Overcorrection Presentation

View the Power Point and PDF of a short presentation on overcorrection below.

Power Point

PDF of the Power Point

Overcorrection was developed by Fox and Axrin as a method to reduce behavioral problems for those with mental retardation (Lenz, Singh, & Hewett, 1991). Overcorrection involves having a student make reparations for misdeeds in a way that not only corrects the results of the mis-behavior, but adds a significant amount of extra correction, overcompensating for the mis-deed. In a classic style example, consider the case of a student who scribbles profanities on his or her school desk. Correction would involve having that student clean the profanity off the desk. Overcorrection, however, would involve having the student clean the other desks in the classroom, even though the student did not write on them.

There are four types of overcorrection (Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions: Over-correction, n.d.). They are briefly described as follows. Restitutional overcorrection involves restoring the damaged environment to a better than original condition. Positive practice overcorrection involves having the student practice an abundance of an appropriate behavior. Neutral practice overcorrection involves having a student repeat an action that is neither restitutional nor related to the desired behavior. This is often in the form of contingent exercises. Specific to those with mental retardation is full cleanliness training. This is used with students who are struggling with hygiene issues and involves having the student excessively clean himself or herself.

With all types of overcorrection, the teacher should consider possible negative consequences (Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions: Over-correction, n.d.). Larger students may become combative when faced with the seemingly daunting task of overcorrection. Positive practice overcorrection takes time from other learning. There is the possibility that using overcorrection will damage the bond between student and teacher. If this fear is present, it may be beneficial to give the student the choice of another punishment. Additionally, most proponents of overcorrection agree that the instructor must remain neutral while implementing overcorrection.

There are differences in how overcorrection is carried out. Consider the concept of remaining neutral. Some information on overcorrection states that while the student is engaged in the process of overcorrection, he or she should not receive any positive feedback or support (Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions: Over-correction, n.d.). Other examples (Marzano, 2003) show the authority figure using the additional time with the student to connect with the student, discussing ways to redirect the negative behavior. Foxx and Bechtel (1982, p.231) state “The individual is instructed and manually guided through the required acts, with the amount of guidance adjusted on a moment-to-moment basis according to the degree to which he/she is voluntarily performing the act.”

Finally, it should be emphasized that many consider overcorrection to be a last resort behavior modification technique. The dangers of alienating the student must be considered. Also, if the overcorrection procedure will involve what may be considered a punishing activity, parental consideration and permission should be sought. Judge the appropriateness of the overcorrection while considering the age of the student, his or her abilities, and the possible effects of the overcorrection on interactions with peers. Used correctly, overcorrection can decrease problem behavior. Used incorrectly, overcorrection can cause resentment and bitterness, permanently damaging the student/teacher relationship.

References

Foxx, R. M., & Bechtel, D. R. (1982). Overcorrection. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. New York: Academic Press.

Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions: Over-correction. (n.d.). Utah State Office of Education: LRBI Resources. Retrieved October 22, 2004 from http://www.usu.edu/teachall/text/behavior/LRBI.htm

Lenz, M., Singh, N. N., & Hewett, A. E. (1991). Overcorrection as an Academic Remediation Procedure. Behavior Modification, 15, 64-73

Marzano, R. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Filed under: EDC 610-611 Social & Behavior Assessment for Intervention
Copyright: September, 2004 - David Profitt