effects of self-monitoring and subsequent fading of external prompts on the on-task behavior and...

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1994, pp. 439-457

Effects of Self-Monitoring and Subsequent Fading of External Prompts on the On-Task Behavior and Task Productivity of Elementary Students with Moderate Mental Retardation

Joseph R. Boyle , Ph.D. , 2 and Char les A. Hughes , Ph.D. 1,3

This study investigated the effectiveness of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior and vocational production rates of 5 elementary students with moderate mental retardation during biweekly pre-vocational workshop sessions. They were taught to use a recording form to monitor their behavior and were cued to monitor by audiotaped tones. A multiple-baseline design across tasks was used to demonstrate a functional relationship between self-monitoring and both on-task behavior and task productivity. Once this relationship was demonstrated, the monitoring form and audiotape were withdrawn through fading procedures. Results indicated that (a) self-monitoring increased both on-task behavior and vocational task production rates, (b) performance gains maintained while cues and monitoring forms were withdrawn, and (c) gains maintained over several weeks in the absence of prompts (i.e., forms and tones). KEY WORDS: self-monitoring; self-management; mental retardation; on-task behavior; task production.

Since the early 1970s, se l f -monitor ing has been used successfully with children and ado le scent s with menta l re tarda t ion across a wide range o f

tAssociate Professor, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University.

2Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Southern Illinois at Edwardsville.

3Correspondence should be directed to Charles Hughes, Penn State, 202 Cedar Building, University Park, PA 16802-3109.

439

1053-0819/94/120o-0439507.00/u �9 1994 Human Seienee~ Press, Inc.

440 Boyle and Hughes

academic and social behaviors in school settings (Gardner & Cole, 1988; Hughes, Korinek, & Gorman, 1991; Webber, Scheurmann, McCall, & Coleman, 1993). Self-monitoring, one of several procedures included under the rubric of self-control or self-management, can be defined as a two-step process. First, the individual discriminates whether a target behavior has occurred and then records the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the behavior. In much of the self-management literature (e.g., Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973; Hughes & Hendrickson, 1987; Lloyd, Bateman, Landrum, & Hallahan, 1989), these two steps typically involve teaching students to record the occurrence of the target behavior on a form when cued, usually by an audio-taped tone which sounds at variable intervals. Why self-monitoring results in behavior change remains a source of speculation. It has been suggested by some (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1983; Snider, !987) that the reactive effects of this procedure are due to increased awareness of a particular behavior and that this awareness leads to internal or covet self-regulation. Others (e.g., Kanfer, 1977; Nelson & Hayes, 1981) propose a more behavioral or external ex- planation whereby the act of self-monitoring (i.e., observing and recording), as well as the recording devices and materials become discriminative stimuli for the behavior in question.

Although self-monitoring appears to be useful for students with mental retardation, a closer examination of the literature yields some unan- swered questions related to the purported benefits of this technique in public school settings. An analysis of three recent reviews of studies exam- ining the effectiveness of self-monitoring with school-aged students with mental retardation (Gardner & Cole, 1988; Hughes et al., 1991; Webber et al., 1993) indicates several areas or issues which still need to be addressed. These are (a) effectiveness of self-monitoring used in isolation (i.e., not in conjunction with other self-management techniques such as self-reinforcement and self-instruction, or with teacher-managed contingencies such as point systems); (b) effectiveness of self-monitoring with young, low functionings st adents; (c) maintenance of behavioral gains after prompts (i.e., use of recording forms and auditory cues) have been withdrawn; and (d) whether improvement of on-task behavior results in concurrent increases in task productivity.

With regard to this last issue, on-task behavior or attention to task has been a frequently used dependent variable in self-monitoring research (Hughes et al., 1991; Hughes, Ruhl, & Misra, 1989; Lloyd et al., 1989; Webber et al., 1993). However, it has been suggested that increases in attention to task may not necessarily lead to increases in task accuracy and productivity (Klein, 1979; Snider, 1987). Others (e.g., Lloyd et al., 1989) found little difference between self-monitoring on-task behavior or productivity, and Osborne, Kosiewicz, Crumley, and Lee (1987) reported that two

Self-Monitoring 441

subjects increased productivity while monitoring their on-task behavior versus academic performance. Results of these two studies, while not conclu- sive, do provide support for monitoring productivity versus attention to task. However, these studies (as well as most studies comparing on-task and productivity) have been conducted with students with learning disabilities and it is therefore difficult to generalize these findings to students functioning at a much lower level.

A recent study by Hughes and Boyle (1991) partially addressed some of the concerns noted above. They found that both the on-task behavior and task productivity of elementary students with moderate levels of retardation improved when they monitored whether or not they were paying attention. However, during two conditions of the study, a token economy was used and was not faded until the last condition (self-monitoring only), thus leaving the unique contribution of self-monitoring in question. Too, prompts were not faded and maintenance not measured. Finally, postin- tervention productivity rates, while improved, were much lower than those of four nonhandicapped peers who performed the same tasks.

Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the Hughes and Boyle (1991) study by addressing the following questions: (a) Will self-monitoring of on-task behavior improve both the on-task behavior and task productivity of elementary students with moderate levels of retardation; (b) will these students maintain any gains in on-task behavior and task productivity after prompts (i.e., recording forms and auditory cues to record) are withdrawn through a fading procedure; and (c) will task productivity gains shown by these students approximate rates of productivity of nonhandicapped peers?

METHOD

Participants

The 5 students who participated in the study were identified according to school district guidelines as having moderate levels of retardation (i.e., intelligence quotients from 30 to 50). The mean age of the 5 students was 10 years, 7 months. Mean full scale IQ, as measured by the Stanford-Binet, was 41. Individually, Student 1, was an 11-year-old male with an IQ of 39; Student 2 was an 11-year-old male with an IQ of 42; Student 3 was a 10- year-old female with an IQ of 40; Student 4 was a 10-year-old male with an IQ of 39; and Student 5 was a 10-year-old female with an IQ of 48. Administration of the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984) yielded scores below the first grade level for all 5 students


in math and reading. In addition, age equivalent scores on the Develop- mental Test of Visual Motor Integration (Beery, 1982) were as follow: 3.11 for Student 1, 5.1 for Student 2, 4.1 for Student 3, 3.6 for Student 4, and 4.1 for Student 5. Composite scores from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Harrison, 1985), available for only 2 of the students, were 52 for Student 3 and 33 for Student 4. Lastly, the target students were chosen because of high levels of off-task behavior (based on informal observation of the teacher).

Setting

The study was conducted in a self-contained special education classroom located in an inner-city public elementary school. The class consisted of 12 students ranging in age from 9 to 12 years old. The classroom was approximately 7m x l lm and contained 2 tables, 12 individual student desks, and 2 teacher desks. The classroom was staffed with a full-time teacher (primary observer) with 4 years of teaching experience, and a full-time paraprofessional (secondary observe) with 9 years of experience.

Because of the students' ages and functioning levels, a functional curriculum was incorporated into the class which contained academic as well as prevocational activities for the students. The prevocational workshop pe- riods occurred twice a week either in the morning or afternoons, depending upon scheduling of other activities. During prevocational workshop sessions, students independently completed vocatioonally oriented tasks (e.g., labeling cards, packaging bags according to specifications, collating paper) at their desks, working for approximately 15 minutes on each of three tasks.

Target Behaviors

Two classes of behavior were selected as the dependent variables for the study: On-task behavior during prevocational activities and rate of task completion (number of tasks correctly completed per minute). Because the tasks were varied in nature, an operational definition of on-task behavior was developed that was applicable to all of the tasks. On-task behavior was defined as the student's manual, purposeful involvement with the task, with delays of no longer than 3 seconds between task steps.

The variety of tasks (N = 11) also required separate definitions for task production. Rate of task production was specified as units per minute, which was determined by totaling the number of correctly produced items (according to preset criteria) and dividing by the number of minutes allotted per task (usually 15 minutes). The following are descriptions of each task.

Self-Monitoring 443

Assembling Nuts and Bolts

Given an equal number of 1-1/4" long bolts, matching washers, and nuts, the student was to assemble the nut and bolt together, having the washer secured to the bolt by the nut.

Folding Paper

This task consisted of an equal number of 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper and self-adhesive 1/2" colored dots. The student was to fold the paper in half so that its top and bot tom edges met, and then seal the edge with a self-adhesive dot.

Labeling with Stickers

The materials consisted of an equal number 4" x 9" envelopes, self- adhesive return labels, self-adhesive 1/2" colored dots, an ink pad, and a rubber stamp (a 1 inch square pattern). This task, which simulated addressing an envelope, required the student to place a return address in the upper left hand corner, a colored dot in the upper right hand corner and a stamped square in the center of the envelope.

Collating

This task consisted of three trays of 8-1/2" x 11" paper (each tray held a different color) of paper and a staple. The student's task was to neatly stack three pages and then staple all three sheets of paper together in the upper left hand corner.

Placing Beads on a Paper Clip

Given three different colored beads, a (bent open) paper clip, and a pegboard, the student placed one bead of each color on the paper clip and then placed the paper clip into a hold on the pegboard.

Stamping Shapes on Paper

Consisting of an ink pad, three different rubber stamps, and 8" x 5" index card, this task required the student to stamp one of each different pattern (square, circle or triangle) on an index card.


Packaging Four Small Pegs

Provided with 3/4" pegs, 5" x 7" plastic bags, and a (6" x 6") pegboard with only four open holds, the student was required to pick out four pegs, place them in the pegboard holes, and then placed them in the plastic bag.

Assembling Pens

Given four-piece (screw caps, springs, ball-point refills, and pen shells) ball-point pens which were disassembled and separated into bowls, the student assembled the pen.

Packaging Crayons

Provided with eight colors of 1/2" thick crayons, boxes, and a pattern board, the student was required to match up the crayons with the color pattern board, and then package all eight crayons in a box.

Packaging Four Large Pegs

This task consisted of 2" pegs (approximately 300), 5" • 7" plastic bags, and a (10" x 10") pegboard with only four open holes. The student chose four pegs, put them into the pegboard, and placed them into the bag.

Packaging Three 1terns

Consisting of three different items in containers and 5" x 7" plastic bags, this task required the student to choose one of each item and place the items into a bag.

Placing Beads on Cotter Pin

Given plastic beads of different shapes (cylindrical, square, and round), cotter pins, and small plastic jars with screw caps, the student had to insert one bead of each shape on a cotter pin and then place the cotter pin into the plastic jar.

Self-Monitoring 445

Data Collection Procedures

On-Task and Productivity

Two observers were used during the study. The primary observer's re- sponsibility was to monitor each child's on-task behavior and rate of production. The secondary observer was trained by the primary observer. Training continued until 90% agreement between the observers for both variables was reached. The secondary observer conducted periodic reliability checks of on-task behavior for each child, periodic reliability checks of task productivity, and periodic checks of student accuracy of self-monitoring.

Observations Occurred During Each Pre-vocational Period

To measure on-task behavior while students were completing pre-vocational tasks, the teacher (primary observer) and paraprofessional (secondary observer) circulated around the room and, using a 20-second momentary time-sampling procedure, recorded, on a rotating basis, whether students were on-task. The observers recorded each child's behavior as a " + " if they were on-task and a "-" if they were not. This method resulted in approximately nine observations per student per task. Therefore, during each 45 minute period, each student was observed approximately 27 times. The percentage of on-task behavior was calculated by dividing the number of times the student was observed attending to task by the total number of observations made during all pre-vocational tasks and then multiplying that number by 100. Rate of production was determined by dividing the total number of completed tasks by the number of minutes allotted per task.

lnterobserver Agreement

Throughout the study, 11 interobserver agreement checks were conducted for each student, averaging at least one every seven sessions. During these sessions, both observers independently recorded each child's on-task behavior for all three tasks. Agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 109. The range of interobserver agreement for on-task behavior was 70% to 100% with an overall mean of 98.1%. Interobserver agreement for occurrence was 98% and for nonoccurrence was 88%. To control for chance agreement, Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960) was calculated. The Kappa value was .76. Agreement procedures for task productivity yielded a mean agreement of 99.8% (range = 87 to 100%).


