Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 358–374 | Cite as

Comparing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Response Repetition to Simultaneous Prompting on Acquisition and Maintenance of Multiplication Facts

  • Daniel D. Drevon
  • Jennifer L. Reynolds
Original Paper

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of an error-correction procedure, response repetition, to a prompting procedure, simultaneous prompting, on the acquisition and maintenance of multiplication facts for three typically developing 3rd grade students. This study employed an adapted alternating treatments design nested in a multiple probe design across three sets of multiplication facts. Results indicated that correct responding increased upon intervention implementation for all participants. For two participants, response repetition was a more effective teaching procedure. For one participant, while both teaching procedures were effective, response repetition was more efficient in terms of sessions to mastery while simultaneous prompting was more efficient in terms of errors and seconds to mastery. Maintenance data were variable. Discussion focuses on conceptual differences between response repetition and simultaneous prompting that might have accounted for results.

Keywords

Acquisition Error-correction Errorless learning Intervention Multiplication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Denise Cai, Nicole Dailey, and Brienne Riebe with intervention implementation and data collection.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animals Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from parents of all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Akmanoglu, N., & Batu, S. (2004). Teaching pointing to numerals to individuals with autism using simultaneous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 326–336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880212.
  2. Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., Bradley, D. M., & Miller, A. D. (1994). Effects of immediate and delayed error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 177–178.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Belfiore, P. J., Skinner, C. H., & Ferkis, M. A. (1995). Effects of response and trial repetition on sight-word training for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 347–348.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-347.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/periodicals/spr/volume-35/volume-35-issue-3/assessing-the-instructional-level-for-mathematics-a-comparison-of-methods.
  6. Carroll, R. A., Joachim, B. T., St. Peter, C. C., & Robinson, N. (2015). A comparison of error correction procedures on skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 257–273.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fentress, G. M., & Lerman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of two prompting procedures for teaching basic skills to children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1083–1090.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219–244.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022887624824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, A. N., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247–267.  https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149201200208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Harting, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, P., Schuster, J., & Bell, J. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437–458.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leaf, J. B., Leaf, J. A., Alcalay, A., Dale, S., Kassardjian, A., Tsuji, K., et al. (2014a). Comparison of most-to-least to error correction to teach tacting to two children diagnosed with autism. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 7, 124–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.884988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leaf, J. B., Leaf, R., Taubman, M., McEachin, J., & Delmolino, L. (2014b). Comparison of flexible prompt fading to error correction for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26, 203–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-013-9354-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leaf, J. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and no-no prompting in two-choice discrimination learning with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 215–228.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-215.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Libby, M. E., Weiss, J. S., Bancroft, S., & Ahearn, W. H. (2008). A comparison of most-to-least and least-to-most prompting on the acquisition of solitary play skills. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  17. MacFarland-Smith, J., Schuster, J. W., & Stevens, K. B. (1993). Using simultaneous prompting procedures to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/105381519301700106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marvin, K. L., Rapp, J. T., Stenske, M. T., Rojas, N. R., Swanson, G. J., & Bartlett, S. M. (2010). Response repetition as an error-correction procedure for sight-word reading: A replication and extension. Behavioral Interventions, 25, 109–127.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGhan, A. C., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). An assessment of error-correction procedures for learners with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 626–639.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Morse, T. E., & Schuster, J. W. (2004). Simultaneous prompting: A review of the literature. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 153–168. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880063.
  21. Parker, M. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2002). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of observational and instructive feedback stimuli when teaching a heterogeneous group of high school students. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 89–104. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23879585.
  22. Rao, S., & Mallow, L. (2009). Using simultaneous prompting procedure to promote recall of multiplication facts by middle school students with cognitive impairment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 80–90. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24233465.
  23. Rapp, J. T., Marvin, K. L., Nystedt, A., Swanson, G. J., Paananen, L., & Tabatt, J. (2012). Response repetition as an error-correction procedure for acquisition of math facts and math computation. Behavioral Interventions, 27, 16–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynolds, J. L., Drevon, D. D., Schafer, B., & Schwartz, K. (2016). Response repetition as an error-correction strategy for teaching subtraction facts. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 10, 349–358. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/periodicals/spf-volume-10-issue-4-(winter-2016)/response-repetition-as-an-error-correction-strategy-for-teaching-subtraction-facts.
  25. Rodgers, T. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). An analysis of error-correction procedures during discrimination training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 775–781.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-775.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Singleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 218–230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23889173.
  27. Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1177/108825760101600204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to response and rations of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task difficult and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 449–463.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-449.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Dozier, C. L., Johnson, A. D., Neidert, P. L., & Thomason, J. L. (2005). Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 511–527.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.115-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  2. 2.School of Intervention and WellnessUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations