Causes and Responses to Challenging Behavior - Literature review Example

EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR Explaining Behavior Literature Review about the Causes and Responses to Challenging Behavior According to the Mental Health Foundation, behavior incorporates the greatness of occurrence or the time that the individual’s bodily welfare or to other persons is probable to be threatened significantly. Specifically, challenging behavior entails any degree of unusual conduct of a particular extent that the body wellness of others or a particular individual is likely to be exposed to a severe problem (Emerson 1995). On a similar scenario, there have been claims that challenging behavior is responsible for exposing the tough in an advanced group level which have the effects of resulting into maturity or segregation from the learning category (Similarly, Simmons & Ward 1998). There were also establishments that there are some behaviors that can never be classified easily by the educators such as distractions, chatting as well as the non verbal maltreatments. Nonetheless, there is a different suggestion from Oliver (2003) that, the categorization of behavior appears as challenging throughout diverse schools. According to this scholar, the challenging behavior is developed socially. There is need for evaluating the matter of challenging behavior amongst individuals since it has attracted different theories and approaches from scholars. Therefore, this piece will look at the dissimilar theories that expound on behavior. Specifically, the piece will attain its baseline points of arguments the works by Bandura, Skinner, Vygotsky, and Watson. The piece will evaluate the Cognitive Behaviorist theory and Social Learning Theory. It is also significant to show how each theory takes care of the needs of the child and this paper will respond to that concern. Reasoning from the behaviorist context, there is a realization that behavior could be learned or modified (Skinner 1904-90), the writer affirms this stipulation through the work entitled, ‘Operant Conditioning’. The scholar proceeded into highlighting that children operate on the environment through engagement in particular identifiable activities due to the results of such behaviors. Skinner outlines that any stimulus leading to the repeat of a particular behavior emphasizes that particular behavior. The response would vary from return, reward, attentiveness as well as social assistance. The situation instance to elaborate this suggestion would follow for instance, if a particular child, let us name him Tim confesses to another that he gets pleasure playing with the other named Carol of late. If Tim invites his playmate for dinner in addition, this would invoke the application of the Skinner’s suggestions. It can be proposed that support in the construction of the scenario would be a smile in spite of the situation, a word of praise for an outstanding behavior. Skinner upheld that particular rewards for such behavior reoccurrence on a different instance or instances. Even though support contributes to the increment in frequency of the behavior, it does it in a dissimilar manner. This situation may arise in the instance when we prefaer promoting a behavior in the child contrary to demanding the behavior in that person. In case something is happening and the child request the parent to stop it in a polite manner and it is done, then the alternate behavior is reinforced. For instance, the child requests for changing of a video clip. If the parent execute the child’s desire then the parent is strengthening the aimed behavior, that of requesting in a polite way. It can be argued that both positive and unhelpful support, when used appropriately can enhance the frequency of the ideal behavior. Major values of conventional habituation were contoured by the work of Ivan Pavlov (1819 -1936) where an unbiased stimulus brings about a response if put together with a stimulus that already has that response. Rewarding a student for positive a behavior exhibited enhances that behavior. For instance, if a teacher asks the class to appreciate a student who answers questions in class will make the student more active during lessons. Conversely, if the teacher rebukes the student for giving a wrong answer in class will make the student timid, disinterested and withdrawn from lessons (Nye 1981). Behaviorist theory is best suited for handling behavior in pupils as stated by Gross (2010). Teachers ought to capitalize on this theory to raise the literacy standards of weak students rather than rebuking or rebuffing them. But not all kinds of motivation bring out positive response. In that regard, behaviorist theory could underplay the vital factor of how pupils react to motivation (Ayers 2000). But to counter such disapproval, the Social Learning Theory argues that pupils learn by watching and imitating from their social constructs. Additionally, the theory of observational knowledge as has the standpoint that the biggest part of learning is by watching and imitating (Bandura 1977). Children learn from their peers, role models or even pressure groups. Children who continually watch violent movies will turn out violent when playing with others. The same case applies to children who are exposed to movies with abusive language or where such language is used in their families. Such children will automatically adapt to the violence or abusive behavior. This in actual fact supports Bandura’s standpoint more. In effect, taking a closer look, one would see the close relationship between the Social Learning Theory and Behaviorist theory. Both of them are experiential, and draw attention to the social construct and influence adjustment as the key pillars behind them (Ayers, Clarke and Murry, A 2000). There is a thin line that separates the two theories. For instance, behaviorist theory is best suited for the school environment where students get rewarded for exhibiting positive behavior. This helps in creating a conducive leaning environment (Gross 2010). But teachers have to be careful such that the behavior should not be influenced by the reward. They have to find of a methodology of withdrawing the reward with time just to ensure that the behavior has been strengthened Pound 2006). Children have also learnt to associate some traits gotten from school with the detachment from their homes. For instance, when children go to school, they learn using words such as ‘excuse me’ and ‘please’. It is interesting how such a polite child at school will be the exact opposite at their home. It is therefore important that parents get to know how their children behave in school in order to enhance such positive behavior from home. This will avoid a scenario where children exhibit positive behavior just to please the adults and return to negative behavior in their absence. Pavlov proved the conditioning theory by always ringing a bell when giving food to his dogs. Naturally, the dogs learnt to associate the bell with food. The same case applies to schools. A child will start feeling hungry immediately the bell for lunch rings. It means that the child has learnt to associate the bell with food. Immediately the bell rings, the child remembers that they should be eating and immediately starts feeling hungry. On his part, Watson proved that any stimulus acquired will lead to automatic behavior. For instance, any rally driver who gets a bad accident will henceforth dread speed. Or a firefighter, who gets seriously burned, will have phobia for fire. In their cases, the driver and firefighter before the tragic incidents, they were not afraid of speed and fire respectively. This is the case that Watson proved when he introduced a rat to an 11 month old baby. At first he was not afraid. But when he started introducing the rats accompanied with frightening noise, the baby grew up afraid of rats. Out of the foregoing therefore, Watson (1929) stated that a child can be shaped into any kind of person through environmental conditioning. Conclusion To sum it up, behavior is acquired, learned, nurtured before and it can also be molded. Behaviorist theory for instance centers on the thought that behavior is the consequence of acquiring what is learnt from the environment. Therefore, whatever is reinforced will grow in strength while that which is not reinforced will diminish. In practice, this approach’s incentives and sanctions are imposed constantly and objectively by an adult. On the other hand, social learning theory complements behaviorist theory where the child is influenced by observing the actions of others. Children have the ability of learning proper social skills from their peers and mentors. Part Two Approaches to Dealing with Challenging Behavior This essay will try to discuss the different methodologies used to manage challenging behavior. The essay will zero down on anti social behavior orders, (ASBO), criminal behavior orders (CBO) and Social and Emotional aspect learning (Seal). I will also outline the works of Bandura, Freud, Erickson, Skinner, and Watson to explain the behaviorist theories. This essay shall look at behavior as being motivated by a certain factor (Gross 2010). Presently, the biggest challenge for the government is raising the standards of behavior in the schools. The challenge is to ensure that teachers are in control during lessons and in the school environment in order to fully implement the curriculum (DFE 2011). But this is not an easy task. It calls for proper guidance on how to deal with challenging behavior. It would be almost impossible to raise standards of discipline and fully implement the curriculum if difficult students are not properly managed. Off course they would influence others. Engaging the students is intended to strengthen positive behavior through rewards and encouragement (Gross 2010). Conversely, Pound (2006) wants teachers to take caution not to continuously reward the children. They would associate the behavior with the reward and absence of the reward would receive negative behavior from the child. It is therefore prudent that the teacher finds a way in which he can slowly disengage rewards and at the same time maintain the good behavior in the pupil. The tailored approach to challenging behavior adopts this theory in practice. This theory is bent on the belief that that society is composed of ever-present interactions among individuals who share symbols and their meanings. This is a very useful theory for: comprehending other people; ameliorating communications; learning and teaching skills in cross-cultural relations; and on the general, not doing harm to your students as the teachers will better understand the students’ backgrounds. Once it dawns on the teacher that students are, by their social natures, very symbolic with one another, then they start to appreciate how to persuade them and how to resolve challenges amicably. As young as they are, children learn best by emulating their role models, mentors, teachers or any adult of influence in their lives (Porter 2006). Therefore, a lot of challenging behavior emanates from the social constructs of the child. Even as a good number of works are bent on the theory that children learn from their environment, Freud has a divergent view. He believes that all behavior comes from our minds and that it could be premeditated or unaware. He further states that all this happens during childhood where an individual’s character is shaped. Weston (2010) is of the opinion that unless this stage is fully passed through by a child, then his character and behavior will be wanting. Adding strength to the works of Freud and Weston, Erickson states that self-confidence is a key factor to ensure that a child goes through this stage. Such confidence can only be gained from guidance and support from the adult figures like parents and teachers. It is at this point where children are in a stage of self discovery, a fact that should be appreciated by those molding them. To strengthen this point, Bruner (1915) states that Adult ought to scaffold children’s learning, which is the support an adult provides in a child’s learning’. He further demonstrates in his works how an adult can support the child in self discovery. We have discussed some of the measures of averting challenging behavior. But cases of challenging behavior cannot escape any society or institution. It is therefore wise to address ways of managing challenging behaviors. Anti Social Behavior Orders (ASBOs) were initiated by section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but was implemented on 1 April 1999. ASBOs are civil instructions to shield the public against behavior that results or has likelihood of resulting to harassment, alarm or distress. The guidelines are not criminal sanctions and do not carry the intention of castigating the individual. They are intended to be defensive, not castigatory. For instance, an offender may be prohibited from visiting some areas or people for a period of time within which he will be trained on proper behavior (Sterne 2009). Such prohibitions last for a maximum of two years. But research has proved that ASBOs are enforced on individuals of the age of between 10 to 17 years. There being no restrictions for reporting on the proceedings, young people are easily branded as criminals. Considering their ages, such sentences may be too heavy for the young offenders. This led to a research by NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) in 2011 which called for alternative methods of handling these children. It is out of the foregoing that the government is now changing tact. Parents are now expected to take responsibility for the actions of their children. The Government has in place programmes that require parents whose children pose difficult in behavior to attend counseling and training for up to three months. They are then expected to nurture their children (Sterne 2009). Other instructions would be to compel the parents to follow up the students characters in school in conjunction with the teachers. However, as we impose these sanctions on the child, we have to consider their emotional well being. Knowles (2009) argues that no child is important is important than the other. So all children are equally important and every aspect of their life has to be considered when addressing their difficulties in behavior. Behavior strategies that consider the Social and Emotional Aspect of learning (SEAL) have proved to work better (Davie et al. 1989). This is because such strategies address all the difficulties endured by the child and in effect emotional stress. The primary and secondary school curriculum has done well in initiating these strategies (Ayers 2000). Students are encouraged to share experiences in groups. Techniques such as calming down are also employed. Further to this, the School Council Agenda plays a pivotal role in documenting all matters that regard emotional well-being of the students (Gross 2010). Such documentation helps in improving the curriculum. SEAL is arguably an inclusive approach that strengthens efficient learning, positive behavior and a general conducive atmosphere in school. In general, this approach encompasses the whole school. It ensures that both the teachers and students are taken care of (DCSF 2007). This strategy was put in place to uphold children’s social skills and behavioral skills in the primary school and secondary and to give confidence to the improvement and purpose to learning of group and expressive skills that have been categorized under the five areas planned (Goleman 1995). Infact, research has proved that the strategy has been adopted and is in use in at least 70% of schools in England (Hallam et al. 2006). But Rogers (2009) gives a divergent view. He disapproves the use of SEAL. His viewpoint is that it over relies on teaching of social and emotional skills thereby leaving other aspects of the child’s development bare. Emotionally aspects are forming the checklists for development i.e. normative approach rather than a developmental approach. This leaves the child wanting in other sectors of his social life. As Papatheodorou (2005) puts it, the emphasis put on ‘therapeutic education’ is in excess. It centers only on emotional tribulations whose target is to formulate emotionally engaging education content and learning process. This cannot work for students with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorders). They exhibit little attention span and cannot sit for long to effectively benefit in the learning content created from SEAL (Knowles 2009). The Children’s Act (2004) in section 10, it encourages Inter- Agency collaboration. It is expected that local Authorities should implement a shared assessment commonly known as ‘Common Assessment Framework’ (CAF) (Ayers 2000). In expounding CAF, Roffey, (2002) explains that CAF aids to recognize helps the child’s extra requirements in advance and uphold co-ordination of service delivery to address them. It aso makes it easy for specialists to enjoin efforts and provide incorporated services from a common viewpoint. This is particularly important in informing all stakeholders involved in molding the child (Porter 2003). To suppert this, Berryman (2004) further says that CAF guarantees that all stakeholders to the child work in unison to hold up the child. Sylva (2001) gives us the best viewpoint of CAF. He states that ‘it aids to institute a common understanding that buttresses better apprehension between fractioned, decrease the amount of divergent assessment and accelerate service delivery since practitioners are in a better position to have the same opinion, and build correct information through a standardized strategy. The behaviorist theory has also been known to have a few limitations. For instance, it has long been argued that the behaviorist theory doesn’t put into perspective the cognitive and unconscious factors (Wheldall et al 1986). It is such limitations that consequented the development of the cognitive process. For instance, Bandura (1925) insists that children develop behaviors from observing what happens in their social constructs. He adds that humans do not necessarily learn from what they see. But in most cases, they will copy from adults and their peers. This is the case of violent children who pick the behavior from violent parents or watching movies full of violence. To sum it up, Children will always attempt to imitate what they see from adults who have an influence in their lives. Therefore, in order to avert incidences of challenging or difficult behavior, it is key that we control as much as possible our children from picking negative behaviors from the social constructs. It is easier to prevent than to manage or control challenging behavior. Other children or peers also play a big role in either preventing or managing challenging behavior (Bandura 1925). For instance, children tend to look at rowdy and violent children as heroes. It is therefore important that such behaviors are totally discouraged make sure that other pupils in the same environment don’t pick the same. Just as Gross (2010) stated that individuals are influenced by their environment in the Classical and Operant Conditioning, Ayers (2000) also affirms that individuals learn from each other through copying, imitating and then putting it into practice. Parents too have a big role to play. We can never control the environment or the social constructs of a child. Neither can we control what they will see. But we can always influence how they judge such situations. It is not always that once a child sees a negative behavior they will imitate it. With proper support and guidance from the parent, the child will be able to view situations critically before making a decision (Payne 2003). In this regard, parents have to acknowledge their role in guiding their children. Most parents have taken a back seat approach and leaving it all to the teachers at school. Much as the children will spend most of their day in school, the few hours at home might do a lot to harm the child’s behavior. Parents should therefore work hand in hand with the teachers to encourage positive behavior. Regarding the analyses of the challenging behavior among the children in this piece the reasoning converge at a single focal point and provides that challenging behavior is lessened when children have chances to make preferences, build up friendships, be leaders, take liability, be treated with esteem, have their feelings encouraged and their dissatisfactions addressed. Though, Pound (2006), argued that parental participation in the shape of ‘at home good quality parenting’ had a important positive result on children’s adjustment and achievement yet all other issues, determining achievement had been taken out of the equation. Hence, parenting programs have been shown to be successful as a preventative determine Cullis et al, 2002 and evaluations of parenting programs give an idea about improvement of parental fulfillment, along with the study studies which illustrate development in the attitude of young offspring after their parents have be present at such programs (Crown 2013). Bibliography Ayers, H.; Clarke, D. and Murry, A. (2000). Perspectives on Behavior. A Practice Guide to Effective Interventions for Teachers. 2nd ed. London: David Fulton Publishers. Cullis, et.al (2002) Psychology for you. Nelson Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. Cheltenham. United Kingdom. Crown, 2013. Education Department: Children and young people. GOV. UK Retrieved on 6 May 2013 from http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople Emerson, E. (1995) Challenging Behavior: Analysis and Intervention in People with Learning Disabilities.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Harris, J., Cook, M. & Upton, G. (1996) Pupils with Severe Learning Disabilities who Present Challenging Behavior. Kidderminster, Works: BILD. Kiernan, C. & Kiernan, D. (1994) ‘Challenging behavior in schools for pupils with severe learning difficulties.’ Mental Handicap Research, 7, pp. 117–201. Knowles, G. (2009) Ensuring Every Child Matters London: Sage McDonnell, A. & Sturmey, P. (1993) ‘Managing violent and aggressive behavior: Towards better practice’, in Ofsted, Raising Standards Improving Lives: Ofsted. Retrieved on May 6, 2013 from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ Papatheodorou, T., (2005) Behavior problems in the early years – A guide for understanding and supporting, Abingdon: Routledge Falmer. Payne, L. (2003) ‘Anti-social behavior’, Children and Society, Vol. pp.321-324. Porter, J. & Lacey, P. (1999) ‘What provision for pupils with challenging behavior?’ British Journal of SpecialEducation, 26 (1), 23–28. Porter, L (2006) Behavior in Schools Theory and Practice for Teachers 2ndedition Open University Press England. Pound R. (2006) How Children Learn London Sage R. S. P. Jones & C. B. Eayrs (eds), Challenging Behavior and Intellectual Disability: A Psychological Skinner, B.F (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching: Harvard Educational Review, 24 (2), 86-97. Skinner, B.F. (1950) Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57 (4) 193-216. Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior New York: Macmillan. Tangen. K (2009) Home about five problems with personality test if you know about personality lectures http://psychnut.com/personality/day5/ Tassoni, P., Beith, K. and Gough, A. (2003), Heinemann, Oxford. Weston, C (2010).UEL Special Needs and Inclusive Education Reader. London: Sage. Wheldall, K. and Merrett, F. (1998)which classroom behaviors do primary teachers’ say they find most troublesome?’ Educational Review, 40, 1, 13-325. Read More