Student Accuracy

Accuracy of student self-monitoring was measured once every six sessions for all three tasks. Accuracy checks were carried out only during the Self-Monitoring and Fade 1 and 2 conditions because, during the Fade 3 (no tape and no self monitoring form), and Maintenance conditions students did not record. Accuracy was defined as student--observer agreement about whether the student was on-task when an audiotaped tone was sounded. Checks were conducted by the secondary observer who simultaneously and covertly scored a form identical to those students completed. Once the session was complete, the observer compared her form with each student's monitoring form to determined the accuracy of recording. Student accuracy was then calculated by dividing the number of observer/student agreements by the total number of observations, and multiplying this number of 100. The students were not provided with any corrective feedback or reinforcement regarding the accuracy of their self-recording. The mean accuracy rate for the 5 students was 83%. Mean accuracy rates for individual students ranged from a high of 92% for Student 5 to a low of 76% for Student 4. Students 1, 2, and 3 had rates of 90%, 81%, and 80%, respectively.

Materials

The self-monitoring form was an index card divided in half by a vertical line. On the top left side of the card was a 1/2 inch, green smiling face with the word "yes." On the top right side of the card was 1/2 inch, red frowning face with the word "no." This form was used in conjunction with an audiotape (Tape 1) which sounded at intervals ranging from 15 to 120 seconds. Tones were emitted on average every 45 seconds. The tone served as a cue for the children to ask themselves the question "Am I working?" Depending on their answer, the children would then draw a small slash on the appro- priate side of the card, "yes" or "no" to indicate if s/he was on-task. This cassette tape was used only during the Self-monitoring condition of this study. During the first fade condition, a second cassette tape (Tape 2) was used which emitted tones at consecutive intervals of 2 minutes, 4 minutes, and 6 minutes once the student began each task. The self-monitoring procedure incorporated in this study closely followed the procedure developed by Glynn et al. (1973) and frequently used in other studies (e.g., Hughes & Boyle, 1991; Hughes & Hendickson, 1987; HaUahan, Lloyd, Kosiewicz, Kauffman, & Graves, 1979; Lloyd et al., 1989); however, it differs in that a second audiotape was used as part of an attempt to reduce the students' reliance on external cues.

Self-Monitoring 447

Experimental Design and Procedure

A multiple-baseline design across tasks was used to examine the effects of self monitoring for on-task behavior and task productivity. This design included six conditions: Baseline, Self-Monitoring, Fade 1, Fade 2, Fade 3, and Maintenance.

Baseline

During baseline, the students worked on their assigned tasks without teacher assistance or reinforcement concerning their rate of on-task behavior or task production. To ensure that students understood how to complete the tasks, baseline was not initiated until the students had been working on the tasks for 8 weeks.

Self-Monitoring

Once students demonstrated stable baselines across tasks, they were taught to monitor their on-task behavior using the tones and forms. In- struction consisted of one 30 minute session, during which the teacher described, modeled, and allowed students to practice monitoring while performing their vocational tasks. During the description portion of instruction, the teacher solicited responses from the students as to why it was important to remain on task throughout the school day. Next, the teacher described self-monitoring and informed students that this technique would help them to work continuously during their prevocational workshop sessions. The teacher then described on-task behavior and taught students to discriminate between on-task and off-task behaviors though the use of ex- amples and nonexamples.

During the modeling portion of the training session, the teacher physically performed how to self-monitor while concurrently verbalizing what he was doing (e.g., "I hear the tone and that means to mark on my form whether I was working on my job. First, I ask myself 'was I paying attention'" and so on) so that students could observe subvocal as well as overt behaviors involved in self-monitoring. Throughout this portion of instruction, the teacher used the audiotaped tones and the recording form while working on sample vocational tasks. After the teacher demonstrated the self-monitoring procedure on one task, he encouraged students to become involved by asking them to tell him when to use the monitoring prompt "Was I working," whether he was on-task when the tone sounded, and under which category ("yes" or "no") he should mark his recording


form. Finally, during the last portion of the training, students were allowed to practice self-monitoring while working on one of their tasks. While students practiced self-monitoring, the teacher provided praise for their cor- rect use of the technique and corrective feedback for incorrect responses. Once the training session was complete and throughout the rest of the study, no reinforcement or corrective feedback was provided to the students on their use of the self-monitoring technique.

Following the instructional session, students were told to monitor their behavior while they performed their first vocational task. Once students demonstrated improvement (i.e., gains in on-task and task productivity) on their first task, they were instructed to monitor their on-task behavior while completing their second task. When improvement was noted on the second task, they used the procedure with the third task.

Fade 1

Once it was determined that the dependent measure level on all three tasks across students was stable (i.e,, maintained level of performance), the Fade 1 condition began. Students continued to monitor their behavior as they did previously during the Self-Monitoring phase, except that the tones from Tape 2 were introduced to cue there students. Because the tape emitted fewer tones per task, students marked their monitoring forms less frequently.

Fade 2

During this condition, students were instructed to monitor their behavior without relying on the aid of the audiotaped tones. Instead, the students were told to monitor their on-task behavior by occasionally asking themselves the question "Am I working?" and record their responses on their monitoring forms.

Fade 3

The third fading condition consisted of students monitoring on-task behavior without the aid of the form. Instead, students were instructed at the beginning of each session to ask themselves, periodically and silently, the questions "Am I working?" and silently respond to the question.

Self-Monitoring 449

Maintenance

During the 4-week period after the Fade 3 condition, three follow-up probes were conducted to check maintenance of student gains in on-task behavior and productivity.

Social Validation

To examine whether the use of self-monitoring increased students' productivity levels to that of nonhandicapped peers, 4 nondisabled students of the same ages (9 and 10 years old) performed the same prevocational tasks used in the study. The tasks were described and modeled for the 4 peers and they were given 3 minutes to practice each task. Over the next few weeks, each of the 4 peers performed each task for 15 minutes and a rate of task production was computed. Finally, means for each task were computed and used as social validity criteria for this study.

RESULTS

On-Task Behavior

Figures 1 through 5 depict the percent of time on task for each student during each task and condition of the study. Visual inspection of Fig- ures 1 through 5 evidences relatively stable baselines for all 5 students for the first tasks. Baselines for the other two tasks generally remained stable until the introduction of self-monitoring. However, in several instances (i.e., Task 3 for Student 2, Task 3 for Student 2, Task 2 for Student 3, Task 2 for Student 4, and Task 3 for Student 5) percent of time on task increased immediately prior to the use of self-monitoring. In all instances, percentages of on-task behavior made obvious increases when self-monitoring was introduced and improvement stayed stable or increased during the subsequent conditions.

Mean percentages of on-task behavior for each student, task, and condition are presented in Table I. This table shows that baseline means ranged from 24% to 71%. During the Self-monitoring condition means ranged from 86% to 100%. During the fading conditions, means stayed at or above percentages for the previous condition, and in the maintenance condition was 100% for all students across tasks. Student 5 left the school district during the study and data was available only through the fourth condition, Fade 2.

Boyle and Hughes

$1 BASELINE SELF-MONITORING 100--

I-" 80--

%#, 4o-

< z 20-

Z 0 ~oo-~ - - " " X . , ~ - -- :. UJ so- ~ : ~ �9

U. 0 I- 2 o -

FADE FADE

20--

I ' 1 ' ] ~1 ~1= I ' l r ] , 1 ~ I 1 3 $ 7 9 11 13 15 17 t 9 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 4t 2 3 4

S E S S I O N S WEEKS � 9 ON'TASK � 9 TASKS PER MINUTE

Fig. I . Percent of time on---task and productivity for Student 1.

FADE 3 MAINTENANCE - - 2.0

1.6

4 Z

_ W a .

- - 4

- v - - 2 if)

_ p-

0 ~ ' ~ " " ~ F ~~ ~

n," - - 1 . 2 ~

- - . 8

. 4

$ 2 100

0 80 1

100--- o ~ ~2

0 P" -~ 2 o .

7

BASELINE SELF-MONITORING FADE 1 FADE 2 FADE 3

~ . . . ~ o--o--o-o-o

~ . -

I--

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 3s 37 39 41 2 3 4

S E S S I O N S WEEKS �9 - PERCENT ON-TASK �9 - TASKS PER MINUTE

Fig. 2. Pe r c e n t o f t i m e on- task and product ivi ty for S tudent 2.

