Designing a Form of Learning Origins and Applications of Incremental Rehearsal

Tucker, J. A. (2012).  Designing a form of learning: Origins and applications of incremental rehearsal.   Presentation at the 6th International Microlearning Conference, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck,  Austria, July 10 Designing a Form of Learning: Origins and Applications of Incremental Rehearsal James A Tucker, Ph.D The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN, U.S.A Abstract: Incremental rehearsal is an instructional strategy that begins with an assessment of what is known (prior knowledge), presents new information in small increments (micro-learning), and allows for adequate rehearsal (repetition) in order to ensure automaticity (mastery) The term incremental rehearsal emerged from a prolific period of instructional-assessment development in the 1980s Although incremental rehearsal has been used primarily in school settings, its varied applications are related to learning in general and micro-learning specifically As an instructional strategy, incremental rehearsal has served as the basis for numerous studies, published and unpublished This presentation begins by laying out the conceptual history of incremental rehearsal, and then traces its principles through various theoretical developments to current applications, such as micro-learning In addition, the conceptual framework supporting incremental rehearsal will be briefly summarized and future developments of this instructional aid will be discussed Introduction When we coined the term incremental rehearsal (IR), we did not anticipate the degree to which it would emerge as a widely-researched and -practiced instructional intervention We were seeking only to differentiate its specific nature from the several forms of what was then called the “drill sandwich.” The development of incremental rehearsal is so logically simple that it may appear simplistic But although all its elements have been basic functions of learning for many years, the logic of how these elements are combined provides the endurance and efficacy of the technique Further, we could not have anticipated how well the idea of IR fit into the now growing learning application known as “Micro Learning,” which is defined by Hug and Friesen (2007) as follows: [Microlearning] can be designed for classroom learning as well as for corporate learning or continuing education, entailing processes that may be separate or concurrent, situated or integrated into other activities It may follow iterative methods, networked patterns, or certain modes of attention management entailing different degrees of awareness Finally, the form of a final microlearning product may have characteristics of fragments, facets, episodes, skill elements, discrete tasks, etc But while it is amenable to all of these forms, contexts, technologies, and combinations, in terms of its temporality and substance, microlearning carries some relatively simple markers: In terms of time, microlearning is related to relatively short efforts and low degrees of time consumption And in terms of content microlearning deals with small or very small units and rather narrow topics, even though aspects of literacy and multimodality may play a complex role” (p 19) Etymological Development Incremental rehearsal (IR) is an instructional strategy that begins with an assessment of what is known (prior knowledge), presents new information in small increments, and allows for adequate rehearsal (repetition) in order to ensure automaticity (mastery) As a term, however, incremental rehearsal is the result of a number of iterations The first of various formats was the “drill sandwich,” a method by which information to be learned was sandwiched between alreadymastered information, initially at a ratio of one bit (or chunk) of new material to two alreadymastered bits (or chunks) of material As additional information emerged from the application of IR, however, that simple ratio no longer worked as well as expected As long ago as the 1940s, the idea of a level of optimum learning based on the relationship between prior knowledge and new material had emerged Betts (1946) described three learning-encounter levels: the independent level which is the optimal level—the level at which the understanding is automatic, the instructional level which is the “level at which systematic instruction can be initiated” (p 439), and the frustrational level—the level at which the learner does not have sufficient prior knowledge to benefit from instruction Building on Betts’s landmark research, specifically as it relates to learning to read, Edward Gickling (Gickling & Havertape, 1982) and Charles Hargis (1987) applied the Betts levels by helping to launch a functional method of assessment that became known as curriculum-based assessment (Tucker, 1985) American education in the 1980s experienced a number of dynamic developments relative to effective instruction Perhaps none of those developments is as important as curriculum-based assessment (CBA), which is directly related to and a primary example of what became known as authentic assessment (Tucker, 1987; Ellis, 2005) For several years following the introduction of curriculum-based assessment, a number of spin-offs occurred (Tucker, 1987), including the more-widely published curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and incremental rehearsal (IR) This paper will focus specifically on incremental rehearsal Incremental rehearsal is a straight-forward combination of two conceptual frameworks The word incremental was adopted from Betts’s (1957) earlier work on the teaching of reading “Generally speaking,” he asserted, “one of the most potent factors in motivation is awareness of small increments of growth" (p 159) (The specific connection to motivation will be discussed later.) Perhaps the most widely applied use of the word “incremental” has been its presence in the Saxon Math curricular materials (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) The word rehearsal was taken directly from information-processing learning-theory and the typical depiction of the process of learning in that theory: information first is perceived by the senses, then is processed through short-term memory to long-term memory by rehearsal, or sufficient repetition, in order to give it permanence—also called “mastery” (Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960) Historical Context In the first half of the 20th century, adequate vocational options for students who dropped out of school—for whatever reason—existed With increased focus on schooling and with the increased demand for competent workers that occurred in the latter half of the century, however, unskilled labor options were significantly reduced, making the need for academic achievement increasingly important Furthermore, there occurred a serious increase in the belief that “all means all,” in the sense that no citizen should be denied the right to succeed on the basis of such anomalies as being poor, not speaking English, or having a disability In the 1960s, the U.S began in earnest to aggressively seek methods to effectively find and assist students who were struggling with academic achievement owing to one or more forms of disability The resulting federal and state legislation provided what might be called the “perfect storm” of challenge, because U.S educational systems were not prepared to deal with the wide variety of learning-challenges presented by the 10% to 20 % of students who traditionally had not benefitted from public education and now were suddenly being referred to special-education programs Within a decade, separate federal legislative initiatives were enacted to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to take advantage of free public education Basically, there were three such acts, and they cumulatively contain the mandate that continues to challenge U.S schools, most recently with such initiatives as “No Child Left Behind” (Bush, 2001) The three acts of Congress to which I refer are briefly summarized below: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Pub.L 89-10, 79 Stat 27, 20 U.S.C ch.70), is a United States federal statute enacted April 11, 1965 It was passed as a part of President Lyndon B Johnson's "War on Poverty" and has been the most farreaching federal legislation affecting education ever passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act) The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 (or BEA) was the first piece of United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingual_Education_Act) The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (sometimes referred to using the acronyms EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law (PL) 94-142) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1975 This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education and one free meal a day for children with physical and mental disabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act) Perhaps it would be hard to imagine a more potent context for the emergence of the many effective instructional strategies that were created as a result of these legislative acts None of these strategies provided a new theory of instruction or learning, however They simply were applications of what had long been known and practiced in isolation without being integrated into an effective strategy, such as IR In 1989 we were still in the throes of implementing nationwide federal and state legislation that provided specially-designed instruction for students with disabilities It was within this context that incremental rehearsal emerged The initial materials, which remain unpublished, were titled “Basic Flashcard Technique When Vocabulary Is the Goal” (Tucker, 1988) This material was reissued the following year by the author (Tucker 1989) and became the basic documentation for what evolved into the incremental-rehearsal instructional strategy A copy of the original document is included as Appendix A to this paper Application As an instructional strategy, incremental rehearsal has served as the basis for numerous studies, published and unpublished However, it should be noted that in the 1990s, when “incremental rehearsal” was coined, the term referred specifically to a flash-card technique and it used “a gradually increasing ratio of known to unknown items reaching, at the final stage of implementation, 90% to 100%” (Burns, 2005, p 238) Even though the specific application to practice had been described in detail (Tucker, 1989), it took more than 10 years to generate formal research about the effectiveness of IR In spite of the often-verbalized mandate to find what were referred to first as “promising practices,” then as “proven