Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation

Education and Treatment of Children

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 237-249

  Burns, Matthew K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750729600     PISSN: 07488491     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Badian, N. (1999). Persistent mathematics, reading or mathematics, or reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 45-70.
2. Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148-157.
3. Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175.
4. Burns, M. K., & Dean, V. J. (2002, February). Rethinking the instructional level: Impact on assessment and intervention. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
5. Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled, Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-314.
6. Burns, M. K., & Kimosh, A. (in press). Using incremental rehearsal to teach sight-words to adult students with moderate cognitive impairment, Journal of Evidence Based Practice in Schools.
7. Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.) Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Busse, R. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1995). Meta-analysis for single-case consultation outcomes: Applications to research and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 269-285.
9. 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.
10. Chase, D. H., & Symonds, P. M. (1992). Practice vs. motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 282-289.
11. Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., & McCelland, J. C. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 2, 239-269.
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 & Treatment of Children, 19, 124-142.
13. 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.
14. Coulter, W. A., & Coulter, E. M. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design. Unpublished manuscript.
15. Daly, E. J., Hintze, J. M., & Hamler, K. R. (2000). Improving practice by taking steps toward technological improvements in academic interventions in the new millennium. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 61-72.
16. Daly, E. J. & McCurdy, M. (2002). Getting it right so they can get it right: An overview of the special series. School Psychology Review, 31, 453-458.
17. 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.
18. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
19. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exception Children.
20. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
21. Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV (Volume 2; pp. 885-898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
22. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
23. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in hand writing and student's ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49.
24. Kratochwill, T. R. (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: An overview. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.) Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Koegel, L. K., & Koegel, R. L. (1986). The effects of interspersed maintenance tasks on academic performance in a severe childhood stroke victim. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 425-430,
28. Logan, G. D., & Klapp, S. T. (1991). Alphabet mathematics: Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 179-195.
29. Logan, G. D., Taylor, S. E., & Etherton, J. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression Automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 77, 179-195.
30. MacQuarrie, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.
31. Manzo, K. K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on '03 NAEP. Education Week, 2.3 (12), 1, 18.
32. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing special children. New York: TheGuilford Press.
33. 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.
34. Michigan Department of Education (2002). Revised administrative rules for special cducation. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education.
35. Miller, S., & Mercer, C. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37. Rivera-Batiz, F. L. (1992). Quantitative literacy and the likelihood of employment among young adults in the United States. The Journal of Human Resources, 27, 313-328.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
44. Tucker, J. A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN: Author.
45. 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.
46. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
47. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.