Emotional Behavioural Difficulties (EBD)
How would you define disruptive behaviour in 50 words or less?
A child who deliberately makes a fuss in class and prevents learning
Disruptive behaviour is when a child is uncooperative and prevents themselves and other children in class from working. A disruptive child also manages to grab a teacher’s attention and prevent the teacher from giving the other children attention.
Behaviour that distracts a teacher and other pupils from learning.
Cooper (1996)
Emotional Behavioural problem
Young person
Interferes with their personal, social and/or educational development.
Psycho-social problems
Deviancy and delinquency
Low self-esteem
Anxiety
Withdrawn
Acting out behaviour
Bio-psychosocial nature
ADHD (Attention Deficit hyperactivity Disorder)
Autism
etc
Charlton and David (1993)
Verbally or physically
Covertly challenges
Varying degrees
Variety of ways
The authority of the teacher or the school.
Garner and Hill (1995)
Prevents children’s participation in educational activities
Isolates them from their peers
Affects other pupils
Reduces opportunities for involvement in ordinary community activities
Excessive demands upon teachers, staff and resources
Places the child or others in physical danger
Makes future placement difficult
Daniels et al 1999
Pupil behavioural enquiry form
Scale of 1-4
1 No cause for concern
2 Mild cause for concern
3 Moderate cause for concern
4 Serious cause for concern
Elton committee (DES 1989) concluded that behavioural difficulties are not increasing.
But school exclusion statistics give a different story.
2,910 in 1990/1
12,000 in 1995/6 (Parsons 1996)
12,298 in 1997/8 – boys 84%
Black Caribbean’s had the highest rate and Chinese had the lowest.
Local authority children are excluded 10 times as much (ONS 2000).
Refer back to Special Ed Needs notes for diagnosis. Remember it is difficult to agree upon the criteria.
Pack report (SED 1977)
Ogilvy (1994)
Reybekill (1998) – EBD pupils blamed individual teachers and their teaching styles.
Teachers blamed pupils and their upbringing. Their families and peers.
Social desirability – self-serving bias
Ogilvy suggests that we need to take into account many factors and the way they interact.
The cause would suggest the intervention.
Preventative measures and corrective measures.
When do teachers intervene?
Psychodynamic approach
Attachment theory (John Bowlby – Maternal deprivation)
Proximity-seeking attachment
Emotionally charged demands for attention
Screams, tantrums or severely withdrawn behaviour.
Appropriate childcare – not neglectful nor over-protective. Child needs to develop a sense of security and well-being.
Confidence to adopt socially acceptable behaviour.
Regression – child returns to an earlier form of behaviour.
Child as they grow up still show early forms of behaviour.
Contrasts with their peers.
Teacher must respond to the child at the level the child displays. Provide structures, level of control, accept emotional behaviour, encouragement to move on. (Bennathan 1997)
Similar to Vygotsky – Zone of Proximal development and scaffolding.
Nurture groups ILEA 1970’s Marjorie Boxall, educational psychologist.
Based on attachment theory (Bowlby 1965).
4 or 5 year olds
Mainstream schools
Registration with other children and then taken to nurture group room.
Nurture room – tables, chairs, sofas, cushions and eating area. Very homely.
10 to 12 children.
One year in nurture group.
Then rejoin mainstream education.
Advantage (Bennathan 1997) – these children would otherwise fail in a mainstream environment and would need otherwise to be offered a special placement (Separate school).
Friendly places.
Structure
Repetition
Ritual
Rules are made clear and are rehearsed.
Personal relationship between teachers and pupils; improves communication.
It is hoped that through the discussions the child realises the meaning and consequences of their behaviour, realise they have choices and begin to develop inner controls (Cooper and Lovey, 1999)
Underlying physiological or biological condition.
Medical intervention
Barkley (1988) ADHD – Key brain circuits that do not develop.
Altered genes.
LaHoste et al (1996) dopamine receptor gene D4 is more prevalent in children with ADHD.
PET scans show specific areas that function differently.
Lack of attention – falling behind educationally – poor self-esteem – labelled
Anti-social behaviour.
