Different methods of learning times tables are equally valid and do not significantly affect the rate of progress made across a group of contrasting primary schools in the South West. Purpose of the Research The new Primary Maths Curriculum expects all children to have secure knowledge of times tables facts up to 12 x 12 by the end of Year 4. From 2017, as part of a new government initiative all Year 6 children will be assessed. Quick recall of multiplication facts is essential to access the maths curriculum however; many children struggle to reach the national expectation in this area despite teachers devoting a significant amount of lesson time to achieve this outcome. The purpose of this research was to determine the most effective way for children to learn times tables which could help teachers to raise standards and attainment in this area. We taught three times tables using different approaches and measured how much progress children made during each unit of work. This enabled us to determine which method yielded the highest results. In one school, the children’s enjoyment and confidence at the end of each unit was rated on a 7 point Likert scale, in order to show which method of learning the children preferred. The Research Design A within-subject design was used with a pre-and post-test. The independent variable (method of learning times tables) was operationally defined by the creations of three counterbalanced conditions: IV Level I – Control condition – Three ten minute sessions each week for two weeks in which children learnt through a teacher led session using a counting stick IV Level II – Active control – Three ten minute sessions each week for two weeks in which children learnt through writing times table facts out in rote and completing practise questions. IV Level III – Experimental condition – Three ten minute sessions each week for two weeks in which children learnt independently through use of an ICT program. Fay Redfearn, Heather King, Diana Manson, Emily Hobbs Method Participants, sample size and randomisation Three Key Stage 2 classes each from different primary schools took part in this research. All children completed a unit using each method of teaching therefore randomisation was not required. The sample comprised of 34 girls and 36 boys. Procedures Each class completed a two week unit on each of the 6, 7 and 8 times tables. During each unit, there were three ten minute sessions per week for two weeks. For each unit, the children used a different method to learn the times table. The three methods were: 1. Writing times tables facts out using a ‘Look, Cover, Write, Check’ system and practise questions. Children marked their own work to ensure that misconceptions were not reinforced. 2. A teacher led session using a counting stick. 3. Independent practise using an ICT program (Table Mountain). To ensure consistency in the teacher led group, a lesson plan was written and agreed. The schools used different methods during each unit, the order of which had been randomly assigned. A pre- test and post-test were applied at the beginning and end of each unit and used to assess progress. Materials (and apparatus) A pre- and post-test for each unit comprising of 12 questions presented in a mixed order. A rating sheet for the children to rate their enjoyment and confidence from 1-7 on a Likert Scale. • Laptops loaded with the ICT program, Table Mountain. • Look/Cover/Write/Check sheets for practising each times table. • A lesson plan for the teacher led session using a counting stick. Results Gain scores were analysed using the pre-post test data in the graph below. A Friedman test showed a non-significant difference across all conditions (p<0.769). Separate Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare the three conditions to one another. Because the analysis used multiple tests, a more stringent significance level (Bonferonni adjustment) was set (0.017). These results can be found in the table below. This shows that there is a significant difference between the conditions. Intervention B (ICT) was significantly better than the control (counting stick) and intervention A (Look, Cover, Write, Check) was significantly better than both conditions, but only by a very small amount. Look, Cover, Write, Check Table Mountain ICT game Counting Stick Method Limitations This was preliminary evidence from a small scale randomised control trial, and further research would be necessary in order to eliminate some of the limitations present: - Different teachers taught at each school; therefore the counting stick session could have been delivered differently despite all teachers using the same plan. - The number of attendees for each teaching session was not recorded. - Data from the children who were not present for either the pre or post-test was withdrawn from the study. - There were different abilities of children included dependent on whether the children were streamed or not. - Likert Scales for pupils to self-assess their progress and enjoyment were only recorded in 1 of the schools, therefore conclusions are limited. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research From the identified methods of teaching timetables, our study suggests that all 3 methods are equally valid and lead to a similar rate of progress. Whilst ‘Look, Cover, Write, Check’ was marginally better, all 3 methods increased progress made. One school trialled the use of an ‘enjoyment and confidence rating sheet.’ It suggested that a large percentage of children enjoyed the ICT method the most, but they felt that it didn’t help them make the most progress. All 3 methods led to progress being made across a range of schools; therefore we conclude that 10 minutes of daily practise using a range of methods aids children to make good progress in learning and retaining times table facts. Prior teacher-led RCT research (Morris, 2015) has indicated LCWC to be more effective than normal practice and kinaesthetic approaches when used with spelling. In contrast, and in the case of the automatic recall of timetables (present study) it appears to be an alternative treatment to current practice. If the research were to be repeated, it could be conducted using a group of younger children who have less previous knowledge, to determine whether the initial method of learning times tables impacts on progress and retention of times table facts.
