PSY540 SHU Use of David Broadbents Filter Model Questions

User Generated

fwebfvr

Humanities

psy540

Southern New Hampshire University

Description

Review the essay of one of your peers (attached).


Respond to your peer’s initial post and offer constructive feedback to address the following:

  • What areas of the proposal work well?
  • What areas of the proposal could benefit from additional clarification?
  • What remaining questions do you have related to your colleague’s chosen topic and proposal?
  • Does the proposal contain all the required elements as outlined in the Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric document?

In your post, also discuss how your peer’s work influences or informs your own proposal or your understanding of your topic. Keep in mind that the intent of your peer review is not to provide your classmate with a number or letter grade. Instead, you are providing written feedback as to the question prompts noted above.

This assignment, as well as your response to your colleague’s review of your own work, will be graded using the Milestone Four Guidelines and Rubric document. If you need additional information as to what to look for in your review of your colleague’s essay, refer to the Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric document.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PSY 540 Milestone Four Guidelines and Rubric: Peer Review Discussion Overview This assignment marks the final milestone related to the final proposal. In this assignment, you will offer a constructive critique of a peer’s rough draft of the proposal and respond to a peer’s critique of your own proposal. Part of the proposal-writing process in professional settings involves soliciting feedback from trusted colleagues. Gaining outside insights from colleagues allows proposal writers to apply perspectives to their final product that they may not have previously considered. Through sharing your work with your classmates in this assignment, you will be able to use their valuable input to improve your own proposal. By participating in the peer review process, you will also gain new insights about your proposal and perhaps your understanding of your selected topic. In Module Six, you will post your rough draft of your final project proposal for your peers to review in the Module Seven discussion. In Module Seven, you will review the essay of one of your peers. Be sure to prioritize posts that do not yet have a response. You will most likely need to review your peer’s proposal several times to complete a comprehensive evaluation. Read the work in its entirety and then jot down your first impressions or add comments in the margins. Then, you will need to read additional times to develop your formal review. Your peer review discussion post should be three to four paragraphs long and address the elements and questions below:     Strengths: What areas of the proposal work well? Areas of Additional Clarification: What areas of the proposal could benefit from additional clarification? Remaining Questions: What remaining questions do you have related to your colleague’s chosen topic and proposal? Reflection: Discuss how your peer’s work influences or informs your own proposal or your understanding of your topic. Keep in mind that the intent of your peer review is not to provide your classmate with a number or letter grade. Instead, you are providing written feedback as to the question prompts noted above. This assignment, as well as your response to your colleague’s review of your own work, will be graded using the rubric on the following page. If you need additional information as to what to look for in your review of your colleague’s essay, refer to the Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric document. Keep the following guidelines in mind as you formulate your review. In your review:    Include constructive feedback offering insights as to how your peer could improve his or her next draft. Direct your review at the content of the proposal and not the author. Ask clarifying questions whenever possible. In addition to your initial post offering your review of a peer’s proposal, you are also required to respond to your peer’s review of your own work. In your response post, consider your peer’s feedback and take the opportunity to work through areas noted for additional clarification and to address your peer’s questions or explain how the feedback will influence your revisions for your final proposal. Rubric Guidelines for Submission: The peer review and accompanying peer review response should take the form of two discussion posts. You first post will be three to four paragraphs long and will provide one of your peers with feedback. Second, you will respond to the feedback your peer provided on your own draft. This response should be one to two paragraphs long and specifically address questions raised and offer clarification as requested by your reviewer. Both posts must contain proper grammar and spelling and follow APA citations when appropriate. Critical Elements Strengths Areas for Additional Clarification Remaining Questions Reflection Peer Review Response Writing (Mechanics) Exemplary (100%) Meets “Proficient” criteria and notes specific examples or passages from the submitted draft Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides specific, actionable recommendations Proficient (90%) Identifies what areas of the proposal work well and provides supporting explanation Needs Improvement (70%) Identifies what areas of the proposal work well, but lacks supporting explanation Not Evident (0%) Does not identify what areas of the proposal work well Value 20 Identifies areas in need of additional clarification and explains how these clarifications could improve the proposal Does not identify an area in need of additional clarification 20 Meets “Proficient” criteria, and questions directly relate to critical elements of the assignment Meets “Proficient” criteria and explains connections with concrete examples highlighting similarities and differences Poses questions that are relevant to the topic and proposal Identifies additional clarifications, but recommendations lack specificity and supporting explanations Poses questions that are not relevant to the topic or proposal Does not pose any remaining questions 20 Discusses irrelevant connections between the peer’s proposal, student’s own proposal, and student’s understanding of the topic Response fails to address all peer’s questions or lacks plans to incorporate relevant feedback Initial post and responses are understandable using proper citation methods where applicable with a number of errors in citations Does not discuss connections between the peer’s proposal, student’s own proposal, and student’s understanding of the topic Response is not provided 20 Initial post and responses are not understandable and do not use proper citation methods where applicable 10 Meets “Proficient” criteria, and plans to incorporate feedback are prioritized around the area of greatest need Initial post and responses are easily understood, clear, and concise using proper citation methods where applicable with no errors in citations Discusses relevant connections between the peer’s proposal, student’s own proposal, and student’s understanding of the topic Response addresses peer’s questions and conveys plans to incorporate relevant feedback Initial post and responses are easily understood using proper citation methods where applicable with few errors in citations Earned Total 10 100% PSY 540 Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric: Rough Draft Overview For your rough draft, you will submit a complete proposal that includes all the required elements of the final proposal and incorporates any relevant instructor feedback you received on Milestones One and Two. In your rough draft, be sure to address all the following critical elements: I. Problem Statement a) Describe the contemporary problem that is the focus of your proposal with full details with respect to your selected applied setting. Here, consider how new developments or changes in your applied setting are creating new cognition-related challenges. For instance, you might note that increased use of online education is presenting new challenges to students with ADHD. b) Identify your selected area of cognitive psychology (attention, learning, memory, language, or decision making) and appropriate foundational theories that apply to your selected problem. What are the foundational aspects of these theories, and how do they relate to your selected problem? Carrying through with the previous example, you would indicate that your area of focus is attention and identify related theories that can shed further light on the contemporary problem of attention demands on students with ADHD. c) Describe performance issues in your selected applied setting based on limitations of human cognitive systems. What are some of the specific issues related to your contemporary problem, the applied setting, and the limits of the human cognitive system? Here, you will further break down your contemporary problem and explain how the problem relates to the applied setting, what we know about cognition, and how this impacts performance. d) Create a research question that addresses potential improvements to practices in the applied setting based on the strengths of human cognitive systems. Remember that your research question should address your contemporary problem. For instance, in keeping with the previous example, you might ask, “How can changes to online learning platforms better support increased attention to course materials for students with ADHD?” II. Contemporary Relevance a) Evaluate the utility of the theories you identified when describing your problem with respect to their strengths and limitations. Here, revisit the theories you noted in critical element I, part b. How do the theories you identified further explain the problems and performance issues you identified? What are the strengths and limitations of each theory in helping to understand your identified problem? b) Which particular theory offers the greatest utility for practitioners to apply in addressing real-world issues specific to the contemporary problem you selected? Defend your selection. III. Interpretation of Research Findings: Explain how each primary or secondary resource you selected supports your research question. This is where you will apply sound methodological principles (by following the prompts below, a–b) to qualify the research results and statistical findings. a) How do the research results and statistical findings apply to your research question and your proposed improvements? b) Explain the strengths and limitations of the research results and findings in supporting the research question. This is where you will explain how the research results and findings you have reviewed support your research question and identify specific gaps in the research. In other words, in reviewing your sources, is there sufficient support for this research question? This is also where you will identify what research does not yet exist that is necessary in supporting the application of your research question. IV. Methodological Principles: This is where you will look at your research question (critical element I, part d) and determine what types of strategies or techniques you would use if you were to hypothesize improving upon the problem in your selected applied setting. Here, you might propose an experiment, a new program or initiative, or adoption of new tools/technologies. Remember, you are not limited to a controlled experiment. a) What socially responsible strategies and techniques could be used for improving upon human cognitive processes specific to your applied setting? Here, consider how you could implement your proposed solution in a way that does not further aggravate the problem or put participating parties at risk of new problems or performance issues. b) What are the implications for using these strategies and techniques? Consider, who and what about the applied setting would be impacted by this proposed solution? What would change, and how might these changes be received? V. Conclusion a) What potential future direction do you see from implementation of your research specific to addressing the contemporary problem you cited in critical element I, part a? Here, consider how implementation of your proposed solution or improvement can add to the existing body of research on your topic. How might your proposed improvements and any follow-up research prove interesting to other applied settings? Rubric Please note that the grading rubric for the rough draft submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional “Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission. Guidelines for Submission: Your rough draft should be double spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, with one-inch margins and APA citations. Your draft proposal should be a minimum of six pages, not including cover page and references, and use preapproved resources. (The submission should include a variety of research and findings from at least three of the provided publications. Review the Final Project Document to access the list of approved publications provided for you.) Reminder: Please be sure to also post a copy of your Rough Draft to the Module 7 Peer Review discussion. Critical Elements Problem Statement: Contemporary Problem Problem Statement: Selected Area Proficient 100% Describes a contemporary problem in full detail with respect to the applied setting Explains aspects of foundational theories, fully connecting them to selected problem Needs Improvement 80% Describes the contemporary problem, but with gaps in detail with respect to the applied setting Explains aspects of foundational theories, but with gaps in connecting them to selected problem Not Evident 0% Does not describe a contemporary problem in any detail with respect to the applied setting Does not explain aspects of foundational theories Value 9 9 Problem Statement: Performance Issues and Limitations Problem Statement: Potential Improvements Contemporary Relevance: Utility Of Theories Contemporary Relevance: Apply Interpretation of Research: Question Interpretation of Research: Support Methodological Principles: Strategies and Techniques Methodological Principles: Implications Identifies performance issues in the selected fields (education, law, mental health, or technology), demonstrating clear connection to the limitations of human cognitive systems Creates research question that addresses potential improvements to practices in the applied setting based on the strengths of human cognitive systems Evaluate the utility of the foundational theories for practitioners with respect to their strengths and limitations Selects theory and defends with explanation on how particular theory offers the greatest utility for practitioners to apply specific to contemporary problem selected Explains the research and research findings with regard to how they apply to proposed improvements Explains the strengths and limitations of the research results and findings in supporting the research question Recommends appropriate, socially responsible strategies and techniques for improving human cognitive processes that are applicable to applied setting Explains implications of the strategies and techniques in full detail with respect to the applied setting Identifies performance issues in the selected applied setting (education, law, mental health, or technology), but connections to the limitations of human cognitive systems are unclear Does not identify performance issues in the selected applied setting (education, law, mental health, or technology) 9 Research question addresses potential improvements to practices in the applied setting, but connections to the strengths of human cognitive systems are unclear Evaluates the utility of the foundational theories for practitioners, but with gaps in addressing their strengths or limitations Selects theory but is unclear on how selection offers the greatest utility for practitioners to apply in addressing real-world issues specific to contemporary problem selected Explains the research and research findings, but does not connect to proposed improvements Explains the research results and findings, but does not address strengths or limitations Does not create research question that addresses potential improvements to practices in the applied setting 9 Does not evaluate the utility of the foundational theories 9 Does not select particular theory for practitioners to apply in addressing real-world issues 9 Does not explain how the research and research findings apply to proposed improvements Does not explain the strengths and limitations of the research results and findings in supporting the research question Does not make appropriate, socially responsible recommendations for strategies and techniques for improving human cognitive processes 9 Does not explain implications of the strategies and techniques with respect to the applied setting 9 Recommends appropriate strategies and techniques for improving human cognitive processes, but with gaps in applicability to proposal Explains implications of the strategies and techniques, but with gaps in detail with respect to the applied setting 9 9 Conclusion Articulation of Response Explains potential future direction from implementation of research specific to addressing the contemporary problem(s) Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Explains potential future direction from implementation of research, but with gaps in how it is specific to addressing the contemporary problem(s) Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Does not explain potential future direction from implementation of research study 5 Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 5 Earned Total 100% Running head: MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT PSY 540 Milestone Three Rough Draft Sarah Bertles Southern New Hampshire University 1 MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 2 Problem Statement From the time children start school at the young age of four or five, they begin to learn and utilize executive functioning skills. Executive functioning are skills such as, paying attention, managing time, planning