Mathematics Fluency—More than the Weekly Timed Test

  • Ben ClarkeEmail author
  • Nancy Nelson
  • Lina Shanley


The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the critical importance of mathematics fluency. We begin by providing an overview of the role of mathematics in today’s society, current shortcomings in the teaching of mathematics, operational definitions of fluency, and the critical role fluency plays in the development of mathematics proficiency. Next, we summarize current interventions designed to promote the development of fluency and assessments designed to measure student acquisition of mathematics fluency. We conclude by noting the potential steps for both researchers and practitioners to take to move the field forward.


Mathematics fluency Number sense STEM Mathematics instruction Mathematics assessment Curriculum-based measurement 


  1. Baker, S.K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 3(9), 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Baroody, A. J. (2011). Learning: A framework. In F. Fennell (Ed.), Achieving fluency: Special education and mathematics (pp. 15–58). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  3. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implication for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. S. (2006). Developmental and individual differences in pure numerical estimation. Developmental Psychology, 41, 189–201. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M. (2008a). Mathematics intervention for first and second grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 20–32. doi:10.1177/0741932507309712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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, 69–83.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 184–191. doi:10.1177/0741932510381652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cates, G. L. (2005). Effects of peer versus computer-assisted drill on mathematics response rates. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 637–646. doi:10.1002/pits.20105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, B., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. J. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Examining the role of growth in student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 46–57. doi:10.1177/0741932507309694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, B., Gersten, R., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2010). RTI in Mathematics: beginnings of a knowledge base. In S. Vaughn & T. Glover (Eds.), Advances in response to intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, B., Nese, J. F. T., Alonzo, J., Smith, J. L. M., Tindal, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Baker, S. K. (2011). Classification accuracy of easy CBM first-grade mathematics measures: Findings and implications for the field. Assessment for Effective Intervention (Advance online publication). doi:10.1177/1534508411414153.Google Scholar
  14. Codding, R. S. (2003). Examining the efficacy of performance feedback and goal-setting interventions in children with AD/HD: A comparison of two methods of goal setting. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I database. (Accession No. 305246068).Google Scholar
  15. Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness?. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603–617. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-Analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(1), 36–47. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2010.00323.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
  18. Coyne, M. D., Zipoli, R. P., & Ruby, M. F. (2006). Beginning reading instruction for students at risk for reading disabilities: What, how, and when. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 161–168. doi: 10.1177/10534512060410030601Google Scholar
  19. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Deno, S. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 312. doi:10.1177/073724770302800302.Google Scholar
  22. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  23. Doggett, R. A., Henington, C., & Johnson-Gros, K. N. (2006). Math to mastery: A direct instruction remedial math intervention designed to increase student fluency with basic math facts. Unpublished manuscript, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.Google Scholar
  24. Doughty, S. S., Chase, P. N., & O’Shields, E. M. (2004). Effects of rate building on fluent performance: A review and commentary. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 7–23.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japel, C., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Farrell, A., & McDougall, D. (2008). Self-monitoring of pace to improve math fluency of high school students with disabilities. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(2), 2–35.Google Scholar
  27. Fennell, F. (2011). All means all. In F. Fennell (Ed.), Achieving fluency: Special education and mathematics (pp. 1–14). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  28. Figarola, P. M., Gunter, P. L., Reffel, J. M., Worth, S. R., Hummel, J., & Gerber, B. L. (2008). Effects of self-graphing and goal setting on the math fact fluency of students with disabilities. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 36–41.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra progress monitoring and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 65–78.Google Scholar
  30. Foegen, A., & Deno, S. (2001). Identifying growth indicators of low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 4–16. doi:10.1177/002246690103500102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in Mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Freeman, T. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1984). Effects of a taped-words treatment procedure on learning disabled students’ sight-word oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 49–54. doi: 10.2307/1510261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 13–24. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00227.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008a). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly: Journal of the Division for Children with Learning Disabilities, 31, 79–92.Google Scholar
  37. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R.O. (2008b). Response to intervention: A strategy for the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEIA 2004 and beyond (pp. 115–135). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Geary, D. C. (1994). Children’s mathematical development: Research and practical applications (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geary, D.C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Geary, D. C. (2001). Numerical and arithmetical deficits in learning-disabled children: Relation to dyscalculia and dyslexia. Aphasiology, 15, 635–641. doi:10.1080/02687040143000113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Geary, D. C., & Widaman, K. F. (1992). Numerical cognition: On the convergence of componential and psychometric models. Intelligence, 16, 47–80. doi:10.1016/0160–2896(92)90025-M.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2007.01069.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Geary D.C., Hoard M.K., Nugent L., Bailey D.H. (2013). Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. PLoS One, 8(1): e54651. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054651.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18–28. doi:10.1177/002246699903300102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gersten, R. M., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., March, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RTI) for elementary and middle schools (Practice Guide Report No. NCEE 2009–4060). Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  48. Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Dimino, J., & Rolfhus, E. (2010). Universal screening measures of number sense and number proficiency for K-1: Preliminary findings (Report No. 2010–1). Los Alamitos: Instructional Research Group.Google Scholar
  49. Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Jordan, N. C., Newman-Gonchar, R., Haymond, K., & Wilkins, C. (2012). Universal screening in mathematics for the primary grades: Beginnings of a research base. Exceptional Children, 78, 423–445.Google Scholar
  50. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 223–265. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0503_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? Cambridge: Program on Education Policy and Governance & Education, Harvard University Kennedy School.Google Scholar
  52. Hasselbring, T., Sherwood, R., Bransford, J., Fleenor, K., Griffith, D., & Goin, L. (1987). An evaluation of a level-one instructional videodisc program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 16, 151–169. doi:10.2190/BR31-J510-CXM4-K41E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jitendra, A. K., Rodriguez, M., Kanive, R., Huang, J. P., Church, C., Corroy, K. A., & Zaslofsky, A. (2013). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 21–35. doi:10.1177/0731948712457561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jordan, N. C., & Montani, T. O. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and problem solving: A comparison of children with specific and general mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 624–634. doi:10.1177/002221949703000606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 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)00032-8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 850–867. doi:10.1037/a0014939.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A meta-analytic review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 122–136. doi:10.1002/pits.20622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Chard, D. J., & Fien, H. (2008). Making connections in mathematics conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 33–45. doi:10.1177/0741932507309711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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)90015-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and grade 1 students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 12–20. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2008.01273.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lin, F. Y., & Kubina, R. M. (2005). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between fluency and application for multiplication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 73–87. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-2703-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lockard, C. B., & Wolf, M. (2012). Occupational employment projections to 2020. Monthly Labor Review, 135, 84–108.Google Scholar
  63. Locuniak, M. N., & Jordan, N. C. (2008). Using kindergarten number sense to predict calculation fluency in second grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 451–459. doi:10.1177/0022219408321126.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J., & Jitendra, A. K. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance and classroom behavior of children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 301–312. doi:10.1177/1087054705278832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McDougall, D., & Brady, M. P. (1998). Initiating and fading self-management interventions to increase math fluency in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 64, 151–166.Google Scholar
  67. Mercer, C. D., Mercer, K. D., & Campbell, K. U. (2002). Great leaps math. Gainesville: Diarmuid.Google Scholar
  68. Miller, A. D., & Heward, W. L. (1992). Do your students really know their math facts? Using daily time trials to build fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Montague, M., Penfield, R. D., Enders, C., & Huang, J. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of math problem solving: A methodology and rationale for establishing equivalence of scores. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 39–52. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0022219408331037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Is America falling off the flat earth? In N. R. Augustine (Ed.), Rising Above the Gathering Storm Committee, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from Scholar
  72. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). District of Columbia: Washington, DC.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  73. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). District of Columbia: Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  74. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Standards 2000 project.
  75. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence.
  76. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  77. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  78. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.Google Scholar
  79. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from Scholar
  80. Parker, R. I., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Useful effect size interpretations for single-case research. Behavior Therapy, 38, 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204. doi:10.1177/00224669070400040101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair: The effects of a classwide intervention on elementary students’ math-fact fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools; Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47–68.Google Scholar
  83. 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(1), 76–92. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9101-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Renaissance Learning. (2003). Math facts in a flash. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.Google Scholar
  86. Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–60.Google Scholar
  87. Siegler, R. S., & Robinson, M. (1982). The development of numerical understandings. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 241–311). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  88. Siegler, R., Carpenter, T., Fennell, F., Geary, D., Lewis, J., Okamoto, Y., Thompson, L., & Wray, J. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE #2010–4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Rgional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Scholar
  89. Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: An intervention for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 212–220.Google Scholar
  90. Slocum, T. A., Street, E. M., & Gilberts, G. (1995). A review of research and theory on the relation between oral reading rate and reading comprehension. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 377–398. doi:10.1007/BF02114539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. The White House. (2012, January). [Official web site of the White House and President Barack Obama].
  93. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Performance indicators in math: Implications for brief experimental analysis of academic performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 71–91. doi:10.1007/s10864-009-9081-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wu, H. (2005). Must content dictate pedagogy in mathematics education? Paper presented at California State University at Northridge. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center on Teaching and LearningUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations