Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T12:27:17.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour State: Exploring Issues in Best Practice for Students with the Most Severe and Multiple Disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Michael Arthur ,
Julie Hook  and
Nancy Butterfield
Michael Arthur*
Affiliation:
The Univeristy of Newcastle
Julie Hook
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
Nancy Butterfield
Affiliation:
NSW Department of School Education
*
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael Arthur Special Education Centre, Univeristy of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Behaviour state appears to be a powerful variable in students who experience the most severe and multiple disabilities, impacting upon the effectiveness of educational interventions and ultimately the quality of life experienced by individuals with such high support needs.

Most recently, research attention has been paid to the many qualitative dimensions of behaviour state and although at an early stage, such studies have allowed for the delineation of important influencing factors in state change as well as serving to stimulate many new avenues for further research.

This discussion paper will examine, albeit tentatively, the implications of current research in this area with respect to best practice, including aspects of curriculum design and professional development. How effectively does a functional curriculum articulate with the priorities and directions suggested by such research? How can teachers and others working in this area be supported in the provision of meaningful interventions which promote and produce increases in optimal behavioural states? The paper concludes by suggesting future directions for research and practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp. 37 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, M., Hook, J., Butterfield, N., & Winsley, G. (1994). Exploring behaviour state: Issues in educational planning for students with the most severe and multiple disabilities. In Arthur., M., Conway., R.N.F., & Foreman, P.J. (Eds)., Quality and equality in intellectual disability: Proceedings of the 29th National Conference of the Australian Society for the Study of Intellectual Disability. Newcastle: ASSID. Google Scholar
Brown, F., Helmstetter, E., & Guess, D. (1986). Current best practices with students with profound disabilities: Are there any? Unpublished manuscript, University of New York at Binghamton.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. (1991). Assessment of preverbal communicative abilities in students with severe intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 77(4), 347–364.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. & Arthur, M. (1994). Addressing teacher needs and concerns in communication interventions for students with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 41(3), 201–212.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. & Arthur, M. (1995). Shifting the focus: Emerging priorities in communication programming for students with a severe intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, March, 41–50.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N., Arthur, M., & Sigafoos, J. (in press). Partners in everyday communicative exchanges: A guide to promoting interaction involving people with severe intellectual disability. Sydney: MacLennan and Petty. Google Scholar
Eames, P., & Wood, R. (1984). Consciousness in the brain-damaged adult. In Stevens, R. (Ed.), Aspects of consciousness: Vol 4. Clinical issues. London: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Falvey, M. (1989). Community-based curriculum. Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (2nd edn). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar
Ferguson, D. (1985). The ideal and the real: The working out of public policy in curricula for severely handicapped students. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 52–60.Google Scholar
Gannon, P.M. (1986). Research with moderately, severely, profoundly retarded and autistic individuals (1975 to 1983): An evaluation of ecological validity. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 12(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
Groundwater-Smith, S., Parker, J., & Arthur, M. (1994). Partnership: Beyond consultation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 79(1), 9–14.Google Scholar
Guess, D. (1989). Foreword. In Brown, F. & D.H., Lehr (Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes. Google Scholar
Guess, D., Mulligan Ault, M., Roberts, S., Struth, J., Siegel-Causey, E., Thompson, B., Bronicki, G.J.B., & Guy, B. (1988). Implications of biobehavioral states for the education and treatment of students with the most profoundly handicapping conditions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(3), 163–174.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Roberts, S., Siegel-Causey, E., Ault, M., Guy, B., Thompson, B., & Rues, J. (1993a). Analysis of behavior state conditions and associated environmental variables among students with profound handicaps. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 6, 634–653.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Roberts, S., Siegel-Causey, E., Mulligan Ault, M., Guy, B., Thompson, B., Rues, J., & Siegel-Causey, D. (1991). Investigations into the state behaviours of students with severe and profound handicapping conditions. Monograph of the Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Guess, D., & Sailor, W. (1993). Chaos theory and the study of human behavior: Implications for special education and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 16–34.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Siegel-Causey, E., Roberts, S., Guy, B., Mulligan Ault, M., & Rues, J. (1993b). Analysis of state organizational patterns among students with profound disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(2), 93–108.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Siegel-Causey, E., Roberts, S., Rues, J., Thompson, B., & Siegel-Causey, D. (1990). Assessment and analysis of behavior state and related variables among students with profoundly handicapping conditions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4), 211–230.Google Scholar
Guy, B., Guess, D., & Mulligan Ault, M. (1993a). Classroom procedures for the measurement of behavior state among students with profound disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
Guy, B., Mulligan Ault, M., & Guess, D. (1993b). Project Able Manual. Lawrence: University of Kansas Department of Special Education. Google Scholar
Izen, C.L., & Brown, F. (1991). Education and treatment needs of students with profound, multiply handicapping and medically fragile conditions: A survey of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16(2), 94–103.Google Scholar
National Schools Project (1993). Report of the National External Review Panel. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Google Scholar
Rainforth, B. (1982). Biobehavioral state and orienting: Implications for educating profoundly retarded students. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 33–37.Google Scholar
Richards, S.B., & Sternberg, L. (1992). A preliminary analysis of environmental variables affecting the observed biobehavioural states of individuals with profound handicaps. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 36, 403–414.Google Scholar
Richards, S., & Sternberg, L. (1993). Corroborating previous findings: Laying stepping stones in the analysis of biobehavioral states in students with profound disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, Sept, 262–268.Google Scholar
Sailor, W., Gee, K., Goetz, L., & Graham, N. (1988). Progress in educating students with the most severe disabilities: Is there any? Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(2), 87–99.Google Scholar
Sailor, W., Goetz, L., Anderson, J., Hunt, P., & Gee, K. (1988). Research on community intensive instruction as a model for building functional, generalizedskills. In Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L. (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes. Google Scholar
Siegel-Causey, E., & Guess, D. (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes. Google Scholar
Szekeres, S.F., Ylvisaker, M., & Holland, A.L. (1985). Cognitive rehabilitation therapy:A framework for intervention. In M. Ylvisaker, M. (Ed.), Head injury rehabilitation: Children and adolescents. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Google Scholar
Thompson, B., & Guess, D. (1989). Students who experience the most profound disabilities: Teacher perspectives. Chapter 1 in Brown, F. & Lehr., D. (Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes. Google Scholar
Wolff, P.H. (1959). Observations on newborn infants. In Stone, L.J., Smith, H.T. & Murphy, L.B. (Eds). The competent infant. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar