This study evaluated the effectiveness of the constant time delay procedure, while comparing the efficiency of using teacher-selected and student-selected material prompts, in teaching multiplication facts to 4 male students with learning disabilities ranging in age from 9 years 6 months to 13 years 10 months. The two prompting strategies were compared in the context of a multiple-probe design across groups of multiplication facts, in which the sequence of strategies was counterbalanced across students. Results indicated that although the constant time delay procedure used with material prompts was effective, instruction was more efficient when students were allowed to select the material prompt.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Billingsley, F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
2.
Howell, R., Sidorenko, E., & Jurica, J. (1987). The effects of computer use on the acquisition of multiplication facts by a student with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 336–341.
3.
Langone, J. (1990). Teaching students with mild and moderate learning problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89–98.
5.
Mattingly, J. C., & Bott, D. A. (1990). Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning problems. Exceptional Children, 56, 438–449.
6.
McIntyre, S. B., Test, D. W., Cooke, N. L., & Beathi, J. (1991). Using count-bys to increase multiplication facts fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 82–87.
7.
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1989). Teaching students with learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
8.
Miller, U. C., & Test, D. W. (1989). A comparison of constant time delay and most-to-least prompting in teaching laundry skills to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 363–370.
9.
Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Payne, J. S., & Payne, R. A. (1989). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
10.
Rivera, D. M., & Smith, D. D. (1987). Influence of modeling on acquisition and generalization of computational skills: A summary of research findings from three sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 69–79.
11.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
12.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
13.
Wallace, G., & McLoughlin, J. A. (1988). Learning disabilities: Concepts and characteristics. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
14.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. White Plains, NY: Longman.
