Are Timed Fact Tests Helpful?
Fluency with basic math facts (single-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts) is necessary for later proficiency with more complex math concepts. However, the research has shown that rote memorization of these facts is not the best way for children to build fluency. (I write more on the process of building fact fluency here.)
So what about those timed tests we all remember from school? The teacher sets the timer for a minute and we scramble to complete as many problems as possible. Are they bad? Are they good? It turns out that the answer is not that straightforward.
These tests are often cited as the source of math anxiety for many people. They certainly weren't a particularly enjoyable task in school. But for that matter, most tests weren't. Does anyone sit down to take the ACT and say, "Well, that was fun,” when it’s over?
I'd venture to guess that most people don't find any math tests to be particularly enjoyable. But tests serve a purpose. They provide clear information to teachers, parents, and students about what a child has learned and what they need to keep working on.
So here's my opinion on timed basic fact tests: When used for their correct purpose, timed basic fact tests can be useful assessment tools. The key is understanding what timed fact tests are and what they aren't.
Here's what timed fact tests are: A tool that tells us whether a child has already developed efficiency and accuracy with a given set of basic math facts.
Here's what timed fact tests aren’t: A tool for teaching basic math facts or for telling us what strategies children are using to solve a given set of facts.
For example, a timed test of the 5s multiplication facts will tell me whether my son can already efficiently and accurately answer the 5s multiplication facts. It won't tell me how he thinks about the facts as he solves. And if he doesn’t already have strategies for figuring out these facts, it won't help him develop fluency because it will push rote memorization over the use of flexible reasoning strategies. (More on that difference here.) In fact, one study found that the use of timed fact tests as a tool to teach basic facts had a negative impact on student recall of facts.
*A small but important note of nuance here: There is a lot of debate about whether timed fact practice (separate from tests) is useful in the development of fluency. Experts generally agree that if a child has already built reasoning strategies as described in Baroody’s research, low-stakes, timed games (like FactFreaks) can be a fun way to increase a child’s speed with their basic facts after they already understand how to derive the answers through a reasoning strategy (number sense and related facts). However, moving to a timed game/practice approach before a child has built the appropriate number sense can lead to increased anxiety and rote memorization over meaningful fluency, “Children who are accurate but slow may benefit from timed practice, but such timed practice may harm children who are struggling to be accurate (Codding et al., 2009b). Once children are accurate and competent with strategies, game-like, self-motivated practice for speed is an excellent compliment. Such practice should be short, frequent, stress-free, and fun, with each student engaged in improving their own performance.” (Clements, Douglas H., and Julie Sarama. Learning and Teaching Early Math: The Learning Trajectories Approach. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.) More on the nuance of timed practice is discussed in this article.
So it’s clear that there are situations in which a timed fact test can be useful. The problem arises when timed fact tests are used outside of their correct purpose. If, as parents or teachers, we're using a timed fact test with our child/students, we need to be clear on the type of information we're hoping to obtain and why we're using it:
Am I assessing whether efficiency and accuracy already exist for a given set of facts? A timed test could help.
Am I assessing the way a child thinks about (reasons through) a given set of facts? A timed test won't give information on this.
Am I trying to help a child develop fact fluency? Without building number sense strategies first, a timed test/timed practice typically doesn't support this and instead pushes a child to just memorize the facts rather than develop true fluency. (Research) After a child has developed accuracy using reasoning strategies, timed practice can help increase speed. (Research)
Given all the cited research, my takeaway is that an incorrect use of timed tests and timed practice is the source of any anxiety they can cause for students. It makes logical sense that a person could develop an unhelpful anxiousness about being timed on a skill they don’t yet understand.
Knowing this, I have two recommendations for the use of timed fact tests and fact practice:
If we're using a timed test as simply a data collection tool, message this clearly to students, "This is to help me get information about which facts you already know and which facts we should continue to work on.” By doing this, students are more likely to understand the purpose of the assessment and worry less about the results of it.
Differentiate the use of timed practice, introducing it at the right time for a given student. Timed practice is most effective when used to help move students from stage 2 of building fluency (reasoning strategies) to stage 3 (fluency). If most students in a class a class are ready for this progression from stage 2 to stage 3 but some are still in stage 1 (counting strategies), careful thought should be given to how to best instruct both groups of students. For example, computer-based timed practice could be given to the students ready to move from stage 2 to stage 3 while the teacher works with a small group of students in stage 1 to help them progress to stage 2.