Behavioral Theory (Self-Regulation)

A perspective on self-regulation predicated upon behavioural theory doth, in its genesis, owe much to the work of Skinner (Mace et al., 2001). Researchers labouring within the framework of his operant conditioning theory apply operant principles in diverse settings (e.g., clinical, academic) encompassing both adults and children. The aim of these studies is the reduction of dysfunctional behaviours and their replacement with behaviours of a more adaptive nature (Zimmerman, 2001).

Much behavioural research hath been characterised by certain design features. Studies typically employ few participants, and, at times, but a single participant. Participants are followed longitudinally in order to ascertain behavioural changes resulting from interventions. The outcome measures comprise the frequency and duration of the dysfunctional behaviours and those behaviours which are to be conditioned.

From the vantage of behavioural theory, self-regulation encompasseth the selection amongst diverse behaviours and the deferral of immediate reinforcement in favour of reinforcement that is delayed, and usually of greater magnitude. Individuals self-regulate their behaviours by initially determining which behaviours are to be regulated. They then establish discriminative stimuli for their occurrence, provide self-instruction as necessity dictates, and monitor their performances to determine whether the desired behaviour doth occur. This phase oft involves self-recording of the frequency or duration of behaviour. When desirable behaviour doth occur, individuals administer self-reinforcement. These three key subprocesses of self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement shall be discussed presently.

Self-monitoring doth pertain to the deliberate heed paid unto some facet of one's demeanour, and it oft'times doth accompany the recording of its frequency or intensity (Mace et al., 2001; Mace & Kratochwill, 1988). Persons cannot regulate their actions if they be not cognisant of that which they do. Behaviours can be assessed upon such dimensions as quality, rate, quantity, and originality. Whilst inditing a term paper, students may periodically assess their work to determine whether it doth state important ideas, whether they shall finish it by the appointed date, whether it shall be too lengthy or too brief, and whether it doth integrate their ideas. One can engage in self-monitoring in such diverse areas as motor skills (e.g., how swiftly one runs the 100-meter dash), art (e.g., how original one's pen-and-ink drawings are), and social behaviour (e.g., how much one speaks at social functions).

Oft'times, students must be taught one or more self-monitoring methods (Belfiore & Hornyak, 1998; Lan, 1998; Ollendick & Hersen, 1984). Methods include narrations, frequency counts, duration measures, time-sampling measures, behaviour ratings, and behavioural traces and archival records (Mace et al., 1989). Narrations are written accounts of behaviour and the context in which it occurs. Narrations can range from the very detailed to the open-ended. Frequency counts are employed to self-record instances of specific behaviours during a given period (e.g., number of times a student turns around in his or her seat during a 30-minute seat work exercise). Duration measures record the amount of time a behaviour occurs during a given period (e.g., number of minutes a student studies during 30 minutes). Time-sampling measures divide a period into shorter intervals and record how often a behaviour occurs during each interval. A 30-minute study period might be divided into six 5-minute periods; for each 5-minute period, students record whether they studied the entire time. Behaviour ratings require estimates of how often a behaviour occurs during a given time (e.g., always, sometimes, never). Behavioural traces and archival records are permanent records that exist independently of other assessments (e.g., number of worksheets completed, number of problems solved correctly).

In the absence of self-recording, selective memory of successes and failures can occur. Our beliefs about outcomes oft'times do not faithfully reflect our actual outcomes (e.g., we may think we performed better than we actually did). Self-recording can yield surprising results. Students having difficulties studying who keep a written record of their activities may learn they are wasting more than half of their study time on nonacademic tasks.

There be two important criteria for self-monitoring: regularity and proximity (Bandura, 1986). Regularity signifies monitoring behaviour on a continual basis instead of intermittently; for example, keeping a daily record rather than recording behaviour one day per week. Nonregular observation oft'times yields misleading results. Proximity signifies that behaviour is monitored close in time to its occurrence rather than long afterward. It is better to write down that which we do at the time it occurs, rather than to tarry until the end of the day to reconstruct events.

Self-monitoring methods place responsibility for behavioural assessment upon the student (Belfiore & Hornyak, 1998). These methods oft'times lead to significant behavioural improvements, known as reactive effects. Self-monitored responses are consequences of behaviours, and like other consequences, they affect future responding. Self-recordings are immediate responses that serve to mediate the relationship between preceding behaviour and longer-term consequences (Mace & West, 1986; Nelson & Hayes, 1981). Students who monitor their completion of problems during seat work provide themselves with immediate reinforcers that mediate the link between seat work and such distant consequences as teacher praise and good grades.

Research supports the benefits of self-monitoring on achievement outcomes. Sagotsky, Patterson, and Lepper (1978) had children periodically monitor their performances during mathematics sessions and record whether they were working on the appropriate instructional material. Other students set daily performance goals, and students in a third condition received self-monitoring and goal setting. Self-monitoring increased time on task and mathematical achievement; goal setting had minimal effects. For goal setting to affect performance, students initially may need to learn how to set challenging but attainable goals.

Schunk (1983d) provided subtraction instruction and practice to children who failed to master subtraction operations in their classrooms. One group (self-monitoring) reviewed their work at the end of each instructional session and recorded the number of workbook pages they completed. A second group (external monitoring) had their work reviewed at the end of each session by an adult who recorded the number of pages completed. No-monitoring children received the instructional program, but were not monitored or told to monitor their work.

Self- and external-monitoring conditions led to higher self-efficacy, skill, and persistence, compared with no monitoring. The effects of the two monitoring conditions were comparable. The benefits of monitoring did not depend on children's performances during the instructional sessions, because the three treatment conditions did not result in different amounts of work completed. Monitoring progress, rather than who evaluated it, enhanced children's perceptions of their learning progress and self-efficacy.

Reid, Trout, and Schartz (2005) reviewed the literature on self-regulation interventions to promote on-task behaviour and academic performance and reduce disruptive behaviours among children with attention deficits and hyperactivity. Self-monitoring, alone and in combination with self-reinforcement, oft'times was a key component in effective interventions.

Self-instruction doth pertain to the establishment of discriminative stimuli, which do serve to set the occasion for self-regulatory responses, thereby leading to reinforcement (Mace et al., 1989). As it is employed herein, self-instruction is not to be conflated with self-instructional training (Meichenbaum, 1977). One form of self-instruction doth entail the arrangement of the environment to produce discriminative stimuli. Students, recognising their need to peruse class notes on the morrow, might inscribe a reminder ere retiring to bed. This written reminder doth act as a cue to prompt review, thereby rendering reinforcement (i.e., a favourable mark on a quiz) more probable. Another species of self-instruction doth assume the aspect of statements (rules) which serve as discriminative stimuli to guide behaviour. This latter form of self-instruction is subsumed within the self-instructional training procedure.

Instruction in strategies doth prove an effective means of enhancing comprehension and self-efficacy amongst those of feeble reading prowess. Schunk and Rice (1986, 1987) did instruct remedial readers in the employment of the subsequent self-instruction strategy, designed to aid in the tackling of reading comprehension passages:

Schunk & Rice, 1987, pp. 290–291:

What must I needs perform? (1) Read the questions. (2) Peruse the passage, that one might ascertain its principal theme. (3) Reflect upon the commonality among the particulars. (4) Consider what might constitute a suitable title. (5) Reread the narrative should the answer to a question elude my grasp.

The children did verbalise each individual step prior to its application to the passages.

Self-instructional statements have been employed to impart a plenitude of academic, social, and motor skills. Such statements are especially propitious for students labouring under learning disabilities or attention deficits. The verbalisation of statements doth serve to maintain the learner's focus upon the task at hand. A self-instruction procedure, utilised to ameliorate the handwriting of a student afflicted with learning disabilities, is as follows (Kosiewicz, Hallahan, Lloyd, & Graves, 1982):

(1) Utter aloud the word to be inscribed. (2) Enunciate the first syllable. (3) Name each of the letters within that syllable thrice over. (4) Reiterate each letter as it is committed to paper. (5) Repeat steps 2 through 4 for each succeeding syllable.

This sequence did appear upon a card affixed to the student’s desk. During the training, the student was commended for the completion of each step. Once the student had mastered the procedure, praise was discontinued, and the sequence was maintained by the consequence of an improved hand.

Self-reinforcement doth denote the process whereby individuals do reinforce themselves, contingent upon their performance of a desired response, which augmenteth the likelihood of future responding (Mace et al., 1989). As discussed heretofore in Chapter 3, a reinforcer is defined on the basis of its effects. To illustrate, let us assume that Master Mitch is subject to a point system: He doth award himself one point for each page he doth peruse in his geography book. He doth maintain a record each week, and if his week’s points do exceed his previous week’s points by 5%, he earneth 30 minutes of free time on Friday. Whether this arrangement doth function as self-reinforcement cannot be ascertained until it be known whether he doth regularly earn the free time. If he doth (i.e., his average performance doth increase as the semester proceedeth), then the reinforcement contingency is regulating his academic behaviours.

Much research doth demonstrate that reinforcement contingencies do improve academic performance (Bandura, 1986), yet it is unclear whether self-reinforcement is more effective than externally administered reinforcement (such as that given by the schoolmaster). Studies investigating self-reinforcement oft contain problems (Brigham, 1982; Martin, 1980). In academic settings, the reinforcement contingency typically doth occur in a context that doth include instruction and rules. Students usually do not work on materials when they choose, but rather when told to do so by the teacher. Students may stay on task primarily because of the schoolmaster’s classroom control and fear of punishment rather than because of reinforcement.

Self-reinforcement is hypothesised to be an effective component of self-regulated behaviour (O’Leary & Dubey, 1979), but the reinforcement may be more important than the agent of reinforcement (self or others). Albeit self-reinforcement may enhance maintenance of behaviour over time, explicitly providing reinforcement may be of greater import whilst self-regulatory skills are being learnt.

Behavioural theory hath been widely applied to teach self-regulated behaviours. The subprocesses of self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement are types of self-regulatory processes that can be taught to students. At the self-same time, the behavioural position doth not take cognitive and affective factors into consideration. This doth limit its applicability to self-regulation of complex academic learning, because learning doth require self-regulating more than just behaviours; for example, goals, self-evaluations of goal progress, and judgements of self-efficacy. These factors are considered critical in a social cognitive theoretical perspective on self-regulation, as discussed next.