Bio-psychosocial interventions
Ritalin – psycho stimulant
70%- 90% improve
Child less impulsive
Less easily distracted
Less restless
Other effects – Improves memory – ability to store information.
More academically productive.
Better self-control (Barkley 1998)
Diagnosis of ADHD
Family difficulties and emotional problems – inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.
Difficult to diagnose and many children will be prescribed Ritalin when it is not needed.
Ritalin is short acting. Does not build up in the bloodstream.
Multiple doses
Works after 20-40 minutes.
Maximum effectiveness after 90 minutes.
Children growing so dosage constantly needs to be assessed.
Over-dosage means highly sedated.
Some children – rebound hyperactivity
When dosage wears off they are worse.
Children become more hyperactive than if they had not taken the Ritalin.
Long-term effect – paranoia – everybody is out to get them
Occurs in 2% - occurs in adolescence.
Psychological dependency.
Whalen and Henker (1991) individual interpret their medication as a reflection of a continuous need for chemical assistance in order to sustain personal competence and control. Negative effect on developing a sense of self.
Converse argument – the drug provides a window of opportunity.
But Ritalin is not enough on its own; a multidisciplinary approach is needed.
Vicious circle
· Child presents difficult behaviour – hits another kid
· Adult punishes – tells the child he is a useless vicious thug, sent out.
· Child is rewarded with attention – any attention is better than no attention
· Child becomes the baddie
· This leads to more difficult behaviour
Break the cycle by giving lots of attention to the child when behaviour is good.
Behaviourist interventions and evaluation
Pay attention to good behaviour (Daniels et al. 1999)
Skinner’s idea – reinforced pigeons and rats in his skinner box.
Negotiate the rewards with the student so the rewards are seen as desirable.
Vouchers
Given for achieving clear targets. (Contingency contracting).
Fairness (Daniels et al 1999)
Problem is that other ‘good’ students perceive the treatment of ‘bad’ students as unfair, in that the ‘bad’ students seem to be getting rewarded for little effort.
Conflict of needs of the individual versus the need to be fair to all (Daniels et al 1999)
Inform others about the need to ignore minor misdemeanours of the problem children. Students can be understanding and tolerant. (Daniels et al 1999). But consider ethics of this.
Set of social sub-systems
Behaviour is a result of interactions within and between these sub-systems
‘Disruption is a school-generated problem’ (McGuiness and Craggs 1986).
Frozen perceptions of students according to past behaviour. (Molnar and Lindquist 1989).
We need to acknowledge the mismatch between subsystems and re-frame the behaviour.
Avoid blame and conflict.
Disruptive behaviour – ways forward
Daniels et al (1999) – Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream Schools.
Good practice – ten schools
Training impulsive students to
talk to themselves: a means of developing
self-control
Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971)
Aim:
To demonstrate the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural intervention (self-instructional
training) in treating impulsive
and hyperactive students.
Sample:
Fifteen students placed in a special
education classroom because of behavioural problems (hyperactivity and poor
self-control).
Method:
The students were split into
three groups of five. The first group (SI) received the self-instructional treatment, the second (attention-control)
did not receive any
treatment but were given
an equivalent amount of attention, and the third (assessment-control) received no treatment or attention
and were used to establish
a baseline. The
self-instructional training programme consisted of four hours and 30 minutes spread
over two weeks, during which the following procedures were carried out:
. the researcher
performed a task while talking through it out loud; the
child observed.
. the child
performed the same task while the researcher gave instructions out loud
. the child
performed the task, speaking self-instructions out loud
. the child
performed the task, whispering self-instructions
. the child
performed the task by thinking the self-instructions to herself
The
SI group were instructed in this way to perform a range of sensorimotor and problem-solving tasks.
Results:
The SI group performed
significantly better on the tasks than the students in the two control groups
(immediately and when they
were reassessed three weeks later). There was no observable improvement in classroom
behaviour or in teacher ratings of behaviour for these students.
Conclusions:
Meichenbaum and Goodman concluded that a
cognitive self-instructional programme that teaches students to talk to
themselves can help impulsive or hyperactive students to concentrate on their
work and that this, eventually,
will have beneficial effects on their classroom behaviour.
