The effects of high-preference problems on the completion of nonpreferred mathematics problems.

Goodwin et al. (2012) tested a simple idea. Let students with emotional and behavioral disorders start math with two or three fun problems they like. Then give them the hard ones they usually avoid.

The team watched how fast kids began the hard set and how many they finished. They used a single-case design so each student served as their own control.

The warm-up cut the time kids spent staring at the page. It did not make them work faster once they started.

In other words, high-preference starters are good for getting going, not for speeding through work.

Shearn et al. (1997) showed the same trick fifteen years earlier. They also saw faster starts, not faster finishes, so Goodwin et al. (2012) is a close replication in a tougher population.

Rosales et al. (2021) moved the tactic to autism and compliance. High-probability requests helped most kids follow directions, just like the math study helped kids start work.

Adkins et al. (1997) sounds like a contradiction. High-preference items raised stereotypy and hurt accuracy in one autistic child. The difference is population and response. EBD students in L et al. gained from quick success; the autistic child in K et al. got distracted by favorite objects.

Start every math session with two or three problems you know the student can zip through. This tiny habit shaves seconds off dawdling and builds early momentum. Do not expect it to raise work speed—pair the starter with fluency drills or reinforcement for output if you need more items per minute.