|
| Three Experimental Studies of Interventions for Strengthening Stimulus Control in Reading Fluency and Math Computation |
| Sunday, May 25, 2008 |
| 10:00 AM–11:20 AM |
| Williford B |
| Area: EDC; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Edward J. Daly III (University of Nebraska, Lincoln) |
| Discussant: Jennifer J. McComas (University of Minnesota) |
| Abstract: In this symposium, three studies will be presented which investigated a variety of intervention strategies for improving reading fluency and math computation. In the first study, the effects of Detect Practice Repair (DPR) for improving math computation were examined through a multiple baseline design across problem sets. DPR is a group-administered, metronome-paced assessment procedure to identify and improve idiosyncratic deficits in math computation responses in need of “repair.” Results showed large increases in fact fluency after DPR was applied across problem sets. In the second study, two flashcard intervention strategies which share a common folding-in procedure, but which differ in terms of how “knowns” and “unknowns” are treated, were compared. The strategy that explicitly built accuracy through modeling and prompt delay and maximized response opportunities was found to be more effective than the traditional folding-in flashcard method. In the third study, the effects of reading fluency interventions selected by students and delivered by their parents were examined. Students chose intervention strategies in the context of a brief experimental analysis and parents delivered the intervention package at home. Results suggest that in each case the interventions produced generalized increases in reading fluency relative to a reward-only condition. |
| |
| Using Detect, Practice and Repair to Differentiate Math Fact Instruction in a Class-wide Setting. |
| BRIAN C. PONCY (Oklahoma State University) |
| Abstract: A multiple baseline design across problem sets was used to investigate the effect of Detect Practice Repair (DPR) on the math fact fluency rates of a third-grade class. DRP involved a group-administered metronome-paced assessment procedure to identify idiosyncratic facts in need of repair, followed by cover, copy, and compare (to enhance automaticity with those specific facts), a speed drill, feedback, and self-graphing. While the procedures were standardized for group administration, each student was placed in a specific operation with two students working on subtraction problems, two students working on multiplication, and seven students working on division problems. This allowed for the differentiation of curricular objectives across students. Results showed large increases in fact fluency after DPR was applied across all three sets. The phase means for baseline, intervention, and maintenance were 18.5 digits correct per minute (DCM), 30.9 DCM, and 30.2 DCM respectively. Individually, 9 out of 11 students made a minimum of approximately 9 DCM (range 8.9 to 19), while two students made gains of 2.5 and 3 DCM. A discussion will focus on the importance of developing effective and efficient basic-skills remediation procedures and direction for future research. |
| |
| Bringing Word Reading Under Stimulus Control: An Experimental Comparison of Two Flashcard Methods. |
| SARA S. KUPZYK (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), Melissa N. Andersen (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), April Turner (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), Edward J. Daly III (University of Nebraska, Lincoln) |
| Abstract: Flashcards are a time honored method for bringing a variety of discrete response classes under the stimulus control of instructional material. The most effective flashcard method in the research literature has involved introducing new items along with already acquired items as a part of a sequence of learning trials in which the ratio of “unknown” to “known” responses is carefully controlled. While a lot of attention has been paid to the ratio of unknowns to knowns, less attention has been paid to the relationship of the number of response opportunities to outcomes and types of response prompts (e.g., modeling and delayed prompting) that might strengthen responding more quickly. In this study, using an A/B/A/B design with counterbalancing across four elementary school students, the traditional method was compared to a variation of the folding-in method that builds acquisition through modeling and delayed prompting and uses only unknown items for reading sight words. Results indicate that the alternative method led to consistently more words read correctly per phase and greater maintenance after a two week follow up. Results will be discussed in terms of the treatment elements that appear to make the alternative method of flashcard instruction stronger than the traditional folding-in procedure. |
| |
| An Investigation of Parent-Delivered Reading Interventions: Combining Brief Experimental Analysis with Student Choice of Interventions. |
| APRIL TURNER (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), Elizabeth Morris (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), Sara S. Kupzyk (University of Nebraska, Lincoln) |
| Abstract: Parents are often very willing to help their children, but at a loss to know what to do. Several studies have shown that effective, parent delivered, individualized reading packages can be developed based on Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) results. In this study, the BEA was expanded to include student choice of intervention components. Student participants were exposed to a variety of strategies singly under a reward contingency for generalized improvements and then asked to select those strategies they felt were most helpful to their learning. The resultant intervention package was then administered to the student who had the choice of confirming or modifying the intervention. The parents were subsequently trained in the intervention package and conducted tutoring at home multiple times a week. The effects of the treatment package on generalized oral reading fluency were compared to a reward-only condition. Clearly discriminable data series were obtained for three of the four participants. Effects were less clear during those weeks in which fewer tutoring sessions were conducted. Results will be discussed in terms of the possible role of choice in augmenting both treatment implementation and treatment effects. |
|
| |