Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2002 Summer;35(2):105–123. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-105

The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving.

Kristin H Mayfield 1, Philip N Chase 1
PMCID: PMC1284369  PMID: 12102132

Abstract

This study compared three different methods of teaching five basic algebra rules to college students. All methods used the same procedures to teach the rules and included four 50-question review sessions interspersed among the training of the individual rules. The differences among methods involved the kinds of practice provided during the four review sessions. Participants who received cumulative practice answered 50 questions covering a mix of the rules learned prior to each review session. Participants who received a simple review answered 50 questions on one previously trained rule. Participants who received extra practice answered 50 extra questions on the rule they had just learned. Tests administered after each review included new questions for applying each rule (application items) and problems that required novel combinations of the rules (problem-solving items). On the final test, the cumulative group outscored the other groups on application and problem-solving items. In addition, the cumulative group solved the problem-solving items significantly faster than the other groups. These results suggest that cumulative practice of component skills is an effective method of training problem solving.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (193.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Carnine D. Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 1997 Mar-Apr;30(2):130–141. doi: 10.1177/002221949703000201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark H. B., Sherman J. A. Teaching generative use of sentence answers to three forms of questions. J Appl Behav Anal. 1975 Fall;8(3):321–330. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1975.8-321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Epstein R. The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol. 1987 Jun;101(2):197–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fink W. T., Brice-Gray K. J. The effects of two teaching strategies on the acquisition and recall of an academic task by moderately and severely retarded preschool children. Ment Retard. 1979 Feb;17(1):8–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gleason M., Carnine D., Vala N. Cumulative versus rapid introduction of new information. Except Child. 1991 Feb;57(4):353–358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldstein H., Mousetis L. Generalized language learning by children with severe mental retardation: effects of peers' expressive modeling. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Fall;22(3):245–259. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldstein H. Training generative repertoires within agent-action-object miniature linguistic systems with children. J Speech Hear Res. 1983 Mar;26(1):76–89. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2601.76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Johnson K. R., Layng T. V. Breaking the structuralist barrier. Literacy and numeracy with fluency. Am Psychol. 1992 Nov;47(11):1475–1490. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.47.11.1475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Melchiori L. E. Reading, equivalence, and recombination of units: a replication with students with different learning histories. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Spring;33(1):97–100. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mueller M. M., Olmi D. J., Saunders K. J. Recombinative generalization of within-syllable units in prereading children. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter;33(4):515–531. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Striefel S., Bryan K. S., Aikins D. A. Transfer of stimulus control from motor to verbal stimuli. J Appl Behav Anal. 1974 Spring;7(1):123–135. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Striefel S., Wetherby B. Instruction-following behavior of a retarded child and its controlling stimuli. J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Winter;6(4):663–670. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Striefel S., Wetherby B., Karlan G. R. Establishing generalized verb-noun instruction-following skills in retarded children. J Exp Child Psychol. 1976 Oct;22(2):247–260. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(76)90005-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilson R., Majsterek D., Simmons D. The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 1996 Jul;29(4):382–390. doi: 10.1177/002221949602900406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wood D. K., Frank A. R., Wacker D. P. Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Fall;31(3):323–338. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES