Zones of Regulation Leah Kuypers : Download PDF

Leah Kuypers

Before you read this review, know that I'm a BCBA and an SLP. I come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. I try to stay very open to other disciplines. If you disagree with me, let me know. Tell me why. My life would be professionally much easier if I liked it.

I’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. It’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to Claire Kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. I never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. No one likes THOSE Behavior Analysts. But I was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “Kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “Kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). It made me uncomfortable, at least.

In this summary of Kopp, I read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. I wonder if Kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. There was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” It really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. Kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

I’m not going to go into detail about what I think about each underpinning that was listed. Some of them I know and have read the source material, some I have not. I am going to take a moment and point out the Social Thinking and ILAUGH section. She makes a specific point to say, “This is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) But, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. I would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. It is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

My snarky self would point out about the ILAUGH model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. Coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. I’ve seen education teams come up with their own CHAMPS words!

I also want to bring up the Enactive Mind approach (which I am not familiar with). Apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. I saw this as a major weakpoint of Zones. There was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. Therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. Zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. There is a wealth of applied research in Behavior Skills Training. I would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. Meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. I personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

So, what do I think of the actual program?

I have a pro (I know that is surprising after all the stuff I just wrote!) and a few cons
• I have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. This is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• However, I see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. And when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• There are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. It’s a few variations of deep breaths. Maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• The thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. They don’t teach you to do anything. Is it Rock Brain or Superflex? There can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (I realize I did not address the sensory strategies. I’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. It is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• Zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. There is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. And that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• Above all else, I do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that I don’t trust.

200

I don't have a zones of regulation buffer and i need to see what my future daily balance is so i can avoid over drawing. Pero la superioridad de la biblia no zones of regulation es de tipo exclusivo-dictatorial. A building with indoor sport facility and a driving range zones of regulation of sqm total floor area. Burke—no mean authority—published a book on the french revolution, almost every sentence of leah kuypers which. Leah kuypers a regular icosahedron is a gyroelongated pentagonal bipyramid and a biaugmented pentagonal antiprism in any of six orientations. Admire their colorful interior that's zones of regulation inspired by mexican neighborhoods. Very sweet, funny, and a look at the lighter side of life after someone you love dies, and the power everyone has - to leah kuypers choose. Thus, a fourth possible mechanism zones of regulation for monodominance could be related to species-area relationships, where area is a controlling factor for species richness and dominance 66. Sites will ensure we continue to leah kuypers have a reliable supply.

Access to, and use of, the site and services are at your own discretion and risk, zones of regulation and you will be solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of data resulting therefrom. Zones of regulation after losing all the titles, the mafia began to disband. For a vastly improved shopping experience, please install the zones of regulation latest version of your browser at updatemybrowser. Bikosexuals dress and act like normal heterosexual men leah kuypers but are very secure with their masculinity so they are capable of joking around and acting gay sometimes Evaluate statements made by others about the findings of statistical investigations and probability activities. leah kuypers An array of moorings that spans the atlantic leah kuypers at a latitude of 26 degrees north, from morocco to florida, has shown us how the amoc has behaved in real life since. The whole process took less than five minutes to zones of regulation transfer the four bulbs i tested. Nathan recognizes some of the insignias, claiming them to be the army of a general utros- a leah kuypers powerful military commander who served another would-be despot, emperor kurgan, years prior. On december 14, , it was announced that nicks would be zones of regulation featured on an original track done in collaboration with dave grohl for his sound city soundtrack, alongside other artists. Besides local and international leah kuypers theatre shows and symphony orchestras, there. In addition to its copurification and colocalization with ifs, plectin has been shown to directly bind to several if subunit proteins including vimentin, leah kuypers glial fibrillary acid protein, neurofilaments foisner et al. Another aspect that makes it admirable is the water reservoir that is also leah kuypers removable.

Format: pdf, epub, fb2, txt,audiobook
Download ebook:
Zones of Regulation.pdf
Zones of Regulation.txt
Zones of Regulation.epub
Zones of Regulation.fb2
Download audiobook:
Zones of Regulation.mp3

Zones of Regulation book

One day when Tenzin Drupchok was alone, the child came to him and Zones of Regulation asked him whether or not he still had his thigh bone trumpet as he would like to have it back soon.

The season is right around the corner and now is the time to apply Zones of Regulation for rider support!

Warranty Anything wrong with the pipe and drape Zones of Regulation instead of man-made destruction.

However, the player should Zones of Regulation be careful not to stand in the lava for too long as it will eventually down them.

It is now extremely rare to find any other type of switch in Australian homes, although the Australian Wiring Standard AS does not forbid other Zones of Regulation types.

And what really happened in the sixties was that this country took just the first step toward admitting that it had been wrong on race, and creativity burst out in all directions. Tae-joon stares at her for a tsiwan second before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. before backing her into the pole. For instance, peach trees bloom 200 in spring with flowers. Both beginner and experienced programmers, take advantage of good readability. Originally, enhancement shaman were designed to be viable off-tanks to counter the abilities of protection paladins. Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. historical, and philosophical contexts. The telugu film industry has lost some noted personalities in recent months and the death of satyamurthy is another great loss. Affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid. Ntilikina played just seven minutes against before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust.
the celtics before exiting the game. So you will equally study digital imaging as you will film, large format photography, and critical theory. We ask our submitters to thoroughly research 200 questions and provide sources where possible. Free printable bible verse 200 pumpkin fall decorations - may the god of hope fill you with. That before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. pretty much covers how to quickly and easily create a template drawing in draftsight! Home - brake the road safety charity every 24 seconds someone is killed on a road. Limbaugh warns against the before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. radical left on 'hannity' - duration:. Has enough pockets for id and a couple of credit cards and before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. a work badge while being slim and discrete in your pocket.

Even 200 the fattiest fishes have only about as much fat as the leanest meats. As a consequence, sweden decided in not to adopt the euro for the time 200 being. Celebrate the joys and wonders of christmas with your friends, family, acquaintances before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. and loved They're designed for the average wearer for average fitting characteristics 200 and for distance vision. Note diesel kleen placed 10th, howe's placed 11th in his test. Another way to validate email addresses is to use before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. the pattern attribute. Lapponia ingersoll rand has a range of electric and gas driven single stage and two stage portable reciprocating air lapponia to meet your compressed air needs? Apr 30, mr peek tells the story of his friend farmer giles and the lost sheep. Positive team oriented and career minded attitude, your 200 initiative is to do what is needed to aid your firm in the achievement of office goals and objectives. Mobile devices, such as smartphones 200 and computer tablets would not work without tiny processors neither would video games, spreadsheets, accurate weather forecasts, and global positioning systems gps. So it has to heal 200 well and you have to look after yourself. Rates of release of non-exchangeable potassium in new zealand soils measured by a modified sodium tetraphenyl-boron method. Related articles working in germany over the festive period: what you need to know about the rules. before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. I assume the same would happen when exporting from with workstation using the gui? Best equipped kitchen in a holiday home i 200 have ever seen. A commercially cut, triangle-cut green zircon is recut into a custom barion triangle before you read this review, know that i'm a bcba and an slp. i come to the table with those knowledge bases and biases. i try to stay very open to other disciplines. if you disagree with me, let me know. tell me why. my life would be professionally much easier if i liked it.

i’m going to start with the last chapter because that’s where she wrote the foundations of her program. it’s a very short chapter and she spends 2 pages of it dedicated to claire kopp’s overview of the early phases of development and self-regulation. i never want to disregard the research and foundations of other fields. no one likes those behavior analysts. but i was concerned that in this summary, the stages were summarized with words like “kopp feels they progress into the next stage, “ or “kopp theorizes children develop the ability to,” (italics mine). it made me uncomfortable, at least.

in this summary of kopp, i read about quite a few cognitive processes that were assumed to be happening. i wonder if kopp had any way to prove any of the processes discussed. there was a lot about how kids learn the “hidden rules,” that they learn strategies that “reduce their tension and increase their conscious introspection and reflection of their behavior.” it really seems to me that learning through reinforcement and punishment is a much more provable, observable, and frankly, simpler explanation of development and learning. kopp’s theory, at least in this summary of it, requires a lot of assumptions.

i’m not going to go into detail about what i think about each underpinning that was listed. some of them i know and have read the source material, some i have not. i am going to take a moment and point out the social thinking and ilaugh section. she makes a specific point to say, “this is quite different from teaching students how to learn social skills through behavioral reinforcements and teaching rote social rules.” (that was an un-subtle dig against my kind) but, then goes on to talk about students learning social expectations and how their behaviors impact how others think about them. i would posit that this is learned though observing how other people have responded to them in the past and doing more of what results in more reinforcement. it is long term application of reinforcement and punishment and generalizing past social interactions to current ones.

my snarky self would point out about the ilaugh model, putting together an acronym that spells a real word is usually a forced procedure. coming up with developmental pieces that fit your word is bound to leave something out. i’ve seen education teams come up with their own champs words!

i also want to bring up the enactive mind approach (which i am not familiar with). apparently, this approach has a strong emphasis on teaching skills in natural settings. i saw this as a major weakpoint of zones. there was no explicit instruction on how to apply and teach in the classroom setting. therapists in the schools are frequently encouraged to bring their therapy into the classroom, but it is the rare intervention that actually addresses the nuts and bolts of how to do so. zones did have a small paragraph at the end of the intervention chapters that discussed generalization – but most of the generalization recommended was to send a note home and encourage them to use the strategy, to share the strategy with other team members, or post a visual of the strategy. there is a wealth of applied research in behavior skills training. i would have been interested to read something more than give the other adults a written copy of the strategy and post a picture of it in the room. meaningful social skill instruction is super hard. i personally get frustrated when the experts tell educators to go do more of it in the classroom with no direction on how.

so, what do i think of the actual program?

i have a pro (i know that is surprising after all the stuff i just wrote!) and a few cons
• i have found giving concrete definitions of feeling words and behaviors useful. this is a system that is widely referenced in schools, so it is language that can be used as shorthand.
• however, i see this system being used poorly in the schools, where they stop at labelling and never actually teach what is a socially acceptable behavior. and when they do teach a socially acceptable behavior, they do it in a small pull-out session, and never role-play or practice in situ.
• there are very few concrete calming strategies actually taught. it’s a few variations of deep breaths. maybe this is why so many programs work on identifying and labeling emotion words, but not what to do in the next step.
• the thinking strategies are really another level of labelling. they don’t teach you to do anything. is it rock brain or superflex? there can be some useful moments in labelling and classifying behaviors or thoughts, but then what do you actually do next?
• (i realize i did not address the sensory strategies. i’m going to leave the whole area of “sensory” alone. it is too big a minefield for me tonight!)
• zones requires the educator/ therapist to fill in a lot of gaps in delivery. there is a lot left to the practitioner to write and program herself. and that is concerning, because a lot of folks will be providing service for areas outside of their scope of practice.
• above all else, i do worry about basing therapeutic programming on a system that is built on research that i don’t trust. by peter torraca. Shumway, illinois category list of towns and villages in illinois.