Transcript
Different methods of learning times tables are equally valid and do not significantly affect the rate of progress made across a group of contrasting primary schools in the South West.
Purpose of the Research The new Primary Maths Curriculum expects all children to have secureknowledge of times tables facts up to 12 x 12 by the end of Year 4. From2017, as part of a new government initiative all Year 6 children will beassessed. Quick recall of multiplication facts is essential to access themaths curriculum however; many children struggle to reach the nationalexpectation in this area despite teachers devoting a significant amountof lesson time to achieve this outcome. The purpose of this researchwas to determine the most effective way for children to learn timestables which could help teachers to raise standards and attainment inthis area. We taught three times tables using different approaches andmeasured how much progress children made during each unit of work.This enabled us to determine which method yielded the highest results.In one school, the children’s enjoyment and confidence at the end ofeach unit was rated on a 7 point Likert scale, in order to show whichmethod of learning the children preferred.
The Research DesignA within-subject design was used with a pre-and post-test. Theindependent variable (method of learning times tables) wasoperationally defined by the creations of three counterbalancedconditions:
IV Level I – Control condition – Three ten minute sessions each weekfor two weeks in which children learnt through a teacher led sessionusing a counting stick
IV Level II – Active control – Three ten minute sessions each week fortwo weeks in which children learnt through writing times table factsout in rote and completing practise questions.
IV Level III – Experimental condition – Three ten minute sessionseach week for two weeks in which children learnt independentlythrough use of an ICT program.
Method Participants, sample size and randomisation
Three Key Stage 2 classes each from different primary schools tookpart in this research. All children completed a unit using each method ofteaching therefore randomisation was not required. The samplecomprised of 34 girls and 36 boys.
Procedures
Each class completed a two week unit on each of the 6, 7 and 8 timestables. During each unit, there were three ten minute sessions perweek for two weeks. For each unit, the children used a differentmethod to learn the times table. The three methods were:
1. Writing times tables facts out using a ‘Look, Cover, Write, Check’ system and practise questions. Children marked their own work to ensure that misconceptions were not reinforced.
2. A teacher led session using a counting stick.
3. Independent practise using an ICT program (Table Mountain).
To ensure consistency in the teacher led group, a lesson plan waswritten and agreed.
The schools used different methods during each unit, the order of whichhad been randomly assigned. A pre- test and post-test were applied atthe beginning and end of each unit and used to assess progress.
Materials (and apparatus)
A pre- and post-test for each unit comprising of 12 questions presentedin a mixed order.
A rating sheet for the children to rate their enjoyment and confidencefrom 1-7 on a Likert Scale.
• Laptops loaded with the ICT program, Table Mountain.
• Look/Cover/Write/Check sheets for practising each times table.
• A lesson plan for the teacher led session using a counting stick.
ResultsGain scores were analysed using the pre-post test data in the graphbelow. A Friedman test showed a non-significant difference across allconditions (p<0.769). Separate Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used tocompare the three conditions to one another. Because the analysis usedmultiple tests, a more stringent significance level (Bonferonni adjustment)was set (0.017). These results can be found in the table below.
This shows that there is a significant difference between the conditions.Intervention B (ICT) was significantly better than the control (countingstick) and intervention A (Look, Cover, Write, Check) was significantlybetter than both conditions, but only by a very small amount.
LimitationsThis was preliminary evidence from a small scale randomised controltrial, and further research would be necessary in order to eliminate someof the limitations present:
- Different teachers taught at each school; therefore the counting stick session could have been delivered differently despite all teachers using the same plan.
