As part three of the series on “Early
Childhood Practitioners Strategies for Working with Aggressive Children” the
conclusion will take a deeper dive into (1) Early Intervention Resources, (2) Implementation
for Writing A-B-C Behavior Plan and (3) Recommendations for Action and Implications
of the Study. From the series, you will have broaden concepts that can be embedded
in professional development learning community, training in two-and four-year institutions
of higher institutes empowering our children towards becoming productive
citizens of society.
Early Intervention Resources
The Signs of Aggressive Behavior Questionnaire was used
to assess early intervention resources available to them. The only resource
cited was on-site consultant once a week or twice a month. Studies conducted by
Adams and Baronberg (2003), Bell et al., (2004), Frey (2000), Richardson
(2000), Slaby et al., (1995), and Stormont (2000) have found that having
on-site consultants help to reduce aggressive acts exhibited by children. For
example,
ECP 1 said I can use a variety of strategies to find ones that best
work for an individual child. The best way to help teachers who have aggressive
children is having a behavioral specialist come on-site once a week or at least
twice a month to consult with on specific children. It should be noted that the
director was an active participant during conversations on techniques and
strategies to reduce and/or eliminate aggressive behaviors exhibited by study
children. This was truly effective for ECP 1 in implementation of the A-B-C
behaviors plans with administrative support.
ECP 2 shared with the increase of aggressive children I would like to
have a person like you come once a week to observe, give feedback, and discuss
a specific aggressive child. We [teachers] need help!
ECP 3 said I think it’s great to have people come in and consult with
on specific children. Because I see different types of aggressive behavior and
it would be beneficial to have an on-site behavioral specialist who comes once
a week or at least twice a month. However, I know we as educators must advocate
for the people to help young children to learn positive social skills.
ECP 4 said I think it would be great to have someone who is assigned to
a set number of centers to provide on-site consultation once a week or once a
month to let teachers know we are not out here alone trying to work with
aggressive children.
ECP 5 said my director is very firm in how the program must be ran. So,
I can use some techniques but others she will not let me know. For example,
when I see the children are very energetic and need to get the wiggle out, I
cannot alter the planned schedule to let the children go outside and run around
the playground two or three time to get the wiggles out. Therefore, I think the
ideas I want to use could be facilitated by an on-site consultant talking with
me and my director to see what strategies are appropriate to lessen the
aggressive acts. This person who needs to come at least once a month, but I
really think every week.
It should be noted that no
follow up conversation was made with the director after this comment. However,
the statement reinforced the need to include directors in future studies.
Implementation for
Writing A-B-C Behavior Plan
This
study used the A-B-C behavior plan as an early intervention tool for early
childhood practitioners for the reduction of aggressive actions of study
children. The Classroom Arrangement Checklist, anecdotal notes, review
of lesson plans and conversations between participants were compiled into the
strategies of the A-B-C behavior plans.
After the interviews the early childhood practitioners,
were asked to complete the PBP 12-item
Aggression Scale
(Kupersmidt, 1997). Of the 75 children in the five classrooms assessed with
this instrument, teachers scored 20 children in the mid to high levels for
aggression. These children met the criterion for the A-B-C behavior
intervention plan process and were included in the study. A-B-C behavior plans
were written for 23 types of hostile or physical aggression, 20 types of
expressive aggression, and 3 types of instrumental aggression. The A-B-C
behavior plans were written from teacher information on specific aggressive
acts observed on study children and from personal on-site observations.
Strategies for the aggressive acts cited by teachers and on-site observations
by myself were written on the plans by myself and then reviewed by the teachers
to ensure they were comfortable with implementing the re-inforcers and
consequences. The early childhood practitioners were unable to articulate any
strategies for specific behaviors exhibited by the children; therefore, all
strategies were written by me. Once the plans were written, the teachers
ensured everyone working with the children understood the plans so children’s
behaviors were treated consistently.
Prior to writing
the A-B-C behavior plans for specific behaviors identified by the early
childhood practitioners there were two initial areas observed. First, the Classroom
Arrangement Checklist self-designed
tool by myself was used to document the arrangement of
furnishings and lesson plan activities for potential flaws that would promote
aggressive acts. For example, in ECP 1’s classroom lego, block, housekeeping,
and music centers did not have clearly defined boundaries and the children took
toys from one center to the other centers with no consequences. It was
suggested that masking tape be used to outline the boundaries of each center of
choice. In addition, this classroom was painted dark blue that may have
contributed to the high levels of aggressive behaviors initially observed. From
conversations, the program painted the classroom light blue; later the teacher
commented the children are much more calmer due to the paint color change.
Another component
on the checklist documentation was age-appropriateness of activities and
materials for the children. Two major areas addressed: transitional activities
relating to weekly/daily themes and written lesson plans in conjunction with
observational notes. ECP 4 was the only
participate that no suggestions were given on lesson plans. Alternatively, ECP
2 gave directives for children to clean up in a low tone of voice; however, the
children continued to play and she cleaned up on her own. It was suggested that
she use a firm voice tone to convey directives but give the children a verbal
five-minute warning prior to clean up time.
ECP 2 stated, that
the children were cleaning up better using the activities given.
Upon reviewing the lesson plans
written by the early childhood practitioners, it was clear that assistance was
needed to plan age-appropriate activities related to the weekly/daily themes to
the centers. The early childhood practitioners wrote materials that were on the
shelves that did not relate to the weekly/daily themes. For example, ECP 3’s
theme was fall but suggestions of activities were brought in for her to review,
such as lace leaf cards for the manipulative center, attract and repel leaves
for the science center, tape pictures of leaves on blocks for the block center,
and leaf shift cards for the sand center.
Second, overall
anecdotal observation notes were taken to document the strategies used by the
early childhood practitioners when aggressive behaviors occurred. Also,
anecdotal notes were utilized to when observing target children. These notes
assisted toward the planning of the A-B-C behavior plan.
During the second
week of the study the early childhood practitioners specified the behaviors and
antecedents exemplified by study children. The early childhood practitioners
were asked for specific consequences for stated behaviors and no suggestions
were given. Therefore, different behavioral modification consequences were
reviewed and presented for the strategies listed for the A-B-C behavior
plans. The A-B-C plans were discussed
with each early childhood practitioners to review the A-B-C behavior plans and
adjusted to ensure their level of comfort in implementing the consequences on a
consistent basis. For example, Child 15’s pretest score on the Preschool
Behavior Project Aggression Scale was 4.08 with the aggressive act of
roughhousing (i.e., jumping on furniture during center time). The consequences
hierarchy for each time Child 15 exhibited the behavior was: first, talk with
Child 15 about roughhousing using the technique of I-Messages; second, use the
“Accepting Consequences” as outlined by McGinnis and Goldstein (1990, 1990a);
third, use special hand signal such as having Child 15 stopped, eyes on
teacher, hands by side, mouth closed, and ears opened (The teacher talked with
Child 15 about actions and consequences); and fourth, teach Child 15 techniques
to self-regulate actions by counting to 10, saying the alphabet, or walking
away from the situation to regroup. Throughout the study it was observed when
Child 15 would begin roughhousing behaviors and ECP 1 was consistent with the
consequence strategies and at the end of the study it was observed that when
Child 15 was thinking through acts by counting to ten. In addition, Child 15’s
post Preschool Behavior Project Aggression Scale score was 2.51.
ECP 1 stated I’m happy to see Child
15 has come a long way from the beginning
of school by me being consistent
with the strategies listed.
During weeks 2
through 5 anecdotal notes were taken on study children and early childhood
practitioners’ classroom management skills as well as the implementation of
planned activities. During naptime discussions were conducted to discuss how
the consequence strategies were working or if modifications were needed. It
should be noted no modifications were written from the initial A-B-C behavior
plans. Also, the early childhood practitioners were given the opportunities to
share any updated events that may be occurring to alter aggressive acts
observed. The early childhood practitioners shared the A-B-C behavior plans
with their teacher assistants to ensure consistency with study children. ECP
1’s teacher assistant and director sat in on the meetings to ensure that others
working with study children would reinforce the consequence strategies.
Following the
implementation of the A-B-C behavior plans, data indicated a reduction of
specific aggressive behaviors. Therefore, through the utilization of a A-B-C
behavior plan as an early intervention, the early childhood practitioners
gained a variety of strategies to use in reducing or eliminating aggressive
behaviors, enhancing their classroom management skills.
A-B-C Behavior Plan Findings
The
data indicated that all 20 children in the study were at-risk for exhibiting
aggressive acts, although some were at higher risks than others. The aggressive
acts were contributed to inconsistency of techniques for specific behaviors,
lack of teacher classroom management skills, and nonchallenging materials used
throughout the learning environment.
The
factors that supported reduction in aggressive acts for the children were:
1.
Specific strategies listed on the A-B-C behavior plans
for specific behaviors.
2.
Follow-through and being consistent with strategies
listed on the A-B-C behavior plans.
3.
Teachers modifying current classroom management skills
to meet the needs of the children in the study.
The teachers in this study were committed to being
consistent in applying the strategies and techniques of the A-B-C behavior
plans to ensure children would be equipped to self-regulate appropriate
behaviors. The children’s aggression levels were reduced from the start to the
end of the study, and the observations showed that the teachers implemented the
specific techniques that were recommended to them in conjunction with the A-B-C
behavior plans. The early childhood practitioners’ willingness to accept
constructive assistance and specific strategies about their teaching methods of
teaching that were ineffective and make improvements support the sociological
factors explored in the study.
All the early childhood practitioners were positive
about early intervention with an on-site consultant targeted to reducing or
eliminating aggressive behavior in preschool children through using the A-B-C
behavior plans. The teachers commented on how important it was to combat future
delinquent behaviors that might lead to school failure, incarceration, drug
addiction, and so forth, and mentioned the need for funding experts to work
onsite with early childhood practitioners. These findings are similar to those
found in a number of other studies (e.g., Adams & Baronberg, 2003; Barkley
et al., 2000; Bell et al., 2004; Cairns et al., 1989; Frey, 2000; Gordon &
Browne, 1996; Loeber, 1990; Pepler & Rubin, 1991; Richardson, 2000; Slaby
et al., 1995; Stormont, 2000). Previous
studies were conducted in periods ranging from one to five months all found
reduction in children’s aggressive behaviors and a willingness on behalf of
teachers to implement specific strategies of intervention.
Recommendations for Action and Implications of the Study
This study’s in-depth analysis on the complexity of
factors contributes to the knowledge, generally quantitative, on perceptions of
aggressive behaviors and implementation of early intervention programs,
particularly with preschool-age children (4-5 years old). The study results
particularly focus on early childhood practitioners’ ability to detect
aggressive behaviors but their lack of specific skills to respond to them.
Further, the need for early intervention with the support of an on-site
consultant to change their behaviors/skills in combating children’s aggressive
behaviors was also critical. The findings also substantiate that early
childhood practitioners are aware of many sociological factors they face in
working with children who exhibit mid- to high- levels of aggressive behaviors.
The findings showed that the early childhood practitioners were receptive to
new strategies/techniques for specific children and overall classroom
management skills. However, they did not
seem to be aware of how classroom management contributes to children’s
aggression. When an on-site consultant met with the teachers weekly, discussed
children’s progress, and valued the teacher’s opinions to best plan and
implement strategies for children to reduce aggressive behaviors, and this
seems to be a value approach to utilize in all settings.
In summary, this inquiry provided an opportunity for an
in-depth analysis to understand early childhood practitioners’ perceptions of
aggressive behavior and the interaction of their self-confidence, and the
implementation of an A‑B‑C behavior plan to help teachers to help children
learn acceptable techniques/strategies for self-control instead of exhibiting
an aggressive act. By deconstruction the processes of the types of interactions
most effective in reducing troubling aggressive behaviors in young children, it
is likewise possible to reconstruct those elements which are essential to more
effective interactions, classroom management, and engagement of children. At a
time when there is increasing concern about aggression in young children and
increasing encouragement for funding and expansion of early childhood
initiatives, it is critical that these complex relationships be better
understood. The early childhood practitioners here invoiced the desire for
continued support after the study concluded to ensure they continue to receive
feedback from observation and gain additional strategies and techniques to
improve as early childhood practitioners. Therefore, it is recommended that
early childhood practitioners and early childhood educators/advocates continue
to investigate on-site support systems throughout the year with specific
techniques and strategies to reduce or eliminate children’s aggressive acts.
References
Adams, S. K., &
Baronberg, J. (2005). Promoting positive behavior guidance strategies for early childhood settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Barkley, R. A., Shelton,
T. L., Crosswait, C., Moorehouse, M., Fletcher, K., Barrett, S., Jenkins, L.,
& Metevia, L. (2000). Multi-method psycho-educational intervention for
preschool children with disruptive behavior: Preliminary results at
post-treatment. Journal Child Psychology, 41, 319-332.
Bell, S. H., Carr, V., Denno, D., Johnson, L. J., &
Phillips, L. R. (2004). Challenging behaviors in early childhood settings:
Creating a place for all children. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.
Cairns, R. B.,
Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H.J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J. L. (1989).
Growth and aggression: Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.
Frey, K. S. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by
promoting social competence. [Electronic version]. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 1-14.
Gordon, A., & Browne, K. W. (1996). Guiding young
children in a diverse society. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Kupersmidt, J. (1997). PBP 12-item aggression scale.
Chapel Hill, NC:
The University of NC, Chapel Hill.
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile
antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10, 1-41.
McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A. P. (1990). Skill-streaming in early childhood: Teaching
prosocial skills to the preschool and kindergarten child. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
McGinnis E., & Goldstein, A. P. (1990). Skill-streaming in early childhood program
forms: Teaching prosocial skills to the preschool and kindergarten child. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
Pepler, D. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1991). The development of treatment of childhood aggression.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richardson, R. C. (2000). Teaching social and emotional
competence [Electronic version]. Children and Schools, 22, 246-252.
Slaby, R. G., Roedell, W. C., Arezzo, D., & Hendrix, K. (1995). Early violence prevention tools for teachers
of young children. Washington,
DC: NAEYC.
Stormont, M. (2000). Early child risk factors for
externalizing and internalizing behaviors: A 5-year follow-forward assessment. Journal
of Early Intervention, 23, 180-190.
