Dead Man's Test
Dead-man test
81I6VVboj7h2Bqy In applied behavior analysis, there is a concept called the "dead man's test". The idea is that "what even a dead person can do is not a behavior." For example, "not running in the hallway" can be done by a dead person. However, "walking in the hallway" cannot be done by a dead person. Not running in the hallway," which even a dead person can do, should not be a behavioral goal. Because "not running in the hallway" is not "action". Walking in the hallway" is an "action". Therefore, "walking in the hallway" is an action goal. Then, is "being quiet in the classroom" an action? This is not an action. Because "be quiet in the classroom" can be done even by a dead person. When instructing children, you need to convert "be quiet in the classroom," which even dead people can do, into "read in the classroom," etc., which dead people cannot do. There are a certain number of children who do not know what to do with just "be quiet in the classroom. So when you give them instructions, you need to show them with actions that a dead man cannot do.
For example, can "not chatting" be considered an action? This is not an action, as a dead person can do it. Therefore, the instruction "no chatter" is not advisable. Rather, "Those who can hear the teacher's voice will shut up and raise their hands" is easier for children to follow. Because this is an action that a dead person cannot do.
For example, is "I don't speak loudly" an action? It is not an action. It is not an action, because a dead person can do it. If the teacher himself shows the children how to do it and actually has the children do it, even those with developmental challenges will be able to follow his instructions.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/死人テスト using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.