Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity: effects on on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children.

The researchers compared two ways kids could watch their own work. One group tracked if they stayed focused. The other group counted how many math problems they finished.

They used an alternating-treatments design. Each child tried both methods on different days. All kids had learning disabilities and were in late elementary grades.

Both self-monitoring styles raised on-task behavior. Tracking work output gave a small extra boost in the number of math problems completed.

The gains were not huge, but they showed up right away. Some kids did a little better with the productivity method, others stayed the same.

Steege et al. (1989) ran almost the same study three years later. They saw bigger gains and the kids kept the skills into the next semester. The later study used special-ed classrooms, which may explain the stronger results.

Mansell et al. (2002) pushed the idea up to middle-schoolers labeled at-risk. Again, self-monitoring lifted grades and the gains spread to classes that never used the tool.

Matson et al. (1989) moved the same productivity tracking to adults with developmental disabilities at work. Most workers produced more while they self-monitored, but all-day maintenance was shaky.

You can start either method tomorrow. Give the child a simple sheet. Every few minutes they tick “Was I paying attention?” or they write how many problems they finished.

Try the productivity count first if the goal is faster work output. Keep sessions short at the start and praise honest recording. The tool is cheap, quick, and the child learns to run their own behavior.