Attention Control Strategies

Attention control strategies refer to those strategies an individual uses to carry out intentions. Attention control statements indicate student efforts to give selective attention to task-relevant information. Students can develop their attentiveness and choose which activity on which to concentrate (see Ruohotie, 2000a). Active

atten-130

tional selectivity ‘facilitates the processing of information supporting the current intention and inhibits the processing of information supporting competing tendencies’ (Kuhl, 1986, p. 427). The main tasks of attention control strategies are to keep the mind concentrated on the task and to protect the individual from distractive stimuli.

The attention control statements collected in this study can be divided into six sub-categories (see Table 6.4.1 and Tables 6.4.2.1 to 6.4.2.6).

Teachers can easily recognise students who have problems concentrating. The maintenance of a high concentration level in all tasks all the time is impossible: the concentration level varies depending on the subject, task, personal interests, goal setting and various other reasons. During the school day or study session students are forced to monitor, control and regulate their concentration level constantly.

Students have various different strategies to help their concentration. The learning strategy chosen is closely related to concentration. Students can focus and maintain their concentration by underlining texts, by making notes and by writing summaries.

The statements using concentration strategies focus on meta-level concentration control (e.g. I’ll try to concentrate on task). Such statements indicate that the student is willing to control his/her concentration during the task.

Table 6.4.2.1. Attention control strategies: concentration

I try to just concentrate on studying, even though it doesn’t always work I concentrate as best I can and underline the most important points I’ll try to concentrate on the task!

Students have also numerous strategies to avoid distractions. For some it is enough to turn off the TV, radio and computer. Students ‘empty’ or ‘shut’ their minds to distractions (I shut my mind to everything interesting and I simply force myself to

131

read for a test) or they deliberately eliminate all possible distractions beforehand (see Table 6.4.2.2).

Table 6.4.2.2. Attention control strategies: distraction avoidance

I remove everything interesting from my mind and simply force myself to study for the exam.

I try to concentrate and remove everything else from my mind

I first eliminate all possible distractions: I turn off the TV and radio, clear my work desk of everything unnecessary, and change into comfortable clothes

I refuse to let other activities interfere with my studying

The subcategory of attention control strategies called ‘self-forcing’ is very easy to understand, because the strategies sound so familiar and evident (see Table 6.4.2.3).

As a psychological phenomena it is rather complex and very difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualise. For a researcher the statement I just force myself to do … reveals the active use of metacognitive regulation. An individual has a goal and she/he is ready to protect the goal from any distractions by all possible means:

self-monitoring, attention control, self-regulation, cognitive strategy choice etc. If the individual reaches his/her goal we say that she/he has a strong will, or that she/he is using the volitional strategies in an effective way. If she/he fails, then we might speak about a weak will or self-regulation failure.

However these observations do not give a full description of the complex processes of volition and will-power. Kuhl (1996) asks an interesting question: does the child who interrupts his/her homework and joins his/her friends playing in front of the window demonstrate a weakness of will or does the child have extraordinary willpower because he/she is not intimidated by the threat of being punished by his/her parents? PSI theory (see Section 3.3.4) was developed in an effort to answer such questions.

132

Deci and Ryan’s theory of self-determination (see Section 3.3.4) is useful in the context of a student being intrinsically motivated to finish her/his task. However if that is not always the case in the statements of self-forcing (see Table 6.4.2.3).

Students seem to use will-power and will in situations where motivation has faded away and they have to finish their task by force. Rigby et al. (1992) have conceptualised motivation to have both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions. Intrinsic motivation concerns activities which are engaged in for their own sake (self-determined). Sometimes, extrinsic motivation involves a progression from behaviours that were originally extrinsically motivated but became internalised and are now self-determined. Student A (Table 6.4.2.3) seems to go through this kind of process (In the beginning I force myself to study, but when I get going, I have no difficulties concentrating and then I really want to learn everything and am able to study it all).

Table 6.4.2.3. Attention control strategies: self-forcing

In addition, I force myself to concentrate on my work I simply force myself

I force myself to look ahead and study

I force myself to study for at least 4 hours, after which I can take a small break before summarising I decide to make myself notes on all the study material, and can’t stop until they are ready

I force myself to study for a certain time, for example 30 minutes, and then take a break I decide I can manage to study. The decision sticks!

My willpower keeps me on course A lot of willpower.

I just get off my butt and start to study

I use RAW WILLPOWER and discover that once the studying is done, it is done. I start to toil, and anticipate the moment, when I can go off to do something more fun – I never the less try to concentrate on my studying: the faster I get it done, the faster that moment will come.

133

Students participating in this study used a variety of practical strategies to avoid their mind wandering while concentrating on the task (Table 6.4.2.4). Student A has to write all the time to keep her thoughts in the matter, student B listens classical music and the student C has decided to have a ‘preventive’ break every 40 minutes.

Table 6.4.2.4. Attention control strategies: mind wandering avoidance

A) In the beginning I force myself to study, but when I get going, I have no difficulties concentrating and then I really want to learn everything and am able to study it all

B) I find it hard to control what enters my mind sometimes so I put some classical music on, which helps me to concentrate and generally puts me at ease, and then I try to focus until I am sure that my mind will not wander again

C) In order to get my studying done, I don’t allow myself to think about any ’alternative activities’, but instead concentrate on intensive reading and follow my own proven techniques, remembering to take short ’breaks’ every 40 minutes or so

Some students reported strategies relating to their self-knowledge and their beliefs about themselves as academic learners and their own capabilities to concentrate and study. Student A (Table 6.4.2.5) knows that his studying skills and concentration are rather weak so he puts in extra effort to maintain his concentration level. This kind of defensive pessimism increases effort. Student E seems to know by experience that if she is able to concentrate, her studying time will be much shorter.

This knowledge motivates her to try her best.

Table 6.4.2.5. Attention control strategies: involving self-belief

A) I know that my ’study skill’ and ability to concentrate are quite poor, so I try my best and read my exercise book and notes

B) If I concentrate, then I do not use as much time

In contrast to defensive pessimism, giving up (self-handicapping) is the withdrawal or decrease of effort to negotiate affective outcomes (see Garcia and Pintrich, 1994).

Students who have negative self-beliefs, use these beliefs as a defence system to explain possible future failure. In other words, there are students who do not try their best because they are convinced beforehand that their efforts will not be

134

successful. When they fail in the test, for which they were not properly prepared, they get reinforcement for their negative thinking. According to Garcia and Pintrich (1994), self-handicapping is anticipatory; it is a priori preparation for possible failure. In the study by Martin et al. (2001), self-handicapping was the strongest negative predictor of academic outcomes.

The attitude of student A in Table 6.4.2.6 can be explained by the theory of self-handicapping. By strategically withdrawing effort, a sense of self-worth can be preserved. By contrast, Student B is unable to resist one specific kind of distraction an ice hockey match on TV . He seems to know that it is no use to fight against that distraction and to waste energy on the fight. He allows himself to give in, but only to this very specific temptation. His weak point of self-regulation is characteristic of a certain kind of ‘accepted exception’ if you fail you fail in a very structured way and you have control of the situation all the time. In that case your volitional impairment or failure in self-regulation does not cause too many problems. In general, individuals often have to deal with ‘selective or controlled failures’ in self-regulation (broken diets, unkept promises, etc).

Table 6.4.2.6. Attention control strategies: giving up

A) Unfortunately I often succumb to the temptations of TV, music, and food. As a result, I often give up trying

B) I force myself to read even if I can’t concentrate, but if there is an ice hockey game on TV, then I have to watch it even if I study at the same time for the exam