Evaluation point 1 – generalisation – the success of the technique
under laboratory testing conditions did not generalise to the real world (i.e.
the classroom).
Evaluation
point 2 – Small sample – the results might not generalise to other children.
Evaluation
point 3 – Good controls – The effect of attention was controlled for.
STUDY 9
Abikoff, H. B et al
Observed classroom behaviour of
children with ADHD: relationship to gender and co-morbidity, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30,4, 349-60
Generally
the aim was to investigate gender and co-morbidity differences in the observed classroom behaviour of
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The following
specific hypotheses were tested:
1) children with ADHD will exhibit significantly more
ADHD-associated
behaviours than children without ADHD
2) boys with ADHD will exhibit significantly more
rule-breaking and other
externalizing behaviours than girls with ADHD
3) there will be no significant difference in the level of inattention and fidgeting
shown by boys and girls with ADHD
4) children
with ADHD and co-morbid anxiety (ANX) will be significantly less hyperactive, less impulsive and
exhibit lower rates of rule-breaking than children with ADHD alone and
those with ADHD and co-morbid Disruptive Behaviour Disorders (DBDs)
- specifically Conduct Disorder (CD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
5) children with co-morbid DBDs will exhibit significantly higher rates of rule
breaking, impulsive and aggressive behaviours than any other
group.
A
quasi-experiment.
The
experimental group comprised 403
boys and 99 girls, aged 7-10 years (mean = 8.4 years), all of whom had been diagnosed
via a Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children - Parent Report (DISC-P) with
ADHD. Some children whose DISC-P reading indicated that they were just below
the threshold for ADHD diagnosis were included if their teachers had observed
up to two ADHD symptoms in their behaviour. Additionally, all had scores at
least greater than one standard deviation above the mean on the Parents and
Teachers Conners Scales. In addition, they all
achieved a score in excess of 80 on the WISC- III Full Scale Verbal or
Performance IQ or a similar score on the Scales for Independent Behaviour. 12
per cent of the experimental group had co-morbid anxiety, 34 per cent had
co-morbid DBD, 22 per cent had both co-morbid anxiety and DBD and the remaining
32 per cent only had ADHD. A
group of non-ADHD-diagnosed children, matched for age and ethnicity and from
the same school class as the experimental group, acted as controls. 64
per cent of the sample was Caucasian, 19 per cent African-American, 6 per cent
Hispanic and the remainder came from other ethnic groups.
The
participants were observed
during normal teaching sessions using the Classroom Observation Code (COC). This observation
schedule contains behavioural categories such as interference (e.g. talking
during work, clowning about), interference to teacher (e.g. interrupting the
teacher), off-task, noncompliance
to teacher, physical and verbal aggression and so on. It is known to have construct validity.
Observations were made in 15-second
intervals over a period of four minutes for each participant and, for
most categories, only the first occurrence of a behaviour
was recorded. For three categories (off-task, out-of-chair and noncompliance) a timed criterion is required, so these
were only scored if they occurred for the full 15-second interval.
All observers were trained using instruction, scoring of videos and
scoring in real classrooms. Only those who achieved an inter-rater reliability
in excess of 70 per cent on three consecutive classroom training sessions were
used to collect data. Observers were informed prior to observation of the classroom rules
utilized by the teacher in whose class they were to be observing. The observers were blind as to
which condition the participants belonged. Additional inter-rater
reliability for data gathered during the actual study was also calculated.
Inter-rater
reliability was found to be 80 per cent or greater. The following
results were obtained:
1) the general hypothesis, that children with ADHD will exhibit
significantly more
ADHD-associated
behaviours than children without ADHD, was supported
2) in relation to gender, the
hypothesis that boys with
ADHD will exhibit
significantly
more rule-breaking and other externalizing behaviours than girls
with ADHD was also supported
3) the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in the level of
inattention and
fidgeting shown by boys and girls with ADHD was supported
4) in relation to co-morbidity, the hypothesis that
children with ADHD and co-morbid anxiety will be significantly less
hyperactive, less impulsive and exhibit lower
rates of rule-breaking than children with ADHD alone and those with
ADHD
and co-morbid Disruptive Behaviour Disorders (specifically Conduct Disorder and
appositional Defiant Disorder), was rejected
5) the hypothesis that children with co-morbid DBDs will exhibit significantly higher rates of rule-breaking,
impulsive and aggressive behaviours than any other group was supported.
