Twenty-nine third grade students were trained in teacher led direct instruction to use a generalizable strategy to solve four structurally different types of addition and subtraction verbal math problems. One group (n = 13) received training on the different types of problems in an ordered sequence. The other group (n = 16) received daily training on a random assortment of the different types of problems. The interaction between the training conditions and preposttestings was statistically significant [F(1, 27) = 12.78, p < .01]. There was a significant difference between posttest scores of the two training conditions, due primarily to gains of the students in sequential training. Implications for instructional design are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R. B., St. Pierre, R. B., Proper, E. C., & Stebbins, L. B. (1978). Pardon us, but what was the question again?: A response to the critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 161–170.
2.
Ashlock, R. B., & Herman, W. L. (Eds.). (1970). Current research in elementary school mathematics.New York: Macmillan.
3.
Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1981). Direct instruction: A behavior theory model for comprehensive educational intervention with the disadvantaged. In S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.), Behavior modification: Contributions to education (pp. 145–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice, A. M., Shaw, R. A., Kahn, H., & Bates III, H. (1978). Mathematics and learning disabled youth: The upper grade levels. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 1(4), 37–52.
5.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice, A. M., Shaw, R., Kahn, H., & Bates III, H. (1979a). LD youth and mathematics: A review of characteristics. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2(1), 29–44.
6.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice, A. M., Shaw, R. A., Kahn, N., & Bates III, H. (1979b). Math word problems: Suggestions for LD students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2(2), 25–40.
7.
Cawley, J., & Goodman, J. (1968). Interrelationships among mental abilities, reading, language arts and arithmetic with the mentally handicapped. The Arithmetic Teacher, 15, 631–636.
8.
Cawley, J. F., & Goodman, J. D. (1969). Arithmetic problem solving: A demonstration with the mentally handicapped. Exceptional Children, 36(2), 83–88.
9.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings.Chicago: Rand McNally.
10.
Darch, C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1983). An evaluation and analysis of a direct instruction approach to teaching math problem solving. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
11.
Engelmann, S. E. (1977). Sequencing cognitive and academic tasks. In R. D. Kneedler & S. G. Tarver (Eds.). Changing perspectives in special education (pp. 46–51). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
12.
Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & White, W. A. T. (1984). The pursuit of clarity: Direct instruction and applied behavior analysis. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 38–57). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
13.
House, E. R., Glass, G. V., McLean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No simple answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 128–160.
14.
Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Payne, J. S., & Ball, D. W. (1973). Teaching/learning: Quantitative and functional analysis of educational performance. The Journal of Special Education, 7, 261–268.
15.
Kilpatrick, J. (1969). Problem solving in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 39, 523–534.
16.
Muth, K. D. (1984). Solving arithmetic word problems: Role of reading and computational skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 205–210.
17.
Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1981). Direct instruction mathematics.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
