Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976,42, 675-678.
@ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1976
SELECTIVE ATTENTION IN CHILDREN W I T H LEARNING DISABILITIES1 STUART M. DEIKEL AND MORTON P. FRIEDMAN University o f California, Lor Angeles S u m m r y . - 4 9 children, aged 11 to 14 yr., a learning disabled group and a normal group, performed a primary, reading-like, card-sorting task After they completed the primary task, they were tested for memory of incidental materials presented during learning. While the normal children showed better recall of incidental materials related to the primary task, 24 children with disabilities showed superior recall of material irrelevant to the primary task The resultr were discussed in terms of alternative "motivational" and "developmental lag" interpretations.
A "central-incidental" paradigm is frequently used to study selective attention in children. This paradigm allows the comparison of performance on a primary task with the learning of incidental materials presented in the test situation. The general result of a number of these studies, as reviewed by Hagen and Kail (1975), is that central performance increases through the primary grades, while incidental learning remains constant and only decreases after the age of about 12. Such results may be due to the development of strategies appropriate to the task. The central-incidental paradigm may also be useful for the study of learning disabled children, who are typically described as distractible in school situations. For example, Mondani and Tutko (1969) found that junior high school students, considered to be achieving below their ability and thus labeled "underachievers," recalled incidental material placed on the periphery of a social responsibility test better than normal controls. They suggest that this resulted from the underachievers' inability to focus on the details of the central task. Hallahan, Kauffman, and Ball (1973) have also reported less selective attention in low achievers than high achievers. Tarver and Hallahan (1974) prepared a review of such research. This study used the central-incidental paradigm to study the learning by learning disabled children of both central task and incidental information. The question was whether children with learning disabilities were simply inattentive to the learning situation or were attending to the incidental aspects of the task at the expense of performance on the central task.
METHOD Forty-nine children, ranging in age from 11 to 13 yr., were tested. Twenty-four students (22 males and 2 females) came from a school for the Learning disabled. These 'This research was supported by N I H Grant MH-7809. Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Morton P. Friedman, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles. California 90024.
676
S. M. DElKEL
&
M. P. FRIEDMAN
children were of over-all normal intelligence but at least 2 yr. deficient in reading ability. The remaining 25 children (8 males and 17 females) were taken from a nearby elementary school. This control group had demonstrated both aptitude and reading ability within normal limits. The unequal distribution of males and females should not hamper the present study. Willoughby (1930) has indicated, and the current investigation verifies, that there are no sex differences in recall of incidentally presented materials. Children were tested in small groups in rooms away from their usual classrooms. The sorting of standard IBM punch cards, according to the pamrn of holes punched in the cards, was the primary task. This cask was developed since it was felt that the acts of scanning and sorting the cards required skills similar to those involved in reading. Cards were sorted into one of three piles. Cards were to be sorted into pile 1 if they had at least 2 holes punched in each of the 9 rows of the punch card; cards were to be sorted into pile 2 if they had holes punched only in the even-numbered rows; cards were to be sorted into pile 3 if they had holes punched only in the odd-numbered rows. The cards were also used to expose the children to the incidental stimuli. Irrelevant material was placed on the cards in the following manner: ( 1 ) three cards had rhe word "SORT typed in the upper left-hand corner; ( 2 ) four cards had a triangle drawn in the lower right-hand corner; ( 3 ) five cards had the letter " Q typed in the lower left-hand corner; and ( 4 ) seven cards had an " X drawn in the upper right-hand corner. The posttest, administered immediately after the children had completed the primary task, had 20 fill-in questions, designed to measure recall of details related to the primary task and to the irrelevant stimuli on the IBM cards. Questions used to evaluate recall of relevant features of the primary task included: "Into which pile did you sort the cards that had at least 2 holes in each row?", "How many rows were there in the cards you just sorted?", "How many piles were there into which cards could be sorted?". Recall of irrelevant material was measured by questions which included: "What color was printed at the top of the cards you just sorted?", "How many cards had a letter printed on the lower left-hand corner?", "What was the letter printed on the lower left-hand corner?". The test included 11 questions measuring recall of relevant details and 9 questions on recall of irrelevant material. The posttest allowed even the most severely learning disordered child to complete the test quickly and without frustration; this was established by extensive pilot-testing with similar samples. The children were told that they were to be part of a program dealing with the handling and sorting of cards. They were given 5 punch cards, and the scheme for sorting into three appropriate piles was described and demonstrated. This task was completed in approximately 2 or 3 min. When all the children had demonstrated competence in the sorting task, the cards were collected and a second group of cards was given to each child. These 15 cards contained the incidental stimuli. Each child was instructed to sort these cards into the appropriate piles as before. This task was completed by all the children in 5 to 10 min. Time to complete the task was noted, the sorted cards collected, and the postrest administered.
