reactive effects of self-assessment and self-recording on attention to task and academic...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Reactive Effects of Self-Assessment and Self-Recording on Attention to Task and AcademicProductivityAuthor(s): John Wills Lloyd, Daniel P. Hallahan, Marianne M. Kosiewicz and Rebecca DaileyKneedlerSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer, 1982), pp. 216-227Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510289 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:57:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510289?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REACTIVE EFFECTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT AND SELF- RECORDING

ON ATTENTION TO TASK AND ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY

.John Wills Lloyd, Daniel P. Hallahan, Marianne M. Kosiewicz, and Rebecca Dailey Kneedler

Abstract. In two experiments, the effects of self-assessment and self-recording were compared as treatments for Increasing on-task behavior and academic productivity. In Experiment 1, both procedures caused increases In attention to task and academic productivity for one student, but neither procedure was more effective than the other. In Experiment 2, self-assessment by itself was neither effective in increasing the students' on-task behavior nor their academic productivity. However, the Introduction of self-recording after a period of self-assessment resulted in increased on-task behavior, but not Increased productivity. Based on these results, self-recording appears to be a more effective procedure than self- assessment for increasing attention to task.

Low levels of attention to task characterize many learning disabled students. In addition, many of these students often do not complete much of their assignments during independent work times. A self-control technique, self- recording of attention to task, appears to be a promising technique for directly improving attention to task and hence indirectly improving academic productivity.

Self-recording is a procedure in which an individual determines whether he/she has per- formed a particular behavior and then makes a record of the results of his/her observations. Reviews (e.g., Nelson, 1977) of self-control techniques including self-recording have reported that behavior changes often occur when subjects begin to record whether or not they have been performing a given behavior. Such changes - "reactive effects" - frequent- ly are therapeutic.

Self-recording has been observed to have beneficial reactive effects on attention-to-task behaviors in several studies. Although many of these studies (Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971;

Glynn & Thomas, 1974; Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973; Thomas, 1976; Young, Birn- brauer, & Sanson-Fisher, 1977) have been conducted with subjects not identified as learning

JOHN LLOYD, Ph.D., is Director, Classroom Intervention Component, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, and Assistant Professor, Dept. of Special Education, University of Virginia. DANIEL P. HALLAHAN, Ph.D., is Director, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, and Associate Professor, Dept. of Special Education, University of Virginia. MARIANNE MYRON KOSIEWICZ, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Dept. of Special Education, University of Virginia. REBECCA DAILEY KNEEDLER, Ed.D., is Associate Director, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, and Associate Professor, Dept. of Special Education, University of Virginia.

216 Learning Disability Quarterly



disabled, several other investigations have reported therapeutic reactive effects with students considered learning disabled (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kosiewicz, Kauffman, & Graves, 1979; Hallahan, Marshall, & Lloyd, 1981; Hallahan, Lloyd, Kneedler, & Marshall, in press; Heins, 1980). Additionally, three of the studies of learning disabled students (Hallahan et al., 1979, in press; Heins, 1980) have provided evidence that when students recorded their attentional behavior, the amount of academic work completed tended to improve.

As part of the sequence of actions required in self-recording, the student asks himself/herself whether he/she was paying attention. After this self-assessment step, the student makes a record of his/her judgment (usually by marking on a sheet of paper, clicking a counter, or performing some similar discrete action). This step is the recording. All the studies including learning disabled students (Hallahan et al., 1979, 1981, in press; Heins, 1980) required the subjects both to assess and to record. That is, in the Hallahan et al. (1979) study, for example, the student was explicitly taught to ask himself whether he had been paying attention when he heard the cue (i.e., self-assessment) and then to mark his answer on a sheet of paper (i.e., self-recording).

The above studies leave unanswered the question of whether self-assessment can have reactive effects on attention to task and academic productivity that are as beneficial as those of self-recording. If teaching students to assess their own behavior has benefits equal to or greater than those of the more complicated self-recording procedure, the former should be preferred. However, because self-recording cannot be separated from self-assessment (awareness of performance must precede its recording), it is necessary to compare self- assessment alone to self-assessment plus self- recording in order to evaluate relative effectiveness.

The present studies were designed to compare the beneficial reactive effects of self-assessment and self-recording on the attention-to-task behavior and academic productivity of students with learning disabilities using within-subjects designs. In the first experiment, the procedures were compared using a combination of multi- element (alternating treatments) and reversal

designs. In the second experiment, self- recording was introduced in a multiple-baseline- across-subjects design following a period of self- assessment.

EXPERIMENT 1 METHOD

Subject and Setting Mike, a 9-year-old boy from a middle-class

family, served as the subject. This student had been identified as learning disabled by school district criteria that were based on student performance within the average or above-average range on an individually administered intelligence test and retarded academic achievement; the latter might be accompanied by deficits in psycholinguistic or perceptual-motor processing. Mike's Full-Scale WISC-R IQ (Wechlser, 1974) was 109 (Verbal IQ: 122; Per- formance IQ: 96). On the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977) his cognitive ability was estimated to be 114; however, he demonstrated 37% and 10% mastery of reading and mathematics skills, respectively (these achievement measures are constructed so that normally achieving children will obtain scores of 90% mastery). Mike had been referred by a resource teacher for placement in a special class for students with attention problems. Preliminary observations one month prior to the beginning of the study revealed that Mike was attending to task approximately 43% of the time during seatwork activities.

Mike was enrolled in a self-contained learning disabilities class with nine other 8- to 11-year-old students. Observations and experimental manipulations were conducted during daily periods of arithmetic seatwork in which all students were to be seated and computing answers to arithmetic practice pages. The classroom was staffed by a teacher and an aide who circulated among the students during the period providing assistance, corrections, and praise for appropriate work. Recording Procedures

Observations were made at least three days per week with each observation session starting at the beginning of the seatwork period. A 6-second, whole-interval recording procedure was used to measure on-task behavior. If Mike was observed to be on task during an entire in-

Volume 5, Summer 1982 217



terval, the interval was coded as "on." On-task behaviors were defined as occurring when Mike was sitting in his seat, looking at his assigned work. If an instance of off-task behavior was observed during any interval, the interval was coded as "off." Off-task behaviors included such behaviors as looking away from the assigned tasks, talking with another student, or working on some material other than that assigned for the arithmetic period. Assessments of interobserver agreement were obtained by having a second observer simultaneously record on- and off-task behavior for four observation sessions.

The observer recorded teacher praise comments. If during an interval, the teacher or aide made a praise comment to Mike, the observer recorded a plus for that interval on the observation protocol. Praise comments included any comment that conveyed positive information to Mike about his performance (e.g., "I like the way you are working"). Admonitions to work harder or to return to work (e.g., "Mike, I hope you finish in time") were also to be recorded; however, these did not occur.

Academic productivity was measured by determining the rate per minute of movements made in answering the arithmetic problems on the assigned materials. A movement was defined as a numeral written in the answer space of a problem; also, numerals written in regrouping or as subproducts each counted as a movement. For example, the problem 3 x 3 = 9 consists of one movement, while the problem 4 x 3 = 12 has two movements. The use of movements provided a standardized count that was less affected by problem type than was the usual "problems correct."

Because the type of problems assigned during the last part of each session differed from those assigned during the first parts of the session, productivity measures were taken only during the first portions of the session. The problems on which movement-per-minute data were based in this study were all one-digit-by-one-digit multiplication facts (e.g., 7 x 2 =). Each day Mike was given worksheets composed of 100 or 150 of this type of problems. The observer collected papers at the end of the experimental session each day and counted movements away from the classroom where feedback to the student could not occur. A second scorer independently counted the number of movements in order to

assess interscorer agreement. Design

A combination of multi-element and reversal designs was used to evaluate the experimental procedures. Baseline was followed by a period of Alternating Treatments which, in turn, was followed by a Reversal condition. During the multi-element phase three conditions were programmed to occur each day, although only the data for on-task behavior represent all three conditions.

