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

Studies that examined copy‐cover‐compare (CCC) and variations of this procedure were reviewed and analyzed. This review revealed a substantial number of studies that validated the use of CCC across spelling and math skills and across students with and without disabilities. A meta‐analysis of findings indicated that CCC and variations of this procedure were effective for helping students acquire and become fluent in academic skills. The strongest effects were evident when CCC and variations of this procedure were combined with other evidence‐based instructional components. Limitations, future directions for research, and recommendations for practice are offered. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A meta‐analytic review of the cover‐copy‐compare and variations of this self‐management procedure

Joseph

Konrad

Cates

et al. 2012

“…Presently, only Mong and Mong () have used BEA to select among math interventions inclusive of MTM. Here, MTM was compared with CCC (Grafman & Cates, ) and taped problems (McCallum, Skinner, & Hutchins, ); all math skill building interventions including common methodological components (e.g., problem previewing, repeated practice, and corrective feedback). Similar to other investigations, results indicated the predictive utility of BEA procedures, as for all participants the experimentally identified intervention was also the most effective during extended analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing Math‐to‐mastery Through Brief Experimental Analysis

Everett

Swift

McKenney

et al. 2016

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of individualized math‐to‐mastery (MTM) interventions, selected though brief experimental analysis (BEA), at increasing math fluency skills for three elementary‐aged females. As MTM has only been investigated as a multicomponent intervention, the present study utilized BEA to identify those specific components that led to math skills gains in the most efficient manner possible. BEA results indicated that for two of three participants only a partial MTM intervention was necessary to prompt fluency gains, while the entire intervention was the most effective for the third. During extended analysis all three participants displayed math skills gains above those seen during repeated baseline assessments. Results are discussed in terms of further refining MTM through BEA procedures so as to individually target math skill deficits by considering both intervention effectiveness and efficiency.

Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles

Skinner

2009

Almost all academic skills deÞcits can be conceptualized as learning rate problems as students are not failing to learn, but not learning rapidly enough. Thus, when selecting among various possible remedial procedures, educators need an evidence base that indicates which procedure results in the greatest increases in learning rates. Previous research is reviewed that shows how failure to measure learning rates can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of interventions. Different procedures for measuring learning rates are described and cautions regarding the interpretation of these learning rate data are provided. The article concludes with a plea for all researchers to include measures of learning rates in their applied studies. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.If learning researchers hope to improve practitioners' attempts to prevent and remedy learning problems, they must change their behavior. As it is, researchers who are attempting to validate and compare strategies and procedures designed to promote learning may be unintentionally disseminating misleading information promoting interventions that hinder student development because they are neglecting to measure learning rates (Cates et al., 2003;Joseph & Nist, 2006;Nist & Joseph, 2008;Skinner, 1998Skinner, , 2008Skinner, BelÞore, & Watson, 1995;Skinner, Fletcher, & Henington, 1996). AN APPLIED EXAMPLEBramlett, Cates, Savina, and Lauinger (2010) found that most of the researchers investigating learning procedures have not precisely measured the amount of time spent learning. To underscore how critical it is to measure time spent learning, consider the following example. A researcher, using the theoretical and applied evidence base, develops a procedure for remedying spelling problems, the Evidence-Based Spelling Intervention (EBSI). The EBSI is a multicomponent strategy that requires students to perform the following steps:1. First, the student must look at the word, close his eyes, and picture the word in his "minds eye" (visualization). 2. Next, the student must write the word 6 times using paper and pencil (repeated practice). 3. Next, the student must write the word 6 times by tracing the word in sand (using tactile and kinesthetic senses). 4. Next, the student must spell the word 6 times by selecting tiles (using selection responses). 5. Next, the student must Þnd the word listed in a word-Þnd puzzle 6 times, left to right, right to left, top to bottom, bottom to top, and both directions diagonally (often found in spelling workbooks). 6. Next, the student must use chalk to draw the word on the playground cement and then walk along the line, tracing the word with his feet (children like to be active).Assume that an evaluation of the EBSI is conducted. As Bramlett and colleagues (2010) found, this evaluation is unlikely to include an evaluation of learning rates. Rather, researchers implement several almost perfect "true" experiments and conclude that this multicomponent intervention