This study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of an error-correction procedure, response repetition, to a prompting procedure, simultaneous prompting, on the acquisition and maintenance of multiplication facts for three typically developing 3rd grade students. This study employed an adapted alternating treatments design nested in a multiple probe design across three sets of multiplication facts. Results indicated that correct responding increased upon intervention implementation for all participants. For two participants, response repetition was a more effective teaching procedure. For one participant, while both teaching procedures were effective, response repetition was more efficient in terms of sessions to mastery while simultaneous prompting was more efficient in terms of errors and seconds to mastery. Maintenance data were variable. Discussion focuses on conceptual differences between response repetition and simultaneous prompting that might have accounted for results.