After you’ve done that, come to me. I’ll check it. If you counted correctly and figured out what you earned right, I will give you a bonus! You’ll get two extra minutes of computer time. Now, on Friday you take your spelling test.
We’ll do pretty much the same thing. You’ll check your test just like always.
Put your percent correct at the top. Then figure out the reward and write it at the top. I’ll check it just like we do every day. Now let’s go over how we do this.”
Walk the student through the steps once and model the process. Then ask Lynn to tell you in her own words how she will do it.
combined. In closing, we would caution that self-regulation strategies are not appropri-ate for some tasks. For example, overt self-instruction may interfere with behaviors that require speedy, reflexive performance or that require complex processing (Harris, 1982).
REFERENCES
Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alderman, M. K., Klein, R., Seeley, S., & Sanders, M. (1993). Preservice teachers as learners in for-mation: Metacognitive self-portraits. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 38–54.
Bandura, S. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, S. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Boom, S. E., & Fine, E. (1995). STAR: A number-writing strategy. Teaching Exceptional Children 27(2), 42–45.
Browder, D. M., & Minarovic, T. J. (2000). Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Reid, R. (1992). Developing self-regulated learners. Focus on Excep-tional Children, 24, 1–116.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, T. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal set-ting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322–344.
Harris, K. R. (1982). Cognitive behavior modification: Application with exceptional students.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 15(2), 1–16.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hux, K., Reid, R., & Luggert, M. (1994). Self-instruction training following neurological injury.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 259–271.
Kamann, M. P., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Inducing adaptive coping self-statements in children with learning disabilities through self-instruction training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 630–639.
Licht, B. G. (1993). Achievement-related beliefs in children with learning disabilities: Impact on motivation and strategic learning. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 195–220). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lovitt, T. C., & Curtis, K. A. (1969). Academic response rate as a function of teacher- and self-imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 49–53.
Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Martin, G., & Pear, J. (2003). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meichanbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York: Ple-num Press.
Reid, R. (1996). Self-monitoring for students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 317–331.
Smith, B. W., & Sugai, G. (2000). A self-management functional assessment-based behavior sup-port plan for a middle school student with EBD. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 208–217.
Smolen, L., Newman, C., Walthen, T., & Lee, D. (1995). Developing student self-assessment strat-egies. TESOL Journal, 5, 22–26.
Wong, B. Y. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1991). Academic applications of cognitive-behavioral programs with learning disabled students. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy:
Cognitive-behavioral procedures (pp. 245–275). New York: Guilford Press.
Integrating Strategies and Self-Regulation
O
ne of the major strengths of the SRSD model is the stress placed on creating inde-pendent learners. A strategy that can only be used with a teacher’s help, that requires constant prompting to use, or that won’t be maintained is not desirable. As we noted earlier, students with LD commonly have problems remembering to use strategies, using strategies successfully, and generalizing their use. Problems of this sort are at the heart of the academic difficulties of students with LD. Thus, for these students, self-regulation is crucial. As shown in the last chapter, self-self-regulation strategies can be very useful alone or in combination. However, they can be even more powerful when com-bined with strategy instruction. Self-regulation strategies can be used in conjunction with content-area strategies in many beneficial ways. They can (1) cue the student to use the content strategy, (2) help students remember the steps of a content strategy, (3) ensure that the content strategy steps are used correctly, (4) guide content strategy use, and (5) help the student screen out outside distractions, improve motivation, and main-tain effort.Until now we have treated content strategies and self-regulation strategies sepa-rately. In our experience, teachers sometimes have problems combining content strate-gies and self-regulation stratestrate-gies. This is due in part to the fact that teachers often per-ceive content strategies and self-regulation strategies as separate. There is a tendency to see self-regulation as directed toward problem behavior and content strategies as aca-demic activities. As a result, some teachers may treat them separately when planning for strategy implementation. This, in turn, can lead to problems with integrating regulation strategies and strategy instruction. It’s important to remember that self-regulation strategies should be an integral part of the strategy instruction process. As
110
we noted in our discussion of the SRSD model, strategies are explicitly taught, memo-rized, modeled, and practiced. The same principle applies to self-regulation.
Just as students need scaffolding when learning a new strategy, teachers who wish to master the SRSD model often need examples of how content strategies and self-regulation strategies can be combined. As we noted above, there are many functions that self-regulation strategies can serve. There are also many ways in which content strategies and self-regulation strategies can be integrated. In this chapter, we present examples of how they can be combined. These examples are drawn from research and practice in real-world classrooms. In these examples we do not provide full-blown in-structional plans for either the content strategies or self-regulation strategies. Most of this information has already been provided elsewhere. Instead we focus on how self-regulation strategies have been used and combined with content strategies.