SPLED462:

PAM WOLFE: Behaviorism-- you've probably heard that term. It refers to the philosophy of the science of behavior. So there's a couple things there. We have a philosophy, but it's backed by science. So we're really saying that science includes behavior, and that is pretty revolutionary. For a long time, the hard sciences, physics and chemistry and those, had tangibles to look at. Skinner, along with others, really said that behavior is a science. And we can apply a philosophy or a theory to it, and make sure we're looking at it scientifically. So the study of behavior is a natural science.

My father was a genetics professor, and he used to really just truly marvel at how can you apply science? What do you do for your research? How can look at people and behavior as a science? But this philosophy says that behavior is a natural science. And critically to this, behavior is controlled by environmental influences. What goes on in the environment, particularly consequences, really control how we react to things.

A little bit about the terminology that you'll hear-- the term "behavior modification" is a bit of a past term that you might have heard of, and comes, generally, from the field of psychology. So behaviorism came from the field of psychology, and a term that was often used was "behavior modification." That has a bit of a negative connotation, because it sounded like that we're robots, that we're putting people in rooms and shocking them, that we modified their behavior.

This is an early term. The term "applied behavior analysis" is the more preferred term now, because this was established as a science later. If you choose to get the Miltenburger text, you're going to notice that they use these terms "behavior modification" and "applied behavior analysis" pretty interchangeably. But I want you to understand that the term behavior modification is not often used. It has a lot of negative connotations that go with that.

And when we're looking at the science of behavior, we're looking at, generally, two types of behavior. The first is what's called respondent-- often called reflexes-- and the other is called operant-- so respondent and operant behavior or learning.

Respondent behavior-- this is our first that looks at reflexes. Behavior that it's elicited by a stimulus-- the presentation of the stimulus evokes a behavior. So you see on our slide here a person sneezing or a person blinking. These are reflexes that occur. Those are called respondent behavior. If our physician uses a little rubber hammer and hits our knee, we have a reflex. You'll notice that young babies have what they call a rooting reflex. If they see a nipple, they'll turn their head toward it. That's because they're hoping to get fed.

So those are all respondent behaviors. They happen organically. They happen as reflexes, and very often-- most often-- cannot be controlled.

Now, respondent learning really came from the background of Pavlov. It's often called classical conditioning or Pavlovian conditioning. And this is the work of Ivan Pavlov. And really, what we've got here is a respondent reflex. So that reflex is elicited by a previously neutral stimulus. Once we do that, we have learning. So if we look at Pavlov's work, and this was often called stimulus response, it showed that you could pair two stimuli together and bring a response under the control of a new stimulus.

So looking at some of his work, you've probably heard of the salivating dog. He paired a bell with the presentation of food to a dog. And he showed that the dogs would, after he's paired that bell and the food together, salivate in response to the bell. The bell took on a conditioned response for the animals. They only had to hear the bell, and they would begin to salivate. It didn't take the presentation of the food. They knew that the food was often paired with that. So you really saw a stimulus and a response. Very classic and very important to our learning or understanding of behavior.

So we have respondent behavior-- now we have operant behavior, our second type of behavior. Operant refers to behavior that operates-- that operates on the environment and is changed by the environment. So this means that we have environmental influences that change our behavior. And this analysis was pioneered by BF Skinner, and you'll hear a lot about him. He really revolutionize the science of behavior.

What operant learning says is that learning new behaviors is the result of the relationship between the behavior and consequences. So what happens after a behavior makes a big difference in shaping or changing or maintaining a behavior. We look at the consequences-- behavior and what happens after.

And if we're looking at the area of education, almost all of the behavior of interest in education is that of operant behavior. We don't simply want to look at reflexes. We want to be able to bring behavior and change it. And so we look at operant behavior. Because we're able to change the consequences, thereby change behavior.

If we're looking at operant behavior, we really have what's called a three term contingency-- new behavior that results from the relationship between the antecedents, the behaviors, and the consequences. So you see there a diagram-- A, antecedents, B, behavior, C, consequences. If we're looking at antecedents, we're looking at what happens before-- what came before the behavior, the behavior itself, and the consequences.

So if I harken back to my days of teaching, long ago, I had a student who really hated fire drills. The antecedent would have been hearing the bell. The behavior was grabbing teacher hair. And the consequence for that was that he was put in a restraint and removed as quickly as he could for a fire drill. So we have an antecedent, a behavior, and a consequence. I knew directly that once he heard that bell, I would see that behavior.

I begged my principal to let me know in advance so that I could make sure I modified the environment for my student, but she said, no, no, it has to be authentic. So I remember, we had aides that would try to go down in the hall in the office and say, I think there's a fire drill coming, so let's get ready. So we tried to get around the system. So we knew the antecedent.

Now, operant behavior and applied behavior analysis goes under the broad umbrella of experimental analysis of behavior. And this is the science of studying behavior systematically. So the key term in there is systematically. We're going to make sure we control things so we can see what happens. It involves a controlled experimentation in laboratory settings, where those variables are strictly monitored and manipulated. So it involves experimentation, and typically this occurs in laboratory settings.

So we can watch people in settings that are a highly contrived and see what they do. There are classic experiments in the field of psychology where individuals-- one might favorites, what I really fascinating, was someone was being subjected to pain. And the person who was in the research room got to decide whether more and more pain was delivered to the individual.

They heard in the other room somebody screaming. It wasn't actually occurring, but would the person continue to press the lever when they were told, when they knew that someone was screaming in the next room? How much pain would they inflict before they were unable to do that anymore? Amazingly, many people did apply a lot of pain, because they were given the command to do so-- very interesting. But that was done in a laboratory, so it could really control exactly what occurred with the individual-- experimental analysis of behavior.

If we look at applied behavior analysis, or ABA, as we call it, with this, we have the practical, real-world application. So that distinguishes this, ABA, from that of experimental analysis. We're looking at practical, real-world application, and using those behavioral principles to produce change in behaviors that we want to change that maybe affect people.

Now, a little caveat here-- there may not only be problematic behaviors. We may want behaviors that increase or decrease. But the key I want you to remember with this it is that it's carried out in natural settings. So this is where we have the real world-- the rubber hits the road. This is where we are in classrooms, seeing if we can change behavior. And this is where, really, education is highly effective.

Because we need to know if things happen in the real world, in the natural setting, when we're in the preschool, when we're in the elementary school. Things change if we're in a laboratory and we can control it. Things are different in the real world. A fire drill may go off, and we don't expect it. There may be kids absent that day, and it might affect the behaviors of others. So applied behavior analysis is really setting it in the setting where it will be used, and seeing if we can change things to affect behavior.