Evaluation point 1 – good training of observers improves
reliability of results.
Evaluation point 2 – Ecological validity
high as the children are observed in their usual classrooms.
Evaluation point 3 – the presence of the observers in the
classroom could have caused the boys to play up more than the girls.
STUDY 10
Van der Heyden, A. M., Witt, J, C., Gatti,
S., 2001, 'Descriptive assessment method to
reduce overall disruptive behaviour in a pre-school classroom', School
Psychology Review, 30, 4, 548-68
This
study had two main aims. The first was to develop a brief assessment tool that could be used
in the classroom to identify
naturally occurring, high-frequency events acting as reinforcers of disruptive
behaviour. The second was to investigate whether or not the withholding of these reinforcers
would result in lowered disruptive behaviour.
A descriptive method to develop the tool and then an experiment to
test the efficacy of the tool.
Two classrooms were used.
Classroom 1 was in
a pre-school centre for
children with speech development delays. In this classroom were eight children, aged 2-4 years,
a head teacher (with a Masters level degree in speech pathology), a graduate
student of speech pathology and two classroom assistants. Three of the children had been
diagnosed with autism and one with hypothyroidism.
In classroom
2, which was in a Head
Start centre, there were 22 children, but, due to time considerations, six of these were selected at
random to participate in this study.
Informed
consent was obtained from the parents of all children in the study.
Tool
development - the teacher
in each class was asked to
identify which activity provided them with the greatest problem in terms of
amount of disruptive behaviours. They both identified 'the circle activity', in
which 'the children sit in
a circle and a teacher-led activity, such as reading or singing, takes place.
During this activity, the children
were afforded multiple
opportunities to respond (both verbally and non-verbally) and were expected
to show turn-taking skills,
stay in their seats and
pay attention to the teacher. Two researchers were present during this session. One acted as an additional
classroom assistant and interacted with the children as instructed by
the teacher; the other
acted as an observer. The children and teachers were observed individually in ten-second intervals. Two
behaviours for target children, one peer behaviour and five to eight teacher
behaviours were recorded.
Behaviour categories used were attention, tangible, demand, compliance, escape and disruptive behaviour. The
first five of these were recorded
for their occurrence both just
before (antecedent) and just after (subsequent) the occurrence of the disruptive behaviour
on a tally chart. All observers were trained and inter-rater reliability
was established as exceeding 90
per cent.
Following this, the teachers were informed of the outcomes and, in conjunction with
the researchers,
identified which behaviours
acted as reinforcers for disruptive behaviours. It was found that attention from the teacher was
the most significant behaviour that occurred subsequent to disruptive
behaviour and, therefore, was likely to act as a reinforcer
for that disruptive behaviour. Peer attention was the next most common factor.
Experimental
testing - using a repeated
measures design, the teachers were instructed either to attend to the children by
rewarding them for their appropriate behaviour (e.g. by praising them) while ignoring their disruptive
behaviour, or to give their attention to the children as a consequence of their
disruptive behaviour by reprimanding them and ignoring any appropriate
behaviours. Data from the tool development phase was used as baseline
data for the experimental phase.
The
results from the tool development phase indicate that teacher attention is the single most important reinforcer of disruptive behaviour in the classroom.
Analysis of the data from the experimental phase
showed that the total
amount of teacher attention given in both the rewarding and reprimanding
conditions was the same. This rules out the
possibility that the amount of teacher attention was a confounding variable.
Disruptive
behaviour occurred in 31 per cent of the observation intervals in the baseline sessions.
In the reprimand sessions,
it fell slightly to 27 per cent, but in the rewarding sessions it fell to 16 per cent.
