Lpchelka - Peer Review of Emily Lit Review Post
Lpchelka - Peer Review of Emily Lit Review Post
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
teacher-led and student-led instruction, and 3) implementing direction instruction using flashcards.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
References
Berrett, A. N., & Carter, N. (2018). Imagine math facts improves multiplication fact fluency in
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
Kiger, D. M., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning
Leach, D. (2016). Using high-probability instructional sequences and explicit instruction to teach
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216636062
Musti-Rao, S., & Plati, E. (2015). Comparing two Classwide interventions: implications of using
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,
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
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:
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.
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.
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.