Baseline. As with all phases of the study, Mike was instructed to sit in his seat and work on the assigned arithmetic computation pages during Baseline. Also, Mike and the other students in the class were able to earn points for com- pleting their arithmetic computation assignments during all phases of the study. Completion of all assigned arithmetic tasks was worth one point. Points were posted on a chart at the back of the room and were not redeemable for items or activities. No other special antecedent or contingent events were programmed at this stage. During this phase, each daily measurement of on-task behavior was based on performance during the entire session; each measurement of academic productivity was based on performance only during approximately the first two thirds of the session. Baseline data were collected for seven days.

Alternating Treatments. During the treatment phase, three different conditions were instituted each day. For approximately one third of each session, Mike was instructed to assess his own attention to task. For another third of the session, he was instructed to assess and record his own attention to task. For the remaining third of the session, he was required neither to assess nor to record his own attention to task (i.e., this part of the session constituted a Continuing Baseline).' With regard to their order of presentation, the first two conditions were counter-balanced across days. Again, measurement of attention-to-task behavior was based on performance during each of the three parts of the session, while measurement of productivity was based on performance solely during the first two thirds of each session. This phase was in effect for 11 days.

Reversal. During the Reversal phase, all re- quirements to assess and record were withdrawn. The tape recorder and self-recording




sheet were not present. On-task measurements were based on the entire session and productivity measurements were based on performance during the first two thirds of each session. The Reversal phase was in effect for nine days. Treatments

The Self-Recording condition was essentially identical to the corresponding condition in the Hallahan et al. (1979) study. An audio tape recorder situated near Mike's desk produced tones at random intervals (mean intertone interval: about 42 seconds; range of intertone intervals: 11 to 92 seconds) to cue self-recording. On the first day of this condition, the teacher told Mike that she wanted to help him to help himself pay attention to his work. She showed him a regular-sized sheet of paper with a picture of a boy reading a book and the question, "Was I paying attention?" at the top of the page. In two columns down the page were boxes for checking "Yes" or "No" each time the tape-recorded cue was heard. The teacher told Mike that each time he heard a tone, it was a signal to ask himself, "Was I paying attention?" If he could answer the question "Yes," he was to mark a box beneath the "Yes" column; if the question was answered "No," he was to mark a box beneath the "No" column. Self-recording training followed the steps recommended by Mahoney (1977): (a) the teacher gave definitions and examples of paying and not paying attention; (b) she instructed Mike in how to mark "Yes" and "No" on the self-recording sheet whenever he heard a tone; (c) she modeled the use of the entire procedure for him; (d) she asked him to repeat the definitions of paying and not paying attention and to repeat the self- recording instructions; (e) she gradually faded her guidance as Mike began using the procedure. The entire self-recording training procedure was accomplished in about 15 minutes on the first day of treatment.

For the Self-Assessment condition, the teacher directed Mike to ask himself whether he was paying attention when he heard a tape- recorded cue; however, the self-recording sheet was not present and he was not required to make any public record of his answers to the questions of whether or not he was paying attention. Also, he was not instructed to say anything to himself other than to ask himself whether he had been paying attention (i.e., he was not

directed to praise or admonish himself). The same steps recommended by Mahoney (1977) and described above were used; this training was also accomplished rapidly.

Instructions to record or assess were repeated in abbreviated form prior to each session on subsequent days of the Alternating Treatments phase.

Each audio tape-recorded tone lasted for approximately two seconds. The volume was ad- justed so that the tones were audible to both Mike and the observer. Because the intervals between tones were randomly determined, he did not hear any set number of signals. The number of cues he heard during Self-Recording ranged from four to 11 (mean = 8.25; SD =

2); during Self-Assessment the number ranged from six to 13 (mean = 8.75; SD = 2.2).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Agreement

Percent of observer agreement for occurrence of on-task behavior was determined by dividing the number of intervals for which both observers agreed that Mike was on task by the number of intervals for which they both agreed plus the number of intervals when only one observer recorded on task and multiplying by 100. Me- dian agreement for occurrence of on-task behavior was 92% (range: 69% to 98%). In- terscorer agreement for movements completed, determined by dividing the larger score into the smaller score, was 99%. Attention to Task

The effects of the intervention procedures on attention to task are shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, Self-Assessment and Self-Recording resulted in higher levels of attention to task compared to the prior Baseline, the Continuing Baseline during the Alternating Treatments phase, and the Reversal phase. The Self- Recording results provide a replication of previous studies (Broden et al., 1971; Glynn & Thomas, 1974; Glynn et al., 1973; Hallahan et al., 1979, 1981, in press; Heins, 1980; Thomas, 1976; Young et al., 1977) in which in- stitution of self-recording procedures has been shown to increase students' attention-to-task behavior. That Self-Assessment alone produced such effects represents a novel finding.

