Empirical Analysis of Drill Ratio Research

Abstract

Providing students an appropriate level of challenge, called the instructional level, is an important component of effective instruction. Research regarding the optimal ratio of known to unknown items for drill tasks has been inconsistent. The author of the current article conducted an empirical meta-analysis of research on drill ratios by using the following groupings: < 50% known, 50% to 69% known, 70% to 85% known, and 90% known. Fifty-five effect size coefficients were computed, after eliminating outlying data, from 13 articles, with the 3 least challenging ratios resulting in strong mean effects. The most challenging (< 50% known) ratio resulted in a small to moderate effect. A mean effect size of .82 computed for various student outcomes compared to .43 for student preferences. Much stronger effects were also noted for tasks involving acquisition of new skills compared to proficiency tasks. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Effect of Modifying Intervention Set Size With Acquisition Rate Data While Practicing Single-Digit Multiplication Facts

“…IR rehearses each unknown fact with eight or nine known items while incrementally increasing the number of known items presented in between every presentation of the unknown fact being taught (Tucker, 1988). Previous meta-analytic research found that math fact rehearsal tasks should contain approximately 80% to 90% known items and 10% to 20% new items to represent an instructional match (Burns, 2004b), and IR incorporates 80% to 90% known items within the learning task.…”

Learning rates and known-to-unknown flash-card ratios: Comparing effectiveness while holding instructional time constant

“…Teacher-led and computer-based flash-card procedures can enhance sight-word reading in students with disabilities (Browder & Lalli, 1991;Kodak, Fisher, Clements, & Bouxsein, 2011). Meta-analytic researchers have concluded that adding and interspersing known words among unknown words (often about 70% or 80% known) enhances the effectiveness of teacher-led flash-card instruction (Burns, 2004;Burns, Zaslofsky, Kanive, & Parker, 2012). Including known words requires additional instructional time.…”

Exploring the Virtual-Representational-Abstract Instructional Sequence Across the Learning Stages for Struggling Students

“…Some scholars situate learning in four stages: acquisition (i.e., performing a new behavior), fluency (i.e., performing a behavior with appropriate speed and accuracy), maintenance (i.e., performing a behavior without prior instruction over time), and generalization (i.e., performing the behavior in different contexts; Alberto & Troutman, 2009;Collins, 2012;Shurr et al, 2019). Others suggest five stages of learning: acquisition (i.e., initial stage of new learning), proficiency (i.e., becoming more fast [fluent] and accurate), (c) maintenance (i.e., engaging in behavior mastered previously), (d) generalization (i.e., demonstrating behavior in different context), and (e) application (i.e., applying learning behavior in new situations or new ways; Bos & Vaughn 2002;Bryant et al, 2003;Burns, 2004). Regardless of one's orientation, it is clear that learning is complex and educators need to plan for learning beyond initial stages (e.g., acquisition) of demonstrating an understanding or performing the skill once.…”