Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 49–68 | Cite as

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Morningside Math Facts Curriculum on Fluency, Stability, Endurance and Application Outcomes

  • Aoife McTiernan
  • Jennifer Holloway
  • Olive Healy
  • Michael Hogan
Original Paper


A randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate the impact of a frequency-building curriculum to increase the fluency of component mathematics skills in a sample of 28 males aged 9–11 years. Assessments of mathematical ability were conducted before and after the training period to evaluate the impact of learning component skills fluently on endurance, stability and application of mathematical skills. Statistically significant differences between the experimental training group and treatment-as-usual control group were found on measures of fluency, endurance, stability and one subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement test of mathematical ability. Results indicate the efficacy of the frequency-building curriculum in promoting fluency with component skills. Results are discussed in light of research and theory in the area of instructional design and behavioral fluency enhancement.


Mathematics Frequency-building Fluency outcomes Randomized controlled trial 


  1. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students’ perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6), 477–490. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Van Eyk, D. (1990). Precision teaching attention span. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bliss, S. L., Skinner, C. H., McCallum, E., Saecker, L. B., Rowland-Bryant, E., & Brown, K. S. (2010). A comparison of taped problems with and without a brief post-treatment assessment on multiplication fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(2), 156–168. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9106-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady, K. K., & Kubina, R. M. (2010). Endurance of multiplication fact fluency for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavior Modification, 34(2), 79–93. doi: 10.1177/0145445510361331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucklin, B. R., Dickinson, A. M., & Brethower, D. M. (2000). A comparison of the effects of fluency training and accuracy training on application and retention. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13, 140–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2000.tb00180.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, M., & Alexeev, N. (2011). Fluency, accuracy, and gender predict developmental trajectories of arithmetic strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 617. doi: 10.1037/a0023864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, M., Steiner, H. H., Kyser, B., & Biddlecomb, B. (2008). A comparison of predictors of early emerging gender differences in mathematics competency. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavallini, F., & Perini, S. (2009). Comparison of teaching syllables or words on reading rate. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 225–263.Google Scholar
  10. Chafouleas, S. M., Sanetti, L. M., Kilgus, S. P., & Maggin, D. M. (2012). Evaluating sensitivity to behavioral change using direct behavior rating single-item scales. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 491–505.Google Scholar
  11. Chiesa, M., & Robertson, A. (2000). Precision teaching and fluency training: Making maths easier for pupils and teachers. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(3), 297–310. doi: 10.1080/713666088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 93–105. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Codding, R. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Panahon, C. J., & Benson, J. L. (2009). Addressing mathematics computation problems: A review of simple and moderate intensity interventions. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., & McClelland, J. C. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 2, 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Education and Science (2000). Learning-support Guidelines. Retrieved from
  16. Fabrizio, M. A., & Moors, A. L. (2003). Evaluating mastery: Measuring instructional outcomes for children with autism. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4(1/2), 23–36.Google Scholar
  17. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206. doi: 10.1037/a0025398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gross, T. J., Duhon, G. J., Hansen, B., Rowland, J. E., Schutte, G., & Williams, J. (2013). The effect of goal-line presentation and goal selection on first-grader subtraction fluency. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2013.813369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  20. Hartnedy, S. L., Mozzoni, M. P., & Fahoum, Y. (2005). The effect of fluency training on math and reading skills in neuropsychiatric diagnosis children: A multiple baseline design. Behavioral Interventions, 20(1), 27–36. doi: 10.1002/bin.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haughton, E. C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1(3), 3–20.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, K. (2008). Morningside mathematics fluency: Math facts (Vols. 1–6; curriculum program). Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, K., & Layng, T. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1475. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, K., & Layng, T. J. (1994). The morningside model of generative instruction. In R. Gardner, D. Sainato, J. Cooper, T. Heron, W. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173–197). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2013). Response to intervention and precision teaching. NewYork: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kubina, R. M., Young, A., & Kilwein, M. (2004). Examining an effect of fluency: Application of letter sound writing and oral word segmentation to spelling words. Learning Disabilities, 13, 17–23.Google Scholar
  27. Kubina, R. M., & Yurich, K. K. L. (2012). The precision teaching book. Lemont, PA: Greatness Achieved Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Lin, F. Y., & Kubina, R. M, Jr. (2005). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between fluency and application for multiplication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(2), 73–87. doi: 10.1007/s10864-005-2703-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipsey, M. W., & Hurley, S. M. (2009). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The sage handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 44–76). Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Logan, P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students’ perceptions of a mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event? School Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 322. doi: 10.1037/h0088988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martens, B. K., & Witt, J. C. (2004). Competence, persistence, and success: The positive psychology of behavioral skill instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 19–30. doi: 10.1002/pits.10135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDowell, C., & Keenan, M. (2001). Developing fluency and endurance in a child diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(3), 345–348. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-345.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). Programme for International Student Assessment 2009: What students know and can doStudent performance in reading, mathematics and science. Google Scholar
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). Programme for International Student Assessment 2012: Results in Focus: What 15 year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Google Scholar
  35. Poncy, B. C., Duhon, G. J., Lee, S. B., & Key, A. (2010). Evaluation of techniques to promote generalization with basic math fact skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 76–92. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9101-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle, S. F, I. V., & Skinner, C. H. (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair (DPR) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class wide setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(3), 211–228. doi: 10.1007/s10864-013-9171-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic Skills Problems work-book (rev.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications, and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40(4), 347–368. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00101-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 389–403. doi: 10.1002/pits.20065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wechsler, D. (2005). The Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). London: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aoife McTiernan
    • 1
  • Jennifer Holloway
    • 1
  • Olive Healy
    • 2
  • Michael Hogan
    • 1
  1. 1.National University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Trinity College, DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations