validity to that theory, in specific application to early intervention with children with autism.
Context: The study will take place in central Massachusetts. The small area in which the study will take place should not affect its generalizability to the rest of the world, as a child’s geographical location does not come to bear on his or her degree of disability. The home environment may influence a child’s development, however the briefness of the study should minimize the influence of any otherwise long-term effects. The research itself will amount to two days of testing: one at the beginning of the term and one at the end. The testing will occur in the home of the child, where the instruction will also be taking place.
Hypothesis: Children with autism who begin to receive services between the ages of 3 and 5 will make faster progress intellectually and behaviorally than those who begin to receive services after the age of 7.
Participants: The children amassed for the research will be arranged in two groups of about 20 according to age. Children between the ages of 3 and 5 will constitute one group, and children 7 and above will constitute the other group. The reason why I included a two year gap is because I did not want to compare groups with children who may only have been a few days apart in age. This control reinforces the age difference and therefore makes the distinction more prevalent. These children will have never received services prior to the research experiment. In this way, no other instruction could account for any development in the child’s behavioral or intellectual functioning during the 3 month term. The children in each group will represent the whole autism spectrum, with children who are high functioning all the way down to low functioning. This measure should help to generalize the findings.
The statistics for the two groups are as follows: The younger group contained 19 children, having an age range of 2 years (by design). The mean age was 4.1 years. The older group contained 21 children, having an age range of 6 years. The youngest children of the group were 7 years old, and the oldest child was 13. The mean age was 8.4 years. Pre-test scores found the children of each group at all points of the autism spectrum, from very low functioning to high functioning.
Ethics: All participants’ parents or guardians will be provided the opportunity to give informed consent. Tests will be administered by a licensed psychologist who keeps results confidential and anonymous. Test results will be categorized by age alone, with no regard to gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Those providing instruction will have proper credentials assuring their competence and professionalism.
Methodology:
Data collection: Use 3 tests for baseline and follow up: the Psychoeducational Profile (Revised), or (PEP-R), which assesses seven developmental areas and also the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of those with autism, the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, or (GARS), measuring autistic-related symptoms, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, or (VAB), measuring adaptive functioning. A licensed psychologist administers the PEP-R directly to the child, while the GARS and VAB tests are surveys taken by the parents or guardians. Reed, Osborne, and Corness (2007) used these tests in a study determining the efficacy of various instructional methods with a young autistic population. Use an interval of 3 months. Students will receive the ABA method of instruction due to its compatibility with children with autism (Schoen, 2003 p. 127), with an added element of small-group instruction as recommended by Reed, Osborne, and Corness (2007, p. 431).
Data analysis: Compare the children’s follow up scores with baseline scores. Compute and compare average score changes for each test between the two groups (for example: average PEP-R score change for young group compared with average PEP-R score change for older group).
Findings: After the three month term concluded and baseline and follow-up scores were compared, I decided that the hypothesis was not conclusively affirmed, as there was only a slight difference between the results of the two groups. The children of the younger group progressed slightly faster, however their improvements were not drastically different enough from the older group to confirm a true relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Conclusion and Implications: The results of the study were not decisive enough to go either way with the hypothesis. I imagine that if another researcher decided to do the same exact study, the results might favor the older group instead. One of the control variables that may have compromised the study was the amount of time between tests. As many teachers and instructors of children with autism know, progress is often very slow in comparison to the learning speed of typical children. Three months simply may not have been enough time to see any significant progress in any of the children, or at least not significant enough to allow one group to gain a decisive lead. In an effort to minimize outside influence, I may have minimized all influence, including the instruction itself. In addition, it is impossible to assure that all instructors move at the same pace as they instruct their children. Though all staff had similar credentials, the guarantee of identical performance is not there. And, to assign the whole project to one instructor to assure identical application of the teaching methodology is too much to ask of any human being! Finally, the ages of the children of both groups and their arrangement may have challenged the validity of the data. For example, the gap in age between the groups may not have been wide enough. Or, the range in age of the older group may have been too large. The one 13 year old may have put a positive skew on that group’s bell curve. There have been several studies of this kind which arrange the age groups in different ways (Corsello, 2005 p. 77). In one study Corsello (2005) cites, when groups are arranged above and below the age of 3, the difference is minimal. In other studies, age 4 or 5 makes the dividing line between successful early intervention and missed opportunity.
