challenging behavior, either.
These kids clearly need something else from us. They need adults who know that lagging skills give rise to challenging behavior and that such behavior occurs under specific conditions. They need adults who can identify those lagging skills and unsolved problems and know how to solve those problems (collaboratively) so that the solutions are durable, the skills are taught, and the likelihood of challenging behavior is significantly reduced.
And yet, the debate is a common one: Is it that the kid can’t do well or won’t do well? If he can’t do well, then lagging skills are the logical explanation. If he won’t do well, then poor motivation would seem to make sense. Things are seldom so simple, but here’s a graphic that might help you think this through; it shows the different combinations of motivation and skills and their logical outcomes:
If a child has the requisite skills and is motivated (Yes/Yes), we should expect to see adaptive behavior. If a child does not possess the requisite skills and is not motivated (No/No), we are unlikely to see adaptive behavior. And if a child does not possess the requisite skills and is motivated (No/Yes), adaptive behavior is also unlikely. Which brings us to the fourth possibility: Yes Skills/No Motivation. Many adults believe they see this combination most often; that’s why motivational strategies are so popular. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. When people make use of the ALSUP, they find that kids who they thought were unmotivated were, in fact, lacking lots of skills. In other words, when adults change their understanding of challenging behavior, things finally begin moving in the right direction.
We’ve covered a lot of ground in this chapter, so a summary of the key points might be helpful:
• Viewing challenging behavior as the result of lagging skills (kids do well if they can ) rather than as poor motivation (kids do well if they want to ) has significant ramifications for how adults interact with kids with behavioral challenges and try to help them.
• A wide range of lagging skills can set the stage for challenging behavior.
• Challenging behavior usually occurs in predictable situations called unsolved problems.
• Adults have a strong tendency to automatically apply consequences to challenging behavior. Whether of the natural or artificial variety, consequences do not teach lagging cognitive skills or help kids solve problems.
• The first step in helping a challenging kid is to identify the skills he’s lacking and the problems that are precipitating his challenging moments, and this is best accomplished by having relevant adults use the ALSUP as a tool for achieving a consensus.
Q & A
Question: If lagging cognitive skills and unsolved problems set the stage for social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in kids, what is the fate of the functional behavior assessment (FBA) routinely performed in schools to better understand challenging behavior?
Answer: For the unfamiliar, an FBA (sometimes called a functional analysis) is a procedure through which the function (causes, purposes, goals) of a kid’s challenging behavior is identified. Though FBAs are common in schools, the information gathered through and inferences drawn from a functional analysis vary depending on the orientation, training, and experience of the evaluator conducting the procedure.
But a core assumption guiding most FBAs is that maladaptive behavior is “working” for a kid by allowing him to “get” something desirable (e.g., attention, peer approval) or “escape” or “avoid” something undesirable (e.g., a difficult task). The belief that challenging behaviors are somehow “working” for a kid leads many adults to theconclusion that those behaviors are purposeful (what could be referred to as the intentionality attributional bias ). This popular conclusion can set the stage for misguided statements such as “It must be
These kids clearly need something else from us. They need adults who know that lagging skills give rise to challenging behavior and that such behavior occurs under specific conditions. They need adults who can identify those lagging skills and unsolved problems and know how to solve those problems (collaboratively) so that the solutions are durable, the skills are taught, and the likelihood of challenging behavior is significantly reduced.
And yet, the debate is a common one: Is it that the kid can’t do well or won’t do well? If he can’t do well, then lagging skills are the logical explanation. If he won’t do well, then poor motivation would seem to make sense. Things are seldom so simple, but here’s a graphic that might help you think this through; it shows the different combinations of motivation and skills and their logical outcomes:
If a child has the requisite skills and is motivated (Yes/Yes), we should expect to see adaptive behavior. If a child does not possess the requisite skills and is not motivated (No/No), we are unlikely to see adaptive behavior. And if a child does not possess the requisite skills and is motivated (No/Yes), adaptive behavior is also unlikely. Which brings us to the fourth possibility: Yes Skills/No Motivation. Many adults believe they see this combination most often; that’s why motivational strategies are so popular. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. When people make use of the ALSUP, they find that kids who they thought were unmotivated were, in fact, lacking lots of skills. In other words, when adults change their understanding of challenging behavior, things finally begin moving in the right direction.
We’ve covered a lot of ground in this chapter, so a summary of the key points might be helpful:
• Viewing challenging behavior as the result of lagging skills (kids do well if they can ) rather than as poor motivation (kids do well if they want to ) has significant ramifications for how adults interact with kids with behavioral challenges and try to help them.
• A wide range of lagging skills can set the stage for challenging behavior.
• Challenging behavior usually occurs in predictable situations called unsolved problems.
• Adults have a strong tendency to automatically apply consequences to challenging behavior. Whether of the natural or artificial variety, consequences do not teach lagging cognitive skills or help kids solve problems.
• The first step in helping a challenging kid is to identify the skills he’s lacking and the problems that are precipitating his challenging moments, and this is best accomplished by having relevant adults use the ALSUP as a tool for achieving a consensus.
Q & A
Question: If lagging cognitive skills and unsolved problems set the stage for social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in kids, what is the fate of the functional behavior assessment (FBA) routinely performed in schools to better understand challenging behavior?
Answer: For the unfamiliar, an FBA (sometimes called a functional analysis) is a procedure through which the function (causes, purposes, goals) of a kid’s challenging behavior is identified. Though FBAs are common in schools, the information gathered through and inferences drawn from a functional analysis vary depending on the orientation, training, and experience of the evaluator conducting the procedure.
But a core assumption guiding most FBAs is that maladaptive behavior is “working” for a kid by allowing him to “get” something desirable (e.g., attention, peer approval) or “escape” or “avoid” something undesirable (e.g., a difficult task). The belief that challenging behaviors are somehow “working” for a kid leads many adults to theconclusion that those behaviors are purposeful (what could be referred to as the intentionality attributional bias ). This popular conclusion can set the stage for misguided statements such as “It must be
Similar Books
