S.T.A.R.T. 1

Learning to Train Dogs Reduces Noncompliant/Aggressive Classroom Behaviors of Students with Behavior Disorders

We wish to express our appreciation to the students who participated in this investigation, their principal and teacher, the administrators in the school district, the Louisiana Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Jefferson Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, all of whom made it possible to conduct research involving students working with animals. This research was completed by the first author in partial fulfillment of the single-subject research requirements of her doctoral studies in the Department of Special Education and Habilitative Services at the University of New Orleans.

Concern about how to reduce noncompliant/aggressive behaviors in classrooms is widespread in today's schools, particularly among teachers of students with behavior disorders. According to Fisher and Lerner (1994), about 1 child in 10 has behavioral problems persistent enough to interfere with her or his learning and development in school. School is not the only setting in which inappropriate social behaviors have negative repercussions. Research findings suggest that inadequate social skills may be the most critical obstacle to the successful adult adjustment of individuals with behavior disorders (Schloss, Schloss, Wood, & Kiehl, 1986). Many different programs have been developed to reduce the noncompliant, aggressive, and otherwise inappropriate social behaviors exhibited by this population; however, most involve directly teaching new social skills (Dunlap & Childs, 1996).

Typically educators choose to teach social skills by (a) having students act out a role, (b) directly manipulating consequences for exhibiting appropriate or inappropriate social behaviors, or (c) some combination of the above. Acting out a role includes having students identify and define a problem connected to that role, develop alternative solutions, identify and evaluate potential consequences, and implement a solution. Teachers may also directly manipulate consequences for appropriate/inappropriate social behaviors. Unfortunately, these methods have produced inconsistent success, particularly in maintaining/generalizing social skills outside of the setting in which they were taught (Mathur & Rutherford, 1991; Schloss et al., 1986). Two possible reasons for this lack of maintenance and generalization of skills may be that (a) consequences are not always manipulatable outside the school setting and (b) students are not incorporating the roles they play and the accompanying solutions to their own lives and problems.

The present study attempted to address these problems by expanding upon the social role-activity theory, which holds that meaningful activity associated with social roles is the basis for strengthening identity, self esteem, and values (Brickel, 1985), all qualities generally found to be positively correlated with socially acceptable behavior (Haynes, 1989). Haynes' findings from a 1989 study of 142 middle school students supported the theory that self-concept is a strong predictor of students' behavior. He found that if children viewed themselves as being ill mannered and lacking discipline, they were inclined to behave that way. Theoretically then, if students form positive self-images of themselves, they will behave accordingly.

Social role-activity theory differs from role playing by having individuals actually assume a role rather than merely acting out the role for a short period of time. When role playing, students may see themselves as merely playing the part of another. Therefore, when they stop playing the role, they may also stop the behaviors associated with that role. Having students actually assume a new role can help them to develop a new self-image. Thus, rather than exhibiting the desired behaviors only in a certain setting, students may assimilate those behaviors as part of whom they now see themselves to be.

In this investigation, we chose to have students experience the role of teacher by training a dog to be a service animal for an individual with physical disabilities, rather than just acting the part of teacher in a role playing exercise.

Brickel (1986) suggested that animals can be used to provide non threatening opportunities for people to try on roles and work out role conflicts. Perhaps this is because interactions with animals can provide a safe way for children to place their trust in a non-judgmental animal before placing confidence in humans (Gonski, 1985). By using dogs as pupils, students acting as teachers need not fear being judged and ridiculed by their peers for their attempts at teaching.

There are other benefits of using dogs as pupils rather than humans. Gonski (1985) reported that children who feel intimidated by interactions with adults and others can have a sense of control when training a dog to follow their commands. In addition, Gonski found that children who learned to control the behavior of a dog showed concurrent improvements in controlling their own behaviors. Blue (1986) and White (1984) also noted that training an animal to behave acceptably can promote a child's self-control, as well as their self-competence, patience, and ability to delay gratification - all desirable qualities for students with behavior disorders.

One of the biggest questions associated with animal-assisted interventions is whether positive results achieved through interactions animals can be transferred to interactions with humans. In an attempt to test the transference theory, Ray (1982) sent questionnaires to 400 randomly selected people in Australia to determine if those who professed a high degree of love for animals also showed a similar love for people. He found no significant correlation between the two variables. Ray's survey has been used to undermine the transference theory. However, he was examining existing attitudes as opposed to the effects of an intervention involving training animals on changing behaviors/ attitudes.

A number of studies have indicated support for the transference theory, suggesting that interactions with animals can be a "bridge" to improved interactions with humans. Although references to the benefits of human/animal interactions have been noted as early as 1792 (Bustad, 1979), one of the first formal studies to report support for the transference theory was done by Corson, Corson, and Gwynne (1975). In their discussion of the study, they repeatedly described a widening circle of warmth and approval as patients of a psychiatric ward who initially exhibited pro-social interactions with pets gradually began to include pro-social interactions with other clients and staff.

The People Pet Partnership program at the Purdue Treatment Center for Women in Washington State has shown success in effecting long-term changes in the behavior of inmates (Hines, 1983). For the past 17 years, inmates have been taught how to train dogs to aid individuals who have physical disabilities. Administrators in the prison reported an increase in cooperation by the inmates who participated in the program. Hines noted that inmates in the program displayed increased self-control and self esteem, and reported new perspectives on themselves and others. She also noted that inmates additionally benefitted by learning a new vocation. The Beechworth prison in Victoria, Australia (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991) has a similar program that involves teaching inmates how to take care of animals. They have reported similar long-term improvements in inmates' behaviors. Researchers at the Lorton Correctional facility in Lorton, Virginia found that inmates who participated in the People, Animals and Love (PAL) program exhibited impressive long-term changes in their behaviors (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991). They noted that inmates involved in the program (which teaches inmates how to care for the health and grooming needs of animals) exhibited fewer problem behaviors than the general prison population. After following up on a sample of 88 participating inmates who had been released from prison, they found that 97% had not been reincarcerated (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991). Other studies support the transference theory as well (Levinson, 1965; Ruth, 1992).

Evidence exists to indicate that positive feelings/ interactions with animals transfers to improved interactions with humans (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991; Levinson, 1965; Ruth, 1992). The purpose of this study was to determine whether teaching adolescents with behavior disorders to train a dog would reduce/eliminate noncompliant/aggressive classroom behaviors.

Method

We choose to conduct our research at a middle school for students with emotional and behavioral problems. The principal of the school suggested a particular class whose teacher and assistant had expressed an interest in the program. To identify students interested in participating, Ms. S., the senior author/ investigator, talked to the entire class about training dogs and showed them a short videotape of trainers with their dogs. She then showed a short videotape about animal shelters and explained to students that some of the dogs in shelters could be saved if they could be trained as service animals for people with disabilities. After a short question and answer period, she asked if any students would be interested in learning how to train a service dog. Those who were interested took a permission letter home for their parents to complete and sign. The letter included questions about whether students had any known fears concerning dogs or if they had any known allergies to dogs. It also included a permission statement about videotaping their son or daughter in the classroom throughout the project. Ms. S. asked the students to return the letters within a week so that we could begin to schedule the training.

After receiving permission, we chose to observe three students in a class of seven based on the severity of their behaviors as reported by their teacher. We took baseline data on all three students, but due to time constraints, only two of them had an opportunity to train a dog. We gave the students pseudonyms to protect her or his identify. Sheila was a 13 year-old white female, Jamal was a 13-year-old hispanic male, and Ken was a 13-year-old black male. All exhibited excessive noncompliant/aggressive verbal and physical behaviors. Reducing these behaviors was part of each student's I.E.P.

Preliminary Procedures

As can be seen in Figure 1, during baseline, Sheila exhibited the target behaviors for an average of 55% of the intervals observed daily, ranging from a low of 23% to a high of 94%. After she started training the dog, her average dropped to 26%, ranging from 0% to a high of 88%. (She was absent on days 14, 18, 19, and 23). This showed a drop of 53% in the average amount of target behaviors. Although her noncompliant/aggressive behaviors only dropped slightly on day 5, the first day after training the dog, it dropped sharply over the next three days to 6% on day 8. At that point she reverted to 45% on day 13. However, for the last 6 days her noncompliant/ aggressive behaviors decelerated consistently, showing none on day 22 and ending with 7% on the last day of intervention.

Jamal's baseline data are more variable, ranging from a low of 18% to a high of 78%, with a mean of 38%. After he started training the dog, his noncompliant/aggressive classroom behaviors ranged from 0% to 30%, with a mean of 12%. This is a 67% drop in average amount of target behaviors displayed from baseline (average 38%) to intervention (average 12%).

After the first day of intervention, the percentage of time that Jamal exhibited the target behaviors dropped from 47% to 14%, a 33% change. It decreased further by the last day of intervention to the point that he displayed no target behaviors at all (although he was observed for only 30 minutes that period). During all 6 days of intervention, his data only increased once (to 30%), which was the only time his intervention data crossed over with his baseline data.

