severe learning disabilities || self-recording during group instruction: effects on attention to...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Self-Recording during Group Instruction: Effects on Attention to TaskAuthor(s): Daniel P. Hallahan, Kathleen J. Marshall and John Wills LloydSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, Severe Learning Disabilities (Autumn,1981), pp. 407-413Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510743 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:54

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 188.72.126.41 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:54:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510743?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


SELF-RECORDING DURING GROUP INSTRUCTION: EFFECTS ON ATTENTION

TO TASK

_Daniel P. Hallahan, Kathleen J. Marshall, and John Wills Lloyd

Abstract. The effects of self-monitoring on attention to task during small-group instruction were investigated. Three learning disabled (LD) boys with severe attentional problems were taught to self-monitor their on-task behavior while parti- cipating in oral reading tasks. A reversal design demonstrated marked increases in attention to task for all three students. The higher levels of on-task behavior were maintained during two subsequent phases in which external components of the self-monitoring procedure were withdrawn. The results indicate that self- monitoring procedures can be effectively employed during oral, small-group instruction, and that positive behavioral changes can be maintained over a period of time following the gradual fading of external, procedural components.

Research on information-processing abilities has led to the conclusion that many learning disabled students can be characterized as strategy-deficient, inactive learners (Hallahan & Reeve, 1980; Torgesen, 1980). Kneedler and Hallahan (in press) have argued that evidence from two additional areas of psychological inquiry--metacognition and attribution--also support the notion of the learning disabled student as a passive observer rather than an active participant in the teaching-learning process. Fur- thermore, reviews of the literature have led to the conclusion that many learning disabled children are characterized by difficulties in stay- ing on task during academic activities in the classroom (Hallahan, 1975; Hallahan & Kauff- man, 1976; Hallahan & Reeve, 1980).

Given the behavioral profile of many learning disabled students as inattentive, passive learners lacking in task-approach skills, Hallahan and his colleagues (Hallahan & Reeve, 1980; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1979; Kneedler & Hallahan, in press) have suggested that educational procedures falling under the rubric of cognitive behavior modification may be particularly appropriate for these students. Such techniques, including self-monitoring and self-instruction, re- quire students to become actively involved in the

teaching-learning process. In a sense, the student is taught to assume the role of co-teacher or co-therapist.

Self-monitoring, as defined by Nelson (1977), consists of two components--self-assessment and self-recording. The former refers to the in- dividual's judgment as to whether or not a particular behavior has occurred; the latter refers to the physical, behavioral recording of the occurrence. Initially used as a method of gathering baseline data on behaviors easily observed by adult clients themselves (e.g., number of ciga-

DANIEL P. HALLAHAN, Ph.D., is Chairman, Department of Special Education, and Director, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, Universi- ty of Virginia. KATHLEEN J. MARSHALL, M.Ed., is a doctoral student, Department of Special Education, and graduate assistant, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, University of Virginia. JOHN WILLS LLOYD, Ph.D., is Assistant Pro- fessor, Department of Special Education, and Classroom Intervention Director, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, University of Virginia.

Volume 4, Fall 1981 407



rettes smoked, number of calories ingested), self-monitoring in and of itself was found to have reactive effects on the behavior being recorded, resulting in its use as a therapeutic tool (Gottman & McFall, 1972).

One of the primary uses of self-monitoring with children has been for the purpose of increasing their on-task behavior during written seatwork assignments. Studies conducted with both learning disabled and non-learning disabled children have generally demonstrated that self- monitoring of on-task behavior is an effective treatment for increasing attention and academic productivity during the performance of written tasks (Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971; Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973; Hallahan, Lloyd, Kosiewicz, Kauffman, & Graves, 1979; Heins, Note 1; Lloyd, Hallahan, Kosiewicz, & Kneedler, Note 2). However, only one study (Glynn & Thomas, 1974), conducted with nor- mal children, has examined the effects of self- monitoring on on-task behavior during the presentation of oral tasks.

Glynn and Thomas (1974) found self-monitoring of on-task behavior during written and oral reading tasks to be an effective method of increasing regular third graders' on-task attention. Upon hearing tape-recorded signals presented at various intervals during a reading class, the students checked a recording sheet if they judged themselves to be on task at the time of the signal. Due to the alternating oral and written tasks involved in the reading lessons, the students were initially confused as to which behaviors were appropriate at any given time. To aid them in the discrimination of appropriate behaviors, the teacher placed a colored chart at the front of the room containing a list of behaviors. A red chart was used when oral tasks were performed to indicate that looking at the teacher would be considered on task. A green chart was used during written tasks to signal that attention should appropriately be focused on the work at the students' own desks. Following the presentation of the charts, high and stable increases in on-task performance were obtained for all class members. These results suggest that self-monitoring may be an effective treatment for increasing on-task behavior during oral as well as written activities.

In the present study, three students with severe attentional problems were trained to self-

monitor their on-task behavior while partici- pating in small-group, oral reading instruction. The effects of self-monitoring on on-task behavior were observed.

METHOD Subjects and Setting

The subjects were three white boys attending a small, rural public school. All of them were enrolled in a self-contained learning disabilities classroom. Before being placed in the self- contained class, all students had been classified as learning disabled and had been identified as exhibiting attentional problems. The three students selected for treatment in this study had been singled out by the teacher of the self- contained class as demonstrating the most severe attentional problems.

The students had been given the Wechsler In- telligence Scale for Children (Revised) and the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement battery. Sub- jects 1 and 2 were tested two months prior to the study, and Subject 3 was tested five months before the experimental procedures began. Sub- ject 1, Neddy, was a 10-year, 10-month-old boy, with a full-scale WISC-R IQ of 87. Standard scores on the Woodcock-Johnson achievement tests were as follows: reading, 79; mathematics, 81; written language, 69; knowledge, 81. Sub- ject 2, Brian, was an 11-year, 1-month-old boy. His full-scale WISC-R IQ was 100. This subject achieved the following standard scores on the Woodcock-Johnson achievement tests: reading, 81; mathematics, 82; written language, 78; knowledge, 87. Subject 3, Willy, was a 10-year, 6-month-old boy, whose full-scale WISC-R IQ was 106. Willy obtained the following standard scores on the Woodcock-Johnson achievement tests: reading, 65; mathematics, 82; written language, 75; and knowledge, 90.

The self-contained learning disabilities classroom served ten students, and was staffed by a teacher and an aide. All observations occurred during the same 45-minute period each day. During this time, the class was separated in- to two oral reading groups. The three subjects comprised one of the reading groups, which was instructed by the classroom aide. Instruction consisted of sequential progression through the SRA Corrective Reading Program (Thinking Basics; see Engelmann, Becker, Hanner, & Johnson, 1980). Among the comprehension

408 Learning Disability Quarterly



BASELINEI SELF- RECORDING I RE-

VERSAL SELF-

RECORDING FADE, FADE2

NEDDY 100-

80-

60-

40"

20-

BRIAN 100-

i so

60-

1o S40-

20- -_

WILLY 100-

80-

60-

40-

20-

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

CONSECUTIVE OBSERVATIONS

Figure 1: Percent of time samples on task for all three subjects across all six phases. The first 35 observations were made three school days per week; observations 36-42 were made once per week; and observation 43 was made three weeks after observation 42. Dotted lines between data points indicate that the student was absent during observations.




skills included were vocabulary development, use of analogies, deductive reasoning, and prac- tice in subject-verb agreement. Most of the activities required that the students respond on cue, in a choral manner.

