Future Directions for Cognitive Behavior Modification Research

Rooney, Karen J.; Hallahan, Daniel P.

doi:10.1177/074193258500600209

“…Therefore, special education research on various approaches to and targets for use ofCBT methods with mildly handicapped students has burgeoned. Reviews of experimental findings and speculations about their implications for special education have appeared in unusually rapid succession (e.g., see Abikoff, 1979;Harris, 1982;Rooney & Hallahan, 1985;Sheinker, Sheinker, & Stevens, 1984). Although CBT has not been viewed as a method for enhancing acquisition of basic skills, it not only might prove useful for facilitating acquisition of basic skills but also might provide a model for conceptualizing a truly "special" education curriculum that would address rate as well as content of learning problems for those described as mildly handicapped.…”

Section: Elements Of Cognitive Behavioral Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Gerber¹

2018

Exceptional

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whatever disagreement exists concerning identification of various subtypes of mildly handicapped (MH) learners, a consensus probably exists that these students learn at a slower rate than do their normally achieving peers. The idea of "slower rate" implies managerial as well as cognitive-behavioral concerns. In part, slower rate of acquisition is a function of discrepancies between time allocated by teachers for learning and time during which MH students are cognitively engaged with the content of learning tasks (i.e., academic learning time). MH students may be more predisposed to exh~bit "off.:task," or inappropriate task orientation, behaviors than their normally achieving peers. These students quite literally "waste" time, presenting teachers with difficult management problems. If task orientation behaviors were the only problems, however, academic gains for these students should be obtainable simply by increasing the percentage of allocated time that they appear to be actively engaged in learning. In fact, this line of reasoning has led to many intervention strategies that have sought to increase the probability of "on-task" behaviors through use of adult managed (e.g., see Kauffman & Hallahan, 1979) or student managed (e.g., see Hallahan & Sapona, 1983) procedures. Another line of thought-one for which practical implications are less well researched in special education-holds that even under conditions of optimal attentional behavior during tasks, MH students are always "slower" learners because they have difficulty allocating attention efficiently to information within tasks. (For general discussion of evidence favoring an attentional deficit hypothesis, see Hallahan & Reeve, 1980; for contrary evidence and arguments, see a recent paper by Samuels & Miller, 1985). If this hypothesis is true,• MH studel)ts, under available conditions of instruction, will require absolutely more learning time than faster learning peers if they are to develop similar levels of mastery and automaticity. Therefore, slower rates of acquisition present instructional design, as well as general managerial, problems.

show abstract

“…When a student met the baseline criteria, the PI taught the student to self-monitor, using procedures described by Carter (1993) and Rooney and Hallahan (1985). First, the PI explained what comprised self-monitoring.…”

Section: Student Self-monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Monitoring and at-Risk Middle School Students

Wood¹,

Murdock²,

Cronin

³

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a multiple baseline design across six academic settings, we found that teaching 4 at-risk middle school students to self-monitor markedly improved their academic performance as measured by their grades and related academic behaviors. Furthermore, these improvements generalized to settings where self-monitoring was never introduced, and they maintained the following school year. In this charter middle school setting, self-monitoring proved to be an extremely effective intervention. These findings suggest that it would be equally effective in a variety of settings.

show abstract

“…Some researchers, such as Ann Brown (e.g., see Brown et al, 1981, p. 14) remain optimistic that CBT can contribute to both specialized and generalized ability. Nonetheless, as suggested by experiences of Hallahan and his colleagues in Virginia (e.g., Rooney & Hallahan, 1985), one time, highly focal interventions, however successful, will have to be rethought in terms of ongoing curriculum.…”

Section: Elements Of Cognitive Behavioral Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviews of experimental findings and speculations about their implications for special education have appeared in unusually rapid succession (e.g., see Abikoff, 1979;Harris, 1982;Rooney & Hallahan, 1985;Sheinker, Sheinker, & Stevens, 1984). Although CBT has not been viewed as a method for enhancing acquisition of basic skills, it not only might prove useful for facilitating acquisition of basic skills but also might provide a model for conceptualizing a truly "special" education curriculum that would address rate as well as content of learning problems for those described as mildly handicapped.…”

Section: Elements Of Cognitive Behavioral Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Gerber¹

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whatever disagreement exists concerning identification of various subtypes of mildly handicapped (MH) learners, a consensus probably exists that these students learn at a slower rate than do their normally achieving peers. The idea of "slower rate" implies managerial as well as cognitive-behavioral concerns. In part, slower rate of acquisition is a function of discrepancies between time allocated by teachers for learning and time during which MH students are cognitively engaged with the content of learning tasks (i.e., academic learning time). MH students may be more predisposed to exh~bit "off.:task," or inappropriate task orientation, behaviors than their normally achieving peers. These students quite literally "waste" time, presenting teachers with difficult management problems.If task orientation behaviors were the only problems, however, academic gains for these students should be obtainable simply by increasing the percentage of allocated time that they appear to be actively engaged in learning. In fact, this line of reasoning has led to many intervention strategies that have sought to increase the probability of "on-task" behaviors through use of adult managed (e.g., see Kauffman & Hallahan, 1979) or student managed (e.g., see Hallahan & Sapona, 1983) procedures.Another line of thought-one for which practical implications are less well researched in special education-holds that even under conditions of optimal attentional behavior during tasks, MH students are always "slower" learners because they have difficulty allocating attention efficiently to information within tasks. (For general discussion of evidence favoring an attentional deficit hypothesis, see Hallahan & Reeve, 1980; for contrary evidence and arguments, see a recent paper by Samuels & Miller, 1985). If this hypothesis is true,· MH studel)ts, under available conditions of instruction, will require absolutely more learning time than faster learning peers if they are to develop similar levels of mastery and automaticity. Therefore, slower rates of acquisition present instructional design, as well as general managerial, problems. Further, if observable amounts of task engagement are only a general consequence of variable degrees of cognitive efficiency, the reason that measures of time on-task correlate only moderately and inconsistently with achievement measures, and why some students invariably "need differing amounts of time to achieve the same learning goals" (Karweit & Slavin, 1981, p. 171), becomes clearer. Unfortunately, special education has no well developed theories that relate macro teaching and management variables (such as allocated learning time, instructional grouping, and instructional design) to within-student, cognitive or micro variables (such as coding, strategy generation, and structure of knowledge). By discussing how cognitive-behaviorial training methods might facilitate acquisition of basic skills in MH students, this article is intended as a step in this direction. THE GENERAL EDUCATION DILEMMARecent work by Gettinger a...

show abstract

Future Directions for Cognitive Behavior Modification Research

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Self-Monitoring and at-Risk Middle School Students

Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About