The effects of task demands and additive interspersal ratios on fifth-grade students' mathematics accuracy

School Psychology Review

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 543-555

  Hawkins, James ^a,c   Skinner, Christopher H ^a,b   Oliver, Renee ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^c Hamilton County Educational Service Center   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644674700     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the three-term contingency trial a predictor of effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337-354.
2. Berryman, D., O'Brien, P., & Cummins, R. (1983). The development of fluency, stimulus generalization and response maintenance of student academic engaged time in a special school: An educational mainstream preparation procedure validated against normative peer data. Educational Psychology, 3, 43-61.
3. Billington, E. J., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Getting students to choose to do more work: Evidence of the effectiveness of the interspersal procedure. Journal of Behavioral Education, II, 105-116.
4. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students' perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 477-490.
5. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., Hutchins, H., & Malone, J. C. (2004). Varying problem effort and choice: Using the interspersal technique to influence choice towards more effortful assignments. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 193-207.
6. Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.
7. Cates, G. L., & Dalenberg, A. E. (2005). Effects of interspersing rate on student preferences for mathematics assignments. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 89-104.
8. Cates, G. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 40% more problems? An investigation of the strength of the interspersal procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 339-347.
9. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watkins, C. E., Rhymer, K. N., McNeill, B. S., & 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, 177-193.
10. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. W., Meadows, T. J., Weaver, A., & Jackson, B. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601-616.
11. Connolly, A. J. (1988). KeyMath Revised: A Diagnostic Inventory of Essential Mathematics. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services, Inc.
12. Cooke, N. L., & Reichard, S. M. (1996). The effects of different interspersal drill ratios on acquisition and generalization of multiplication and division facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 124-142.
13. Dickinson, D. J., & Butt, J. A. (1989). The effects of success and failure on the on-task behavior of high achieving students. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 243-252.
14. Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
15. Gettinger, M. B., & Seibert, 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). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
16. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In T. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH:
17. Charles E. Merrill. Hargis, C. H. (1989). Teaching low achieving and disadvantaged students. Springfield, IL:
18. Charles C. Thomas. Hating, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23-40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19. Homer, R. H., Day, H. M., Sprague, J. R., O'Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1991). Interspersal requests: A non-aversive procedure for reducing aggression and self-injury during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265-278.
20. Ivarie, J. J. (1986). Effects of proficiency rates on later performance of recall and writing behavior. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 25-30.
21. 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.
22. Logan,P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students' perceptions of a mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event? School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322-331.
23. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seatwork by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23-32.
24. Meadows, S. F., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). Causing students to choose more language arts work: Enhancing the educational and external validity of the additive interspersal procedure and discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 227-247.
25. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sight-reading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and interventions. New York: Guilford.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., Wildmon, M., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving assignment preference through interspersal: Problem completion rates versus easy problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 427-437.
34. Skinner, C. H., Hurst, K. L., Teeple, D. F., & Meadows, S. O. (2002). Increasing on-task behavior during math independent seatwork in students with emotional disturbance by interspersing additional brief problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 647-659.
35. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389-403.
36. Skinner, C. H., Robinson, S. L., Johns, G. A., Logan, P., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Applying Herrnstein's matching law to influence students' choice to complete difficult academic assignments. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 5-17.
37. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202-210.
38. Skinner, C. H., Wallace, M. A., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2002). Academic remediation: Educational applications of research on assignment preference and choice. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 51-65.
39. Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 3, 383-397.
40. Teeple, D. F., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Enhancing grammar assignment perceptions by increasing assignment demands: An extension of interspersal research. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorder, 12, 120-127.
41. Van Houten, R., & Little, G. (1982). Increased response rate in special education children following an abrupt reduction in time limit. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 23-32.
42. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., McCurdy, M., & Sims, S. (1999). Improving secondary students' perceptions 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.
44. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., & Garrett, L. S. (2004). Enhancing assignment perceptions in students with mathematics learning disabilities by including more work: An extension of interspersal research. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 106-120.