MAINTENANCE

2.0

W

z - ~

- - 3 . 0

- - - 2.0 ~

- - 1 .o

0 �9 - - - e - - - - - - - ~ - - 4,0 W

=

- 0 -2.0 0

- - 1.o

- .5

S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g 451

$3 B A S E L I N E S E L F - M O N I T O R I N G

(n | -

k O ,oo- - - I ~ -"% UJ oo- I

0 20- I " I

Z '

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

SESSIONS �9 - P E R C E N T O N ' T A S K

F A D E I F A D E 2

7 31 33 35

F A D E 3 M A I N T E N A N C E

-" : = 2.5 Ii,! LU F-

Z _ .~

L- Ltl 2.0

- - i s 03 3r

_ Z_ ,.0 ~

s k- I - 0

* - - 5.5 I, LJ - n"

E_ 3.s 0 "-zs (")

l - 1.5

5

,; ; 2 1 2 3 ,

WEEKS & - T A S K S PER M I N U T E

Fig. 3. Pe r cen t of t ime on- task and product iv i ty for S t u d e n t 3.

$4 B A S E L I N E S E L F - M O N I T O R I N G

~ ~ 4o

Z 0 ~oo~

=

~ 20"- ~ p. - Z ' ~1 ~ - -

I , I , I ~1 , I , I ~ I , I ~ I , I ~

F A D E I F A D E

2, 2"--"

F A D E 3 M A I N T E N A N C E

- ; - 2.0

F.- .~ =

m

a S p--

4

- . . : -2.0 UJ - ~ -~-~ ~

-1.2 0 .8

.4

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 3S 37 39 41 1 2 3 4

SESSIONS WEEKS �9 - P E R C E N T O N - T A S K , & - T A S K S PER M I N U T E

Fig. 4. P e r c e n t o f t i m e on- task and product iv i ty for S t u d e n t 4.


$ 5 B A S E L I N E S E L F - M O N I T O R I N G F A D E 1 F A D E 2

+:~ A . ' ~ ' w ~

=. i ! k.. ' +!

i i .++ ,-,, =+ = .

1J.I i i i O ~oo-_ -.---- i . . . ~ �9 0:

~. ~ ~ 0

' < - - - 1.o I,.-

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

SESSIONS �9 - P E R C E N T O N - T A S K �9 - T A S K S PER M I N U T E

Fig. 5. Percent of time on-task and productivity for Student 5.

Figures 1 through 5 depict the rate of task production (i.e., tasks performed correctly per minute) for each student during each phase of the study. Visual inspection of Figures 1 through 5 shows generally stable baselines for all 5 students with the exception of Task 3 for Student 1, Task 2 for Student 2, Task 2 for Student 3, and Task 1 for Student 5. When self-monitoring was introduced, most students evidenced overall increases in production rate, although gradual in some cases (i.e., Student 1, Task 3; Student 2, Task 1; Student 3, Task 2; Student 5, Task 2). Overall, increases maintained, and in many cases, improved throughout the remaining conditions. Mean task production for each student across tasks and condit ions is displayed in Table II. Despite increases in task production, only one student ($2, Task 1) equaled or exceeded the mean production rate of the 4 nondisabled peers (see Table II).

Self-Monitoring 453

Table I. Mean Percentage On-Task Rate for Each Student Across Condit ions

Student and task Baseline SM Fade 1 Fade 2 Fade 3 Maintenance

Student 1

Nuts and bolts 37 86 96 98 93 100 Crayons 38 88 89 92 92 100 Pens 47 92 94 92 95 I00

Student 2

Labeling 74 94 95 98 92 100 Folding paper 70 98 93 98 99 100 Collating 71 100 95 100 100 100

Student 3

Small pegs 35 89 93 97 100 100 Beads 29 91 85 94 96 100 Stamping 41 94 88 100 100 100

Student 4

Large pegs 24 87 85 89 97 100 Three i tems 26 86 87 89 91 100 Cotter pin 41 98 75 90 95 100

