Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 319–345 | Cite as

Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials with and without inter-trial feedback and self-correction on general and special education students' fluency with math facts

  • April D. Miller
  • Susan W. Hall
  • William L. Heward
Regular Papers


We measured the effects of two procedures for implementing 1-min time trials on the rate and accuracy with which elementary students wrote answers to single-digit math facts in two concurrent experiments in a first grade classroom and a special education classroom. On-task behavior of three students in each class was also measured. Baseline was a 10-min work period in which students were told to “answer as many problems as you can.” The two time trial conditions, each of which was also conducted within a 10-min period, consisted of: (1) a series of seven 1-min time trials with a 20-s rest period following each timing; and (2) two 1-min timings, each followed by a teacher-directed feedback and self-correction activity. Students in both classrooms answered correctly more problems per minute during both time trial conditions than they did during the 10-min work period, with the highest levels of fluency occurring during the two time trials with self-correction. The emphasis on “going fast” did not impair students' accuracy of performance. In both classrooms the percentage of attempted problems answered correctly was high during the initial baseline and increased slightly over the course of the study. On-task behavior was higher during both time trial conditions than during the 10-min work period. When asked at the study's conclusion which of the three methods for practicing math facts (1) “helped you learn the most” and (2) would you “like to do again,” the majority of the students in both classrooms chose the time trials followed by feedback and self-correction.

Key words

fluency math time trials elementary students special education students 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allyon, T., Garber, S., & Pisor, K. (1976). Reducing time limits: A means to increase behaviors of retardates.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 247–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 handicaps.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbetta, P. M., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of geography facts by elementary students with learning disabilities.Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 217–233.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, B. H., Beck, R., Binder, C., Cook, D. A., Engelmann, S., Greer, R. D., Kyrklund, S. J., Johnson, K. R., Maloney, M., McCorkel, N., Vargas, J. S., & Watkins, C. L. (1991). The right to effective education.The Behavior Analyst, 14, 79–82.Google Scholar
  5. Binder, C. V., Haughton, E., & Van Eyk, D. (1990). Increasing endurance by building fluency: Precision teaching attention span.Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24–27.Google Scholar
  6. Cooke, N. L., Heward, W. L., Test, D. W., Spooner, F., & Courson, F. H. (1991). Student performance data in the special education classroom: Measurement and evaluation of student progress.Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 155–161.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, J. O. (February, 1992). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  8. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. W. (1982).Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W.L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.),Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  10. Heward, W. L., Courson, F. H., & Narayan, J. S. (1989). Using choral responding to increase active student response during group instruction.Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(3), 72–75.Google Scholar
  11. Howell, K. W., & Lorson-Howell, K. A. (1990). What's the hurry?: Fluency in the classroom.Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 20–23.Google Scholar
  12. Hundert, J., & Batstone, D. (1978). A practical procedure to maintain pupils' accurate self-rating in a classroom token program.Behavior Modification, 2, 93–112.Google Scholar
  13. Hundert, J., & Bucher, B. (1978). Pupils' self-scored arithmetic performance: A practical procedure for maintaining accuracy.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 304.Google Scholar
  14. Ivarie, J. J. (1986). Effects of proficiency rates on later performance of a recall and writing behavior.Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 25–30.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative teaching. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.),Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173–197). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  16. Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980).Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovitt, T. C. (1978). Arithmetic. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.),The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 127–166). Columbus, OH; Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. D., & Heward, W. L. (1992). Do your students really know their math facts?: Using daily time trials to build fluency.Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 98–104.Google Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Ohio State Board of Education. (1989).Rules for the Education of Handicapped Children. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Parker, W. A., & Kurtz, V. R. (1990). Kansas K-4 teachers and the NCTM.School Science and Mathematics, 90, 621–628.Google Scholar
  23. Skinner, B. F. (1957).Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  24. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
  25. Van Houten, R. (1980).Learning through feedback: A systematic approach for improving academic performance. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  26. Van Houten, R. (1984). Setting up performance feedback systems in the classroom. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.),Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 114–125). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  27. Van Houten, R., Hill, S., & Parsons, M. (1975). An analysis of performance feedback systems: The effects of timing and feedback, public posting, and praise upon academic performance and peer interaction.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 449–457.Google Scholar
  28. Van Houten, R., & Thompson, C. (1976). The effects of explicit timing on math performance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9(2), 227–230.Google Scholar
  29. Van Houten, R., & Van Houten, J. (1977). The performance feedback system in the special education classroom: An analysis of the effects of public posting and peer comments.Behavior Therapy, 8, 366–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • April D. Miller
    • 3
  • Susan W. Hall
    • 1
  • William L. Heward
    • 2
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  2. 2.Department of Educational Services and ResearchThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  3. 3.Department of Special EducationThe University of Southern MississippiHattiesburg

Personalised recommendations