View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Comparison of Individual and Group Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification to Preschoolers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Comparison of Individual and Group Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification to Preschoolers
Language: English
Authors: Tyler-Curtis C. Elliott (ORCID 0000-0001-6826-4449), Alexandra N. Mercado Baez (ORCID 0000-0002-5761-0956), Scott P. Ardoin (ORCID 0000-0003-2176-4221)
Source: Journal of Behavioral Education. 2024 33(4):965-983.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Alphabets, Small Group Instruction, Repetition, Instructional Effectiveness, Individual Instruction, Time Factors (Learning)
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-023-09518-4
ISSN: 1053-0819
1573-3513
Abstract: One flashcard teaching method used to teach discrete academic skills is strategic incremental rehearsal (SIR). Although the evidence for SIR is strong, no studies have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of SIR when used in a small-group format. The current study used a combinatorial design using a multiple baseline with an embedded adapted alternating treatments design to comparatively evaluate the effects of SIR used in a small group (Group SIR) and individual context (Individual SIR). Researchers focused on teaching letter identification skills to three preschool children. The results indicated that although Group SIR was an effective procedure for all three participants, the Individual SIR procedure resulted in slightly more efficient learning. However, when taking into account the additional teacher time needed to conduct 1-1 instruction, the results suggest that when multiple students must be taught a skill, Group SIR may be more time efficient. The results of post-test probes demonstrated that the skills learned in SIR generalized to other behaviors (receptive identification), other people (teachers), and other stimuli (letters presented on a worksheet). Future researchers should systematically replicate these results with different populations and skills.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450721
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGoAt5I9KMGd58s4r1TTACFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI2Vg41Czl1xsa0i8AIBEICBm8l8oNEk9CocrIvv11ZRlN_eks-0n6_v6CAAsMjCdNqlH_o4xDf-fBUhbiDCMFMmS7ZjRgIAD4hj0px10vk-EIhVEg3leEIwwrzRdnDL_blskO3fhdz4Jr-LUwbH7VSpFjJGZZ1iAPRYcQolqA-GJBsbzhgq6LQCWYyDVoWIgumx8ZW2KNh5gFeMJkjR1mbyibaAT-3BSUA7vDHZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181118763;41z01dec.24;2024Nov28.04:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181118763-1">A Comparison of Individual and Group Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification to Preschoolers </title> <p>One flashcard teaching method used to teach discrete academic skills is strategic incremental rehearsal (SIR). Although the evidence for SIR is strong, no studies have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of SIR when used in a small-group format. The current study used a combinatorial design using a multiple baseline with an embedded adapted alternating treatments design to comparatively evaluate the effects of SIR used in a small group (Group SIR) and individual context (Individual SIR). Researchers focused on teaching letter identification skills to three preschool children. The results indicated that although Group SIR was an effective procedure for all three participants, the Individual SIR procedure resulted in slightly more efficient learning. However, when taking into account the additional teacher time needed to conduct 1–1 instruction, the results suggest that when multiple students must be taught a skill, Group SIR may be more time efficient. The results of post-test probes demonstrated that the skills learned in SIR generalized to other behaviors (receptive identification), other people (teachers), and other stimuli (letters presented on a worksheet). Future researchers should systematically replicate these results with different populations and skills.</p> <p>Keywords: Strategic incremental rehearsal; Intermixing method; Flashcard intervention; Group instruction; Letter identification</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09518-4.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Although reading is a critical and functional skill that all students are taught in school, not all students become proficient readers. Poor reading skills in young students are linked to undesirable outcomes such as increased dropout rates and crime (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]). Targeting early reading skills is one way to prevent the development of long-term reading problems (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; Vellutino et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]). Letter identification is one discrete pre-reading skill (Hathaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]) that is a predictor of future reading achievement (National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]). In fact, letter identification (naming) significantly influences later skill development such as letter-sound acquisition (Lozy & Donaldson, 2018; Share, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>One commonly used tool to teach discrete academic skills is flashcard-based interventions. Flashcard-based interventions generally focus on teaching through the three-term contingency, which includes the presentation of the flashcard (antecedent), the student's response to the presentation of the flashcard (response), and the teacher informing the student if the response is correct/incorrect (consequence; Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). Although much of the research on flashcard interventions has focused on the ratio of known to unknown targets (Burns, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]; Cooke et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]; MacQuiarrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]), research suggests that the variable that most impacts learning rates is maximizing opportunities to respond (OTR; Burns, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Cates et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]; Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). An OTR is an interaction between a teacher's academic cue (i.e., presenting the flash card) and a student's response (i.e., emitting the answer; Cooper et al., 2017). Teachers can adapt the allocation of OTR ratios to different stimuli by differing how flashcards are presented, added, and removed during flashcard instruction (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). For example, if a target becomes known, the instructor may choose to (a) remove that target, focusing the following OTRs on unknown targets or (b) keep that target and continue to allocate OTRs toward it (resulting in fluency of the known target). These various changes to OTR ratios during instruction have resulted in multiple flashcard methods including the traditional approach (MacQuarrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]), fold-in technique (Shapiro, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]), and incremental rehearsal (IR; Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of the various flashcard methods, IR has garnered substantial attention over the last decade due to evidence that it results in better and faster acquisition rates than other flashcard methods (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]; MacQuarrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]). IR involves the intermixing of unknown and known stimuli by cycling through a ratio of nine known stimuli with one unknown stimulus. That is, each target is presented exactly nine times, even if the student is already responding accurately to the target (resulting in repeated practice). Phipps et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]) suggested that IR is more effective than other strategies due to its use of distributed practice, better attendance to stimuli by the learner, provision of a richer schedule of reinforcement, and behavioral momentum. Despite the effectiveness of IR, some have expressed concerns that it may lack efficiency due to the time allocated to practicing known targets (Klingbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Others have expressed concerns regarding the arbitrary labeling of targets as known after