practices,” then as “preferred practices,” and, finally, as “evidence-based practices” that were “scientifically-based, we were so eager to implement the law that we failed to get serious about the needed research to validate or repudiate a given practice (Tucker, 2007) MacQuarrie, Tucker, Burns, and Hartman (2002) conducted the first formal research study about IR Their results showed that the application of IR as an instructional strategy leads to significantly better retention after 1, 2, 3, 7, and 30 days than other specific drill models Reviewing this study, Daly and McCurdy (2002), editors of a special issue of School Psychology Review, stated, The implications are astounding and are worthy of the serious attention of all researchers in the field If this result continues to be replicated in future studies, it means that effective instruction with frequent opportunities to respond may be able to virtually eliminate the effects of some individual-differences variables Therefore, rather than spending time measuring individual-differences variables that are supposed to be stable over time, school psychologists might spend their time more productively facilitating interventions that eliminate individual differences and increase the probability of all students getting it right the next time the teacher asks (p 457) Conceptual Framework I have spent years trying to develop a workable conceptual framework for incremental rehearsal, but the complexity of interacting elements has made such a product very difficult Most of these elements are included, in one form or another, within the framework described by information-processing learning-theory, which George A Miller initially proposed (Cooper, 2009) George A Miller provided two theoretical ideas that are fundamental to the information processing framework and cognitive psychology The first concept is `chunking' and the capacity of short term (working) memory Miller (1956) presented the idea that shortterm memory could only hold 5-9 chunks of information (seven plus or minus two) where a chunk is any meaningful unit A chunk could refer to digits, words, chess positions, or people's faces The concept of chunking and the limited capacity of short term memory became a basic element of all subsequent theories of memory Miller's second great contribution was the concept of information processing, using a computer model of human learning The human mind takes in information, performs operations on it to change its form and content, stores and locates it and generates responses to it, all functions which are similar to the way digital computers input and process Thus, processing involves gathering and representing information, or encoding; holding information or retention; and getting at the information when needed, or retrieval A central idea is that information processing takes place as a series of sequential steps Information processing theorists approach learning primarily through a study of memory (paragraphs & 4) The details of this interaction will have to wait for a subsequent paper For now, I simply will present the concept as a short list of learning principles that may or may not be theoretically connected to each other Learning principle 1: Prior knowledge The power of prior knowledge has received far too little emphasis in educational contexts Everything learned is learned on the basis of what is already known This concept is similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, of course For this discussion, however, I will adhere to the concept of prior knowledge as it evolved from Betts (1946) while acknowledging that it is very much in harmony with constructivist learning-theory as well In summary, the “instructional level” is “a comfort zone created when the student has sufficient prior knowledge and skill to successfully interact with the task and still learn new information” (Gravois & Gickling 2002, p 888) Betts’s idea of the instructional level provides a practical way to perceive the relationship between prior knowledge and the new knowledge to be learned, by whatever technique is used In this case, the technique is incremental rehearsal Learning principle 2: Small increments of growth New information is best learned by limiting the amount to small increments of growth, which can be measured by rate of acquisition and evaluated by rate of retention In their forthcoming book, Gickling and Gravois (in press) develop this concept in very practical ways The following citation summarizes the value of the systematic presentation of new material in regulated amounts: Paraphrasing Wolf and White (2000), if we want to develop the skills and ability of a wider range of students, then we need to know precisely what will support the next increment of growth for each and every student, however small It is the management of these small increments of growth on task-by-task basis that is the focus of instructional assessment What should result “is not a score but an index of the type and amount of support required to advance learning (Valencia and Pearson, 1987, pp 728-729) The combination of “small increments of growth” as a motivational aid (from Betts) and “rehearsal” (from information-processing learning-theory) yields the relationship between motivation and rehearsal that leads to mastery That increase is what incremental rehearsal is all about When placed at an instructional level, individuals are naturally more likely to be motivated (Betts, 1946; Gickling & Havertape, 1981) According to data that we have to date, which traces back to the middle of the 20th century, the instructional level can be achieved in at least two different ways When drill is the focus, as in the rote memorization of isolated facts, the ratio between prior knowledge and new information to be introduced is approximately 80:20 But when comprehension is involved, as in reading for meaning, then the ratio becomes approximately 90:10, at best Ideally, the instructional-level ratio is 93:7, meaning, of course that if comprehension of new material is expected, then the amount of new information should not exceed about 7% of the total to be encountered It seems evident that the only way to determine the optimal ratio is by pre-test Just as obviously, the ratio will vary with each individual, because what is known (prior knowledge) and what is to be mastered is going to differ for every learner With regard to the rehearsal (repetition) aspect, multiple considerations exist For example, each individual has his or her own rate of acquisition As a result, the amount of information to be learned may vary, and the number of repetitions may vary as well Before relating to either of these aspects, however, we really need to move to the next principle—that of mastery, or automaticity, as it is often called Learning Principle 3: Mastery The term mastery is usually used in context with achievement and may mean absolutely correct, without error, or it may mean a level of achievement that is at a minimum-competency level required for application of the knowledge being mastered For example, a child learning the alphabet would be expected to master 100% of the information to be learned, but a student studying medieval history might be expected to “master’ only a specified percentage of the total facts Whatever is meant by the term, however, should be clearly understood before the instructional process is begun For practical purposes, when discussing reading comprehension, mastery means achieving the independent level—approximately 98% of the material being read Mastery has limitations, of course, which are discreetly connected to the principles described above Mastery cannot be achieved if the level of prior knowledge is insufficient The level of prior knowledge is readily assessed by what is classically called a pre-test The pre-test itself has a sufficient level of prior knowledge to be an accurate measure Mastery is also limited by the amount of rehearsal, which, assuming sufficient prior knowledge, is associated to some extent with native intelligence (Gates, 1930; Hargis, TerhaarYonkers, Williams, & Reed, 1998; Hargis, 1987) Although the following data is research-based, the study was done many years ago (Gates, 1930) and should be understood as a suggestion rather than as an absolute measure of either prediction or prescription “Gates emphasized that these numbers were averages and that there was considerable individual variation in the repetition requirements ” (Hargis, 1987, p 35) What this information does tell us, however, is that a person’s native intellectual ability may affect the amount of rehearsal that is required: “High” Ability: IQ = 120-129 25 repetitions IQ = 110-119 30 repetitions “Average” Ability: IQ = 90-109 35 repetitions IQ = 80-89 40 repetitions IQ = 70-79 45 repetitions “Slow” Ability: IQ = 60-69 55 repetitions However, even when native intelligence is limited, the number of rehearsals (repetitions) often can provide for mastery of rote-learning material (MacQuarrie et al., 2002; Daly & McCurdy, 2002) If the individual is unable to conceptually understand material to be learned, that problem should be addressed, but it is not related to the mastery aspect of incremental rehearsal Mastery is also limited to the number of new “chunks” that can be added to existing (prior) knowledge This is where the Miller’s magical number plus or minus becomes relevant—although this concept is developmental, and to some extent contextual, and should not be used as a formulaic absolute A good way to measure the relative effectiveness of a given learning experience in which a number of chunks is to be learned by rote is to invoke the concept of a “rate of acquisition,” which is assessed by the “rate of retention.” For example, if chunks are “learned” by a strategy such as incremental rehearsal and appear to have been mastered but only of these are retained the next day, then the rate of acquisition should probably be reduced This determination can be made effectively and efficiently only by successive encounters, perhaps by reducing the number of chunks to for the next round and then checking again the next day to discover the level of acquisition Summary Describing the qualities of effective teaching, Samuels (1984) wrote, In many ways, good athletic coaching and good classroom teaching have much in common, and principles of coaching applied to the classroom can help students master the basic skills In essence, in order to master the basic skills either in sports or the classroom, the following three elements are necessary: Motivate the student Bring the student to the level of accuracy in the skill Provide the practice necessary for the skill to become automatic The power of this simple list is that it assumes what we know about motivation being an