Let's go through some of the dimensions of applied behavior analysis, things that make it a science. And we'll go through each of these, and then we'll go through some explanations. The first is it is applied, analytical, behavioral, technological, conceptually systematic, it's effective, and it has some generality. So let's go through some of these dimensions

The first is that it's applied. What this means-- those outcomes that we get-- sometimes called dependent variables-- have practical significance. They mean something. They make someone's life better as a result of this intervention. So we're not going to do an intervention for intervention's sake. We're going to make sure that the outcome have some significance. Yes, the child learned this skill. Yes, the behavior decreased. He was not tantruming or acting out aggressively as much. So the outcome has practical significance.

If it's not practical, if it doesn't make sense, it really isn't an effective applied behavior analysis technique. If I'm trying to get a student to speed up to a certain level and they're not able to, there's no practical significance if they're not able to participate in the activity.

Behavioral, our second-- behavioral is the dependent variable of interest. So when we're looking at an independent and dependent variables that you'll often hear in science, behavior is the dependent variable. That's what we want to measure and see if it changes. We need observable behavior. We need that observable behavior so we can make sure it accurately and reliably.

If I say, yeah, he's tantruming, I need to know exactly what a tantrum looks like. I've got to be able to say it's when the student throws themselves on the floor, when there is screaming, when there is crying. I may be even more specific, and we'll get into that a little later. But I have to be able to do that to count it.

So if I'm saying a child is banging their head, you may think of it as actually banging on the table. I may think of it as this. We've got to decide which one are we going to count, or are we going to count both? What constitutes head-hanging? So you've got to be able to measure it, and it's got to be reliable. You and I both say, yeah, that was head-banging. So one must be able to see and objectively define that behavior of interest-- so it's behavioral.

Third dimension-- analytical. Here, we have the demonstrated control of the variables so that we have what we call a functional relationship. So we can say that because of this intervention, the student's behavior decreased-- a functional relationship. They go together. If I took out the intervention, the behavior came back. I've really established I've got a functional relationship. When the intervention's there, the behavior goes down. When the invention's out, it does not occur.

So I've really got what we call control of my experiment. I've been able to show a change. This process removes what we call threats to internal validity. If we're looking at science-- and this is a little beyond our scope here, but-- if we're really wanting to see if our intervention is analytical, if it's effective, if it really did have a functional relationship, we've got to remove the threats to it.

If I really want to see that a behavior changed, I've got to reduce the fact that the child is just getting older-- maturation. I've got to remove the threat that there might have been some outside effect that made a difference. There was a tornado that day, and that's going to change how my intervention is going-- all sorts of things that could change it. We really want to show control, that, yep, when this happens the behavior changes as a result of it.

Technological-- and this is also really important in behavioral as science. We've got to make sure that the procedures that we use our precisely described so that we can replicate. Replicate means that we can do it again and again and again with the same results.

Early on, we had Ivar Lovaas, who had some great, great results with kids with autism. And a lot of people said, man, these are fabulous. People tried to replicate that, and they could not replicate his results. They did not get the same miraculous change. He got a lot of criticism for that.

One way to make sure things are replicable is making sure that it's precisely described, so I can implement it, and you can implement it, and we're doing it the same way, right? So when I say the child received positive reinforcement, you and I both know that it was given after every third response, that the reinforcement was directly tied to the behavior-- nice job, Tim, on putting that ball back. So we make sure that the procedures are technological. We can replicate them.

Conceptually systematic-- all these procedures are derived from basic principles and they're linked in a systematic manner. This says that it all-- I like to think of it-- hangs together. So it's not some random thing where we have a theory here and a theory there. We have a theory. From that theory, we have basic principles. And from those principles, we have procedures that we can use.

So behavior analysis is not what they sometimes call a bag of tricks. Sometime you'll hear a therapist or teacher say, I've got a bag of tricks. Well, that can be a negative in some cases, because you really want to set of procedures that's linked to a theory you're not just pulling out of the air. But you know that reinforcement means one thing, and if you apply reinforcement, this happens. So you want it to be linked conceptually.

That it's effective-- we've talked about the fact that it has to have some real world significance, that the overall benefits to participants sets the standard for effectiveness. Does it really make a difference? Treatments that lack social or practical value are not effective. So you can work on something till the cows come home, but if it really doesn't make a difference to the individual or to their functioning in life or the classroom, you really haven't been effective.

And the last-- generality-- results and behavior changes that will, over time, appear in other environments, or what we call spread to other behaviors. So we teach things, and the student is able to generalize the behavior to other instances. I teach my students to tell time on a clock in my classroom. But my student can generalize that time-telling skill in other environments. They can do it in the cafeteria. They can do it on the wall clock at home. It's generalized. So we've got to make sure that a behavior isn't done only in one environment, but that it spread or changes. And generality can refer to settings, can refer to other behaviors, can refer to personnel-- lots of things.

One of the things that I noticed in my teaching case is that when I consulted with other teachers, they would say, yeah, he does this for me. He'll do this for me, but he won't for anyone else. That's a problem. We want that behavior to occur with other people and other settings. I worked in a group home, and one of my favorite guys was a guy named Richard, who had very low cognitive functioning. And he would sometimes get very oppositional. And he would show that by refusing to get off the van when he came home from his work. So he would just sit there.

And any time I went out and got him I'd say, Richard, inside now. And he'd go, OK. He'd come in. But for anyone else, he would sit out there. That was problem. We had to really work on the fact that people could get him off the van, because he couldn't sit there all evening. So we had to make sure that the behavior generalized to other people-- not just me, other people.

So those were our different components of applied behavior analysis. Let's look at the, then, some characteristics that make up what we call behaviorism. This will be a bit of a recap of what we looked at. We focus on behavior. The procedures are based on science. We have an emphasis on current environmental event. We've precisely described the procedures-- technological.

It can be implemented by people in everyday life-- doesn't have to happen in a laboratory. It measures behavior change. It de-emphasizes past events as the cost of behavior. it's not that we have some deep-seated psychological problem. We're really looking at currently what's happening with the behavior.

And along with that, we have the rejection of hypothetical underlying causes of behavior. He's doing it because of his inner child. He's never gone to his inner child. That's something we cannot measure. That's something we cannot look at. So we really reject those hypothetical constructs that often go with the underlying the cause of it. He's feeling abandonment-- eh, we can't really look at that. We can look at the events that we think might make up abandonment. But we can't look in the individual and decide that abandonment issue is what's causing a behavior. So behaviorism.

Now, we've talked a little bit about BF Skinner, and there is the man himself. And as I've mentioned to you, he really looked at behavior as a science. And in his day, he was pretty revolutionary. Individuals said, oh, man needs to have free will. We're not really changed by our consequences. We can think and reason.

People misunderstood a lot of what Skinner said. He said, yes, we do have rational thoughts. Yes, we can. But we are all controlled, or we are all under the influence of the consequences of our behavior. So you work for a paycheck. It's very rare when somebody works for free. I work for my paycheck. I may love what I do, but I still expect my paycheck. I'm bringing that under operant control, the consequences of that.

What you're going to see is a video clip of some of the work of BF Skinner. And you've probably heard of his work that's done with pigeons and with rats and another animals. And this was a problem, because people said, I'm not the same as an animal. I think and, again, I have rational thoughts. Yes, you do. But those same principles that are applied to animals can be applied to human beings as well. There's that basic principle, or theory, or philosophy, that overrides that, that services as its umbrella.

You'll see in the video some pigeons, and you'll see operant conditioning in action. You'll see that Skinner is using shaping to change the behavior of the pigeons. You'll notice that he uses food as a reward for this. And he keeps the pigeons a little hungry, so that they're not satiated, that they'll want the reinforcer of the food, and will perform the behavior. So pretty fascinating video clip for you to look at.

We've indicated that we have, with behaviorism, or applied behavior analysis, empiricism. We have science that goes behind it. Popularity should not be mistaken for proof. Enthusiasm is not a substitute for evidence. What you have often, particularly, I find, in the field of autism, is exciting things going, but we've got the cart before the horse. Everybody's excited about something, and they put it out there, and it's before we've really looked at the proof of it. Do we really know it works? Are we so desperate for something that we'll try anything without the evidence, without empiricism?

So we really want to keep our interventions under control and looking at evidence, using empiricism. What you will hear is that applied behavior analysis has a very empirical evidence base. It has lots of evidence for it. But there are so many things, if you get out on the internet, that it's, in my mind, a little of unethical. There are so many things-- try this new injection, try this new pill, and this will work. This has not been proven. We need to step back, and we need to make sure we have empirical evidence before we move forward.

We look at empiricism. It's a practice that involves objective observation. So we're going to try to make sure that others can look at the behavior, see the same thing, that we've observed it, and we see it with our eyes. It's not something we intuitively think. Because that can really fool us. We have to see it in an objective fashion. And the data must be objective, reliable, and quantitative. So it can't be something that, yeah, I noticed an overall increase. It seems like he's getting better. I've got to be able to quantify that. No, his data jumped from three instances to seven. So I've quantified it.

And now I'm going to get on my high horse again and talk about evaluating autism treatments. There are so many treatment out there. And I think it's unethical, sometimes, for parents or others who are really desperate for things like a cure, thinking that autism can be cured, that they're willing to try anything. But there are agencies that are coming up now that are really taking time to look at different interventions and seeing whether or not they are promising or effective. So lots of projects-- common ones that are well known in New Jersey, New York. And we have some others we'll look at.

So when we look at these agencies as a whole and the research they've done and the synthesis of the information, really what we find is that effective interventions are more similar than different. They're not way out in left field. Many of the really effective interventions use applied behavior analysis and incidental teaching. They have a strong structure. They have ongoing monitoring and data collection. So they're more similar than different. But applied behavior analysis is a philosophy that goes along with many of them.

Truth be told, many teachers and parents and others use a combination of interventions and approaches when working with individuals with ASD. It's very rare that you'll have only one thing going on. But it's important that any of the interventions or procedures that are used have an empirical basis.

What are evidence based practices? Well, they're scientifically based. They've been found effective through replicated research. That's that technological-- it's been replicated. I can do it, you can do it, somebody in California can do it, and we will get similar results. It's got a substantial amount of rigorous research. And by rigor, we mean that it's well controlled. It's not just one data point taken. There are many. It may be done with multiple students. So we have amount of rigor. We've been able to use some systematic control of that.

And evidence supports that increases in skill acquisition are a result of that intervention. So we've got that control. If I've applied the intervention, the behavior will change as a result of it.

Now, there has been some legislative and research influences that have really changed the face of autism research and how we look at autism. You have Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, that says that we really only can use empirically evidence practices. So if you have someone who's saying, I want dolphin therapy with my child, and I want a part of the child's education plan, under the schools, that does not have empirical evidence. Aside from being logistically impossible, it does not have empiricism behind it.

You have the National Research Council, the NRC, that we'll be looking at here, and the Nationals Autism Standards Project. All of these agencies and legislation have said, stop, we need empiricism before things are used.

Now, the National Research Council, in 2001, said that research should be able to demonstrate what we call a causal relationship between an intervention and any changes that occur in the development, behavior, social relationships, or normative life circumstances. We have our initial behavior. When we apply our intervention, we have a change in behavior.

Now, there's something I want you look at on this slide. Research should be able to demonstrate a causal relationship. Really, if we're looking in terms of true science, it is very rare that you get a strict causal relationship. More commonly, we say that there is a correlational relationship-- the two go together. But I can't in all good conscience say that it's because of only this. So that's language that's a little stronger than we typically use in science. But we want to have a situation when our intervention's applied, we have a change, and the change is in the direction that we want it to be.

A little bit about our research designs-- and this is something that I'm not going to go into depth in our course here. But very often in applied behavior analysis you have single subject designs. These are different than what we call group designed. Group designs tend to be larger, have many, many participants, and use statistics as a way to approve or disprove an intervention.

With single subject designs, we can use within subjects or single cases to look at our interventions. So I might have three students. And I might give my students an intervention at different points in time. If my students' behavior changes in the way I'd like it to be, I have some evidence that it is effective for this student, that there may be a correlation with it.

Single subject is very different in that it does not apply statistics only. It can use some statistics, overlapping data points and such. But typically, it's looking at the graphing of the behavior to see, through visual inspection or analysis, whether or not we're seeing a change. We're not applying experimental statistical evidence with this. That's different.

Single subject is often used with individuals with autism simply because they're not large groups of individuals, and it's such a heterogeneous group, very, very different in the characteristics that are displayed by the individuals. So single subject is often used in research designs in ASD.

Now, we've talked a little bit about the evidence, and that there are many, many different kinds of therapies or interventions that are out. Simpson, in 2005, put out a variety of categories that looked at some of the interventions that are used. You see his categories of scientifically based, promising, have limited support, or not recommended.

Let's look at the scientifically based. Applied behavior analysis comes up there. Discrete trial training, often thought of as synonymous, but within applied behavior analysis. Pivotal response training-- also part of the science of behavior.

Promising practices-- they're starting to show some promise, but more studies typically need to be done. Play-oriented picture exchange systems, and AAC. I find it hard to believe that assistive technology and AAC isn't scientifically based, but I believe that it's probably due to lack of systematic control of some of the studies. It's very commonly used. PECS-- also very commonly used, and often thought of as having a strong research base. More research needs to be done in PECS to see if it moves over to the scientifically based.

We've got our limited support-- animal therapy, art therapy, music therapy. A system called power cards. Auditory integration training, where the individual listens to tapes and it's thought to be affect behavior.

Then we've got our last category of not recommended. and there are very few that Simpson uses that have this label of not recommended. These have to show actual harm to the individual. Not recommended are holding therapies. That's where, you might have heard of it in the past, kids, particularly with attachment difficulties, they would just hold the individual, holding them tight, to help the individual attach to someone. We think of kids with autism as being aloof, not attaching, not being warm or hugging or loving. So this therapy just held on tight.