RESULTS The mean time required for the learning disabled students to complete the primary card-sorting task (M = 5.7 min.) was not significantly different from that of normals ( M = 5.63 min.; t = 1.41, df = 4 7 ) . However, there were marked differences in the efficiency of performance. The mean number of errors in sorting by the learning disabled students ( M = 6.25) was significantly greater than that of normals ( M = 2.5; t = 8.9, df = 47, p < .001).
SELECTIVE ATTENTION AND LEARNING DISABIL~TIES
677
Fig. 1 shows t h e m e a n percent correct o n t h e posttest questions f o r t h e t w o groups. T h e n o r m a l g r o u p scored significantly higher than t h e learning disabled g r o u p o n posttest questions which evaluated details of t h e primary task (F = 16.23, df = 1/44, p . 0 0 1 ) . Conversely, the learning disabled g r o u p demonstrated superior recall of t h e irrelevant stimuli o n t h e IBM cards ( F = 6.30, df = 1/44, p . 0 0 5 ) . A s expected, females d i d n o t differ significantly from males in the control g r o u p ( t = 2.34, d j = 2 3 ) .
@ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1976
SELECTIVE ATTENTION IN CHILDREN W I T H LEARNING DISABILITIES1 STUART M. DEIKEL AND MORTON P. FRIEDMAN University o f California, Lor Angeles S u m m r y . - 4 9 children, aged 11 to 14 yr., a learning disabled group and a normal group, performed a primary, reading-like, card-sorting task After they completed the primary task, they were tested for memory of incidental materials presented during learning. While the normal children showed better recall of incidental materials related to the primary task, 24 children with disabilities showed superior recall of material irrelevant to the primary task The resultr were discussed in terms of alternative "motivational" and "developmental lag" interpretations.
A "central-incidental" paradigm is frequently used to study selective attention in children. This paradigm allows the comparison of performance on a primary task with the learning of incidental materials presented in the test situation. The general result of a number of these studies, as reviewed by Hagen and Kail (1975), is that central performance increases through the primary grades, while incidental learning remains constant and only decreases after the age of about 12. Such results may be due to the development of strategies appropriate to the task. The central-incidental paradigm may also be useful for the study of learning disabled children, who are typically described as distractible in school situations. For example, Mondani and Tutko (1969) found that junior high school students, considered to be achieving below their ability and thus labeled "underachievers," recalled incidental material placed on the periphery of a social responsibility test better than normal controls. They suggest that this resulted from the underachievers' inability to focus on the details of the central task. Hallahan, Kauffman, and Ball (1973) have also reported less selective attention in low achievers than high achievers. Tarver and Hallahan (1974) prepared a review of such research. This study used the central-incidental paradigm to study the learning by learning disabled children of both central task and incidental information. The question was whether children with learning disabilities were simply inattentive to the learning situation or were attending to the incidental aspects of the task at the expense of performance on the central task.
METHOD Forty-nine children, ranging in age from 11 to 13 yr., were tested. Twenty-four students (22 males and 2 females) came from a school for the Learning disabled. These 'This research was supported by N I H Grant MH-7809. Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Morton P. Friedman, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles. California 90024.
