Assessing the Relative Effects of Interventions in Students with Mild Disabilities: Assessing Instructional Time

Previous research has demonstrated the importance of examining the instructional efficiency of academic interventions and has defined efficiency as the number of items learned per instructional minute. Maintenance of the skill is also an important instructional goal, however. Therefore, the current study compared efficiency metrics using initial learning and maintenance with 25 fourth‐grade students. Each student was taught the pronunciation and English translation of 12 words from the Esperanto international language with two instructional conditions (six words for each condition). The first condition was traditional drill (TD) rehearsal with all unknown words, and the second was incremental rehearsal (IR) with one unknown and eight known words. Results indicated that, although the IR condition led to significantly more words being retained, TD was significantly more efficient using initial learning. The two conditions were equally efficient, however, when maintenance data were used. Therefore, evaluating the efficiency of instructional interventions should consider maintenance data as well. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance

Burns

Sterling-Turner

2009

“…By identifying components that cause increases in fluency and assessing the time required for each component, researchers may be able to adapt DPR to allow for greater increases in math fluency, while requiring less instructional time (e.g., eliminating time-consuming components that account for little or no learning, applying more time to components that cause the most rapid increases in learning rates). Additionally, to help prevent basic skill deficits from hindering future learning, researchers should compare DPR with other efficient and sustainable interventions so that educators can select interventions that remedy skill deficits as rapidly as possible (Skinner, 2008;Skinner, Belfiore, & Watson, 1995/ 2002.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of Detect, Practice, and Repair to remedy math‐fact deficits in a group of third‐grade students

Poncy

Skinner

Axtell

2010

Self Cite

A multiple-probe-across-problem-sets (tasks) design was used to evaluate the effects of the Detect, Practice, and Repair (DPR) on multiplication-fact fluency development in seven third-grade students nominated by their teacher as needing remediation. DPR is a multicomponent intervention and begins with a group-administered, metronome-paced assessment used to identify specific facts in need of repair. Next, Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) procedures are used to enhance automaticity with those specific facts. Lastly, students complete a 1-min speed drill and self-graph their fluency performance. Results showed large level and trend increases in fact fluency after DPR was applied across all three sets of multiplication problems. Discussion focuses on the importance of developing effective and efficient basic-skill-remediation procedures and directions for future research. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

“…In fact, I made this mistake when I conducted a comparative effectiveness study (see Skinner, Johnson, Larkin, Lessley, & Glowacki, 1995). Before you judge me too harshly consider that I attempted to correct my mistake when I reanalyzed these data (see Skinner, BelÞore, et al, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…As it is, researchers who are attempting to validate and compare strategies and procedures designed to promote learning may be unintentionally disseminating misleading information promoting interventions that hinder student development because they are neglecting to measure learning rates (Cates et al, 2003;Joseph & Nist, 2006;Nist & Joseph, 2008;Skinner, 1998Skinner, , 2008Skinner, BelÞore, & Watson, 1995;Skinner, Fletcher, & Henington, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles

Skinner

2009

Self Cite

Almost all academic skills deÞcits can be conceptualized as learning rate problems as students are not failing to learn, but not learning rapidly enough. Thus, when selecting among various possible remedial procedures, educators need an evidence base that indicates which procedure results in the greatest increases in learning rates. Previous research is reviewed that shows how failure to measure learning rates can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of interventions. Different procedures for measuring learning rates are described and cautions regarding the interpretation of these learning rate data are provided. The article concludes with a plea for all researchers to include measures of learning rates in their applied studies. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.If learning researchers hope to improve practitioners' attempts to prevent and remedy learning problems, they must change their behavior. As it is, researchers who are attempting to validate and compare strategies and procedures designed to promote learning may be unintentionally disseminating misleading information promoting interventions that hinder student development because they are neglecting to measure learning rates (Cates et al., 2003;Joseph & Nist, 2006;Nist & Joseph, 2008;Skinner, 1998Skinner, , 2008Skinner, BelÞore, & Watson, 1995;Skinner, Fletcher, & Henington, 1996). AN APPLIED EXAMPLEBramlett, Cates, Savina, and Lauinger (2010) found that most of the researchers investigating learning procedures have not precisely measured the amount of time spent learning. To underscore how critical it is to measure time spent learning, consider the following example. A researcher, using the theoretical and applied evidence base, develops a procedure for remedying spelling problems, the Evidence-Based Spelling Intervention (EBSI). The EBSI is a multicomponent strategy that requires students to perform the following steps:1. First, the student must look at the word, close his eyes, and picture the word in his "minds eye" (visualization). 2. Next, the student must write the word 6 times using paper and pencil (repeated practice). 3. Next, the student must write the word 6 times by tracing the word in sand (using tactile and kinesthetic senses). 4. Next, the student must spell the word 6 times by selecting tiles (using selection responses). 5. Next, the student must Þnd the word listed in a word-Þnd puzzle 6 times, left to right, right to left, top to bottom, bottom to top, and both directions diagonally (often found in spelling workbooks). 6. Next, the student must use chalk to draw the word on the playground cement and then walk along the line, tracing the word with his feet (children like to be active).Assume that an evaluation of the EBSI is conducted. As Bramlett and colleagues (2010) found, this evaluation is unlikely to include an evaluation of learning rates. Rather, researchers implement several almost perfect "true" experiments and conclude that this multicomponent intervention