Respond to the first peer by explaining how the use of intermittent schedules of reinforcement and delayed responding can promote generalization.
Molly completed the FBA accurately and created an intervention plan that was successful with helping Jake change his behavior and attitude in school; Jake is compliant with teacher demands, reduction in physical aggression towards his peers and awarded â€œStudent of the Weekâ€ two weeks in a row. So why hasnâ€™t this same behavior transitioned over to his after-school program? This is what Jakeâ€™s mom and teachers are thinking and I believe that Molly has figured out now why Jakeâ€™s behavior has not changed in the after-school program. Jake has applied all his learning for the target behavior to just the setting of school, specifically to the students and teachers within this setting. If Molly were to have incorporated response maintenance, setting/situation generalization, and response generalization, Jake would have been able to use the behavior changes he learned in his BIP at school towards any type of setting including his after-school program in the presence or absence of the token system he received at school. Response maintenance would have mapped out a plan for Molly to be able to ensure Jake would continue emitting the target behavior long after his training finished. Jake was able to do this but only to the limit of school because setting/situation generalization was not utilized. Jake probably favors the token system his behavior is reinforced by and if he does not receive those same positive reinforcements at the after-school program he probably does not feel that he should emit the appropriate behavior. The after-school program, even if conducted on school grounds, will not have the same type of environment as that of a classroom setting. Depending on the type of program it is, it could be one of a less restrictive schedule allowing the students to choose tasks at their leisure and this type of environment is new to Jake regarding his BIP. If Molly were to incorporate teach enough examples, program common stimuli and teach loosely within the framework of setting/situation generalization and response generalization, Jake would have been able to determine when and how he should use his appropriate behavior in the after-school program.
Increasing the generalization of a behavior change will increase the response maintenance because the individual will have more opportunities to emit the target behavior. With Jake he does not see any opportunities to use his behavior change at the after-school program because it probably does not have the teachers, peers, schedule, atmosphere or situations where he is able to relate his training and use it. Something even as simple as not having the same teacher will confuse a student because they only know to show that behavior to that specific teacher. If Molly were to change the structure of the BIP and change the â€œteacherâ€ stimulus to any adult who is in charge, Jake would know to be compliant to not just a teacher but a tutor, a manager, a counselor, or the director of an after-school program. Generalization will also help Jake keep his response maintenance since school is not in session year-round. So many students lose vital information over just a short time of 2-3 months and this can be the same for Jake if he does not learn how to use his behavior change in different settings and situations. Using these three key components for behavior change would have helped Jake not just in his after-school program but also help him everyday as he develops into an adolescent and then adult.
Cooper, J.O. Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis. (3rd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Pearson
Respond to the second peer by explaining two approaches to â€œwaking upâ€ an existing, but inoperable, reinforcement contingency.
The three approaches Molly could have incorporated into Jakeâ€™s behavior intervention plan that would modify the behaviors in other settings would be response maintenance, setting/situation generalization, and response generalization. While Molly set up a plan for the school setting, she did not for the after-school program. Therefore, the unwanted behaviors continued to occur. Response maintenance would have modified Jakeâ€™s behavior by ensuring that he continued to perform the new behaviors even after the program was completed. During the program in which he was reinforced would need to be maintained in the future without an expectation of reinforcement. This would assist in making the responses more naturalistic for the real world (Cooper et al., 2020).
Setting/Situation generalization is another behavior modification method that could be incorporated into Jakeâ€™s BIP. This means that when Jake is showing compliance and a reduction of aggression in the classroom setting, the same behaviors should be shown across other settings (Cooper et al., 2020). For example, When Jake is not in his regular school setting, he should be able to reference back to appropriate behaviors within the after-school program setting without reliance on reinforcement for expected behaviors. It should come naturally the more it is practiced.
Lastly, response generalization would be beneficial to add to Jakeâ€™s BIP. This would teach Jake more inventive ways to use his behavior modifications or to â€œthink outside the boxâ€ when it comes to new behaviors that are learned. This behavior would continue through acknowledgement or praise of the new generalized behavior.
Increasing generalization teaches individuals that these behaviors should be used outside the perimeters in which it is taught. Generalization is a more natural response in the real world. Once a child repeatedly implements new behaviors, it begins to become part of a routine. Once a routine is made, it is a maintained behavior that will continue forever.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis. [Purdue University Global Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsource.com/#/b…