Enhancing assignment perceptions in students with mathematics learning disabilities by including more work: An extension of interspersal research

School Psychology Quarterly

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 106-120

  Wildmon, Mark E ^a   Skinner, Christopher H ^b   Watson, T Steuart ^c   Garrett, L Shan ^a  

^a Center for Behavioral Pediatrics   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^c MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042647059     PISSN: 10453830     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1521/scpq.19.2.106.33310     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Cates, G. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 20% and 40% more problems: An investigation of the strength of the interspersing procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 1-9.
2. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watkins, C. E., Rhymer, K. N., McNeill, B. S., & McCurdy, M. (2001). 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, 177-193.
3. 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, 213-234.
4. Dunlap, G., DePerzcel, M., Clark, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., & Gomez, A. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.
5. Elliott, S. N., Witt, J. C., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1991). Selecting, implementing, and evaluating classroom interventions. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 99-135). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
6. Erenberg, S. R. (1995). An investigation of the heuristic strategies used by students with and without learning disabilities in their acquisition of the basic facts of multiplication. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 6(1), 9-12.
7. Fleischner, J. E., & Manheimer, M. A. (1997). Math interventions for students with learning disabilities: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26, 397-413.
8. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 223-265.
9. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
10. Hall, R. V. (1991). Behavior analysis and education: An unfulfilled dream. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 305-316.
11. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
12. Horner R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719-732.
13. Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment- based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-19.
14. Lepper, M. R., Green, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
15. Logan, P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students' perceptions of mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event? School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322-331.
16. Mace, F. C., McCurdy, B., & Quigley, E. A. (1990). A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 197-205.
17. Martens, B. K., Halperin, S., Rummel, J. E., & Kilpatrick, D. (1990). Matching theory applied to contingent teacher attention. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 139-155.
18. Martens, B. K., & Houk, J. L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein's law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 17-27.
19. Martens, B. K., Lochner, D. G., & Kelly, S. Q. (1992). The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 143-151.
20. Martin, J. J., Skinner, C. H., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2001). Extending research on the interspersal procedure to perceptions of continuous reading assignments: Applied and theoretical implications of a failure to replicate. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 391-400.
21. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seat-work by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23-32.
22. Meadows, S., & Skinner, C. H. (May, 2002). Interspersing additional brief English tasks: Enhancing the educational validity of the interspersal procedure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis: Toronto.
23. Moore, L. A., Waguespack, A. M., Wickstrom, K. F., Witt, J. C., & Gaydos, G. R. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and time efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23, 106-118.
24. Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 367-380.
25. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., & Shade, D. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 37-52.
26. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M. C., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extension of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 691-699.
27. Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing the influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 575-583.
28. O'Leary, K. D., Poulos, R. W., & Devine, V. T. (1972). Tangible reinforcers: Bonuses of bribes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 1-8.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Shriver, M. D., & Kramer, J. J. (1997). Application of the generalized matching law for description of student behavior in the classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 131-149.
32. Skinner, C. H. (1999). Preventing academic skills deficits. In T. S. Watson & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of child behavior therapy (pp. 61-82). New York: Plenum Press.
33. 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.
34. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54-64.
35. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. B., & Watson, T. S. (1995). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Assessment in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 2, 207-220.
36. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., Wildmon, M. E., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving assignment preference through interspersing additional problems: Brief versus easy problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 427-437.
37. Skinner, C. H., Hall-Johnson, K., Skinner, A. L., Cates, G., Weber, J., & Johns, G. (1999). Enhancing perceptions of mathematics assignments by increasing relative problem completion rates through the interspersal technique. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(1), 43-59.
38. Skinner, C. H., Hurst, K. L., Teeple, D. F., & Meadows, S. O. (2002). Increasing on-task behavior during mathematics independent seatwork in students with emotional disorders by interspersing additional brief problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 647-659.
39. Skinner, C. H., Robinson, S. L., Johns, G. A., Logan, P., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Interspersing time efficient, easy, academic tasks to influence students' choice to complete more difficult problems: More is less. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 5-17.
40. Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling, H. E. (2002). Best practices in contingency management: Application of individual and group contingencies in educational settings. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 817-830). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
41. Underwood, B., Kapelak, S., & Malmi, R. (1976). The spacing effect: Additions to the theoretical and empirical puzzles. Memory and Cognition, 4, 391-400.
42. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., McCurdy, M., & Sims, S. (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.
43. 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.