5.7 Teaching Procedure Case Lab

Integrated case: morning arrival routine

A supervisor has written a teaching plan for Jordan, a school-age client working on a morning arrival routine and functional communication. The plan includes a task analysis for unpacking, least-to-most prompting for opening the backpack, shaping for a clearer help request, and generalization across the classroom aide and the RBT. The RBT is assigned to implement the plan during arrival, collect step-level and communication data, and report patterns to the supervisor. The RBT is not asked to redesign the plan.

The arrival chain has six steps: walk to cubby, remove backpack, unzip backpack, place folder in bin, hang backpack, and sit at desk. The current chaining procedure is total-task chaining because Jordan can do several steps but needs help with unzipping and placing the folder. The prompt hierarchy for each step is independent opportunity, gestural prompt, model prompt, partial physical prompt. Full physical prompting is not authorized for this routine.

Reinforcement is brief access to a preferred drawing pad after the completed routine, with behavior-specific praise for independent steps if that wording is acceptable in the setting.

The communication target is requesting help when stuck. The current shaping criterion is any vocal approximation containing /h/ or use of the help icon on Jordan's AAC page within 5 seconds of the stuck point. Silent reaching toward the adult does not meet the current criterion for this target. The prompt plan allows a model prompt: the RBT may say "help" while pointing near the AAC help icon after 5 seconds with no criterion response. The plan also says to honor either the vocal approximation or the AAC response, because both are approved response forms.

During the first session, Jordan walks to the cubby independently and removes the backpack after a gesture. At the zipper, Jordan reaches toward the RBT's hand and looks at the backpack. The RBT waits 5 seconds, then models "help" and points near the AAC help icon. Jordan touches the help icon. The RBT provides the planned assistance for the zipper and records the request as model prompted AAC. Jordan places the folder in the bin independently, hangs the backpack after a model, and sits at the desk independently. The RBT records each step separately rather than marking the whole routine correct.

During the second session, the classroom aide presents the arrival routine while the RBT observes as assigned. Jordan walks to the cubby, removes the backpack, and unzips independently. At the folder step, Jordan places the folder on the floor and looks at the aide. The aide repeats the instruction three times, which is not part of the plan. Jordan then puts the folder in the bin. The RBT should not correct the aide harshly in front of the client or rewrite the procedure.

The RBT should follow workplace communication expectations, record the context objectively if responsible for data, and report to the supervisor that repeated instructions occurred during the aide generalization opportunity.

This case shows why Chapter 5 procedures must stay distinct. The help request is being shaped, so the RBT must know the current approximation. The zipper step is part of a chain, so the RBT must record step-level prompts. The aide session is a generalization opportunity, so the person presenting the routine matters. The model prompt for help is a response prompt, so it should not be recorded as independent. The planned absence of full physical prompting is a fidelity and dignity boundary, so speed does not justify adding it.

A strong end-of-session note might say: "Arrival routine completed across two opportunities. With RBT, Jordan completed steps 1, 4, and 6 independently; step 2 with gesture; steps 3 and 5 with model prompts. At zipper, Jordan reached silently, then selected AAC help icon after model prompt. With classroom aide, Jordan completed steps 1 to 3 independently, placed folder on floor at step 4, then placed it in bin after aide repeated instruction three times. Reported repeated-instruction variation to supervisor." This note avoids blame, protects dignity, and gives the supervisor useful implementation data.

If Jordan refuses the backpack, pushes materials away, or appears distressed, the RBT follows the behavior plan and workplace procedures. If the plan does not say what to do, the RBT prioritizes safety and dignity and seeks direction. If the caregiver later asks the RBT to add a shoe-tying goal to the arrival routine, the RBT acknowledges the request and communicates it to the supervisor rather than adding steps. Integrated teaching is still supervised teaching.

For study purposes, case labs help sort tempting answers. The best RBT response is rarely to design a new prompt, skip data, label the client as noncompliant, or promise an outcome to a stakeholder. The stronger response is to implement the written procedure, collect objective and detailed data, communicate concerns through the proper channel, and ask the supervisor when the plan, client response, or environmental condition makes implementation unclear.