Implementing Functional Behavior Assessment in Thailand

Abstract

Thailand is aiming to improve special education practices, and inclusive education has been introduced and mandated by national laws in the past few years. However, inclusive practices are challenging for many Thai teachers and schools. Many teachers are unprepared to support students with diverse needs and to deal with behavior problems. To successfully support such students, teachers need to apply systematic and effective approaches. Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is one such approach that may assist teachers in general classrooms. As FBA is a relatively new practice in Thailand, a contextualized approach is required. This article discusses several essential components in FBA implementation processes that need to be considered as well as an example of a research project that involved training Thai teachers in the use of FBA.

Keywords

functional behavior assessment Thailand inclusive classrooms teacher professional development

Introduction

Thailand is a country in Southeast Asia with over 70 million people. The education system in Thailand is monitored under the Ministry of Education. Basic education consists of 12 years, from Grade 1 to Grade 12. Schools in Thailand are public, private, or alternative settings. The term alternative school in Thailand refers to a private school that offers more flexible programs of study and learning processes than other types of schools, although the school uses the same core national curriculum as other schools. Due to sweeping national law reforms in 2008, all three types of schools need to accept all students and provide an education for students with special needs (Ministry of Education, 2008). However, inclusion is still developing and questions remain with regards to the quality of inclusive educational services. This article describes the current laws and practices that support the use of FBA processes in Thailand and then provides a brief overview of a recent study of teacher development in the use of FBA in two schools in Bangkok.

Special Education in Thailand

Similar to many countries in Asia, special education in Thailand began with the establishment of a school for children with vision impairment in 1939 and in schools for other types of disability in subsequent years. However, it was not until 1999, with the passage of the National Education Act, that widespread educational reform occurred and the concept of inclusion for Thai children with special needs was officially introduced. From that point on, individuals with disabilities had the right to receive free, basic education (Ministry of Education, 2002). Many schools and teachers in Thailand had to quickly modify their practices and delivery of appropriate services to most students with diverse needs; however, the implementation of inclusive education in Thailand for the past 10 years has been slow. Kantavong (2012) noted that the concept of inclusive schooling in Thailand was struggling because of limited resources and negative attitudes towards students with disabilities, who are typically perceived as a burden in classrooms.

In 2008, the first Education for Persons With Disabilities Act B.E. 2551 was passed (Ministry of Education, 2008). This act emphasized the need for provision in education for individuals with disabilities. Schools must enroll all students without discrimination, and education providers are mandated to develop and update an individual education plan (IEP) at least once a year (Ministry of Education, 2008). Consequently, the number of students with disabilities has increased steadily in inclusive classrooms in Thai schools (Kantavong, 2012). Various forms of education services, including formal and informal placements for students with special needs, have been provided in Thai schools. These placements include inclusive schools, special schools for specific disabilities, home schools, private organizations, and special education centers (Hill & Sukbunpant, 2013).

Both the National Education Act and the Education for Persons With Disabilities Act have encouraged rapid change in Thai schools. However, the implementation of this change has encountered barriers, especially in the use of inclusive practices when general education teachers are asked to accommodate students with diverse needs. Many undiagnosed students with special needs are found in regular Thai schools, and some of them are viewed as naughty or noncompliant, and as a result have received inappropriate services (Fulk, Swerdlik, & Kosuwan, 2002). The allocation of education resources is still limited in Thai rural areas (Vorapanya, 2008). Many teachers feel unprepared and lack knowledge about intervention techniques for students with special needs and teaching methods for inclusive classrooms (Kantavong, 2012), as well as in developing IEPs (Narot, 2010). The Office of the National Education Commission (2009) reported that most Thai teachers in inclusive classrooms have never been trained in special education. Klibthong (2013) found that when Thai teachers failed to be well prepared for inclusion, they tended to have negative attitudes toward inclusion and resisted its implementation.

Need for a Systematic Process in Behavior Intervention

One of the major challenges for many Thai teachers in inclusive settings is providing appropriate supports for students with behavior problems (Klibthong, 2013; Sukbunpant, Arthur-Kelly, & Dempsey, 2013). This challenge has been acknowledged, and the development of educational policies relating to school behavior support has recently commenced in Thailand. However, a substantial gap between policy and school practice is still evident, especially for students who need individual behavior support (Opartkiattikul, 2014).

The policy in behavior support was established in 2009 by the Thai Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). It required every public school to apply a supporting student system framework in order to promote positive behavior support (PBS) and decrease behavior problems in schools (Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2009). This framework includes several key steps: (a) screen and classify, (b) provide general support, (c) provide intervention for a targeted group, (d) refer to counseling teachers, and (e) refer to external expert. First, the schools are advised to screen and classify students into one of three groups (i.e., without behavior problems, at risk of behavior problems, and high risk of behavior problems). Then, students without behavior problems are provided with general supports, while students in the other two groups receive intervention in a small group. All processes are conducted by classroom teachers. When behavior support for students at high risk of behavior problems is unsuccessful, the teachers refer students to counseling teachers who will conduct individual case support. If the behavior problems still do not decrease, the students are referred to external experts. Although OBEC has provided the required framework, it is difficult to implement the guidelines consistently across all schools because the description of the framework is not specific enough. There needs to be a systematic process in place to provide specific guidelines for schools or teachers to develop individualized behavior support plans (Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2009). Moreover, research has found a shortage of counseling teachers as well as a lack of cooperation between them and classroom teachers. In many instances, teachers have no specialist to support them or conduct the individual behavior interventions (Wutwitchayanun, Wongkwanmeung, & Sonuntha, 2007). Several studies also have reported that Thai teachers have insufficient preparation in dealing with students with behavior problems and training is required for these teachers (Kantavong & Sivabaedya, 2010; Vorapanya, 2008). Thus, introducing a systematic approach such as FBA to develop behavior interventions in schools may offer some assistance to Thai teachers in dealing with behavior problems.

Issues in Implementing Functional Behavior Assessment

A range of strategies can be included in individualized student behavior support plans, mainly derived from the established principles of applied behavior analysis. Functional behavior assessment is an example of an integrated data-based approach (Sugai et al., 2000), and it is explored here because it has some attractive features, supported by a strong evidence base. Advantages of FBA-based interventions include (a) emphasizing replacing inappropriate behavior rather than using punishments (Blakeslee, Sugai, & Gruba, 1994; Lane, Umbreit, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 1999), (b) focusing on the prevention of behavior problems (Sugai et al., 2000), and (c) seeking to enhance and maintain appropriate behavior changes over time (Dunlap, 1993).

A number of studies in developed countries have indicated the effectiveness of FBA in supporting staff to develop an effective behavior intervention for students both in special education and in general education settings (Ellingson, Miltenberger, Stricker, Galensky, & Garlinghouse, 2000; Wood, Blair, & Ferro, 2009). However, because FBA practices originated in developed countries where cultural and educational practices are different from Thailand, it is unclear how well FBA may transfer to a Thai context. It is clear that further research is needed, guided by two critical components in FBA processes in schools: (a) adoption of skills and practices in FBA and (b) team-based approaches in schools.

Adoption of Skills and Practices

Bambara, Goh, Kern, and Caskie (2012) found that insufficient training in FBA and personal beliefs about the benefit of traditional punishment or the result of behavior intervention that should produce rapid decreases in behavior problems were reported by school staff as perceived barriers in implementing FBA in schools. Bearing this in mind, FBA delivery skills and knowledge are important considerations. This also includes the manner of delivery of the new practices and the contextual fit of the content in FBA to Thai schools.

In the Thai context, FBA is a new approach for the majority of Thai teachers in inclusive schools and for a number of counseling teachers and special educators. A logical question is, How can school personnel acquire FBA skills and have an opportunity to practice them? Formal professional learning could be a way to prepare teachers and schools.

Professional development in Thailand is now common in many schools. The Thai Ministry of Education has promoted professional development to reform teacher capacity since 1999 and developed a professional development plan for 2004-2013 (Ministry of Education, 2005). Researchers have argued for the provision of a training program in inclusive education to enhance the quality of the inclusive practice in Thai schools (Kantavong & Sivabaedya, 2010; Klibthong, 2013; Sukbunpant, 2013).