- The number of attendees for each teaching session was not recorded.
- Data from the children who were not present for either the pre or post-test was withdrawn from the study.
- There were different abilities of children included dependent on whether the children were streamed or not.
- Likert Scales for pupils to self-assess their progress and enjoyment were only recorded in 1 of the schools, therefore conclusions are limited.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future ResearchFrom the identified methods of teaching timetables, our study suggeststhat all 3 methods are equally valid and lead to a similar rate ofprogress. Whilst ‘Look, Cover, Write, Check’ was marginally better, all 3methods increased progress made. One school trialled the use of an‘enjoyment and confidence rating sheet.’ It suggested that a largepercentage of children enjoyed the ICT method the most, but they feltthat it didn’t help them make the most progress. All 3 methods led toprogress being made across a range of schools; therefore we concludethat 10 minutes of daily practise using a range of methods aids childrento make good progress in learning and retaining times table facts. Priorteacher-led RCT research (Morris, 2015) has indicated LCWC to bemore effective than normal practice and kinaesthetic approaches whenused with spelling. In contrast, and in the case of the automatic recallof timetables (present study) it appears to be an alternative treatmentto current practice.
If the research were to be repeated, it could be conducted using agroup of younger children who have less previous knowledge, todetermine whether the initial method of learning times tables impactson progress and retention of times table facts.
In contrast, and in the case of the automatic recall of timetable (present s
54578 Corsham Primary School Research Boards.qxp_Layout 1 30/08/2016 12:02 Page 1
Purpose of the Research Corsham Primary School is a primary academy in the South-West ofEngland. Naace research has shown that there has been a positiveimpact on teaching and learning through the use of an iPadprogram for education in schools. The school has been trialling aPupil Premium Home iPad Project, allowing students categorisedas Pupil Premium to have access to iPads at home. The purpose ofthis research is to find out whether Pupil Premium Home Projecthas had an impact on pupil progress, specifically focussing onreading age.
The Research DesignA non-randomised, case matched design with a pre- and post-testwas used. To address the effectiveness of the iPad Home Projectintervention, with the hypothesis that this would have a positiveimpact on pupil progress, two conditions were created anddefined operationally as follows:
IV Level 1: No out of school iPad allocation (Control group)
IV Level 2: Out of school iPad allocation (Experimental group)
There was one dependent variable – reading age.
Jo Smalley and Isobel Lang Method Participants, sample size and randomisation
48 pupils took part in the study with age ranging 7-11. 26 boys and 22 girls. The experimental group (N=24) was case matched to a larger poolof control group students. Random sampling was then used to balance the sample size between control and intervention. The factorscontrolled for in the case matching were age, gender and ability.
Procedures
Two Pupil Premium children from each year groups 3-6 (ages 7-11) were chosen to take part in the project. This allocation was based upon onthe amount of family support and financial background. Specific children who do not have access to the internet and electronic devices were akey priority.
Each of the families, including the parents, attended an iPad workshop at the beginning of the project as well as pupils receiving additionalsupport from both the IT Coordinator / Pupil Premium Manager throughout the academic year. These sessions were also supported by the ICTIncredibles, pupils assessed as highly able in IT. An additional workshop was provided half way through the project in which all members of thefamily were invited to attend.
The children were tested in their reading age both at the beginning and end of the project. This was carried out using GRT Reading tests.
Materials (and apparatus)
• iPad Air and iPad Air 2
• Apps: Aurasma, Epic Citidel, join me, PAdlet, Ebook reader, Book Creator, Puppet Pals, A.L.E.X, A selection of Big Cat Collins books, Flow Free, Dragon Dicatation, Inference Ace,Mysteries KS2, Showbie, Morfo, Zu3D, QR Reader, DoodleM, Breath Pacer, Lightening Lab, Mathletics, Chrome, Cloud Tables, Haiku Deck, Skitch, Pic Collage, Spelling Whizz
• The GRT Reading Test 2 was used to test reading age.
