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.
AshcraftM. 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
2.
BaroodyA. 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
3.
BloomB. S. (1986). Automaticity: The hands and feet of genius. Educational Leadership, 43, 70–77.
4.
BurnsM. 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.
5.
BurnsM. K.KaniveR.DegrandeM. (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
6.
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
7.
DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. 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
8.
DelazerM.DomahsF.BarthaL.BrenneisC.LockyA.TriebT. (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
9.
FloydR. G.EvansJ. J.McGrewK. 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.
10.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.PowellS. R.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. 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.
11.
GarnettK.FleischnerJ. 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
12.
GearyD. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15. doi:10.1177/0022219404037001020110.1177/00222194040370010201
13.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (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
14.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. T.BransfordJ. D. (1987). Effective math instruction: Developing automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19, 30–33.
15.
IsaacsA. C.CarrollW. M. (1999). Strategies for basic-facts instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5, 508–515.
16.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B.KaplanD. (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
17.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. 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
18.
LoganG. 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
19.
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
20.
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
21.
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
22.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
Renaissance Learning. (2002). STAR Math. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
25.
Renaissance Learning. (2003). MathFacts in a Flash. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
26.
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.
27.
RoyerJ. M.TronskyL. N.ChanY.JacksonS. J.MarchantH.III. (1999). Math-fact retrieval as the cognitive mechanism underlying gender differences in math test performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 181–266.
28.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ.BoltS. (2010). Using technology-enhanced assessments: STAR Math. In Assessment: In special and inclusive education (11th ed., pp. 329–330). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
SieglerR. S.ShragerJ. (1984). Strategy choice in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In SophianC. (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Singer-DudekJ.GreerR. 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.
31.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BurnsM. 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
32.
VosK. E. (2009). Numeracy development and intervention guide. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
WillinghamD. 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.
35.
WongM.EvansD. (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
36.
YsseldykeJ.ThillT.PohlJ.BoltD. (2005). Using MathFacts in a Flash to enhance computational fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 59–89.
