effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior and written language performance of elementary...

P1: VENDOR/GFU/GIR P2: GCQ/GCZ Tally: FTK/GGN/GDP/ QC: GCQ

Journal of Behavioral Education [jbe] PH039-302193 January 1, 1904 1:23 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2000, pp. 49–73

Effects of Self-Monitoring on the On-Task Behaviorand Written Language Performance of ElementaryStudents with Learning Disabilities

Laura H. Wolfe, M.A., 1 Timothy E. Heron, Ed.D.,2,4

and Yvonne L. Goddard, Ph.D.3

The present study was conducted to determine the effects of self-monitoring and achanging criterion with public posting phase on student on-task behavior andwritten language performance. Four elementary school boys participated andwere enrolled in an urban-based, elementary-level resource room for students withlearning disabilities. Self-monitoring procedures for on-task behavior included thestudents listening to a tone recorded at 60-s intervals and responding to the ques-tion, “Am I on-task?” Written language performance involved the students writingfor a 10-min. session and counting and graphing the number of words written.During baseline conditions, student on-task behavior and written language per-formance were collected. During the self-monitoring conditions, the students mon-itored their on-task behavior and written language performance simultaneously.In the changing criterion with public posting condition, the students received theirgoal for the day’s session prior to writing, wrote, and recorded whether they mettheir goal. While the results show a functional relationship between self-monitoringand on-task behavior, the data for the relationship between self-monitoring andwritten language performance were less compelling. A greater increase occurredwhen the changing criterion with public posting condition was introduced. Resultssuggest that self-monitoring changed on-task behavior; however, further researchneeds to be conducted to determine the conditions that would produce comparable

1Consultant, Columbus Public Schools, Columbus, Ohio.2Professor, School of Physical Activity and Educational Services, The Ohio State University, Columbus,Ohio.

3Assistant Professor, Special Education Section, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.4Correspondence should be directed to Timothy E. Heron, School of Physical Activity and Educa-tional Services, The Ohio State University, 1945 N. High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210; e-mail:[email protected].

49

1053-0819/00/0300-0049$18.00/0C© 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.



50 Wolfe, Heron, and Goddard

effects for written language performance. Several implications for students andteachers and parent training were discussed.

KEY WORDS: self-monitoring; on-task behavior; written language performance; learning disabili-ties; elementary students.

Students in inclusive classrooms arrive with a wide variety of academic,social, and psychological needs. To meet these needs in a climate of dwindlingresources, increased class size, and the continued outcry for educational reform,teachers might rely on strategies that could be categorized into three main clas-sifications: teacher-directed, peer-mediated, or self-directed. Given that a basicgoal of education is to teach students to be independent, teachers might considershifting to more self-directed approaches, of which self-monitoring is a primeexample. Although self-monitoring has been defined in a variety of ways, it isgenerally thought to consist of two elements: self-observation and self-recording.The first element involves the subject discriminating whether the target behaviorhas occurred. In the second, the subject must record occurrences and nonoccur-rences of behavior (DiGangi, Maag, & Rutherford, 1991; Harris et al., 1994;Harris, 1986). Two main types of self-monitoring are also thought to exist: self-monitoring of attention (SMA), and self-monitoring of productivity (SMP) (Reid,1996).

Self-monitoring has advantages for teachers and students alike. It is effectivein bringing about desired behavior change (DiGangi et al., 1991; Dunlap & Dunlap,1989), motivates students (Graham, Harris & Reid, 1992), is portable (Cooper,Heron, & Heward, 1987), helps to develop independence (Paris & Newman,1990), aids in classroom management (Cooper et al., 1987), and is learner centered(Christie, Hiss, & Lozanoff, 1984). Further, self-monitoring has historically beenviewed as a critical component of child development and learning (Zimmerman& Schunk, 1989). It allows students to become aware of and responsible fortheir behavior. Finally, self-monitoring has been used at the elementary (Harriset al., 1994; Harris, 1986), middle school (Prater, Joy, Chilman, Temple, & Miller,1991), high school (Blick & Test, 1987), college level (Lipinski, Black, Nelson,& Ciminero, 1975) and adult levels (Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984) across generaleducation classrooms (Ballard & Glynn, 1975) sheltered workshops (Ackerman& Shapiro, 1984), and mainstream settings (Maag, Reid, & DiGangi, 1993; Prateret al., 1991). Self-monitoring also has been used across disability areas, includinglearning disabilities (Blick & Test, 1987; Harris et al., 1994; Reid & Harris, 1993),mental retardation (Agran, Fodor-Davis, Moore, & Deer, 1989), and with studentswith severe behavior disabilities (Watson, 1996) to either increase or decreasebehaviors.

While researchers have examined the effects of self-monitoring on math-ematics (Brown & Frank, 1990), reading (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997), andspelling (Harris et al., 1994, Exp. 1), relatively fewer self-monitoring studies have



Self-Monitoring 51

examined the effects of self-monitoring on students’ written work (Harris et al.,1994, Exp. 2; Wolfe, 1995). In fact, there have been only three studies in the past20 years examining the effects of self-monitoring on written language, the mostrecent of which was conducted by Harris et al. (1994). In this study, the effectsof self-monitoring on-task behavior vs. self-monitoring academic performance onon-task behavior and productivity was investigated. The subjects were studentswith learning disabilities who ranged in age from 10 to 12 years. The settingwas a self-contained classroom. The academic performance measure was derivedfrom the number of words in stories. A measure of the quality of the students’writing also was employed. The results showed that both self-monitoring activ-ities increased on-task behavior, number of words, and quality ratings, a quan-titative score for the quality of the writing. There did not appear to be a differ-ence between the self-monitoring activities for any measure (Harris et al., 1994,Exp. 2).

Students, in general, have difficulty becoming competent writers, but whena student is learning disabled, this task becomes exponentially more difficult. AsHarris et al. (1994) point out, students with learning disabilities, “generate aninordinately small amount of content when writing” (p. 124). In essence, manystudents will resign themselves to the fact that they cannot write. Self-monitoringmay not only motivate the students to write more (Harris et al., 1994), but also itmay provide immediate, concrete feedback, for their writing. The present study isa systematic replication of the Harris et al. (1994) Experiment 2 study insofar as itexamined the effects of self-monitoring on on-task behavior and number of wordswritten by elementary school students with learning disabilities.

METHOD

Participants

The participants in this study were 4 male elementary students with learningdisabilities (see Table I). Students were selected because they lacked appropriateon-task and written language behaviors as judged by the classroom teacher andascertained by examining curriculum-based assessment measures. The teacher

Table I. Description of Students

Years in special Written languageStudent Gender Age education achievementa

1 M 9 2 low2 M 9 1 low3 M 9 2 low4 M 9 1 low

aDetermined through teacher-administered curriculum-based measurement.




believed that all four students had the academic skills and ability to completetheir work, but lacked the attending skills to complete their assignments. All fourstudents were enrolled in an urban-based resource room. Three students werein third grade, and one was in second grade. All received services for learningdisabilities. The students were 9 years old. Students had mixed histories withrespect to parental support for school-based programs.

While data were only recorded for the described subjects, all students in theclass took part in the self-monitoring exercises. All students received instruction onself-monitoring on-task behavior and written language performance and practicedthese activities. The data for the non participating students were not recordedfor the purpose of the study, but they were used by the teacher for instructionalpurposes.

Setting

This study was conducted in a special education resource room during awriting lesson in which 12 male students participated. There was one teacher.The approximate dimensions of the classroom were 6.2 by 6 meters. The studentdesks were arranged in rows with a small horse shoe in the front of the room. Thechalkboard was in the front of the room.

Dependent Variables

There were two primary dependent variables in this study: on-task behav-ior and written language performance. Social validity and generality were alsoassessed through a series of surveys conducted at the conclusion of the study.

On-Task Behavior

On task behavior was defined as the percentage of time a student had his eyeson his paper, pencil in his hand, engaged in written expression or interacted withthe teacher during the daily observation period. On-task behavior was not day-dreaming, looking out the window, doodling, or writing irrelevant responses. Thedata for this variable were gathered by the teacher as the students self-monitoredand recorded their data on a recording sheet.

Written Language Performance

The second dependent variable, written language performance, was defined asthe number of words written during a 10-min. period. All words were counted by theteacher, including any “nonsense” words. Writing also was measured through theself-monitoring recording sheets. The students checked their papers for the number



Self-Monitoring 53

of words written and recorded this number. Data for each dependent variable wererecorded daily.

Interobserver Agreement Procedures

Three sets of interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected. Anothertrained observer collected data on both primary dependent variables a minimumof 25% of the sessions. The experimenter acted as a second observer for the studentsand gathered IOA data daily for each student for the primary dependent variables.Finally, procedural fidelity data were gathered for self-monitoring.

Social Validity

To determine the social validity of the self-monitoring activities, each student,teacher, and mainstreamed teacher was asked to complete a questionnaire at theend of the study.