ResultsSeparate Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (two-tailed) were conducted to compare the months’ gain inreading age for the children who had been given iPads with those who had not (Figure 1).
There was a small positive effect on reading age for all pupils (r = 11 [d = 0.21]) and a moderatelylarge positive effect for boys (r = 0.256 [d = 0.51]). However, there appeared to have been amoderate negative effect on reading age gain for girls (r = - 0.28 [d = -0.56]). As expected,because of the small pilot study sized sample size all the effects above were non-significant (p =.371 , p = .147 and p = .065, respectively).
LimitationsDue to the nature of the study, it wasnot possible to randomise theexperimental group or fully randomisethe control group. The sample size isrelatively small. This is a first studyand has to be considered aspreliminary evidence. Replication willbe needed.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future ResearchAll pupils and subgroups made gains in reading age, as indicated by Figure 1 (above). However there were differences between the amount ofgain made by pupils with girls appearing to gain less from the use of iPads than boys. This said, the results of this pilot study need to beinterpreted with caution because of the small sample size. A larger replication will be needed to check the accuracy of this finding.
!
Figure 1 – Months’ gain in reading age for allpupils and by gender
!
54578 Corsham Primary School Research Boards.qxp_Layout 1 30/08/2016 12:02 Page 2
Preliminary evidence from a small scale non-randomised case match study showing the possible positive effects of a Home Learning intervention on progress in mathematics in a Bristol school.
Purpose of the Research The school participating in the study is situated in a large city insouth west England. Research suggests that the use oftechnology can positively impact on learning in mathematics.Despite the widespread use of homework in primary schools,research also suggests that homework has a limited impact onlearning in primary schools. Many of the children attending thisschool are from disadvantaged backgrounds and are unable toaccess forms of technology at home.
The Research DesignA non-randomised, case-matched design with a pre- andpost-test was used.
Progress was measured using PUMA tests at the beginning ofthe trial and their actual results at the end of the trial.
Method Participants and sample size
A primary school in Bristol participated in the study. Childrenacross Y5 and 6 were included in the study. In total, 14 childrentook part in the study. The small sample size made it unlikelythat anything other than a large effect size would be detectedas significant, however, it was considered important toestablish the effectiveness of the design before consideringthe implication of a larger scale study.
Procedures
In collaboration with the class teacher, tasks were set for thechildren, according to their needs, to complete duringHomework Club. Children were supported in the homeworkclub. The Homework Club ran for 10 weeks. The club ran forone hour per week and was delivered by the same teachereach week.
Abacus online is an online interactive tool. It allows teachers toset tasks individually children against specific objectives.
Materials
Each participant attended a Home Learning Group, one hour aweek, for a 10 week period. Participants were provided withtablets to access an online mathematics programme wheretasks had been allocated for completion.
Each participant completed a PUMA mathematics assessmentpre- and post-test.
ResultsGain scores (calculated from pre- and post- test scores) wereused in the analysis. A Mann-Whitney U test (one tailed)indicated there was non-significant (p = 0.373 (one-tailed))improvement in progress in mathematics for the pupils whoaccessed technology through Home Learning Clubs. However, asmall-medium effect size (r = 0.142) was noted.
LimitationsBecause of the nature of the context in which this study tookplace it was not possible to randomise. The pool of casematched control group students were, however, able torandomly sampled (removing some bias). This is a first study,with a small sample size, therefore the evidence should beconsider preliminary only. Further replication will be needed.
RecommendationReplication using a randomised control trial with a largersample would have been useful. Also, there may have beenbias introduced within the design because the children whoattended the club had chosen to do so. A future study maywish to randomly allocate children to the club or control groupin order to deal with this potential issue.
Conclusions This preliminary study was able to demonstrate theeffectiveness of the trial design paving the way for a largerreplication. Although the results were non-significant a small tomedium effect size was detected suggesting that the use ofsuch a club may have positive benefits.
