A self-instructional package for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded children.
Game-style self-instruction drops off-task behavior in kids with ID but leaves academics unchanged.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team built a game-style self-instruction package for kids with intellectual disability. Kids learned short verbal cues like “pay attention” and “stop and look.” They practiced the cues during math, printing, and phonics lessons.
The study used a multiple-baseline design across participants. Each child started the package at a different time to show the change came from the training, not luck.
What they found
Self-instruction cut off-task behavior in every child. The gains showed up both during training and in new settings. Academic scores stayed flat; attention went up, but schoolwork accuracy did not.
The package worked fast. Once a child began the game, teachers saw the drop in off-task minutes right away.
How this fits with other research
Friedling et al. (1979) ran a similar program with hyperactive second- and third-graders and saw no change until they added tokens. The difference: C’s kids had ADHD, not ID, and got no game format. Same age, same self-talk, opposite result—an apparent contradiction that points to diagnosis and delivery style.
Davis et al. (1976) used the same package with overactive preschool boys and got even stronger gains that lasted 22 weeks. Their success came earlier and lasted longer, showing the tool works before formal academics start.
Rast et al. (1985) later extended the idea to high-school students with ID. They swapped verbal cues for picture cues in a vocational setting. The chain of studies shows self-management grows with the student: preschool self-talk → elementary game → teen picture system.
Hawkes et al. (1974) added a simple wall chart to self-management and stabilized gains in typical third-graders. The chart gave real-time feedback, a feature the 1980 game lacked. Together, the papers hint that visual feedback may lock in the gains self-instruction starts.
Why it matters
You can cut off-task behavior in elementary kids with ID by teaching short self-cues in a fun format. Do not expect grades to jump—attention and accuracy are separate targets. If a child has ADHD or the room lacks visuals, add tokens or a cue chart; earlier work shows that combo turns “no effect” into solid success.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one short cue like “look and listen,” teach it in a 2-minute role-play game, then have the child say it aloud before each new worksheet.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a self-instructional package that would aid highly distractible children in increasing their attending behavior in a training and two generalization (a one-to-one and a classroom) situations. Three untrained subjects were monitored for general comparison and social validation purposes. One of these control subjects was distractible and the other two (criterion comparison) were evaluated as not having attentional problems. A multiple baseline design was employed in which training was sequentially introduced across subjects. During training, the experimental subjects were taught through self-instruction to focus their attention and to cope with two tasks, math and printing. After learning the self-instructions the subjects were systematically and sequentially exposed to photo-slides of distracting situations, to audio-distractors composed of noisy lunchroom verbal peer interactions, and to in vivo distractors provided by kindergarten children playing with wooden blocks in the training setting. The entire training procedure was handled in a game-like context to maintain subject interest and to facilitate generalization. The results suggested that the training package produced direct and generalized changes in self-instructional behavior. In addition, a decreae in off-task behavior occurred during math, printing, and also during a phonics program in the one-to-one and classroom situations. However, reliable changes in academic task performance were not observed. Finally, no systematic changes on any of the dependent measures occurred for the three untrained subjects.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-443