Training Self-Monitoring for On-Task Behavior and WrittenLanguage Performance

Prior to self-monitoring, the students were trained how to do the self-monitoring activities. Training occurred in five stages during one session:(1) orientation/presentation, (2) teacher modeling, (3) group discussion, (4) roleplay, and (5) practice. This protocol followed a model, lead, test format suggestedby Engelmann and Carnine (1982). The training for self-monitoring on-task andwritten language involved direct instruction using a script. After direct instructionon what was an example and nonexample of on-task or written language behavior,the students were taught how to monitor these behaviors. The teacher modeledon-task and written language behavior and the students demonstrated understand-ing through role play. The students practiced self-monitoring their own behaviorfor at least 10 supervised trials with teacher feedback and reinforcement to ensureaccuracy of recording on-task and written language.

Design

This study employed a reversal (A-B-A-B-A-BC) experimental design, witha self-monitoring changing criterion phase (BC). The first phase (A1) was baseline,next was the first self-monitoring phase (B1). Baseline occurred again (A2), be-fore a return to self-monitoring (B2). Following these conditions, another baselinecondition was conducted, and then the final condition (BC), self-monitoring withchanging criterion and public posting, was initiated.




Procedures

Baseline

During the baseline condition, normal classroom procedures were in ef-fect. The experimenter collected data on on-task behavior and written languageperformance. Data for on-task behavior were recorded during 1-min. intervals us-ing the same procedure the students used, responding at a tone to the question:“Is the child paying attention?” The experimenter responded at each tone andtotaled the data for the daily observation period. Written language performancealso was recorded in the same manner as the students self-recorded, counting thenumber of words written in the 10-min. session.

Self-Monitoring1

Following instruction, the students began to monitor their on-task behavior.They responded each time they heard the tone to the question, “Am I on-task?”The tone sounded at intervals averaging 60 seconds. The duration of monitoringwas 10 mins. Upon completion of the monitoring time, students totaled the numberof “yes” and “no” responses. They graphed the number of positive responseson their own graph to show progress. These data were later transferred to theexperimenter’s summative graph. Accuracy in recording was reinforced by teacherpraise. If a student was absent, the data reflected this occurrence by a break in thedata path. Students also responded in writing to a given thematic prompt by theteacher. Prior to independent writing, the students engaged in a class discussionto develop a web of the topic. The students were given 10 min. to write aftercompletion of the class web discussion. This prewriting activity was drawn on thechalkboard, and it remained there during independent writing to aid the studentsin spelling and content. Students commenced and continued work upon a signalfrom the teacher. The teacher said, “You may begin.” as the session began and after10 min. said, “Pencils down, the time is up.” Then the students counted the wordsthey had written and recorded this quantity on their record sheet. The studentsgraphed the results to show progress. They were reinforced for accuracy of countingand recording. Verbal praise and a token system were used for reinforcement.Tokens were exchanged for lunch in the classroom with the teacher. The datacollected by the students were later recorded by the experimenter on a summativegraph. As with self-monitoring of on-task behavior, student absence was reflectedin the data by a break in the data path.

Baseline2

During baseline2, conditions in effect during baseline1 were reinstituted.



Self-Monitoring 55

Self-Monitoring2

During Self-monitoring2, conditions in effect during Self-monitoring1 werereinstituted.

Baseline3

During baseline3, conditions in effect during baseline1 were reinstituted.

Self-Monitoring with Changing Criterion and Public Posting

Self-monitoring procedures in this condition remained the same as in theprevious conditions. However, before the students began to write, the experimenterset goals for each student. For example, the goal for student 1 on the first day ofthis condition was writing 15 words within the 10 min. session. The students thenwrote as in the previous conditions, and then counted and graphed the number ofwords written. If they met or exceeded their goal for the day, they placed a star ona chart posted on the classroom wall. The stars were tokens earned toward lunchin the classroom with the teacher.

This changing criterion condition consisted of five phases. The experimenterdetermined the goals based on the data collected for the number of words written inprevious phase. The experimenter established a goal that the student could easilymeet for the goal of the first phase in the condition. The goals were then increasedby two words in the next two phases. The first three phases contained a steadyincrease in the criterion number of words necessary to meet the goals. The fourthphase involved a reversal, the goals were dropped to a point below the originalgoal in the first phase. The reversal was used to demonstrate that the goal settingor the changing criterion with public posting was responsible for the change inbehavior. The goals were reinstated at the highest goal prior to the reversal in thefifth and final phase.

RESULTS

Interobserver Agreement

Dependent Variables

To demonstrate believability, a second observer collected data periodicallythroughout the study, approximately 25% of the sessions. This observer followedthe same data collection procedures as the experimenter. The grand mean of eachcondition across all students was 96.9%, range 87.5% to 100%. IOA was calculated




by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of disagreementsand multiplying by 100.

As the students monitored their behavior, they collected data on their ownbehavior. Because the students were learning to monitor their own behavior, thedata gathered for interobserver agreement for experimenter and student data werenot as strong from student-to-student as the data for the interobserver agreementfor the experimenter and second observer. The grand mean for all students acrossall conditions was 65.5%, range 59.3 to 77.8% agreements. IOA data for writtenlanguage performance was significantly lower. The grand mean for IOA of writtenlanguage performance was 23.9%, range 14.3% to 37.5% agreements.