being presented a predetermined number of times (Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]; Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). To address these limitations, Kupzyk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]) designed a new iteration of IR known as strategic incremental rehearsal (SIR). SIR includes the aforementioned benefits of the intermixing method used in IR (Phipps et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]) but enhances it by (a) providing more OTR to unknown items, (b) using learner performance as an indicator for when to change instructional targets, and (c) systematic prompting and prompt fading (Klingbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]; Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]). Specifically, the teacher begins an SIR session by presenting a randomly selected unknown target stimulus and uses modeling and a time delay to teach the target to accuracy. Once the learner responds to that stimulus correctly, the teacher adds a second stimulus to the instructional stack and continues teaching using modeling and time delay until the learner responds to both target stimuli correctly. This process continues until the learner is consistently responding correctly to each individual target at the predetermined mastery criteria, to which it is removed from active instruction.</p> <p>Using single-case design methodology, Kupzk et al., ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]) compared students' learning of sight words using both SIR and IR procedures. SIR resulted in rapid increases in responding, higher response rates, and better maintenance than IR for all four elementary students. The authors suggested their results were because SIR promoted OTRs, while the IR procedure restricted them. The more rapid introduction of targets with SIR allowed the interventionists to introduce more words (provide more OTR) during SIR instruction than during IR instruction. Later, in a comparison of efficiency of SIR and IR, January et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]) demonstrated that SIR resulted in more words presented, faster learning, and more OTR than IR for 3 first- and second-grade students learning sight words. More recently, Klingbeil et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]) compared SIR and IR's effects on teaching eight English language learner's sight words. Student performance on short-term retention probes (administered the day after intervention) and generalization probes (sight words embedded into text reading) suggested idiosyncratic differences between learners, with SIR resulting in better effects for some learners and IR resulting in better effects for others. However, performance on long-term retention probes (1–4 weeks) indicated that all eight students maintained the target words better from the SIR condition.</p> <p>Using single-case design methodology, researchers have also compared SIR to other flashcard methods and teaching procedures (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]; Richman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]). For example, Richman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) compared SIR to typical classroom reading instruction consisting of non-contingent praise, textual prompts, and predetermined introduction of words for an adult female with an intellectual disability. The results indicated that SIR was more efficacious at teaching sight word acquisition than the standard teaching procedures. The SIR procedure's enhanced effectiveness (and efficiency) was attributed to its production of increased OTR and corrective feedback. Lastly, Lozy and Donaldson ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]) compared an adapted version of traditional approach and SIR to teach five preschool children letter-sound correspondences. SIR resulted in faster acquisition (more efficient), but the traditional approach resulted in better maintenance effects as measured across 1–9-week follow-up probes. The authors acknowledged that follow-up probe results were inconsistent with previous research and suggested that the better maintenance effects could be due to their modification of the traditional approach. Specifically, they did not remove traditional approach targets following mastery and thus provided students with more OTR for the targets than generally provided with this method.</p> <p>Overall, the literature base demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of SIR is extensive. Researchers have used the SIR procedure to teach irregular/high-frequency sight words (Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]; Phipps et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]; Richman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]) letter-sound correspondence (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]), and letter identification (Hathaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]). In addition, researchers have used SIR to teach skills to a variety of populations, including Spanish speaking English language learners (Klingbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]), students with learning disabilities (Phipps et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]), adults with intellectual disabilities (Richman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]), preschool children (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]), kindergarten students (Hathaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]), and first-grade students (Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>]). Given the body of research supporting the use of SIR for teaching discrete skills, we believed it would be beneficial to evaluate SIR in a group context.</p> <p>Some textbooks list IR (and SIR by default) as a supplemental tier-2 MTSS strategy (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]), which are generally conducted in small-group (not one-to-one) settings. Furthermore, researchers have previously identified the implementation of SIR in a one-to-one teaching format as a limitation given that schools often have limited resources to provide interventions and thus suggested it be adapted to a group format (January et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]; Klingbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]). Previous research has identified many benefits of small-group instruction, such as students learning skills that were taught to their peers (observational learning; Plavnick & Hume, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]), providing students with opportunities to practice social skills (Ledford & Wolery, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]), and being more feasible and efficient than 1–1 instruction (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]). Reviews of small-group instruction identified that teaching children discrete skills in small groups has a strong evidence basis (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref53">17</reflink>]). Furthermore, research provides evidence of the effective use of other flashcard interventions taught in small-group settings (Mechling et al., 2009; Noltemeyer et al., 2019). Thus, applying SIR to a group context could result in a more effective and efficient means of teaching discrete skills.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-3">Purpose</hd> <p>This study first examined the effectiveness of SIR conducted in a group format as other researchers have suggested that this was a needed step in the SIR literature (January et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]; Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]). In addition, researchers compared the efficiency of the intervention to SIR conducted in an individual format by evaluating the number of sessions required for specific stimuli and stimulus sets to reach performance criterion. Lastly, we measured generalization and short-term maintenance of SIR conducted in a group format.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118763-5">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Three students at a southeastern charter preschool participated in the study. The preschool teacher identified these participants as needing remedial academic support through her review of universal screening and formative classroom data. According to those data, the participants were the lowest performing students across many academic tasks (e.g., letter identification, sound identification, number identification). Josh was a 5-year-old biracial child diagnosed with a sensory processing disorder who received occupational therapy once weekly for assistance with life skills. Isla was a 4-year-old Caucasian female with no identified developmental or learning disabilities. Although Isla's grandparents spoke Spanish, Isla was only fluent in English. Lastly, Milo was a 5-year-old Caucasian male with no identified developmental or learning disabilities. All students had vision and hearing testing within the normal range. The parents/guardians of the students signed an informed consent form approved by the Institutional Review Board of the researchers' university.</p> <p>Researchers conducted all sessions at a 4 by 2 ft table or on the carpet by the table located in the back of the room. We conducted sessions every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, excluding school holidays. Beginning with Session 26, we began conducting sessions 5 days a week to increase the probability that the students learned all 26 letters before the end of the school year. Group SIR sessions occurred once a day and Individual SIR sessions occurred once a day for each student who was in intervention for Individual SIR. We separated the Group and Individual SIR sessions by one hour. Sessions were conducted by the first two authors, who were in graduate school for special education and behavior analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-6">Materials</hd> <p>During intervention sessions, researchers used 1.5 by 2 in laminated flashcards to present letter stimuli to students. The letters on the flash cards were printed in black ink in Comic Sans font. These same flashcards were used during probe sessions. Letters were randomly assigned to either the Group or Individual SIR conditions by shuffling the cards and dealing them into two sets of 13. These specific letters assigned to the two sets are given in <emph>Supplementary Information 1</emph>. Since students received group instruction together, all students received Group SIR instruction on the same 13 letters and Individual SIR instruction on the same 13 letters. For the purpose of assessing generalization, researchers used <ulink href="http://www.interventioncentral.com">www.interventioncentral.com</ulink> to generate letter identification worksheets containing all 26 letters presented in random order. Other materials used across sessions included pens, data sheets, and phone timers.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-7">Data Collection</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118763-8">Response Definitions and Measurement</hd> <p>For each letter presented during probes, researchers coded whether the student provided a correct response or error. A <emph>correct response</emph> was scored when a student orally stated the letter name on the card within 3 s. Consistent with prior research (Hathaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref56">8</reflink>]), self-corrections were scored as correct responses when the student corrected the incorrect response prior to the immediate presentation of the next stimulus. <emph>Errors</emph> were scored when a student stated any letter or word not on the card within 3 s, said "I don't know," or did not provide a response within 3 s. Researchers calculated a percentage of correct letters for both the group and individual letter sets. The value was calculated by dividing the number of correct responses by 13, the number of letters in each set, and multiplied by 100.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-9">Reliability Data</hd> <p>Procedural fidelity was assessed by having a secondary observer (first or second author) use a procedural checklist that included 11 intervention steps for Individual SIR condition and 12 intervention steps for Group SIR condition. The interventionist collected self-checks on the procedural steps to self-monitor their own performance throughout the study, while the secondary observer collected procedural fidelity data. We calculated the percentage of steps followed for both the self-monitor reports and the procedural fidelity data. During sessions when both the interventionist and secondary observer collected procedural fidelity, we calculated the percentage of agreement for the steps followed. The researchers collected self-report fidelity data based on Leford et al. (2020) single-case analysis and review framework (Ledford et al., 2020). Table 1 presents the results from Individual SIR and Group SIR such as self-check, procedural fidelity, and overlap.</p> <p>Table 1 Procedural self-checks procedural fidelity results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Probe sessions</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Teaching sessions</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Self-check</p></th><th align="left"><p>Procedural fidelity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Overlap</p></th><th align="left"><p>Self-check</p></th><th align="left"><p>Procedural fidelity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Overlap</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Josh</p></td><td align="left"><p>72%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>40%; 98%</p></td><td align="left"><p>40%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>72%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>35%; 96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>71%; 99%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Isla</p></td><td align="left"><p>73%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>50%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>78%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>72%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>37%; 96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>64%; 99%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Milo</p></td><td align="left"><p>79%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>39%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>79%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>38%; 100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>80%; 100%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Group</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>71%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>41%; 99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>47%; 98%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The first number expresses the percentage of sessions in which the interventionist conducted self-check, procedural fidelity, or both (overlap). The second number expresses the percentage of steps reported followed (self-check and procedural fidelity) or the agreement between the interventionist and the secondary observer (overlap)</p> <p>A secondary observer collected interobserver agreement data. The researchers used the point-by-point method to evaluate the agreement between data collectors (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]) by taking the number of trials with exact agreement and dividing by the sum of agreement and disagreements, and multiplying by 100. For Josh, researchers collected interobserver agreement data for 66.67% of baseline, 40.00% of teaching, 33.33% of maintenance sessions with 100%, 100%, and 96.04% agreement. For Isla, the researchers collected interobserver agreement data for 33.33% of baseline, 35.29% of teaching sessions, and 42.86% of maintenance sessions with 100%, 98.06%, and 100% agreement. For Milo, the researchers collected interobserver agreement data for 33.33% and 32.56% percent of baseline and teaching sessions with 100% and 99.40% (range: 96–100%) agreement.