In recent years, school psychology has entered into new era of accountability where scientifically-based practices are not only encouraged, but are mandated by law (IDEA, 2004). For school-based practitioners, this means documenting the rationale and empirical support for behavior change procedures in the classroom. Failing to do so is not only poor practice of school psychology, it may also have legal ramifications. Thus, it is of no surprise that the field of school psychology has turned to applied behavior analysis due to its rich empirical support, behavioral assessment methodology, and function-based approaches to solving behavioral concerns (Kratochwill & Martens, 1994). Vollmer and Northup (1997) suggest that one of the key aspects of applied behavior analysis that makes it complimentary to school psychology is its foundation in the basic principles of behavior. In The Technology of Teaching, Skinner remarked that a really effective educational system cannot be set up until we understand the processes of learning and teaching (Skinner, 1968, p. 95). Skinner's views on education continue to resonate today as practitioners and applied researchers alike attempt to pinpoint the active treatment ingredient responsible for behavior change through an understanding of the basic behavioral processes at play in successful behavior change program. As any practicing school psychologist can attest, the classroom ecology is extremely complex, with multiple schedules of reinforcement operating at any given time (Martens & Kelly, 1993). For instance, within any classroom, many students will be exposed to behavior support plans, Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), direct instruction programs, behavior altering medication for behavioral concerns, differing reinforcement histories, etc. With such confounding variables, it becomes very difficult to truly understand what is accounting for the observed behavior change after an intervention is implemented. Thus, it is not always readily apparent which procedures are responsible for behavior change during intervention implementation. One of the fundamental attributes of behavioral research is its reliance on parsimony in understanding behavior change (Johnston & Pennypacker, 1993). While it is easy to monitor gains in the classroom without an understanding of the controlling behavioral processes, this oversight is not only dangerous to the long-term sustainability of the intervention, it actually does disservice to the field. When an intervention works, the most we can walk away with is an understanding of what works with that individual in that setting for that target behavior. In sum, the generalizability of the intervention across students, time, settings, and responses is compromised. However, with an understanding of the basic behavioral principles at play, one can individually tailor the intervention to account for these individual and situational differences. The avenue to accomplishing true understanding of the behavioral principles implicated in academic or academic-related behavior is through form of research termed bridge or research. This approach to research is characterized by simple replications of laboratory studies to applied situations and clinical populations (Lerman, 2003). In essence, translational research affords the researcher greater deal of experimental control (i.e., akin to laboratory setting), while still being directed toward an applied problem. Yet, despite the seemingly critical need for relationship between basic and applied research, the disconnect between the two continues to widen (Mace, 1994; Mace & Wacker, 1994). While researchers have demonstrated much success translating basic experimental research to applied settings (Iwata, 1991), many practitioners and school psychologists may feel that basic research is too esoteric for their settings. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Mar 15, 2016
Maria J Nava + 2
Open Access