Figure 1 also indicates that, while both treatments were superior to no-treatment condi-




BASELINE ALTERNATING TREATMENTS REVERSAL 100

90

80

70

o 60

> 50

r-- w z 40

30

20

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

CONSECUTIVE OBSERVATION SESSIONS

Untreated

Self- Assessment

Self- Recording

Figure 1. Percent of time attending to task across sessions. Shaded area represents entire session during Baseline and Reversal, last third of each session during Alternating Treatments. Self-Assessment and Self-Recording were in effect for part of each session during the Alternating Treatments phase.

tions, no differences were noted between treatments. For Self-Assessment, mean and median levels of on task were 70% and 76%, respectively; for Self-Recording they were 72% and 74%. The absence of difference between the two treatments is also illustrated by the fre- quency of data path crossovers seen in Figure 1. [Scrutiny of Figure 1 reveals that there is no consistent pattern of alternation (i.e., Self-Recording higher than Self-Assessment on one day followed by the reverse the next day) that would indicate that either the first or the second third of each session was more likely to produce higher levels of on-task behavior.]

The levels of on-task behavior observed during the Continuing Baseline condition of the Alternating Treatments phase vary from the levels observed during the original Baseline and the Reversal phases. During these three phases, median levels of on-task behavior changed from

35% to 62% to 52% and mean levels from 35% to 54% to 45% for Baseline, Continuing Baseline (i.e., short-term maintenance), and Reversal, respectively. The higher levels of attention to task observed during the Continuing Baseline segment of the Alternating Treatments phase provide evidence of short-term maintenance of the effects observed during the treated segments of the Alternating Treatments phase. Although some caution must be exer- cised in interpreting these results, the evidence obtained here is consistent with the results obtained by Hallahan et al. (1979, 1981, in press) and Heins (1980) for Self-Recording in which treatment effects were observed to be main- tained at follow up. Whether the maintenance of effects observed in this study was attributable to the Self-Assessment or to the Self-Recording procedure is open to speculation. However, because the results obtained in the above studies




followed periods of Self-Recording, Self- Recording appears to be important for maintenance. Productivity

The effects of the interventions on academic productivity are shown in Figure 2. These data show that, even though there was some drop-off for some of the last observations during the Alternating Treatments condition, the two treatments were generally effective in increasing productivity relative to the Baseline and Reversal conditions. When Mike was required to assess or to assess and record his own attention to task, his productivity increased nearly twofold over productivity levels observed in the Baseline and Reversal phases. These results are consistent with the findings of Hallahan et al. (1979, in press) and Heins (1980) which showed productivity to increase upon implementation of a Self-

Recording procedure. Again, productivity increases under conditions of Self-Assessment of attention to task represent a novel finding. As was the case for on-task behavior, Self- Assessment and Self-Recording were found to be equally effective in increasing academic productivity.

Several other points are of importance. First, the present study did not provide an uncon- taminated test of the effects of Self-Assessment alone. Because Mike was exposed to both treatments each day, one of the treatments may have interfered with the other, thus, artificially elevating the levels of on-task behavior observed under that condition. Second, observer record- ings of levels of on-task performance differed from those reported by Mike; examination of his self-recording sheets revealed that he marked himself on task 100% of each of the Self-

BASELINE ALTERNATING TREATMENTS REVERSAL 23

22 21

20 19 18 17

W 16 15

S14 or 13

12

Ot z 10 w 2 9 w >8 0

6 5 4 3. 2- 1' 0.

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28


Untreated Self-

Assessment Self -

Recording

Figure 2. Academic productivity as movements (digits written in arithmetic computation) per minute across sessions.




