| Course | PSY 620 Psychological Interactions |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Collaboration plan |
| Length | About 1,078 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 620 Module 6
Two Settings, One Plan: Conjoint Behavioral Consultation With a Mother and a Teacher
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PSY 620: Psychological Interactions
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Settings, One Plan: Conjoint Behavioral Consultation With a Mother and a Teacher
Ana, Mateo's mother, told the school psychologist during the evaluation consent meeting that homework took two hours each night and usually ended with both of them in tears. Gloria, his teacher, had seen the same struggle with written work in class. The family, the teacher and the Tucson school are composites created for this course, as is Leah, the consultant. This paper plans how Leah can bring Ana and Gloria together.
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation
Sheridan and Kratochwill (2008) developed conjoint behavioral consultation as an extension of behavioral consultation to home and school together. Parents and teachers meet jointly with a consultant and move through the same problem-solving stages: identifying the needs, analyzing them, implementing a plan and evaluating it. Both are treated as experts on the child in their own settings, and both share responsibility for decisions. The model aims to improve the child's functioning across settings, to build the skills of both adults and to strengthen the relationship between family and school.
| Stage | Joint meeting focus | For Mateo |
|---|---|---|
| Needs identification | Agree on priorities and define them in observable terms | Writing tasks at school and homework at home, defined as minutes on task and work completed |
| Needs analysis | Review data from both settings; identify conditions and functions | Both settings show avoidance when tasks look long |
| Plan implementation | Carry out a consistent plan in both settings, with support | Short chunks, help card at school, help signal at home, brief breaks |
| Plan evaluation | Compare data with goals; adjust or end | Joint review after four weeks |
Evidence That It Works, and Why
Sheridan et al. (2012) conducted a randomized trial of conjoint behavioral consultation with families and teachers of children in kindergarten through third grade with disruptive behaviors. Compared with a control group, children whose parents and teachers took part showed greater improvements in adaptive and social skills, with some effects on problem behaviors at home and school. Importantly, part of the effect was explained by improvements in the parent-teacher relationship: the model worked partly by strengthening the connection between the adults. For Mateo, this suggests that the relationship between Ana and Gloria is not a side effect of the plan but one of its active ingredients.
Why Parents Become Involved
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) proposed a model of why parents become involved in their children's education. Parents become involved when they see involvement as part of their role as parents, when they feel able to help their child succeed and when they perceive invitations and opportunities from the school and from their child. The model implies that schools can increase involvement by issuing genuine invitations and by helping parents feel effective, rather than assuming that parents who do not attend school events do not care.
Ana had attended few school events. Her shift at a medical laundry ended at four, school meetings were usually at three and she had found past meetings, held in English, hard to follow. Her limited involvement reflected opportunity and language, not lack of interest; she had raised the homework problem herself the first time someone asked.
Planning the Partnership
Leah proposed four joint meetings over six weeks, held at 4:30 in the afternoon, with an interpreter present and materials in Spanish. The first meeting would begin with Ana's account of homework at home and Gloria's of writing at school, with Leah asking each to describe a recent difficult evening or lesson. They would agree on a shared definition of the problem and a simple way to record it in both settings: Ana would note how long homework took and how much was completed, and Gloria would keep her tallies. In the second meeting, they would look at the data together and plan. Because the earlier classroom assessment pointed to escape from long written tasks, the plan would break homework into short parts with brief breaks, introduce a signal Mateo could use at home to ask for help, mirroring the help card at school, and set a fixed homework time and place. Gloria would send home shorter assignments while the evaluation was under way.
Home Is Not a Second Classroom
A plan that asks parents to run home like a classroom often fails. Ana works full days, cooks dinner and has a younger child. The home part of the plan therefore had to be short and to fit the evening as it actually was. Ana suggested doing homework at the kitchen table while she cooked, so she could help without stopping, and limiting homework to twenty minutes with the rest sent back unfinished and a note to Gloria. Gloria agreed, since twenty focused minutes would tell her more about Mateo's writing than two hours of struggle.
Barriers and How to Address Them
Practical barriers were addressed directly: meeting times after Ana's shift, interpretation and Spanish materials and a phone check-in option if she could not attend. Relational barriers mattered too. Ana worried that the school saw her son as a problem. Leah asked Gloria to open the first meeting by describing something she liked about Mateo, and planned for Ana's knowledge to shape the plan, such as her observation that Mateo worked better after a snack.
Keeping the Evaluation in View
The joint plan ran alongside the special education evaluation described in the previous paper. Leah made sure the two did not compete: the joint plan addressed what home and school could do now, while the evaluation addressed whether Mateo needed specialized services. Data from the joint plan, especially whether shorter tasks helped him complete work, would be shared with the evaluation team with Ana's agreement, since a child who completes work when tasks are shortened may need different supports from one who does not.
