1

WGU- QZM1 Task 3 Capstone Written Project

Math Fluency in First Grade Students

Gavin Kolaric
 2

CHAPTER ONE

Topic

In my Instructional Design program at Western Governors University, I have spent much

of my time working and conducting research in math fact fluency with first-grade students. This

directly relates to my occupation as I am a school-based teacher leader. My professional

responsibilities include aiding teachers in appropriate math strategies that fit the need of their

specific students, holding professional development meetings to discuss data from teacher-

created assessments, district-provided formative tasks, and results from norm-referenced

benchmark tests, and pulling small groups to isolate foundational needs for students who are

considered "on watch" to meet grade-level standards. For my research, I have found a need for

first-grade students to improve their fluency in addition to facts.

The purpose of researching mathematical fluency is to see if daily fluency practice and

student opinions and preferences render statistically significant evidence of math fact growth and

development. The study will compare math fact fluency outcomes after receiving addition fact

fluency intervention. This intervention intends to increase fluency scores in procedural addition

to 10 over a three-week cycle. Math and reading are among the most critical skills learners must

learn, and fluency is the ability to gain fluency. Whitney, Hirn, and Lingo (2016) defined reading

fluency via the primary identification indicators of a word, including pacing, prosody, and

accuracy, that interact to foster comprehension.

Similarly, Martin et al. (2019) defined fluency as the learner's ability to apply skills with

accuracy and speed. Also, Greene, Mc Tiernan, and Holloway (2018) defined fluency as the

student’s ability to use skills accurately and quickly, demonstrating their ability accordingly.

Learners who show a high level of proficiency in fluency tend to use skills with a sense of
 3

feeling and anticipation. In this regard, fluency encompasses two fundamental components:

prosody and automaticity.

Problem Statement

Fluency in math facts is a skill all teachers strive for their students to possess. However,

many first-grade students in intercity Philadelphia have not delivered the results that teachers are

seeking.

Problem Discussion

Math fact fluency refers to knowing a math fact with automaticity and accuracy.

Gervasoni, Giumelli, and McHugh (2017) explain that rather than needing to use math strategies

to figure it out, first-grade students should be able to see a subtraction or addition problem within

10 seconds and give the answer within 3 seconds. Math fact fluency is important as it allows

students to concentrate on tasks that require higher-level thinking. Baker & Cuevas (2018)

explained that while math fact fluency is important, students are not meeting the academic

targets for knowing math facts. Research shows that academically low-achieving students and

those with disabilities show difficulties developing math fact fluency. Students who fail to

develop math fact fluency start falling behind in first grade and continue this pattern into other

grades.

In relation to the need of this study, it is important to note that these students received a

year of fully virtual instruction as their first year of public education. Kindergarten students

typically receive educational exploration opportunities around number sense and addition and

subtraction skills. However, I believe that many students did not respond well to virtual
 4

instruction based on their lack of foundational math skills. We also lost a kindergarten teacher

last year in the winter and had a substitute teacher for the remainder of the year, so that might

have played a role in the lack of foundational skills retained by or even given to students.

Proposed Solution

In this action research, I have identified the instructional problem of low achievement in

math fact fluency of first-grade students and developed my plan of action to implement a three-

week daily fluency practice intervention in every lesson. The intervention will be different in

addition to 10 activities, including flashcard practice and rolling dice and adding. The

intervention will occur daily for 40 minutes. Over three weeks, students will accumulate ten

hours of fluency activity intervention.

I will be giving participants an entry assessment of addition up to 10 fluency probes. This

will give me a baseline of student performance. After the intervention period is over at the end of

three weeks, I will give the same add up to 10 fluency probes. This will allow me to notice if

students are achieving higher scores in correlation to the implementation of the fluency

interventions.

Participants

The participants of this study are all 24 students from the same first-grade classroom in

an urban school. Currently, our first-grade enrollment population is 67 students. The students

randomly selected are between the ages of six and seven. The study will be conducted in the

participants' schools. The school is a Title One school in an urban setting.

The students received nearly all of their kindergarten year instruction virtually due to

Covid-19 mandates and local state regulations. These students are accustomed to learning online

and navigating a computer. However, based on informal dialogue, many have shared that they

enjoy using tangible manipulatives and prefer in-person learning.

Research Question(s)

1) What is the effect of targeted instruction for additional strategies on math fact fluency?

As students struggle with math fact fluency achievement on benchmark tests, there is a

need to find if targeted daily math fact fluency intervention will aid. This question addresses if

there is a significance with an intervention for fluency practice and math fluency results from

assessments. Since I am pursuing better results for math fact fluency, this question will help to

discover if there is a correlation between daily practice and score.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Foster (2018), many learners in the US are struggling to achieve grade-level

standards. Berrett, A. N., & Carter (2018) posits that lack of success in mathematics in the US

continues to be a nationwide issue of concern. Proficiency in mathematics forms the basis for

learners' success in the classroom and the real world. This review focuses on their core aspects

regarding Math Fluency. First, it discusses the concept of fluency and the processes through

which children learners are ready. Secondly, the review examines mathematics fluency. The

review ends with analyzing how daily/repeated fluency contributes to the student’s score.

Fluency
 6

Fluency is among the most critical skills learners must practice (Nichols et al., 2008).

Whitney, Hirn, and Lingo (2016) defined reading fluency via the primary identification

indicators of a word, including pacing, prosody, and accuracy, that interact to foster

comprehension. Similarly, Martin et al. (2019) defined fluency as the

learner’s ability to respond with accuracy and speed. Also, Greene, Mc Tiernan, and Holloway

(2018) defined fluency as the student’s ability to respond accurately and quickly, demonstrating

their ability to decode and comprehend concurrently. Fluency encompasses two fundamental

components that include prosody and automaticity. According to Berrett and Carter (2018),

comprehension is vital to consider when ascertaining the fluency score of a learner. Therefore,

learners exhibiting high rates of fluency possess high proficiencies levels.

Mathematics fact fluency

Mathematics fact fluency is the ability to recall facts that concerns multiplication, division,

addition, and subtraction (Bay-Williams & Kling, 2019). Gervasoni, Giumelli, and McHugh

(2017) demonstrate that learners need to accurately remember mathematics facts with minimal

effort and quicker skilled terms as automaticity. According to Bofferding, Aqazade, and Farmer

(2017), mathematics fact fluency is an area that demands more emphasis and attention in

mathematics instruction. Like the decoding techniques employed in the reading skills, Codding

et al. (2019) opine that learners must be taught techniques that heighten their mathematic fact

fluency, especially during their early years in school. Additionally, Justicia‐ Galiano et al. (2017)

posit that if learners find it challenging to remember math facts, they are likely to find other

mathematical topics too complicated and challenging and ultimately give up due to the

development of anxiety when handling mathematical equations that they regard strenuous.
 7

Basic fact fluency is essential in developing mathematics skills because of its greatest

significance for successful independent living. Besides, Gervasoni, Giumelli, and McHugh

(2017) opines that this skill offers the basis for applications related to problem solving, money,

and time. Bofferding, Aqazade, and Farmer (2017) suggest that individuals without automaticity

for fundamental facts tend to understand the underlying mathematical concepts least because

they cannot simultaneously handle many tasks, especially where these assignments are

complicated. Besides, Bofferding, Aqazade, and Farmer (2017) research show that learners with

specific learning disabilities often exhibit minimal computation fluency, which becomes inherent

in learners with mathematic disabilities. Therefore, poor computation fluency precipitates

difficulties in mathematics. However, Shumway and Jordan (2018) posit that some educators use

computer-based games to foster learners' interest in exercising the mathematics facts without

knowing it is work. (Mntunjani et al., 2018) also add that manipulatives increase learners'

fluency.

Intervention: Mathematics fact fluency

Alptekin (2019): Poncy et al. (2012) investigated the impact of Cover-Copy-Compare

interventions in improving the fluency level in basic subtraction and multiplication facts of the

learner with low performance in mathematics. This study establishes that the application of the

CCC strategy is effective in heightening the fluency levels of the leaner in basic subtraction and

multiplication operations in multiple sets suggesting a positive impact of the techniques on the

overall performance level. Similarly, Bofferding, Aqazade, and Farmer (2017) suggest a need to

assist students in developing an early understanding of the differences between negative and

positive numbers and how they impact operations. Differentiating cases is a more effective
 8

instructional tool to aid learners concentrates on more significant structural features in operations

and grants learners access to new solution methods or new problems. In this regard, (Spencer et

al., 2022) notes that early understanding of mathematical facts and concepts is a key determinant

of the learner’s performance in other aspects of their life.

The study by Thiele et al. (2019) demonstrates computational fluency as a parameter to

gauge proficiency and accuracy while incorporating the analyses of reasoning strategies.

Similarly, Hensley, Rankin, and Hosp (2017) establish that the computational fluency of children

and techniques are pointers to the performance of more sophisticated arithmetic tasks.

Additionally, technology can be used to train for fluency and the generalization of mathematics

facts. According to Greene, Tiernan, and Holloway (2018), generalization of the fluency of math

facts is crucial for transferring skills to different formats and settings, helping the learners

complete more complicated and varied math roles. In this regard, mobile applications and other

forms of classroom methodology offer students with multiple stimuli and responses to foster

fluency and high math facts generalization.

Numerous learning centers are considering the response-to-intervention decision-making model

to help in the learning process and as the strategy to identify learners as learning disabled.

According to Bofferding, Aqazade, and Farmer (2017), a study on interventions to build fluency

shows that practice is a crucial active ingredient, whereby some fluency researchers propose the

allocation of over 70% of the instructional time on practice activities. The utilization of

mathematics-practice activities, especially with learners who exhibit mathematics difficulties

who exhibit mathematics difficulties, will have a profound impact on the overall outcome.

Different instructors use varying instructional approaches to improve the learners’ scores

via improved math facts fluency. According to Tiernan and Holloway (2018), rote memorization
 9

aids students in attaining mastery of math facts via practice and drill. Learners practice this skill

repeatedly until they fully comprehend the concept. Hensley, Rankin, and Hosp

(2017) opine that this form of writing and drilling facts may be an effective approach to attaining

math fluency. Greene and Holloway (2018) highlighted the adoption of modern technology,

including computer-based software, aids learners’ fluency in basic math facts. Greene, Tiernan,

and Holloway (2018) demonstrate that computers positively impact learners' scores in numerous

curricular areas, particularly in mathematics, because their usage offers learners a platform to

investigate mathematical ideas.

Although the experts downplay the best of delivering mathematical instructions, they

acknowledge that the absence of the retrieval of math facts tends to decrease participation in

online class discussions minimizing the growth of daily life skills and success in the problem-

solving process. According to Tiernan and Holloway (2018), educators are investigating more

regarding what the learner needs to foster the acquisition of basic mathematics facts. Therefore,

understanding the meaning carried by the numbers is tenable via practicing fluent recall of facts.

The early learners ought to know the representation of numbers is the stepping stone for

understanding sophisticated roles of higher mathematics. Therefore, increasing the fluency of

math facts is the best strategy to improve children's performance.

CHAPTER THREE

Data Collection: Instruments and Methods

The research will be conducted using a math fact fluency assessment. This quantitative

data collection method would be in the shape of a fluency probe. There is a list of 80 procedural

problems for students to complete during a 1-minute interval. The responses collected would

give me quantitative data on student outcomes.

In this action research, I have identified the instructional problem of low achievement in

math fact fluency of first-grade students and developed my research question of implementing a

three-week daily fluency intervention. I will be giving participants an entry assessment of

addition up to 10 fluency probes. The problems include addends 0 to 10 with their sums equaling

no greater than 10. There are 80 possible items for participants to answer on the probe in one

minute. I will then implement the three-week intervention period of daily fluency activities from

that baseline data. After the three weeks, I will assess the participants again by proctoring the

same add-up to 10 fluency probes. The scores will be compared with the scores from the entry

assessment. Trends will be noticed in the conclusion section of the final research and reflection

on things to change for the next time or possible factors not considered in the discussion section.

The proctor will greet the student in a quiet environment when giving the assessment.

The proctor will then tell the student that they will be telling the proctor the answer to as many

additional problems that they can do in one minute. The proctor will ask if there are any

questions. The test will begin once the proctor places the probe in front of the participant and

begins the timer. The proctor will have their copy and follow along with the participant. The

proctor will put a strike-through any problems orally answered incorrectly. The proctor will

bracket around the last problem the student attempts. The proctor will thank the participant and

say a good job to them.

I will be coding all participant responses with numbers. The code sheet will be destroyed

after all data has been collected. No participant identifying information will be collected. This

research is seeking to increase student fluency in addition to 10 math facts for first grade

students. Since this research is centered around students in first grade, specific parameters are

necessary to minimalize any risk. The risks that do take place are minor and occur during normal
 11

classroom circumstances. Some participants may feel anxious taking a timed assessment due to

normal test anxiety. This risk is minimal since it is a normal occurrence in day to day instruction

and activity.

The researcher will reduce risks mentioned above by explaining that it is not graded and

that participation or nonparticipation will not affect their standings in the classroom. The

participants will be told that the pre and post assessment probes will help them become better

mathematicians in regard to math fact fluency achievement. The benefits may help participants

and teachers by understanding that practicing math fact interventions such as games could

improve fluency achievement as well as the rest of the school and other researchers.

The researcher has presented all information of the proposed study (including purpose,

method, proposed data collection, and proposed data analysis) during a leadership meeting in

front of the building principal. Permission and signatures were captured during that meeting. All

parents will be messaged on a virtual communication message portal that a form will be sent

home with all students. The researcher will ask students to bring back the signed form the next

day. The researcher will call parents of participants that have not returned the form in order to

communicate to arrange getting written permission to conduct the study. The researcher will then

begin the study and keep records of participants in which their parents signed the consent form.

All students are expected to participate in regular class activities since addition to 10 is an

expected first grade foundational skill. Students can skip any problems on the probe as well as

choose to not participate. They will be required to complete the addition to 10 fluency probes

and interventions that occur during the allotted math time during the school day, but their results

will not be included in the study. Students may withdraw from any irregular classroom

instruction and will not be penalized for that matter. To withdraw, you must simply notify the
 12

researcher. However, consent from parents and/or guardians as well as building administration

must be granted in order to gain data from participants. Participants and/or their

parents/guardians can request to have their data excluded from the final report.

Grades/enrollment will not be impacted in any way as a result of participation or lack of

participation in this study

Data Analysis

After the quantitative results are collected from the fact fluency probes, the data will be

sorted into a table comparing each participant’s scores from entry assessment to final assessment.

This will allow me to compare each assessment to see growth or regression of scores. This

directly relates to my research question of impacts on daily fluency-based practice interventions

regarding math fact fluency performance. This quantitatively measures fluency growth or

regression before and after fluency interventions.

I will be using descriptive statistics to share valuable information such as mean, median,

mode, and other data descriptions to inform trends of this specific sample. This also relates to the

research question of impacts of fluency achievement with fluency intervention. With data

descriptors such as mean, median, and mode with the fluency probes, we can get micro and

macro-views of how the data is distributed related to fluency practice impacting the data. This

will help us navigate my research question's relationship and achievement development

conclusions concerning fluency intervention. Using descriptive statistics will also aid in

informing symmetry and normality of the data in relation to the effects of fluency intervention.
 13

References

Alptekin, S. (2019). The Effect of Cover-Copy-Compare Interventions to Enhance Fluency in

Basic Multiplication Facts of a Student with Low Performance in Math. Çukurova

University. Faculty of Education Journal, 48(2), 960-993

Baker, A., & Cuevas, J. (2018). The Importance of Automaticity Development in Mathematics.

