Learning and Inrtrucfion Vol. 2, pp. 89-100. 1992 Printed m Great Britain. All rights reserved.

ow+4752/92 s15.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS TO REDUCE IMPULSIVITY-RELATED ACHIEVEMENT PROBLEMS:

THE NEED OF IN-CLASSROOM INTERVENTIONS

XAVIER BORNAS and MATEU SERVERA

Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain

Abstract

Impulsive fifth and sixth grade students (n=21) showing low academic achievement levels were assigned to one of three conditions: Self-instruction training (SI), Problem-solving (PS) or Control. Instead of the more traditional remedial out-of classroom approach, an integrated curriculum-based model of psychological intervention was used. Treatments consisted of six one-hour sessions devoted to the learning of SYPS strategies outside of the classroom followed by sixteen one-hour sessions in the regular classroom. Metacognitive knowledge acquisition was emphasized during all training sessions. Measures of impulsivity and academic achievement were administered at pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up (six months posttreatment). SI and PS training produced improvements on impulsivity and on academic achievement immediately after the treatment, whereas control group did not show any significant improvement. Impulsivity decrease was maintained at follow-up, but achievement gain was not. The curriculum-based training tasks and the metacognitive in-classroom intervention are pointed qut as possible explanation of the results.

Introduction

Since the mid-1960s, when Kagan presented the Reflection-Impulsivity cognitive dimension (later conceptualized as the cognitive style) (Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964), a large number of studies of school samples have demonstrated the stable relationship between the impulsive style “and low academic achievement/poor academic performance (Messer, 1970; Kogan, 1971; Finch, Pezzuti, Montgomery, & Kemp, 1974; Kagan, Lapidus, & Moore, 1978; Weithorn, Kagen, & Marcus, 1984; McDermott 1984). Reflection-Impulsivity (R-Z) has been defined as the index of the analytical capacity of a subject facing problem-solving tasks which imply an uncertain response (Kagan et al., 1964; Kagan & Kogan, 1970). Reflection-Impulsivity is measured with the Matching Familiar Figures test (MFF) involving two parameters: response time and number of errors. Reflective children make few errors with long response times, while impulsive children make many errors with short response times.

Address for correspondence: X. Bornas, Department of Psychology, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Campus UIB, Ctra. de Valldemossa, km. 7.5, 07071 Palma de Mallorca (Balears), Spain.

89

90 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

Rationale and Hypothesis

Extensive research has not been able to pinpoint the reason for poor academic achievement in impulsive children, which is why the different programs proposed for modifying impulsivity and academic achievement have not had totally satisfactory results. In our view, the relationship between impulsivity and metacognition answers the initial question and explains the unsatisfactory results of the programs. This relationship has been pointed out by various researchers and largely justifies the intervention in learning situations and classrooms advocated here. It should be emphasized however that metacognition is defined, it implies reflection. Brown (1978, cited by Meichenbaum, 1985), for example, sums up metacognitive processes by saying that they specifically include, among other things, “. . . reflecting upon what one knows or does not know that may be necessary for a solution.” Meichenbaum (1985, p. 5) states that “ . . . Metacognition refers to cognition about cog&ions or the executive decision-making process in which the individual must both carry out cognitive operations and oversee his or her progress.” It seems obvious that reflection is a necessary element of metacognitive functioning (self-observation, self-evaluation, planning, prevision of consequences, etc). But the relationship between impulsivity and metacognition is more specific.

Baron (1985) defines thought in terms of search processes: the search for goals and criteria, the search for alternative means with which to reach them, and the search for proof upon which the choice of the best way of solving a problem is based. Impulsivity can inhibit these search processes in the sense that it impedes spending the time and/or effort necessary for obtaining the best possible results. From this point of view, when facing a problem the impulsive cognitive style could somehow “contaminate” the metacognitive processes.

The model of Pressley and his collaborators (Pressley, 1986; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987) presents a more explicit example of a similar relationship. In accordance with his “good strategy user model,” cognitive style “may create a general tendency to respond to thinking tasks in a certain way” (Symons, Snyder, Cariglia-Bull, & Pressley, 1989, p. 8). This tendency affects the three main components of thought processes: strategies, metacognition and an extensive base knowledge, all of which will be used differently according to the cognitive style of the person in question. Experimental evidence in favor of this hypothesis is furnished, for example, by Borkowski (1985), who examined the relationship between impulsivity and metamemory. If only by way of suggestion, Borkowski (1985, p. 139) is inclined to believe that impulsivity impedes or delays the development of metamemory to the point where it is the lack of awareness regarding metamemorial strategies, more than impulsivity itself, which causes an impulsive child to perform poorly in tasks in which the use of these metamemorial strategies would be appropriate.

In summary: poor academic performance of impulsive students is partly caused by impulsivity (cognitive style), and is probably also caused by the influence impulsivity has on cognitive and metacognitive functioning.

Some of the programs traditionally used to modify impulsivity are based on training visual discrimination (Egeland, 1974), but self-instruction training procedures, initially developed by Meichenbaum (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971) are mainly applied. These procedures try to promote and facilitate the regulating function of self-instruction

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS 91

on behavior. Alternatively, various problem-solving training procedures have been developed following D’Zurilla and Golfried’s model (1971), (for example, that of Spivak, Platt & Shure, 1976). They usually include training in problem identification, generating alternatives, prevision of consequences, decision making, reaching solutions and verification. In general, both self-instruction and problem-solving training manage to modify impulsivity somewhat as evaluated by the MFF test (response time increases and the number of errors decreases). Nevertheless, the results on academic achievement are not as good and frequently even non-existent (Bomas, Servera, Serra, & Escudero, 1990).

Two considerations may lead to a possible explanation for this finding. In the first place, this training is usually not applied to metacognition, which as previously pointed out, seems to be conditioned to some degree by cognitive style. Nothing indicates that metacognitive functioning would automatically improve after cognitive style training, and certainly not in the short term. As Borkowski (1985, p. 138) wrote, “Perhaps emphasis should also be placed on teaching impulsive children why a strategy is effective as well as when, where, and how it might be appropriately applied in new settings.” In short, in addition to teaching cognitive strategies relative to reflective thought, students should be provided with metacognitive information, i.e., knowledge about those strategies. Symons and his collaborators expressed themselves in similar terms when they said that “good strategy use involves the coordination of strategies, metacognition, styles, motivational beliefs, and the knowledge base” (Symons et al., 1989, p. 8).

The second consideration refers to the fact that many impulsivity-modification training programs have been conducted outside of the regular classroom, following a “remedial model” of psychological intervention in the school. The training sessions have normally been a separate activity which complemented normal classes, and have used material that has little to do with the curriculum. The sessions are led by instructors and other professionals not belonging to the school staff and who are unknown to the children (at least at the outset of the sessions), so that the teaching staff has not been significantly involved. As Paris and Winograd (1990) have pointed out, the children do learn some strategies but they probably do not learn how or when to use them under the specific conditions in the school.

Taking all this into account, it is assumed that impulsive students’ academic performance will be improved by integrated training programs that take into consideration the relationship between cognitive style and metacognition. To test this hypothesis we designed the following study. Essential techniques known for their capacity for increasing reflectivity (self-instruction and problem-solving, mentioned above) were maintained, but we substantially modified their application: training was carried out on curriculum-based tasks and the related metacognitive aspects (why, how and when) were indicated; furthermore, most training sessions took place in the regular classroom.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were selected from the fifth and sixth grades of a public primary school. A total of 84 subjects were initially tested on the following tests (which are explained further

92 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

on): the MFF20 (test measuring R-Z) and two tests constructed by ourselves: the AOT (Achievement Objective Test) and the TQ (Teachers’ Questionnaire) which evaluate academic achievement and student in-class behavior. Using the following criteria 21 students were selected from the total group. They showed a clear tendency towards impulsivity, i.e., an I score of more than .80 on the MFF20 test. They obtained an overall score on the AOT of less than 15 points. Students showed low to moderate academic achievement on the TQ. Nevertheless, there were no significant behavior problems (verbal or physical aggressiveness, or significant disruptive behavior), nor neurophysiological problems. There were no evident socio-familiar factors which might interfere with their performance.

Of the 21 subjects selected there were 11 boys and 10 girls; 10 children were in the fifth grade and 11 in the sixth grade. Controlling the variables sex and grade as far as possible, seven students were assigned to each of the three groups: SI (group receiving self-instruction training), PS (group receiving problem-solving training) and the control group (which received no training).