and organization, starting a task and remembering to follow through, managing impulsivity and emotions, as well as self-reflection. Each child will learn these skills at a different pace. Teachers and other education professionals work with children on their academics; reading, writing, and mathematics. However, these professionals are also in the position to teach children how to act in a structured setting. Many children attend prekindergarten or daycare, so they head into grade school with some basic knowledge of how to act in a classroom. Unfortunately, not all children have that luxury, or they may have a learning/behavioral disability that causes them to lack these important executive functioning skills. At such early ages, parents, caregivers, and teachers are just beginning to see learning/behavioral disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in their children. In an educational setting, children are responsible for navigating their day to day requirements as a student. This means being able to focus in class, not disturb their fellow classmates, and utilize executive functioning skills. Children in early grade school, may exhibit early warning signs that educational professionals may not see as struggles in executive function. Some of these signs may include, exhibiting frustration more easily than their peers, having frequent meltdowns over little things, they may even have trouble following directions or insisting things be done a certain way. Therefore, it is important for teachers and other educational professionals to be able to analyze behaviors and have adequate behavior intervention plans in place to help children that struggle with attention/learning/behavioral disabilities. MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 3 ADHD has been long thought of as a behavioral disability, where children are hyperactive and bouncing off the walls. While this may be the case for some children, the primary problem for others is with attention. The area of cognitive psychology that relates to my topic is, attention. Attention isn’t just about listening to someone when they are talking to you. Attention encompasses all of the executive functioning skills mentioned above. Difficulties with executive functioning skills and ADHD are closely related. All children that have ADHD have trouble with executive functioning, but not all children with executive functioning issues have ADHD. “Attention has been described as a filter of information, as a spotlight focused on an aspect of the environment, and as glue that binds features of the environment together” (McBride & Cutting, 2018, p. 79). As the brain filters information, it determines the irrelevant information in the environment and allows us to choose what we want to pay attention to. Attention can also be viewed as a spotlight. Our consciousness focuses on a specific stimulus in the environment. This can be seen in children with ADHD when they hyperfocus on a specific task, such as playing video games. Focused attention involves two stages of processing the information in the environment. According to McBride & Cutting (2018), The first stage is our brain subconsciously identifying the different features of a scene in the environment, while the second stage is our brain consciously putting all of these features together to understand the scene as a whole (McBride & Cutting, 2018, p. 85). There are several theories that relate to attention. Some of these include, Broadbent’s filter model, Treisman’s attention theory, and the theory of mind. Knowing that there are theories that relate to attention, I wonder if any of these theories can help create effective behavior intervention plans to help children with impulsivity and attention. Contemporary Relevance MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 4 One theory that I think is important to discuss is David Broadbent’s filter model. Broadbent was a researcher, who first proposed that humans have a selected view of attention. He believed that “our attention is limited by the amount of information we can focus on at a particular time” (McBride & Cutting, 2018, p. 79). Humans only have a limited capacity of attention, therefore, only a limited amount of information can be attended. This is important in how everyone, including children learn how to focus and pay attention in school. In Broadbent’s filter model, he believed that information was brought in from the environment to our senses, then our brains are able to filter through the information by relying on characteristics (such as the tone of someone’s voice). Next, the information that gets passed through the filter gets sent through to our short- and long-term memories, depending on the importance of the information. Children that lack executive functioning skills or have ADHD may not be able to filter out information from the environment. The teacher may be telling the students instructions on how to complete an assignment, but the student’s peers may be talking next to him, and their may be other children in the hallway. All of these distractions jumble the thoughts and attention of the child. Teachers have the opportunities and resources available to cater to the different learning styles of their students. Behavior intervention plans are a great resource for children that may not be able to filter out the external stimuli in the environment in order to pay attention in class. Theory of mind (ToM) is another theory that can relate to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as children that have executive functioning difficulties. Theory of mind is described as the ability to interpret one’s own mental and emotional state, as well as the mental and emotional state of others. Children with ADHD and executive functioning difficulties may exhibit ToM difficulties by lack of attention or impulsivity. In a study by, Berenguer, Roello, Colomer, Baixauli, and Miranda (2018), research was completed to compare MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 5 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) plus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), ADHD, ASD, typically developing (TD) on executive function (EF), theory of mind (ToM), and behavior problems. 124 children and their families were broken into groups based on the child’s diagnosis and they completed a battery of assessments. Based on the data analysis, the results show that children with ASD and with ADHD had significant differences of executive functioning compared to children in the typically developing group. These groups also showed differences in the application of ToM knowledge in the real world. However, the group with ADHD showed more behavioral and hyperactivity problems. The group of children with combined ASD and ADHD presented more executive functioning difficulties and more behavioral difficulties. The results showed that inattention was also a significant variable with ToM skills. This study has shown that children with ADHD and executive functioning difficulties also share difficulties with inattention and ToM skills. Educators can utilize this information to prepare intervention plans that can effectively teach children that suffer from these difficulties. Research Findings School-based training programs for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are created to allow students to learn at their full potential. The Challenging Horizons Program-the afterschool version (CHP-AS), and the Challenging Horizons Program-the mentoring version (CHP-M) are two school-based training programs that Evans, Schultz, Langberg, Vaughn, Altaye, Marshall, & Zoromski, (2016) chose to utilize during their research. 326 students in grades sixth through eighth grade with a diagnosis of ADHD, completed a study over the course of a year; with CHP-AS occurring twice a week. For CHP-M, each student was paired with a mentor who was trained by one of the consultants and delivered the interventions MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 6 during school hours. The results of this study show that CHP-AS benefits young adolescents with ADHD, by providing organizational and time management skills, as well as helped with homework problems, academic functioning and inattentiveness. The limitations of this study include the setting and the time period in which the study was completed. This study was conducted over a two-year period that included a baseline and follow-up. There was some missing data and gaps in the services, due to school holidays or missed days of school. There was also a limited number of participants with significant social impairment, partly because the parents rated their children as being in the normal range for social functioning. The strength of this survey is that this study shows that behavior intervention programs are ideal for teaching skills and that they are better than at home and classroom accommodations. Another study by authors, Nolan & Filter (2012), looked at functional assessments and functional analysis technologies to facilitate post-international adoptees (PIA) students with problem classroom behaviors. This study utilized functional based analyses to determine the behaviors. Previous interventions have failed partly because they were based on the assumption that the problems were maintained by escaping or attention-seeking. The participant population included only one male student that was adopted from Eastern Europe and attended a public elementary school in the Midwestern United States. According the study, this student grew up in an orphanage and once in the United States was able to qualify for special education, based on his diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He had many behavioral problems that included inappropriate verbal and physical outbursts. These outbursts led to him being continuously pulled from the classroom most days, resulting in the absence of instructional time. The limitations of this study were there was only one participant, and the study was only MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 7 interested in post international adoption student. However, these functional analysis assessments and technologies could be personalized to meet the needs of a variety of students. The study tested the student using a functional analysis. It tested the student in four conditions: play, alone, escape, and attention. It was conducted in five phases, including a baseline and intervention phase. The results suggest that the student’s problem behaviors occurred most frequently in the alone condition. The findings suggest that a combination of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and response cost (RC) are more effective at treating problem behaviors. A strength of the survey is that it suggests the functional analysis was able to reduce the behaviors to a manageable level during the treatment. Like the research done by Evans, Schultz, Langberg, Vaughn, Altaye, Marshall, & Zoromski, (2016), this study is useful for educators because it allows them to identify ways a functional analysis is beneficial to children with attention and impulsivity issues. Once a functional analysis is done to see what the problem areas are for the student, a behavior intervention plan can be created. While they are called behavior intervention plans, they help the students with a plethora of issues that a child may face in the classroom. It is not just about trying to regulate behaviors, but to allow the child to be able to focus and pay attention in class. To evaluate the use of behavioral skills training (BST), and to teach educators in a school setting how to implement the components of a student’s behavior intervention plan (BIP), Hogan, Knez, & Kahng (2015), created a study that consisted of two phases. The first phase consisted of the verbal instructions and modeling of the BST. The second phase consisted of the rehearsal of the procedures. Based on the results, the research indicated that BST’s are effective MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 8 at teaching educators the different components of a BIP and that the educator’s implementation improved after the training. My research revolves around effective behavior intervention plans that can help children with attention and impulsivity; therefore, this article has results and findings that I can utilize to help me better understand behavioral skills training methods and how they affect behavior intervention plans. The strength of this article is that it provides me with tangible data and gives me a starting off point with my research. However, there are limitations to this study. The participants of this study included four female instructional staff members that are not licensed educators. They work in a nonpublic day school for children with autism and other developmental disabilities. This can be a strength, due to the educational setting only focusing on children with disabilities. The limitation is that it is a small participant pool and the lack of experience within the participant pool. The study only included two students. Two staff members were trained on student A’s BIP, while the other two staff members were trained on student B’s BIP. Methodological Principles After researching attention in a school setting, I noticed that there aren’t a lot of programs specifically geared towards children that have attention difficulties. Most intervention plans focus their goals on disruptive behaviors. For this reason, the research question that I would like to propose is, what are some effective behavior intervention plans to help children with impulsivity and attention? I have found solid research that suggests intervention plans do work for children. However, I will still need to research different types of plans, that focus the interventions on techniques used to improve attention and impulsivity. I would also like to expand the research, to include teaching strategies; this would be beneficial for general education MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 9 teachers to use in their classroom, as a whole. Many students, especially those just beginning school lack attention. Most students are able to adjust, while others need individual education plans (IEP) and specialized education to help them succeed. Those students that don’t quite meet the qualifications for an IEP still benefit from intervention techniques. Also, many students with IEP’s are mainstreamed into general education classrooms. For these reasons, I think there is a greater need to teach all educators intervention techniques that can be used to help a larger population of students. Conclusion Attention at school is not just a problem focusing on what the teacher is saying or staying on task; it encompasses so many other behaviors. Some of these include, anxiety, which may be caused by separation from family and worrying something might happen while they are apart; or being embarrassed that they will say the wrong answer or worrying that their work isn’t perfect enough. Some children have obsessive compulsive disorder or are affected by stress/trauma. Lastly, attention could be disrupted due to learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. Sometimes, teachers are the first ones to see these attention difficulties in children. This is because they are in a structured setting, unlike the comforts of a child’s home. The best intervention is to first acknowledge that there is a problem. The second-best intervention is teaching the professionals the tools they need to provide strategies to their students. From this point, my research would propose that educators learn how to personalize their classroom strategies to build confident learners, manage disruptive behaviors, and provide tools for students that lack executive function skills. MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT 10 References Berenguer, C., Roselló, B., Colomer, C., Baixauli, I., & Miranda, A. (2018). Children with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Relationships between symptoms and executive function, theory of mind, and behavioral problems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, 260–269. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.10.001 Evans, S.W., Schultz, B. K., Langberg, J. M., Vaughn, A., Altaye, M., Marshall, S. A., & Zoromski, A. (2016). Evaluation of a school-based treatment program for young adolescents with adhd. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (1), 15. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgih&AN=edsgcl.452393241&site =eds-live&scope=site Hogan, A., Knez, N., & Kahng, S. (2015). Evaluating the use of behavioral skills training to improve school staffs’ implementation of behavior intervention plans. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(2), 242-254. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s10864-014-9213-9 McBride, D.M., & Cutting, J. C. (2019). Cognitive psychology interactive ebook. 2nd ed. Cengage Learning. Nolan, J. D., & Filter, K. J. (2012). A function-based classroom behavior intervention using noncontingent reinforcement plus response Cost. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(3), 419. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.42900594&site=ed s-live&scope=site
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Cancellation
I have attached your solution. Feel welcome for edits if any. I hope you will invite me privately in the future. Cheers!😀

Running Head: OVERVIEW

1

Overview
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

2

OVERVIEW
Overview
The proposal's strengths are the selection, and the theories proposed to describe the

problem of attention in schools. The use of David Broadbent's filter model explains how people
filter information that they give attention to. The relevance of the theory is to explore the
behaviors related to how students focus on what to give attention to. The model helps
understand why people have different filtering capability so that they can pay attention to what is
necessary. A child with ADHD cannot filter information in the environment, which affects the
attention in a classroom. Also, the theory of mind focuses on how a person understands and
interprets one's mental and emotional state as well as that of others. The approac...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags