See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258845723

Increasing On-Task Behavior in Students in a Regular Classroom:

Effectiveness of a Self-Management Procedure Using a Tactile Prompt

Article  in  Journal of Behavioral Education · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10864-013-9180-6

CITATIONS

11

READS

659

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Neurodevelopmental diseases: Assessment & Interventions View project

Developing a program of in-service training for professionals in Education to prevent and address behaviours of concern positively View

project

Dennis William Moore

Monash University (Australia)

102 PUBLICATIONS   1,489 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Angelika Anderson

The University of Waikato

57 PUBLICATIONS   699 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Russell Lang

Texas State University

196 PUBLICATIONS   3,767 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis William Moore on 01 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Increasing On-Task Behavior in Students in a RegularClassroom: Effectiveness of a Self-ManagementProcedure Using a Tactile Prompt

Dennis W. Moore • Angelika Anderson •

Michele Glassenbury • Russell Lang • Robert Didden

Published online: 29 August 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Self-management strategies have been shown to be widely effective.

However, limited classroom-based research exists involving low performing but

developmentally normal high school-aged participants. This study examined the

effectiveness of a self-management strategy aimed at increasing on-task behavior in

general education classrooms with students without a diagnosed disability, behavior

disorder, or exceptionality. The self-management package included provision of a

tactile prompt, training in self-monitoring and data recording, self-monitoring, and

the plotting of the results on a cumulative graph. A multiple baseline design across

three participants was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention. An increase in

on-task behavior was observed with all participants on implementation of the self-

management package, and questionnaire-based social validity findings suggest this

was an acceptable and effective procedure for the classroom context. Limitations,

implications, and future directions of these findings are discussed.

Keywords Adolescent students � Self-management � Self-monitoring �Tactile prompt � On-task behavior � Classroom

D. W. Moore (&) � A. Anderson � M. Glassenbury

Faculty of Education, Krongold Centre, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Melbourne,

VIC 3800, Australia

e-mail: dennis.moore@monash.edu

R. Lang

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos,

TX, USA

R. Didden

Department of Special Education, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

123

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311

DOI 10.1007/s10864-013-9180-6

Introduction

Low levels of on-task behavior in classrooms can be a significant problem for teachers

and students. Students who display such behavior characteristically are inattentive,

distractible, and fail to complete work (Dalton et al. 1999). If prolonged, this pattern

can lead to more widespread problems including difficulty with creating and

maintaining close interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers, peer rejection,

and social isolation inside and outside of school (Lee et al. 2007). Low levels of on-task

behavior may also have detrimental effects on the instructional process within the

classroom, both for teachers and other students (Shogren et al. 2011).

Since the early 1970s, researchers have been studying self-management

strategies as a way to increase or maintain desired positive behavior and to

decrease undesired behavior employing a range of techniques. Self-management

techniques have included self-monitoring, self-recording, self-evaluation, goal-

setting, and self-reinforcement (Epstein et al. 2005). For example, Broden et al.

(1971) successfully increased appropriate behavior and reduced inappropriate talk-

outs with two junior high students in regular education classrooms through a

combination of self-recording and contingent teacher praise. Brigham et al. (1985)

taught behavior analytic concepts and specific self-management techniques to 103

middle school students with adjustment and discipline problems. The results showed

statistically significant decreases in detentions and improvements in teacher-

completed behavior ratings in each of the 3 years in which data were collected

(Brigham et al. 1985). In addition, other studies have demonstrated the positive

effects of self-management strategies when applied to entire classes (e.g., Glynn and

Thomas 1974) as well as when applied to quantitative and qualitative aspects of

students’ academic performance (e.g., Ballard and Glynn 1975).

Most self-management research has focused on children with disability diagnoses

(e.g., Axelrod et al. 2009; O’Reilly et al. 2002; Soares et al. 2009) or disorders (e.g.,

Holifield et al. 2010) such as traumatic brain injury (Davies et al. 2010). Although

such research supports the effectiveness of self-management interventions, limited

attention has been paid to typically developing students in the general education

system. In a notable exception, Piersel (1985) studied the effectiveness of a self-

observation procedure to increase work completion with an elementary school child.

Piersal conducted a component analysis to evaluate the relative effects of a self-

monitoring system and meetings with a school psychologist, and showed that the

self-management component was the critical element of the intervention. De Haas-

Warner (1992) demonstrated that four preschool children, only one of whom had

developmental delay but all of whom were identified by their teachers as exhibiting

attention difficulties, could be taught to use a self-monitoring procedure. The results

showed strong increases in on-task behavior during readiness skill development

lessons. Similarly, Moore et al. (2001) demonstrated substantial gains in on-task

levels with three typically developing elementary-aged students self-management

program utilizing both self-recording and goal-setting. Last, previous studies (e.g.,

Rock 2005; Rock and Thread 2007) have also demonstrated clear gains in academic

engagement and academic productivity with elementary school children, both with

and without exceptionalities, in general education classrooms when they were

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311 303

123

taught a strategic self-monitoring procedure. Thus, previous studies with students

without disabilities suggest potential benefits of self-management procedures, and

self-monitoring in particular, regarding on-task behavior and academic performance

in regular education settings.

The most frequently employed type of prompt in self-monitoring studies has been

audio signals delivered through headphones or via a tape recorder (e.g., Moore et al.

2001). There are a number of potential disadvantages associated with the use of

audio signals including increased visibility which can lead to social stigmatization

and can be disrupting to other students and teachers (Rafferty et al. 2011).

Tactile prompts may be an effective alternative to the use of audio signals.

Amato-Zech et al. (2006) evaluated self-monitoring to increase the on-task behavior

of three elementary-aged students, all with speech and language impairments or

diagnoses of specific learning disabilities. They used a tactile self-monitoring

prompt called the MotivAider� which is an electronic beeper that vibrates to

provide a tactile cue to self-monitor. The students were taught to monitor their own

on-task behavior through the use of the MotivAider�. Results indicated that the

tactile prompt was effective at producing considerable increases in the students’ on-

task behavior. The results also suggested a possible maintenance effect in that

although a reversal was achieved within the context of the experimental design,

baseline levels of on-task behavior following the intervention were considerably

higher than those observed prior to intervention. Additionally, Amato-Zech et al.

showed that both teachers and students provided high ratings of treatment

acceptability regarding the MotivAider�.

The results of Amato-Zech et al. (2006) suggested that self-monitoring combined

with a tactile prompt provided by the MotivAider� may be an efficient and effective

strategy for addressing off-task behavior. Further, the results of Amato-Zech et al.

suggested that a maintenance effect might have been observed upon the removal of

the tactile prompt suggesting that further investigation of possible maintenance of

effects is warranted. The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend

the work by Amato-Zech et al. Specifically, we evaluated the effects of a self-

monitoring intervention consisting of tactile prompts provided by the MotivAider�

and graphic self-recording of on-task behavior of typically developing high school

students with histories of engagement in high levels of off-task behavior.

Additionally, we examined the maintenance of intervention effects.

Methods

The Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee approved the project

before data collection commenced. All participants and their parents gave their

informed consent for participating in the study.

Participants and Selection

Participant selection was based on teacher referral of students with high levels of

off-task behavior during regular classroom instruction. Three humanities teachers in

304 J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311

123

a suburban co-educational state secondary college were asked to select three

students for inclusion in the study. Three male participants, aged between 12 and

13 years, were selected; one from each of three classes of 22 students. Abe and Ben

were described by their teacher as students with a low average ability. Chaz was

described by his teacher as an average student who was performing below his

potential. Only two teachers were involved in the study as two of the participants,

though in different classes, were taught by the same teacher.

Setting

All observations were conducted during regularly scheduled humanities classes (a

combination of English literacy and social studies; classes were 50 min in duration).

Lessons typically consisted of whole class direct instruction on language reasoning

and writing skills, followed by independent seatwork or group work associated with

the same topics. On occasion, games related to the curriculum were introduced as

part of the initial whole class activity or videos relating to the topic were shown.

Class schedules and lesson content remained constant across phases of the study.

Dependent Variables

On-task behavior served as the dependent variable. On-task behavior was defined as

activity that complied with instructions given by the teacher for that lesson. This

included listening to the teacher’s instructions (i.e., the participant orientated toward

the teacher with eyes open and not talking), writing, reading written work, talking to

the teacher, discussing set work with a neighbor, having the teacher check work,

group discussion, reading from the whiteboard, researching on the computer,

looking up words in the dictionary, and complying with other verbal instructions

given by the teacher. Off-task behavior was defined as any activity not directly

associated with the academic task as instructed by the teacher including walking

around the room, touching the student next to them, swinging on the chair,

conversing with a neighbor in matters not relating to work, laughter, speaking out of

turn or without permission, making noises, looking out the window, excessive

erasing, drawing on the desk, doodling, and staring into space. Off-task behavior

was scored when discrimination between off-task and on-task proved difficult and

when on-task and off-task behavior occurred simultaneously.

