Cumulative Instructional Time and Relative Effectiveness Conclusions: Extending Research on Response Intervals, Learning, and Measurement Scale.

Adapted alternating treatments designs were used to evaluate three computer-based flashcard reading interventions (1-s, 3-s, or 5-s response intervals) across two students with disabilities. When learning was plotted with cumulative instructional sessions on the horizontal axis, the session-series graphs suggest that the interventions were similarly effective. When the same data were plotted as a function of cumulative instructional seconds, time-series graphs suggest that the 1-s intervention caused the most rapid learning for one student.

Learning rates and known-to-unknown flash-card ratios: comparing effectiveness while holding instructional time constant.

Using alternating treatments designs, we compared learning rates across 2 computer-based flash-card interventions (3 min each): a traditional drill intervention with 15 unknown words and an interspersal intervention with 12 known words and 3 unknown words. Each student acquired more words under the traditional drill intervention. Discussion focuses on the need to account for instructional time when learning procedures are evaluated and compared.