Self-Monitoring With a Twist

Abstract

Self-monitoring is regarded throughout the literature as an effective classroom intervention. Researchers have used self-monitoring interventions to improve school-related behavior of students with varying disabilities across a variety of settings. Although research supports the use of self-monitoring, traditional self-monitoring techniques may be unappealing to students and inefficient for use in the classroom. Cell phones hold great promise for increasing the acceptability and efficiency of self-monitoring interventions. The purpose of this article is to describe a self-monitoring technique that incorporates cell phones and text messages. We provide step-by-step instructions for setting up and implementing CellF-Monitoring in a classroom.

Meta-Analysis and Quality of Self-Monitoring Behavior Interventions with Children and Adolescents

“…Most previous reviews on self-monitoring behavior included studies that used self-management techniques (e.g., self-evaluation, self-reinforcement) in addition to self-monitoring, and that included an external positive reinforcement component (Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009;Bruhn et al, 2015;Reid et al, 2005;Sheffield & Waller, 2010;Webber et al, 1993). Some individual studies would empirically compare the effectiveness of self-monitoring in isolation to self-monitoring plus positive reinforcement (e.g., Gumpel, 2007) while many studies excluded from the present review would positively reinforce students for either self-monitoring accurately, obtaining a certain number of answers correct, ISSN 1948-5476 2019 or both (e.g., Bedesem & Dieker, 2014;Coogan, Kehle, Bray, & Chafouleas, 2007;Vogelgesang, Bruhn, Coghill-Behrends, Kern, & Troughton, 2016). Clearly, the application of various reinforcement techniques (e.g., verbal praise, differential reinforcement) would add to the effectiveness of self-monitoring.…”

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

“…From classroom practice point of view, teachers should be EP agents in future research, meaning that their judgments should play a key role in determining and programming MT based on the students' level of performance (Flower, 2014) and current response to intervention (Macsuga-Gage et al, 2015). Future research might obtain instrumental qualitative and quantitative information about teacher-guided implementation of EPs, barriers to MT integration (e.g., school restrictions; Bedesem, 2012;Bedesem & Dieker, 2014;Wills & Mason, 2014), and suggestions for improvements (e.g., tutorial programs that consider students' academic skills and cognitive demands; Haydon et al, 2012). Further, a problem-solving decision-making model and aligning MT guidelines (Maich & Hall, 2016) might enable teachers to keep pace with rapidly evolving MT (Cumming, 2013), without impacting treatment fidelity of EBPs (Macsuga-Gage et al, 2015).…”

Tweets, Texts, and Tablets

“…As previously stated, technology-based self-monitoring is not different in terms of the student's metacognitive process, but it does differ in terms of planning and procedures. The following paragraphs describe the basic steps to self-monitoring with considerations for implementing technology (Bedesem & Dieker, 2014;Jolivette, Alter, Scott, Josephs, & Swoszowski, 2013;Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, & Crnobori, 2011).…”

“…For example, a student whose behavior serves to avoid tasks might monitor on-task behavior or task completion. The behavior should be operationally defined in measurable, observable terms with examples and nonexamples (Bedesem & Dieker, 2014).…”