Observation Procedure

Observation procedures replicated those reported previously (Moore et al. 2001).

Prior to the baseline phase, informal observations were undertaken to enable

refinement of the operational definitions and to desensitize the class to the presence

of the observers. Formal observations proceeded using a 15 s momentary time

sampling procedure. The third author served as the primary data collector.

Participant behavior was recorded every 15 s for 30 min or until the teacher stopped

the activity. Raw on-task scores were converted to percentage of intervals to control

for minor variations in session length throughout the study.

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311 305

123

A second observer was present during 25 % of sessions, recording simulta-

neously but independently. Observations were synchronized via auditory signals

delivered through bug in the ear technology. Reliability checks were evenly divided

across participants and phases. Interobserver agreement for the occurrence of on-

task behavior was calculated on an interval by interval basis by dividing agreements

by total number of agreements plus disagreements, multiplied by 100 (Kazdin

2010). Mean percentage of overall agreement was 94 % (range Abe 92–98 %; Ben

92–100 %; Chaz 94–100 %).

Materials

The MotivAider� (http://habitchange.com/pro.php) is an electronic beeper that

vibrates (similar to a mobile phone) at predetermined intervals thereby providing a

tactile stimulus. A sheet with information on what qualified as on-task and off-task

was given to each participant together with daily self-monitoring sheets which

consisted of a series of numbered boxes in which a tick (on-task) or a cross (off-

task) could be entered. At the top of the sheet, the question ‘‘What does the teacher

want me to do?’’ was written with space to insert a response.

The social validity of the intervention was assessed by way of a brief purpose-

developed questionnaire to be completed at the end of the study. The questionnaire

consisted of five questions regarding the ease of use of the intervention procedure,

its effectiveness, and the extent to which behavior change was observed to

generalize to other lessons (all forms are available from the first author on request).

Design

A multiple baseline across subjects design (Kazdin 2010) was used to assess the

effects of the intervention on on-task behavior. Three and four week follow-up

sessions, in which the intervention was not in place, were conducted following the

intervention condition.

Procedure

Baseline

During baseline observations, self-monitoring procedures were not in effect, and

teachers were directed to continue using their typical procedures for classroom

management and for helping participants remain on-task. No programmed

consequences were applied to off-task or on-task behavior, although both teachers,

at times, called participants’ attention to their off-task behavior and occasionally

provided praise for on-task behavior.

Intervention

Each of the three participants was instructed individually on how to use the

MotivAider� and the recording sheet for self-recording on-task and off-task

306 J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311

123

behavior. On the first day of the intervention phase, the third author took the

participant aside before the lesson began for approximately 30 min in which the

target on-task behavior was discussed, processes for operating the MotivAider� and

completing the self-recording sheet were modelled, and the procedures were

rehearsed by the participant. The self-monitoring sheet was then introduced and the

participant was shown how to complete the form, tally the results, and enter them in

a graph summarizing on-task performance.

At the beginning of every lesson, the teacher handed the self-monitoring pack

(MotivAider� plus self-monitoring sheet) to the participant. The participants

responded to questions regarding the objectives for the lesson and adjusted the

MotivAider� to the ‘run’ position. The MotivAider� was set to provide a signal

every 3 min. The participants would record with a tick (yes) or a cross (no) whether

they were on-task or off-task at the exact moment in time the MotivAider� vibrated.

At the end of each session, the participant tallied the number of ticks and recorded

this on a cumulative bar graph before returning the self-monitoring pack to the

teacher.

The teachers were instructed to give participants the self-monitoring sheet at the

beginning of the humanities class and to take it back at the end of the lesson. The

teachers were directed to continue to respond to both on-task and off-task behavior

as during baseline.

Follow-Up

The procedures for this condition were identical to those used during baseline.

Social Validity

Treatment acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were assessed via

questionnaires that were distributed to the teachers and participants at the end of the

study.

Results

Figure 1 displays the percentage of intervals in which the participants were recorded

as on-task in baseline, intervention, and follow-up. During baseline, Abe (top

panel), Ben (middle panel), and Chaz (bottom panel) all demonstrated low and

stable levels of on-task behavior; with mean scores of 34.5, 34.6, and 48.7 % for

Abe, Ben, and Chaz, respectively. All three displayed a substantial increase in on-

task behavior when the intervention was introduced; and an upward trend was

apparent across the intervention phase. The mean levels of on-task behavior during

the intervention condition were 77.7, 68.5, and 88.6 %, for Abe, Ben, and Chaz,

respectively. Follow-up indicated maintenance of the effects; scores remained high

during the follow-up condition, with mean levels of 80.5, 80.0, and 88.6 %, for Abe,

Ben, and Chaz, respectively.