Recording sessions. This finding is consistent with results reported elsewhere (e.g., Thomas, 1976) and can be interpreted as an indication that accuracy in Self-Recording is not a require- ment for the procedure to have reactive effects, at least for students with learning disabilities. Third, social reinforcement may be ruled out as an explanation for the observed effects. Teacher praise comments occurred an average (median) of 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0 times per session, respectively, during the Baseline, Alternating Treatments, and Reversal phases.

EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment 2 was conducted to control for the

possibility of multiple-treatment interference inherent in the design of the first study. It has been suggested (e.g., Barlow & Hayes, 1979) that, when evaluating the relative effectiveness of two treatments, the treatment suspected to be stronger should be implemented first. However, in the present study self-assessment - the procedure suspected to be weaker - was implemented first because, if Self-Assessment is weaker than Self-Recording, its weakness might be masked if it followed a period of Self- Recording; that is, were a period of Self- Assessment to follow a period of Self-Recording, the possible multiple-treatment interference would not have been disentangled. In Experi- ment 2 three students considered learning disabled were first required to assess their own attention to task, then the Self-Recording condition was introduced in a multiple-baseline-across subjects design. On-task and productivity measures were taken to assess treatment effects.

METHOD Subjects and Setting

Three students enrolled in a self-contained classroom for students with learning disabilities in a semi-rural elementary school served as subjects. All three were identified as learning disabled according to the criteria discussed in Ex- periment 1. Mark, a nine-year-old, had obtained a Full-Scale WISC-R score of 105 (Verbal IQ: 117; Performance IQ: 92). According to the Woodcock-Johnson his cognitive ability was estimated to be 96. On the Woodcock-Johnson achievement tests Mark demonstrated 7% mastery of reading and 32% mathematics skills mastery. Mary, a ten-year-old, had obtained a

WISC-R Full-Scale score of 93 (Verbal IQ: 92; Performance IQ: 96). On the Woodcock- Johnson tests, her cognitive ability was estimated to be 78, while her achievement mastery scores were 4% and 25% on reading and mathematics, respectively. Luke, a nine- year-old, had obtained a WISC-R Full-Scale score of 78 (Verbal IQ: 78; Performance IQ: 92). On the Woodcock-Johnson battery, his cognitive ability was estimated to be 79; his achievement mastery scores were 3% and 13% for reading and mathematics, respectively.

All observation sessions were conducted while Mark, Mary, and Luke worked on regularly scheduled arithmetic seatwork at their individual desks. During this daily time period, a teacher and an aide conducted small-group instructional activities with the other seven students in the room. The group activities demanded virtually all of the adults' time during the experimental sessions. Hence, teacher and aide interactions with the subjects were minimal during observation sessions. Recording Procedures

Observational data were collected by an observer who sat near the front of the classroom in a position from which each student's face could be seen. A time-sampling recording procedure was used. Cues for the observer to observe and record occurred approximately every two seconds, with the observer looking at each of the three students in sequential rotation (Thomson, Holmberg, & Baer, 1974). Thus, each student's attention to task was assessed every six seconds. A subject was considered to be on task if he/she met the criteria described in Experiment 1. The dependent measure was percent of observations judged to be on task. The time-sampling observation procedure was adop- ted because it allowed the observer to monitor several subjects more efficiently than would be possible using an interval procedure.

Interobserver agreement was assessed by having two observers record simultaneously. Only the times when one or both observers coded a subject as on task were considered in computing agreement. Agreement checks were obtained for 10 (27%) of the experimental sessions.

As in Experiment 1, academic productivity was measured by determining the rate per minute of movements made in answering the assigned arithmetic problems.




Design Three phases were included in the experi-

ment: Baseline, Self-Assessment, and Self- Recording. Self-Assessment was introduced simultaneously across subjects while Self- Recording was introduced in a multiple-baseline fashion.

Baseline. No special conditions were in effect during the first phase. The students were told to work on assigned pages from individual folders kept in their desks. Baseline lasted for 10 days.