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-10">Procedures</hd> <p>We used a combinatorial design (Ledford & Gast, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>]) containing a multiple baseline (Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]) with an embedded adapted alternating treatments design (Wolery et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]). Researchers selected this combination of designs primarily for the feasibility of school implementation. The design allowed for us to evaluate the effects of Group SIR compared to no-teaching/control (Isla and Milo) and Group SIR compared to Individual SIR (Josh, Isla, and Milo). In addition, the no-teaching/control condition allowed researchers to identify any threats of maturation or testing. We chose to utilize a temporary control condition rather than control set for the duration of the study because we wanted the students to eventually receive instruction on all letters. It was necessary to implement the Group SIR at the same time for all students as by definition all participants had to be involved. We staggered delivery of the Individual SIR condition due to the classroom schedule providing us with limited time to work with students. By staggering implementation of the Individual SIR condition, at most we conducted three sessions per day. (All students received the Group SIR session and we conducted one or two Individual SIR sessions; not all three children were in Individual SIR intervention at the same time due to limited time to work with the researchers.) We made conclusions about the data based on changes in level, trend, or variability with at least three different opportunities to demonstrate an effect (Horner & Odom, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>All sessions were 10 min in duration. If a session ended early for an unforeseen reason, we yoked the other session to be the same length to keep the durations between Group and Individual SIR the same. Across the study, we counterbalanced the order of presentation of the Group and Individual conditions by randomly selecting which condition to implement first each day. The researchers provided students with a candy after each session regardless of performance. Once the researchers finished conducting the relevant sessions, they conducted daily probes to evaluate letter acquisition.</p> <p>Researchers labeled the letters into groups to keep track of which targets were untargeted, introduced, and met performance criteria. The researchers labeled letters not introduced as <emph>unknown letters.</emph> Once we began teaching unknown letters, they were labeled as <emph>target</emph> letters. Once target letters met performance criteria (two consecutive correct responses during the probe), they were labeled <emph>known</emph> letters. If the student incorrectly emitted the response for a <emph>known</emph> letter, the researchers added it back to the <emph>target</emph> letters until the student met performance criteria again.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-11">No Teaching</hd> <p>Researchers did not provide instruction on letters within the "no-teaching" phase. The letters were, however, assessed during probes as previously described.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-12">Group SIR</hd> <p>The researchers brought all students to the instructional area for teaching sessions utilizing SIR in the group context. After starting a visual timer for 10 min, students were provided with the instructions: "We are practicing letters; I want you to answer every question right. We will all say the name at the same time. If you don't know it, don't guess. Wait until your friends say it, and that will help you." For the first session, the researchers randomly selected two cards from the Group SIR set of 13 letters and modeled the correct response for both letters. Once the students emitted the correct response following the model, the researcher shuffled the two cards and presented them in random order for teaching.</p> <p>A choral responding strategy was used to ensure all students had a chance to respond to every presented letter. Specifically, the researcher presented the letter, ensured attendance to the stimulus, and then presented the task direction "what letter?". The researchers then gave a 3-s "thinking" period before presenting the cue (snap) to respond. If all students said the correct answer, but not simultaneously, the researcher gave the task direction and the waiting period again until students responded chorally. In addition to the choral responding strategy, we used a 2-s time-delay period to teach the letters. If all three students answered correctly at the same time, the researcher provided high-quality praise (e.g., high-fives, verbal praise). If any students did not respond within 2 s, the researcher provided a model prompt and then presented the task direction for the students to respond together. If any student emitted an incorrect response, the researcher asked each student to individually repeat the correct answer, then presented the letter again as a new trial. This error correction procedure was repeated until all students said the answer correctly, following the cue.</p> <p>Once all three students responded correctly to the target letters before the prompt, we added a new letter as a target. When introducing that letter, we modeled the letter and then shuffled it with the other targets and continued the teaching (time delay, error correction, differential reinforcement). We removed it from the instructional set during the probes if the student met the performance criterion for a letter (correct responses across two consecutive probes; became known). The implementor repeated this teaching strategy until all students correctly emitted all target letters. Once the students responded correctly together, the researcher randomly selected a new letter from the unknown letters to the target letters. When the 10-min session ended, the researcher noted which letters were instructional targets from the group letter set to continue teaching those during the next Group SIR session.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-13">Individual SIR</hd> <p>Researchers attempted to yoke all individual procedures to be as close as possible to the Group SIR. For example, they brought each student to the instructional area, started the visual timer for 10 min, stated the instructions, selected two cards from the group set of unknown letters, modeled the correct response for both letters, and had the student repeat it before shuffling the cards for teaching. During Individual SIR, researchers also used the same 2-s time-delay strategy and error correction strategy used in the Group SIR condition.</p> <p>We added and removed cards from the instructional set precisely as done in the Group SIR condition. Specifically, we added unknown letters to the target letters stack when the learner emitted the correct responses for all instructional targets within a session. Then, we removed it from the instructional set during the probes if the student met the performance criterion for a letter (correct responses across two consecutive probes; known). During the last individual teaching session, the students met performance criteria for all targets except one, so researchers interspersed numbers with the last target letter to maintain the individual protocol of interspersing targets. This study is not the first to examine using targets from another stimulus class to maintain the fidelity of an interspersal protocol (Finn et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-14">Probe</hd> <p>At the end of each day of teaching, the researchers administered probes to measure students' accuracy with each letter and to determine if letters should be treated the following day as known or unknown letters. Prior to each probe session the researcher directed students to the worktable. The researcher then presented all 26 letters individually on flashcards in randomized order. For each letter, the participant was allowed 3 s to respond. Neither differential reinforcement nor feedback was provided to students during probe sessions. At the end of each probe session, the researcher gave a general praise statement such as "good job, thank you," regardless of the student's performance.</p> <p>Researchers added new letters to the target list based on within-session responses. They used the probe data to determine the removal of targets into the known list. Specifically, if students correctly identified a letter across two consecutive probe sessions, researchers considered that letter known and subsequently removed it from the instruction. For letters instructed as part of Group SIR, once all three students met the performance criteria for a letter (two consecutive correct responses), we stopped teaching that known letter. Because some students met performance criteria for targets faster than others and researchers did not want one student to hold up the entire group, we added a contingency specific to Group SIR: If a student did not reach the performance criterion for a letter after four sessions of the other two students reaching the criterion, we removed that letter from the instructional targets.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-15">Generalization Probes</hd> <p>Intermittently, researchers assessed for the generalization of learned letters across materials, people, and responses. To test for <emph>stimulus generalization across materials</emph>, researchers presented probes exactly as described in the probe section, with the difference of letters being presented on a sheet of paper rather than on flash cards. During the <emph>person stimulus generalization,</emph> probes were presented precisely as described under the probe condition, except that the classroom paraprofessional presented the probe. During <emph>response generalization</emph> sessions, the researchers presented the probes but presented three letters at a time and requested that the students touch the letter (listener responding/receptive identification).</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-16">Maintenance</hd> <p>Once the student met performance criteria for an entire set of letters (all 13 known), the researchers returned to the "no-teaching" protocol for all letters and continued to probe the known letters to evaluate maintenance of the letters learned. We conducted maintenance probes from the time the student mastered an entire set, until the end of the semester.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118763-18">Josh</hd> <p>During baseline, responding for Group SIR letters was low with an average of 12.82% correct responses (range: 7.69–15.38%) with low variability (spread: 7.69%) and a slight decreasing trend (slope: − 0.0385*<emph>x</emph> + 0.205; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.75). Individual baseline responding showed similar results with an average of 7.69% responses (range: 0–15.38%), low variability (spread: 15.38%), and no discernable trend (slope: 0.0385*<emph>x</emph> + − 9.25E-17;<emph> R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.25). Overall, the results suggest that Josh's performance was relatively equivalent for both the Group SIR and individual sets and that he responded correctly infrequently prior to instruction.</p> <p>For Josh, researchers introduced individual and Group SIR at the same time. Correct responses in both individual and Group SIR steadily increased across time with substantial overlap between conditions. For Isla and Milo, who had not yet received instruction on the Individual SIR set (no teaching), we did not see an increase in correct responding, suggesting that the Individual SIR intervention was responsible for the increase in correct responding to that set. Both conditions contained moderate levels of variability throughout the study. Although originally, the Group SIR data maintained an increasing slope (0.0208*<emph>x</emph> + 0.0868; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.542) alongside the individual condition, the Group SIR responding began to flatten out around Session 25 with an average of about 63.74% responding (range: 61.54–69.23%). It took 25 sessions for Josh to reach performance criterion (two consecutive correct responses) for all the Individual SIR targets with a steady increasing trend (slope: 0.0298*<emph>x</emph> + 0.0588; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.87). Once Josh met the performance criteria, we stopped teaching the individual targets and saw a moderate increase in level of responding to 84.62% for the Group SIR targets that coincided with this change from Individual SIR to maintenance. Overall, it took Josh 30 sessions to meet the Group SIR performance requirement. The result for all participants can be found in Fig 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Result of correct letter identification during probes for all three students</p> <p>The targets learned in both Group and Individual SIR were maintained. Specifically, Josh maintained correct Group SIR target responding with a mean accuracy of 97% accuracy (range: 92.31–100%) across 11 maintenance probes. Similarly, John maintained an average of 90% accuracy (range: 76.92–100%) across 17 maintenance probes for the targets taught in the individual condition. On Sessions 39, 45, and 46, we conducted a post-test person stimulus generalization probe, stimulus materials generalization probe, and response generalization probe. Josh scored 100% on both the Group SIR and Individual SIR person stimulus generalization probes, 92.31% and 61.53% for the Group SIR and Individual SIR stimulus materials generalization probes, and 92.31% for both the Group SIR and Individual SIR response generalization (see Table 2 for these results).</p> <p>Table 2 Results of probes conducted to evaluate both stimulus and response generalization</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Josh</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Isla</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Milo</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Group (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Individual (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Group (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Individual (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Group (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Individual (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>92</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>85</p></td><td align="left"><p>92</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>People</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>92</p></td><td align="left"><p>85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Response</p></td><td align="left"><p>92</p></td><td align="left"><p>92</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181118763-19">Isla</hd> <p>For the first three baseline sessions, Isla responded correctly for an average of 7.69% Group SIR targets with no variability (spread: 0) and no change in trend. Her response accuracy for individual targets was similarly low (<emph>M</emph> = 12.82%; range: 7.69–15.38). Although the mean of the individual targets was higher during baseline with low variability (spread: 7.69), there was a decreasing slope in her correct responding (− 0.0385*<emph>x</emph> + 0.205; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.75). These baseline data suggest that Isla's learning history with the individual and Group SIR targets was similar and that she might benefit from explicit instruction on letter identification.</p> <p>Upon the introduction of Group SIR, there was not an immediate change in her response accuracy. However, after six exposures to the Group SIR teaching, Isla began to increasingly respond correctly to the Group SIR targets (slope: 0.0299*<emph>x</emph> + − 0.0336; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.594) with minimal changes in her response accuracy to the 13 letters associated with Individual SIR (slope: 6.46E-03*<emph>x</emph> + 0.118; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.378). Starting on Session 16, we introduced the Individual SIR teaching procedure for Isla and an immediate increase in responding was observed on the Individual SIR targets. No such change was observed for Milo at this time, suggesting it was intervention which resulted in Isla's increase in accuracy on Individual SIR targets.</p> <p>Although Isla had 12 exposures to the Group SIR protocol prior to the commencement of Individual SIR, both Group and Individual SIR maintained a similar level and trend throughout the teaching and overlapped heavily. In the end, Isla met performance criterion for Group SIR in 33 sessions (slope: 0.0283*<emph>x</emph> + − 0.0155; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.767) and Individual SIR in 22 sessions (slope: 0.0306*<emph>x</emph> + − 0.118; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.858). Figure 2 shows the sessions to mastery for each student.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Bar graph comparing the efficiency of teaching for each student. Note. Milo did not complete mastery criteria (2 consecutive with 100%) before the end of the semester for Individual SIR but reached 100% accuracy on 2 of the 3 last probes conducted</p> <p>After switching to maintenance for both Group and Individual sets, Isla was absent for 5 school days. When she returned, she had maintained a high level of accuracy over both the individual and group sets and continued to maintain this performance until the end of the year. Specifically, Isla maintained a mean accuracy of 97.43% (range: 84.62–100%) responding across six maintenance probes for Group SIR and 96.92% responding (range: 92.31–100%) across five maintenance probes for Individual SIR. On Sessions 39, 45, and 46, we conducted a post-test person stimulus generalization probe, stimulus materials generalization probe, and response generalization probe, respectively (see Table 2). Isla scored 100% on all Group SIR and Individual SIR generalization probes.