Student 5

Cotter pin 58 93 100 100 Stamping 57 99 95 94 Three items 59 100 97 92

m

B

DISCUSSION

The present study has replicated and extended research on the use of self-monitoring by students with mental retardation by showing that self-monitoring of on-task behavior can increase both the time-on-task and task productivity of young students with moderate levels of retardation (Anderson-Inman, Paine, & Deuetchman, 1984; Blick & Test, 1987; Hughes & Boyle, 1991; Osborne et al., 1987; Sugai & Rowe, 1984). How- ever, this finding is qualified by the several increases for dependent variables prior to the introduction of self-monitoring. Why some students improved immediately before self-monitoring was introduced is unclear, although it is po~ible to use of self-monitoring and concurrent increases in on-task behavior and productivity for one task may have influenced behavior on other tasks.


Table II. Mean Task Production for Each Student and Task Across Conditions

Student and task Baseline SM Fade 1 Fade 2 Fade 3 Maintenance Peer

Student 1

Nuts and bolts .63 .92 1.10 .95 .82 1.14 2.88 Crayons 1.95 3.45 3.31 3.80 3.79 5.14 14.25 Pens .64 1.03 .96 .96 1.29 1.67 3.75

Student 2 Labeling .51 1.11 1.88 1.95 1.92 2.25 2.13 Folding paper .93 1.43 1.65 1.79 2.08 2.49 5.63 Collating 1.16 1.80 1.57 1.93 2.47 2.67 4.75

Student 3

Small pegs .32 .76 1.27 1.65 1.55 1.94 4.00 Beads .33 .95 1.05 1.01 1.48 1.41 3.38 Stamping .61 2.43 2.68 3.97 4.17 4.47 6.50

Student 4

Large pegs .24 .60 .82 .79 .90 .83 4.00 Three items .45 .89 .67 .87 .93 1.72 5.75 Cotter pin .43 .75 .62 .75 .76 .92 2.13

Student 5

Cotter pin .46 1.09 1.37 1.10 - - - - 2.13 Stamping .56 1.31 1.62 1.37 - - - - 6.50 Three items 1.03 1.55 1.98 1.23 - - - - 5.75

Additionally, this study adds some support to the contention made by some professionals (e.g., Rooney, Polloway, & Hallahan, 1985; Lloyd et al., 1989) that self-monitoring of on-task behavior can be associated with concurrent increases in productivity. Students in the present study increased their productivity from 2 to 7 times when comparing baseline means to meats in the maintenance condition. However, the strength of the relationship, between being on task and rate of productivity was somewhat unclear in several instances because of slight upward trends prior to the introduction of self-monitoring. Also, the question of whether self-monitoring of on-task behavior is more effective than self-monitoring produc-

Self-Monitoring 455

tivity for students with mental retardation was not addressed directly. Future studies with students with mental retardation should directly compare the efficacy of these two procedures in order to establish if either of the two classes of behaviors is the best target for self-monitoring, Although the results of this study lend some support for the use- fulness of self-monitoring for increasing task productivity, gains made by the students did not reach the social validity criterion used in this study (i.e., mean production rate of nonhandicapped peers). It is likely that this criterion may be unrealistic for many students with mental retardation because even when the students were on-task 100% of the time, their production rates were well below the criteria established in this study. Much of this gap may be explained by poor/slow motor skills, especially with tasks involving fine motor movements (Kerr & Blais, 1985; Reid, 1980). Too, it is doubtful that more practice would result in increased fluency of the students in the current study because they had been performing the tasks for over 6 months. While establishing stringent goals for performance is desirable, it may be more realistic to use criteria other than nonhandicapped peer performance when establishing social validity, at least for fine motor activities. More research is needed to establish what criteria would be more useful and realistic especially given that this issue has not been investigated with students with mental retardation (Hughes et al., 1991). In addition, it should be noted that the tasks used in this study were somewhat "artificial" and further research should examine these issues using vocationally related tasks with greater ecological relevance.