The aide sat facing the students who were seated in a semicircle approximately two feet in front of her. A portable blackboard was situated behind the aide. A token economy system was in effect for the entire classroom. Points were awarded for academic and behavioral accom- plishments throughout the day and could be ex- changed for various items at the end of the week. This system was maintained throughout all phases of the study, i.e., baseline as well as treatment conditions. Points were not solely con- tingent upon the performance of the dependent variable.

Dependent Variable The percent of time on task occurring during

the comprehension lesson served as the dependent variable. On-task behavior was defined as occurring when the student was focusing his eyes directly on the eyes of the aide. The aide at times instructed the students to refer to a workbook page, in which case the definition of on-task behavior required that the students' eyes be focused on the specific page being discussed. This latter definition of on-task behavior, however, was rarely in effect.

The dependent variable was assessed by an observer using a momentary time sampling procedure. At two-second intervals, a tape recorder emitted tones audible to the observer through an earplug. When the observer heard a tone, she looked at a particular student and recorded whether he was on or off task. Observations of the three subjects were rotated so that a recording of on- or off-task behavior for each student was made every six seconds. The percent of time samples recorded as on task served as the dependent measure. Agreeme"nt checks were made by a second observer on a weekly basis. At least one agreement check occurred during each phase of the design. Both occurrence and nonoccurrence agreements were calculated.

Experimental Design An ABABCD design was employed, with

phase changes occurring simultaneously for all

subjects. The first four phases were used to establish the effectiveness of the procedures, while the last two phases were designed to assess the persistence of the effects during gradual removal of the procedures. The A phases served as baseline conditions, the B phases were self- monitoring treatment conditions, and the C and D phases were "fading" conditions during which external components of the self-monitoring procedure were systematically withdrawn. A total of 43 observations were made over a six-month period. The first 35 observations (from the first A phase to midway through the D phase) were made three school days per week; observations 36-42 were made once a week; observation 43 was made three weeks after observation 42. On days when observations were not made, the aide and the students were to carry out the procedures of the particular experimental phase that was in effect.

Procedures Baseline. Data for the baseline phase were

collected on five nonconsecutive school days over a period of two weeks. The aide presented the oral reading comprehension lesson in the standard manner. The observer collected data for the first 20 minutes of each 45-minute lesson.

Self-Recording. Data for the first treatment phase were collected on eight school days span- ning three weeks. The teacher gave the three students wrist counters and placed a tape recorder behind them. She played a tape which emitted tones at random intervals. The tones were approximately two seconds long, with about 45-second (range: 10 to 90 seconds) intervals between tones.

Prior to the first treatment session the aide conducted a training session in which she modeled the self-recording activities. The subjects demonstrated their knowledge of the procedures and their ability to perform them. The teacher instructed the students to ask themselves the question, "Was I paying attention?" at the sound of each tone. If they judged themselves to be on task they were to press a wrist counter but- ton and continue with the lesson. If they thought they were not on task, they were to do nothing. The definition of attention, looking directly at the aide's eyes, was carefully explained. At the beginning of each lesson, to serve as a cue, the




aide wrote the question, "Was I paying attention?" on the blackboard in full view of the students. She then reviewed the question and other self-recording procedures along with the general group directions. Although data were collected during the first 20 minutes of the 45-minute period, the procedures remained in effect throughout the lesson. Self-recording procedures were also conducted on the days when data were not collected. The aide usually collected the wrist counters at the end of each session and did not mention them again until they were used the next day.

On the third treatment day, after it had been observed that the subjects were not demonstrating discrimination between on- and off-task behavior, another training session was conducted. During this session, the aide verbally corrected students if they made what she judged to be an incorrect recording. This was the only time the students were given any feedback about the accuracy of their self-recording during the course of the study.

Reversal. The third phase consisted of a return-to-baseline condition. All equipment was removed and the aide stopped writing "Was I paying attention?" on the blackboard. Data were collected on five days over a period of two school weeks. Christmas vacation occurred between the 16th and 17th day of data collection.

