Running head: INCLUSION STRATEGY
1
Inclusion Strategy: Intervention Strategies to Reduce Behaviors
Elle Parsons
Seattle Pacific University
INCLUSION STRATEGY
2
Inclusion for All: Intervention Strategies to Reduce Behaviors
A question posed in this class recently was if it is possible to have inclusion for all?
When I was an undergraduate student, one of my professors would argue heatedly that all
students belong in an inclusion classroom. As an undergraduate student, I naively accepted that
this was a “great idea!” Then I came into the real world of special education, where in addition
to students I do think could be in inclusion classrooms, I also see students who are violent and
seem to be seeking out their next target. After meeting these students, inclusion didn’t sound
like as great of an idea as it used to. Always the optimist, I set out in the past few weeks to
determine if inclusion for all was possible. Unfortunately, I didn’t find the answer to my
question. However, one thing I did learn was that there is a strategy called Prevent-TeachReinforce (PTR) that is helping many students in the general education setting.
Two key components that will be expanded upon in this paper that go along with PTR are
Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans. Von der Embse, Brown, &
Fortain (2011) state, “If an effective intervention is implemented to reduce the problem
behaviors of a student with ASD, positive effects of inclusion are possible” (p. 23). Von der
Embse, et al., also states, “Behavioral interventions for students with ASD have typically
focused on three areas; preventative, supportive, and corrective” (p. 23). Preventative,
supportive, and corrective interventions are important to the success of students with Autism.
Leach & Duffy (2009) state, “When preventive and supportive strategies are put into place,
corrective strategies may not be necessary. The preventive and supportive strategies focus on
what can be changed in the environment and what can be changed about the behavior of the
adults and peers in the environment to promote positive behaviors for the student with ASD” (p.
32). Preventative strategies are those that teachers do before they teach. For example, if I know
INCLUSION STRATEGY
3
a student with Autism will not be able to concentrate in the back or middle of the classroom, I
would put the student in the front of the room. This is a preventative strategy. Supportive
strategies are strategies to use while teaching; this could be a visual cue, such as pointing to the
eyes to remind about eye contact. Corrective strategies can be redirection or a negative
consequence, and can happen during or after a behavior has occurred. Preventative and
supportive strategies could easily be done in the general education classroom, so not as many
corrective strategies would be necessary. I think it would be fairly easy for a special education
teacher to work with a general education teacher on how these could be done.
With this in mind, I read another article in which a study was done to determine how to
serve more “severe” students with Autism in general education settings, and how behaviors by
these students could be reduced. This study was based off a larger study of 250 students in
which “students from special and general education programs participated” (Strain, Wilson, &
Dunlap, 2011, p. 160). What wasn’t answered in that first study, and was the purpose of the
second study, was how students with Autism would do when the PTR method was used. Three
students were selected for the study, and PTR teams for each of these students were put in place.
PTR is done through several specific steps. The first step is teaming. According to
Strain, et al., (2011) “Teams vary in size but they must include the individual who will be most
responsible for implementation of the behavior plan…and an individual who can facilitate access
to resources, with an administrator being desirable” (p. 163). Other team members can include
the family of the student, para-educators, social workers, etc. The second step in the process is
goal setting. This includes establishing three broad goals: one academic goal, one social goal,
and one behavioral goal. Then a timeline is determined in which progress will be measured.
INCLUSION STRATEGY
4
Next, team members select three to five target behaviors and establish a way to systematically
measure these.
In step three, an FBA (functional behavioral assessment) is done. It is important to note
that FBAs and PTR are both based on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). Ryan, Hughes,
Katsiyannis, McDaniel, & Sprinkle (2011) state, “ABA is a systematic process of studying and
modifying observable behavior through manipulation of the environment” (p. 60). FBAs are all
about studying the behavior and manipulating the environment. According to Neitzel (2010), an
“FBA is a proactive strategy to intervention planning that helps teachers and others understand
the purpose of the student’s behavior and link it to relevant intervention strategies to reduce its
occurrence” (p. 252). The process of an FBA starts with each member of the team individually
filling out a set of questions about the student. The team compares results and comes up with a
hypothesis on the purpose or function of the behavior, and “the events that have typically
followed the occurrence of the target behaviors, and preferred stimuli or events that might be
used as positive reinforcers during intervention” (Strain, et al., p. 163). Otten and Tuttle (2004)
give the most common reasons for functions of behaviors that they have found in their
experience, which are: “To get attention or a reaction from peers and adults, to get something
tangible, to get power or control, to meet a sensory need, to communicate feelings, wants, or
needs, or as a result of a lack of understanding, and to escape or avoid something” (p. 19).
While going through the process of PTR, it is important to keep in mind that the behavior you
are observing could be due to any of these functions, and each function will receive a different
treatment. For example, if a student with Autism is hitting others, the FBA would have different
treatments on how to stop or replace the hitting, whether it is sensory-based or attention-seekingbased.
INCLUSION STRATEGY
5
After the FBA is developed, the fourth step is that the team develops a behavior
intervention plan, or BIP. When discussing behavior intervention plans, Killu (2008) states,
“These plans consider the relationship between student learning and behavior problems that
impede classroom performance. Behavior intervention plans outline strategies and tactics for
dealing with the problem behavior along with the role that educators must play in improving
student learning and behavior” (p. 140). A BIP includes such information as: the target behavior
(developed in the FBA); the desired replacement behavior or how to extinguish the behavior;
how the behavior will be taught, practiced, and reinforced; and also how teachers or teams will
know if the student is making progress (through their data). In addition to this, teams can select
from the PTR manual (if desired) for strategies for each of the PTR components (i.e. prevent,
teach and reinforce). This makes a lot of sense, since part of the BIP includes how to prevent,
teach and reinforce behaviors.
