Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Age Peer Tutoring and Fluency-Based Instruction to Achieve Fluency with Mathematics Computation Skills: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study employed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of peer tutoring and fluency-based instruction to increase mathematics fluency with addition and subtraction computation skills. Forty-one elementary school students between the ages of eight and 12 years participated in the 8-week study using cross-age peer tutoring, Say All Fast Minute Every Day Shuffled, frequency building, and the morningside math facts curriculum (Johnson in Morningside mathematics fluency: math facts (vol 1–6; curriculum program), Morningside Press, Seattle, 2008). Pre- and post-test measures of mathematics fluency and calculation were conducted with all participants. A measure of social skills and competing problem behaviors was also conducted at pre- and post-testing to evaluate any additional effects of the peer tutoring model. The results demonstrated a statistically significant difference between groups on measures of mathematics fluency, with the experimental group demonstrating significantly higher scores than the control group at post-testing. There were no significant differences between groups on measures of social skills and competing problem behaviors or calculation. The findings indicate that cross-age peer tutoring and fluency-based instruction resulted in positive outcomes for tutees in the mathematics domain, specifically mathematics fluency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Axtell, P. K., McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., & Poncy, B. (2009). Developing math automaticity using a classwide fluency building procedure for middle school students: A preliminary study. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverly, M., Hughes, J. C., & Hastings, R. P. (2009). What’s the probability of that? Using SAFMEDS to increase undergraduate success with statistical concepts. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950534.n3022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9106-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zhang, N., & Zaini, S. (2014). Direct and collateral effects of peer tutoring on social and behavioral outcomes: A meta-analysis of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 43, 260–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 1, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, K. K., & Kubina, R. M. (2010). Endurance of multiplication fact fluency for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavior Modification, 34, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445510361331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Everson, M. (2003). The effects of five minute practice, unlimited practice, with SAFMED cards on correct and error rate in math facts for two elementary school children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 18, 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance: An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022318321416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, S. S., Ewing, C. B., & Mozzoni, M. P. (2005). Precision teaching and fluency training across cognitive, physical, and academic tasks in children with traumatic brain injury: a multiple baseline study. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 279–312. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, E. J., 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(4), 562–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and Science. (2005). DEIS (Delivering equality of opportunities in schools) An action plan for educational inclusion. Retrieved from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/PolicyReports/deis_action_plan_on_educatieduc_inclusion.pdf.

  • Dufrene, B. A., Noell, G. H., Gilbertson, D. N., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Monitoring implementation of reciprocal peer tutoring: Identifying and intervening with students who do not maintain accurate implementation. School Psychology Review, 34, 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufrene, B. A., Reisener, C. D., Olmi, D. J., Zoder-Martell, K., McNutt, M. R., & Horn, D. R. (2010). Peer tutoring for reading fluency as a feasible and effective alternative in response to intervention systems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/a10864-101-9111-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/20528819.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fueyo, V., & Bushell, D. (1998). Using number line procedures and peer tutoring to improve the mathematics computation of low-performing first graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-417.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, E. (2006). Improving a mathematical key skill using precision teaching. Irish Educational Studies, 25, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310600913757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, S. A., & Lindsley, O. R. (2002). Standard celeration charting 2002. Poland, OH: Graf Implements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social skills improvement system rating scales manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 24–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, T. J., Duhon, G. J., Hansen, B., Rowland, J. E., Schutte, G., & Williams, J. (2014). The effect of goal-line presentation and goal selection on first-grader subtraction fluency. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82, 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.813369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., Hughes, C., Berry, L., & McGuire, S. (2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9093-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heron, T. E., Welsch, R. G., & Goddard, Y. L. (2003). Applications of tutoring systems in specialized subject areas: An analysis of skills, methodologies, and results. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240050401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houten, R. V., & Thompson, C. (1976). The effects of explicit timing on math performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9(2), 227–230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. H., Beverley, M., Parkinson, J., & Hughes, J. C. (2016). Increasing high school students’ maths skills with the use of SAFMEDS class-wide. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 17, 154–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahedi, S., & Mendez, F. (2013). On the advantages and disadvantages of subjective measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organisation, 98, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. (2008). Morningside mathematics fluency: Math facts (Vol. 1–6; curriculum program). Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2013). Response to intervention and precision teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00571.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kena, G, Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., & Dunlop Velez, E. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES, 2016-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf.

