Differences among the performances of third-grade students when using a microcomputer, worksheets, and precision teaching timing procedures for independent practice to master basic multiplication facts following process learning, were examined. Based on the data analyses, practice using the daily one-minute timings of precision teaching was the most effective strategy considering a time-cost ratio, although students preferred using the microcomputer for independent practice. Of particular importance, however, was the lack of change in student performance over a six-week period, despite daily drill-and-practice sessions. The practice of reserving the last part of daily lessons for independent practice in mathematics is not supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Research Council, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
2.
National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983.
3.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s, Reston, Virginia, 1980.
4.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1989.
5.
ReysR. E.SuydamM. N., and LindquistM. M., Helping Children Learn Mathematics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.
6.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood: Thirty-seventh Yearbook, The National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1975.
7.
KoubaV. L.BrownC. A.CarpenterT. P.LindquistM. M.SilverE. A., and SwaffordJ. O., Results of the Fourth NAEP Assessment of Mathematics: Number, Operations, and Word Problems, Arithmetic Teacher, 35, pp. 14–19, 1988.
8.
ConfreyJ., A Review of the Research of Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming, in Review of Research in Education: 16, CazdenC. B. (ed.), American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 3–56, 1990.
9.
LindsleyO. R., Precision Teaching in Perspective: An Interview with Ogden R. Lindsley (A. Duncan, interviewer), Teaching Exceptional Children, 3, pp. 114–119, 1971.
10.
WhiteO. R., Precision Teaching—Precision Learning, Exceptional Children, 52, pp. 522–534, 1986.
11.
BassG.RiesR., and SharpeW., Teaching Basic Skills through Microcomputer Assisted Instruction, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, pp. 207–219, 1986.
12.
HasselbringT., A Chronometric Analysis of the Effects of Computer-Based Drill and Practice in Addition and Subtraction, Paper presented at the First Invitational Research Symposium on Special Education Technology, Washington, D.C., June 1985.
13.
HawleyD. E.FletcherJ., and PieleP. K., Costs, Effects, and Utility of Microcomputer Assisted Instruction, Center for Advanced Technology in Education, University of Oregon, 1986.
14.
HowellR.SidorenkoE., and JuricaJ., The Effects of Computer Use on the Acquisition of Multiplication Facts by a Student with Learning Disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, pp. 336–341, 1987.
15.
ReidE. R., Basic Literacy through Microcomputers (various materials), Reid Foundation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986.
16.
SarachoO. N., The Effects of a Computer-Assisted Instruction Program on Basic Skills Achievement and Attitudes toward Instruction of Spanish-Speaking Migrant Children, American Education Research Journal, 19, pp. 201–219, 1982.
17.
BurnsP. K. and BozemanW. C., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?, Educational Technology, 21, pp. 32–39, 1981.
18.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C., and Bangert-DrownsR. O., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Elementary Schools, Computers in Human Behavior, 1, pp. 59–74, 1985.
19.
NiemiecR. and WalbergH., Computers and Achievement in the Elementary Schools, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, pp. 435–439, 1985.
20.
VaccN. N., Microcomputer Word Processor versus Handwriting: A Comparative Study of Writing Samples Produced by Mildly Mentally Handicapped Students, Exceptional Children, 54, pp. 156–165, 1987.
21.
BeckerH. J., The Impact of Computer Use on Children's Learning: What Research Has Shown and What It Has Not, (Report No. 18), Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Baltimore, 1987.
22.
KrendlK. A. and LiebermanD. A., Computers and Learning: A Review of Recent Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, pp. 367–389, 1988.
23.
CalagironeP. J. and GloverC. E., Precision Learning Assessment: An Alternative to Traditional Assessment Techniques, British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 9, pp. 355–363.
24.
Great Falls Public Schools, Curriculum Management Through a Data Based-Validation Report for ESEA Title IV, Ray Beck, Director, Great Falls, Montana, 1981.
25.
Great Falls Public Schools, High School Basic Skills Improvement Project. Validation Report for Innovation Grant, ESEA Title IV-C, Ray Beck, Director, Great Falls, Montana, 1981.
26.
HaringN. G.LibertyK. A., and WhiteO. R., Field Initiated Research Studies of Phases of Learning and Facilitating Instructional Events for the Severely/Profoundly Handicapped, U.S. Office of Special Education, Project No. 443CH60397A, Grant No. G008500593, 1970–80.
27.
LovittT. C. and FantasiaK., An Analysis of a Two-Year Precision Teaching Project with Mildly Handicapped Children, British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 9, pp. 329–340, 1985.
28.
MirkinP. K., A Comparison of the Effects of Three Formative Evaluation Strategies and Contingent Consequences of Reading Performance, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, 1978.
29.
WestR. P.YoungK. R., and SpoonerF., Precision Teaching: An Introduction, Teaching Exceptional Children, 22, pp. 4–9, 1990.
30.
Rules Governing Programs and Services for Children with Special Needs, State Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1985.
31.
VaccN. N., Individualizing Mathematics Instruction: Variations on a Computer Program, Arithmetic Teacher, 34, pp. 43–47, 1986.
32.
GlassG. V. and HopkinsK. D., Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
33.
ResnickL. B., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
34.
RowanB. R. and GurthrieL. F., The Quality of Chapter I Instruction: Results from a Study of 24 Schools, The Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, 1988.
