Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Remedial and Special Education
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, E. D.
Right arrow Articles by Saferstein, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of Concurrent and Sequential Instruction of Four Types of Verbal Math Problem

Eric D. Jones

Eric D. Jones Received EdD's from the University of Virginia. He is assistant professors at Bowling Green State University.

James P. Krouse

James P. Krouse Received EdD's from the University of Virginia. He is assistant professors at Bowling Green State University.

Donna Feorene

Donna Feorene is a Master's degree candidate in school psychology, at Bowling Green State University.

Carol A. Saferstein

Carol A. Saferste is a Master's student in special education, at Bowling Green State University

Twenty-nine third grade students were trained in teacher led direct instruction to use a generalizable strategy to solve four structurally different types of addition and subtraction verbal math problems. One group (n = 13) received training on the different types of problems in an ordered sequence. The other group (n = 16) received daily training on a random assortment of the different types of problems. The interaction between the training conditions and preposttestings was statistically significant [F(1, 27) = 12.78, p < .01]. There was a significant difference between posttest scores of the two training conditions, due primarily to gains of the students in sequential training. Implications for instructional design are discussed.

Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 6, No. 5, 25-31 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/074193258500600506
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?