54578 Corsham Primary School Research Boards.qxp_Layout 1 30/08/2016 12:02 Page 3
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
controltimed reading of phrases
timed reading of words
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
control timed reading of phrases
timed reading of words
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
Pre - tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
control timed reading of phrases
timed reading of words
Post- tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
Post- tests
TW
O M
ILE HILL PRIM
ARY SC
HO
OL
HPTMRegular word reading practice increases reading speed and reading comprehension
Preliminary Evidence from a small scale randomised control trial
Purpose of the researchDeveloping automatic recall of words has a significant impact on reading speed and the ability to comprehend texts. One of the major causes of reading failure lies in the fact that many children get stuck on the mental processing at the level of word access (Hattie and Yates 2014). That is their reading speed is less than 60 wpm. If you read any connected text at a pace under 60 wpm, then understanding what you read becomes impossible (Hattie and Yates 2014). The purpose of this research is to identify a more effective way of devel-oping children’s whole word recognition. The impact of this would be an increase in their reading speed and as a result their comprehension.
A within-subject design was used with a pre-and post-test. The independent variable reading speed was operationally defined by creating three counterbalanced conditions:
IV Level I – Control condition (existing provi-sion)IV Level II – Intervention A – timed reading of phrasesIV Level III – Intervention B – timed reading of words (NC key words)
The pre- and post-tests measured two varia-bles – reading speed and reading compre-hension. This was to see if improving sight recognition of words and phrases had an impact on reading comprehension.
Year 4 (3 classes)
The research designParticipants, sample size and randomisationThree classes of 8 and 9 year old children took part. This gave a sample size of 75 (25 in each class). Consideration of the make up of the classes was given when they were established ensuring that each class was similar in pupil make up.
ProceduresControl ConditionNothing was changed during this period. The children continued to have their ‘normal’ reading provision: guided reading, reading comprehension and 1:1 reading with an adult once every three weeks.
Intervention AParticipants completed a timed reading challenge of common phrases, 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Participants were given phrase practice sheets. Taking turns, the participants took turns reading to each other. Scores were recorded and participants were encouraged to improve on their performance.
Intervention BParticipants completed a timed reading challenge of common words (Appendix 1 NC 2014), 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Children were given word practice. Taking turns, the participants took turns reading the words to each other. Scores were recorder and participants were encouraged to improve on their perfor-mance.
MethodsGain scores calculated from pre- and post-test scores (Figures 1 and 2) were used in the analysis below.
Comprehension (Figure 1) - An initial Friedman’s ANOVA indicated that change across all three conditions was significant (p < .001) and unlikely to be caused by family-wise error. All conditions were then compared using separate Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests (two-tailed). Both Intervention A and B improved progress. Intervention B had a moderate positive effect on progress compared to the Control (r = 0.38, p < .001), similarly there was a moder-ate positive effect for A (r = 0.36, p < .001). Adjusting alpha because of the multiple comparisons (.05/3 = .017), there was a small (r = 0.09) but non-significant higher level of progress (p = .049) for Intervention B compared to A.
Reading speed (Figure 2) - Again, an initial Friedman’s ANOVA was significant (p < .001). Separate, Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests indicated that reading speed progress in response to treatment was similar to the results for comprehension, with progress during both Intervention A and B better than the Control (p < .001; p < .001). Further, both interventions showed a large positive effect on reading speed (r = 0.57 (Intervention A) and r = 0.56 (Interven-tion B)). In relation to reading speed there was, however, no difference between the two interventions (p = .562)
Results
The results from this study are positive. However, this is a first study and would need replication over a longer time period and with different age children. This study was carried out on one year group in one setting. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the interventions it would need to be replicated in variety of settings. Any further study would need strict procedures and protocols to demonstrate any impact. It would also be necessary to look at the impact of the interventions on different sub groups within the settings to ascertain the effectiveness.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
Both of the interventions were shown to be better than existing practice (Control condition) with regard to the development of comprehension and, in particular, reading speed. A small but non-significant effect size implied that Intervention B may be marginally more effective at improving comprehension – a larger study would be needed to verify this.
Figure 1 - Pre- and post-test comprehension scores Figure 2 - Pre- and post-test reading speed scores
Conclusions
54578 Corsham Primary School Research Boards.qxp_Layout 1 30/08/2016 12:02 Page 4
