A Comparison of Instructional Response Requirements on the Multiplication Performance of Behaviorally Disordered Students

Abstract

This study investigated the interaction between the topography and the rates or numbers of responses occasioned by an academic intervention. An adapted alternating treatments design was used to compare the effects of two cover, copy, and compare (CCC) interventions, one requiring written responses (WCCC) and the other requiring verbal responses (VCCC), on the written multiplication performance of two elementary school students. Equal amounts of time were allotted for the interventions. Although WCCC and assessment required written responses and VCCC required verbal responses, VCCC resulted in greater increases in written multiplication performance than WCCC for both subjects. VCCC also occasioned more than twice the number of opportunities to respond than WCCC. These results demonstrated how the CCC intervention could be improved by altering the topography of the required responses.

The differential effects of two self‐managed math instruction procedures: Cover, Copy, and Compare versus Copy, Cover, and Compare

“…Participants demonstrated an increase in DCPM from pretest to posttest, suggesting that a single administration of both procedures may be sufÞcient to begin to increase ßuency rates without affecting error rates. These results support earlier Þndings on CCC and MCCC research that investigated rates of accurate responding (Bolich, Kavon, McLaughlin, Williams, & Urlacher, 1995;Lee & Tingstrom, 1994;Ozaki, Williams, & McLaughlin, 1996;Skinner, Bamberg, Smith, & Powell, 1993;Skinner et al, 1989;Skinner, Ford, & Yunker, 1991;Skinner, Shapiro, et al, 1992;Stading et al, 1996).…”

“…Skinner and colleagues (1989) suggested that the use of the CCC procedures could be used in a whole class setting, and Ozaki and colleagues (1996) suggested that future research use a large class of students without disabilities to expand on the utility of the CCC procedure. Third, previous studies investigated the use of the CCC and MCCC procedures for multiplication (Bolich et al, 1995;Ozaki et al, 1996;Skinner et al, 1989Skinner et al, , 1991Skinner, Shapiro et al, 1992;Stading et al, 1996) and division facts (Lee & Tingstrom, 1994;Skinner et al, 1993). The current results suggest that the CCC and MCCC procedures can be used with younger students to build ßuency in their basic subtraction skills.…”

Developing math automaticity using a classwide fluency building procedure for middle school students: A preliminary study

“…Response topography (the form or shape of the response) includes not only written responses, but also vocal responses and subvocal responses. Using a Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) technique, Skinner, Ford, and Yunker (1991) and Skinner, Bamberg, Smith, and Powell (1993) found that responding vocally and subvocally resulted in more learning trials and greater increases in learning rates when compared to written responses (Skinner et al, 1991) and when using a within-subjects, across-problems, multiple baseline design (Skinner et al, 1993). In the next section, other interventions that speciÞcally address and improve low achievement in math ßuency (CCC and Detect, Practice, Repair [DPR]) will be addressed.…”

Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of oral and written retellings and passage review as strategies for comprehending text

“…Therefore, selecting and implementing methods that are most efficient for increasing student achievement become critical for educators (Skinner, 2008). Following the work of Skinner and colleagues (i.e., Skinner, Belfiore, Mace, Williams-Wilson, & Johns, 1997;Skinner, Belfiore, & Watson, 1995;Skinner, Ford, & Yunker, 1991), Cates and coworkers (2003) examined the instructional effectiveness and efficiency of a traditional flashcard drill method and two types of interspersal methods containing varying ratios of unknown and known words on primary grade children's spelling performance. Their findings revealed that, although the most effective method varied across participants, the traditional drill and practice method was the most efficient for helping all of the children learn to spell words.…”