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-20">Milo</hd> <p>During baseline, Milo averaged 33.33% (range: 23.08–38.46%) correct responding with the Group SIR letters with minimal increasing trend (slope: 0.0769*<emph>x</emph> + 0.179; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.75) and averaged 12.82% (range: 0–23.08) correct responding for individual letters with a steady increasing trend (slope: 0.115*<emph>x</emph> + − 0.103; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.964). The results of Milo's baseline suggest that he may have had a stronger learning history with the letters assigned to the Group SIR set than those assigned to the individual set.</p> <p>Upon introduction of the Group SIR teaching protocol, Milo's response accuracy to Group SIR targets increased steadily throughout the teaching procedure (0.019*<emph>x</emph> + 0.281; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.822). Even though the individual set letters received no instruction during this time, there was a small increase in correct responding for individual letters across time (slope: 8.24E-03*<emph>x</emph> + 9.43E-03; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.449) that was not as steep or consistent as the increase in Group SIR responding. On Session 31, in response to the stable responding in both conditions and to ensure that there were enough days left in the year to teach letters assigned to the Individual SIR, researchers introduced the Individual SIR teaching. Immediately, there was a jump in level of correct responding to letters trained in Individual SIR with a steady increase across sessions (slope: 0.0297*<emph>x</emph> + − 0.429; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.785). The fact that this increase in level only occurred during the introduction of the Individual SIR for Milo (rather than upon introduction for Josh or Isla), suggests that the Individual SIR was responsible for the increase. See Fig. 3 for a visual depiction of the number of sessions to mastery for both Group SIR and Individual for each student.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Data on teaching sessions yoked from the start of teaching to view efficiency for Group SIR and Individual SIR</p> <p>Milo met performance criteria for the Group SIR set following 28 sessions of the Group SIR procedure. Due to the school year ending, Milo did not reach performance criterion with the Individual SIR set. However, he obtained 100% accuracy twice within the last three sessions. Overall, researchers exposed Milo to 16 Individual SIR teaching sessions with the last session resulting in 100% accuracy. During the 14 sessions of maintenance, Milo's responding to Group SIR targets slowly decreased across time (slope: − 0.541*<emph>x</emph> + 115; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.188) with moderate variability (range: 84.62–100%). On Session 40, we probed post-test person stimulus generalization and materials stimulus generalization. On Session 44, we probed response generalization (the results are given in Table 2). Milo scored 84.61% and 92.30% on both the Group SIR and Individual SIR person stimulus generalization probes, 92.30% and 84.61% for the Group SIR and Individual SIR stimulus materials generalization probes, and 100% for both the Group SIR and Individual SIR response generalization probes.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-21">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SIR in a group format, compare the efficiency of the SIR presented in a group relative to Individual SIR format by assessing the number of sessions required before the students reached mastery criterion, and evaluate generalization and maintenance of SIR in a group format. The researchers used a combinatorial design that consisted of a multiple-baseline design across participants with an embedded adapted alternating treatments design. The study consisted of three conditions: no teaching, Group SIR and Individual SIR. Resulting data suggest that although both methods were effective relative to Group SIR, Individual SIR was more efficient for all three students. In addition, the results of the post-test generalization probes suggest similar generalization levels for both SIR conditions.</p> <p>Previous research suggests that OTRs are responsible for the difference in flashcard teaching methods (Kupzk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]; MacQuarrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref64">21</reflink>]). It is possible that the differences in performance from Group SIR to individual were due to differences in rates of OTR. Given that there were three students in the Group SIR condition, the chance of a student engaging in an error was three times higher. Thus it is likely that we spend more time on error correction during Group SIR, which potentially resulted in less complete OTR for each student compared to the Individual SIR condition. Future research should collect data on the rate of teacher presented OTRs during Group SIR and individual conditions to validate this possible explanation.</p> <p>It is important to note that there are various ways to conduct group instruction. In this study, the design of group instruction utilized choral responding and the same targets for all students. Although choral responding is an effective method for increasing OTR (Heward et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]), the students did anecdotally struggle with choral responses during the first few sessions. Some small-group instruction methods use different targets for each student and intersperse demands between the students (i.e., student one completes a demand, then student two, then student three; Collins, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]). In addition, there is evidence of benefits to mixing choral and individual responding (Haydon et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]). Because we only evaluated Group SIR using group choral responding, future research should evaluate these adaptations for using SIR in a small-group setting that could enhance learning for the students (mixed responding, different targets for students, alternating turns for responding, etc.).</p> <p>As previous research suggests, the no-teaching control provides evidence that regular classroom instruction may be insufficient for some children to learn pre-reading skills (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>]). Although labeled "no teaching," a more accurate distinction for this condition is "no teaching by researchers," as students continued to receive standard instruction on letter identification through daily classroom instruction. It is quite rare that deciding on relevant instruction for a student would involve choosing between options that include no instruction (Richman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref69">25</reflink>]) as typical classroom instruction is constantly occurring.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-22">Limitation</hd> <p>When interpreting findings from this study, it is important to consider the associated limitations. One limitation is the same letter sets were assigned to the same conditions for all students. It is possible the Individual SIR letter set was "easier" than the Group SIR set. This is, however, unlikely, given that we randomly assigned letters to sets and baseline data between the Group SIR and Individual SIR letter sets were similar for Josh and Isla. In addition, we did not pre-screen the letter sets which potentially resulted in letter sets being composed of letters known prior to instruction (e.g., Milo's accuracy on the control set).</p> <p>When evaluating the effects of Individual SIR compared to no teaching, we were able to stagger the introduction of the intervention and thus have three demonstrations of effect across three points in time. However, given the nature of the Group SIR, we could not stagger the introduction of the Group SIR intervention thus limiting our demonstrations of effect. However, our inclusion of an adapted alternating treatment design within the multiple-baseline design allowed for a comparison of Group SIR and Individual SIR interventions and the drawing of causal conclusions from repeated demonstration of differences.</p> <p>Upon post-hoc evaluation of the data, there seemed to be an effect across conditions for some students. For example, when Josh met performance criteria for the individual letters and we stopped teaching them, there seemed to be a jump in performance for Josh on Group SIR letters. In addition, when we added Individual SIR for Milo, increased performance on Group SIR letters occurred. It is unclear why these co-variations seemed to occur during condition changes; however, these changes suggest the possibility of carry-over effect between treatments. A related limitation is that targets assigned to individual instruction for Isla and Milo previously served as stimuli in the no-teaching condition. Thus, both students practiced making errors in response to these targets. The repeated practicing of errors may have impeded the acquisition of these targets once assigned to the individual instruction condition.</p> <p>To enhance the efficiency of SIR, researchers used a specific criterion for the removal of targets, similar to previous research (January et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref70">12</reflink>]; Phipps et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref71">23</reflink>]). We arbitrarily selected two consecutive correct responses as the criterion for labeling letters as known. This arbitrary selection may have been too lenient given that the known letters often fell out of "known" and required further teaching. For example, Richman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]) required students to respond correctly to a target for six consecutive sessions prior to labeling it "mastered." In fact, some studies using SIR did not remove the stimuli at all once included (Lozy & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]). Another potential explanation of why once students met mastery criteria for a letter, they often did not maintain it (emitted an error) is that the researchers conducted the probe sessions soon after teaching sessions consistent with prior research (Richman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref74">25</reflink>]). Thus, students were probed on letters that they just practiced, unlike in some studies where the probe was administered immediately before the next day of instruction (Hathaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]; Klingbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]; Kupzyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]) or at the end of the week (January et al., 2016). There were many times in which the students emitted the correct response following instruction but did not maintain correct responding the next day. Future research should conduct the probe session before the teaching session to prevent researchers from erroneously labeling letters as known. Lastly, because these studies focused on accuracy, one cannot assume the difference in fluency between teaching Group SIR or Individual SIR.</p> <p>Finally, although we conducted generalization probes throughout the study, we did so sporadically and unsystematically and thus only report post-test generalization probes within the manuscript. The remaining generalization data are accessible via <emph>Supplementary Information 2</emph>. Although reporting post-test generalization probes is better than not conducting any generalization evaluation, we cannot make conclusions about the causal relation between the SIR intervention and the generalization outcomes based on post-test generalization probes alone.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-23">Summary</hd> <p>Society expects teachers to provide the most effective instruction in the most efficient way and for a large number of students. An individual analysis of each student's performance clarified that the Individual SIR was more efficient for all three participating students. Still, this difference in efficacy is not likely to be significant enough to justify Individual SIR over Group SIR. From a teacher's perspective, the individual sessions still took longer to teach the students the target letters. For every session of Group SIR the researchers conducted, they had to run three Individual SIR sessions. A post-hoc analysis revealed that researchers spent about 640 cumulative minutes teaching Individual SIR (250 min Josh, 220 min Isla, 170 min Milo) and only 350 min teaching the Group SIR sessions. Thus, Group SIR may be an effective method with maximum efficiency for teaching students in a classroom setting. Future research should systematically replicate these results with other dependent variables, students, and methods of group instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-24">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank Tricia and Kelly for their constant support throughout this project.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-25">Author Contributions</hd> <p>TCE conducted the majority of the sessions and prepared the paper. AMB conducted sessions, collected all interobserver agreement and procedural fidelity, and helped with the paper conception and preparation. SPA helped develop the idea for the project, provided expert guidance on decision making, and edited previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118763-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>No funds, grants, or other support was received. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Researchers received approval from the University IRB and parents of all participants provided informed consent to conduct and publish the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-28">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (PDF 68 kb)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file2 (PDF 348 kb)</p> <hd id="AN0181118763-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0181118763-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref47" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Brown-Chidsey R, Steege MW. Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. 20102; The Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Burns MK. Comparison of opportunities to respond within a drill model when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly. 2007; 22; 2: 250-263. 10.1037/1045-3830.22.2.250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cates G, Skinner CH, Watson S, Meadows T, Weaver A, Jackson B. Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review. 2003; 32; 4: 601-616. 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref66" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Collins BC. Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. 2012; Brookes Publishing Company</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cooke NL, Guzaukas R, Pressley JS, Kerr K. Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children. 1993; 16; 3: 213-234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref62" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Finn C, Ardoin SP, Ayres KM. Effects of incremental rehearsal on sight word and letter acquisition among students with autism and cognitive impairment. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 2022. 10.1080/15377903.2022.2113946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref59" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gast DL, Lloyd B, Ledford JRLedford JR, Gast DL. Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. Single case research methodology. 20183; Routledge: 239-282. 10.4324/9781315150666-10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hathaway KL, Schieltz KM, Detrick J. Evaluating the effects of instructional prompts and strategic incremental rehearsal on the letter identification mastery of two typically developing kindergarteners. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 14; 1: 20-35. 10.1007/s40617-020-00456-5. 33732575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref67" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Haydon T, Conroy MA, Scott TM, Sindelar PT, Barber BR, Orlando AM. A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2010; 18; 1: 27-40. 10.1177/1063426609333448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heward WL, Courson FH, Narayan JS. Using choral responding to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children. 1989; 21; 3: 72-75. 10.1177/004005998902100321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner RH, Odom SLKratochwill TR, Levin JR. Constructing single-case research designs: Logic and options. Single-case intervention research. 