A self-control classroom for hyperactive children.
Self-monitoring helps hyperactive kids stay on task only during solo work—add generalization plans for wider use.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team built a self-control package for hyperactive boys in a regular classroom.
Kids learned to watch their own work and mark a card when they stayed on task.
The study flipped the package on and off four times to see if it really worked.
What they found
During solo seat-work the boys worked harder and got into less trouble.
The gains vanished when the teacher ran group lessons.
Activity level did not budge anywhere.
How this fits with other research
Sulu et al. (2023) later got bigger, lasting gains with Turkish kids who also had ADHD.
They added generalization planning—something the 1980 study skipped—so the newer paper now guides practice.
Winett et al. (1991) stretched the idea further, showing self-management plus rewards still works when no adult is in the room.
Herrnstein et al. (1979) had already shown that neurotypical kids carry self-monitoring gains from a quiet lab to class; the 1980 paper tested the same logic on hyperactive boys and found the carry-over weaker.
Why it matters
Use self-monitoring for independent work periods with students who have ADHD.
Do not expect the same tool to keep them settled during group instruction.
Add generalization steps like Sulu et al. (2023) if you want the skill to stick across the whole day.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start a self-monitoring card for one student during independent math, then build a plan to teach and reward use during science circle later.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this study we investigated the effectiveness of a package of self-control procedures in a classroom with six hyperactive boys ages 7 to 10. A within-subjects reversal design was used. Measures of on-task behavior and class misbehavior, as well as measures of activity level, were recorded. Results indicated that the self-control package was effective in improving misbehavior and attention to tasks during the individual seat work but not during group instruction. Activity level was not affected by the treatment. Changes in the schedule of self-monitoring for the boys in the class produced an increase in variability and some deterioration in their behavior. Those boys of lower mental age seemed most affected by the schedule shift.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1980 · doi:10.1007/BF02408435