This study compared two goal-setting approaches found in the Precision Teaching literature, namely the minimum celeration line and the beat your personal best during the mathematical practice of three male students diagnosed with autism, aged 8–9. An adapted alternating treatments design with a control condition was embedded in a concurrent multiple baseline across participants design. Each approach was randomly allocated to either the multiplication/division (×÷) table of 18 or 19, while no approach was allocated to the ×÷14 table that acted as a control. Instruction utilized number families and consisted of (a) untimed practice, (b) frequency-building, (c) performance criteria, (d) graphing, and (e) a token economy. Upon practice completion, an assessment of maintenance, endurance, stability, and application (MESA) was conducted. Participants improved with both conditions and maintained their performance well, while improvements with the control condition were weak. The beat your personal best approach was highlighted as slightly more effective in terms of average performance and more efficient in terms of timings needed to achieve criterion. No differences were identified in terms of learning rate (i.e., celeration) or performance on the MESA. More research is warranted to identify which goal-setting procedure is more appropriate for students in special education.

这项研究比较了精确教学文献中找到的两种设定目标的方法，即最小的速度线和在数学实践中对三名年龄在8-9岁的被诊断为自闭症的男学生的最佳拍打。在参与者设计中，将具有控制条件的适应性交替治疗设计嵌入到同时存在的多个基准中。每种方法都随机分配给18或19的乘法/除法（×÷）表，而没有方法分配给用作控件的×÷14表。指令使用数字族，包括（a）不限时的练习，（b）频率建立，（c）性能标准，（d）图形和（e）代币经济。练习结束后，对维护，耐用性，稳定性和应用性（MESA）进行了评估。参与者在两种情况下均得到改善，并保持了良好的表现，而对照条件下的改善却较弱。与您个人最佳方法相比，突显出在平均绩效方面稍微有效，而在达到标准所需的时间方面则更有效率。在MESA的学习率（即减速度）或性能方面未发现差异。有必要进行更多的研究来确定哪种目标设定程序更适合接受特殊教育的学生。在MESA的学习率（即减速度）或性能方面未发现差异。需要进行更多的研究，以确定哪种目标设定程序更适合接受特殊教育的学生。在MESA的学习率（即减速度）或性能方面未发现差异。需要进行更多的研究，以确定哪种目标设定程序更适合接受特殊教育的学生。