2014; American Psychological Association: 27-51. 10.1037/14376-002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> January SAA, Lovelace ME, Foster TE, Ardoin SP. A comparison of two flashcard interventions for teaching sight words to early readers. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2017; 26; 2: 151-168. 10.1007/s10864-016-9263-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klingbeil DA, January SAA, Ardoin SP. Comparative efficacy and generalization of two word-reading interventions with English learners in elementary school. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2020; 29; 3: 490-518. 10.1007/s10864-019-09331-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupzyk S, Daly EJ III, Andersen MN. A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44; 4: 781-792. 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-781. 22219529. 3251281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Gast DLLedford JR, Gast DL. Combination and other designs. Single case research methodology. 20183; Routledge: 335-364. 10.4324/9781315150666-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford J, Lane JD, Barton EE. Methods for teaching in early education. 2019; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315109800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Lane JD, Elam KL, Wolery M. Using response-prompting procedures during small-group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2012; 117; 5: 413-434. 10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.413. 22998488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Lane JD, Gast DLLedford JR, Gast DL. Dependent Variables, Measurement, and Reliability. Single case research methodology. 20183; Routledge: 97-132. 10.4324/9781315150666-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Wolery M. Observational learning of academic and social behaviors during small-group direct instruction. Exceptional Children. 2015; 81; 3: 272-291. 10.1177/0014402914563698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lozy ED, Donaldson JM. A comparison of traditional drill and strategic incremental rehearsal flashcard methods to teach letter–sound correspondence. Behavioral Development. 2019; 24; 2: 58-73. 10.1037/bdb0000089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacQuarrie LL, Tucker JA, Burns MK, Hartman B. Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flash card methods. School Psychology Review. 2002; 31; 4: 584-595. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Literacy Panel. Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. 2008; National Center for Family Literacy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps L, Robinson EL, Grebe S. An evaluation of strategic incremental rehearsal on sight word acquisition among students with specific learning disabilities in reading. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2020; 31; 2: 281-297. 10.1007/s10864-020-09398-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plavnick JB, Hume KA. Observational learning by individuals with autism: A review of teaching strategies. Autism. 2014; 18; 4: 458-466. 10.1177/1362361312474373. 24101717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richman DM, Grubb L, Thompson S. Descriptive analysis and comparison of strategic incremental rehearsal to "business as usual" sight-word instruction for an adult non reader with intellectual disability. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 2018; 21; 1: 23-31. 10.1080/17518423.2016.12. 27792403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro ES. Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. 19962; Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share DL. Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: A causal connection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2004; 88: 213-233. 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.00538412. 15203298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker JA. Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. 1988; Unpublished teaching material</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Small S, Fanuele DP. Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2006; 39; 2: 157-169. 10.1177/00222194060390020401. 16583795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolery M, Gast DL, Ledford JRLedford JR, Gast DL. Comparative designs. Single case research methodology. 20183; Routledge: 283-334. 10.4324/9781315150666-11</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tyler-Curtis C. Elliott; Alexandra N. Mercado Baez and Scott P. Ardoin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref65"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450721
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Comparison of Individual and Group Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification to Preschoolers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tyler-Curtis+C%2E+Elliott%22">Tyler-Curtis C. Elliott</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6826-4449">0000-0001-6826-4449</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alexandra+N%2E+Mercado+Baez%22">Alexandra N. Mercado Baez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5761-0956">0000-0002-5761-0956</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scott+P%2E+Ardoin%22">Scott P. Ardoin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2176-4221">0000-0003-2176-4221</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Behavioral Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 33(4):965-983.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alphabets%22">Alphabets</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Group+Instruction%22">Small Group Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Repetition%22">Repetition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Instruction%22">Individual Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Factors+%28Learning%29%22">Time Factors (Learning)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10864-023-09518-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-0819<br />1573-3513
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: One flashcard teaching method used to teach discrete academic skills is strategic incremental rehearsal (SIR). Although the evidence for SIR is strong, no studies have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of SIR when used in a small-group format. The current study used a combinatorial design using a multiple baseline with an embedded adapted alternating treatments design to comparatively evaluate the effects of SIR used in a small group (Group SIR) and individual context (Individual SIR). Researchers focused on teaching letter identification skills to three preschool children. The results indicated that although Group SIR was an effective procedure for all three participants, the Individual SIR procedure resulted in slightly more efficient learning. However, when taking into account the additional teacher time needed to conduct 1-1 instruction, the results suggest that when multiple students must be taught a skill, Group SIR may be more time efficient. The results of post-test probes demonstrated that the skills learned in SIR generalized to other behaviors (receptive identification), other people (teachers), and other stimuli (letters presented on a worksheet). Future researchers should systematically replicate these results with different populations and skills.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450721
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450721
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10864-023-09518-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 965
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Alphabets
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Group Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Repetition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Factors (Learning)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Comparison of Individual and Group Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification to Preschoolers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tyler-Curtis C. Elliott
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alexandra N. Mercado Baez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scott P. Ardoin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-0819
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3513
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1