awareness of prior knowledge and then proceeds to add to the prior knowledge small increments of new knowledge—thus reinforcing the succession of learning indefinitely while taking into consideration that the amount of material to learn and the amount of time available represents a significant limitation This means that if time and quantity are controlled, the results that can be achieved are virtually limitless Furthermore, if a given quantity of achievement is desired at a certain level of mastery, then the amount of time provided must vary and cannot be held constant Achieving a high degree of accuracy (mastery) is subject to what I call the law of production: Given a learning objective that involves desired maximization in quality (mastery) quantity (amount to be mastered), and time (typically limited to what is available), the learner, or the learning situation, must always relinquish one of the three and focus on the other two Other limitations also must be accommodated For example, there is a well-known limit to the number of new chunks of information that can be mastered at any one time Miller’s (1956) famous “magical number seven, plus or minus two” probably is the best example of such a limit, but what often is not acknowledged is that this number is to some extent developmentally based Miller’s number represents the maximum for a mature learner—probably post-puberty Given the above conditions, a primary limitation of IR is the amount of time that is typically provided for remediation, but the perceived lack of efficiency is likely to be offset by the degree of retention, maintenance, and generalization of learning that occurs (Garcia, 2012) The Current Research and Future of Incremental Rehearsal Originally (in the 1980s), incremental rehearsal was used exclusively to teach multiplication facts and new words to students As we began to become aware of the strength of the strategy, however, we determined that this technique could be used to teach any new knowledge as long as the knowledge could be learned by rote memory, that is, grasped by the senses into short-term memory and rehearsed sufficiently to move it to long-term memory Today, parents use IR to teach colors to their pre-school children Teachers have expanded the use of IR to help students to identify countries on a map, learn the capital cities of states and countries, remember key points about a given piece of literature, and so forth The vast majority of IR applications still apply only to educational settings—specifically to teach math facts and reading facts that are to be memorized and repeated, hopefully with understanding The problem with that scenario is obvious It is the “with understanding” part of the operational use that concerns me With the increased emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking, falling back on the simple memorization of lists of facts and memorized responses, without making the conceptual leap to the understanding that these facts are primarily tools in higher-order thinking, is an easy thing to So, it has been encouraging to see research proceeding that applies the IR concept to many different situations and content areas The research on incremental rehearsal has been championed by Matthew K Burns, of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Dr Burns’s findings are so comprehensive, that I have augmented the references with a separate list of his publications relative to IR research As that list demonstrates, a growing number of colleagues have been and continue to be involved in IR research Basically, the findings of all of the research to date support the continued use and development of IR as an effective instructional strategy The concept of incremental rehearsal has been supported, but the application of this concept, which began with the presentation of flash cards, has progressed to a point where it now is now also focused on electronic applications Perhaps microlearning applications like incremental rehearsal will help us realize the fulfillment of a definition of effective instruction, also from the 1980s, which has been widely quoted: Developing a definition of effective instruction, Spady (1984) wrote that "excellence occurs when the instructional system is able to provide the individual learner with an appropriate level of challenge and a realistic opportunity to succeed on a frequent and continual basis for each instructional goal in the program" (page number unknown) 9 References Betts, E A (1957) Foundations of reading instruction New York: American Book Company p 159 Burns, M K (2005) Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 237-249 Bush, G W (2001) Overview: Introduction—Why NCLB Is Important Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html Codding, R.S., Archer, J., & Connell, J (2010) A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 93-105 Cooper, S (2009) George A Miller, 1920-: Information processing (IP) Retrieved from http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/IP/GAMiller.html Daly, E J., & McCurdy, M (2002) Getting it right so they can get it right: An overview of the special series School Psychology Review, 31(4), 453-458 Ellis, A K (2005) Research on educational innovations (4th ed.) Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Garcia, D (2012) Examining the efficiency of incremental rehearsal oral and written procedures for spelling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH Gates, A I (1930) Interest and ability in reading New York: Macmillan Gickling, E E., & Gravois, T A (In press) Instructional assessment: An essential path for guiding reading instruction Baltimore, MD: ICAT Publishing Gickling, E E., & Havertape, S (1981) Curriculum-based assessment (CBA) Minneapolis: School Psychology Inservice Training Network Gravois, T., & Gickling, E (2002) Best practices in curriculum-based assessment In A Thomas & J Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (IV, pp.1-13) Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists Hargis, C H (1987) Curriculum based assessment: A primer Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Hargis, C H., Terhaar-Yonkers, M., Williams, P C., & Reed, M T (1998) Repetition requirements for word recognition Journal of Reading, 31, 320–327 10 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2011) About saxon Retrieved from http://saxonpublishers.hmhco.com/en/sxnm_about.htm Hug, T & Friesen, N (2007) Outline of a microlearning agenda In Hug, T (Ed.) Didactics of microlearning: Concepts discourses, and examples Munster, Germany: Waxman MaQuarrie, L L (2012) A Comparison of the incremental rehearsal method, the pocket word method, and repeated reading in instructional-level text on the word retention, words read per minute, and comprehension of first-grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI MacQuarrie, L L., Tucker, J A., Burns, M K., & Hartman, B (2002) Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flashcard methods School Psychology Review, 31(4), 584-595 Miller, G A (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97 Miller, G A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K.H (1960) Plans and the structure of behavior New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Nist, L & Joseph, L M (2008) Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization School Psychology Review, 37, 294-308 Samuels, S J (1984) Basic academic skills In Ysseldyke, J E (Ed.), School psychology: The state of the art Minneapolis, MN: National School Psychology Inservice Training Network, The University of Minnesota Spady, W G (1984) Organizing and delivering curriculum for maximum impact Making our schools more effective: Proceedings of three state conferences Publisher unknown No page number (provide Eric reference) Tucker, J A (2007) School psychology in a land of blended professions: The ultimate flavor of effective response NASP 2007 Distinguished Lecture Communique, 35(8), 48-52 Tucker, J A (1989) Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal Unpublished teaching material Available from the author: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN Tucker, J A (1988) Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal Unpublished teaching material Available from the author: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 11 Tucker, J A (1987) Curriculum-based assessment is no fad The Collaborative Educator, 1(4), & 10 Tucker, J A (1985) Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction Exceptional Children, 52(3), 199-204 Tucker, J A (1981) Non test-based assessment: A training module Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, National School Psychology In-service Training Network Valencia, S.W & Pearson, P.D (1987) Reading assessment: Time for a change The Reading Teacher, 40, 726-732 Vygotsky, L (1978) Interaction between learning and development In Mind and society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Wolf, D & White, A (2000) Charting the course of student growth Educational Leadership 57(5), pp 6-11 Additional References by Burns et al Beck, M., Burns, M K., & Lau, M (2009) Preteaching unknown items as a behavioral intervention for children with behavioral disorders Behavior Disorders, 34, 91-99 Bunn, R., Burns, M K., Hoffman, H H., & Newman, C L (2005) Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter identification with a preschool-aged child Journal of Evidence Based Practice for Schools, 6, 124-134 Burns, M K (2007) Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250263 Burns, M K (2007) Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313 Burns, M K (2005) Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237-249 Burns, M K (2004) Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175 Burns, M K., Ardoin, S., *Parker, D C., *Hodgson, J., *Klingbeil, D A., & *Scholin, S (2009) Interspersal technique and behavioral momentum for reading word lists School Psychology Review, 38, 428-434 12 Burns, M K., & Boice, C H (2009) Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ School Psychology Review, 38, 284-292 Burns, M K., & Dean, V J (2005) Effect of acquisition rates on off-task behavior with children identified as having learning difficulties Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 273-281 Burns, M K., Dean, V J., & Foley, S (2004) Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-314 Burns, M K., & Gibbons, K (2013) Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary scools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd edition) New York” Routledge Burns, M K., *Hodgson, J., *Parker, D C., & *Fremont, K (2011) Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of text previewing and preteaching keywords as small-group reading comprehension strategies with middle school students Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 241-252 Burns, M K., *Kanive, R., & *Degrande, M (in press) Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades Remedial and Special Education Burns, M K., & Kimosh, A (2005) Using incremental rehearsal to teach sight-words to adult students with moderate mental retardation Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 6, 135-148 Burns, M K., & Mosack, J (2005) Criterion-referenced validity of measuring acquisition rates with curriculum-based assessment Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 216224 Burns, M K., & Sterling-Turner, H E (2010) Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 126-134 Matchett, D L., & Burns, M K (2009) Increasing word recognition fluency with an English language learner Journal of Evidence Based Practices in Schools, 10, 194-209 Parker, D C., Burns, M K., McMaster, K., & Shapiro, E S (in press) Extending curriculumbased assessment to early writing Learning Disabilities Research and Practice Petersen-Brown, S & Burns, M K (2011) Adding a vocabulary component to incremental rehearsal to enhance maintenance and generalization School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 245-255 13 Petersen-Brown, S & Burns, M K (in press) Adding a vocabulary component to incremental rehearsal to enhance maintenance and drill ratios on recall and on-task behavior for children with learning and attention difficulties Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 118-126 Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M K (2008) Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593-609 Volpe, R., Briesch, A., Mule, C., Burns, M K., & Joseph, L (2011) A comparison of two flashcard drill methods targeting word recognition Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 117-137 Volpe, R J., Burns, M K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A F (2011) Computer-assisted tutoring: Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal Psychology in the Schools, 48, 332-342 14 Appendix A 15 Basic Flashcard Technique When Vocabulary is the Goal By James A. Tucker         Assess "Knowns" and "Unknowns" and Words-Per-Minute A Have the student "read" the first page (or paragraph) of a story* Using a photocopy of the page, mark the words missed NOTE: Before reading, inform the student that you will tell him/her the words he/she doesn't know, and then when the student comes to an unknown word, after an appropriate pause (two or three seconds use your judgment) tell them the word and let them go on reading the passage B Time the student for one minute to obtain the words per minute PRIOR TO INTERVENTION This is a pre-test or baseline This measure is not considered heavily as evidence of reading ability it is just a measure of current performance and will be heavily influenced by the number (%) of unknown words in the selection Prepare Flashcards A Select at least KNOWN words (if there are 8, if not, then select as many as there are) from the page (paragraph or story) and place them on flash cards You now have at least flash cards with KNOWN WORDS B Now make a flash card for each of the UNKNOWN words on the page You now have flashcards with known words and as many additional flashcards as there are unknown words Present Flashcards in Drill A Select B ONE unknown word Teach the one new word in the following manner: Present it Pronounce it Define it Use it in a sentence (Optional) Spell it Ask the student to pronounce it Ask the student to define it in his/her own words Ask the student to use it in a sentence (Optional) Ask the student to spell it Select eight known-word flashcards _ *Whether it is a page, paragraph, or entire story is determined by what maximum length can be presented at the Instructional Level See Section No 16 C Present for recognition (word-calling) in the following order In the beginning, as the technique is being learned, it is best to follow the procedure exactly, but as you get used to it, you will automatically see how you can vary it for each individual if the need arises 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 THE NEW WORD A known word The New Word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word The New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word The New Word (N1) (N1) (N1) (N1) (K1) (K1) (K2) (K1) (K2) (K3) 1st presentation 2nd presentation 3rd presentation 4th presentation (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (N1) (N1) (N1) (N1) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K7) 5th presentation 6th presentation 7th presentation 8th presentation (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K7) (K8) (N1) 9th presentation At this point the "NEW WORD" is considered a "known word," assuming, of course, that the new word was correctly called most, if not all, of the times in the routine (and certainly the last few times that it was presented) If the word is STILL not known, start the routine over and complete it again 17 D Now that the new word is known, LEAVE IT IN THE PACK as one of the known words This is an absolutely vital part of the process, because the student now needs many more presentations of practice before the word is automatic E Select a second new word, if there is a second, and continue the routine in the following manner Remember that N1 is now a known word And not discard any of the original known words