Evaluation point 1 – Useful for
pre-schoolers, but as this group respond well to reinforcement the
results may not be so useful for older children. Plus unusual sample also
very small.
Evaluation point 2 – Controlled well. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the amount of
attention was the same for both treatment groups, so attention per se was not
the causative factor.
Evaluation point 3 – Time sampling interval could
have been too long to capture all relevant data.
STUDY 11
Breunlin, D. C.,
Cimmarusfi, R.A, Bryant-Edward, T. L., Hetherington,
J. S., 2002,'Conflict
resolution training as an alternative to suspension
for violent behaviour', The.Journal
of
Educational
Research,. 95, 6, 349~59
To investigate whether or not conflict resolution training acts as an alternative to suspension
from school for aggressive
behaviour. In particular, four hypotheses were
tested:
1) students who undertake conflict resolution training will
have lower rates of
re-suspension for physical
violence than those who do not undertake such training
2) those who undertake such training will also have lower rates
of re-suspension for
verbal aggression
3) those students who follow this training will have a lower overall re-suspension
rate
4) those who complete such a programme will have a reduced record of disciplinary
actions taken against them than those who do not complete
such a programme.
Experiment, with a repeated measures design.
165 first- and second-year
At
the start of the study, data
on the discipline and suspension records of all the
students in the school were gathered.
Those who had been
suspended were selected
for inclusion in the study and their discipline and suspension records were utilized to
provide baseline data. The number of incidents, the type of incident and the
reasons for suspension/disciplinary
action and so on were recorded.
The usual way of dealing with aggressive behaviour in the
school was via
suspension from school for a
number of days, the length
of suspension being related to the severity of the incident. From
January 1999, assistant principals at the school,
who were responsible for
disciplinary procedures, agreed to refer students suspended
for fighting and other aggressive acts to a conflict
resolution training programme
devised by the researchers. If the students agreed to attend
they received a reduction
in the number of days they were to be suspended from
school. Failure to complete
the programme resulted in the
reinstatement of the original suspension length. Some
students who were suspended for non-violent infringements of the
school rules were
also referred to the programme.
The training programme, labelled the Alternative to Suspension for
Violent
Behaviour
(ASVB), included teaching the students the use of social problem-solving
and thinking skills. The entire programme was
grounded on previous psychological
research into factors that reduce
aggressive behaviours.
For
purposes of analysis, the participants
were divided into six groups:
1) those
suspended for fighting who undertook the programme (n = 25)
2) those
suspended for fighting who did not attend the programme (n = 41)
3) those suspended for other aggressive
behaviours who attended the programme
(n = 7) Rather small group size, so stats unlikely to show
significance.
4) those suspended for other aggressive
behaviours who did not attend the
programme (n = 36)
5) those suspended for non-violent acts
who attended the training (n = 10)
6) those suspended for non-violent acts
who did not attend the training (n = 46).
It
was found that, overall, students
who undertook the ASVB conflict resolution training received fewer re-suspensions than
those who did not. It was also found that there were no expulsions from among the former groups,
while seven students who
opted not to follow the programme were expelled for further aggressive
behaviour. Students in group 1 were twice less likely than those in group 2,
five times less likely than those in group 4 and four times less likely than
those in group 6 to be re-suspended.
It was also found that the overall disciplinary records of those in group 1 improved
significantly more than the records of those in group 2.
Evaluation point 1 – The effect could be due to the
attention given rather than the treatment.
Another control group was needed – those suspended but attended some
other sort of session where they were given attention.
Evaluation point 2 – Behaviourist theories would suggest
that giving attention would encourage bad behaviour, but this research has
found the opposite, so the results are more robust.
Evaluation point 3 – Withdrawal made difficult because
threat of suspension. Also consent under
duress.
Evaluation point 4 – Self-selecting sample for treatment
are more likely to respond to treatment.
May not generalise to non-cooperative aggressive
students. Those who refused the
treatment were more likely to be excluded, probably because they were totally
uncooperative. Biased
sample.
Evaluation point 5 – Useful strategy,
but only for the willing.
a) Describe what psychologists have found out about children who cause problems in schools (10)