The Effect of Goal-Line Presentation and Goal Selection on First-Grader Subtraction Fluency

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Morningside Math Facts Curriculum on Fluency, Stability, Endurance and Application Outcomes

“…The findings of the current research contribute to the literature with important implications for applied settings. The results are in accordance with previous research showing the efficacy of frequency-building to increase rates of correct responding in mathematics skills with primary school-aged children (Chiesa & Robertson, 2000;Gross et al, 2013;Hartnedy et al, 2005;Poncy et al, 2010). Further, while continued research should be conducted to further validate the Morningside Math Facts: Multiplication and Division curriculum (Johnson, 2008), the current findings provide evidence for its efficacy and provide sufficient rationale for its incorporation into educational settings to increase fluency with component mathematics skills.…”

“…Often within behavioral fluency research and practices, Explicit Timing (ET) is used to allow timed practice of component skills and achieve fluent performances. ET involves the presentation of a task and a specific amount of time allocated to complete it (Gross et al, 2013). Timings, which are usually one minute in duration, are conducted during which students complete as many repetitions of the target skills as they can before the timing ends.…”

A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency growth rates

“…The literature also indicates that the effectiveness of ET can also be increased when incorporating consequence procedures such as teacher feedback and self correction (Miller, Hall, & Heward, 1995), goal setting (Gross et al, 2014) and self-graphing (Codding, Hilt-Panahon, Panahon, & Benson, 2009;Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Whinnery, 1991). As a self-monitoring intervention component, self-graphing has shown to increase on-task engagement and academic performance in both individual and group contexts (Codding, Chan-Iannetta, George, Ferreira, & Volpe, 2011;Gunter, Miller, & Venn, 2003, Sutherland & Snyder, 2007, specifically math fluency (Figarola et al, 2008).…”

Goal setting and planning for Norwegian students with and without intellectual disabilities: Wishing upon a star?

“…Codding, Lewandowski, and Eckert (2005) found evidence that students benefit from the self-selecting of goals as opposed to being assigned a goal by others, but other researchers (e.g. Gross et al 2014;Swain 2005) argue that younger students may not have adequate experience with self-selecting realistic goals, and that they are likely to need ongoing training in this. As such, the type and quality of the goal may be of more crucial importance than the source of the goal.…”

“…Active student engagement throughout the learning process and autonomous goal setting can also lead to higher achievement and higher levels of self-efficacy and self-regulation (Furtak and Kunter 2012;Moeller, Theiler, and Wu 2012). When students are successful in achieving their goals, this in turn may influence subsequent goal setting, as students continue to set higher goals for themselves, thus resulting in a positive upward spiral of continuous higher performance (Gross et al 2014;Taing et al 2013). Stevenson (2015) found that the implementation of a goal-setting intervention was closely related with increased time-on-task behaviour and reduced latency to task engagement for students with reading difficulties, thus enhancing academic engagement and student achievement.…”