Another way to approach this kind of study is to take the macro approach, as opposed to the micro approach used here. One could utilize more of a longitudinal study, following groups of students over periods of years to see if early intervention makes a significant difference. Granted, there are more opportunities for other variables to gain control, however simply the length of time utilized would give the researchers the ability to observe drastic differences between groups that would not be visible in an abbreviated study like this one.
As previous studies have shown as well as having my own experience to fall back on, I would say this study would be worth doing over again, adjusting the groups more rigidly according to age, and lengthening the window of time between tests. With a better designed research project, I believe my original hypothesis will prove to be true.
ABA therapy to the test
Here is the article review I promised. I'd post the article I reviewed on here, but dammit if I knew how.
As an educator accustomed to using the Applied Behavior Analysis method in teaching children with autism, I have never stopped to question the pairing of this particular method with that particular population. In speaking to a friend about my profession, he posed this question to me, which inspired me to find out the answer. The article “The Real-World Effectiveness of Early Teaching Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder” by Reed, Osborne, and Corness provided some important input to that answer.
Published in June of 2007 in the journal Exceptional Children, the article juxtaposes three teaching methodologies which all have been applied to an autistic student population: Applied Behavior Analysis, Special Nursery Placement, and Portage. By way of pre-test and post-test, these three methodologies were put to a nine month probation and assessed for overall effectiveness in treating children with autism. This type of study had been done several times before, but the authors found several unresolved issues within those studies. Consequently, they formed two goals before them as they set about their research. The first stated that a legitimate test of these methodologies demands the use of the same tests at baseline and follow-up. The many similar studies referenced in the article all neglected to follow this rule. The second stated that a more representative sample of children with autism was necessary to gain a truly legitimate assessment of treatment methodologies. They found that previous samples tended to be made up of students solely on the higher end of the spectrum, thereby giving the findings only limited application. Another goal set forth by the authors that served a less central role was to observe these methodologies at work in the community, as opposed to the clinic. While the clinic served as a kind of laboratory in previous studies where all things remained equal, the research again has only limited application as the vast majority of education happens in the community.
The research question was singular: How effective are these three teaching methodologies in the “real world”? The authors formed three groups of children and administered four tests to collect baseline data. Licensed psychologists administered the Psychoeducational Profile – Revised test (PEP-R) which assesses seven developmental areas, and the British Abilities Scales II test (BAS II) which assesses educational achievement. During the same visits, the psychologists assisted the parents to complete the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VAB), measuring autistic-related symptoms and adaptive functioning, respectively. The specialists who provide the different treatments were given the Conners’ Rating Scales – Revised (CRS-R), which measures disruptive behavior and ADHD-related symptoms. After nine months, the psychologists returned to administer the same tests. The findings ultimately showed that the ABA approach showed significant positive results pertaining to intellectual and educational functioning when compared to the two alternatives, while the special nursery program had the most significant impact on adaptive behavioral functioning.
I found it interesting that previous studies had not used the same tests for baseline and follow up. This seems to me to be an obvious control variable. Any relationships established in those studies between a certain teaching methodology and its results could easily have been rendered spurious on that account alone. This article shows an example of an attempt to make the research as controlled as possible: using a wide variety of tests which involve the student, the parent, and the specialists, using the same five tests at pre-test and post-test phases of the research, and using the same educational psychologists to administer these tests all on the same day.
The article seemed to follow the research-then-theory model. “In summary, the results shed new light on the real-world effectiveness of several of the educational interventions” (Reed, Osborne, Corness, 2007, p. 430). The results of the study prompted the authors to make certain claims about the different methodologies, as stated above. In this instance, I appreciated the research-then-theory model because it was clear that the authors were not trying to prove that ABA was in fact the best approach in teaching children with autism, which is a widely held belief.
I found the community aspect of the research important as well. The decision made by the authors to conduct this research outside of the clinic, though “day-to-day fidelity was not directly measured” (Reed, et al., 2007, p. 431), showed a desire to understand the data in terms of social science, as opposed to natural science. One of the central aims of the social sciences is to understand fully that which is being measured. The Verstehen tradition of understanding, which acknowledges the historical significance and subjective qualities of human behavior, was implemented in this study. This makes perfect sense, since the units of analysis in this study were human beings.
One critique I have about the research is that their second goal, which was to use a sample of children with autism that was more representative of the entire population, was not entirely met. Reed et al. (2007) states:
The participants’ intellectual functioning, educational functioning, and adaptive behavioral functioning, measured at the start of the intervention, all showed quite severe impairments; the mean scores were around 50 on each standardized instrument, indicating that these participants were at the severe end of those taken on previous studies of ABA (p. 430).