Not good results with it-- it was not recommended. There was a death-- one that I know of-- associated where a kid was resisting. His head hit the bathtub and he died. So that was not recommended. It's something that has been used, and I think it's still used in some circles. But it's not recommended for ASD.

And then facilitated communication, or FC. And you may have heard of that. That's still very ongoing, very heavily used at Syracuse University. Doug Biklen pioneered that in the United States, saying that this was a way to support individuals in their communication.

And he found, in his eyes, that individuals needed to just have their communication unlocked. And if they were given an alphabet board or another way to communicate, and someone facilitated it, or help them move their hand, that they could be able to communicate great things, and that it really unlocked IQ and all of these myths that individuals with ASD had cognitive disabilities.

What they found was that this was totally rebuffed by scientific research. They did controlled studies where they were double blind. And they had on the individual looking at something and the facilitator looking at something, and they typed or held different things. They were not the same. So science rebuffed that totally. But you'll still see facilitated communication being used. And, again, I think it's a disservice to use things that are not empirically based. So facilitated communication-- pretty controversial.

Looking at characteristics of our quality researcher, our empiricism-- those are inventions that are scientifically validated through controls analyses. We've got careful selection and assessment of our participants. They are alike enough that we can make an assessment. They are selected based on certain characteristics that will allow us to test our interventions.

And we thoroughly assess them. We know their cognitive abilities. We know their communication abilities. So we don't have an apple and orange analogy, where we've really got a disparate group. We've got objective, accurate, and reliable measurements of the effects of that intervention.

And lastly, that they're published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Peer reviewed simply means that I may get an article to review, and I don't get to see the author's name. That means that I'm looking at it as I would look at everyone else's, very objectively and fairly. I'm not saying, oh, this was done by so and so. She or he's a very big name in the field. I'm going to give this one a go.

Peer reviewed means it's blind. I don't know who it is. So I'm supposedly getting, or I believe I'm getting, a more of objective assessment of my results. So we want them to be peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals.

Now, people say, oh, you know, it doesn't hurt to do something. Just give it a try. But really, if you use interventions that have limited support, you are undergoing some risk. You have wasted money, wasted time. You've wasted energy. And this is really, really difficult. Time is so important. You can't get it back. If you spend five months on an intervention that has no empirical basis, you've missed that amount of time that you could be doing something that has empirical basis.

You have exploitation of vulnerable people. A big group of this is that you have families that are very desperate-- I'll do anything for my child. Physical and emotional injuries that come along with it. And then lastly, they lost opportunities to make a real advances. We've just lost the time. We could have been using that more effectively. It's wasted. So it's not enough to say, eh, it won't hurt to try it. Use empiricism to choose your interventions and practices very, very carefully, because it does make a difference.

Looking applied behavior analysis, again, there are so many procedures and many principles and interventions that are used. But ABA, applied behavior analysis, is the only approach that's approved by the Surgeon General of the United States. It has the strongest empirical evidence at this time. And that's why we're giving you such a good, heavy dose of this.

Now you have some time to complete a practice quiz that's located below your video.

INTERVIEWER: Can pigeons read? This one gives every indication, because he's been taught to distinguish between two words, and to behave appropriately. He's learned his different response to each sign by being rewarded with food. So the bird isn't acting independently. Its behavior is shaped by controlling its environment.

The first task was to isolate an individual piece of behavior, and see how that could be changed. Skinner did this by keeping individual pigeons at about 3/4 of their normal weight, so that the birds were always hungry, and food could be used as an automatic reward.

The pigeon was studied in a uniform box, one it quickly grew used to. One piece of behavior, pecking a colored disk, was measured on a graph.

The pigeon learned that pecking the disc produced a reward. Then, the behavior of pecking could be studied in relation to how often that reward was offered. Or in Skinner's terms, what was the "schedule of reinforcement."

SKINNER: The main thing is what we call "schedules of reinforcement." Reinforcement is what the layman calls "reward," and you can schedule it so that a reward occurs every now and then when a pigeon does something.

We usually use a response with a pigeon pecking a little disk, a little spot in the wall, and you can reinforce with food. But you don't reinforce every time, or perhaps every tenth time, or perhaps only once every minute or something like that. There are a very large number of schedules, and they have their special effects.

There is a good example of how you can move from the pigeon to the human case, because one of the schedules, which is very effective with rats or pigeons, is what we call the variable ratio schedule. And that is at the heart of all gambling devices, and has the same effect. The pigeon can become a pathological gambler, just as a person can.

Now, the fact that we found that out with pigeons, and could prove it by removing or changing the schedule, makes it easy for us to interpret the case with the human subject.

We don't say that the human subject gambles to punish himself, as the Freudians might say, or gambles because he feels excited when he does so. Nothing of the sort. People gamble because of the schedule of the reinforcement that follows. And this is true of all gambling systems. They all have variable ratios built into them.

So what we've learned from the pigeon has made it possible to interpret this vast field very effectively.

INTERVIEWER: Where does that leave free will? Because we all think we have a choice whether to do things or not to do things.

SKINNER: Yes. Well, you see we leave it in the position of a fiction. We have assumed, somehow or other, that these internal states, feelings, and so on, have initiated something. They have started something. They have created. We have done something in a voluntary way. We have will to act.

If you now look at the actual history, we find that there are external reasons why this has happened. In other words, by discovering the causes of behavior, we can dispose of the imagined internal cause. We dispose of free will as an American divines the 18th-century. Jonathan Edwards did.

He said, "We believe in free will, because we know about our behavior, but not about its causes."

And of course, it's the object of a science of behavior to discover causes. And once you have found those causes, there is less need to attribute to an internal act of will. And eventually, I think would need to attribute nothing to it.

PAM WOLFE: If we're looking at defining behavior, we need to think, what is behavior? It's an organism's interaction with its environment that is characterized by detectable-- something in the movement in space through time of some part of an organism that results in a measurable change in the environment. So let's break this down a little bit.

We've got an interaction with the environment. It's characterized by something that's detectable. And it results in something that brings about a measurable change. So behavior is pretty specific. We often think we know what behavior is. But it's tough if we really seek to define it.

So we've got observable movement by the organism. We've got to be able to see it. You can't just think about it. We've got to be able to see it. It's able to be specifically described in terms that are observable and measurable. And we call that sometimes a response, an occurrence, or an event. So we can see a response of the student, we see an occurrence, or we see an event.

Now, equally, it's important to understand that there are non-behaviors. We have behaviors and we have things that are non-behaviors. What aren't behaviors? Emotional states or feelings-- I'm feeling angry. Motives-- I'm doing it because I'm really mad at the person. Interpretations. Inferred mental states-- he's just really confused. Internal events that can't be observed or measured-- once again, I go back to that inner child Or inferences-- I think he's mad.

I can't see those things. I can see behaviors that surround some of those things. But I really don't have behavior in here, all right? So it's very, very easy to slip into non-behavioral states. It's very easy to say he was angry. And you sometimes see that in incident reports that are written by teachers or school psychologists that are being very objective, they think. But those are inferred. You don't know that. Anger may look like something, but in behaviorism, we have to define what it looks like so we can see it.