Independent Variable

Procedural fidelity data were collected on 9 of the 41 sessions in the study,or for 22% of the sessions. An observer watched the procedures at the study wasconducted and responded to a questionnaire. Procedural interobserver agreementfor the independent variable, meaning the percentage of steps completed correctlyacross all phases, was 100% agreement.

On Task and Written Language Data

Student 1

Figure 1 (upper tier) shows the on-task behavior for Student 1. During base-line1, Student 1’s on-task behavior ranged from 0% to 50%, with an average of16% on-task. During self-monitoring1, Student 1 averaged 72.9% on-task, range20% to 100%. Upon return to baseline, Student 1’s on-task behavior deterioratedto 60%, range 50% to 70%, with a decreasing trend. When he remonitored hison-task behavior in self-monitoring2, his scores rose to 83.3% on-task, range 50%to 100%. Five of the six scores recorded were in the range of 90% to 100% on-task behavior. The self-monitoring activities were again discontinued to return tobaseline. Student 1 had an average of 54% on-task behavior, range 40% to 80%. Thefinal phases involved changing criterion with public posting of written languageperformance. On-task behavior was not the focus during this phase, however, self-monitoring of on-task behavior did continue. Student 1 averaged 98% on-task,range 90% to 100%.

Figure 1 (lower tier) shows written language performance data for Student 1.In baseline1, he averaged 12.4 words per 10-minute session, range 2 to 28 words.During self-monitoring1, his average increased to 16.9 words per session, range5 to 28 words. With some variability, the trend seemed to be improving. Duringbaseline2, Student 1’s average fell slightly to 10.7 words per session, range 8 to14 words. Self-monitoring was then reintroduced and his average increased to



Self-Monitoring 57

16.3 words per session, range 11 to 20 words. This average was maintained in thethird baseline phase. The average number of words per session were 15.2 words,range 10 to 20 words. The final phases included using a changing criterion conditionwith public posting. The first of these phases involved setting a goal for Student 1of 15 words per session. He averaged 22.7 words, range 22 to 24 words persession. The trend during this phase was increasing. The second phase of thechanging criterion condition involved a goal of 15 words per session. The studentincreased his average to 28.5 words per session, range 25 to 32 words. The trendwas increasing. The third phase of the changing criterion condition involved a stillhigher goal of 19 words per session. Student 1 met and surpassed this goal, as herecorded an average of 20 words per session, range 15 to 25 words. There was adecreasing trend in the phase, there were only two sessions due to student absence,the student surpassed the goal in one session, and he failed to meet it on the second.The fourth phase of the changing criterion condition involved a reversal. The goalwas set at 10 words per session, a goal that the student had much surpassed inprevious sessions. Student 1 wrote only 7 words during this session, essentiallydemonstrating the reversal (experimental control). The final phase was a return toa goal of 19 words. He met the goal with an average of 22.5 words per session,range 18 to 27 words.

Student 2

Figure 2 (upper tier) shows the on-task behavior for Student 2. Duringbaseline1, Student 2’s on-task behavior ranged from 10% to 60%, with an av-erage of 37.5%. During self-monitoring1, Student 2 averaged 80% on-task, range50% to 100%. His average of 80% is an improvement over the average of 37.5%in baseline1. In baseline2, Student 2’s on-task behavior decreased to 25%, range10% to 50%. The trend was variable. When self-monitoring was reinstated, hisscores averaged of 88.3% on-task and range 60% to 100%. Four of the six scoresrecorded were in the range of 90% to 100%. The self-monitoring activities wereagain discontinued to return to baseline. Student 2 averaged 65% on-task behav-ior, range 50% to 80%. During the final phases, Student 2 averaged 90% on-task,range 80% to 100% across all phases of this condition. Of the eleven sessionsin this condition, Student 2 recorded four sessions at 100% and three at 90%on-task.

Figure 2 (lower tier) shows written language performance data for Student 2.In baseline1, he averaged 28 words per 10 min. session, range 10 to 41 words.During self-monitoring1, his average increased to 27.7 words per session, range16 to 43 words. During baseline2, Student 2’s average increased slightly to 29 wordsper session, range 18 to 49 words. Self-monitoring was then reintroduced and hisaverage increased to 49 words per session, range 28 to 56 words. This average againincreased in baseline3. The average number of words per session were 37.8 words,



Self-Monitoring 59

Fig

.1.

Per

cent

age

ofob

serv

edin

terv

als

on-t

ask

for

Stu

dent

1du

ring

Bas

elin

e,S

elf-

mon

itorin

g,an

dS

elf-

mon

itorin

gw

ithch

angi

ngcr

iterio

nan

dpu

blic

post

ing

(upp

ertie

r).

Tota

lnum

ber

ofw

ords

writ

ten

ina

10-m

in.

daily

writ

ing

sess

ion

acro

ssth

esa

me

cond

ition

sap

pear

sin

the

low

ertie

r.



Self-Monitoring 61

Fig

.2.

Per

cent

age

ofob

serv

edin

terv

als

on-t

ask

for

Stu

dent

2du

ring

Bas

elin

e,S

elf-

mon

itorin

g,an

dS

elf-

mon

itorin

gw

ithch

angi

ngcr

iterio

nan

dpu

blic

post

ing

(upp

ertie

r).T

otal

num

bero

fwor

dsw

ritte

nin

a10

-min

.da

ilyw

ritin

gse

ssio

nac

ross

the

sam

eco

nditi

ons

appe

ars

inth

elo

wer

tier.




range 25 to 54 words. The trend in this condition, however was decreasing quicklyduring the last three sessions.

During the final phases, a goal of 40 words per session was set for Student 2.He averaged 36.7 words, range 28 to 43 words per session. The second phase ofthe changing criterion condition involved setting a goal of 42 words per session,however, Student 2’s average decreased to 29 words per session, range 24 to34 words. The third phase of the changing criterion condition involved the samegoal of 42 words per session. Student 2 did not meet this goal, as he recorded anaverage of 39 words per session, range 33 to 46 words. The fourth phase involveda reversal and the goal was set at 35 words per session, a goal that the studenthad surpassed in previous sessions. Student 2 wrote only 28 words per session,demonstrating the reversal (experimental control). The final phase of the changingcriterion condition was a return to the goal of 42 words, which he just missed. Heaveraged 38.5 words per session, range 37 to 40 words.

Student 3

Figure 3 (upper tier) shows the on-task behavior for Student 3. During base-line1, Student 3’s on-task behavior ranged from 20% to 90%, with an average of44.3%. The trend during baseline1 was highly variable. During self-monitoring1,the student averaged 98.6% on-task, range 80% to 100%. During this phase,Student 3 had scores of 100% during 6 of the 7 sessions. His average of 98.6% wasan improvement over the average of 44.3% in baseline1. In baseline2, Student 3’son-task behavior fell to 77.5%, range 70% to 80%. The trend was very stable.When self-monitoring2 for on-task behavior was reintroduced, his scores imme-diately rose to an average of 98% on-task, range 80% to 100%. Four of the fivescores recorded were 100% on-task behavior. Returning to baseline, Student 3averaged 70%, range from 40% to 100%. Student 3’s on-task behavior in thiscondition was highly variable. During the final phases of this study, Student 3averaged 95.6% on-task, range 80% to 100% across all phases of this condition.Of the nine sessions in this condition, Student 3 recorded seven sessions at 100%on-task.

Figure 3 (lower tier) shows the written language performance for Student 3.Student 3 showed a somewhat less compelling change in written language per-formance, however there was an increasing trend throughout all conditions. Inbaseline1, he averaged 39.6 words per 10-minute session, range 24 to 51 words.During self-monitoring1, his average increased to 66.6 words per session, range54 to 77 words. The trend was accelerating. During baseline2, Student 3’s averagefell to 54.5 words per session, range 41 to 62 words. Self-monitoring was thenreintroduced, and his average increased slightly to 58 words per session, range49 to 71 words. Data for baseline2 and self-monitoring2 overlapped, suggesting aless convincing demonstration of self-monitoring. This average again decreased



Self-Monitoring 63

in baseline3. The average number of words per session were 54.2 words, range31 to 64 words. The trend in this condition was increasing. In the final phases ofthis study, a goal of 60 words per session was set. He averaged 48.5 words, range35 to 62 words per session.

The second phase of the changing criterion condition involved in a goal of62 words per session. Surprisingly, with the higher goal, the student met and farsurpassed it, averaging 82 words per session, range 74 to 90 words. The trendwas accelerating. The third phase of the changing criterion condition involved anincreased goal of 64 words per session. Student 3 again far surpassed this goal, ashe recorded an average of 87 words per session, range 77 to 97 words. There wasa significantly increasing trend in the phase. The fourth phase involved a reversaland the goal was set at 55 words per session, a goal that the student had very muchsurpassed in previous sessions. Student 3 wrote 57 words during this session, whichwas lower than the previous two phases, but not completely meeting the criterion.The final phase of the changing criterion condition and the study was a return tothe higher goal. For Student 3, the goal of 64 words written in the 10 min. sessionwas reestablished. He met and surpassed the goal with an average of 70 words persession, range 64 to 76 words. The trend was decelerating.

Student 4

Figure 4 (upper tier) shows the on-task behavior for Student 4. During base-line1, Student 4’s on-task behavior ranged from 20% to 90%, with an average of48.6% on-task. During self-monitoring1, Student 4 averaged 78.3% on-task, range60% to 100%. In baseline2, Student 4’s on-task behavior decreased to 46.7%,range 30% to 60%. The trend was variable. When self-monitoring for on-taskwas reintroduced, his scores rose dramatically to an average higher than that ofself-monitoring1. He averaged of 92% on-task, range 80% to 100% on-task be-havior. Two of the five scores recorded were 100%. Returning to baseline, Student4 averaged 74% on-task, range from 40% to 100%. Student 4’s on-task behaviorin this condition was on a decreasing trend. During the final phases, Student 4averaged 97.8% on-task, range 80% to 100% across all phases of this condition.Of the nine sessions in this condition, Student 4 recorded eight sessions at 100%on-task.

Figure 4 (lower tier) shows written language performance for Student 4.Student 4 showed a less significant change in behavior in the written languageperformance measure, however there was an increase in written language in theself-monitoring condition and the changing criterion condition with public posting.In baseline1, he averaged 28.6 words per 10 minute session, range 13 to 47 words.During self-monitoring1, his average decreased slightly to 26.3 words per session,range 12 to 45 words. The trend was increasing. During baseline2, Student 4’saverage fell to 14.3 words per session, range 12 to 17 words. Self-monitoring was



Self-Monitoring 65

Fig

.3.

Per

cent

age

ofob

serv

edin

terv

als

on-t

ask

for

Stu

dent

3du

ring

Bas

elin

e,S

elf-

mon

itorin

g,an

dS

elf-

mon

itorin

gw

ithch

angi

ngcr

iterio

nan

dpu

blic

post

ing

(upp

ertie

r).T

otal

num

ber

ofw

ords

writ

ten

ina

10-m

in.d

aily

writ

ing

sess

ion

acro

ssth

esa

me

cond

ition

sap

pear

sin

the

low

ertie

r.



Self-Monitoring 67

Fig

.4.

Per

cent

age

ofob

serv

edin

terv

als

on-t

ask

for

Stu

dent

4du

ring

Bas

elin

e,S

elf-

mon

itorin

g,an

dS

elf-

mon

itorin

gw

ithch

angi

ngcr

iterio

nan

dpu

blic

post

ing

(upp

ertie

r).T

otal

num

ber

ofw

ords

writ

ten

ina

10-m

in.d

aily

writ

ing

sess

ion

acro

ssth

esa

me

cond

ition

sap

pear

sin

the

low

ertie

r.




then reintroduced and his average increased to 22 words per session, range 14to 45 words. This average again decreased in baseline3. The average number ofwords per session were 26.4 words, range 17 to 36 words. In the final phases, agoal of 30 words per session was set. He averaged 51 words, range 42 to 60 wordsper session. The second phase of the changing criterion condition involved in agoal of 32 words per session. With the higher goal, the student surpassed the goal,averaging 48 words per session, range 43 to 53 words. The third phase of thechanging criterion condition involved an increased goal of 34 words per session.Student 4 again surpassed this level, recording an average of 54 words per session,range 36 to 74 words. The fourth phase involved a reversal, and the goal wasset at 25 words per session, a goal that the student had surpassed previously.Student 4 wrote 35 words during this session, which was lower than the previousthree phases, but not completely at the criterion. The final phase of the changingcriterion condition the goal of 34 words was reestablished, which Student 4 met,averaging 38 words per session.

Generality

Generality was measured by asking mainstream teachers to respond to a ques-tionnaire. A direct observation was not possible. While there was some consensusfrom the mainstream teachers that three of the students had increased the amountof time they attended, they reported no significant change had occurred in thenumber of assignments the students completed.

Social Validity

To determine the social validity of the study, the students, teacher, and main-stream teachers were asked to respond to a questionnaire. There was general con-sensus that using the self-monitoring activities was a positive experience. All fourstudents responded that they felt that self-monitoring helped them write more.When asked which procedure they liked best: self-monitoring on-task behavior orwritten language performance, 3 students reported liking self-monitoring writtenlanguage performance more, while the fourth liked self-monitoring on-task per-formance more. There was also consensus that they would like to continue usingself-monitoring in their classrooms.

The teacher also viewed the self-monitoring procedures positively. She en-joyed it and reported that it was not difficult to implement, and that she thought ithelped her students produce more writing. She believed that she would use self-monitoring in the future. The mainstream teachers each responded that they wouldbe interested in using self-monitoring in their classrooms.



Self-Monitoring 69

DISCUSSION

The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Blick and Test(1985), Cotterman (1993), Harris et al. (1994), Harris (1986), Lloyd, Bateman,Landrum, and Hallahan (1989), and Reid and Harris (1993) insofar as self-monit-oring produced an increase in on-task behavior. All students benefited from theself-monitoring procedure with respect to their on-task performance. The mostdramatic change occurred for Students 2 and 3, the least change was noted forStudent 1.

Although there were modest positive effects for Student 2 and Student 3 withrespect to the effects of self-monitoring on written language, it was not signif-icant enough to claim a functional relationship. This is contradictory to Harriset als. (1994) results where they found a positive effect for the written languagemeasure.

Beginning with Session 20, it became evident that self-monitoring was notproducing a corresponding change in written language performance as it was foron-task. Hence, the experimenter added the changing criterion with public postingto boost written language performance. This procedure did increase the writtenlanguage performance for 3 of 4 students. For instance, varying criterion levelswere introduced between sessions 31 and 41. At each introduction of the changein criterion (including the reversal phase), performance changed in the predicteddirection. Hence, a functional relationship can be claimed between the change incriterion and the dependent variable. Clearly, however, the sole contributing effectof self-monitoring is commingled with the changing criterion component, whichwas added as a programmatic feature to enhance student learning and productivity.

The students in this study were involved with two other classrooms. Student 1attended another class for social studies, science, and health. The teacher in thisclassroom stated that Student 1 was quieter in her room, more so after the studythan before the study and was seemingly paying attention. Student 2 attendedanother class for social studies, science and health as well. His teacher also statedthat he was more attentive after the study. Student 3 attended the same class asStudent 2 for math, social studies, science, and health. The teacher commentedthat Student 3 had always been very attentive in her class and had maintained thisbehavior throughout the study. Student 4 went to another room for social studies,science, and health. His teacher reported that he had always been quiet in her room,“I hardly knew he was there!,” but engaged very little with the class. She addedthat this did not change during the study.

Given the limitation of not being able to collect direct, observational recordsof student on-task behavior in the other classrooms, analysis can only be appliedto the anecdotal reports of the teachers. Overall, the teacher reports are not conclu-sive with respect to improved and generalized on-task performance in nontrainedsettings.




Upon interviewing the mainstream teachers regarding written language per-formance, it was clear that self-monitoring in the resource room had little effecton written language performance in other environments. None of the teachers re-ported marked changes in written language. In retrospect, this finding should not besurprising, especially given Baer, Wolf, and Risley’s (1968) admonition that gener-alized outcomes need to be planned, not lamented. It was not possible given the con-straints of the experiment to program adequately for these generalized outcomes.

All students, on the other hand, reported that they enjoyed self-monitoring ac-tivities. There was consensus among the four students that using self-monitoringhelped them write more words. Three of the four students liked self-monitoringwritten language performance better than self-monitoring on-task behavior. Theycommented that they liked to “count up the score and put it on the graph to seehow you did.” The student who like self-monitoring on-task behavior better com-mented that he liked it because it reminded him to “get back to work.” When askedto respond to the question: “Would you like to continue using self-monitoring?”one student said, “What do you mean, we don’t get to do it anymore?” All fourstudents agreed that they would like to continue using self-monitoring. Whenasked whether they would like to use self-monitoring in the mainstream room, allfour reported that they would like to try it, but only if the other students in theroom did it too. “I think it would help the others, too,” commented one of thestudents.

The resource room teacher, who served as the experimenter, had a positiveperspective about self-monitoring. She stated, “It was not difficult to implementself-monitoring and the students enjoyed it. The students did make some improve-ments. . .and they seemed to like counting their words and finding their “score” forthe day. I will definitely use self-monitoring in the future, experimenting furtherwith differing dependent variables.” The mainstream teachers, while not directlyinvolved in the study, were asked to respond to a questionnaire upon conclusion ofthe study. Two of the mainstream teachers reported a positive change in the on-taskbehavior of the students mainstreamed in their rooms. The other teachers saw nochange in behavior. However, one commented that the student mainstreamed inher room already had appropriate on-task behavior when he was in her room. Onlyone mainstream teacher reported a difference in the amount of work completedin her room by these students. All mainstream teachers said that they would liketo be trained in self-monitoring so that they may implement it in their rooms toprovide more consistency for the students.

LIMITATIONS

There are several factors to consider that may have affected the data. First,Students 1 and 3 took medication to help focus their attention. Medication may havebeen a variable that affected the data. Second, multiple student absences occurred



Self-Monitoring 71

during the study. Student 3 had relatively frequent absences, missing four of the38 sessions (approximately 11%). This inconsistency may have affected his on-taskbehavior and written language performance.