Ken's baseline data ranged from 13% to 100%, with a mean of 80%. Due to the school year ending, Ken never had an opportunity to train a dog. Perusing his data reveals relatively stable data with only two outliers (days 8 and 22), with no consistent decelerating or accelerating pattern.

The data in Figure 1 reveal that Sheila and Jamal's noncompliant/aggressive verbal and physical behaviors decreased after they participated in dog training sessions. Both of them appeared to be eager to work with the dog, and responded appropriately to all instructions related to the training. Both were gentle and patient with the dog. Ms. S. observed no aggression on the part of either the students or the dog during the sessions. Furthermore, neither Sheila nor Jamal exhibited their noncompliant/aggressive target behaviors during a dog-training session.

The findings suggest that teaching these students with behavior disorders to train dogs effectively decreased undesirable classroom behaviors. Sheila showed a 53% drop in target behaviors after participating in the intervention, while Jamal showed a 67% drop from baseline to intervention. The data for Ken, who did not participate in dog training sessions, remained relatively stable. Furthermore, there were only two data points that indicated a marked decrease in Ken's noncompliant/ aggressive classroom behaviors, days 8 and 22. On day 8, another teacher and her students were in the classroom, watching TV, and on day 22, a parent was participating in an I.E.P. meeting in the classroom and she had brought the family dog with her.

These results support Hines' (1984) findings in her study of women prison inmates, which was the only other program we found that used actually training dogs as an intervention. This investigation differs from Hines' research in that we conducted it in a middle school setting with 13-year-old middle school students with behavior disorders rather than in a prison setting with adult female inmates. This subject and setting variation in the intervention lends credence to its external validity.

This investigation differs significantly from most available interventions in that we did not directly teach social skills either through modeling or directly rewarding appropriate behaviors, nor were we present when the videotaping occurred. Furthermore, the students did not know when they were being videotaped. Another way it differs from other studies is that we measured changes in behavior in a setting different from where the intervention was conducted.

It is highly unlikely that Sheila and Jamal simply grew out of their noncompliant/aggressive behaviors because neither showed a clearly decelerating trend until they started the dog training sessions. This is further evidenced by the fact that the data for Ken, who did not participate in the sessions, did not show any similar decrease in the targeted behaviors.

However, these findings would have been much more convincing if there had been time for Ken to train a dog so that we could determine whether the treatment would effect his behavior as it had Sheila's and Jamal's. Furthermore, it would have been better if Jamal had been able to participate in the dog training sessions for at least another week (assuming that his noncompliant/aggressive classroom behaviors would have remained low). Unfortunately, almost the entire school year was consumed with our efforts to get permission to conduct research that involved public school students interacting with a dog. We are optimistic that some of these barriers have been overcome and that we will be able to replicate this investigation.

Observations supported the idea that students may have been identifying with their roles and experiencing emotions that would parallel those of their teacher. At one point Sheila lectured the dog in a firm but patient voice: "Look at me. You have to pay attention! You'll never learn if you don't pay attention to me." Jamal complained once that: "I hate it when he knows it (the command) one day, and then he forgets it the next!". When comments such as these were made, Ms. S. capitalized upon them by saying something like "Do you think Mr. X (the students' teacher) ever feels that way?". In this way she tried to help them further identify with the role of teacher.

Some caution should be taken in interpreting the results of this study. Sheila had professed a particular love for dogs prior to the study, so this may have some bearing on her results. It also may be that, had the study continued, the students would have become disenchanted with the project, and reverted to old behaviors. Other unidentified variables could also have had an effect on the students' behaviors, particularly interacting with the principal investigator/trainer who provided one-on-one attention from a patient, caring adult. Although the fact that the principal investigator/trainer was not present where behavioral change was measured helps to minimize this possibly confounding variable, it is still possible that her individual attention caused the change in the target behaviors, rather than the students training the dog.

Nevertheless, the results of this study seem to imply that participation in a dog training program can reduce the noncompliant/aggressive classroom behaviors of students with behavior disorders. This can possibly be attributed to the students identifying with a new, more positive role, and changing their behaviors to be compatible with their image of that role. While the results of this study indicate that learning to interact with and train an animal can effectively reduce apparently unrelated behaviors (i.e., noncompliant/aggressive verbal and physical behaviors) in an entirely different environment (i.e., the classroom) from the one where most of the training occurred, the following questions should be considered: (a) Would a similar intervention not utilizing an animal have been just as effective? (b) How much of the behavioral change was caused by the students having one on one attention from a patient, caring adult? (c) Would different people acting as dog training instructors be just as effective as the trainer in this investigation? (d) Will the behavior change persist after intervention is discontinued? (d) Will the behavior change generalize to environments other than the classroom? Future studies should attempt to address these questions.