Behavior-- I'm going to give us some examples of what we commonly think of behavior. And I want you to see which are and which are not. And for the ones that aren't, why aren't they behaviors? So let's look at them.

Thinking-- would that be considered a behavior? No. We cannot know what is going on in someone's mind. I believe if we hooked them up to some device and we had brain waves, maybe we can see. But I'm not even sure we could infer that that is thinking. That's a change in the brain patterns. We cannot see thinking.

Jumping-- yep. We can see that. There's a measurable change in the environment. We can measure that. Talking out-- yes. We can hear the student. We can see their mouth move. They are talking out.

Being quiet, the opposite of that-- Yes, we can. It's the non-movement of their mouth. Feeling angry-- no. We have no way of knowing internally what's going on with the individual. I could try to describe anger by his face gets red, his veins pop out, and he pounds his fist on the table. I'm getting at that, But I'm labeling it anger. I don't see anger. I don't know what that is.

Oral reading-- yep. Student is producing sounds. Silent reading-- that's a little tougher one, because we really can't know. We can track somebody's eye movement across a page and see. But once again, whether or not that's going into the brain-- a little tougher to see. Lighting a match-- can you see that? Yes. There's a change in the environment based on that. We can see it being scratched and lit.

So not everything is behavior. And we've really got to be sure that we are talking in behavioral terms. Otherwise we're not going to be able to measure it.

If we look at classes of behavior, we've got what we call topographical and functional. These are two of the main classes of behavior. Let's look at the first-- topographical response class.

Here, we have behaviors that look alike, but they have different outcomes. So they may look the same, but they get different things for the individual-- different outcomes.

So some examples of this-- extending your index finger. This can be used to type on a keyboard, poke somebody else, push an elevator button, right? So they all look the same-- extending your finger-- but my outcome is very different.

Raising my arm-- I can use it to block a shot in basketball-- probably not me-- or I can use it to get the teacher's attention in class. Looks the same, but the outcome is very, very different-- topographical response class

The second broad class of behaviors is that of functional behavior class. With this, we refer to the outcomes or the consequences that a behavior produces. So a functional behavior class is made up of those behaviors that can be very different in appearance-- just the opposite-- but they serve the same purpose for the individual.

Some examples-- if the purpose is to get someone's attention, I can do raise my hand, I can say excuse me, or I can scream and flail my arms. All of that gets me attention. Looks very, very different, but it gets me the outcome I want-- functional behavior.

If the purpose is to open a door, I can pull on the handle with my arm and hand. I can push against the door with my body. I can turn that doorknob with my hand. All of those get me opening a door-- out a door where I want to go.

Both topographical and functional behavior classes are going to be important to look at. So we've got to make sure we know the function of it and we've got to make sure we know what it looks like.

There are many dimensions of behavior, and all of these dimensions that we'll go through, briefly, give us a way to measure behavior. And so behavior manifests itself in many ways. And there are different dimensions or aspects of the behavior that we're going to want to look at. Because we know we need to measure and have reliable results. Those dimensions conclude frequency, duration, latency, and intensity. And there are others, but these are the main dimensions of behavior.

Let's take a look at the first-- frequency. This is sometimes called event-- the number of times a behavior occurs in a specified time period. So we've got number of times-- that's our key. Very often just done with the simple tally count-- number of pitches that are thrown, number of games that are won or lost, number of words that are read correctly, number of math problems completed, number of times a student swears. So with frequency, you get number.

I have for you below a YouTube example of some ABA therapy. And I want you watch the first 30 seconds of this. And I want you to tell me what is the number of questions that Mack answered correctly. So the video will stop now. Take a look at that video segment, and then we'll see the frequency of Mack's answers.

So you'll see that the number of questions that Mack's answered correctly is three. What is it? He said frog. What does the frog say? He said ribbit. What is he? He labeled it as an animal. So we've got the frequency of correct responses.

With duration, another dimension of behavior, we're looking at how long a behavior lasts-- so how long. With frequency, we had number. With duration, we have how long.

Some examples-- length of an entire baseball game-- my young son is playing baseball, and, man, those games get long sometimes. Hang time when a basketball player dunks that ball. How long it takes to read a sentence out loud. How long a scream lasts. So how long-- length of time.

We've got another example for you on YouTube of spinning behavior. I want you to take a look at this, watching the first 35 seconds of it. I want you to look at what is the duration of time that the boy is spinning. So stop the video and take a look at that behavior.

So of the duration of that, I'm hoping that you got approximately 18 seconds-- the duration or length of time that the boy is spinning. So we have duration.

Another dimension, that of latency-- the amount of time when an initial cue or prompt is given, and when the behavior occurs. Sometimes we want a short latency, and sometimes we want a longer one. I want a student to get out their math book fast. But sometimes I want my student to not respond so quickly and impulsively, take time to think of our response before reacting too impulsive. So I may want that latency to be extended.

Some examples, the amount of time when a player gets the ball to when that player scores. The amount of time from when the teacher says, open your book, two to when the student actually opens the book. This is a real common one, latency-- time between cue and response.

And again, it can be wanting to increase it, or to decrease that latency. Very often, teachers want more compliance from a student faster. When we say, it's time to get in your seat, we want that student to get in their seat quickly. We want to reduce the latency of them wandering around the room, sharpening their pencil, talking to someone about what's going to happen later. So we want a shorter latency in that case.

Once again, we got a YouTube example for you of Drew. So look at this and see how long it takes Drew t respond to the cue, touch something that you wear. Take a look at that video example.

OK, we've got approximately-- my count of three seconds to respond to that cue. So that's an example of latency. I've got a three second response. I may like that response, or I may think that needs to be lengthened or shortened, depending on my student and my goals. Latency

Another dimension of behavior can be that of intensity-- the force of something, force with which a behavior occurs. And these are tougher to do, because you really have to measure it, sometimes with equipment that allows you to do it. The force of a punch, how loud a scream is, how severe or hard a head-banging incident is-- that would be really tough to record, but is it an intensity issue-- and the brightness of a light. All of those would be intensity-- much more difficult to measure, often using audiological equipment and other things so you could measure it accurately.

Here, in our example, we've got one of a temper tantrum. I just want you to look at the intensity of the tantrum and see what you think of it, whether or not you would consider this an intense tantrum or not. And this is a tough exercise. Because you'd know the student, you'd know whether or not you are seeing an increase or a decrease in this. But take a look at it and see what you think about this temper tantrum.

So I consider this an intense tantrum. If it were a frequent occurrence for this child, I could develop some sort of rating scale or rubric that would allow me to look at the intensity, whether I thought it was more intense or less intense or changed over time. Again, intensity is a very tough one to quantify, to make sure it's observable and measurable. But intensity is a dimension of behavior that is sometimes recorded.

So we've got our dimensions of behavior. And we know that we've got to collect a data on the behavior so we can really see if change occurs. There are many strategies for collecting that data related to a student's behavior. We have informal, where we can just look at the archives of a student through their past academic records, or however notes are taken, and see.

So my child Duncan has a little bit of trouble at the beginning of every school year. It seems like he's got to get into a rhythm to understand the rules of conduct. So if his teacher looks back at every academic record of the year he's been in there, they're going to notice that, yep, he's had some problems there. They've gotten a behavior plan in place, and that seems to really make a difference. So we're looking through the archives, or the past, of what's been done.

A problem solving meeting, where everybody gets together and says I've noticed that Billy is doing this. Do you have any ideas? Well, yeah, with Billy I did this, and that seemed to work. So those are informal ways to collect information.

We have indirect, or what we call simple, data collection, where we could use a checklist, something that is either pre-formed or commercially done, or something that the teacher or parent makes up themselves-- simply check things off. You can interview the person and the people who know him or her best. You could interview fellow teachers, parents, siblings best friends, others that know them well. And you can use brief observations, where you're taking a small amount of time and looking at the student.

If we're looking at more complex strategies for data collection, we've got things like the ABC analysis, that antecedent, behavior, consequence analysis, the three-term contingency we looked at, structured or direct observation, and systematic manipulations. With systematic manipulations, we simply mean that if I think a student is doing something for attention, I'm going to give them times of attention that's high, and some that are low. I'm going to give them lots of attention, and then no attention. And I'm going to see if this behavior changes as I do that. So I've manipulated what I consider the reason the student's behaving, his function, and I'm going to see if my hypothesis bears out.

Now, as I've indicated on the slide, the best way to collect that data about behavior is through direct observation. There is no better substitute than looking at the behavior objectively in the setting. So much better than recall, interviewing, all of that that relies on someone coming back with past behavior and thinking they can count it or recall it. Seeing it in person is indeed the very best, as long as you can observe, and as many environments as you can observe.

Now, we've talked about the fact that not everything is a behavior, that behavior needs to be defined in specific, observable terms. This comes into play with what we call operational definitions. This allows us to define behavior precisely. So an operational definition is that clear definition of what is and isn't considered to be an example of a given behavior. So we're getting at, with operational definitions, specificity-- making it precise, and we're making it observable.

It needs to be comprehensive enough that someone unfamiliar with that student could read the definition and could accurately observe and measure the occurrences of the behavior. So once again, you have your student and you counting it, but you also have your school psychologist or colleague come in and see if they get the same kinds of data recording that you do. So it is precise and it's accurate.

Operational definitions we often think of as used in science, because we've got to make sure we're clearly counting. But what I want you to understand is that operational definitions help you, in a classroom, or as a teacher, or as a therapist, by making sure you're as specific as possible when you're counting behaviors. You've got to be able to know if the behavior occurred or didn't occur.

So let's take a look at an example of an operational definition used for sitting-- the entire bottom, both cheeks, are in contact with the chair's sitting surfaces while all four legs of the chair are in contact with the ground. So we've got sitting on here, but we've got some aspects of it that could be misunderstood if we didn't put it down explicitly-- with all four legs of the chair in contact with the ground. So I'm not going to consider it sitting if my kid has two of them and is leaning back.

So I've got to make sure that I'm very explicit. If I came in and counted that, I may count that differently than you if I don't have all of those aspects in place. I've operationalized the behavior.

Some more. Throwing a tantrum-- any instance of two or more of the following behaviors lasting consecutively for 30 seconds or more-- screaming, crying, flailing arms or legs, throwing objects, kicking or hitting others or objects, using body parts or other objects, or throwing self to ground.

So let's look at this one a little closer. We have two or more. So it's not just one of them. We've got to have two of them. And they've got to last consecutively for 30 seconds. So if I have a brief kicking, that may not count. It has to be consecutively for 30 seconds.

Now, these are tough, tough, tough to do. As a researcher, when I look at behaviors and I try to operationally define them, it takes me awhile, and it usually takes me refining it over time. I'll get in with an observer and I'll think, whoa, I didn't think of that. Did you count it that way? I don't know. So we have to come together again and refine the process. So I don't want you to think this is an easy one, and I don't want you to think you'll get it on the first try out. Typically, you won't. You're going to have to come back and refine.

Look at a common one that we use in educational circles, that of off task behavior. Any instance of the following behaviors-- any part of the bottom not in contact with the chair's sitting surface, any movement not related to the task, any noise or talking, or looking at someone other than the task items.

Now, this is again a tough one that would be to observe. We've got the easy one of the bottom not in contact the chair. Any movement not related to the task-- that might be tough. We really would have some issues with that. Somebody saying, well, that was a scream, and me saying, no, no, I thought that was related to the response they were supposed to give that was enthusiastic. So we might have some trouble with one.

I want to give you a little practice activity related to this. And I want you to try to operationally define the following behaviors. We've got hitting, out of seat behavior, and aggression. Once again, these are going to be tough. And you're not going to know a specific student. You may have one in your mind. Everybody's definition would be different based on the circumstances. But I want you to get in practice of knowing that it's got to be precise, measurable, and observable.

So let's take a look at the first. Give yourself some time to define hitting.

I've come up with one from my example-- swinging the arm while using an open or closed fist to make physical contact with another person or with an object. So in my instance, it's going to be a person or an object. So I could hit the table. I could use an open fist or a closed fist. So I suppose I could get a slap and it would be hitting. So it varies. So we've got lots of things to think about in terms of how to operationalize it-- hitting.

Let's try another one. Out of seat behavior-- again, very commonly used. What does out of seat behavior look like?

I've given it an instance in which the entire bottom-- again, we're getting without both cheeks-- is not in contact with the chair's sitting surface, or where all of the chair's legs are not in contact with the floor-- so out of seat behavior.

Let's try out last one, that of aggression. Aggression can look like many, many things.

In this one, I've given some examples. Each of the following behaviors should be considered a single instance of aggression-- hitting-- we've got that using an open hand, closed fist, or an object, and we've got it making contact with another person in this case. Kicking-- using the foot to make contact with another person. Shoving-- using one or two hands to physically move another person or object. Yelling, whether directed at someone or not. We've got an idea of what aggression may look like.

Why do we worry about that? We worry about operational definitions because we use them in the way we program for our students. And I'm using the example of education plans, but this can be used in any instance, in any home, where you're looking at this. We use operational definitions to create what we call behavioral objectives. And these are used in individualized education plans, or what we call IEPs. As I've indicated to you, though, any time that you're counting or measuring behavior, you're going to need to have an operational definition.

But these operational definitions are then used to collect data on the student's behavior. And these behaviors then are included as objectives that the individual's working on. So I might be working on increasing my time on task, decreasing my tantruming behavior. And I've got to make sure before I know that, as a teacher, parent, or therapist, what those behaviors look like, so I can count them as occurring or not occurring.

When we're writing behavioral objectives, sometimes called behavioral goals-- it varies a little bit in the specificity-- you need to specify the details of what we're trying to accomplish-- what is the objective? What do I want my student to do?

Now, if I'm writing these, I need to have four pieces of information that really make them well written. I need to include the learner, the condition, the behavior, and the criterion. So four pieces of information-- the learner, condition, behavior, and criterion. So I'm making sure that my operationalized behavior is going into a well written objective.

These are color coded for you. Let's take a look at some. The learner-- who's going to perform the behavior. It's usually a student's name-- Sam, Jason, Karen, the class. The conditions-- under what setting the learner will be expected to perform the behavior. We're listing things like the cues, the materials, the settings, other people that will be present when this behavior is to occur.

Some examples of that-- when given a worksheet with 100 one by one digit multiplication problems, and given one minute to work on the problems-- that's the condition. When a list of 10 words is read aloud by the special ed para-- condition. And during math class, 9:20 to 9:50, in Mrs. Fisher's room-- those are the conditions that the behavior will occur.

And we've got the behavior itself, that specific, operationally defined behavior that the learner is going to have to display. Examples-- we'll calculate and write the answer to the problems. We'll write, in print or cursive, the 10 dictated words. We'll raise our hand to request teacher assistance. So these are the behaviors that we want to see.

Now we've got our criterion level. This specifically tells us how will we determine that the students mastered the behavior. How do we know that we've gotten to a level that we're happy with? Do we want it at 80% accuracy? Do we want it at 100% accuracy? It depends. But we have a criteria that we believe will indicate the student has made progress on their objective. Things like the number of times learner must perform the behavior, the level of independence that they need to show-- so will they be independent, will they get this with a model prompt-- and across what time periods those performances must occur.

So some examples of that criterion level. At a rate of 40 correct digits per minute across three consecutive assessments-- criterion. Correctly spelling eight of 10 words for three consecutive days. With no more than one prompt for 90% of such request for an entire school week. So we've got our criteria. We're really spelling out exactly how we'll measure this, and how we'll gage the success.

So let's look at some examples of those behavioral objectives. And we color code them for you so you see the different component parts. Let's take a look.

When given a worksheet with 100 one to one digit multiplication problems, and given one minute to work on the problems. There we've got our condition. That's when they've got the worksheet and they're given one minute. We've got Sam, as our learner, will calculate and write the answers to the problem. The behavior-- at a rate of 40 correct digits per minute across three consecutive assessments-- our criteria. So we know exactly under what conditions who will exhibit what behavior at what criteria level.

Let's take a look at another one. When a list of 10 words is read allowed by the special education paraprofessional-- conditions-- Jason-- behavior-- will write in print or cursive the 10 dictated words-- behavior-- correctly spelling eight out of 10 words for three consecutive days. Our criterion.

Let's do another. During math class in Mrs. Fisher's room, Karen will raise her hand to request teacher assistance with no more than one prompt for 90% of such requests for an entire school week.

So when we say we're going to write an objective, it sounds simple to do. And with my undergrad class, they all say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know this. But to really get the level of specificity that you've written a well-defined objective is very difficult to do. So think of those four component pieces of writing that. And remember the link between operationalizing and writing behavioral objectives. We need them both.

We have now for you a practice quiz that's located below the video. Take a moment and complete that quiz.

CHILD: [WAILING] Uh oh.

THERAPIST: Look what I have.

CHILD: Green.

THERAPIST: A--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Frog.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Good. What is it?

CHILD: Frog, uh.

THERAPIST: Frog. And the frog is gr--

CHILD: Green.

THERAPIST: Green, that's right. What's the frog say?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Ribbit, ribbit, ribbit. And he's an animal. What is he? He's an--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Animal. The frog's an animal. Can I have the frog? Yay, Mac! What's your name?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Should we say that better?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Mac.

CHILD: Mac.

SPEAKER 1: Yay!

THERAPIST: Good job! And how old are you?

CHILD: Two.

THERAPIST: Good. How old are you?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: No, we're two.

CHILD: Two.

THERAPIST: And how old are you?

CHILD: Two.

SPEAKER 1: Just say, two.

CHILD: Two.

THERAPIST: How old are you?

CHILD: Two.

THERAPIST: Good job.

SPEAKER 1: Yay!

THERAPIST: Hey, where's your head? Oh, wow. Can you do this? Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap. Yay!

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: What is it?

CHILD: Peg.

THERAPIST: Peg, perfect. What color?

SPEAKER 1: Sometimes he's saying, pancake.

THERAPIST: Yeah. Here's red.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: This is the--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: What's this called?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: This is the--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Say it better.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Say, box.

CHILD: Box.

THERAPIST: Good.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Pour my--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Oh, wow. OK. Are you--

[LAUGHTER]

SPEAKER 1: He looks up at you.

THERAPIST: You so funny.

[LAUGHTER]

THERAPIST: Can you laugh, Mac?

[LAUGHTER]

THERAPIST: You can laugh now? You're not doing the [EXAGGERATED HYPERVENTILATION]?

SPEAKER 2: Can you laugh, Mac?

THERAPIST: How do you laugh?

[LAUGHTER]

SPEAKER 2: I was trying to get him to chew, and he looks at me and he goes--

CHILD: [HIGH-PITCHED CRY].

THERAPIST: (IMITATION) How do you laugh? What are you doing with your tongue?

SPEAKER 2: Mac, can you laugh?

THERAPIST: Can you laugh?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Show me how you laugh.

[LAUGHTER]

THERAPIST: That's your tongue.

SPEAKER 1: Ha ha ha ha.

THERAPIST: No, not gonna? Maybe later. OK.

SPEAKER 1: Let's see-- tell her what Santa Claus says.

THERAPIST: What does Santa Claus say?

SPEAKER 1: Santa Claus.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: No, we don't say horsies, it's--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Ho, ho, ho.

CHILD: Ho, ho, ho.

THERAPIST: That's right.

SPEAKER 1: I thought he said, who's he.

THERAPIST: What does he say?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: That's right. What's that?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Tongue.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: This thing.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: That's right. Where's your ear? Can you find your ear? Woo! Boing, boing boing, boing, boing, boing, boing. And where's your belly? Hm. Is your belly right-- there it is! There's your belly.

THERAPIST: What are you doing?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: No, you're chewing. Are you chewing? Show me how you chew. Oh, that's belly.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Belly.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Yeah. Kinda like, Kelly.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Oh my, [INTERPOSING VOICES].

THERAPIST: Good job, it's Kelly, Kelly.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Do you know what that is?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Yeah, what do you do with apple?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Huh? What do you do with the apple?

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: You--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Eat the apple, that's right. Good. And-- oh--

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: What are we working for?

CHILD: The M&Ms.

THERAPIST: M&Ms. Say, I--

CHILD: I am working for--

THERAPIST: --M&Ms!

CHILD: M&Ms.

THERAPIST: All right.

CHILD: M&Ms.