Perhaps the greatest limitation relates to the nature of self-monitoring. Self-monitoring generally works best with tasks that are within the students’ repertoire.In such cases, self-monitoring can be used to build fluency. In the present study,the students, who were learning disabled, were asked to self-monitor their writtenlanguage performance, an area chosen because of the limited quantity of writing thestudents generated. Since the writing task involved reading from the chalkboard,copying words (sometimes letter-by-letter), then scanning the chalkboard againfor more ideas, this sequence may have been too difficult.

IMPLICATIONS

There are several implications of this study for students, teachers (both pre-service and inservice, regular and special education), and parents. Because of thereactivity associated with self-monitoring, it is a powerful procedure to changebehavior. Students should learn this skill and be able to apply it in a variety ofways necessary for their success in educational and personal life. Preservice, in-service, general, and special education teachers should have this procedure in theirrepertoire of instruction techniques to be used for whole class, small group, orindividualized applications. Parents should also be aware of this procedure as itcan be reinforced and applied at home, allowing them to reinforce efforts at school.As disabilities can occur in more than one member in the family, the parents couldtrain other children—or themselves—to self-monitor, applying this procedure intheir own lives.

Further, students at all levels, especially those enrolled in high incidencespecial education programs should be trained in this procedure. It teaches studentsto take control of their behavior, which is often difficult for students in theseprograms. Once learned, students can take this skill with them wherever they needit. It’s transportable. This is an especially important skill for students receivingspecial education services as they are frequently in a variety of environments.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

One methodological improvement on the present study would be to introducethe goal setting, changing criterion condition earlier. The changing criterion pro-cedure that was paired with self-monitoring showed preliminary positive results,and is a suggested area for further research. While self-monitoring of written lan-guage seemed to make only a slight difference in written language performance,the changing criterion with public posting condition set the occasion for a moresignificant change. When using the combination of self-monitoring with changing




criterion, students can aim for a goal and see their results posted. Further researchin this area could focus on features critical in the combination of these proceduresto increase written language. Also, generality of behavior change needs further ex-ploration. Replicating this study, but with direct measures of student performancein the mainstream class, would be a step in the direction of producing generalizedoutcomes. Finally, in the present study, the experimenter set the criterion or goalthe students needed to achieve to receive reinforcement. However, future studiesmight focus on allowing students to set their own goals. This might build additionalmotivation and give students further ownership of the behavior change.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). Self-monitoring and work productivity with mentallyretarded adults.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17,403–407.

Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Deer, M. (1989). The application of a self-managementprogram on instruction-following skills.Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped,14,147–154.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. (1968). Current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.

Ballard, K. D., & Glynn, T. (1975). Behavioral self-management in story writing with elementaryschool children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 387–398.

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

Brown, D., & Frank, A. R. (1990). “Let me do it!” - Self-monitoring in solving arithmetic problems.Education and Treatment of Children, 13(3), 239–248.

Christie, D. J., Hiss, M., & Lozanoff, B. (1984). Modification of inattentive classroom behavior.Behavior Modification, 8, 391–406.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987).Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, Ohio:Merrill.

Cotterman, M. D. (1993).The effects of self-monitoring on academic performance and time-on-taskbehavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

DiGangi, S. A., Maag, J. W., & Rutherford, R. B. (1991). Self-graphing of on-task behavior: Enhancingthe reactive effects of self-monitoring on on-task behavior and academic performance.LearningDisability Quarterly, 14,221–230.

Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regroup-ing to students with learning disabilities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(3), 309–314.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. W. (1982).Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. NewYork: Irvington.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Reid, R. (1992). Developing self-regulated learners.Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 24,1–16.

Harris, K. R. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity:effects on on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children.Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 19,417–423.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of atten-tion versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison.LearningDisability Quarterly, 17,121–139.

Lipinski, D. P., Black, J. L., Nelson, R. O., & Ciminero, A. R. (1975). Influence of motivational variableson the reactivity and reliability of self-recording.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,43,637–646.

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



Self-Monitoring 73

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

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehen-sion in students with learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education 18(4), 197–213.

Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning.EducationalPsychologist, 25,87–102.

Prater, M. A., Joy, R., Chilman, B., Temple, J., & Miller, S. R. (1991). Self-monitoring of on-taskbehavior by adolescents with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 164–177.

Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present, theprospects, the pitfalls.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,317–331.

Reid, R., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance:Effects on attention and academic performance.Exceptional Children, 60,29–40.

Watson, C. A. (1996).Effects of self-monitoring on homework completion of students with severebehavior handicaps. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Wolfe, L. (1995).A comparison of the effects of two self monitoring activities on on-task behavior andwritten language. Unpublished masters thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989).Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior and written language performance of elementary...

Documents