Self-Assessment. The Self-Assessment procedure was virtually identical to the one used in Experiment 1. On the first day, the teacher introduced the Self-Assessment procedure to all three subjects. At the beginning of the session on each succeeding day during the Self-Assessment phase, the teacher reminded the students that they would hear tones provided to cue them to ask themselves whether they had been paying attention.2 Self-Assessment was in effect for 10, 14, and 18 days for Mark, Mary, and Luke, respectively.

Self-Recording. Following observation of the effects of Self-Assessment, Self-Recording was introduced to the three subjects in a multiple-baseline fashion. They were given the self-recording sheets described in Experiment 1 and shown how to use them. The Self- Recording training was essentially a repetition of the training used in the Self-Assessment phase except that the students were told to mark in the appropriate columns their answers to the question, "Was I paying attention?" Again, the teacher explicitly avoided directing them to praise or admonish themselves based on their answers to the question. At the beginning of each session following introduction of the Self- Recording procedure, the teacher reminded the students that they would hear tones which were cues to ask themselves whether they were paying attention. Self-Recording was in effect for 17, 13, and 4 days for Mark, Mary, and Luke, respectively. Following the fourth day of Self- Recording for Luke, he was absent from school for an extended time. When it became apparent that he would not return soon, the experiment was ended.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Agreement

Procedures for determining percent of

observer agreement for occurrence of on-task behavior and movements were the same as those described in Experiment 1. The median agreement for occurrence of on-task behavior was 89.5% (range: 81% to 97%). Regarding movements per minute, virtually 100% agreement was obtained in scoring. Attention to Task

The results of Experiment 2 for the attention- to-task measure are presented in Figure 3. Self- Assessment did not produce beneficial effects on attention to task. On the contrary, the data for Mark suggest that Self-Assessment had counter- therapeutic effects. At best, Self-Assessment ap- peared to result in very slight improvements in attention to task for Luke and, near the end of the phase, a lessening of variability in attention to task for Mary. Because this study was designed as a comparison between Self- Assessment and Self-Recording, however, the change from Baseline to Self-Assessment was not expressly experimental; thus, these particular results must be interpreted with caution. However, the effects observed during the Self- Assessment phase are small and hence do not warrant recommendation of the use of this procedure. Such an interpretation is in clear contrast to the beneficial effects of Self-Assessment observed in Experiment 1.

The introduction of the Self-Recording condition in a multiple-baseline fashion demonstrated that levels of attention-to-task behavior were higher during the Self-Recording phase than during the Self-Assessment phase. This result is particularly obvious in the attention-to-task measurements for Mark and Mary. Very few overlapping data points were found; for Mark a downtrend observed during Self-Assessment was reversed after Self-Recording was instituted. The small number of data points obtained for Luke (due to his extended absence) render the effects observed for him only tentatively suppor- tive of the effectiveness of Self-Recording. With regard to Luke, however, it should be noted that the four data points obtained during Self- Recording were the first, fourth, eighth, and eleventh highest of the 30 data points represent- ing his attention to task. Thus, the results on him are consistent with the interpretation that Self- Recording was more effective than Self- Assessment in increasing attention to task.

The finding that Self-Recording was an effec-




SELF- BASELINE ASSESS- SELF- RECORDPING 100

90 so 70 60 50 40

30 20

10 0

MENT

MARK

< loo 90

o 80

70. 60o

, 10 0

MARY

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10 0

sLo so


Figure 3. Percent of time attending to task across sessions. Stipled lines between data points indicate missing data (e.g., days a student was absent).

tive procedure for increasing attention to task

provided a replication of the effects observed in

Experiment 1 as well as previous studies (Broden et al., 1971; Glynn & Thomas, 1974;

Glynn et al., 1973; Hallahan et al., 1979, 1981, in press; Heins, 1980; Thomas, 1976; Young et al., 1977). However, results showing that Self-Assessment was not as effective as Self- Recording in increasing attention to task are in contrast to the results of Experiment 1. Productivity

The results of the interventions on academic

productivity are shown in Figure 4. In this experiment Self-Assessment and Self-Recording of attention were not found to have the clearly beneficial effects on academic productivity noted in Experiment 1. Productivity neither consistently nor appreciably improved during either treatment phase. Although mean and median levels reflect slight improvements during Self-Record- ing compared to the levels obtained during Self- Assessment, the number of overlapping data points evident in Figure 4 indicate that these increases were neither sufficiently large nor consistent to support the superiority of the former procedure. The absence of concomitant effects for academic productivity in Experiment 2 conflicts with the results of Experiment 1 and the Hallahan et al. (1979, in press) and Heins (1980) studies in which improvements in productivity were observed.

