Abstract
The amount of information that students can successfully learn and recall at least 1 day later is called an acquisition rate (AR) and is unique to the individual student. The current study extended previous drill rehearsal research with word recognition by (a) using students identified with a learning disability in reading, (b) assessing set sizes based on AR to determine efficiency, and (c) examining generalization. One fourth- and two fifth-grade male students identified with a learning disability in reading were taught words in sets of two, eight, and their individual AR. Retention was higher in the AR condition, and the AR condition was more efficient than the other two. Implications for future research are included.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for classroom teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148–157.
Burns, M. K. (2004a). Age as a predictor of acquisition rates as measured by curriculum-based assessment: Evidence of consistency with cognitive research. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(2), 31–38.
Burns, M. K. (2004b). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.
Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250–263.
Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284–292.
Burns, M. K., & Dean, V. J. (2005). Effect of acquisition rates on off-task behavior with children identified as learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 273–281.
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Burns, M. K., & Mosack, J. (2005). Criterion-referenced validity of measuring acquisition rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 216–224.
Burns, M. K., & Sterling-Turner, H. (2010). Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance of the skill. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 126–134.
Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185–202.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., Meadows, T. J., Weaver, A., & Jackson, B. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601–616.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.
Ceraso, J. (1967). The interference theory of forgetting. Scientific American, 217, 117–124.
Daly, E., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B., Stuebing, K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
Fry, E. B., & Kress, J. E. (2006). The reading teacher’s book of lists (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (Rtl) and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disability, 11, 559–566.
Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 885–898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. (2008). Best practices in instructional assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 503–518). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Hargis, C. H., Terhaar-Yonkers, M., Williams, P. C., & Reed, M. T. (1988). Repetition requirements for word recognition. Journal of Reading, 31, 320–327.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237–245.
Kame'enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.
Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 781–792.
Minnesota Department of Education. (1998). SLD companion manual. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Nist, L., & Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–308.
Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York: Guilford.
Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.
Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (1995). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Assessments in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 20, 207–220.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Swanson, H. L. (2003). Age-related differences in learning disabled and skilled readers’ working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 1–31.
Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2007). The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 249–283.
Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609.
Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on student’s reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.
Tucker, J. A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, School of Education, University of Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN: Author.
Acknowledgments
The current study was funded by a Grant from the Learning Disabilities Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haegele, K., Burns, M.K. Effect of Modifying Intervention Set Size with Acquisition Rate Data Among Students Identified with a Learning Disability. J Behav Educ 24, 33–50 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9201-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9201-0