![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Because math fact automaticity has been identified as a key barrier for students struggling with mathematics, we examined how initial math achievement levels influenced the path to automaticity (e.g., variation in number of attempts, speed of retrieval, and skill maintenance over time) and the relation between attainment of automaticity and gains in general math achievement. Findings indicated that most students did not meet the grade level recommendations for addition and subtraction identified by standards-setting organizations, but those that did were likely to achieve superior gains in math achievement, controlling for pretest scores. Relative to higher-achieving students, low-achieving students required more attempts to demonstrate automaticity, achieved automaticity later, and their speed of retrieval was lagging. Overall, low-achieving students were less likely to demonstrate fluent retrieval of math facts, but those that did also experienced particularly large gains in general math achievement.
Keywords math facts, addition, subtraction, early elementary, fluency
References
Section:
|
Ashcraft, M. H. (1982). The development of mental arithmetic: A chronometric approach. Developmental Review, 2, 213–236. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(82)90012-010.1016/0273-2297(82)90012-0 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Baroody, A. J. (1999). The roles of estimation and the commutativity principle in the development of third graders’ mental multiplication. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 157–199. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.252410.1006/jecp.1999.2524 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Bloom, B. S. (1986). Automaticity: The hands and feet of genius. Educational Leadership, 43, 70–77. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237–249. Google Scholar | |
|
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., Degrande, M. (in press). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades. Remedial and Special Education. doi:10.1177/074193251038165210.1177/0741932510381652 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Common Core State Standards Initiative . (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math Standards.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K. (1994). A comparison of 3 interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 459–469. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-45910.1901/jaba.1994.27-459 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Delazer, M., Domahs, F., Bartha, L., Brenneis, C., Locky, A., Trieb, T. (2004). The acquisition of arithmetic knowledge—An fMRI study. Cortex, 40, 166–167. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70936-510.1016/S0010-9452(08)70936-5 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement across school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 155–171. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Garnett, K., Fleischner, J. E. (1983). Automatization and basic fact performance of normal and learning disabled children. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 223–230. doi:10.2307/151080110.2307/1510801 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15. doi:10.1177/0022219404037001020110.1177/00222194040370010201 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=2 Google Scholar | |
|
Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. T., Bransford, J. D. (1987). Effective math instruction: Developing automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19, 30–33. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Isaacs, A. C., Carroll, W. M. (1999). Strategies for basic-facts instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5, 508–515. Google Scholar | |
|
Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., Kaplan, D. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00032-810.1016/S0022-0965(03)00032-8 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
LaBerge, D., Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-210.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.95.4.49210.1037//0033-295X.95.4.492 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
National Center on Response to Intervention . (2010a). Review of progress monitoring tools [Review of MathFacts in a Flash]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/progressMonitoringMasteryTools Google Scholar | |
|
National Center on Response to Intervention . (2010b). Review of progress monitoring tools [Review of STAR Math]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/progressMonitoringTools Google Scholar | |
|
National Center on Response to Intervention . (2011). Review of screening tools [Review of STAR Math]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/screeningTools Google Scholar | |
|
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
National Mathematics Advisory Panel . (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Renaissance Learning . (2002). STAR Math. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Renaissance Learning . (2003). MathFacts in a Flash. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Renaissance Learning . (2009). Math facts automaticity: The missing element in improving math achievement: How students can make dramatic gains with MathFacts in a Flash. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Royer, J. M., Tronsky, L. N., Chan, Y., Jackson, S. J., Marchant, H.. (1999). Math-fact retrieval as the cognitive mechanism underlying gender differences in math test performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 181–266. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., Bolt, S. (2010). Using technology-enhanced assessments: STAR Math. In Assessment: In special and inclusive education (11th ed., pp. 329–330). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Google Scholar | |
|
Siegler, R. S., Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choice in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In Sophian, C. (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Singer-Dudek, J., Greer, R. D. (2005). A long term analysis of the relationship between fluency and the training and maintenance of complex math skills. Psychological Record, 55, 361–376. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Burns, M. K. (2008). Examination of the utility of various measures of mathematics proficiency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 215–224. doi:10.1177/153450840731348210.1177/1534508407313482 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Vos, K. E. (2009). Numeracy development and intervention guide. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. Google Scholar | |
|
Whitehurst, G. (2003, February). Research on mathematics instruction [Online]. Paper presented at the Secretary’s Summit on Mathematics, Washington, DC. www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/whitehurst.html Google Scholar | |
|
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Wong, M., Evans, D. (2007). Improving basic multiplication fact recall for primary school students. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19, 89–106. Retrieved from http://www.merga.net.au/documents/MERJ_19_1_Wong.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Ysseldyke, J., Thill, T., Pohl, J., Bolt, D. (2005). Using MathFacts in a Flash to enhance computational fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 59–89. Google Scholar |