One other question addressed in this study was whether students would maintain any behavior changes once external prompts were withdrawn. Results (see Tables I and II) indicate that increases in the dependent variables were maintained during and after the fading of prompts, albeit for a relatively short amount of time (i.e., one month). These results are similar to self-monitoring studies (e.g., Hallahan et al., 1982; Lloyd et al., 1989) with students with learning disabilities in which two fading conditions were used (i.e., omit tone then omit recording form); however, we found no studies of students with mental retardation that used similar fading techniques and measured subsequent maintenance. Therefore, further research is warranted to establish maintenance effects of fading prompts and to extend the maintenance condition be- yond the one-month period used in the present study. Also, it would be interesting to ascertain if maintenance occurs with fewer fading conditions than used in this study, and whether fading procedures are needed at all.


R E F E R E N C E S

Anderson-Inman, L., Paine, S. C., & Deutchman, L. (1984). Neatness counts: Effects of direct instruction and self-monitoring on the transfer of neat-paper skills to nontraining settings. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 137-155.

Beery, K. E. (1982). Revised administration, scorin& and teaching manual for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Cleveland: Modern Curriculum Press.

Blick, D. W., & Test, D. W. (1987). Effects of self-recording on high school students' on task behavior. Leaning Disability Quarterly, 10, 203-213.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement of nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.

Gardner, W. I., & Cole, C. L. (1988). Self-monitoring procedures. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools (pp. 206-246). New York: Guilford Press.

Glynn, E. L., Thomas, J. D., & Shee, S. M. (1973). Behavioral self-control of on-task behavior in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 105-113.

Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W., Kosiewicz, M. M., Kauffman, J. M., & Graves, A. W. (1979). Self-monitoring of attention as a treatment for a learning-disabled boy's off-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(2), 24-32.

Harrison, P. (1985). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale: Classroom edition manual Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Hughes, C. A., & 3oyle, J. R. (1991). Effects of self-monitoring for on-task behavior and task productivity on elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 96-111.

Hughes, C. A., & Hendrickson, J. M. (1987). Self-monitoring with at-risk students in the regular class setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 225-236.

Hughes, C. A., Korinek, L., & Gorman, J. (1991). Self-management for students with mental retardation in public school settings: A research review. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 271-291.

Hughes, C. A., Ruhl, IC L., & Misra, A. (1989). Self-management with behaviorally disordered students in school settings: A promise unfilled? Behavioral Disorders, 14, 250-262.

Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide Range Ach&vement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Assessment Systems.

Kanfer, F. H. (1977). The many faces of self-control, or behavior modification changes its focus. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.), Behavioral self-management: Strategies, techniques, and outcomes (pp. 1-48). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kerr, R., & Blais, C. (1985). Motor skill acquisition by individuals with Down syndrome. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 313-318.

Klein, . D. (1979). Modifying academic performance in the grade school classroom. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 8, pp. 293-321). New York: Academic Press.

Lloyd, J. W., Bateman, D. F., Landrum, T. J., & Hallahan, D. P. (1989). Self-recording of attention versus productivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 315-323.

Maag, J. W., Reid, R., & DiGangi, S. A. (1993). Differential effects of attention, accuracy, and productivity self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 26, 329-344.

M e i e h e n b a u m , D. (1983). Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral approach. In Interdisciplinary voices in leaning disabilities and remedial education (pp. 127-155).

Austin, "IX: PRO-ED. Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self monitoring.

Behavior Modification, 5, 3-14. Osborne, S. S., Kosiewic'z, M. MI, Crumley, E. B., & Lee, C. (1987). Distractible children use

self-monitoring. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19, 66-69. Reid, G. (1980). Overt and covert rehearsal in short-term motor memory of mentally retarded

and nonretarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 69-77.

Self-Monitoring 457

Reid, R., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Effects on attention and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 1, 29-40.

Rooney, K., Polloway, E. A., & Hallahan, D. P. (1985). The use of self-monitoring procedures with low IQ learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 384-389.

Snider, V. (1987). Use of self-monitoring of attention with LD students: Research and application. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 139-151.

Sugai, G., & Rowe, P. (1984). The effects of self-recording on out-of-seat behavior of an EMR student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 23-28.

Webber, J., Scheurmann, B., McCall, C., & Coleman, M. (1993). Research on self-monitoring as a behavior management technique in special education classrooms: A descriptive review. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 38-56.

effects of self-monitoring and subsequent fading of external prompts on the on-task behavior and...

Documents