FBAs and BIPs are documents created by a special education teacher and a team (which
includes the general education teacher). Both of these documents determine how and what steps
should be done at different times. Using a BIP as a resource for a general education setting
would be ideal, because the general education teacher would know such things as supportive and
preventative strategies that would be helpful, what the replacement behavior is, how to teach that
in their classroom, what reinforcers might be helpful, etc. Also, a teacher would know how to
handle behaviors that did occur, which would allow for consistency with the student, and it
would be helpful for the teacher because they wouldn’t be caught not knowing what to do. Since
the last step in the PTR process is evaluation, general education teachers would also know how
to determine and ensure that the intervention is effective.
INCLUSION STRATEGY
6
In the aforementioned study, the PTR process was done in three different schools, using
one student at each school. The article gave an overview of each of the steps and what the team
determined for each student. For the PTR process regarding one particular student, Josh, the
“prevent” component was to give Josh clear behavioral expectations. The “teach” component
was teaching classroom and individual expectations for Josh, which were written on an index
card and talked about daily. The “reinforce” component was the teacher acknowledging Josh
when he used a replacement behavior. There is importance behind a replacement behavior.
Killu states, “Many inappropriate behaviors are the result of a skill deficit rather than a
performance deficit. Simply addressing the removal of an inappropriate behavior fails to address
a possible skill deficit because the student has not learned an alternative, appropriate response”
(p.145). In my own classroom, we have gone through the FBA/BIP process and have determined
that one of the reasons my student hits is to avoid work. We are working on the replacement
strategy of asking for a break. By asking for a break, the student is still getting what they need (a
break) and it is much safer for all, including staff, peers, and the student.
It is important to note that in this case, the team knew the child well, and knew what type
of reinforcer might work. If a team does not know a student as well, they could do a reinforcer
assessment in order to find out what the student might respond. Schanding, Tingstrom, &
Sterling-Turner state, “Interventions relying on reinforcement require the appropriate
identification of reinforcers or sources of reinforcement for individuals or groups. Traditionally,
the identification of reinforcers has involved one of two approaches: stimulus preference
assessment and/or reinforcer assessment” (p. 89). In Josh’s case, the replacement strategy
included a token system in which he could receive items from the classroom treasure box. This
was paired further with a reinforcement system at home where Josh brought evidence of the
INCLUSION STRATEGY
7
tokens he earned and could talk about them positively with his mother. When Josh did engage in
behaviors he shouldn’t have, the behaviors were ignored and adults gave a visual cue to help
Josh redirect.
In the article all of the students had different preventions, teachings, and reinforcers
based on what they needed. Over time, the PTR intervention was proven to be effective. “The
data from this study showed that implementation of the PTR process was effective in rapidly
improving the behavior of the three children with Autism” (Strain, et al., 2011, p. 167). For
example, one student’s baseline data for problem behaviors was at 52% of the time, and after the
intervention he was at only 26% problem behaviors.
My article is relevant to special education because inclusion is an ongoing issue. This is
a hot debate that includes many questions for many parties involved, including special education
students, general education students, both SPED and general education teachers, and families.
While I said at the beginning of this paper that I started out wondering if inclusion could be
successful for all, I didn’t come away with the answer I was looking for. Instead, I came away
with the knowledge that students with Autism in a general education setting can be better served
when interventions like PTR, which includes functional behavioral assessments and behavior
intervention plans, are in place. I also came away with a more optimistic view of how “inclusion
for all” could become a reality, although a lot of work (at least in my district) would need to be
done first.
More research in this area does need to be done. I believe a larger study would be the
first priority. The next question is, how will these interventions be implemented with both
reliability and validity? If this did happen, teachers would need exemplars and professional
development. Work around communication and collaboration would need to be done as well. I
INCLUSION STRATEGY
8
believe that teachers need more training in PTR, FBAs, and BIPs; general education teachers
would need a lot of training in this area as well.
In sum, I am really glad that I chose to learn and write about this topic. It reminded me
of some basic principles of ABA, FBAs, and BIPs. I also got to learn way more about PTR, and
how helpful this is to students in my classroom. I also learned some more “tricks for my tool
bag,” so to speak, on how to effectively work with some of my students and how, by using this
strategy, I might be able to get some of my students into an inclusion classroom at some point.
While this study was done on a small number of students, it gives me some hope that many more
students could be positively affected by using PTR and having this implemented in classrooms in
order to include more students in education.
It also made me wonder how classrooms get picked to be part of these great studies, and
how wonderful it would be to learn from the best as new things were implemented and tried in
my own classroom!
INCLUSION STRATEGY
9
References
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,. 1, 91-97.
Borden, M. (2011). Treating individuals who have autism: DSM-V, ABA, and
beyond. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 27(8), 1-6.
Leach, D., Duffy, M.L. Intervention in school & clinic. Sep2009, Vol. 45 Issue 1, p31-37.
7p. DOI: 10.1177/1053451209338395.
Neitzel, J. (2010). Positive behavior supports for children and youth with autism
spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54(4), 247-255.
Otten, Kaye, and Jodie Tuttle. How to Reach and Teach Children with Challenging
Behavior (K-8): Practical, Ready-to-Use Interventions That Work (J-B Ed: Reach and Teach).
San Fransisco: Jossey-Ba.
Schanding Jr., G., Tingstrom, D. H., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2009). Evaluation of
stimulus preference assessment methods with general education students. Psychology In The
Schools, 46(2), 89ss, 2010.
Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: Addressing
problem behaviors of students with autism in general education classrooms. Behavioral
Disorders, 36(3), 160-171.
von der Embse, N., Brown, A., & Fortain, J. (2011). Facilitating inclusion by reducing
problem behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders. Intervention In School And
Clinic, 47(1), 22-30.