Using Constant Time Delay Procedures to Teach Multiplication Facts

Abstract

Constant time delay procedures were used to teach multiplication facts to an elementary-age student with both mild learning handicaps and behavioral disorders. Fifteen facts were learned in approximately I hour of instruction. The student maintained correct levels of responding and generalized the responses across persons, settings, and skills up to 8 weeks after training was completed. The procedure was easy to implement, required little teacher preparation time, and resulted in a low percentage of student errors (2.8%). These findings extend the uses of constant time delay procedures in the research literature to a new student population (behaviorally disordered) and to a different content area (mathematics).

The use of sequenced count-by and constant time delay methods of teaching basic multiplication facts using parent volunteer tutors

“…Increases tended to be greater at lower grades, which may indicate that lower grade subjects began the program with less multiplication fact knowledge than higher grade subjects and that there was therefore more scope to improve. The greater success at lower grade levels for both methods could also be linked to the negative impact of prolonged failure likely to be experienced by .later grade level students (Cybriwsky & Schuster, (1990). Feelings of inadequacy may create a bigger barrier to learning at this level (Hughes, 1986).…”

“…First, minimal teacher or parent preparation is required to implement the CTD procedure (Ault et al,1988;Bennett et al,1986;Cybriwsky & Schuster, 1990). In this study only one set of flashcards per child was used, with the program sheet doubling as a recording sheet.…”

“…In this study only one set of flashcards per child was used, with the program sheet doubling as a recording sheet. Secondly, the CTD procedure is relatively quick and easy to use (Cybriwsky & Schuster, 1990;Schuster & Griffen, 1990;. During this study 92% of parents using the CTD procedure reported using only 10 minutes or less instruction time each session, with 100% claiming it was easy or very easy to teach (see Table 3).…”

“…Cybriwsky and Schuster (1990), used constant time delay to teach multiplication facts to a student with learning difficulties and behavioural disorders, who learnt 15 mathematics facts with a 2.8% error rate .in approximately one hour of instruction. Mattingly and Bott (1990) also achieved near errorless learning (98.3%) for 30 multiplication facts with four students in Grades 5 and 6 identified as learning disabled, behaviour disordered or educationally mentally handicapped.…”

“…Two methods which offer promise and which are the basis of this study are "Count-By" (Beattie, 1987;Mclntyre, Test, Cooke & Beattie 1991), which involves counting to arrive at the answer, and "Time Delay" (Cybriwsky & Schuster, 1990;Touchette, 1971), which involves changing the time interval between the natural cue and the teacher's prompt.…”