Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 35–54 | Cite as

Feedback Facilitates the Acquisition and Retention of Numerical Fact Series by Elementary School Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities

  • Gary M. Brosvic
  • Roberta E. Dihoff
  • Michael L. Epstein
  • Michael L. Cook
Article

Abstract

The effects of feedback to assist elementary school students classified as either normally achieving (NA) or with a mathematics learning disability (MLD) in acquiring the fact series of 0 to 9 for the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division were examined in Study 1. The acquisition of each fact series was facilitated by immediate, but not by delayed feedback, the latter of which was no more effective than control procedures. The students with math disabilities were tested with either delayed feedback or a Scantron form in Study 1, then participated in Study 2, in which they were provided with feedback from either an educator or the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF AT). The beneficial effects of immediate feedback reported in Study 1 were replicated and extended during maintenance which continued for as many as 25 sessions. The effects of auditory feedback provided by an educator and visual feedback provided by the IF AT were compared with the effects of combined auditory and visual feedback provided by the Write-Say method in Study 3. The integrated presentation of auditory and visual feedback was no more effective than the use of either modality, separately. The comparable effectiveness of feedback by an educator and by the IF AT, and the nonsynergistic effects of combining auditory with visual feedback, suggests that a response medium such as the IF AT has considerable adjunctive potential to assist in the instruction of elementary school students with special learning needs

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BADIAN, D. B., HATTON, D. D., & SKINNER, M. (1983). In H. R. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress in learning disabilities (pp. 235–264). New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  2. BAECHLE, C. L., & LIAN, M. G. (1990). The effects of direct feedback and practice on metaphor performance in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 451–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. BENNETT, K., & CAVANAUGH, R. A. (1998). Effects of immediate selfcorrection, delayed self-correction, and no correction on the acquisition and maintenance of multiplication facts by a fourth-grade student with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 303–306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. BROWN, A. I. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from text by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 4, 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. CALDWELL, N. K., WOLERY, M., WERTS, M. G., & CALDWELL, Y. (1996). Embedding feedback into teacher-student interactions during independent seat work. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CAWLEY, J. F., PARMAR, R. S., YAN, W. F., & MILLER, J. H. (1996). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 230–237.Google Scholar
  7. CAWLEY, J. F., PARMAR, R. S., YAN, W. F., & MILLEFI, J. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learnin9 disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68–74.Google Scholar
  8. DIHOFF, R. E., BROSVIC, G. M., & EPSTEIN, M. L. (2003). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. The Psychological Record, 53, 533–548.Google Scholar
  9. DIHOFF, R. E., BROSVIC, G. M., EPSTEIN, M. L., & COOK, MICHAEL J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207–231.Google Scholar
  10. EPSTEIN, M. L., BROSVIC, G. M., DIHOFF, R. E., LAZARUS, A. D., & COSTNER, K. L. (2003). Effectiveness of feedback during the testing of preschool children, elementary school children, and adolescents with developmental delays. The Psychological Record, 53, 177–195.Google Scholar
  11. GEARY, D. C., & BROWN, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in gifted, normal, and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GEARY, D. C., BROWN, S. C., & SAMARANAYAKE, V. (1991). Cognitive addition: A short longitudinal study of strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in normal and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 787–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GOLDMAN, S. R., MERTZ, D. L., & PELLEGRINO, J. W. (1989). Individual differences in extended practice functions and solution strategies for basic addition facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GREIFFENSTEIN, M. F., & BAKER, W. J. (2002). Neuropsychological and psychosocial correlates of adult arithmetic deficiency. Neuropsychology, 16, 451–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. HEUBUSCH, J. D., & LLOYD, J. W. (1998). Corrective feedback in oral reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. JORDAN, N. C., & HANICH, L. D. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of Ld. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. JORDAN, N. C., KAPLAN, D., & HANICH, L. B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. KEARNEY, C. A., & DRABMAN, R. S. (1993). The write-say method for improving spelling accuracy in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 52–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. LOMBARDO, T. W., & DRABMAN, R. S. (1985). Teaching Ld children multiplication tables. Academic Therapy, 4, 438–442.Google Scholar
  20. MAZZOCCO, M. M. (2001). Math learning disability and math Ld subtypes: Evidence from studies of Turner Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis Type 1. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 520–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. MORRIS, R. C., SHAYWITZ, S. E., SHANKWEILER, D. P., KATZ, L., STUEBIN, K. K., FLETCHER, J. M., LYON, G. R., FRANCIS, D. J., & SHAYWITZ, B. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. OSTAD, S. A. (1999). Developmental progression of subtraction strategies: A comparison of mathematically disabled and mathematically normal children. Mathematical Cognition, 4, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. PANY, D., & MCCOY, K. M. (1988). Effects of corrective feedback on word accuracy and reading comprehension of readers with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 546–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. PERKINS, V. L. (1988). Feedback effects on oral reading errors of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 244–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. PRESSEY, S. L. (1950). Development and appraisal of devices providing immediate automatic sorting of objective tests and concomitant selfinstruction. The Journal of Psychology, 29, 417–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ROBINSON, S. L., DEPASCALE, C., & ROBERTS, F. C. (1989). Computerdelivered feedback in group-based instruction: Effects for learning disabled students in mathematics. Learning Disability Focus, 5, 28–35.Google Scholar
  28. SEIDMAN, L. J., BIEDERMAN, J., MONUTEAUX, M. C., DOYLE, A. E., & FARAONE, S. V. (2001). Learning disabilities and executive dysfunction in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 15, 544–556.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. SIEGLER, R. S. (1986). Unities across domains in children’s strategy choices. In M. Pedmutter (Ed.), Perspectives for intellectual development: Minnesota Symposia on child psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. SKINNER, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar
  31. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (2002). Health, United States, 1998. Hyattsville, MD. Publication: Phs 98-1232. Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary M. Brosvic
    • 1
  • Roberta E. Dihoff
    • 2
  • Michael L. Epstein
    • 1
  • Michael L. Cook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA
  2. 2.Rowan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations