An Evaluation of a Direct Instructions Flashcard System on the Acquisition and Generalization of Numerals, Shapes, and Colors for Preschool-Aged Students with Developmental Delays

  • Jessica Mangundayao
  • T. F. McLaughlin
  • Randy Lee Williams
  • Ellie Toone


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DI Flashcard system for teaching preliminary mathematic skills to three preschool students. The participants attended a self-contained special education preschool. All three participants’ eligibility category was “developmentally delayed”. A concurrent multiple baseline design across three sets (colors, shapes, and numerals) was use to evaluate the effectiveness of the DI flashcard system. The results indicated that all three participants showed an increase in their performance when DI flashcards were in effect. However, the amount of improvement varied for each participant. The importance of employing evidence-based procedures to teach skills to preschool students with developmental delays was outlined.


DI flashcards Preschool Color Shape and numeral identification Generalization Developmental delays 



The author would like to thank the participants for their cooperation during the study, as well as the cooperating teachers and instructional aids for their assistance.


  1. Becker, A., McLaughlin, T.F., Weber, K.P., & Gower, J. (2009). The effects of copy, cover, and compare with and without error drill on multiplication fact fluency and accuracy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 18, 747760. Retrieved from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.rg/revista/new/english/anteriores.php.
  2. Brasch, T. L., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2008). The effects of a direct instruction flashcard system on multiplication fact mastery by two high school students with ADHD and ODD. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 30(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cipani, E. (1988). Transitioning exception children and youth in the community: Research and practice. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dunst, C. J., Snyder, S. W., & Mankinen, M. (1989). Efficacy of early intervention. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & G. H. Walber (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice−Low incidence conditions (pp. 259–294). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Erbey, R., McLaughlin, T.F., Derby, K.M., & Everson, M. (2011). The effects of using flashcards with reading racetrack to teach letter sounds, sight words, and math facts to elementary students with disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3, 213–226. Retrieved from
  6. Farran, D. (2000). Another decade of intervention for children who are low-income and disabled: what do we know now? In J. Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Glover, P., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Gower, J. (2010). Using a direct instruction flashcard system employing a back three contingency for errors with two students with learning disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, 457–482.Google Scholar
  8. Guralnick, M.J. (1998). Effectiveness of early intervention for vulnerable children: a developmental perspective. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 102, 319–345. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017.Google Scholar
  9. Hayter, S., Scott, E., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2007). The use of a modified direct instruction flashcard system with two high school students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Physical and Developmental Disabilities, 19, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herberg, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Gilbert, V. (2011). The effects of direct instruction flashcards on shape recognition and recall for two preschool students with disabilities. Academic Research International, 1, 59–64.Google Scholar
  11. Hopewell, K, McLaughlin, T.F., & Derby, K.M. (2011). The effects of reading racetracks with direct instruction flashcards and a token system on sight word acquisition for two primary students with severe conduct disorders. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 693–710. Retrieved from
  12. Howard, V. F., Williams, B. F., & Lepper, C. (2011). Very young children with special needs: A foundation for educators, families, and service providers (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. H.R. 1350--108th Congress: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2003). In (database of federal legislation). Retrieved December 23, 2012, from
  14. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. (1994). The morning side model of generative instructions. In R. Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. W. Eshelman, & T. A. Grassi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instructions (pp. 173–197). Pacific Grove: Brookes/Cole.Google Scholar
  15. Katz-Sulgrove, M., Peck, S. M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2002). The effects of code and meaning emphasis in beginning reading for students with mild disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 17, 65–83.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, L., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Waco, T. (2011). Employing reading racetracks and DI flashcards with and without copy, cover, and compare and rewards to teach of sight words to three students with learning disabilities in reading. Educational Research Quarterly, 34.Google Scholar
  17. Kazdin, A. E. (2010). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Livingstone, D. W. (1998). The education-jobs gap: Underemployment or economic democracy. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  19. Lordeman, A., & Jones, N. L. (2010). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) interactions with selected provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (Congressional Research Service, No. 7–5700, RL32913). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  20. Marchand-Martella, N. E., Slocum, T. A., & Martella, R. C. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction to direct instruction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. McCloskey, M., & Macaruso, P. (1995). Representing and using numerical information. American Psychologist, 50, 351–363.Google Scholar
  22. Ruwe, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Johnson, K. (2011). The multiple effects of direct instruction flashcards on sight word acquisition, passage reading, and errors for three middle school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sante, D. A., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2001). The use and evaluation of a direct instruction flash card strategy on multiplication facts mastery with two students with -ADHD. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 17, 68–75.Google Scholar
  24. Shouse, H., Weber, K. P., McLaughlin, T. F., & Riley, S. (2012). The effects of model, lead, and test and a reward to teach a preschool student with a disability to identify colors. Academic Research International, 2(1), 477–483.Google Scholar
  25. Silbert, J., Carnine, D. W., & Stein, M. (1981). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  26. Stein, A., Kinder, D., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. W. (2006). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddles River: Merrill/Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Travis, J. McLaughlin, T.F., Derby, K.M., Dolliver, P., & Carosella, M. (2012). He differential effects racetrack procedures for saying letter sounds with two first-grade students with disabilities. Academic Research International, 2, 372–382. Retrieved from
  28. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2005). Twenty-fifth annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act (Vol. 1). Washington, D. C: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Wakeman, S.Y., Browder, D.M., Meier, I., & McColl, A. (2007). The implications of no child left behind for students with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 143–150. doi: 10.102/mrdd.20147.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Mangundayao
    • 1
    • 3
  • T. F. McLaughlin
    • 1
  • Randy Lee Williams
    • 1
  • Ellie Toone
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationGonzaga UniversitySpokaneUSA
  2. 2.Spokane Public SchoolsSpokaneUSA
  3. 3.Clover Park School District in the State of WashingtonLakewoodUSA

Personalised recommendations