Instruments

The Cairns and Cammock Version of the Matching Familiar Figures test (1978), Involving 20 Items (MFlQO)

This is a test having the same format as Kagan and colleagues’ original MFF (1964) but with a greater number of items and a better psychometric index. Each item is made up of a model figure and six alternative figures; the subject must match the alternative figure identical to the model. There are two scores: errors (total number of errors) and response time (average response time in seconds). Next, Salkind and Wright’s model (1977) for classifying subjects was used. This model distinguishes between a style index (I) which is the difference between the response time standard score and the error standard score, and an effectiveness index (E) which is the sum of the above scores. A high positive Z index indicates a tendency towards impulsivity. A high positive E index indicates a tendency towards ineffectiveness.

The Achievement Objective Test (AOT)

This is a three-part test. The first part evaluates reading comprehension; the child reads a 35line literary text and answers 9 questions, scoring one point for each correct answer. Then four sentences must be stated using one difficult word from the text in each sentence, for which one point per correct sentence is given. The second part evaluates mathematical knowledge; the child solves five arithmetic problems and five multiple choice problems for a maximum of 10 points. The third part evaluates writing ability; the child writes a report which is evaluated by a teacher in a different school; the number of spelling errors, the number of lines written and the index of errors per line is evaluated, for a maximum of 10 points. The AOT has a score of 33 points. A parallel test was constructed for post-training testing and it was used in a reduced form (with a scale of 0 to 23) in the follow-up evaluation.

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS 93

The Initial Assessment Test (ZA T)

Unlike the other tests, this was only given to the 21 pa~i~pants in the experimental groups and the control group before the start of the first training session. One part of the IAT evaluates basic computational skills (CSK): students carry out two multiplication and three division operations (scording one point for each correct digit for a maximum of 41 points) and solve an arithmetic problem for a score between 0 to 4 points. The second part of the IAT evaluates reading ~mprehension. A text is read aloud by the students, a paragraph each. They then answer seven questions individually. Each correct answer scored one point. The total score for the IAT is 52 points. A parallel test was constructed for post-training assessment.

The Teacher Questionnaire (TQ,l

In this questionnaire, the teachers answer 20 questions on a 7-point scale about different behavioral aspects of the child: specifically there are 8 questions on classroom behavior, 8 questions on basic learning skills (reading, spelling, computational skills . . .) and 4 questions on academic performance. The TQ was only used for the initial selection of the students.

Training Programs

Each of the two training programs were conducted by two previously instructed trainers. Self-instruction training was carried out in accordance with the phases of Meichenbaum’s model (1981) and included the following: modeling, external guide, self-guide and self-inst~ction. The problem-solving training was based on the programs of Allen, Chinsky, Larcen, Lochman, and Selinger (1976) and of D’Zurilla and Golfried (1971) and included the following steps: problem identification, alternatives generation, consequences prevision, decision making and problem solving.

In accordance with the direct assessment and intervention approach (Shapiro, 1989; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1990), the material used in the programs was taken from the school’s curriculum: mathematical activities, especially multiplication, division and arithmetic problem-solving activities, as well as reading comprehension activities on literary, scientific and historical texts. The majority of this material was similar to that upon which the AOT and ZAT evaluation tests were based.

Training Procedure

Once the 21 subjects had been selected and tested, the two training phases began, For each of the two groups, the first phase of the training consisted of six sessions

outside of the classroom using the material described above. The two programs were modified according to findings from previous work (Bomas et al., 1990). The metacognitive aspects of the training were emphasized; the instructor’s verbalizations during the modeling stage were much more specific and directed towards the task in question, i.e., emphasis was placed on the use of concrete verbalization for each task. The time allotted to each stage of the problem-solving training was adjusted to each task.

94 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

Emphasis was given to the problem-identification and the alternatives-generation stages (what to do and how to do it) of solving arithmetical problems. On the contrary, during multiplication problems emphasis was laid upon creating work methods which avoid the source of errors which are made during multiplication (forgetting what is carried over, confusing columns, erroneous addition, checking over results . . .) as multiplication is straightforward and how and what to do are quite clear. Matching strategy and task was made clear to show the students which strategy must or could be applied to each task.

The second phase of the training was conducted by the instructors in the classroom. This phase consisted of 16 sessions each (the instructors spent four hours a week for four weeks on this phase). The instructors’ job was to help the children decide which of those strategies previously learned was the best to apply to specific academic class material. If necessary, they reminded the children of the different stages, helped them with tasks they had not been trained for, and reinforced both the application of the strategies as well as task solving. A post-training evaluation took place at the end of these phases and a follow-up evaluation including the MFF20 scores and various academic achievement tests was carried out six months later.

Results

Error and Response Time Scores on the MFI;zO

The post-training evaluation of the two groups participating in the program showed a clear tendency towards reflectivity on the MFF20 (errors and response time) as can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 Mean Scores of MFF20 Errors, Latencies, Impulsivity and Efficacy, and t

Values for Pretreatment-Posttreatment Comparisons

Measure n

Errors CTRL 7

SI 7 PS 7

Latencies (in seconds) CTRL 7

SI 7 PS 7

Impulsivity bCTRI_. 7

SI 7 PS 7

Efficacy CrRL 7

SI 7 PS 7

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD t

21.71 7.80 19.14 6.20 1.18 27.29 10.87 12.71 2.56 3.49.t 27.29 9.74 13.29 7.65 5.06t

9.34 10.56 2.69 1.21 9.26

Z 15.04 3.97 2.71*

8.67 3.80 14.99 4.06 4.501

-.48 1.40 1.38 1.39 3.86t .14 2.14 -.74 .39 .96 .35 1.98 -.64 2.13 1.79

-.31 .81 -.08 .93 .75 .25 .48 .002 1.24 .69 .06 1.17 .08 .63 .24

mRL = control group; SI = self-instruction group; PS = problem-solving group. l p<.o5; tpc.01.

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS 95

The decrease in errors is statistically significant both for the SI group (t=3.49, pc.01) as well as the PS group (t=5.06, p<.OO5) at the end of the training program. The control group, on the contrary, scarcely showed any change in the number of errors made from the first time the MFF20 was taken. The differences tended to be significantly maintained on the follow-up evaluation as indicated in the ANOVA of Table 2 (F=5.46, p<.O5). A significant F statistic indicates only that the group means are probably unequal. Therefore, a multiple comparison test (Student-Newman-Keuls, SNK) was used for determining which group means were different from each other. This test revealed that the number of errors in SI and PS groups is significantly lower (p<.O5) than in the control group.

A similar tendency can be observed in the response times (see Table 1). The average increases of approximately six seconds for both the SI group (t=2.71, pc.05) as well as the PS group (t=4.50, pc.005) on the post-training evaluation demonstrate a significant difference. PS training program produces slightly better results than SI program. On the other hand, the control group showed no statistically significant change. These tendencies are maintained in the follow-up evaluation and although statistical significance is lost in the ANOVA (see Table 2), the differences are acceptable if p<.O9 is applied.

Table 2 Mean Scores of R-Z and Achievement Variables, and F Values for Pretest, Posttest,

and Follow-up Comparisons

Self-instruction Problem-solving Control

Measure M SD M SD M SD F

Pretest Errors

Latencies AOT-RCOM AOT-MATH

TAOT CSK

IAT-RCOM Posttest

Errors Latencies

AOT-RCOM AOT-MATH

TAOT CSK

IAT-RCOM Follow-up

Errors Latencies

AOT-RCOM CSK

TAOTS

27.29 10.87 27.29 9.74 21.71 9.26 3.16 8.67 3.80 9.34 3.14 .90 3.00 2.00 2.71 5.14 2.19 5.57 1.90 3.86

12.71 1.98 11.29 2.69 10.00 22.57 12.92 24.57 11.36 18.57

1.00 .82 .86 1.21 .86

12.71 15.04

6.57 7.71

18.43 33.00

2.14

2.56 13.29 7.65 19.14 3.97 14.99 4.06 10.56 1.81 5.43 2sn 3.29

.76 7.86 1.34 5.00 2.82 18.57 4.58 11.57 7.66 35.57 8.56 21.14 2.12 3.00 1.53 2.14

7.80 .79 2.46 .09

.95 .17 2.48 1.15 3.21 1.80 6.85 .57 1.46 .03

6.20 7.48.t 2.69 3.51’ 1.11 6.63t 1.41 12.42.t 2.82 9.12t

10.29 5.23* 1.21 .62

11.00 3.05 9.14 4.34 15.14 2.85 5.46; 16.41 3.52 16.29 3.66 12.29 3.89 2.83

3.43 .98 4.86 2.41 3.29 1.07 1.64 26.00 9.57 24.43 9.52 17.00 10.58 1.65 11.29 1.80 12.14 3.48 9.00 3.46 2.02

AOT-RCOM = AOT reading comprehension; AOT-MATH = AOT mathematics; TAOT = Total AOT; CSK = IAT computational skills; IAT-RCOM = IAT reading comprehension.

‘pc.05; tpe.01. $A reduced version of AOT (range O-23) was used.

96 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

Impulsivity and Effectiveness Scores

The training groups showed a higher I (impulsivity) score than the control group before the training sessions (see Table 1). This means that by chance, the children assigned to training groups were slightly more impulsive than those in the control group. After training, this tendency was completely inverted: The training groups showed a higher reflectivity score, while the control group demonstrated a clear tendency towards impulsivity. This tendency tended towards stabilization on the follow-up evaluation. On the other hand, the changes in the E (efficiency) scores were minimal, except for the control group which showed a clear tendency towards ineffectiveness on the follow-up evaluation. This suggests that while the treatment was very effective in modifying cognitive style, it scarcely caused any change in the effectiveness score on the MFF20 test.

Academic Performance

Academic performance can be evaluated through the evolution of the AOT scores. The three main measures of this test are: reading comprehension (AOT-RCOM), total math (AOT-MATH) and total AOT (TAOT). The results corresponding to these three measures are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Mean Scores of AOT (Achievement Objective Test) and IAT (Initial

Assessment Test) Scales, and r Values for Pretreatment-Posttreatment Comparisons

Pretest Posttest

Measure n M SD M SD t

AOT-RCOM CTRL

SI PS

AOT-MATH CTRL

SI PS

TAOT CTRL

SI PS

IAT-RCOM CTRL

SI PS

IAT-CSK CTRL

SI PS

7 2.71 .95 3.29 1.11 1.00 7 3.14 .90 6.57 1.81 4.77? 7 3.00 2.00 5.43 2.07 3.97t

7 3.86 2.48 5.00 1.41 2.07* 7 5.14 2.19 7.71 .76 2.87* 7 5.57 1.90 7.86 1.34 3.77t

7 10.00 3.21 11.57 2.82 1.75 7 12.71 1.98 18.43 2.82 5.37t 7 11.29 2.69 18.57 4.58 7.01t

7 .86 1.46 2.14 1.21 2.71* 7 1.00 .82 2.14 2.12 1.49 7 .86 1.21 3.00 1.53 5.30t

7 18.57 6.85 21.14 10.29 1.37 7 22.57 12.92 33.00 7.66 3.50t 7 24.57 11.36 35.57 8.56 5.31t

AOT-ROCM = AOT reading comprehension; AOT-MATH = AOT mathe- matics; TAOT = Total AOT; IAT-RCOM =IAT reading comprehension; IAT- CSK = IAT computational skills; CTRL = control group; SI = self-instruction group; PS = problem-solving group.

*p<.o5; tp<.o1.

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS 91

The training groups showed in contrast to the control group, significant improvement in both reading comprehension as well as on the TAOT after the implementation of the programs. On the contrary, although the training groups improved their results significantly on the AOT-MATH score, this can not be attributed to training as the control group also showed substantial improvement. But, while both the SI group and the PS group showed considerable improvement on the main score of this test, the TAOT, (t=5.37, p<.OOl and t=7.01, pc.001, respectively), which is the sum of the other measures, the control group only increased its score by 1.57 points.

The IAT (Initial Assessment Test) evaluates a set of seven basic skills which can be summed up in two main scores (see Table 3): computational skills (CSK) and reading comprehension (IAT-RCOM). The children who had undergone the SI or PS training programs also showed better results on the parallel forms of this test taken after training. The computational skills of the PS groups improved the most (t=5.31, p<.OOl), followed by the SI group (t=3.50,p<.Ol). No significant changes were noted in the control group. Only the PS group marked substantial improvement in the reading comprehension skills of this test (t=5.30, p<.OOl) and this is difficult to attribute to training as the control group also showed a tendency towards improvement although to a lesser degree (t=2.71, pc.05).

