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

Abstract

Effects of self-monitoring on-task behavior, academic productivity, and academic accuracy were assessed with 6 elementary-school students with learning disabilities in their general education classroom using a mathematics task. Following baseline, the three self-monitoring conditions were introduced using a multiple schedule design during independent practice sessions. Although all three interventions yielded improvements in either arithmetic productivity, accuracy, or on-task behavior, self-monitoring academic productivity or accuracy was generally superior. Differential results were obtained across age groups: fourth graders' mathematics performance improved most when self-monitoring productivity, whereas sixth graders' performance improved most when selfmonitoring accuracy. DESCRIPTORS: learning disabled, self-monitoring Self-monitoring procedures have been applied to diverse populations and behaviors (Mace & Kratochwill, 1988). These interventions offer an acceptable alternative to more intrusive procedures (Lloyd & Landrum, 1990;Roberts & Nelson, 1981) and are useful with atypical learners to decrease direct teacher intervention and to improve academic performance. 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). 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. 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 control...

The Effects of Fading a Strategic Self-Monitoring Intervention on Students’ Academic Engagement, Accuracy, and Productivity

“…In terms of academic engagement when the ACT-REACT strategic self-monitoring sheet was gradually faded, the results of this study support those obtained in the ten previous self-monitoring investigations that included fading in their experimental phases (see Boyle and Hughes 1994;De Haas-Warner 1992;DiGangi et al 1991;Edwards et al 1995;Levendoski and Cartledge 2000;Mathes and Bender 1997;Maag et al 1993;McDougall and Brady 1998;Prater et al 1991Prater et al , 1992. In this study, all of the students demonstrated markedly improved levels of academically engaged behavior during fading when data are compared to baseline phases.…”

“…As we mentioned previously, we found only five studies (see DiGangi et al 1991;Edwards et al 1995;Levendoski and Cartledge 2000;Maag et al 1993;McDougall and Brady 1998) in which researchers investigated students' academic performance during fading conditions and results were also mixed.…”

“…Interestingly, despite prevailing policy and practice shifts to educate students with disabilities in the general education classroom (25th Annual Report to Congress), only six (see De Haas-Warner 1992;DiGangi et al 1991;Edwards et al 1995;Maag et al 1993;McDougall and Brady 1998;Prater et al 1992) of the 10 inquiries were undertaken in inclusive environments.…”

The Use of Goal Setting and Contingency Contracting for Improving Children's Homework Performance

“…Targeting either on-task behavior or academic responding typically produces improvements in both, although academic responding is generally considered to be a more efficacious target (Hoge & Andrews, 1987;Ruggles & LeBlanc, 1985). Indeed, Maag, Reid, and DiGangi (1993) reported that self-monitoring academic outcomes was superior to monitoring on-task behavior in terms of academic productivity, accuracy, and consumer preference.…”

Self-Monitoring During Spelling Practice: Effects on Spelling Accuracy and On-Task Behavior of Three Students Diagnosed With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

“…Teachers are encouraged to choose the type of self-monitoring intervention after carefully considering a student's individual strengths, needs, and goals (Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby, 1994;Harris et al, 2005). Table 2 includes an abbreviated list of steps that teachers should consider following when developing a self-monitoring intervention (modified from Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007;Hallahan et al, 1979;Harris et al, 1994;Maag, Reid, DiGangi, 1993;Rafferty, 2010;Rafferty & Raimondi, 2009;Rankin & Reid, 1995). Although the current study was conducted in a general education classroom, any teacher, in any classroom context, can use these steps.…”