GENERAL DISCUSSION Attention to Task

The results of the two comparisons of Self- Assessment and Self-Recording indicate that, although Self-Assessment may produce beneficial reactive effects on attention to task, Self- Recording does so consistently; thus, it is prob- ably a more effective technique. In all four cases (with some reservation about Luke in Experi- ment 2), Self-Recording produced effects, whereas multiple-treatment interference is a distinct possibility in the only case where Self- Assessment produced equal effects (Mike in Ex- periment 1).

Several potential reasons may be given for the effectiveness of Self-Recording. The act of com- mitting one's judgment about one's performance to a recording sheet requires careful evaluation of one's own performance. Thus, the reactive effects of Self-Recording may be greater because subjects realize that when they make public record of their judgments, they are less able to deceive anyone about their performance.

The effects of Self-Assessment observed in Experiment 1 leave open the possibility that Self- Assessment is a beneficial treatment for attention-to-task deficits under some conditions. In particular, experimentally induced contamina- tion (i.e., multiple-treatment interference) may have accounted for the obtained positive effects of Self-Assessment in Experiment 1. The possibility that Self-Assessment may be effective




BASE LINE

SELF-

MENT

SELF- RECORDING 15

10

5

0 MARK

w D z 15

10 E,

z w w > 5

O MARY

15

10

5

0 LUKE


Figure 4. Academic productivity as movements (digits written in arithmetic computation) per minute across sessions. Stipled lines between data points indicate missing data (e.g., days a student was absent).

when it is accompanied by (or, perhaps, preced- ed by) Self-Recording treatment indicates a valuable direction for fading away from Self- Recording. That is, Self-Assessment may be used as an early step in reducing the structure of the Self-Recording treatment and moving toward less ritualized self-monitoring as in Hallahan et al. (1981).

If Mike had never been exposed to Self-Re- cording (Experiment 1), his performance under the Self-Assessment condition may have resembled more closely the performances of Mark, Mary, and Luke in Experiment 2. That is, had Mike not experienced Self-Recording, he too may not have benefited from Self-Assess- ment. The small procedural differences between the two treatment procedures may have made them indiscriminable to the subject. Hence, Mike's performance under one treatment may have been affected by the effects of the other. This problem, which is inherent in the multi- element design, can be reduced by associating ostensibly impotent discriminative stimuli with treatments (e.g., color-coding materials to cor- respond with experimental conditions). However, the problem must be recognized by researchers who seek to compare treatments using multi-element designs. As Barlow and Hayes (1979) suggested, it may be necessary to con- duct both independent assessments of the effects of treatment procedures and direct comparisons. Additionally, the direct comparisons may need to be designed so that the effects of weaker treatments can be assessed without contamina- tion. Productivity

Since the effects on academic productivity observed in Experiment 1 were not found in Ex- periment 2, the question of whether academic productivity is affected more by Self-Assessment or by Self-Recording remains unresolved. This discrepancy is in contrast to the Hallahan et al. studies (1979, in press) in which clear effects were found. Apparently, the use of Self- Recording as a treatment for attention to task cannot be expected to produce concomitant effects on productivity. The conditions under which such effects may obtain are open to investigation.

Similar inconsistency was observed in studies where on-task behavior was reinforced and productivity was monitored (e.g., Ferritor,




Buckholdt, Hamblin, & Smith, 1972). Ap- parently, regardless of the intervention procedure used, a consistent bidirectional positive relationship does not exist between attention to task and academic productivity. As in the literature on reinforcement procedures, the self- monitoring literature suggests that treatment of academic productivity will have beneficial side- effects on attention to task (Holman & Baer, 1979), while treatment of attention to task may have such effects. Evaluations of similar self- monitoring treatments targeting different responses are needed to shed more light on the relationship between attention to task and academic productivity.