676
S. M. DElKEL
&
M. P. FRIEDMAN
children were of over-all normal intelligence but at least 2 yr. deficient in reading ability. The remaining 25 children (8 males and 17 females) were taken from a nearby elementary school. This control group had demonstrated both aptitude and reading ability within normal limits. The unequal distribution of males and females should not hamper the present study. Willoughby (1930) has indicated, and the current investigation verifies, that there are no sex differences in recall of incidentally presented materials. Children were tested in small groups in rooms away from their usual classrooms. The sorting of standard IBM punch cards, according to the pamrn of holes punched in the cards, was the primary task. This cask was developed since it was felt that the acts of scanning and sorting the cards required skills similar to those involved in reading. Cards were sorted into one of three piles. Cards were to be sorted into pile 1 if they had at least 2 holes punched in each of the 9 rows of the punch card; cards were to be sorted into pile 2 if they had holes punched only in the even-numbered rows; cards were to be sorted into pile 3 if they had holes punched only in the odd-numbered rows. The cards were also used to expose the children to the incidental stimuli. Irrelevant material was placed on the cards in the following manner: ( 1 ) three cards had rhe word "SORT typed in the upper left-hand corner; ( 2 ) four cards had a triangle drawn in the lower right-hand corner; ( 3 ) five cards had the letter " Q typed in the lower left-hand corner; and ( 4 ) seven cards had an " X drawn in the upper right-hand corner. The posttest, administered immediately after the children had completed the primary task, had 20 fill-in questions, designed to measure recall of details related to the primary task and to the irrelevant stimuli on the IBM cards. Questions used to evaluate recall of relevant features of the primary task included: "Into which pile did you sort the cards that had at least 2 holes in each row?", "How many rows were there in the cards you just sorted?", "How many piles were there into which cards could be sorted?". Recall of irrelevant material was measured by questions which included: "What color was printed at the top of the cards you just sorted?", "How many cards had a letter printed on the lower left-hand corner?", "What was the letter printed on the lower left-hand corner?". The test included 11 questions measuring recall of relevant details and 9 questions on recall of irrelevant material. The posttest allowed even the most severely learning disordered child to complete the test quickly and without frustration; this was established by extensive pilot-testing with similar samples. The children were told that they were to be part of a program dealing with the handling and sorting of cards. They were given 5 punch cards, and the scheme for sorting into three appropriate piles was described and demonstrated. This task was completed in approximately 2 or 3 min. When all the children had demonstrated competence in the sorting task, the cards were collected and a second group of cards was given to each child. These 15 cards contained the incidental stimuli. Each child was instructed to sort these cards into the appropriate piles as before. This task was completed by all the children in 5 to 10 min. Time to complete the task was noted, the sorted cards collected, and the postrest administered.
RESULTS The mean time required for the learning disabled students to complete the primary card-sorting task (M = 5.7 min.) was not significantly different from that of normals ( M = 5.63 min.; t = 1.41, df = 4 7 ) . However, there were marked differences in the efficiency of performance. The mean number of errors in sorting by the learning disabled students ( M = 6.25) was significantly greater than that of normals ( M = 2.5; t = 8.9, df = 47, p < .001).
SELECTIVE ATTENTION AND LEARNING DISABIL~TIES
677
Fig. 1 shows t h e m e a n percent correct o n t h e posttest questions f o r t h e t w o groups. T h e n o r m a l g r o u p scored significantly higher than t h e learning disabled g r o u p o n posttest questions which evaluated details of t h e primary task (F = 16.23, df = 1/44, p . 0 0 1 ) . Conversely, the learning disabled g r o u p demonstrated superior recall of t h e irrelevant stimuli o n t h e IBM cards ( F = 6.30, df = 1/44, p . 0 0 5 ) . A s expected, females d i d n o t differ significantly from males in the control g r o u p ( t = 2.34, d j = 2 3 ) .
