Using Self‐management Interventions to Address General Education Behavioral Needs: Assessment of Effectiveness and Feasibility

Abstract

A comprehensive self‐management intervention was utilized to increase the on‐task behavior of three African American students within an urban middle‐school setting. The intervention was designed to necessitate minimal management on the part of the general education classroom teacher by utilizing an electronic prompting device, as well as a centralized intervention coordinator for the management of training, implementation, and progress monitoring. Results suggested that implementation of the intervention resulted in improvement in on‐task behavior across all three students; however, problems with inconsistent implementation necessitated that modifications be made to the intervention procedures. Implications for the design and implementation of self‐management interventions within general education secondary‐level settings are discussed.

Self-management training for Chinese obese children at risk for metabolic syndrome: Effectiveness and implications for school health

“…School reinforcement of this message-through supporting parents and empowering children to engage in self-management-can yield impressive results without large expenditures in time, money, or personnel (Briesch & Daniels, 2013). Future studies should evaluate school-based self-management for healthy weight and expand programming by integrating more holistic outcome measures and longer-term follow-up.…”

Implementing self-management within a group counseling context: Effects on academic enabling behaviors

“…In the third session, the SM components were implemented. Students participated in self‐monitoring training, which was based on training procedures used in previous studies (e.g., Briesch & Daniels, ; Young, West, Smith, & Morgan, ). The group leader defined each academic enabling behavior, described the response options, and provided examples.…”

“…Given that previous research has found SM to be effective in improving both classroom preparatory behaviors (e.g., Gureasko‐Moore et al., ) and academic engagement (e.g., Smith, Young, West, & Morgan, ), it was hypothesized that a SM intervention delivered within a GC context would be effective in improving academic enabling behaviors, such as staying on task, completing work, participating in class discussions, and critically evaluating work. In addition, it was hypothesized that the SM intervention in this study would be considered feasible and acceptable by students, given previous work highlighting high levels of acceptability within a middle school population (e.g., Briesch & Daniels, ; Gureasko‐Moore et al., ).…”

“…At a minimum, SM interventions require that students observe and record their target behavior over time. Students may be prompted to conduct ratings every few minutes (e.g., Briesch & Daniels, ), or asked to complete more global assessments of their own behavior, such as by completing a checklist of classroom preparatory behaviors (e.g., prepared for class, completed homework; Gureasko‐Moore, DuPaul, & White, ). In addition, students may be asked to set performance or accuracy goals, compare their performance to their goals, and receive rewards (e.g., points, prizes) for reaching their goals (e.g., Meyer & Kelley, ).…”

“…Although results suggested slight to moderate success in increasing student academic engagement, it is notable that substantial time was needed to provide individual accuracy checks with each of the students in the classroom. Briesch, Hemphill, and Daniels () attempted to improve classwide intervention feasibility by (a) utilizing hand signals rather than traditional paper and pencil forms for middle school students to self‐monitor their adherence to classroom rules (e.g., sit up, ask questions) and (b) omitting the provision of individualized feedback. Because accuracy checks were only made for a small subset of students at one time, the intervention required minimal teacher time for implementation, and results still suggested that the intervention was effective in improving on‐task behavior.…”