THERAPIST: Drew, touch-- look at me.

CHILD: [GRUNTING]

THERAPIST: Good boy. Look at my eyes. 1--

CHILD: 1, 2, 3.

THERAPIST: Good looking.

CHILD: 4.

THERAPIST: Touch something that you wear.

CHILD: [INAUDIBLE].

THERAPIST: Wear. Touch something that you eat!

CHILD: Touch you eat.

THERAPIST: Oh! Good touch.

CHILD: Touch.

THERAPIST: Good. What do you eat? You eat--

CHILD: Cookies.

THERAPIST: Cookies! Good job. Drew. Show me drinking.

CHILD: Drinking.

THERAPIST: What are you doing?

CHILD: Showing drinking.

THERAPIST: Mm. Say, I'm drinking.

CHILD: I'm drinking.

THERAPIST: What are you doing?

CHILD: I'm drinking.

THERAPIST: I'm drinking, good job. Show me eating.

CHILD: Show me eating.

THERAPIST: What are you doing?

CHILD: I eating.

THERAPIST: You are eating! Good job.

CHILD: [MAKING SIBILANT SOUNDS] I have [INAUDIBLE] to find them.

THERAPIST: Oh you do? Let's count them.

CHILD: 1, 2, 2, there are 3, 4--

THERAPIST: 4.

CHILD: --5.

THERAPIST: 5. And can I have--

CHILD: Can purple Skittle?

THERAPIST: Oh, you found the only Skittle, good job. There you go.

PAM WOLFE: Let's look at changing behavior. How do we decide what behaviors to select for change? If we want to reduce a behavior, those that we want to reduce generally interfere with the learning or functioning of the student themselves, interferes with the learning or functioning of others, so acting out, aggressive, loud, leads to more restrictive placement. Sometimes kids are removed from gen ed placements because they have behavior that needs to be reduced. Represents a parental concern, or judged to be socially invalid or age-inappropriate. So I have a student who's doing something that their peers think is ridiculous, that might be something that I want to target for reducing.

How do I decide what to select for acquisition, or to increase skill? That behavior leads to improved functioning. That behavior is going to be reinforced in the natural environment. So I'm going to be able to continue it, because it's going to be used naturally.

And the behavior is what we call pivotal. It's necessary. It's needed for a variety of other behaviors. Things like sitting in-seat would be a pivotal behavior, because I need to sit in my seat for all sorts of my academic tasks. So that's considered a pivotal behavior. So keeping in mind that, when we're looking at applied behavior analysis, we're looking at both reducing and we're looking at both increasing, acquisition or reduction.

Keeping in mind, again, I think this is a review for you, a stimulus is an event, an object, or a person in the environment. There are two types of stimulus, antecedent and consequence. And this is a bit of a review, but it's adding up to a term I want you to understand.

Antecedent stimulus, something that is present or is occurring immediately before a behavior starts. Something before, antecedent. Consequence, something that is presented or occurs immediately after a behavior finishes occurring. Two types of stimuli, antecedent and consequence.

Now we've talked a little bit about this in an ABC analysis, but what we call a three-term contingency or a timeline of behavior diagrams the events involved in behavior change. So that three-term contingency, as you remember, that A, those are the antecedents.

Antecedents come before the behavior occurs. Was it a loud noise? Was it the teacher's cue? Was it another kid punching someone? An antecedent, what comes before.

Our next aspect, our spinning B. That is our behavior, the occurrence of the behavior. What happens after that antecedent? He hears the loud noise, he has a tantrum, he pulls hair, behavior.

And our C of this three-term contingency, I'm hoping you know that, the consequences that follow the occurrence of the behavior. It can be something naturally occurring, or it can be something that we impose. It can be a consequence, not a positive consequence where we take something away from the individual. It can be praise that happens afterwards. Good job for that! You earn a star. Three-term contingency.

I've got for you some examples down below that I want you to take a look at. The first is ABC Data Analysis video. And what this is is the individual is looking at Joseph.

They are indicating to you that a functional behavior assessment has occurred. What this means is they've collected data to try to determine what the function or cause of Joseph's behavior is. This gives you an example of ABC analysis, Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence.

The next is a discrete trial video example. With this, you get teaching a student new behaviors. It gives you an example of a definition of an ABC analysis. And you get the discriminative stimulus, the response and the reinforced response. So that gives you an idea of that ABC three-term contingency.

And lastly, you have collecting data in DTT, or Discrete Trial Instruction. You don't need to know the components of it. I want you to look at this in terms of data collection. It's very rapid in this instance of instruction for the individual. This is a little longer, but it gives you an idea of looking at how you would collect data during this DTT. Some individuals say it's impossible to collect data, but this gives you an idea that data can be collected through that. And it also gives you an idea of discreet trial instruction, something that we'll be getting at a little later in the course, a very common method used to work with individuals with autism, or ASD.

OK, we've come to the completion of our Lesson One. We have one final practice quiz. If you will, complete that quiz located below the video.

SPEAKER 1: Joseph is a 12-year-old boy with Aspberger's and ADHD. He has mainstreamed in all classes except math. You were asked to perform an FBA to determine what is happening before and after the behavior started. You've already defined the behaviors and interviewed his teachers and parents.

On this particular day, Joseph forgot to take his medication on the morning his first period teacher reported that he had a difficult morning in his science class. You are now scheduled to observe his English class to take ABC data. As you observe, there will be a prompter on the bottom right screen to model how to fill out your form during this observation.

-And the lamp light over him streaming--

-What time is it?

-Joseph, don't talk out of turn, raise your hand. And the lamp-- yes, Joseph?

-Can I go to the bathroom?

-Not right now.

SPEAKER 1: So the behavior marked is speaking out of turn. Now let's look at the antecedents. We marked demand situation as the students are all under the implicit demand to be working at this time. We also marked teacher talking to the class, as she was speaking when Joseph asked, what time is it? As for the consequences, we marked verbal redirection, as the teacher redirected him to raise his hand rather than talk out of turn. And he was given social attention by the class, as many of them laughed at his behavior.

-Page 853. We're going to answer questions there about-- Joseph, sit down.

-But I--

-Joseph. Sit down now.

-But I have to get the pencil.

-Sit down.

NARRATOR: Unit 3-- Discrete Trial Teaching. Section 1-- The Discrete Trial, SD, and Response. In DTT, the discrete trial is used to teach new behaviors. The definition of a discrete trial is presenting a learning opportunity in which the student's correct response will be reinforced.

The discrete trial consists of three parts which correspond to the ABCs of behavior. These parts are the Discriminative Stimulus, or SD, the Response, or R, and the Stimulus Reinforcer, or SR. Here's an example of a discrete trial.

TEACHER: Look at me. Good looking. High five.

NARRATOR: As you saw, the SD was the instructor saying, "Look at me." The response was the student looking at the instructor. And the stimulus reinforcers were the instructor saying, "Good looking," giving a food treat, and high-fiving the student.