Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T06:28:06.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Addressing “Won’t Do” Issues in Mathematics

from Part I - Individual-Level Academic Interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Christopher H. Skinner ,
Shelby Wright  and
Elizabeth McCallum
Edited by
Frank C. Worrell ,
Tammy L. Hughes  and
Dante D. Dixson
Frank C. Worrell
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Tammy L. Hughes
Affiliation:
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh
Dante D. Dixson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access

Summary

To enhance math achievement, numerous instructional strategies have been and will continue to be developed. Neither typical instructional procedures nor new methods for teaching math will be successful unless students choose to engage in assigned math activities. Two factors that can influence choice are response effort and reinforcement strength. Enhancing students’ basic math fact fluency can reduce the effort required to complete simple and more complex math tasks, making it more likely that students will choose to engage in math activities. Four evidence-based procedures designed to enhance basic math fact fluency are described (i.e., Cover, Copy, and Compare; Taped Problems; Explicit Timing; and Detect, Practice, and Repair). Also, procedures designed to enhance reinforcement for choosing to engage in math tasks are reviewed. These procedures include the Additive Interspersal Procedure, altering longer assignments into multiple briefer assignments, and applying interdependent group-oriented bonus rewards.

Keywords

choiceeffortautomaticityresponse ratesreinforcement strengthskill development
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Applied School Psychology , pp. 30 - 47
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Enhancing Performance on In-Class Math Assignments

This article describes how classwide bonus rewards were applied in a special education classroom for middle school students with emotional/behavioral problems. In this study they increased in class math, spelling, and language arts performance.

This article describes how classwide bonus rewards were applied in a general education 1st grade classroom to increase percentage correct in class math assignments.

Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 271–284.Google Scholar
Scott, K. C., Skinner, C. H., Moore, T. C., et al. (2017). Evaluating and comparing the effects of group contingencies on mathematics accuracy in a first-grade classroom: Class average criteria versus unknown small-group average criteria. School Psychology Review, 46, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0037.V46-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enhancing Performance on Math Homework

This article describes how classwide bonus rewards were used to enhance math homework performance in four 4th-grade classrooms.

This article describes how classwide bonus rewards were applied in an 8th grade class to enhance homework assignment performance. The class included 17 students, with 10 students receiving special education services.

Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & Newman-Eig, L. M. (2010). Effects on homework completion and accuracy of varied and constant reinforcement within an interdependent group contingency system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377900903471989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zibreg Hargis, D., Patti, A. L., Maheady, L., Budin, S., & Rafferty, L. (2016). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and rewards to enhance homework performance in an eighth-grade classroom. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 15, 172–192.Google Scholar

References

Aspiranti, K., McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2019). Taped problems intervention components: A meta-analysis. Contemporary School Psychology, 23. doi: 10.1007/s40688-018-0200-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspiranti, K. B., Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., & Cihak, D. F. (2011). Using taped-problems and reinforcement to increase addition-fact fluency in an intact first-grade classroom. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391781Google Scholar
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, 11, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015431309847Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000037629.97526.abCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, S. L., Skinner, C. H., McCallum, E., et al. (2010). A comparison of taped problems with and without a brief post-treatment assessment on multiplication fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9106-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolish, B., Kavon, N., McLaughlin, T. F., Williams, R.L. & Urlacher, S. (1995). The effects of a cover, copy, compare procedure and a token economy on the retention of basic multiplication facts by two middle school students with ADD and ADHD. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 19, 1–10.Google Scholar
Cates, B. 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, 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200007)37:4<349::aid-pits5>3.0.CO;2-73.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watkins, C. E., et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022135514692Google Scholar
Duhon, G. J., House, S., Hastings, K., Poncy, B., & Solomon, B. (2015). Adding immediate feedback to explicit timing: An option for enhancing treatment intensity to improve mathematics fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9203-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Developing fluency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1, 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005998701900309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J. (1974). Formal properties of the matching law. Journal of the Experimental of Behavior, 21, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.21-159Google Scholar
Lindgren, H. C., & Sutter, W. N. (1985). Educational psychology in the classroom (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Mace, F. C., Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Mauro, B. C. (1996). Effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality on time allocated to concurrent arithmetic problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-11Google Scholar
McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v20n02_08Google Scholar
McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, class-wide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419–434. DOI:10.1080/02796015.2006.12087976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Skinner, C. H., et al. (2011). Enhancing math-fact fluency via taped-problems in intact second- and fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices in the Schools, 12, 179–201.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 27, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozaki, C., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of a copy/cover/compare drill and practice procedures for multiplication facts mastery with a sixth-grade student with learning disabilities. BC Journal of Special Education, 20, 67–76.Google Scholar
Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., et al. (2010). Efficient class-wide remediation: Using technology to identify idiosyncratic math facts for additional automaticity drills. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100905Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948702000105Google Scholar
Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle, S. F., & Skinner, C. H. (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair (DPR) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class-wide setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9171-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006a). Detect, practice, and repair: The effects of a class-wide intervention on elementary students’ math-fact fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47–68.Google Scholar
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006b). Implementation guidelines: Detect, practice, and repair: The effects of a class-wide intervention on elementary students’ math-fact fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 7, 69–72.Google Scholar
Poncy, B., Solomon, B., Duhon, G., et al. (2015). An analysis of learning rate and curricular scope: Caution when choosing academic interventions based on aggregated outcomes. School Psychology Review, 44, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0044.1Google Scholar
Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282–295.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, D., Theodore, L., Bray, M., & Kehle, T. (2009). Improving homework accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies and randomized components. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20391Google Scholar
Rhymer, K. N., Dittmer, K. I., Skinner, C. H., & Jackson, B. (2000). Effectiveness of a multi-component treatment for improving mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088777Google Scholar
Rhymer, K. N., Henington, C., Skinner, C. H., & Looby, E. J. (1999). The effects of explicit timing on mathematics performance in Caucasian and African-American second-grade students. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Henington, C., D’Reaux, R. A., & Sims, S. (1998). Effects of explicit timing on mathematics problem completion rates in African-American third-grade elementary students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 673–677. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-673Google Scholar
Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, S., et al. (2002). The 1-minute explicit timing intervention: The influence of mathematics problem difficulty. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 305–311.Google Scholar
Scott, K. C., Skinner, C. H., Moore, T. C., et al. (2017). Evaluating and comparing the effects of group contingencies on mathematics accuracy in a first-grade classroom: Class average criteria versus unknown small-group average criteria. School Psychology Review, 46. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017–0037.V46-3Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H. (1998). Preventing academic skills deficits. In Watson, T. S. and Gresham, F. (Eds.). Handbook of child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 61–83). New York, NY: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5323-6_4Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research evidence, implication, and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00101-2Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H. (2005, October). Mathematics interventions: From special education to class-wide prevention. Invited workshop presented at the annual meeting of The Nebraska School Psychology Association, Omaha, NE.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Bamberg, H., Smith, E. S., & Powell, S. (1993). Subvocal responding to increase division fact fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259301400107Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088947Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., & Daly, E. J. (2010). Improving generalization of academic skills: Commentary on the special series. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9100-yGoogle Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Ford, J. M., & Yunker, B. D. (1991). An analysis of instructional response requirements on the multiplication performance of behavior disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874299101700107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Hall-Johnson, K., Skinner, A. L., et al. (1999). Enhancing perceptions of mathematics assignments by increasing relative problem completion rates through the interspersal technique. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979909598493Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin., T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022823522040Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., & McCleary, D. F. (2010). Academic engagement, time on task, and AAA responding. In Canter, A., Paige, L. Z., & Shaw, S. (Eds.), Helping children at home and school- III: Handouts for families and educators (pp. S3H1–S3H3). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
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, 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Robinson, S. L., Johns, G. A., & Belfiore, P. H. (1996). Applying Herrnstein’s matching law to influence students’ choice to complete difficult academic tasks. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1996.9943460Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. H., & Burton, B. (2009). Applying group-oriented contingencies in classrooms. In Akin-Little, K. A., Little, S. G., Bray, M., M., & Kehle, T. (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies (pp. 157–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11886-010Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, Copy, and Compare: An intervention for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 212–220.Google Scholar
Stocker, J., & Kubina, R. (2017). Impact of Cover, Copy, and Compare on fluency outcomes for students with disabilities and math deficits: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 61, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1196643Google Scholar
Van Houten, R., Hill, S., & Parsons, , (1975). An analysis of a performance feedback system: The effects of timing and feedback, public posting, and praise upon academic performance and peer interaction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-449Google Scholar
Van Houten, R., & Thompson, C. (1976). The effects of explicit timing on math performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1976.9-227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, M. A., Cox, E. A., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Increasing independent seat-work: Breaking large assignments into smaller assignments and teaching a student with retardation to recruit reinforcement. School Psychology Review, 23, 132–142.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199907)36:4<319::AID-PITS5>3.0.CO;2-TGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022823314635Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.19.2.106.33310Google Scholar
Windingstad, S., Skinner, C. H., Rowland, E., Cardin, E., & Fearrington, J. Y. (2009). Extending research on a math fluency building intervention: Applying taped problems in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377900903175861CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×