Providing+Choices

1. Description of Strategy a) Providing choices is a strategy that we all use in some form. There is no reason to make it seem more complicated than it is; provide students with viable and agreeable (to you) options and let them choose what they prefer. Research has shown that when done systematically, choices given at the school, classroom, and individual level can be effective at reducing problem behavior and increasing time on task. The following presentation offers a beginners guide to implementing choices at various levels.  []   b) Choice making is proven to be effective in reducing problem behavior and increasing on-task behavior with all students including those with EBD, autism, LD, etc. c) There are no qualifications necessary. However, paraprofesionals who are not certified to // plan // instruction should be prepared to provide viable options. d) The only cost associated with providing choices might be upfront planning in order to have curricular options planned in advance. However, this does not necessarily mean that // more //planning is necessary. If planning is done with principles of universal design for learning in mind, choices are built into lessons. Or, teacher can simply offer odds vs. evens, review one or review two (with the alternate assigned the following day). Other choices such as when to complete an assignment, typing vs. writing, where to sit, color of paper, etc. can be given without substantial planning. e) When giving choices “on the fly” teachers run the risk of blurting out a choice that they are not comfortable with. However, in order to maintain trust and consistency, all choices must be honored. f) As stated above, providing choices is designed to: 1) decrease problem behavior and 2) increase time on task. g) I have not read any circumstances under which choices would be inappropriate. h) Offering choices seems to be well received. I have not found any adverse effects or articles published with drawbacks. 2. APA reference Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). Class wide curricular modification to improve the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. // Behavioral Disorders, //27 (4), 317-326. a) This study was done at the classroom level. The students in this study were six 13-14 year old boys in a self-contained science class. All of the students had a label of severe emotional disturbance in addition to a variety of other diagnoses. All students fell within the normal range of intelligence, except one student who was described as having mild mental retardation. b) A multiple baseline ABAB design was used where baseline data was collected, the intervention was put into place, return to baseline, and finally the intervention was reintroduced. c) The authors defined the dependent variables as engagement and destructive behaviors. Engagement was defined as the student having their eyes on the teacher or task and completing task as assigned by teacher. Destructive behavior included aggression, hitting, leaving the room without permission, destroying property, etc. d) The independent variable for this study was providing choices. Choices were given at the class level (should we do this first or second) where majority ruled, and on the individual level. e) Engagement during baseline 1 was variable with a downward trend. The mean was 57%. During the initial intervention stage, mean engagement was 87%, baseline 2 mean engagement was 63%, and during the second intervention phase, mean engagement was 89%. Additionally, destructive behavior was observed in an average of 8% of the observed intervals in baseline 1 and 12% of intervals in baseline 2. However during both intervention stages, destructive behavior was virtually eliminated (3% in intervention 1 and 0% in intervention 2). A graph of the data can be seen below.