The study merely assessed students at the other end of the spectrum, as opposed to including the entire range. A research model that included students at the higher end of the spectrum as well as those represented in this study would truly be a typical, representative sampling of children with autism, thereby adding more credibility to the assessment of the real-world effectiveness of these interventions.
As an educator accustomed to using the Applied Behavior Analysis method in teaching children with autism, I have never stopped to question the pairing of this particular method with that particular population. In speaking to a friend about my profession, he posed this question to me, which inspired me to find out the answer. The article “The Real-World Effectiveness of Early Teaching Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder” by Reed, Osborne, and Corness provided some important input to that answer.
Published in June of 2007 in the journal Exceptional Children, the article juxtaposes three teaching methodologies which all have been applied to an autistic student population: Applied Behavior Analysis, Special Nursery Placement, and Portage. By way of pre-test and post-test, these three methodologies were put to a nine month probation and assessed for overall effectiveness in treating children with autism. This type of study had been done several times before, but the authors found several unresolved issues within those studies. Consequently, they formed two goals before them as they set about their research. The first stated that a legitimate test of these methodologies demands the use of the same tests at baseline and follow-up. The many similar studies referenced in the article all neglected to follow this rule. The second stated that a more representative sample of children with autism was necessary to gain a truly legitimate assessment of treatment methodologies. They found that previous samples tended to be made up of students solely on the higher end of the spectrum, thereby giving the findings only limited application. Another goal set forth by the authors that served a less central role was to observe these methodologies at work in the community, as opposed to the clinic. While the clinic served as a kind of laboratory in previous studies where all things remained equal, the research again has only limited application as the vast majority of education happens in the community.
The research question was singular: How effective are these three teaching methodologies in the “real world”? The authors formed three groups of children and administered four tests to collect baseline data. Licensed psychologists administered the Psychoeducational Profile – Revised test (PEP-R) which assesses seven developmental areas, and the British Abilities Scales II test (BAS II) which assesses educational achievement. During the same visits, the psychologists assisted the parents to complete the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VAB), measuring autistic-related symptoms and adaptive functioning, respectively. The specialists who provide the different treatments were given the Conners’ Rating Scales – Revised (CRS-R), which measures disruptive behavior and ADHD-related symptoms. After nine months, the psychologists returned to administer the same tests. The findings ultimately showed that the ABA approach showed significant positive results pertaining to intellectual and educational functioning when compared to the two alternatives, while the special nursery program had the most significant impact on adaptive behavioral functioning.
I found it interesting that previous studies had not used the same tests for baseline and follow up. This seems to me to be an obvious control variable. Any relationships established in those studies between a certain teaching methodology and its results could easily have been rendered spurious on that account alone. This article shows an example of an attempt to make the research as controlled as possible: using a wide variety of tests which involve the student, the parent, and the specialists, using the same five tests at pre-test and post-test phases of the research, and using the same educational psychologists to administer these tests all on the same day.
The article seemed to follow the research-then-theory model. “In summary, the results shed new light on the real-world effectiveness of several of the educational interventions” (Reed, Osborne, Corness, 2007, p. 430). The results of the study prompted the authors to make certain claims about the different methodologies, as stated above. In this instance, I appreciated the research-then-theory model because it was clear that the authors were not trying to prove that ABA was in fact the best approach in teaching children with autism, which is a widely held belief.
I found the community aspect of the research important as well. The decision made by the authors to conduct this research outside of the clinic, though “day-to-day fidelity was not directly measured” (Reed, et al., 2007, p. 431), showed a desire to understand the data in terms of social science, as opposed to natural science. One of the central aims of the social sciences is to understand fully that which is being measured. The Verstehen tradition of understanding, which acknowledges the historical significance and subjective qualities of human behavior, was implemented in this study. This makes perfect sense, since the units of analysis in this study were human beings.
One critique I have about the research is that their second goal, which was to use a sample of children with autism that was more representative of the entire population, was not entirely met. Reed et al. (2007) states:
The participants’ intellectual functioning, educational functioning, and adaptive behavioral functioning, measured at the start of the intervention, all showed quite severe impairments; the mean scores were around 50 on each standardized instrument, indicating that these participants were at the severe end of those taken on previous studies of ABA (p. 430).
The study merely assessed students at the other end of the spectrum, as opposed to including the entire range. A research model that included students at the higher end of the spectrum as well as those represented in this study would truly be a typical, representative sampling of children with autism, thereby adding more credibility to the assessment of the real-world effectiveness of these interventions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
