Self‐recording of Attention Versus Productivity

Abstract

We investigated the relative effects of self-recording of attentive behavior and self-recording of academic productivity with 5 upper elementary-aged special education students in their special education dassroom. Following baseline, both self-recording treatments were introduced according to a multielement design. After the multielement phase, we assessed the pupils' performance under a choice condition, faded the overt aspects of the treatment program according to a withdrawal design, and probed maintenance over 5 weeks. Results revealed that both treatments produced dear improvements in arithmetic productivity and attention to task, neither treatment was dearly and consistently superior to the other, pupils preferred the self-recording of attention treatment, the effects were maintained for all pupils, achievement test scores improved, and pupils generally recorded accurately.DESCRIPTORS: academic behavior, alternating treatments, attending behavior, children, dassroom behavior, on-task behavior, self-monitoring, self-recording The therapeutic value of the reactive effects of self-recording has been dearly established with diverse behaviors and individuals (for reviews, see Gardner & Cole, 1988;Kazdin, 1974;Mace & Kratochwill, 1988;Nelson, 1977). In school situations, many studies have shown that self-recording promotes attention to task. However, in their examinations of this literature, Klein (1979) and Snider (1987) suggested that academic performance, rather than attending, would be a more appropriate target for self-recording.Two studies compared self-recording treatments focused on academic performance and attention to task. Rooney, Polloway, and Hallahan (1985) themselves whether they were paying attention, and then record their "yes" or "no" answer on a prepared answer sheet. The second procedure required that each time the pupils completed a specially marked problem on their worksheets they compare their answer for the marked problem to the answer on an answer sheet and record whether they had answered correctly. Rooney et al. did not find dear differences between effects of these procedures.In another comparison, Harris (1986) used a reversal design with elementary-aged students. She used essentially the same procedure for self-recording of attention as did Rooney et al. (1985) and compared it to a self-recording-of-productivity procedure in which the pupils were taught to make an overall judgment of performance (count number of spelling words practiced) at the end of each class period. She also reported no differences between treatments, but the pupils preferred the productivity treatment. However, to correct for order effects inherent in the use of the reversal design, she counterbalanced the order in which pupils received the two treatments (i.e., ABCBC versus ACBCB). This essentially created a between-groups design with 2 subjects in each cell and, thus, complicated interpretation of the results.In addition to the design difference, the selfrecording procedures that Rooney et al. (1985) and ...

Differential Effects of Self‐monitoring Attention, Accuracy, and Productivity

“…All studies reported increased on-task behavior for both selfmonitoring approaches; neither form of self-monitoring emerged as dearly superior. Lloyd et al (1989), Rooney et al (1985), and Roberts and Nelson (1981) Leary, 1979).The present study compared the effects of selfmonitoring attention, academic productivity, and academic accuracy on mathematics performance. Content difficulty was controlled by having students self-monitor problems they performed accurately but for which they required practice to become fluent (responding correctly and quickly).…”

“…Numerous studies have shown that self-monitoring either attention or academic responding increases on-task behavior (e.g., Blick & Test, 1987;DiGangi, Maag, & Rutherford, 1991;Hallahan, Lloyd, Kosiewicz, Kauffman, & Graves, 1979;Harris, 1986). However, it remains undear which of the variables in self-monitoring best promotes academic gains (Hallahan & Sapona, 1983;Harris, 1986;Lloyd & Landrum, 1990;Snider, 1987).Advocates of self-monitoring attention stress its simple and practical nature (Lentz, 1988 that any differential effects between the two variables are too small to influence academic achievement (Hallahan & Sapona, 1983;Lloyd, Bateman, Landrum, & Hallahan, 1989;Lloyd & Landrum, 1990). Proponents of self-monitoring academic outcome, on the other hand, question the link between on-task behavior and achievement and cite research indicating that targeting productivity or accuracy is more likely to affect academic responding (e.g., Hoge & Andrews, 1987;Klein, 1979;Petersen & Swing, 1982;Ruggles & LeBlanc, 1985;Treiber & Lahey, 1983).…”

“…Proponents of self-monitoring academic outcome, on the other hand, question the link between on-task behavior and achievement and cite research indicating that targeting productivity or accuracy is more likely to affect academic responding (e.g., Hoge & Andrews, 1987;Klein, 1979;Petersen & Swing, 1982;Ruggles & LeBlanc, 1985;Treiber & Lahey, 1983). They reason that if increases in on-task behavior are independent of achievement, self-monitoring interventions should focus on active academic responding (Graden, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1983).Only five studies have examined the differential efficacy of self-monitoring attention versus academic outcome (Harris, 1986;Lloyd et al, 1989; Reid & Harris, in press;Roberts & Nelson, 1981;Rooney, Polloway, & Hallahan, 1985). All studies reported increased on-task behavior for both selfmonitoring approaches; neither form of self-monitoring emerged as dearly superior.…”

“…Advocates of self-monitoring attention stress its simple and practical nature (Lentz, 1988 that any differential effects between the two variables are too small to influence academic achievement (Hallahan & Sapona, 1983;Lloyd, Bateman, Landrum, & Hallahan, 1989;Lloyd & Landrum, 1990). Proponents of self-monitoring academic outcome, on the other hand, question the link between on-task behavior and achievement and cite research indicating that targeting productivity or accuracy is more likely to affect academic responding (e.g., Hoge & Andrews, 1987;Klein, 1979;Petersen & Swing, 1982;Ruggles & LeBlanc, 1985;Treiber & Lahey, 1983).…”

“…Only five studies have examined the differential efficacy of self-monitoring attention versus academic outcome (Harris, 1986;Lloyd et al, 1989; Reid & Harris, in press;Roberts & Nelson, 1981;Rooney, Polloway, & Hallahan, 1985). All studies reported increased on-task behavior for both selfmonitoring approaches; neither form of self-monitoring emerged as dearly superior.…”