REFERENCES Barlow, D.H., & Hayes, S.C. Alternating treatments

design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 199-210.

Broden, M., Hall, R.V., & Mitts, B. The effects of self- recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth- grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 191-199.

Ferritor, D., Buckholdt, D., Hamblin, R.L., & Smith, L. The noneffects of contingent reinforcement for attending behavior on work accomplished. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 7-17.

Glynn, E.L., & Thomas, J.D. Effect of cueing on self- control of classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 299-306.

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

Hallahan, D.P., Lloyd, J., Kosiewicz, M.M., Kauff- man, J.M., & Graves, A.W. Self-monitoring of attention as a treatment for a learning disabled boy's off-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2(3), 24-32.

Hallahan, D.P., Marshall, K.J., & Lloyd, J.W. Self- recording during group instruction: Effects on attention to task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 407-413.

Hallahan, D.P., Lloyd, J.W., Kneedler, R.D., & Mar- shall, K.J. A comparison of the effects of self- versus teacher-assessment of on-task behavior. Behavior Therapy, in press.

Heins, E. Training learning disabled children's self- control: Cued and non-cued self-recording in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1980.

Holman, J., & Baer, D.M. Facilitating generalization of on-task behavior through self-monitoring of

academic tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1979, 9, 429-446.

Mahoney, M.J. Some applied issues in self- monitoring. In J.D. Cone & R.P. Hawkins (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: New direction in clinical psychology. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977.

Nelson, R.O. Assessment and therapeutic functions of self-monitoring. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Thomas, J.D. Accuracy of self-assessment of on task behavior by elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 209-210.

Thomson, C., Holmberg, M., & Baer, D.M. A brief report on a comparison of time-sampling procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 623-626.

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1974.

Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. Woodcock- Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Boston: Teaching Resources, 1977.

Young, P., Birnbrauer, J.S., & Sanson-Fisher, R.W. The effects of self-recording on the study behavior of female juvenile delinquents. In B.C. Etzel, J.M. LeBlanc, & D.M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, method, and ap- plication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.

FOOTNOTES

'Since Mike was required to work on longer multiplication problems during the last third of each session, the results of the Continuing Baseline during the treatment phase may be different from what they would have been if the assignments had remained the same throughout each session, or if they had been counterbalanced. However, post hoc analysis of the different portions of data for the session parts during prior Baseline revealed that the last third of each session was neither consistently the highest nor the lowest of the three parts. This association of more difficult problems with the baseline portion of each session would presumably have resulted in depressed scores for that portion. However, improvements in performance are apparent, although the effects should operate against such an outcome. For these reasons, the problems associated with this feature of the study are judged to be minimal.

2Experiment 2 included an imbedded investigation of three different intertone intervals. One tape played tones approximately every 22 seconds (range 5 to 45 seconds), another played tones approximately every 90 seconds (range 20 to 180 seconds), while the third




played tones at the intervals noted in Experiment 1. Because the length of the intervals between tones produced negligible effects, the data presented here have been collapsed.

The research reported in this manuscript was sup- ported by Contract 300-77-0495 between the Bureau for Education for the Handicapped and the University

of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute. We express our thanks to the Albemarle County Schools and particularly to Mrs. Elizabeth Bailey and Mr. Charles Simmons, principals of the schools in which the studies were conducted.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: John W. Lloyd, 164 Rugby Road, LD Research Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

I?;;;:t-;i?-,;;';;~~'i'M:~':?:l;:s:: :::'iil'::::::~r;??-; i?;I?;?'? r

L?,;;; ;*I?'---I..; i; "? "-I't;i?; ?:;--?, -. ;'-??; "; I

;,?c= D ~8 II ?-;:t - : ;??,I ,,? s -:r??? ;'':~, --,;

a?'; -i I i 3

:;; " ;; ;: 5 '- O i: b 'I? i- :- a ii i ;??I::

?-I.: ,s a ~ ;. P i h ~ ~s

International Conference

On

Learning Disabilities

Kansas City, Missouri

OCTOBER 7 - 9, 1982

See page 327 for preregistration information.




reactive effects of self-assessment and self-recording on attention to task and academic...

Documents