Incremental rehearsal (IR) has consistently led to effective retention of newly learned material, including math facts. The number of new items taught during one intervention session, called the intervention set, could be used to individualize the intervention. The appropriate amount of information that a student can rehearse and later recall during one intervention session is called the acquisition rate (AR). The current study taught single-digit multiplication facts with factors of 6, 7, and 8 to 55 third- and fourth-grade students. Each student was randomly assigned to be taught two multiplication math facts, eight multiplication math facts, or a set size determined by each student’s AR. The average AR was 4.05 (SD = 0.71). Set size led to a significant and large effect on retention, percentage of multiplication math facts retained, and efficiency as computed by math facts retained per minute of intervention time. IR appeared to be an effective intervention when AR data were used to determine the intervention set size, and it was more efficient to do so.
BurnsM. K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148–157.
2.
BurnsM. K. (2004a). Age as a predictor of acquisition rates as measured by curriculum-based assessment: Evidence of consistency with cognitive research. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 31–38. doi:10.1177/073724770402900203
3.
BurnsM. K. (2004b). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175. doi:10.1177/07419325040250030401
4.
BurnsM. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education & Treatment of Children, 28, 237–249.
5.
BurnsM. K. (2007). Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250–263.
6.
BurnsM. K.DeanV. J. (2005). Effect of acquisition rates on off-task behavior with children identified as learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 273–281.
7.
BurnsM. K.MosackJ. (2005). Criterion-referenced validity of measuring acquisition rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 216–224.
8.
BurnsM. K.ParkerD. C. (2014). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design: Using data to design instruction and intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
BurnsM. K.Sterling-TurnerH. (2010). Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance of the skill. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 126–134.
10.
BurnsM. K.YsseldykeJ.NelsonP.KaniveR. (2014). Number of repetitions required to retain single-digit multiplication math facts for elementary students. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/spq0000097
11.
BurnsM. K.ZaslofskyA. F.KaniveR.ParkerD. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185–202. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9160-2
12.
CatesG. L.SkinnerC. H.WatsonT. S.MeadowsT. J.WeaverA.JacksonB. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601–616.
13.
CepedaN. J.PashlerH.VulE.WixtedJ. T.RohrerD. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
14.
CerasoJ. (1967). The interference theory of forgetting. Scientific American, 217, 117–124. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1067-117
15.
CoddingR. S.ArcherJ.ConnellJ. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93–105. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9
16.
CoddingR. S.BurnsM. K.LukitoG. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-factfluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 36–47.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 85–95.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.
20.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
21.
GerstenR.ChardD. (1999). Number sense rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28. doi:10.1177/002246699903300102
22.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040301
23.
GravoisT. A.GicklingE. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 885–898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
24.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ.HallR. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In HewardW.HeronT.HillD.Trap-PorterJ. (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
25.
HaegeleK.BurnsM. K. (2015). The effect of modifying instructional set size based on the acquisition rate among students identified with a learning disability. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 33–50.
26.
HanichL. B.JordanN. C.KaplanD.DickJ. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.615
27.
HargisC. H.Terhaar-YonkersM.WilliamsP. C.ReedM. T. (1988). Repetition requirements for word recognition. Journal of Reading, 31, 320–327.
28.
HowellD. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
29.
HulacD. M.DejongK.BensonN. (2012). Can students run their own interventions? A self-administered math fluency intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 526–538.
30.
KaniveR.NelsonP.BurnsM. K.YsseldykeJ. (2014). Comparison of computer-based practice and conceptual understanding interventions on math fact fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 83–89.
31.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FinellB. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
LoganG. D.TaylorS. E.EthertonJ. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 620–638. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.3.620
33.
Minnesota Department of Education. (2013). Summary of Optional Local Purpose Assessment (OLPA) mathematics in grades 3–8. St. Paul, MN: Author.
34.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: Author.
35.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
36.
PattonJ. R.CroninM. E.BassettD. S.KoppelA. E. (1997). A life skills approach to mathematics instruction preparing students with learning disabilities for the real-life math demands of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 178–187.
37.
SamuelsS. J. (1987). Information processing abilities and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 18–22. doi:10.1177/002221948702000104
38.
Singer-DudekJ.GreerR. D. (2005). A long-term analysis of the relationship between fluency and the training and maintenance of complex math skills. The Psychological Record, 55, 361–376.
39.
SkinnerC. H.BelfioreP. J.WatsonT. S. (1995). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Assessments in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 20, 207–220. doi:10.1177/073428290202000403
40.
SzadokierskiI.BurnsM. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.004
41.
TuckerJ. A. (1988). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, School of Education, University of Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN.
42.
WinickD. M.AvalloneA. P.SmithC. E.CrovoM.MartinW.OlsonJ.WilsonL. (2008). Mathematics framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board.
43.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269–289.
44.
ZhengX.FlynnL. J.SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem-solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 97–111.
