A Precision Teaching Framework for Improving Mathematical Skills of Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a precision teaching (PT) framework on the mathematical ability of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We also examined if students of moderate mathematical ability could perform as well as their peers with fewer difficulties with their math skills. Sixteen students participated and were divided into three groups. One group engaged in PT, and the other two groups functioned as comparisons. The PT group practiced six skills introduced linearly. An A-B design was used for the five component skills, and a multiple baseline across participants design was used for the composite skill (addition). The intervention led to a significant improvement in all skills, including addition, and this was associated with a large effect size; student performance met or exceeded that of their peers. Overall, the findings suggest that PT is an efficient and effective approach for teaching students with IDDs.

Comparing the Minimum Celeration Line and the Beat Your Personal Best Goal-Setting Approaches During the Mathematical Practice of Students Diagnosed with Autism

“…Precision Teaching and its components have produced positive outcomes in various areas such as reading (Cavallini et al 2010;Hughes et al 2007;O'Brien et al 2018), writing (Datchuk et al 2015; and mathematics (Chiesa and Robertson 2000;McTiernan et al 2016;Vostanis et al 2020). One component, however, that has not been evaluated thoroughly is the goal-setting procedures utilized within a Precision Teaching framework.…”

Multimodal Technologies in Precision Education: Providing New Opportunities or Adding More Challenges?

“…In this longitudinal study, the ISI-Math tool was utilized to facilitate the instructional process via algorithm-based interventions and support students who struggle with diverse mathematical tasks. The evaluation outcomes revealed significantly better results in students' mathematical achievements and further illustrated the importance of technology in supporting daily instruction with high accuracy and precision [52]. Another field of application that PE has supported concerns the quality improvement of the teacher education programs and, more precisely, the equity across teachers' knowledge in mathematics.…”

The implementation of Precision Teaching for the improvement of academic skills: A systematic review of the literature over thirty years

“…Two studies reported frequency building as a component of the intervention alongside additional instruction beforehand (Datchuk, 2017; Datchuk & Kubina, 2017). One study reported frequency building as a component of intervention after untimed practice (Vostanis et al., 2020). Direct Instruction was implemented in two studies (Elliot et al., 2010; Kubina et al., 2009); however, it was unclear if frequency building was conducted in Elliot et al.‘s study in 2010.…”

“…Only sixteen studies reported the duration of sessions (57%) and one study did not report intervention intensity (4%). Only two studies indicated the maximum number of timings that were conducted during each intervention session (Lambe et al., 2015; Vostanis et al., 2020). Table 1 summarizes intervention intensities reported in each study.…”

“…Two of the 12 (17%) single case research designs met the WWC standards without reservations (Brady & Kubina, 2010; Datchuk & Kubina, 2017). Remaining studies did not meet standards because: (i) they did not include charts or graphs (8%; Brosnan et al., 2018); (ii) they did not collect sufficient IOA across different phases of the study or they stated the total percentage of IOA and did not provide specific information in relation to percent of IOA per phase (75%; Cavallini et al., 2010; Datchuk, 2017; Kostewicz et al., 2020; Kubina et al., 2008; Lambe et al., 2015; McDowell & Keenan, 2001; Seevers et al., 2003; Vostanis et al., 2020; Vacc, 1992); (iii) there were not at least three attempts to demonstrate intervention effect at three different time points or with three different phase repetitions, with a minimum of three data points in each phase (42%; Cavallini et al., 2010; Datchuk, 2017; Lambe et al., 2015; McDowell & Keenan, 2001; Seevers et al., 2003).…”