You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Self-Monitoring of Attention: A Reply to Snider
Daniel P. Hallahan and John Wills Lloyd
Learning Disability Quarterly
Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 153-156
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510222
Page Count: 4
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Learning disabilities, Academic learning, Learning, Students, Special needs students, Child psychology, Academic education, Productivity, Educational research, Children
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
We appreciate Snider's willingness to allow us to respond to her critique of our self-monitoring research. Because some of her concerns have been addressed to us previously by others, we are pleased to take this opportunity to clarify our stance regarding the value of self-monitoring of attention. Specifically, we are going to respond to six areas of Snider's article: (a) the educational relevance of current theoretical conceptualizations of attention, (b) the issue of improving attentional versus academic behavior, (c) the type of student for whom self-monitoring of attention is most appropriate, (d) the educational relevance of the academic productivity effects found in our studies, (e) issues relating to use of single-subject designs, and (f) the importance of self-monitoring accuracy.
Learning Disability Quarterly © 1987 Hammill Institute on Disabilities