Self-Recording. Self-recording procedures were reinstated in the fourth phase. On the first day of the fourth phase, a training session was conducted to insure appropriate discrimination between on- and off-task behavior and accurate performance of the procedure. All other procedures remained the same as in the first treatment phase. Data were collected on eight days over a period of three weeks.

Fadel (Cued self-assessment). Following the period of self-recording, the use of the wrist counters was excluded from the treatment procedures. Upon hearing the tape-recorded tone, the students still asked themselves the question, "Was I paying attention?"; however, no actual recording took place. The teacher instructed the children to answer the question, "Yes" or "No", silently. Data were collected for five days during this two-week condition.

Fade2 (Non-cued self-assessment). For the remainder of the study, which spanned

almost three months, the tape recorder was also removed. The aide continued to write the question, "Was I paying attention?" on the blackboard prior to each lesson. She instructed the students to ask themselves the question and to respond silently whenever they thought of it during the course of the lesson. A total of 12 observations were made during Fade2. Data were collected on four days over a two-week period, once a week for the next seven school weeks, and then once three weeks later (after Easter vacation).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results

Interobserver agreements. A total of eight observer agreement checks were made with a check at least once during each phase of the study. Occurrence and nonoccurrence agreement percentages were obtained for measure- ment of attention to task. Occurrence agreements (the number of intervals which both observers scored as on task divided by the number of occurrence agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100) had a mean of 86%, with agreement ranging from 81% to 90%. The mean of the nonoccurrence agreements was 93%, ranging from 81% to 97%. Nonoccurrence agreement was determined by dividing the number of intervals scored as off task by both observers by the number of nonoccurrence agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100.

Points earned. A tally of points earned during each phase of the experiment was kept in order to help rule out external reinforcement as an explanation of any behavioral change occurring during treatments. The mean number of points earned for each phase (Baseline = 5.00; Self-Recording = 5.00; Reversal = 16.20; Self- Recording = 8.38; Fadel = 8.00; Fade2 = 4.55) indicates that the aide did not administer more reinforcement during treatment conditions than elsewhere.

Changes in the dependent variable. As depicted in Figure 1, self-recording of attention to task produced substantial gains in the percent of on-task behavior for all three children. The ABAB portion of the design demonstrated clear treatment effects. Major increases in time on task during the first treatment phase were achieved




following the third day of self-recording, which included the corrective training session. The

withdrawal of treatment in the third phase produced abrupt drops in the percent of time on task. When the self-recording treatment was reinstated in phase four, a dramatic change was noted in both level and slope for all three subjects' on-task behaviors.

As illustrated in Figure 1, all three subjects maintained high levels of on-task behavior similar to the self-recording treatment phases during the two fading conditions. Following the removal of the wrist counters from the self- recording procedure (Fadel), the students' levels of on-task behavior dropped slightly, but remained substantially higher than those found in the baseline and reversal phases. During the next phase (Fade2), all three subjects continued to maintain these levels of on-task behavior over a two-month period during which the taped cues to self-assess had also been removed.

Discussion The results indicate that self-recording of at-

tentional behavior can be used as an effective treatment for increasing on-task behavior during oral group instruction of LD students with severe attentional problems. For all three subjects, self- recording resulted in clearcut improvements in on-task behavior. The mean levels of on-task behavior during self-recording treatment were approximately double those observed during baseline phases. Thus, the findings indicate that self-monitoring, which has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for use with LD students during seatwork assignments, can also be used successfully, with some adaptations, during small-group, orally presented instruction.

The maintenance over an extended period of time of high levels of on-task behavior after the removal of first the wrist counters and then the tape recorder supports the findings of Hallahan et al. (1979) who followed similar withdrawal procedures with students performing seatwork assignments. Combined with the results of the Hallahan et al. investigation, the present study indicated that by using a self-monitoring procedure in the classroom the teacher can wean students from reliance on "external" components, such as the cues to record and the recording device. Other research (Heins, Note 1; Lloyd et al., Note 2), however, indicates that

these components are necessary during the in- itial treatment stages.

Although substantial increases in the percent of time on task were achieved by all three subjects, the clinical significance of the final results, especially for Neddy and Brian, might be ques- tioned. However, the strict definition of on-task behavior used in this study (focusing one's eyes on the eyes of the aide) should be a primary con- sideration when evaluating the significance of the results. The use of the above definition un- doubtedly resulted in an underestimation of on- task behavior compared with that of most studies. Although the present definition of attention to task may have artificially depressed the students' levels of on-task behavior, a "tight" definition was necessary in order for external observers to achieve high levels of interobserver agreement. In addition, it provided the students with a behavior that could be easily identified, thereby facilitating the discrimination between occurrence and nonoccurrence of the behavior.

The contribution of self-recording accuracy to the success of self-recording treatments has yet to be determined. Rosenbaum and Drabman (1979) and McLaughlin (1976) proposed that

self-recording need not be accurate in order to produce effective behavior change. However, the literature also reveals the opposing view. Bolstead and Johnson (1972) and Nelson (1977) contended that self-recording accuracy is crucial to the effectiveness of the treatment. Although accuracy of self-recording was not directly measured in the present study, observation during the first two days of treatment re- vealed that the subjects were recording inac- curately by consistently recording their behavior as being on task. The low levels of attention to task during those two days followed by im- mediate rises in on-task behavior after an additional training session suggest that grossly inac- curate self-recording may affect the success of the treatment. The inaccuracy may reflect the students' inability to identify the behavior and to discriminate between its occurrence and nonoccurrence (Glynn et al., 1973). The increase in on-task behavior for each subject following the corrective training session supports the sugges- tion that a certain level of self-recording accuracy is necessary to establish the subject's ability to discriminate behavior, and ultimately for the treatment to be successful.




REFERENCE NOTES 1. Heins, E.D. Training learning disabled children's

self-control: Cued and non-cued self-recording in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1980.

2. Lloyd, J., Hallahan, D.P., Kosiewicz, M.M., & Kneedler, R.D. Self-assessment vs. self-recording: Two comparisons of reactive effects on attention to task and academic productivity. University of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute, Technical Report No. 29, October, 1980.

REFERENCES Bolstead, O.D., & Johnson, S.M. Self-regulation in

the modification of disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 443-454.

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

Engelmann, S., Becker, W.C., Hanner, S., & John- son, G. Corrective reading series. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980.

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.

Gottman, J.M., & McFall, R.M. Self-monitoring effects in a program for potential high school dropouts: A time-series analysis. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39, 273-281.

Hallahan, D.P. Distractibility in the learning disabled child. In W.M. Cruickshank & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Perceptual and learning disabilities in children (Vol. 2) Research and theory. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1975.

Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. Introduction to learning disabilities: A psycho-behavioral approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.

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, 24-32.

Hallahan, D.P., & Reeve, R.E. Selective attention and distractibility. In B.K. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in special education (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1980.

Kauffman, J.M., & Hallahan, D.P. Learning disability and hyperactivity (with comments on minimal brain dysfunction). In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum, 1979.

Kneedler, R.D., & Hallahan, D.P. Self-monitoring of on-task behavior with learning disabled children: Current studies and directions. Exceptional Educa- tion Quarterly, in press.

McLaughlin, T.F. Self-control in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 631-663.

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.

Rosenbaum, M.S., & Drabman, R.S. Self-control training in the classroom: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 467-485.

Torgeson, J.K. Conceptual and educational implica- tions of the use of efficient task strategies by learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1980, 13, 19-26.

FOOTNOTES This research was supported by a contract (300-80-0623) from the Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education, for the University of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Daniel Hallahan, Learning Disabilities Research Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.




severe learning disabilities || self-recording during group instruction: effects on attention to...

Documents