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311 307

123

Social Validity

The results of the participant evaluations suggested that the intervention was easy to

use, effective, and generalized to other subject areas. The teachers reported that they

found the intervention neither intrusive nor distracting for other students in their

classroom. They also reported that the intervention was effective and that

improvements in the participants’ behavior could also be seen in other lessons

where the self-monitoring program had not been introduced. The teachers indicated

that they would recommend the intervention to other teachers and use it with other

students in their classroom. The continued use of the intervention procedures and

the maintenance of behavior change can be considered support for the social

validity of the intervention (Kennedy 2002).

0

20

40

60

80

100Baseline Intervention Follow up

Abe

3 weeks

4 weeksP

erce

ntag

e of

On-

task

beh

avio

r

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ben

Sessions0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chaz

Fig. 1 Percentage of on-task behavior during baseline, treatment, and follow-up

308 J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311

123

Discussion

The current study investigated the effectiveness of a self-management intervention

using the MotivAider�, to increase on-task behavior for three typically developing

students in general classroom settings. The self-management package consisted of

training in self-monitoring as well as the implementation of the self-monitoring and

graphing procedures. Our findings demonstrated a considerable improvement in on-

task performance for all participants as a result of the intervention, and the effects

were maintained during short-term follow-up. The current results are consistent with

a previous study of the effects of the MotivAider� (Amato-Zech et al. 2006) and

provide additional empirical support of the effectiveness and acceptability of self-

management programs using the MotivAider� as a tactile prompt in the classroom.

The results of the current study demonstrated that the tactile prompt delivered by

the MotivAider� can be an effective way to prompt students to self-monitor their

behavior. A significant benefit of the MotivAider� is that it is discreet and does not

disturb other students in the classroom. Other benefits of the MotivAider� include

its adaptability. It can be programmed to produce a continuous or intermittent

schedule of tactile prompting; in addition, the length of vibration can be adjusted to

suit the individual. This adaptability could enable systematic prompt fading. Future

research could endeavor to determine whether improvements in on-task behavior

can be maintained in the absence of the intervention following a systematic thinning

of prompts over time.

The study highlights a number of practical implications for the use of the

MotivAider� in schools. The students were responsible for their own monitoring,

and the intervention placed few demands on the teachers’ time and resources. There

was little disruption to the flow of the lesson or to the teachers’ attention. Second,

the students’ on-task behavior increased without the need for tangible reinforce-

ment. These findings are consistent with previous self-management studies that

found substantial increases in on-task behavior without a formal reinforcement

system (see Amato-Zech et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2001). However, it is important to

note that on-task behavior may have been reinforced by the visual representation of

improved behavior inherent in the cumulative graphs. Future research should

investigate the extent to which self-graphing can function as a reinforcer for

students with similar profiles. The visual presentation of improved behavior may

also have had an effect on the participants’ goal-setting behavior. As goal-setting

has been shown to impact performance (Asaro-Saddler and Saddler 2010; Delano

2007), it is possible that unobserved changes in goal-setting behavior may have

impacted the participants’ on-task behavior. Thus, further research on the effects of

goal-setting is warranted. Additionally, given that the current intervention consisted

of multiple components, a component analysis evaluating the relative effects of the

different elements of the intervention is warranted.

Although follow-up observations confirmed the maintenance of improved on-task

behavior up to four weeks after the intervention, the lack of long-term maintenance

data is a notable limitation to the current analysis. Additionally, as noted previously,

the intervention under investigation was a self-management package which included

training in self-monitoring. Training itself may have confounded the effects of the

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311 309

123

intervention. Specifically, participant contact with the experimenter may have

heightened the saliency of observers in the classroom at the end of the baseline

phase, and this may have contributed to change in the students’ behavior. A

continuation of baseline conditions after the training sessions and before introduc-

tion of the MotivAider�-based self-monitoring would have provided a measure of

the effects of this component of the intervention.

Another limitation of the current study was the lack of generalization data.

Generalization was informally assayed through discussions with the participants’

teachers. In each case, the teachers commented that the participants were making

more of an effort to remain on-task, that they were becoming increasingly self-

directing of their own behavior, that they were completing a larger volume of work,

and that they (the teachers) now needed to spend less time redirecting the students to

their assigned tasks. It should be noted, however, that the teachers were not blind to

the purpose and implementation of the study, and these anecdotal observations

suggesting that the effects of the intervention generalized across settings should be

considered with appropriate caution.

A final limitation is the lack of data regarding the effects of the intervention on

the participants’ academic performance during the lessons. It remains unknown

whether the students mastered more objectives or completed more tasks concom-

itant to the observed increase in on-task behavior. Future research should address

this area through formal measurements of task completion and achievement in

curriculum areas both directly and not directly linked to the treatment program.

The MotivAider� combined with a self-management program appears to be a

promising option for schools and other institutions that require a relatively simple to

use intervention. It is also economical in terms of effort and time required by both

the student and the teacher. The MotivAider� appears socially acceptable to

students of this age, due presumably to its discreet format and ease of use. In

conclusion, self-management using the MotivAider� appears to be a practical and

effective intervention for increasing on-task behavior of low performing but

developmentally normal high school students in the regular classroom.

References

Amato-Zech, N., Hoff, K., & Doepke, K. (2006). Increasing on-task behavior in the classroom: Extension

of self-monitoring strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 211–221.

Asaro-Saddler, K., & Saddler, B. (2010). Planning instruction and self-regulation training: Effects on

writers with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 77, 107–124. doi:10.1177/

1053451208330895.

Axelrod, M., Zhe, E., Haugen, K., & Klein, J. (2009). Self-management on on-task homework behavior:

A promising strategy for adolescents with attention and behavior problems. School Psychology

Review, 38, 325–333.

Ballard, K. D., & Glynn, T. (1975). Behavioral self-management in story writing with elementary school

children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 387–398.

Brigham, T. A., Hopper, C., Hill, V., Armas, A. D., & Newsom, P. (1985). A self-management program

for disruptive adolescents in the school: A clinical replication analysis. Behavior Therapy, 16,

99–115.

310 J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311

123

Broden, M., Hall, R. V., & Mitts, B. (1971). The effect of self-recording on the classroom behavior of two

eighth grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 191–199.

Dalton, T., Martella, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1999). The effects of a self-management program in

reducing off-task behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 157–176.

Davies, S., Jones, K., & Rafoth, M. (2010). Effects of a self-monitoring intervention on children with

traumatic brain injury. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 308–326.

De Haas-Warner, S. (1992). The utility of self-monitoring for preschool on-task behavior. Topics in Early

Childhood Special Education, 12, 478–495.

Delano, M. E. (2007). Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger syndrome.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345–351. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.50-06.

Epstein, M. H., Mooney, P., Reid, R., Ryan, J. B., & Uhing, B. M. (2005). A review of self-management

interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.

Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203–221.

Glynn, E. L., & Thomas, J. D. (1974). Effect of cueing on self-control of classroom behavior. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 299–306.

Holifield, C., Goodman, J., Hazelkorn, M., & Helfin, L. (2010). Using self-management to increase

attending to task and academic accuracy in children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other

Developmental Disabilities, 25, 230–268.

Kazdin, A. (2010). Single case research designs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, C. H. (2002). The maintenance of behavior change as an indicator of social validity. Behavior

Modification, 26, 594–604.

Lee, S., Simpson, R., & Shogren, D. (2007). Effects and implications of self-management for students

with autism: A meta-analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 2–13.

Moore, D. W., Prebble, S., Robertson, J., Waetford, R., & Anderson, A. (2001). Self-recording with goal

setting: A self-management programme for the classroom. Educational Psychology, 21, 255–259.

O’Reilly, M., Tiernan, R., Lancioni, G., Lacey, C., Hillery, J., & Gardner, M. (2002). Use of self-

monitoring and delayed feedback to increase on-task behavior in a post-institutionalized child within

regular classroom settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 91–102.

Piersal, W. C. (1985). Self-observation and completion of school assignments: The influence of a physical

device and expectancy characteristics. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 331–336.

Rafferty, L. A., Arroyo, J., Ginnane, S., & Wilczynski, K. (2011). Self-monitoring during spelling

practice: Effects on spelling accuracy and on-task behavior of three students diagnosed with

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 37–45.

Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and

accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,

7, 3–17.

Rock, M. L., & Thread, B. K. (2007). The effects of fading a strategic self-monitoring intervention on

students’ academic engagement, accuracy, and productivity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16,

389–412.

Shogren, K., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., & O’Reilly, M. (2011). Self-versus teacher

management of behavior for elementary school students with Asperger syndrome: Impact on

classroom behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 87–96.

Soares, D., Vannest, K., & Harrison, J. (2009). Computer aided self-monitoring to increase academic

production and reduce self-injurious behavior in a child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 24,

170–183.

J Behav Educ (2013) 22:302–311 311

123

View publication statsView publication stats