Abstract
This study employed an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of two types of practice conditions on the subtraction fact fluency in a fifth-grade classroom. Eight, fifth-grade students participated in the study over a 5-week intervention period practicing addition and subtraction facts in a “fact families” condition (A + S) and only subtraction facts in the second condition (S only) delivered using a math app on an iPad®. Results showed seven out of eight students improved their overall subtraction fact fluency and surpassed expected growth rates. Performance was greater for the majority of students when facts were presented in the S only condition in comparison to facts presented in A + S condition. Despite making substantial gains, only four out of eight students were able to move from frustration level to instructional levels with the intervention. The discussion focuses on the procedural and conceptual knowledge of math instruction and the benefits and implications of using the iPad® to supplement math instruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berrett, A. N., & Carter, N. J. (2018). Imagine math facts improves multiplication fact fluency in third-grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27, 223–239.
Bouck, E. C., & Cosby, M. D. (2017). Tier 2 response to intervention in secondary mathematics education. Preventing School Failure, 61(3), 239–247.
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 237–249.
Burns, M. K., Codding, R. S., Boice, C. H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83.
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & DeGrande, M. (2012). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth graders. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 184–191.
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: a comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 401–418.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
Calhoon, M. B., Emerson, R. W., Flores, M., & Houchins, D. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 292–303.
Forbinger, L. L., & Fuchs, W. F. (2014). RtI in math: Evidence-based interventions for struggling students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: how much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–48.
Geary, D. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250–263.
Gross, T. J., & Duhon, G. (2013). Evaluation of computer-assisted instruction for math accuracy intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29(3), 246–261.
Hawkins, R. O., Collins, T., Hernan, C., & Flowers, E. (2017). Using computer-assisted instruction to build math fact fluency: an implementation guide. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(3), 141–147.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.
Lane, K. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). School-based intervention: the tools you need to succeed. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn Bacon.
Leutzinger, L. (2002). Facts that last-subtraction: a balanced approach to memorization. Chicago, IL: Creative Publications.
McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 129–147.
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00230.x.
Musti-Rao, S., Lynch, T. L., & Plati, E. (2015). Training for fluency and generalization of math facts using technology. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514541485.
Musti-Rao, S., & Plati, E. (2015). Comparing two classwide interventions: Implications of using technology for increasing multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9228-x.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel [NMAP]. (2008). Foundations for success: the final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Ok, M. W., & Bryant, D. P. (2016). Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 146–158.
Poncy, B. C., Duhon, G. J., Lee, S. B., & Key, A. (2010). Evaluation of techniques to promote generalization with basic math fact skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9101-x.
Poncy, B. C., McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2010). A comparison of behavioral and constructivist interventions for increasing math-fact fluency in a second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 917–930.
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2010). An investigation of detect, practice, and repair to remedy math-fact deficits in a group of third-grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 342–353.
Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle, S. F., & Skinner, C. H. (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair (DPR) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class-wide setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(3), 211–228.
Rave, K., & Golightly, A. (2014). The effectiveness of the rocket math program for improving basic multiplication fact fluency in fifth grade students: A case study. Education, 134(4), 537–547.
Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: a method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18(3), 412–420.
Ysseldyke, J., Thill, T., Pohl, J., & Bolt, D. (2005). Using Math Facts in a Flash to enhance computational fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 59–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Institution Review Board; IRB Code#16-45) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Musti-Rao, S., Telesman, A.O. Comparing the Effects of Two Practice Conditions on the Subtraction Fact Fluency of Fifth-Grade Students. J Behav Educ 31, 484–502 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09417-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09417-y