Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 27–37

Evaluating and Comparing Interventions Designed to Enhance Math Fact Accuracy and Fluency: Cover, Copy, and Compare Versus Taped Problems

  • Brian C. Poncy
  • Christopher H. Skinner
  • Kathryn E. Jaspers
Original Paper


An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate and compare the effects of two procedures designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency in an elementary student with low cognitive functioning. Results showed that although the cover, copy, compare (CCC) and the taped problems (TP) procedures both increased the student's math fact accuracy and fluency, TP was more effective as it took less time to implement. Discussion focuses on the need to develop strategies and procedures that allow students to acquire basic computation skills in a manner that will facilitate, as opposed to hinder, subsequent levels of skill and concept development.


Acquisition Automaticity Math facts Alternating treatments Taped problems 


  1. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpenter, P. A., & Moser, J. M. (1982). The development of addition and subtraction problem solving skills. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 9–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cuvo, A. J. (1979). Multiple-baseline design in instructional research: Pitfalls of measurement and procedural advantages. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 219–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, E. J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Delazer, M., Domahs, F., Bartha, L., Brenneis, C., Locky, A., Treib, T., & Benke, T. (2003). Learning complex arithmetic-an fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 76–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garnett, K. (1992). Developing fluency with basic number facts: Interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities research and practice, 7, 210–216.Google Scholar
  9. Hanson, C. L. (1978). Writing skills. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hanson (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 93–126). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  10. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. Hasslebring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Developing automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1, 30–33.Google Scholar
  12. Ivarie, J. J.,(1986). Effects of proficiency rates on later performance of recall and writing behavior. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 25–30.Google Scholar
  13. Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mace, F. C., McCurdy, B., & Quigley, E. A. (1990). The collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 129–147.Google Scholar
  17. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (in press). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, class-wide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  18. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K. Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seat-work by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23–32.Google Scholar
  19. Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23–32, 57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perie, M., Grigg, W., and Dion, G. (2005). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair (DPR): The effects of a class-wide intervention on elementary students' math fact fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47–68.Google Scholar
  22. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  25. Skinner, C. H. (1998). Preventing academic skills deficits. In T. S. Watson & F. Gresham (Eds.). Handbook of child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 61–83). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  26. 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, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skinner, C. H., Bamberg, H. W., Smith, E. S., & Powell, S. S. (1993). Cognitive cover, copy, and compare: Subvocal responding to increase rates of accurate division responding. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, H. E., Mace, H. W., Williams, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.Google Scholar
  29. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. B., & Watson, T. S. (1995/2002). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 345–6,5. (Reprinted from Assessment in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 2, 207–220, 1995).Google Scholar
  30. Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skinner, C. H., & Schock, H. H. (1995). Best practices in mathematics assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in school psychology (3rd ed) (pp. 731–740). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  33. Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of a taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.Google Scholar
  34. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-management interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.Google Scholar
  35. Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: An intervention for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 212–220.Google Scholar
  36. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian C. Poncy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher H. Skinner
    • 3
  • Kathryn E. Jaspers
    • 4
  1. 1.Prairie Lakes AEAWebster CityUSA
  2. 2.School PsychologistPrairie Lakes Area Education Agency 8Webster CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations