“I Don’t Like Being Good!” Changing Behavior With Technology-Based Self-Monitoring

Abstract

Self-monitoring has a well-established literature base for improving the behavior of students with a range of ages and abilities. Whereas self-monitoring often involves technology for prompting self-monitoring procedures, to date, only a few studies have examined the use of technology for recording self-monitored behavior. To extend the literature in this area, the effects of technology-based self-monitoring were examined using an iPad application called SCORE IT in which students and teachers rate students' behavior and view automated graphs of progress toward goals. Using a baseline and intervention (ABAB) design to measure outcomes, improvements in behavior were established for both middle school participants-one with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and another receiving noncategorical special education services for reading, math, and behavioral deficits. Findings, limitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Integration of Mobile Technology Into Evidence-Based Practices for Students With Emotional and Conduct Disorders in Classroom

“…In sum, the reviewed studies reported a consistent increase of on-task behavior and/or decrease of off-task behaviors when MT was integrated fully or partially into self-monitoring (Bedesem, 2012;Bruhn et al, 2016;Bruhn et al, 2015;Gulchak, 2008;Szwed & Bouck, 2013;Vogelgesang et al, 2016;Wills & Mason, 2014) and video-modeling practices (Blood et al, 2011). The provision of EPs seemed to have advantages over the traditional paper-pencil formats in that they prompted higher levels of active academic responding (Haydon et al, 2012) and on-task behavior (Flower, 2014;Haydon et al, 2012).…”

“…The assessment considered students' IEPs in matching the content of academic iPad applications and independent work practices. Last, MT was researcher-selected or created across the remaining seven studies (Blood, Johnson, Ridenour, Simmons, & Crouch, 2011;Bruhn, Vogelgesang, Fernando, & Lugo, 2016;Bruhn, Vogelgesang, Schabilion, Waller, & Fernando, 2015;Bruhn, Woods-Groves, Fernando, Taehoon, & Troughton, 2017;Gulchak, 2008;Szwed & Bouck, 2013;Vogelgesang, Bruhn, Coghill-Behrends, Kern, & Troughton, 2016;Wills & Mason, 2014).…”

“…Full integration or all-inclusive MT occurs when the components of EBPs are fully delivered through MT. The largest number of studies examining EPs (n = 6) utilized the full integration method (Bedesem, 2012;Bruhn et al, 2016;Bruhn et al, 2015;Bruhn, Woods-Groves, et al, 2017;Vogelgesang et al, 2016;Wills & Mason, 2014). CellF-Monitoring was the first all-inclusive MT used to cue two high-school students engaging in distracting behaviors, to self-monitor their on-task behaviors in language arts class.…”

“…Three studies sought to improve and validate the use of SCORE IT (Bruhn et al, 2015), placing it in a research-based arena. With two similarly situated students and in a comparable setting, Bruhn and colleagues (2016) incorporated the data-based individualization (DBI) model by which teachers could gradually modify the criterion goal.…”

“…Vogelgesang and associates (2016) also tested the effects of SCORE IT for three elementary-aged students with ADHD, but in a less structured classroom setting. Unlike the original work (Bruhn et al, 2015), the teacher did not provide students with feedback of student and teacher ratings. The procedures of goal setting and reinforcement were controlled as well.…”