Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks

Remedial and Special Education

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 167-174

  Burns, Matthew K ^a  

^a CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2942538562     PISSN: 07419325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/07419325040250030401     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York: American Book.
2. Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavioral problems (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Burns, M. K. (2002). Comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8-13.
4. Burns, M. K., & Dean, V. J. (2002, February). Rethinking the instructional level: The impact on assessment and intervention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
5. Cates, G. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 20% and 40% more problems: An investigation of the strengths of the interspersing procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 339-347.
6. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watkins, C. E., Rhymer, K. N., McNeill, S. L., & McCurdy, M. (1999). Effects of interspersing additional brief math problems on student performance and perception of math assignments: Getting students to prefer to do more work. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 177-192.
7. Chase, D. H., & Symonds, P. M. (1992). Practice vs. motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 282-289.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Cooke, N. L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J. S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 212-234.
10. Cooke, N. L., & Reichard, S. M. (1996). The effects of different interspersal drill ratios on acquisition and generalization of multiplication and division facts. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 124-142.
11. Cooper, H. M., Valentine, J. C., & Charlton, K. (2000). The methodology of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 263-280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Coulter, W. A., & Coulter, E. M. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design. Unpublished training material available from Directions and Resources, P.O. Box 57113, New Orleans, LA 70157.
13. Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 314-326.
14. Gettinger, M. (1995). Increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology, vol. III (pp. 943-955). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
15. Gettinger, M., & Siebert, J. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 773-788). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
16. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (1999). Excellence in teaching: Review of instructional and environmental variables. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 933-958). New York: Wiley.
17. Gickling, E. E. (1984, October). Operationalizing academic learning time for low achieving and handicapped mainstreamed students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson Hole, WY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 256 115)
18. Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559-566.
19. Gickling, E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 587-595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
20. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
21. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22. Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 885-898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
23. Johns, G. A., Skinner, C. H., & Nail, G. L. (2000). Effects of interspersing briefer mathematics problems on assignment choice in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 95-106.
24. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and student's ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49.
25. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
27. MacQuarrie, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Bums, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.
28. McCurdy, M., Skinner, G. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seatwork by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 25-32.
29. Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
30. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1980). The effects of interspersal training versus high-density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153-158.
31. Ormrod, J. E., & Lounge, J. P. (1990). Automaticity in spelling competence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 384-386.
32. Rivera, D. M., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). Mathematics instruction for students with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 71-86.
33. Rivera, D., & Smith, D. (1997). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
34. Roberts, M. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students' reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73-91.
35. Roberts, M. L., Turco, T. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1991). Differential effects of fixed instructional ratios on students' progress in reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 308-318.
36. Robinson, S. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Interspersing additional easier items to enhance mathematics performance on subtests requiring different task demands. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 191-205.
37. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "File Drawer Problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
38. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. Rowan, V. C., & Pear, J. J. (1985). A comparison of the effects of interspersal and concurrent training sequences on acquisition, retention, and generalization of picture names. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 127-145.
40. Schnorr, J. M. (1989). Practicing math facts on the computer. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 65-69.
41. Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168-176.
42. Shapiro, E. S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283.
43. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research evidence, implications, and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347-368.
44. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313-325.
45. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., Wildmon, M., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving assignment preference through interspersing additional problems: Brief versus easy problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 427-437.
46. Skinner, C. H., Hall-Johnson, K., & Skinner, A. L. (1999). Enhancing perceptions of mathematics assignments by increasing relative problem completion rates through the interspersal technique. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 43-59.
47. Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 50-55.
48. Tucker, J. A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
49. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50. Tzelgove, J., Porat, Z., & Henik, A. (1997). Automaticity and consciousness: Is perceiving the word necessary for reading it? American Journal of Psychology, 110, 429-448.
51. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., & McCurdy, M. (1999). Improving secondary students' perception of the "dreaded mathematics word problem assignment" by giving them more word problems. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 319-325.
52. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., & McDade, A. (1998). Interspersing additional brief, easy problems to increase assignment preference on mathematics reading problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 337-346.