This study investigated the effectiveness and efficiency of a constant time-delay procedure in teaching multiplication facts to three male and two female elementary school students, aged 9 years 6 months to 12 years 5 months, identified as learning disabled. The five students were taught unknown facts using a 4-second constant time-delay procedure. Data were collected on generalization to a paper-and-pencil task, to a horizontal display orientation, and to the reverse fact, as well as incidentally acquired ability to solve missing-factor problems. Results indicated that the near-errorless learning procedure was effective and efficient in teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Learning generalized to a paper-and-pencil task, to a different presentation orientation, and to the reverse fact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Billingsley, F.E., White, O.R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
2.
Brown, R.E., Copeland, R.E., & Hall, R.V. (1986). Effects of principal implemented procedures on student acquisition of multiplication facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 202–220.
3.
Campbell, J.I.D. (1987). Network interference and mental multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 109–123.
Cooney, J.B., Swanson, H.L., & Ladd, S.F. (1988). Acquisition of mental multiplication skill: Evidence for the transition between counting and retrieval strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 323–345.
6.
Cordoni, B. (1987). I'd like it if I could learn it!Academic Therapy, 22, 281–286.
7.
Cybriwsky, C.A., & Schuster, J.W. (1990). Using constant delay procedures to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 54–59.
8.
Fleischner, J.E., Garnett, K., & Shepherd, M.J. (1982). Proficiency in arithmetic basic fact computation of learning disabled and nondisabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4(2), 47–56.
9.
Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., Doyle, P.M., & Alig, C. (1988). How to use time delay. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Hasselbring, T.S., Goin, L.I., & Bransford, J.D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 3–7.
12.
Kurland, T.E. (1990). The number line and mental arithmetic. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(4), 44–46.
13.
Lamon, W.E., & Lieberthal, E.M. (1982). Fingermath and the learning of arithmetic … An intriguing linkage!Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4(3&4), 3–16.
14.
Leon, J.A., & Pepe, H.J. (1983). Self-instructional training: Cognitive behavior modification for remediating arithmetic deficits. Exceptional Children, 50, 54–60.
Mastropieri, M.A., Bakken, J.P., & Scruggs, T.E. (1991). Mathematics instruction for individuals with mental retardation: A perspective and research synthesis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 115–129.
17.
Mattingly, J.C., & Bott, D.A. (1990). Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning problems. Exceptional Children, 56, 438–449.
18.
McCloskey, M., Harley, W., & Sokol, S.M. (1991). Models of arithmetic fact retrieval: An evaluation in light of findings from normal and brain-damaged subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 377–397.
19.
McIntyre, S.B., Test, D.W., Cooke, N.L., & Beattie, J. (1991). Using count-bys to increase multiplication facts fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 82–88.
20.
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139–161.
21.
Remington, J. (1989). Introducing multiplication. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(3), 12–14.
22.
Schuster, J.W., & Griffen, A.K. (1990). Using time delay with task analyses. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 49–53.
23.
Schuster, J.W., Stevens, K.B., & Doak, P.K. (1990). Using time delay to teach word definitions. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 306–318.
24.
Sokol, S.M., McCloskey, M., Cohen, N.J., & Aliminosa, D. (1991). Cognitive representations and processes in arithmetic: Inferences from the performance of braindamaged subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 355–376.
25.
Stevens, K.B., & Schuster, J.W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9–16.
26.
Stevens, K.B., & Schuster, J.W. (1988). Time delay: Systematic instruction for academic tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 9(5), 16–21.
27.
Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
28.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
29.
Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C.A., Gast, D.L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents. Exceptional Children, 57, 462–474.
30.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P.M., Schuster, J.W., Ault, M.J., & Gast, D.L. (in press). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities.
31.
Woodward, J. (1991). Procedural knowledge in mathematics: The role of the curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 242–251.
