Elopement is a long-standing problem in classrooms. Well, more of a running problem than a standing problem ;). Regardless, elopement (leaving room), wandering (going all over the room) out of area (going to specific locations in the room) and out of seat behavior are problems in every school.
In a continuation from the pre-Covid world, this seminar will focus on how people can theoretically misuse logic (incorrect rule following) to create and perpetuate a stereotype. Incorrect logic is often used to explain perceived causes of ANY mismatch in the proportions of any groups of people or objects. This talk will focus on the variables that control our use of the word mostly‚ or disproportionate. That there is more of one group than another in any given situation doesn’t automatically mean that there are biases operating to cause and maintain these different proportions, but there always could be biases operating, and when resources, rights, access and fairness are on the line we must be vigilant for multiple sources of bias operating at the societal level, the individual level, at point of access/escape (obtain services/avoid jail). These biases that can cause disproportionality could be historical factors that steer us one way or another on our path at critical moments, and/or they may not affect us until the point of contact, so these variables can be cumulative (telling someone who they should or should not try to become) or almost instantaneous, at the point of contact like extreme bias or even overt racism or one of the other “isms.” The seminar will finish with the concept of avatars and how they relate to hate crimes and how hate crimes are related to terrorism (our inability to feel safe even when we are law abiding citizens).
Although yours may not truly suck, it possibly could do with some improvements…As the old saying goes, there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and the same is true of behavior plans. From initial assessment and writing, to staff training and revisions, there are numerous wrong turns where your well laid (behavior) plan can easily meet an untimely end in the back of a filing cabinet where it won’t see the light of day again until it’s survey time. As Dr. Ogden Lindsley used to say, let’s not spend our time “playing with pencils” writing plans that won’t ultimately improve lives. Topics not only include how to improve the standard parts of a plan, but an in-depth look at how all the gears must mesh to produce quick and lasting behavior change.
In the laboratory, if a pigeon receives food more than a few seconds after pecking an illuminated disc, it will never learn to key peck to get food. This is a characteristic of reinforcement. It's instantaneous when it occurs as a natural phenomenon. When we set up artificial long-term reinforcement contingencies, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! "Do your homework now, and you'll get video games later tonight" describes a reinforcement contingency, but behavior motivated by this description is rule-governed behavior with a special learning history. The thrust of the presentation is that rules describing reinforcement contingencies is NOT the same as real-time reinforcement and the stimuli that maintain problem behavior ARE real-time reinforcement.
Based on Charles Catania's 1975 seminal article on the myth of self-reinforcement, this presentation dives into the details of what is a positive reinforcement paradigm in form but is actually more negative reinforcement in nature. The alleged reinforcer that we "give ourselves" when we are good is not the key variable in this scenario.