If the teacher and interpreter are successfully able to develop a contingency contract with Luke, the best way to keep the corrected behavior constant is to have the motivation become intrinsic. If the teacher and interpreter, and maybe Luke's parents, extrinsically reward Luke's corrected behavior at the beginning and slowly remove the extrinsic reward, then ideally his motivation to continue the good behavior will become intrinsic. Once his behavior is intrinsically motivated it will help build his self-efficacy and his self-regulation. Once he gets his behavior under control, hopefully he can see the goals that is able to obtain when he works together with the interpreter. Hopefully too, through this process, Luke will realize that if there are issues that are troublesome he can talk to his teacher to feel more comfortable. When I think of self-regulation the first thing that comes to my mind is a schedule. If I write out everything I have to do and cross off completed goals, I am better able to measure my progress and over all increasing my self-efficacy. Maybe with Luke, having a schedule and list of goals that he can mark off through the day will help his self-regulation and self-efficacy. He can physically see when a goal is reached and know that completing goals and finishing tasks are attainable. 

In the case study with Luke, I would suggest that at the beginning of each week the teacher and interpreter help Luke write out a schedule for the week of what assignments are due and times he can work on them. Maybe the teacher could give Luke a special pen that is only used to cross off a completed task. Eventually Luke could learn how to write out and organize his own schedule, developing more control and autonomy with his school work. I know it helps me when I can physically see what is completed and what I still need to finish. Considering Luck is deaf, maybe making things more hands on and visual will help his self-regulation and self-efficacy. 

PLE 8 

In the case of Luke (the deaf student who has become uncooperative and unwilling to pay attention to the interpreter) one tool from the behaviorist view could be a contingency contract between all parties involved- the teacher, interpreter, and the student. Once the teacher makes an appointment or call his parents and discusses possibilities as to why Luke has been misbehaving, the teacher and the interpreter can work out a contingency contract with Luke. Hopefully once the teacher talks with the parents and maybe gets more incite as to what is causing Luke's behavior, she can better figure out a way to develop a contract that can help Luke get back on track. Once the teacher and the interpreter figure out the student's antecedent that is causing the behavior then the teacher can figure out what would be appropriate consequence. Also, in the case it might be beneficial for the teacher to partner up with the interpreter to work together on a way to correct the behavior. I really believe that there is no other real way to devise a plan of action without first figuring out what is causing this behavior. 

In the constructivist view point, one tool that could be used is to ask more question instead of telling. Instead of telling Luke how he must act maybe the teacher could use the interpreter to ask Luke why he is acting up. The only problem with this is the fact that Luke is not paying attention to the interpreter. I think that the only thing that will work in this case is by using behaviorist method. Especially since the student and the teacher more than likely cannot communicate directly. The benefit of a contructivist tool, asking the student and getting on his level, might make the student feel equal and not less than. However, the communication barrier is a problem considering he is not paying attention to the interpreter. Using social cognitive theory the teacher could use punishment in order to try and get the point across that his behavior is undesirable. Again, the issue of the communication break down causes a problem. If he is not paying attention to the interpreter then he might not understand why exactly he is being punished. It might not make sense to him. I think that using the behaviorist tool of a contingency contract once the teacher figures out what the issue is with Luke will be the only way to solve the misbehavior. 

(8.2)
In a case like this I would inform the deaf student, as well as the hearing student, that they need to work on the assignment themselves. I would encourage the students to try their best to do the assignment. I would tell them that they can do it, they are capable of figuring out the problem. It would be very important for me to encourage the deaf student and the hearing students to collaborate with each other, even if they get the answer wrong, because this type of work is very important for deaf students. Often times deaf students have weak or no conversational skills because there are not a lot of models for them in school or at home. Also, often times in a public school, deaf students will only talk to the interpreter because there is the common language between the two. Encouraging the deaf student to converse and with hearing students will help develop the deaf child's conversational skills as well as build a sense of community in the class between the all the students and allow the deaf student to feel included. So, in this case, it would be extremely important to encourage the students to work together. I would tell them to keep trying and tell them that I will interpret what they think between everyone in the group. Sometimes though, in groups with an interpreter, students tend to shut down a little bit because there is an adult in the group and see the interpreter as a monitor in way. Even the hearing students tend to do this when there is an interpreter in the group. I have to do my best to make sure that when redirecting occurs I need to do it in a positive way and make sure I make every student, deaf and hearing in the group feel comfortable.