  • Kubina, R. M., & Wolfe, P. (2005). Potential applications of behavioral fluency for students with autism. Exceptionality, 13, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1301_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubina, R. M., Jr., Yurich, K. K., Durica, K. C., & Healy, N. M. (2016). Developing behavioral fluency with movement cycles using SAFMEDS. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(1), 120–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual. Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Tiernan, A., Holloway, J., Healy, O., & Hogan, M. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of the Morningside math facts curriculum on fluency, stability, endurance and application outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9227-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. D., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-min time trials with and without inter-trial feedback and self-correction on general and special education students’ fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. J., Morrison, T. G., Feinauer, E., Wilcox, B., & Black, S. (2015). Effects of fourth and second graders’ cross-age tutoring on students’ spelling. Reading Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1025164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. M., Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2013). Comparison of a math fact rehearsal and a mnemonic strategy approach for improving math fact fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nobel, M. N. (2005). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of science vocabulary words for seventh grade students with learning disabilities and/or low achievement (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.

  • OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, J. R., Cronin, M. E., Bassett, D. S., & Koppel, A. E. (1997). A life skills approach to mathematics instruction preparing students with learning disabilities for the real-life math demands of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9101-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle IV, S. F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9171-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera-Batiz, F. (1992). Quantitative literacy and the likelihood of employment among young adults in the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 27, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/145737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8137-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutte, G. M., Duhon, G. J., Solomon, B. G., Poncy, B. C., Moore, K., & Story, B. (2015). A comparative analysis of massed versus distributed practice basic math fact fluency growth rates. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiel, G., Kavanagh, L., & Millar, D. (2014). The national assessments of English reading and mathematics, volume 1: Performance report. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00101-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, E., & McCoy, S. (2009). Investing in education: Combating educational disadvantage (p. 6). Dublin: ESRI Research Series No.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprinthall, N. A., & Scott, J. R. (1989). Promoting psychological development, math achievement, and success attribution of female students through deliberate psychological education. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 36, 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.36.4.440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenhoff, D. M., & Lignusaris-Kraft, B. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surgenor, P., Shiel, G., Close, S., & Millar, D. (2006). Counting on success: Mathematics achievement in Irish primary schools. Dublin: Department of Education and Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. A., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-7409(01)00134-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M. J. (2001). Expanding aba intervention in intensive programs for children with autism: The inclusion of natural environment training and fluency based instruction. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2, 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M. J., Pearson, N., Foley, K., & Pahl, S. (2010). The importance of fluency outcomes in learners with autism. The Behavior Analyst Today, 11, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R., Mc Grew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson tests of achievement (3rd ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Irene Greene & Jennifer Holloway

  2. School of Psychology, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom

    Aoife Mc Tiernan

Authors
  1. Irene Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aoife Mc Tiernan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Holloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aoife Mc Tiernan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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 all individual participants included in the study.

Appendices

Appendix: Training Script

  1. 1.

    Introduction to Tutoring

  1. I.

    Introduction of the term “Tutoring”

    1. A.

      “Today I’m going to show you how you can be a teacher and learn how to teach your partner math facts.”

    2. B.

      “I’ve divided you into pairs: you will all be tutors, and your partners will be the students.”

      [Key points: you can teach your partner]

  1. II.

    Folder Presentation

    1. A.

      “Each tutor and partner will get a folder like this one. It will have your name on it. The inside will look like this. It will have a graph on this side. It will have a ‘GO’ pocket that will have cards with math facts on them. It will have a recording sheet, and it will have a reward chart.” [Key points: show folder]

    2. B.

      “So when it’s time to tutor we’ll do the following:

      1. 1.

        Take out your reward chart and place it next to where you sit.

      2. 2.

        Take out your recording sheet and place it on the table.

      3. 3.

        Take cards from the GO pocket.”

        [Key points: Review the 3 steps—take out the reward chart and the recording sheet, take cards from the GO pocket]

        “Let’s practice”:

        Model: Teacher models the three steps with a single student (Teacher pretends to be a partner). Others watch and receive reinforcement.

        Lead: Each pair practices the three steps once with the teacher under teacher supervision, and the teacher and the other students provide reinforcement for correct steps.

        Test: All pairs practice the three steps simultaneously. [Key points: Model, lead, test steps executed in that order]

Tutoring Procedure

  1. I.

    Explain Tutoring Procedure

    1. A.

      Say “Here’s what you’ll do. Turn your folder over to the side with the smiley face and the X.”

    2. B.

      “Set the timer at one minute. When your partner is ready to start, press start on the timer.”

    3. C.

      “Show as many cards from the GO pocket as you can in one minute.”

    4. D.

      “If your partner says the answer correctly, place the card on the happy face. If your partner happens to say the answer incorrectly or doesn’t know it and doesn’t say anything, put it on the X sign.”

    5. E.

      “Tutors, remember to be really quiet during the testing. Do not say anything, just show the cards to your partner, and put the cards down on the happy face if it’s correct or X if it’s not.”

      [Key point: Demonstrate that cards are placed on the ☺ and X, depending on whether the math fact was said correctly. Remember to say to the students that we do not provide feedback during testing.]

  1. II.

    Correction Procedure (“Try Again”)

    1. A.

      “When the timer goes off, pick up the cards from the ‘X’ pile.”

    2. B.

      “Say ‘Let’s try these ones again. Show your partner these cards one by one. If they answer correctly, say ‘Well done’ and move on.”

    3. C.

      “If they answer incorrectly or don’t know the answer, tell her. For example, when you say ‘Try Again’, and your student still does not know the math fact, tell them the answer by reading the card, and have them repeat what you read.”

    4. D.

      “Make sure your partner looks at the card when she says it.”

      [Key points: Try again plus say math fact correctly.]

      “Let’s practice”:

      Model: Teacher models the tutoring procedure with a single student (Teacher pretends to be a partner).

      Lead: Each pair practices the procedure once with the teacher, and the teacher and the other students provide reinforcement for correct steps.

      Test: All pairs practice the procedure simultaneously. [Key points: Model, Lead, Test procedure]

  2. III.

    Treatment Fidelity

    1. A.

      “When we’re practicing the steps, we have a checklist of each step to complete. Everyone needs to get 70% of the steps right on the checklist before we can start tutoring”

Recording

  1. I.

    How to record the number of cards answered

    1. A.

      Say “Now I’m going to show you how to use the recording sheet in your folder.”

    2. B.

      “Count up the number of cards on the smiley face. Write this number into the ‘correct’ column.”

    3. C.

      “Now count up the number of cards on the ‘X’. Write this number into the ‘incorrect’ column.”

    4. D.

      “Do this for each one minute timing.”

      [Key points: Write in the number of corrects and incorrects]

      “Let’s practice”:

      Model: Teacher models how to record with a single student (Teacher pretends to be a partner).

      Lead: Each pair practices the procedure once with the teacher, and the teacher and the other students provide reinforcement for correct steps.

      Test: All pairs practice procedure simultaneously. [Key points: Model, Lead, Test procedure]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Greene, I., Tiernan, A.M. & Holloway, J. Cross-Age Peer Tutoring and Fluency-Based Instruction to Achieve Fluency with Mathematics Computation Skills: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Behav Educ 27, 145–171 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9291-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9291-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation