User:Xof/review

second Review 2nd draft
Disruptive behavior within the School refers to a special children behavior, this kids are easily identified as someone who has problems to concentrate during the classes, not letting the teacher or other classmates to speak, sleeping and eating in the class, breaking the rules even though they know what should be done and what should not, to resume a disruptive child is someone who has problems with the authority. This research paper focused in the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other (DRO) behavior to reduce these issues that are presented in the class. For example in the response cost procedure every child has the same number of coins and during the class if a disruptive behavior is presented a coin will be taken and so on if a considerable number of coins is taken of the child then a reinforcement is delivered, in contrast in the DRO the child will earn coins for each time they don’t misbehave and receive a reinforce if they earn a considerable number of these coins. After this procedure it was easy to differenciate that the response-cost procedure works better with a small group of students and DRO with big groups, so the intention of this research is to find out is this statement is true and which procedure decrease and controls disruptive behavior problems.

The research was done with children in the age of four to five years old of preschool. 25 kids in total participated in this research, 21 boys and 4 girls. Different classes with the same group were recorded paying special attention to the kids that showed any disruptive behavior, while doing these observation 3 other teacher were present during these classes. In each of these sessions the teacher had written on the board the name of all the students and if they have a good behavior they will start earning some coins, once they earn 12 coins they obtained a candy. In contrast if a disruptive behavior was noticed a coin will be taken away these coins were earned. Another way of doing this activity is that every student already has 12 coins and if they misbehave they lost a coin, after 15 minutes coins were given or taken away. In both because the one with more coins received a price.

In contrast to the article “The effect of fixed-time escape on inappropiate and appropiate classroom behavior” in which is being compared a fixed-time (FT) schedule (sometimes referred to as non-contingent reinforcement or NCR) with a differential negative reinforcement of other behavior (DNRO) And according to Carr et al.,(2000. P3) compared the effects of an FT schedule and differential negative reinforcement of other behavior (DNRO) on the escape maintained behavior and compliance of 2 4- year-old boys during instructional sessions in a home setting. They found that an FT schedule of escape from tasks that was faded to 2 min decreased disruptive behavior and increased compliance to instructions”. This means that the FT gives immediate result to reduce disruptive behavior.

The information provided in this article is close to my research because the authors focused on explaining the disruptive behavior and a little bit of its background, I am teaching to first, second and third year and tit is so complicated in first year, but, after reading this article I could notice that one of my students has this particular behavior and it is very important to detect this behavior in order to help these students instead of screaming or punishing them. The author is these articles also set some information I could use and some activities that me as a teacher can be applied with kids I am working with.

Rebecca Brenz, Mandy Jurgens, Angela Aailer, Meredith Haugen, and Brandon Kopp (2004), A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 37, pp. 411–415

Rachael D. Waller and Thomas S. Higbee (2010), The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of applied behavior analysis,43, pp. 149–153

Second Review
It is important to clarify what is understood as disruptive behavior, Are you ending a sentence here? a child with this condition can be identified as someone who has problems to concentrate in the class, he Stay in the third person. doesn’t let teacher or other classmates to speak, he can be sleeping and eating in the class, breaking the rules even though he know what should be done and what should not, to resume a disruptive child is someone who has problems with the authority. This article is a research about the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other (DRO) behavior (DRO) to reduce these issues that are presented in the class. For example in the response cost procedure every child has the same number of coins and during the class if a disruptive behavior is presented a coin will be taken and so on if a considerable number of coins is taken of the child then a reinforcement is delivered, in contrast in the DRO the child will earn coins for each time they don’t misbehave and receive a reinforce if they earn a considerable number of these coins. McGoey and DuPaul and Reynolds and Kelley showed that the response-cost procedure works better with a small group of students and DRO with big groups, so the intention of this research is to find out is this statement is true and which procedure decrease and controls disruptive behavior problems.

The research was done with children in the age of 4 to 5 Spell out numbers zero to nine. years old of preschool, they are 25 kids in total; 21 boys and 4 girls, the study was done in the classroom in which 2 or 3 teacher were present during each class, all the classes were recorded and a disruptive behavior was identified as interruptions, screaming, crying or refusing to do what the teacher asks. Break up this first sentence into two or more sentences. Two other observer recorded the child who showed disruptive behavior issues. The procedure was that in each session the teacher told student that they will have to earn coins which were written on the board and if they earn 12 coins they will obtain a candy but it a disruptive behavior appear a coin will be taken away this coins were earned by don’t misbehaving, and the other procedure was that they had already the 12 coins if they misbehave they lost a coin, after 15 minutes coins were given or taken away, in both cases the one with more coins received a price. Break down this sentence into two or more. Also, discuss the findings of the study in more detail.

In contrast to the article “The effect of fixed-time escape on inappropiate and appropiate classroom behavior” I could notice that in this research the author compare between a fixed-time (FT) schedule (sometimes referred to as non-contingent reinforcement or NCR) with a differential negative reinforcement of other behavior (DNRO) And according to Carr et al.,(2000. P3) Refer to APA regarding citations. “''compared the effects of an FT schedule and differential negative reinforcement of other behavior (DNRO) on the escape maintained behavior and compliance of 2 4- year-old boys during instructional sessions in a home setting. They found that an FT schedule of escape from tasks that was faded to 2 min decreased disruptive behavior and increased compliance to instructions”''. This means that the FT gives immediate result to reduce disruptive behavior.

While reading this article I could clarify my doubts regarding the topic of my research, it was very and also I didn’t know exactly what was the problem with my students and knowing more about this issue with children I was able to detect that some students of mine have troubles and they can be the source of the classroom misbehavior, I liked both procedures to reduce disruptive behavior and I think they could work in my classes. Rewrite the last paragraph and stay in the third person and be more specific about how this study contributes to an EFL teacher who is doing action research on a similar problem such as yours.

Rebecca Brenz, Mandy Jurgens, Angela Aailer, Meredith Haugen, and Brandon Kopp (2004), A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 37, pp. 411–415

Rachael D. Waller and Thomas S. Higbee (2010), The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of applied behavior analysis,43, pp. 149–153

First review
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can help us teacher to avoid misbehavior problems but it doesn’t work all the time and it is not as easy as we might think, if we apply classroom management correctly will lead us to an effective teaching. Some classes were observed and it could be notice that there are common misbehaviors that happens inside any classroom like talking out of turn, wandering aimlessly, irritating pupils, misusing materials and interrupting other classmate. These problems were identified in a studied made in two schools; one school in turkey and the other in Galton and even though both are very different they had similar classroom management problems, according to this study the most prevalent disruptive behavior in both Turkey and England (51.4% and 49.5% respectively) was “noisy or illicit talking.” Then, “in appropriate movement” was another most frequently misbehavior observed in selected Turkish (27.1%) and the UK schools (27%). “Disturbing friends” was third most frequent misbehavior in selected schools (9.3% for Turkish classes and 7.9% for UK classes) but why is that two very different places have very similar problems within the classroom? It is important not only to identify the problems, but also to know why it is happening and how can a solve it. Çağlar (2008) divides the factors related to misbehaviors into two different, but related categories; internal and external factors. He furtherexplains that although teachers could have direct infl uence on internal factors (student, teacher, environment), they do not have direct impact on external factors. He divides external factors into two groups, one is related to students’ close environment (family, school and friends) and the other one is related to remote environment (educational management, country governance and development in the World) (Çağlar, 2008). Also it was found that classroom management is the highest reason of classroom problems which affect students’ success. Another study which was conducted with 70 IT teachers showed that 43% of the problems were mainly due to student-related issues and crowded classroom (Deryakulu, 2005). In this article the main point is to talk about the classroom management problems that ICT teacher face in their daily activities and also finding the possible solutions for each problem. To give an answer to this study, during the research there were many questions to answer once it has been fulfill. At the end on the research these questions will let us know if the objectives were achieved and how.. The article is qualitative because the purpose is to know the why and the how,

I liked this article because it gives real solutions to special problems for specific students according to their needs,

Check the requirements for this assignment, as discussed in class. If you are not sure, let me know.