Teaching a Student with Poor Performance in Mathematics to Recall of Multiplication Facts Using Simultaneous Prompting with Systematic Review and Corrective Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, it was aimed to determine the effects of the Simultaneous Prompting (SP) package jointly with the systematic review and corrective feedback in teaching a student with poor performance in mathematics to recall the multiplication facts. One of the single subject designs, the multiple probes design across behaviors (sets) is used in this study. The participant is an 11 years old female student at the 6th grade who has not been diagnosed with any disability but has been getting support because of her poor performance in mathematics than her peers. The dependent variable of this study is the skill of recall multiplication facts with the sets of 3, 5 and 8. The independent variable of the study is the SP package jointly with the systematic review and corrective feedback. Results show that the SP was effective in teaching the student with low mathematical performance to the skill of recall the multiplication facts. The student generalized the learned multiplication facts to another teacher and different setting and maintained her performance on the 15th and 45th days following the systematic reviews. Considering the findings of social validity, it has been determined that the teacher presented positive opinions, as she became happy with that achievement and the method is a way, which can be adopted and implemented by all teachers. These results indicate the acceptability of the SP package and results of the study are highly meaningful. Implications and future research needs are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".