An important issue for Thai teachers and schools is the amount of time required to learn and implement new processes, such as FBA. Reid and Nelson (2002) found that the time required to conduct FBA varied with the student problem behavior and staff experience; however, others suggest that the thorough planning of an FBA behavioral intervention takes 10–23 consultant hours (Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998). Many Thai teachers are reporting high work demands in their classrooms and schools (Narot, 2010). Moreover, the administrative demands for school personnel are even higher than before following a recent law on quality assurance. All Thai schools are required by law to meet quality assurance standards and schools are assessed every 2 years by both internal and external auditors regarding national standards (Nakorntap, 2009). The National Standards for Basic Education level focuses on several components as indicators, including student learning, school operation, and school resources (Nakorntap, 2009).

Time and skill requirements become critical issues for the effectiveness and efficiency of the FBA process. Vaughn, Klingner, and Hughes (2000) pointed out that teachers who find new practices are more time consuming to use than their current practices tend to continue use of their current practice as one that they are familiar with and that are at least moderately effective for them. Therefore, a Thai FBA professional development program needs to be created and delivered in an efficient manner. Adjustable content such as simplifying FBA data collection forms and simplifying implementation will be important in the Thai school context. In particular, the FBA process should not demand excessive time from school practitioners in both its implementation and documentation.

The concept of PBS and FBA is also challenging for Thai culture. The notion of “Spare the rod, spoil the child” is a traditional social value in Thai society (Opartkiattikul, 2014) and impacts both Thai parenting and educational practices. Many Thai people believe that their children learn not to misbehave again following negative consequences resulting from their behavior. Consequently, using aversive approaches to deal with students who display inappropriate behavior is likely to be a common practice for many families as well as Thai teachers. Even though there are now several educational policies that require schools to ban physical punishment and to use more positive approaches, many Thai teachers still employ aversive approaches such as asking the student to knock their own knuckles on the table in classrooms (Thanasetkorn & Thanasetkorn, 2009). One recent report in Thailand (Office of the National Education Commission, 2007) claimed that many Thai teachers were not ready for positive-only approaches to behavior management, and other research noted that Thai teachers have inadequate knowledge of more positive approaches in behavior management (Kaewdang, 1999; Kubpittayanun, Sotathipan, Sukyapan, & Dasa, 2009).

The introduction of alternative behavior support approaches, such as FBA, leading to development of a Behavior Intervention Plan, which are both practical and effective for Thai school personnel, is urgently needed. Professional learning that will introduce skills in FBA should also include examples of positive techniques in dealing with behavior problems. It also needs to address the issues of using aversive strategies, promoting the importance of preventing behavior problems, and teaching replacement behaviors that serve the same function. Indeed, this will encourage Thai school personnel to reduce students’ inappropriate behaviors by focusing on the positive. Most importantly, professional learning should allow teachers to experience positive outcomes from functional-based interventions and the benefits of teaching replacement behaviors to students.

Team-Based Approach in Schools

Within the larger context of PBS, several authors have suggested that the FBA process should involve team-based assessment and intervention in order to widen environmental perspectives (Hendrickson, Gable, Conroy, Fox, & Smith, 1999; Kennedy et al., 2001). In the Thai context, the concept of team-based approaches to behavior support is challenging. Due to the school structure and culture, isolation is common in many Thai public schools, and formal meetings are usually conducted only once a month. Also, engaging the student’s family in a team depends on each individual. Some Thai families can easily accept the special needs of their child, whereas many Thai parents struggle to accept this (Kantavong, 2012). A cultural background in Buddhism and social values centered on academic achievement can be reasons for this attitude. More than 90% of Thai people are Buddhist. The emphasis on karma, in which actions in a previous life have consequences in the present life, means that many Thai parents with a child with a disability may believe that they are being punished for their actions in the past (Carter, 2006; Fulk et al., 2002; Sukbunpant, 2013). This contributes to many Thai people having negative views about students with special needs. Another influence in terms of social values is the desire of the parents to have their child achieve the best in academic performance by giving him or her an optimal education. Moreover, misunderstandings of characteristics of students with mild to moderate disability continue to abound in Thai society (Fulk et al., 2002), with many students undiagnosed and receiving no appropriate intervention. It appears that many of the students requiring an intensive individual behavior intervention in inclusive schools are in a group of children with mild disability, and many of them are still undiagnosed via formal assessments (Fulk et al., 2002). Thus, with the cultural background and current situation, misunderstandings about special needs abound in Thai society.

A second level of knowledge for a team-based approach is knowledge from specialists such as special education or behavior professionals. The experts could provide assistance and support in terms of developing behavior interventions, ensuring the fidelity of implementation, and monitoring the outcomes (Dunlap et al., 2010). However, support from professional staff or outside experts may be challenging for many Thai schools (Vorapanya, 2008). Special education teachers are still rare in Thailand (Kantavong, 2012; Narot, 2010), and many Thai regular class teachers report that they deal with behavior problems alone (Narot, 2010). It could be possible for Thai schools to train counseling teachers as specialists in FBA, although it should be noted that not every school has counseling teachers. Thus, in the Thai context at this stage, classroom teachers may need to be engaged as key implementation personnel if the school aims to successfully conduct FBA. Sugai et al. (1999) noted that teachers can be the key to effective FBA procedures by helping to investigate the relationship between behavior problems and the environment, as well as assisting in the design and implementation of the intervention.

Last is knowledge of school resources and policies by school administrators. Support from schools is essential to implement the FBA process. In a country such as Thailand, where FBA is relatively new to most schools, sometimes Thai school leadership teams believe that all that is required to assist their teachers is to focus on improving their capacities. For some Thai schools, the leadership teams may need to reexamine their school culture to determine whether it promotes a culture of openness and engagement for teachers. Thai society is a “high power distance culture” in which elders or people in a higher position have power and authority over those who are younger or in a lower position in society (Hofstede, 2001). People in a lower position, such as teachers, should be obedient and respect those in a higher position, such as a school principal. The influence of this culture appears to create a hierarchy of authority in many Thai schools and affects the culture of communication associated with top-down interactions. Too often teachers avoid sharing their classroom problems and needs with members of the school administration team because they do not want to bother these people and believe that it is their own responsibility for that problem. Thus, it is very important for school leadership teams to ensure their school culture supports their teachers in implementing successful FBA.

Research in Thai Classrooms

A brief example of a systematic professional learning model designed to foster the delivery of new practices in FBA in the Thai context follows. This research project aimed to deliver a systematic professional development program to Thai classroom teachers who were unfamiliar with FBA. The study was conducted with two schools in Thailand. School A was a public school and School B was an alternative school. Nine classroom teachers (four from School A and five from School B) participated in this professional learning and development program of three sessions over 2 weeks.

The content, materials, and implementation methodology of the program were adapted from a training manual developed by the University of Newcastle (2009), in the Early Childhood Intervention Professional Development Project. Since the program in this study focused on Thai elementary schools, content such as intervention strategies was modified to be suitable to the context of the study. All content was discussed and verified by Australian and Thai academic experts, and trials were held in classrooms and with teachers who did not participate in the main study. The topics that were included in the program were (a) principles and the framework of FBA; (b) development of hypotheses and a behavior intervention plan, implementation of the plan, and monitoring of the plan; and (c) reflection on the implementation of the plan and enhancment of cooperation with family, school, and the community.

After completing three sessions of the training program, individual consultations about their implementation of the FBA process were conducted among teachers and a facilitator, which typically lasted 10-20 minutes depending on teachers’ needs. Furthermore, because of the culture of working in isolation in Thai schools, the teachers were encouraged to share and exchange their practices and experiences in the FBA process from the training program via group meetings.

This program focused primarily on teachers’ implementation outcomes, with a secondary focus on student target behavior. Outcomes were obtained using a range of measurements, which included individual interviews, focus group interviews and classroom observations (i.e., rating scales, descriptive notes, and time sampling). The interviews included the participating teachers and several school leadership members, whereas classroom observations occurred before the program and for 2 weeks until the program finished. The interview questions included, “How would you describe your experiences when implementing the FBA process with the student?” and “How did you manage the time needed to conduct the FBA?”

Classroom-Level Findings

Interview data indicated that all teachers noted that there were factors in addition to parenting and the character of the student that could influence the behavior problems in classrooms. Those factors included aspects of context, teachers, students, peers, and parenting. All teachers expressed their positive feelings, including more confidence and less frustration in assisting the students with behavior problems. The observation data showed that eight of nine participating teachers conducted the FBA process in classrooms. Five of them observed the target behavior and recorded the occurrences on the FBA forms at the end of each school day or at home. Teachers in both schools reported that, because of their workload, they could not finish the protocols during class time. Seven of nine teachers were found to reduce their aversive approaches, and four of nine teachers included more preventative and positive approaches with the target students. Similar to student outcomes reported by the teachers, most of the target student behaviors were observed to decrease by at the last observation session. There were three classrooms in which the teachers reported a decrease in the occurrences, whereas the observation data showed the same number of occurrences as the baseline data or an increase in another behavior problem. After the training, five of nine participating teachers discontinued using the FBA protocols but kept using their daily class journal instead.

School-Level Findings

Interview data indicated that teachers from both schools reported on common issues impeding their implementation, such as workload and insufficient support from parents. The participant teachers first managed these matters themselves and later would involve other staff in the school if necessary. Furthermore, both schools discussed salient factors in successful implementation, which included parent involvement and cooperation from other staff. Due to different working cultures in the two schools, teachers from the public school reported on the support in the interventions from other related staff, whereas the teachers in the alternative school, whose staff worked closely together, reported on the benefits of having buddy classroom teachers to help them in observing and looking after other students in the class. Moreover, School A also reported that teacher consistency and coaching from the trainer were influential factors, whereas School B reported on the perception and understanding of teachers as an enabling factor in the implementation process. All teachers in both schools reported several benefits of the professional development program, such as gaining more knowledge and skills and obtaining a clearer process to use in dealing with the students. Last, the teachers and school staff in the public school reported their concerns in terms of teacher resistance to inclusion in some cases and the concern of continuing support for the teachers with the target students when transitioning to the next class level. In contrast, participants in the alternative school (B) reported the need for a special education teacher to support them, whereas the school leadership teams expressed that they preferred to increase their classroom teachers’ ability in special education instead.

Discussion

From the findings, it is clear that systematic professional development provided (a) some positive outcomes in helping participating teachers acquire basic knowledge and skills in using the FBA process and (b) opportunities to practice this new repertoire in their classroom. The outcomes of this initial study provide evidence of some changes in practices, attitudes, and knowledge of teachers in providing behavior supports. However, it also confirmed that implementing FBA in the Thai school context creates many issues, such as heightened work demands on teachers, the need for increased involvement of students’ parents, and inconsistency in support at a school level. Further studies are required to explore these issues in order to improve classroom practices.

Conclusion

Despite the presence of legislation supporting inclusive practices in classrooms, building capacity and sustaining changed teacher support behaviors within the wider school ecology is both difficult and time-consuming. It is, nevertheless, necessary. This article has emphasized the importance of and the challenges inherent in strengthening the role of functional behavior assessment in proactively identifying why behavior occurs, and putting preventative and solution-focused strategies in place to enhance the inclusion of all students in modern Thai classrooms. Two critical components in FBA processes in schools—namely, adoption of skills and practices in FBA and team-based approaches in schools—are needed in future research efforts in order to translate best practice strategies into real-world applications in Thai classrooms.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bambara

L. M.

Goh

Kern

Caskie

(2012). Perceived barriers and enablers to implementing individualized positive behavior interventions and supports in school settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 228-240. doi: 10.1177/1098300712437219

Blakeslee

Sugai

Gruba

(1994). A review of functional assessment use in data-based intervention studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 397-413.

Carter

S. L.

(2006). The development of special education services in Thailand. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 32-36.

Dunlap

(1993). Promoting generalization: Current status and functional considerations. In Houten

R. V.

Axelrod

(Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.

Dunlap

Iovannone

Kincaid

Wilson

Christiansen

Strain

English

(2010). Prevent-teach-reinforce: The school-based model of individualized positive behavior support. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Ellingson

S. A.

Miltenberger

R. G.

Stricker

Galensky

T. L.

Garlinghouse

(2000). Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 85-97.

Fulk

B. M.

Swerdlik

P. A.

Kosuwan

(2002). Special education in Thailand. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 73.

Hendrickson

J. M.

Gable

R. A.

Conroy

Fox

Smith

(1999). Behavioral problems in schools: Ways to encourage functional behavior assessment (FBA) of discipline-evoking behavior of students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). Education & Treatment of Children, 22, 280-291.

Hill

D. A.

Sukbunpant

(2013). The comparison of special education between Thailand and the United States: Inclusion and support for childrean with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 120-134.

10.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oasks, CA: Sage Publications.

11.

Kaewdang

(1999). Learning for the new century. Retrieved from http://www.edthai.com/reform/dec16a.htm

12.

Kantavong

(2012). A training model for enhancing the learning capacity of students with special needs in inclusive classrooms in Thailand. In Forlin

(Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective. Hobokenm NJ: Taylor and Francis.

13.

Kantavong

Sivabaedya

(2010). A professional learning program for enhancing the competency of students with special needs. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6, 53-62.

14.

Kennedy

C. H.

Long

Jolivette

Cox

Tang

Thompson

(2001). Facilitating general education participation for students with behavior problems by linking positive behavior supports and person-centrered planning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 161-171.

15.

Klibthong

(2013). Exploring Thai early childhood teachers’ understanding, belifes and concerns of inclusive education: A case study of an early childhood centre. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices, 3, 16-32.

16.

Kubpittayanun

Sotathipan

Sukyapan

Dasa

(2009). Conclusion and lesson learned from the project of developing schools with no violences: Songkha and Udornthani provices. Bangkok: Thai Health Promotion Foundation.

17.

Lane

K. L.

Umbreit

Beebe-Frankenberger

M. F.

(1999). Functional assessment research on students with or at risk for EBD: 1990 to the present. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 101-109.

18.

Ministry of Education. (2002). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Express Transportation Organisation of Thailand Printing.

19.

Ministry of Education. (2005). Toward a learning society in Thailand: Supporting professional development. Bangkok: The Bureau of International Cooperation.

20.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Education for Individuals with Disabilities Act B.E. 2551 (2008). Bangkok: Agricultural Cooperative of Thailand Limited.

21.

Nakorntap

(2009). Quality assurance and quality issues in Thai education: Toward research-driven strategies for improving quality. The International Journal of Quality Assurance and Accreditation, 1, 1-14.

22.

Narot

P. K.

(2010). Movement in special education in Thailand. International Journal of Education, 33, 3-11.

23.

Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2009). Supporting student system: Principles, concept and direction of implementation. Bangkok: Author.

24.

Office of the National Education Commission. (2007). Current situation of Thai education 2006/2007: The whole system of problem solving and educational reform. Bangkok: VTC Communication Ltd.

25.

Office of the National Education Commission. (2009). Summary report: 9 years of educational reform(1999-2008). Bangkok: VTC Communication Ltd.

26.

Opartkiattikul

(2014). The implementation of a professional development program in Functional Behaviour Assessment on selected elementary schools in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Newcastle, Australia.

27.

Reid

Nelson

J. R.

(2002). The utility, acceptability, and practicality of functional behavioral assessment for students with high-incidence problem behaviors. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 15-23.

28.

Schill

M. T.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Elliott

S. N.

(1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 116-140.

29.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

Dunlap

Hieneman

Lewis

T. J.

Nelson

C. M.

. . . Wilcox

(1999). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Washington, DC: OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support.

30.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

Dunlap

Hieneman

Lewis

T. J.

Nelson

C. M.

. . . Ruef

(2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131-143. doi: 10.1177/109830070000200302

31.

Sukbunpant

(2013). The perceptions of Thai preschool teachers about inclusive education for young children with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Newcastle, Australia.

32.

Sukbunpant

Arthur-Kelly

Dempsey

(2013). Thai preschool teachers’ views about inclusive education for young children with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 1106-1118. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.741146

33.

Thanasetkorn

(2009). The 101 ways to raise an effective child. Siamrath, August 3–September 17, 19.

34.

University of Newcastle. (2009). Early childhood intervention professional development project: Preventing and reducing challenging behaviour in young children using functional assessment: Social and communication supports. Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle.

35.

Vaughn

Klingner

Hughes

(2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163-171.

36.

Vorapanya

(2008). A model for inclusive schools in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

37.

Wood

B. K.

Blair

K. C.

Ferro

J. B.

(2009). Young children with challenging behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 68-78.

38.

Wutwitchayanun

Wongkwanmeung

Sonuntha

(2007). Problems of classroom teachers in implementing student support system in schools under Bangkok Educational Service Area 3. Unpublished master’s thesis, Naresuan University, Pitsanulok.