Georgia Educational Researcher, 14(2).

Bay-Williams, J., & Kling, G. (2019). Math fact fluency: 60+ games and assessment tools to

support learning and retention. ASCD.

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

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

Bofferding, L., Aqazade, M., & Farmer, S. (2017). Second Graders’ Integer Addition

Understanding: Leveraging Contrasting Cases. North American Chapter of the

International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Codding, R. S., Volpe, R. J., Martin, R. J., & Krebs, G. (2019). Enhancing mathematics fluency:

Comparing the spacing of practice sessions with the number of opportunities to respond.

School Psychology Review, 48(1), 88-97.

Foster, C. (2018). Developing mathematical fluency: comparing exercises and rich tasks.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 97(2), 121-141.

Gervasoni, A., Giumelli, K., & McHugh, B. (2017). The Development of Addition and

Subtractions Strategies for Children in Kindergarten to Grade 6: Insights and

Implications. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia

Greene, I., Mc Tiernan, A., & Holloway, J. (2018). Cross-age peer tutoring and fluency-based

instruction to achieve fluency with mathematics computation skills: A randomized

controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(2), 145-171

Greene, I., Mc Tiernan, A., & Holloway, J. (2018). Cross-age peer tutoring and fluency-based

instruction to achieve fluency with mathematics computation skills: A randomized

controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(2), 145-171.

Hensley, K., Rankin, A., & Hosp, J. (2017). Comparing student performance on paper-and

computer-based math curriculum-based measures. Assistive Technology, 29(3), 140-145.

Justicia‐Galiano, M. J., Martín‐Puga, M. E., Linares, R., & Pelegrina, S. (2017). Math anxiety

and math performance in children: The mediating roles of working memory and math

self‐concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 573-589.

Martin, R. J., Codding, R. S., Collier-Meek, M. A., Gould, K. M., DeFouw, E. R., & Volpe, R. J.

(2019). Examination of a parent-mediated detect, practice, and repair procedure to

improve math fact fluency. School Psychology Review, 48(4), 293-308.

Mntunjani, L. M., Adendorff, S. A., & Siyepu, S. W. (2018). Foundation phase teachers’ use

of manipulatives to teach number concepts: A critical analysis. South African Journal

of Childhood Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v8i1.495

Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Fluency in learning to read for

meaning: Going beyond repeated readings. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1),

1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802161906

Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A comparison of class-wide taped

problems and cover, copy, and compare for enhancing mathematics fluency.

Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 744-755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21631

Rich, S. E. H., Duhon, G. J., & Reynolds, J. (2017). Improving the generalization of computer

based math fluency building through the use of sufficient stimulus exemplars. Journal of

Behavioral Education, 26(2), 123-136.

Shumway, J. F., & Jordan, K. E. (2018). Understanding Students’ Computational Fluency:

Synechistically Using Test Scores and Interviews for a Richer Picture. International

Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 19(2), 159-175.

Spencer, M., Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Connections between

mathematics and reading development: Numerical cognition mediates relations

between foundational competencies and later academic outcomes. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 114(2), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000670

Thiele, C., Dole, S., Carmichael, P., Simpson, J., & O'Toole, C. (2019). Teaching Number Fact

and Computational Fluency: Teachers' Perceptions and Impact upon Practice.

Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

Whitney, T., Hirn, R. G., & Lingo, A. S. (2016). Effects of a mathematics fluency program on

mathematics performance of students with challenging behaviors. Preventing School

Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(2), 133-142.