Measuring Progress
Progress would be measured in both settings: minutes and completion of homework recorded by Ana and on-task behavior and completed classwork recorded by Gloria. At the fourth meeting, they would compare these with their goals and decide together whether to continue, adjust or end the plan.
Conclusion
Conjoint behavioral consultation brings parents and teachers together through shared problem solving, as Sheridan and Kratochwill describe, and Sheridan and colleagues' trial shows that it improves children's behavior partly by strengthening the parent-teacher relationship. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's model explains why genuine invitations and support increase involvement. The plan for Mateo uses all three, with meetings Ana can attend, in her language, built around what she knows about her son.
References
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003
Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family-school connections and interventions (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71248-2
Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Garbacz, S. A., Witte, A., & Kwon, K. (2012). A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087374
What the PSY 620 Module 6 instructions ask for
Collaboration with families and schools is the sixth module of PSY 620, and assignments typically ask for a plan or paper on family-school partnership. The Module 6 instructions in your Aspen course decide the details; the family and school here are fictional. Explain a named model of family-school collaboration. Report evidence that it works and how. Draw on research about why parents become involved. Plan the stages for a specific family and school. Address barriers such as schedules, language and past experiences with schools. Show how the parent's knowledge shapes the plan, and provide APA 7 references for every source. Describe how progress will be measured in both settings, so the parent's records count as data alongside the teacher's.
How the PSY 620 Module 6 example is put together
Ana, the composite mother, reports that homework takes Mateo two hours and ends in tears, while his teacher, Gloria, sees similar struggles with classroom writing. The four-stage joint model comes from Sheridan and Kratochwill. Sheridan and colleagues' School Psychology Review trial shows effects on children's behavior and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's Review of Educational Research article explains parents' role construction, sense of efficacy and responses to invitations. A four-stage table sets out the joint meetings. The plan schedules meetings after Ana's shift, provides an interpreter and builds a shared homework and classwork routine. Progress is tracked at home and at school and reviewed jointly at the fourth meeting.
Reading the PSY 620 Module 6 grading rubric
Collaboration plans earn credit for a named model applied faithfully, evidence on outcomes and mechanisms and practical attention to what makes partnership possible. This example follows conjoint behavioral consultation's stages with both parent and teacher present. The evidence explains not only that the model works but why, through the relationship. Parent involvement research shapes how the school invites Ana. Barriers are addressed concretely, including meeting times and language. The plan uses Ana's knowledge of Mateo at home rather than treating her only as someone to carry out school instructions. The teacher's opening remark about something she likes in the child shows how a first meeting can set a different tone.
Common PSY 620 Module 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Family-school collaboration plans often treat parents as people to inform rather than partners. Give parents a real role in defining the problem and designing the plan. Address practical barriers: schedules, transport, language and past experiences with schools. Use research on why parents become involved to shape invitations. Plan consistent responses across settings while allowing for differences between home and school. Measure progress in both settings. Thank families for their time and knowledge explicitly, since many have attended school meetings that felt like summonses, and the first meeting has to show this one is different. Keep plans for home simple enough to sustain on a tired weeknight; an elaborate chart that lasts three days helps no one.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 620 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PSY 620 Module 1: Interactions, Consultation and Collaboration
- PSY 620 Module 2: Mental Health and Behavioral Consultation
- PSY 620 Module 3: Organizational Consultation
- PSY 620 Module 4: Assessment Through Behavioral Dialogue
- PSY 620 Module 5: Federal Guidelines for Children's Assessment
- PSY 620 Module 7: Cross-Cultural Discourse
- PSY 620 Module 8: Evaluating Consultation
- PAC 499 Module 5: Gathering and Organizing Evidence
- ADC 665 Module 4: Individualizing Treatment
- ADC 655 Module 7: Relapse Research
- ADC 605 Module 1: History of Drug Abuse and Prevention
PSY 620 Module 6 questions, answered
What does PSY 620 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's PSY 620 covers collaboration with families and schools in this module, so a plan for family-school partnership using a named model is typical. Check your Module 6 prompt.
What is conjoint behavioral consultation?
A model by Sheridan and Kratochwill in which parents and teachers work together with a consultant through problem identification, analysis, plan implementation and evaluation across home and school.
Does conjoint behavioral consultation work?
Sheridan and colleagues' randomized trial found it improved children's behavior, with part of the effect explained by stronger parent-teacher relationships.
Where can I find a free PSY 620 Module 6 sample paper?
The full plan is above: conjoint behavioral consultation, evidence on how it works and stages planned for a mother and teacher.
Why do parents become involved in their children's schooling?
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler point to parents' beliefs about their role, their sense that they can help and invitations from the school and the child.