Table 2 shows the pre-training, post-training and follow-up results of the ANOVAS based on the measures referred to previously. No significant differences between the pre-training scores of the three groups can be observed. The ANOVAS applied in the post-training revealed significant differences in the following variables: MFF errors and response time, AOT-RCOM, AOT-MATH, TAOT and CSK. The a posteriori SNK test showed that SI was not significantly different from PS and that SI as well as PS were significantly different from the control group on all these variables (p<.O5).

However the training groups show a sharper decrease in performance on all the tests given in the follow-up evaluation and statistical differences are eliminated; in other words, the groups returned to the level of their pre-training scores.

Discussion

The results obtained in this study corroborate the conclusions of previous investigations on R-l: Impulsivity can be significantly reduced through SI and PS programs. The results for errors and response times are maintained on the six-month follow-up, which indicates that the training has been very effective. Nevertheless, by utilizing indices Z and E (Salkind & Wright 1977), we can go further and say that the training has greatly influenced style scores (I), while influencing to a lesser degree the effectiveness score (E). A curious observation is the clear tendency towards ineffectiveness shown in the control group throughout the six-month period between the final evaluation and the follow-up evaluation. This tendency makes the usefulness of training even more valuable, but the possibility that it is caused by an unknown variable cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, the known correlation between Z and performance is always greater than the correlation between E and performance (Miyakawa, 1981).

As far as academic performance is concerned, the results obtained are more satisfactory than those observed in previous investigations (Haskins & McKinney, 1976; Margolis, Peterson, & Leonard, 1979; Butter & Jeffcott, 1982), significant improvement is produced

98 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

in the main performance indicators. That this improvement is directly due to the decrease in impulsivity is not a very likely hypothesis. Indeed, previous studies show that modifying cognitive style does not change performance (see Moore & Hughes, 1988). Therefore, an alternative explanation is required.

The first and perhaps most obvious explanation is based on the type of tasks used in the training sessions. Following the integrated model of psychological intervention, both the evaluation tests as well as the training tasks were taken from the school curriculum. In contrast with other studies “pure” cognitive tasks were not used. It is plausible to assume that through this curriculum-based training, the students learned not only to be more reflective, but also to do specific school tasks which had previously been difficult for them, such as reading and understanding, doing mathematical operations or solving arithmetic problems. Furthermore, in-class training may have facilitated the generalization and the use of the training strategies in the classroom context. This would explain the improvement obtained on the school pe~ormance evaluation tests at the end of training.

Although further research is required for contrast purposes, we would like to add that in our view, not only the type of tasks, but also the metacognitive aspects of the training process influenced the results. We believe that it is not enough to merely indicate appropriate strategies to the students; explaining the “why” and “how” to the student also contributed in some way to improved performance. This was done both in the training conducted outside the classroom as well as in the classroom. This is in accordance with the idea put forward by Paris and Winograd (1990, p. 23): “A good craftsman is not a person who simply collects a wide assortment of tools; good craftsmen use tools selectively to accomplish particular purposes.” Strategies are cognitive tools; good students use them selectively.

Obviously, further research is required to test this hypothesis. Nevertheless, the results of this study support the view that curriculum-based direct training, implemented in the real learning contexts is effective in view of the improvement of the academic performance of impulsive students.

However, the finding that the effects of training almost disappear after six months as shown on the follow-up evaluation proves that the training program was insufficient. Consequently, two options are available: prolon~ng the training itself (more sessions, more tasks, etc.) or incorporating the procedures and strategies employed in the habitual teaching style of the teacher.

In accordance with the recent focus on teaching how to think, the second alternative is preferable. Indeed, if the real learning situation (of which the teacher’s teaching style is an essential element) is not modified, no matter how many sessions are held, nothing will guarantee that a child uses strategies that frequently are in contrast with that situation. To summarize, if the learning context favors or facilitates impulsivity, reducing impulsivity of students who remain in that context is of little use.

Acknowledgement-This research was supported in part by Direcci6n General de Investigacidn Cientiftca y TecnolcSgica (DGICYT, Ministry of Education and Science, Spain) Grant PS88-0043 to Xavier Bornas.

COGNITIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS 99

References

Allen, G. J., Chinsky, J. M., Larcen, S. W., Lochman, J. E., % Selinger, H. V. (1976). Co~uni~ psychofogy and the schools. A behaviorally oriented muftifevef preventive approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borkowski, J. G. (1985). Strategy generalization and metacognition. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth

of reflection in chifdren (pp. 105-144). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Bomas, X., Severa, M., Serra, F., & Escudero, J. T. (1990). El tratamiento de la impulsividad infantil:

Autoinstmcciones versus soluci6n de problemas [Children impulsivity treatment: elf-instNction versus probiem solving]. Estudios de Psicofogla, 4%44,61-71.

Brown, A. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Butter, E. J., & Jeffcot, R. E. (1982). Prediction of adults’ reading performance as a function of auditory and visual cognitive styles and intelligence. Perceptual and Motors Skiffs, 54, 359-362.

Cairns, F. D., & Cammock, J. (1978). Development of a more reliable version of the Matching Familiar Figures test. ~evefopment~ Psychology, 14, 555-560.

D’Zurilla, T. J., & Golfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnor~l Psychology, 78, 107-136.

Egeland, B. (1974). Training impulsive children in the use of more efficiency scanning techniques. Child Development, 45, 165-171.

Finch, A. J. Jr, Pezzuti, K. A., Montgomery, L. E., & Kemp, S. R. (1974). Reflection-impulsivity and academic attainment in emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2, 71-74.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), handbook of psychological and ed~~ionaf assessment of children: IntefZjgence and achievement, (pp. 435-455). New York: Guilford.

Haskins, R., & MeKinney, J. D. (1976). Relative effects of response time and accuracy on problem solving and academic achievement. Child Development, 47, 690-696.

Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. (1970). Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1273-1365). New York: Wiley.

Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78, Vol. 1, No. 578.

Kagan, J., Lapidus, D., & Moore, M. (1978). Infant antecedents of later cognitive functioning. Child Development, 49, 1005-1023.

Kogan, N. (1971). Educational implications of cognitive styles. In G. S. Lesser (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 303-366). Glenview: Scott-Foresman.

Margolis, H., Peterson, N., & Leonard, H. S. (1979). Conceptual tempo as a predictor of first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 359-362.

McDermott, P. A. (1984). Comparative functions of preschool learning style and IQ in predicting future academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9,38-47.

Meichenbaum, D. (1981). Una perspectiva cognitive-compo~amental de1 proceso de sociaPzaci6n. [A cognitive-behavioral perspective of the socialization process]. Anrffisis y Modi~cacf6n de Conducta, 7, 85-113.

Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Teaching thinking: A cognitive behavioral perspective. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 407-426). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A measure of developing self control. Journal of Abnormal Piychofogy, 77, 115-126.

Messer, S. B. (1970). The effect of anxiety over intellectual performance on reflection-impuisivity in children. Child ~evefopmenf, 41, 723-735.

Miyakawa, M. (1981). Some comments on Salkind and Wright’s model for reflection-impulsivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 947-954.

Moore, L. A., & Hughes, J, N. (1988). Impulsive and hyperactive children. In N. J. Hughes, (Ed.), Cognitive behavior therapy with children in schools (DO. 127-159). New York: Peraamon Press.

Pa&S. G., & Winograd,-P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic Iiaming and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive fnstruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale NJ: Ertbaum.

Pressley. M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psycholog&, 21, 139-161.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategies users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annafs of Child Development (Vol. 5, pp. 89429). New York: JAI Press.

100 X. BORNAS and M. SERVERA

Salkind, N. J., & Wright, J. C. (1977). The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency (An integrated model). Human Development, 20, 377-387.

Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Academic skills problems: Direct assessments and intervention, New York: Guilford.

Spivack, G., Platt, J. J., & Shure, M. D. (1976). The problem solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Symonds, S., Snyder, B. L., Cariglia-Bull, R., & Pressley, M. (1989). Why be optimistic about cognitive strategy instruction? In C. B. McCormick, G. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research (pp. 3-32). New York: Springer.

Weithom, C. J., Kagen, E., & Marcus, M. (1984). The relationship of activity level ratings and cognitive impulsivity to task performance and academic achievement. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 581-606.