Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 1

Improving Multiplication and Division Automaticity in Elementary Education

Emily M. Benz

Towson University
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 2
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 3

What teaching strategies can be added to everyday math instruction to improve multiplication and

division automaticity in elementary school education? Multiplication and division automaticity

can be improved by 1) using technology programs to support student learning, 2) providing

teacher-led and student-led instruction, and 3) implementing direction instruction using flashcards.

Using Technology Programs to Support Student Learning

Technology in the classroom has grown over the past decade. Technology can be used in

many aspects. After the roll out of virtual education due to the coronavirus pandemic, educators

and stakeholders have seen the impact that technology can have a classroom. Technology can be

used to increase student engagement, meet specific needs of individual students, allow students to

express their knowledge in multiply ways, and provide enrichment opportunities to learners.

Incorporating technology into everyday multiplication and division fact fluency practice would

improve student automaticity for a multitude of reasons.

Berett and Carter (2018) completed a research study on incorporating a technology

program from Imagine Math facts into a third-grade math class. In this study, sixty-three third

grade students from a charter school in western United States suburban area participated in study

groups. Each study group used a computer-based program called Timez Attack from Imagine Math

Facts. Students used the computer program two times per week for about 20 to 30 minutes for a

twelve-week period. Berett and Carter (2018) found that students who used Timez Attack

improved in their fact fluency throughout the study. This research study only occurred for a twelve-

week period within the school year. If similar technology programs were incorporated into

classrooms for a majority of the year, students would most likely exit third grade with a mastery

of their multiplication facts. In another study, a group of third grade students in a Midwest

elementary school participated in two different interventions. One group used the schoolwide math
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 4

circle and daily practice (such as flashcards) to learn multiplication facts. The second group

combined both the schoolwide math curriculum and daily practice with technology programs. In

this study, Kiger et al. (2012) found that adding technology programs to everyday instruction

improved student achievement. This student achievement will carry with them as they continue

with their math schooling journey. Musti-Rao and Plati (2015) completed a study to compare

student achievement from two different research groups. One group was used technology programs

to work on multiplication fact fluency, while the second group received teacher-led instruction

called detect-practice-repair (DPR). Musti-Rao and Plati (2015) state that students are able to

practice more math facts when using technology programs compared to direct instruction. Since

students are able to practice more math facts using the technology-based programs, each students’

math fact fluency improved. Our goal as educators is ensure that students are gaining the most

from our instruction and methods of teaching. Computer-based programs that practice

multiplication and division automaticity ensure that students are getting the most out of our

instruction and creating a strong math foundation for them. Students with a stronger foundation of

their multiplication and division facts will continue to succeed throughout their school. Having the

knowledge of these facts lightens their cognitive load and allows them to focus on the specific skill

the problem is focusing on.

Computer-based math fluency instruction also increases math skills of students who are at

risk for math failure (Burns et al., 2012). In this study, 442 students who were identified as “at risk

for math failure” used computer-based technology program called Math Facts in a Flash to

supplement instruction. One group of students used the program at least three times a week for

eight to fifteen weeks. The second of students used program less than once a week for less than

eight weeks. Burns et al. (2012) found that students who used the intervention at least three times
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 5

a week for eight to fifteen weeks had greater improvement than students who used the intervention

less one time per week for less than eight weeks. By the time students are in third grade, students

have already decided whether math comes naturally to them or if it is too difficult for them. The

third-grade math curriculum advances past the counting, addition, and subtraction they already

know and moves towards more complex standards. Multiplication and division facts are an

example of this. Students who have already identified that “I’m just not good at math” are at risk

for math failure throughout their math schooling journey. Burns et al. (2012) found that these

computer-based programs can help move students away from this math failure and towards a

greater math understanding. Berrett and Carter (2018) also found that students prefer to use

computer-based programs to learn multiplication facts because it was fun and easy to use, and they

felt as if they were learning. This discovery also aligns to increasing math skills for students who

are at risk for math failure. Since students have a preference of using the computer-based program,

they will be more willing to put the effort into the learning that goes along with the computer-

based learning. Computer-based learning also makes learning enjoyable for students. Students feel

that they are learning and can track their progress throughout their time on the computer-based

learning. Since computer-based technology programs are preferred by students, math skills will

increase for all learners, especially students who are at risk for math failure.

In the same study, Berett and Carter (2018) found that computer-based programs do

incorporate modeling, drill and practice, immediate and regular feedback, and adaptive,

individualized presentation, which align with effective practices to improve math fact fluency.

Student achievement is based on effective instruction being provided by educators. The computer-

based programs that are designed to improve multiplication and division automaticity follow

effective practices for math fact fluency. Students are able to see facts modeled for them. They
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 6

complete practice and drill time. Students are receiving immediate feedback from the program.

While partners can provide each other with feedback during math fact fluency games, educators

can’t guarantee that the feedback students are receiving is always accurate. Educators know that

the feedback that students receive from the computer-based games is accurate. Computer-based

programs also are adaptive and individualized to each student’s needs. Further, Berett and Carter

(2018) found that educators were impressed with how the computer-based program is personalized

to each student’s specific needs. As educators, we know that each child in our classroom has

different needs and that we can’t possibly meet everyone’s needs in one single lesson. Using

computer-based technology better allows for individual student needs to be met. In the lens of

multiplication and division fact fluency, using computer-based programs would allow for students

to practice their unmastered facts and maintain the facts that they have already mastered. Using

computer-based technology in the classroom has not only been shown to improve student

engagement but additionally engage students and meet student’s academic needs.

Teacher-led or Student-led Instruction

A majority of instruction that occurs within a school day is teacher-led. In this situation,

the teachers are the experts and students are learning through modeling and practice. Musti-Rao

and Plati (2015) created a study in which they compared the use of technology in the classroom to

direct instruction occurring from the teacher. Musti-Rao and Plati (2015) found that teacher-led

instruction provides students with multiple opportunities to answer, immediate feedback on their

performance, and a possible system to track their progress. When completing computer-based

programs, students may only have the opportunity try a question once before it is marked as

incorrect. Teacher-led instruction allows for learners to work through the problem and receive that

immediate feedback from their teacher. If a student answers the question incorrectly, their teacher
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 7

is able to provide feedback that helps students shift their thinking. Teacher-led instruction can

include forms of technology which increases fidelity of the instruction (Musti-Rao and Plati 2015),

or in other words, ensures the same content is taught. While allowing teachers to model the

instruction to meet student needs, ensuring that standards are taught with fidelity is an important

aspect of being a team. Ensuring that fidelity happens within a team allows for all students to enter

the following grade with the same content knowledge. Musti-Rao and Plati (2015) also found that

materials for teacher-led instruction can be shared among other teachers. This also plays into the

fidelity of the instruction being taught. The sharing of materials also decreases teacher workload.

Teacher-led instruction allows for students to gain the information firsthand. Students are able

learn from the multiple opportunities to answer, the immediate feedback on their performance, and

a way to track their progress.

Rave and Golightly (2014) completed a study with 44 fifth grade students from a rural

central Pennsylvania public school. In this study, students used a program called Rocket Math.

This program was mainly run by students. Each day students practiced their facts in pairs for two

minutes. To begin, one student was the learner while the other student was the checker. The learner

read the answers aloud for the problems on their math fact sheet. The checker listened for hesitation

or incorrect answers. The checker would then provide the answer and wait for the learner to repeat

the problem and answer to it. After two minutes, the students switched roles and repeated this same

process. By the end of this nine-week study, a majority of students had improved in their

multiplication fact fluency. Rave and Golightly (2014) found that student-led instruction allowed

students to receive immediate feedback on their accuracy. Students who were the checker were

provided with an answer key and were to check if the learner was accurate in their answers. If

students made an error, the checker was able to immediately correct them. The learner then needed
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 8

to repeat the problem with the correct answer and go back three problems to practice. This

immediate feedback is vital to student’s learning. Since students are practicing their multiplication

facts with a peer, they are receiving the correct answer for problems that they have not mastered

yet. Additionally, student-led instruction encourages independence and responsibility of all

students in the classroom (Rave and Golightly 2014). Teachers are always looking for ways for

students take ownership and responsibility for their learning. When students are active participants

in their learning, the more successful students will be in understanding the content and retaining

the knowledge and skills. Giving each student an active role in their learning will increase the

multiplication fact fluency knowledge. In this study, Rave and Golightly (2014) also found that

student-led instruction increases student motivation and decreases the workload for teachers.

Students find motivation in work they see value in and participate in. Student-led instruction gives

students the motivation to increase their knowledge of multiplication facts. Teachers create a

learning environment that encourages learning through partner work. The decrease in workload

for the teacher allows them to be flexible during this timeframe. The teacher has the flexibility to

monitor multiple groups of students working and provide feedback when necessary. Student-led

instruction gives the students an active role in their learning and provides them with motivations

to advance in their multiplication and division fact fluency.

Direct Instruction Using Flashcards

A systematic use of flashcards is also an effective way to increase student knowledge of

multiplication and division facts. Skarr et al. (2014) conducted a study with three elementary

school students (a third grader, and two fifth graders) in Washington. Each child worked with

individual during this instruction. The researcher presented 15 multiplication facts on flashcards

to the students. Six to seven of these facts were unmastered facts and the rest mastered facts. The
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 9

student needed to say the entire statement with the correct answer within two seconds. If not, the

researcher would model the statement and answer. The step was then repeated by the student. The

research placed the missed flashcard two or three cards back in order for it to come up again

quickly. The second part of the instruction was using a game board called “racetrack.” The

gameboard was filled with 14 mastered facts and five to seven target facts. The researcher mixed

the target facts with the master facts. Students needed to say the entire statement and answer

correctly before they could move to the next space on the board and math fact. Students were

challenged with beating their previous time. The child completed at least two laps around the

racetrack. Skarr et al. (2014) found that the combination of Direct Instruction flashcards and the

math racetrack procedure increased student mastery of multiplication facts. Direct Instruction

flashcards provide a systematic way to facilitate mastery and retention of math facts (Skarr et al.,

2014). The systematic procedure that is used with flashcards allows for students to increase their

mastery of their unknown facts. For example, when students came across unknown facts, the

research not only modeled the fact for them but then placed it back in the pile so the learner would

have the opportunity to practice again. Flashcards also maintain student knowledge of

multiplication and division facts. The use of Direct Instruction flashcard has been seen to improve

student automaticity for multiplication and division facts.

Direct Instruction flashcards can also be administered by a wide variety of individuals.

Students can administer Direct Instruction flashcards procedures to one another (Skarr et al.,

2014). At my school, there a small number of free times for students (e.g. breakfast time). My

school serves breakfast as students arrive each morning. Since students can run Direct Instruction

flashcards in pairs, they could use this free time to complete a couple rounds of practice. Parents

and/or aides can administer Direct Instruction flashcards procedures to students (Skarr et al.,
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 10

2014). The ability for parents and aides to work with students on Direct Instruction Flashcards

ensures that students are receiving targeted instruction at their level. This also reduces teacher’s

workload and allows them to focus on other needs throughout the classroom. The wide variety of

individuals that can complete Direct Instruction flashcards with students is an advantage to using

Direct Instruction flashcards to improving multiplication and division fact fluency.

The implementation of Direct Instruction flashcards is practical and cost efficient (Skarr et

al., 2014). Budget is always a topic throughout education. We spend our budget on resources,

staffing, and professional development for educators. Many times, teachers are providing

instruction materials for their classroom out of their own pocket. Direct Instruction flashcards can

be created from simple index cards and a marker. These “low budget” Direct Instruction flashcards

will increase student’s automaticity and provide them with target instruction.

Skarr et al. (2014) also found that the racetrack procedure helped to maintain students’

motivation to master their multiplication facts. Most students are encouraged when they are told

to beat their last time or record. The racetrack procedure adds a game element to the Direct

Instruction Flashcards. The game like element increases student’s automaticity because they are

encouraged to beat their last time. This means that students need to be reciting their facts are a

quicker pace than before. When students are motivated to learn, their outcome is much higher.

Leach (2016) conducted an individual study with one fourth grade student who was being

evaluated for special education services due to their poor mathematic performance. In this study,

Direct Instruction flashcards were used to supplement instruction on a daily basis for about ten

minutes each day. The research incorporated a systematic procedure to the Direct Instruction

flashcard. The teacher would hold up the flashcard and read it aloud. The student had to supply the

correct answer. The student was then praised for providing the correct answer. The teacher would
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 11

repeat this at least three times in a row for the same unknown fact. Next, the teacher presented the

pile of unknown facts. The teacher repeated the same process but allowed the student time to

answer correctly. If the student answers incorrectly, they would go back to the teacher modeling

and student repeating the answer. At the end of this five-week study, the student had reached

mastery level for all of the multiplication facts. Leach (2016) found that one benefit to Direct

Instruction flashcards is that they can be used at any point throughout the day, which makes

scheduling flexible. The flexibility in scheduling ensures that the student will receive that targeted

instruction at some point during the day. For example, if the educator is aware that the math block

is shortened because of a half day. The teacher can schedule this targeted instruction at another

time throughout the day. This is also beneficial if a student arrives late to school. Because of its

flexibility, the student has not missed their targeted instruction and could receive it at any point

throughout the school day. Direct Instruction flashcards requires approximately ten minutes

sessions everyday (Leach 2016). This short amount of instruction ensures that students receive

their target instruction and allows for this instruction to be timely but effective. Flexible scheduling

and short but effective provides that Direct Instruction flashcards are successful at increasing

student’s multiplication and division fact fluency.

Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 12

References

Berrett, A. N., & Carter, N. (2018). Imagine math facts improves multiplication fact fluency in

third-grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(2), 223–239.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9288-1

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 Grades. Remedial

and Special Education, 33(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381652

Kiger, D. M., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning

intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 45(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782597

Leach, D. (2016). Using high-probability instructional sequences and explicit instruction to teach

multiplication facts. Intervention in School and Clinic.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216636062

Musti-Rao, S., & Plati, E. (2015). Comparing two Classwide interventions: implications of using

technology for increasing multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education,

24(4), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9228-x

Rave, K., & Golightly, A. F. (2014). The effectiveness of the rocket math program for improving

basic multiplication fact fluency in fifth grade students: a case study. Education 3-13,

134(4), 537–547. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1034993

Skarr, A., Zielinski, K., Ruwe, K., Sharp, H., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2014). The

effects of direct instruction flashcard and math racetrack procedures on mastery of basic

multiplication facts by three elementary school students. Education and Treatment of

Children, 37(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0007

Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 13

PEER REVIEW - Part 2: Respond to these Prompts

1. Give feedback to the research questions. Is it clear? Does the thesis statement contain a clear
argument? How can it be polished?

The research question is simple and straight forward. The question focuses on
teaching strategies for elementary school age students. In that area, it is a good question to
ask.

One of the things in the question that could possibly be updated is the term
automaticity. Because it is a term that only math teachers would understand, others reading
the title would have no idea what that really was. Terms like fluency, familiarity or habits of
mind may work to make the question clearer to lay-people. Throughout the paper the term
fluency is used to replace automaticity – maybe making that swap altogether might be a good
idea.

My only other comment on the question is the use of elementary school – the paper
refers to third grade a lot. If multiplication and division are introduced at that grade level, I
think it would be reasonable to change “elementary school” to “third grade”. So the question
might read:

What teaching strategies can be added to everyday math instruction to improve

multiplication and division fluency for third grade students?

The thesis question supports the research question in that all of the themes relate
directly to the teaching strategies that will be discussed in the paper. The argument is clearly
stated and reflects the research question. If the terms in the question are changed, then those
changes would naturally be changed in the thesis as well.

2. Read the arguments and the reasoning in the paper. Does the evidence help support the
themes in the paper? What is the strongest evidence in the paper?

The evidence presented supports the themes in the paper very well. The focus is on
using a variety of teaching strategies to support better student learning. Each of the research
studies results are reported using terms like “improved in their fact fluency”, “improved
student achievement” and “encourages independence and responsibility”. What might make a
better case for this is if the studies had statistics on the results so they aren’t so generalized.
Improved fluency is great but saying that 75% of all participants showed an increase in math
fluency or the results showed that student achievement in math scores rose by 40% is better. I
don’t know if statistics are given but including them strengthens the evidence for the
proposed change.

While all of the evidence to support the thesis and themes seemed appropriate, the
most compelling was the evidence on student-led interventions. This is a very hot topic in
education that when students take the lead and are able to teach each other and engage in
Running head: IMPROVING MULTIPLICATION & DIVISION AUTOMATICY 14

their own learning experience, they are able to learn at a higher rate. Teacher-led
interventions have been the norm but don’t always do much for students. It is when the
students take ownership of the learning process that we tend to see greater gains. The
programs that were discussed were really exciting to read about.

3. Is the paper properly formatted, particularly with regard to APA in-text citations and
references at the end? Suggest corrections here.

Most of the paper is correctly formatted. There are notes / comments in the margins
regarding the use of the citations at the beginning of sentences. Sentences should convey the
thought / result of the research with the citation at the end. When this was done in the paper,
it was done correctly.

All of the references at the end of the paper were correctly formatted using APA7.

4. What in the paper needs more expansion?

For this paper, I don’t think it needs to be expanded further but some of the
paragraphs need some better organization. Each of the themes has adequate support but the
flow of the reading needs to be more fluid. I have made several comments throughout the
paper on this. I would actually suggest a reduction in evidence for the second section –
teacher-led or student-led interventions. It seems that both are given equal weight in the
discussion but the idea surrounding student-led interventions seems more on point. It is
expected that teachers will lead instruction. If this worked then there would be no need for
interventions at all and we would have no need to ask the research question. Some of the
evidence points to what adding technology will do for the teacher – as mentioned, some of
the interventions implemented by teachers have the potential to decrease the workload. This
is really not true – it actually redistributes the workload as time is freed up to do more / other
things. But again, that is expected / part of the job. The focus on student-led interventions,
however, is amazing! That section might be better served if that had the top billing and all of
the focus was there as that is what seems to drive real change in increased fluency.

5. What other feedback do you have for the author?

The paper has great evidence to support the research question and thesis. As a teacher
“up the pipeline” in the education process – this is a very relevant subject and topic of
discussion at the high school level. The general ideas presented are well thought out and a
clear case for curriculum change has been presented. There is no lack of content, only editing
remains.

My only suggestion for the writing process would be to make sure you run the editor
periodically, maybe each time you finish a section. It appeared that the editor had not been
run prior to turn in, so a lot of things that showed up in the initial review could have been
avoided.