A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities.

Martens et al. (1989) built a self-monitoring checklist for three students with learning disabilities. Each list showed the exact steps for subtraction with regrouping. The kids marked their own work after every problem. A multiple-baseline design proved the checklist, not something else, caused any gains.

Correct subtraction scores jumped the day the checklist arrived. Scores stayed high while the list stayed in place. When teachers quietly removed the list, accuracy held steady. The gains were immediate, stable, and maintained.

Herrnstein et al. (1979) did the same thing ten years earlier. They used self-monitoring for on-task work and saw the same quick, lasting jump. The pattern shows self-monitoring works across different school tasks.

Strang et al. (2017) and Fiene et al. (2015) moved the idea onto iPads and vibrating watches for kids with autism. The tech changed, but the self-monitoring core still lifted performance. The target paper’s paper checklist is simply the low-tech ancestor.

Leif et al. (2026) seems to disagree. They found self-monitoring alone did nothing for task engagement until they added reinforcement. The difference is the target measured correct math, not time on task. Accuracy can feed its own reward; engagement often needs extra prizes.

You can hand a learner a short, personalized checklist today and see better math tonight. No extra staff, no tokens, no tablets. Start with the exact error pattern you see in probes, turn it into three-to-five check boxes, and let the student score each problem. Remove the sheet only after scores stay high for three days.