The count-by technique was taught to a 4th-grade student with learning disabilities. The procedure involved learning to translate a multiplication problem into a count-by problem (e.g., 3×4 translates into count by 3 four times — 3, 6, 9, 12). The student learned to count by numbers not typically taught in the curriculum (e.g., 4s, 7s, and 8s) as a way of quickly determining answers for difficult-to-master multiplication tables. Both oral and written count-bys were practiced prior to daily probes of multiplication facts. A multiple-probe design across multiplication tables indicated substantial increases in correct rate per minute. Rates maintained and generalized to other situations when count-by practice was withdrawn.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeattieJ. (1987). Teaching of mathematics to mildly handicapped students. PRISE Reporter, 18.
2.
BolducE. J. (1980). The monsters in multiplication. Arithmetic Teacher, 28, 24–26.
3.
CarnineD. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 375–378.
4.
ChiangB. (1986). Initial learning and transfer effects of microcomputer drills on LD students' multiplication skills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 118–123.
5.
CordoniB. (1987). I'd like it if I could learn it. Academic Therapy, 22, 281–286.
6.
CullinanD.LloydJ.EpsteinM. (1981). Strategy training: A structured approach to arithmetic instruction. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2 (1), 41–49.
7.
FleisnerJ. E.GarnettK.ShepherdM. J. (1982). Proficiency in arithmetic basic facts computation of learning disabled and nondisabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4 (2), 47–56.
8.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. T.BransfordJ. D. (1988). Developing automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20 (6), 1–7.
9.
HowellR.SidorenkoE.JuricaJ. (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.
10.
HowellK. W.MoreheadM. K. (1987). Curriculum-based evaluation for special and remedial education. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
11.
LaneC. H.ChinnS. J. (1986). Learning by self-voice echo. Academic Therapy, 21, 477–480.
12.
LessonE. I.CumbladC. L. (1984). Alternatives for teaching multiplication facts. Arithmetic Teacher, 32, 46–48.
13.
LloydJ.SaltzmanN. J.KauffmanJ. M. (1981). Predictable generalization in academic learning as a result of preskills and strategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 203–216.
14.
LombardoT. W.DrabmanR. S. (1985). Teaching LD children multiplication tables. Academic Therapy, 20, 437–442.
15.
LovittT. (1984). Tactics for teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
16.
MattinglyJ. C.BottD. A. (1990). Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning problems. Exceptional Children, 56, 438–449.
17.
McLeodT.ArmstrongS. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics—skill deficits and remedial approaches at the intermediate and secondary grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305–311.
18.
MercerC. D.MercerA. R. (1989). Teaching students with learning problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
19.
SilbertJ.CarnineD.SteinM. (1981). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
20.
SmithD. D. (1989). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
SuydamM. N.WeaverJ. F. (1975). Research on mathematics learning. In National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Mathematics learning in early childhood. Reston, VA: NCTM.
22.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
