Comparing the Effects of Unknown-Known Ratios on Word Reading Learning Versus Learning Rates

Original Paper

Abstract

An extension of G. L. Cates et al. (2003) investigation was conducted to determine if students’ cumulative learning rates would be superior for words read under a traditional drill and practice condition (as they were for spelling in the previous study) than under interspersal conditions of varying ratios of unknown to known words. Participants consisted of three intermediate grade students who were delayed readers. They received a less challenging ratio of unknown to known word (High-P sequencing) interspersal procedure, a more challenging ratio of unknown to known word interspersal training procedure, and a traditional drill and practice procedure in an alternating fashion across several tutoring sessions. Cumulative words read with mastery and cumulative rates of words read with mastery were measured across sessions for each participant under each instructional condition. Findings were consistent with the Cates et al., study revealing that children learn more words per minute of instructional time under the traditional drill and practice condition. These results further support examining instructional efficiency as well as effectiveness when making decisions about selecting and implementing interventions.

Keywords

Whole word reading techniques Interspersal techniques Word reading learning Word reading rate Instructional effectiveness Instructional efficiency 

References

  1. Belfiore, P. J., Lee, D., Vargas, A. U., & Skinner, C. H. (1997). Effects of high-preference single digit mathematics problem completion on multiple-digit mathematics problem performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 327–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Cooke, N. L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J. S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 212–234.Google Scholar
  4. Cooke, N. L., & Reichard, S. M. (1996). The effects of different interspersal drill ratios on acquisition and generalization of multiplication and division facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 124–142.Google Scholar
  5. Macquarrie, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flash card methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584–595.Google Scholar
  6. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seatwork by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23–32.Google Scholar
  7. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sightseeing words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1980). The effects of interspersal training versus high-density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roberts, M. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students’ reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roberts, M. L., Turco, T. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1991). Differential effects of fixed instructional ratios on students’ progress in reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research evidence, implications, and applications of discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (2002). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., Wildmon, M., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving assignment preference through interspersing additional problems: Brief versus easy problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Skinner, C. H., Hall-Johnson, K., & Skinner, A. L. (1999). Enhancing perceptions of mathematics assignments by increasing relative problem completion rates through the interspersal technique. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations