MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 20 DECEMBER 1992

A Comparison of Self- Instructional Training and Modelling for Teaching an Abstract Task

Sue Marshall

The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of modelling and self-instruc- tional training in teaching a group of adults with mental handicaps to complete an abstract task. Modelling here involves demonstrating a task and requesting that a client copy those behaviours he has just observed. Self-instruc- tional training requires an individual to engage in self-talk to direct behaviour in a desired direction. The results show little difference in performance on the task between the two groups although individual performance varied. The implications of this finding are discussed and directions for further research are suggest- ed

Introduction Nirje (1970) asserted that training programmes

for people with mental handicaps should be designed to ‘assist them to become competent and indepen- dent’. Competence and independence may be charac- terised as an ability to perform tasks in an auton- omous way (independence), but also in a way that can be adapted to meet current needs and the possible changing demands of the task to be performed (competence).

External control methods of teaching are thought to reduce the likelihood of autonomous and adapt- able behaviour occurring. Self-control methods of teaching are suggested to promote autonomy and adaptability (Gifford et al., 1984; Rusch et al., 1985). For competence and independence to be achieved it is important to ensure that skills, once learned, are maintained. Gifford et al. (1984) note that maintenance of skills is not a naturally occurring

phenomenon, and needs to be built into any programme of training.

It must be recognised that people with mental handicaps, particularly those who have lived in institutions for some time are more likely to rely on external factors for motivation in the performance of a task (Zigler & Balla, 1977). Clearly this situation is not compatible with independence. Haywood et al. (1982) recognise this and propose a shift in orientation of training programmes to one which encourages people with mental handicaps to become more self-motivated.

The technique of self-instructional training is proposed here as a teaching method that can be employed to fulfil some of the requirements of a programme that promotes autonomy, adaptability and maintenance.

Self-instructional training packages are based on laboratory research into language that was carried out originally by Luria (1962). Meichenbaum & Goodman (1971), provided the prototype for this work when using self-instructional training to reduce distractability in hyperactive children. Self instruc- tional training packages are usually made up of three components:

The trainer verbalises aloud the steps taken in completing the task. The subject is then required to listen to what is being said and to watch what is done.

The subject attempts to do the task while verbalising the various stages in its completion. The subject is explicitly encouraged to verbal- ise what he is doing.

The subject is finally encouraged to covertly emit the self-instructions to prompt appropriate motoric behaviour.

SUE MARSHALL is a Lecturer in Behavioural Sciences at the Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham.

0 1992 BlMH Publications 149

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 20 DECEMBER 1992

The literature illustrating the use of self-instruction with people with mental handicaps is limited. That which does exist is largely encouraging. For example, Rusch et al. (1985), used self-instructional training with two women to improve their perform- ance of job-related tasks. The women were employed as kitchen helpers in two halls of residence at an American university. Their jobs involved several tasks; the women, however, typically failed to complete all the tasks. The self-instructional training package taught them to: ask questions about the nature of the task to be completed and then to provide an answer to their question, guide their performance of the task using self-instructions and finally to reinforce themselves for completing the task. After four thirty-minute sessions both of the women improved their work output significantly.

Similarly Agras et al. (1986) utilised a self- instructional training package in an effort to increase job task sequencing with four people with mental handicaps. The subjects were employed as house- keepers and food service trainees in a hospital. The method employed was similar to that of Rusch et al. and the results indicate the package increased job sequencing for all participants.

Whitman et al. (1987) illustrated the use of self- instructional training with a group of people he describes as ‘low ability’. His study shows it to be superior to using external instructions in teaching this particular group. Fleming & Tosh (1984) reported that people referred to as having ‘behaviour problems’, often have difficulty in controlling impul- sive behaviour. Whitman specifically excluded peo- ple with challenging behaviour from his work. Earlier work by Meichenbaum & Goodman (1971) showed the utility of self-instructional training for children with impulsive behaviour.

It is proposed here that this group of people with mental handicaps may particularly benefit from a training technique aimed at developing self-control. The aim of this present study is to investigate if people with mental handicaps and an associated challenging behaviour show greater improvement on a variety of performance measures after training in the use of a self-instructional training method than a matched group shows after training using an external control method (modelling).

Method Sixteen subjects took part in this study - eight

men and eight women. At the time of the study thirteen subjects were placed in locked wards of a large hospital for people with mental handicap. Of the remaining three people, one had recently moved from the ‘behavioural unit’ and the other two had a history of challenging behaviours, although they were now part of the hospital habilitation pro- gramme. Subjects were randomly allocated to one

of two groups and were assessed using the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn & Dunn, 1982), and the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale (Sparrow & Balla, 1984).

A between-groups design was used. All subjects completed a pre-training assessment of performance of the experimental task, followed by six fifteen- minute training sessions. After the training period subjects completed a post-training assessment and a six-week follow-up assessment was completed. The experimental task required subjects to assemble identical wooden triangles to match a picture of an abstract design. There were eighteen designs of increasing complexity. This particular task was designed in order to minimise the risk of the subjects being familiar with the experimental task. The task could be taken away at the end of each session and so prevent individuals having the opportunity to practise the task between sessions. It is recognised there is only limited value in the acquisition of such a task but it was considered important to use a task that would not increase the number of potential variables in the experiment. It should be stressed that it was an examination of a teaching method that was the object of the study and not necessarily increasing the range of adaptive behaviours.

During the six fifteen-minute training sessions each group received different instructions. The modelling group were told: ‘I will show you how to do some of these puzzles, then you can have a go. Watch me first and then try yourself. The designs were then assembled silently. When the subject was attempting the task, no comment was made to them if they used task relevant speech.

The self-instructional training group received the following instructions: ‘I will show you how to do some of these puzzles, while I am doing them I am going to tell myself what I am doing. I would like you to copy what I am saying and what I am doing’.

Each design had an associated script of self- instructions used by the experimenter. All the group members heard the same script. Each was constructed of the following elements; analytical statements, e.g. ‘What is it that I have to do?’; comments about the nature of the materials, e.g. ‘1 need two black triangles’; comments about the nature of their activity in completing the design, e.g. ‘The two red triangles need to be touching along one side’, and feedback regarding performance, e.g. ‘Yes that’s right well done’. The scripts therefore, were intended to guide the person as they completed the task and had a built in element of positive feedback.

Subjects were assessed on three separate occasions; pre-training; post-training; and at the six- week follow-up session. These sessions were time limited, each person being allowed fifteen minutes at each assessment stage. After each assessment

150 0 1992 BlMH Publications

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 20 DECEMBER 1992

90 -a

85 -

80 -

* 75- 2 8 70- - 9 6 5 - 0 c

c 6 0 - m 2 55-

50 - 45 -

subjects had scores for eight different outcome measures. These measures were:

A score for the number of designs correctly completed.

A score for the aspects of the designs correctly assembled.

A score for the number of task relevant statements made.

A score for the number of analytical statements made.

A score for the number of comments made about the nature of the materials.

A score for the number of comments made about the activity.

A score for the number of questions the person asked of themself and the number of answers supplied.

A score for the number of feedback statements made.

Results The results were analysed using the Minitab

Softwipe Package. There were no significant differ- ences between the groups on the British Picture Vocabulary Scale; the length of stay in the institution; chronological ages; or three relevant scales of the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale. The three scales used were the communication domain, the daily living skills domain and the socialisation domain.

It was hypothesised that those individuals who were exposed to self-instructional training would achieve a higher score on measures of total number of designs correctly completed, and total scores gained for each design, than those subjects exposed to the external instruction method. Further it was proposed that at a six-week follow-up assessment this difference in performance would be maintained.

Figure 1 shows the mean number of designs completed correctly by both the self-instructional training group and the modelling group. As can be seen the self-instructional training group showed superior performance at the post training and follow- up assessments. Although the self-instructional group on average completed twice as many designs as the modelling group, this difference did not achieve significance when the results were analysed using the Mann Whitney U Test. This is a non- parametric test designed to compare two samples of scores by evaluating the probabilities of the distribution of the ranking data. Non-parametric procedures are indicated when using a small group size as has been the case here.

Figure 2 shows the mean score gained for each design completed by both groups. Again no

v

Pre Post FOIIOW-UP

FIGURE 1 Mean number of designs correctly com- pleted at each assessment phase

significant difference in performance of the task was found either post-training, or at the six-week follow-up assessment. The implications of these results will be highlighted in the discussion.

Table 1 shows the mean number of statements made at each assessment session. The data are broken down into statement types. No significant differences were found between the groups regard- ing the use of various types of statement.

Discussion Previous studies have shown self-instructional at

pre-, post- and follow-up training to be superior to modelling and imitation in promoting maintenance of skills (Gow et al., 1985; Whitman et al., 1987). This, however was not the case in this present study, the possible reasons for this requiring some exploration.

In the Gow et al. study subjects were trained until they achieved a previously defined criterion for successful completion of the experimental task. Such training was not a feature of the present study. This may be offered in part explanation for the lack of significant difference in the performance between the two groups at the follow up assessment session.

self- instructional

modelling

Pre Post FOIIOW-UP 4oJ

FIGURE 2 Mean total score gained for each design

k3 1992 BlMH Publications 151

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 20 DECEMBER 1992

I

Self instructional Modelling Group group

Pre training

0 0.9 2.1 0.9 2.4 2.5

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 m e 5 Type 6

Post training

0.8 1 .o 3.1 0.7 1.8 2.0

Follow Pre Post U P training training 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.1 1 .o 1.8 2.0 5.6 7.5 0 0.9 1.8

1.3 2.4 1.6 0.5 1.9 1.9

Follow U P

1 .o 0.7 7.8 0 1.3 1.3

~~ ~~~ ~ ~~

Type 1 statements: Analytical statements Type 2 statements: Statements regarding the materials Type 3 statements: Statements referring to the activity Type 4 statements: Question to self Type 5 statements: Answers to self Type 6 statements: Feedback to self

TABLE 1. Mean number of statements (Types 1-6) uttered at the three assessment sessions

Time may be an important factor; subjects in the self-instruction group may not have had long enough in the training period to become accustomed to using self-instructions to direct their behaviour. Kendall & Willcox (1980) acknowledge that a longer period of training may be necessary when utilising an internal control technique than when training people using a more traditional modelling teaching procedure. Whitman et aZ. (1987) also recognise time to be an important variable when assessing the relative efficacy of self-instructional training to modelling. Whitman maintains that individuals who verbalise more take longer to complete a task. If timing is a factor in any assessment of efficacy then the results may reflect this and may not be an accurate reflection of the utility of a technique.

There was a large variation in the performance between subjects; this, taken with the small number of subjects, may have given rise to the lack of statistical significance. The importance of individual subject performance warrants further discussion.

Although analysis of the group performances did not reveal any significant difference at the post- training asessment, some of the individual perform- ances were notable because of the scale of improve- ment in performance of the experimental task. It would appear that particular individuals are more able to utilise self-instructional training than others and that identifying individual differences that enable them to make use of such a technique would be an important area for future study.

It is apparent that particular individuals were more able to utilise self-instructional training than other individuals. Discussion of these individual results highlights some important factors. One subject improved her performance on the task from initially failing to complete any designs successfully

to, at the post-training assessment, completing seven designs, and at the six-week follow-up completing eight designs. For this subject there was an increase in task-relevant speech from a total of three task- relevant statements at the pre-training stage to thirty at the post-training and twenty three at the six- week follow-up. The type of statements made were largely of the types four, five and six. These three categories of statement may illustrate an attempt by the individual to monitor her performance. Of interest is the fact that her total score for aspects of the designs correctly completed actually dropped by thirty-five points between pre-and post-training assessment sessions. It may be that this drop reflects a less impulsive style of answering by this particular woman at the post-training assessment. This reduction in impulsivity may reflect her increased ability to monitor her own performance of this particular task. Such conclusions are necessarily tentative since no direct measure of impulsivity was made.

A second member of the self-instructional training group also showed a marked improvement in his performance of the experimental task. This improvement was maintained at the six-week follow- up. At the pre-training assessment this individual correctly completed three of the designs and at the post-training assessment eleven designs. However, it is notable that this individual's performance shows a reduction in the number of task-relevant statements over the same period. This reduction may reflect at least three factors. There may have been an actual drop in the overall number of statements made, the task-relevant statement may have become longer, or the statements may have become covert. These factors warrant further explo- ration. At the pre-training assessment this subject

152 0 1992 BlMH Publications

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 20 DECEMBER 1992

was already using self-instructions to complete the task. It may be that the imposition of a set of generated staements was too constraining for him, or in some way interfered with his performance. For example, Evangelisti et al. (1987) acknowledges that for some individuals self-instructional training is not necessary since these people already possess a strategy for problem solving.

A second factor to be considered when examining the drop in number of task-relevant statements used by this subject is the length of utterance. No provision was made in this study to examine length of utterance. A more sophisticated an accurate measure of task-relevant speech should be

when considering this subject performance it is important to consider the possibility that he may be covertly self instructing. When questioned about his performance he claimed to be using self- instructions ‘in my head’.

Given the individual variations in the results it is important that an attempt to identify who can benefit from self-instructional training be made. For the future it will be necessary to try to identify what individual characteristics may affect a subject’s ability to utilise self-instructional training. Bornstein (1985) recognised this to be an important step in research in this area, and suggested that if it is not made ‘we will remain inconsistent and inconclusive

developed and used in future investigations. Finally, in our findings’.

REFERENCES Agras, M., Fodor-Davis, J., and Moore, S. (1986) The

effects of self instructional training on job- task sequencing: Suggesting a problem-solving strategy. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded December, 27341.

Dunn, L. M. and Dunn, L. M. (1982) British Picture Vocabulary Scale. NFER.

Bornstein, P. H. (1985) Self instructional training. A commentary and state-of-the-art. Journnl of Applied Behavioural Analysis 18, 69-72.

Evangelisti, D. B., Whitman, L. T. and Maxwell, S. E. (1987) A comparison of external and self instructional formats with children of different ages and tasks of varying complexity. Cognitive Therapy and Research 11, 419-36.

Fleming, I. and Tosh, M. (1984) Self-control pro- cedures. Mental Handicap 12, 110-1 1.

Gifford, M. M., Rusch, F. R., Martin, J. E. and White, D. M. (1984) Autonomy and adaptability in work behaviour of retarded clients. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation 12, 285-3 18.

Gow, L., Ward, J. and Balla, J . (1985) Training to enhance learning in the mentally retarded: A study of techniques for improving maintenance and generalisation outcomes. Educational Psy- chology 5, 115-29.

Haywood, H. C., Meyer, C. E. and Switzky, M. N. (1982) Mental retardation. Annual Review of Psychology 33, 30942.

Kendall, P. C. and Wilcox, L. E. (1980) Cognitive- behavioural versus conceptual training in non- self-controlled problem children. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology 48, 80-91.

Luria, A. (1962) The Role of Private Speech in the Regulation of Abnormal Behaviour. London: Pergamon Press.

Meichenbaum, D. and Goodman, J. (1971) Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal

Nirje, B. (1970) The normalization principle: Impli- cations and comments. Journal of Mental Subnor- mality 26, 62-70.

Rusch, F. R., Morgan, T. K., Makin, J. E., Riva, M. and Acran, M. (1985) Competitive employment: Teaching mentally retarded employees self instructional strategies. Applied Research in Men- tal Retardation 6, 389407.

Sparrow, S., Balla, D. and Cicchetti, V. (1984) Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale. American Guidance Service.

Whitman, T. L., Spence, B. H. and Maxwell, S. (1987) A comparison of external and self instructional teaching formats with mentally retarded adults in vocational training settings. Applied Research in Developmental Disabilities 8, 371-88.

Zigler, E. and Balla, D. A. (1977) Impact of insti- tutional experience on the behaviour and develop- ment of retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 82, 1-11.

Psych,ology 77, 115-26.

WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEVERE LEARNING DIFFICULTY AND CHALLENGING BEHAVIOUR

A Practical Handbook on the Behavioural Approach Judith McBrien and David Felce

This book provides a description of behavioural strategies with proven effectiveness for working with people with difficult or challenging behaviours, using a step by step guide to help readers measure difficult behaviours and to select appropriate treatment strategies.

1992 145 pages ISBN 1-873791 -15-1 €1 7 (US$40.00)

Odets andsaks enquikks ti:

BlMH Publications, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7SJ.

0 1992 BlMH Publications 153