YET 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 2nd New Word First New Word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) 1st presentation of N2 10th presentation 2nd presentation of N2 11th presentation (K1) (K1) (K2) (K1) (K2) (K3) (N2) (N1) 3rd presentation of N2 12th presentation 4th presentation of N2 13th presentation 5th presentation of N2 14th presentation (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) (N2) (N1) 6th presentation of N2 15th presentation (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K7) 7th presentation of N2 16th presentation 8th presentation of N2 17th presentation 9th presentation of N2 18th presentation 18 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word A known word 2nd New Word First New Word (N2) (N1) (K1) (K2) (K3) (K4) (K5) (K6) (K7) (K8) 10th presentation of N2 19th presentation F At this point there are 10 flashcards in the deck There should never be more than TEN flashcards in the deck at one time, so before another new word flashcard is added, one of the known word cards must be discarded As a rule it will be K1, but you can let the student select the one to discard so long as the discarded flashcard is one of the original cards K1-8) For the purposes of this demonstration, we will discard K1 G It is time to add the third new word (if there is one) The presentation schedule will continue as follows: 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 3rd New Word 2nd New Word 3rd New Word 2nd New Word First New Word 3rd New Word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word 3rd New Word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word 3rd New Word 2nd New Word First New Word A known word A known word A known word (N3) (N2) (N3) (N2) (N1) (N3) (N2) (N1) (N3) (N2) (N1) (N3) (N2) (N1) (K2) (K2) (K3) 1st presentation of N3 11th presentation of N2 2nd presentation of N3 12th presentation of N2 20th presentation 3rd presentation of N3 13th presentation of N2 21st presentation 4th presentation of N3 14th presentation of N2 22nd presentation 5th presentation of N3 15th presentation of N2 23rd presentation (K2) (K3) (K4) H By this time, the system should be obvious The New words (N-words) replace the original known words (K-words) By the time N1 reaches the K-8 location in the system, then it will be the next flashcard discarded Obviously, this process can be an ongoing one where new words are added to the flashcard deck as needed Also, it should be noted that the number of practice presentations used in this system is based on the research tied to the number of practice repetitions to learn new facts For further information see Hargis (1987) Now it is time to read! Reading and Recording Results 19 After all unknown words are known in drill, have the student read the page (or paragraph) or story, recording the number of unknown words and the words per minute Record these amounts and go on to the next unit of reading Note: unit of reading here means unit of instruction, not unit in the book When teaching reading in this way, the next unit of instruction can vary from a phrase to a chapter in a reading assignment Maintain Instructional Level The unit length to be presented is largely determined by the maximum amount that can be presented at the instructional level The instructional level is set at about 93% known words, with 3-7% unknown words representing an appropriate challenge If the reading material desired has a high percentage of unknowns, cut back to as little as a paragraph or a page so that the total number of unknown words does not exceed 7, plus or minus (Ref.) Ideally, there should be a ratio of one unknown to unknowns, but that is not always possible If the total number of unknown words on a page is fewer than 3% of the words (1 in 30 words) then include two pages, or three pages, or the entire story whatever among is necessary to get to the instructional level If the total number of unknown words in the entire story is less than 3%, then, from the word-recognition standpoint, the story is too easy and not at the instructional level BUT, before going too quickly to that conclusion, check the fluency and comprehension I have listen to students read with 100% accuracy but very slowly and with very little comprehension But if there is not problem with fluency and/or comprehension, and the total number of unknown words in the story is less than 3%, assign the story for silent reading with the understanding that the unknown words will be dealt with in some manner Then find a reading passage that is at the instructional level This is not usually the problem, but sometimes it is THE problem the work is too easy, and the lack of challenge creates learning problems Copyrighted - 1988 - by James A Tucker, P.O Box 536, Harrisburg, PA 17108  ... press) Adding a vocabulary component to incremental rehearsal to enhance maintenance and drill ratios on recall and on-task behavior for children with learning and attention difficulties Journal of. .. increments of growth” as a motivational aid (from Betts) and ? ?rehearsal? ?? (from information-processing learning- theory) yields the relationship between motivation and rehearsal that leads to mastery That... the incremental- rehearsal instructional strategy A copy of the original document is included as Appendix A to this paper Application As an instructional strategy, incremental rehearsal has served