Automaticity?

We bought Multiplication Facts the Fun Way from CityCreek.com (I think). It uses stories and pictures to teach math facts. My son is doing really well with it. In fact, he now knows his multiplication facts (the ones we’ve done) faster than his addition facts so we may backtrack and do their addition program as well.

My son has had problems with speed on math drills as well and this really seems to be working.

Beth

I second the recommendation of Math Facts the Fun Way. What has helped speed up my daughter, once the basic facts are known, is Quarter Mile Math software (http://www.thequartermile.com). We spent 10 minutes a day for 4 months on math facts, with me keyboarding to pack as many as possible into the 10 minutes, and that helped a lot to develop her automaticity with math facts.

My daughter needed cognitive training as a follow-up to vision therapy. VT is great at correcting visual efficiency skills, but cognitive training is much more efficient at developing visual processing skills (visual short-term memory, visual sequencing, pattern recognition, etc.). Audiblox and PACE are two good cognitive training programs. Audiblox (http://www.audiblox2000.com) is inexpensive and can be done entirely at home. PACE (http://www.learninginfo.com) is very expensive but also very intense and comprehensive. Cognitive training (PACE) is what helped my daughter finally process visual information fast enough to be able to read with fluency.

My daughter was diagnosed as dyseidesic. On a test of visual memory for words, she scored 0 (although she scored 70% on phonetic memory). Even after she could read at and above grade level, spelling remained a huge problem for her because of her inability to remember letter patterns. What is helping greatly with that now is Avko’s Sequential Spelling (http://www.avko.org) and Megawords (http://www.epsbooks.com). I also plan to add some Glass Analysis work. SS and Glass both work on developing recognition of letter clusters in words, which helps greatly with spelling and also with reading.

Mary

Automaticity means getting something learned so well that it is automatic. Some people take a *lot* more practice to get to that “automatic” point. And for some people, “automatic” is still slower than “automatic” for other people, especially if there are motor problems (but it can just be a processing speed issue).

For the times tables, some people struggle with the rote nature of it more than the speed issue. So, if a person is going slowly because he’s figuring out the answer for each one, then practice (and/or finding shortcuts for the figuring out part) in small enough chunks is often the key — and if a kid is a strong visual or verbal learner, the mnemonics of Math the FUn Way are great. Do make sure that the kiddo understands what’s going on behind the cute stories, though.

SOme kids simply have consistent problems with spewing for things quickly. Fortunately, once we’re out of school, we don’t generally have to do that! Unfortunately, some school situations put a *lot* of emphasis on speed. The *goal* of getting those facts quickly is a good one — getting the kid to have them right at the tip of his tongue, at his fingertips. However, if “tip of the tongue” speed simply isn’t 3 answers per second, adjusting those goals makes sense.

THere’s online practice of hte times tables in little chunks on my site at www.resourceroom.net (click on “math”).

I may be misreading your post but you say your son was diagnosed with automaticity? That doesn’t sound quite right.

Automaticity is when a person can “reel off ” things. Some people can reel off the names of all the Presidents - without thinking about it. It’s become automatic.

Teachers look for automaticity in regard to times tables. They want children to have an instant recall of the times tables.

As a teacher I dislike the practice of timed tests in general. I particularly dislike timed tests that demand children rapidly speak or write information. Not all people or children do things rapidly. Some brains, even with intensive study and preparation, give up what they remember slowly. Other brains memorize poorly but may think very sharply.

Be patient with your son and ask his teacher for patience. His comfort level will grow if allowed to. In the meantime, for learning and for fun, let him go to www.multiplication.com and www.funbrain.com. There are interactive games on those sites that encourage learning the times tables in a way that’s meaningful to the learning styles of children.

Was wondering if you saw any improvement after doing PACE with timed math tests? We are in our 3rd week now of PACE. I’m worried about getting to a couple of the higher levels on the some of the exercises - you have to know your math facts and multiplication?? We haven’t started multiplication yet and looks like I’m going to have to teach that to master some of these levels?

For anyone else’s interest - I have noticed in only 3 weeks of the program that my dd’s automaticity is improving with regards to reading. For books more on her reading/decoding level, she is not having to use her fingers to stay fluent and her number of errors has significantly reduced. She seems to be reading each word precisely and not jumping ahead of herself so much. Words are more automatic for her - she is now able to read words on say the TV or signs - it use to be she was having to think so much that the words flashed by too quick for her to pick it up. We havent’ started MTC yet - we’ll be ready in another week or so (she is at LEVEL 8 on all the AP exercises). Now we just need to master the more advanced code reading level. She still is not fluent on the harder decoding words - books like The Bailey School House Kids series - still too challenging.

I haven’t gotten any feedback from school yet- but I’m hoping to see improvement in math timed tests - so was wondering if you saw any?

Dea,

I was wondering if you went and got the PACE training. YOu are doing really well! We have continued doing the AP work, after stopping the rest of PACE in September and my son still isn’t up to level 8 on all the levels—and we started in June. I have lost track of how many times I have spoken to Tanya.

My son did become somewhat more automatic with his math facts by jumping on the trampoline. However, we couldn’t even get past the first level on the one which he had to keep numbers in his head.

I have seen his processing improve but not to the extent that I had hoped. I think, for us, there still are unresolved sensory integration issues. We have made a lot of progress using a balance board with the AP work which forces integration of both sides of the brain. This fact alone is suggestive that the sensory-motor system is still not completely intact. I found this to be a real limit to what we could achieve with PACE.

We have continued doing Neuronet and plan on returning to PACE next summer.

We just finished the paper work to get a sound field system installed in his classroom. It now goes to assistive technology, which could take another couple months. Wish I had done this earlier but the audiologist who did the initial testing wasn’t willing to go to bat on this.

Beth

Yes - I did end up doing the parent training and I haven’t regretted it. I was somewhat overwhelmed right after the training, but I’m getting more comfortable with the program and we’re having fun on most of the exercises. (I’m realizing that I have alot of cognitive issues too- memory is not so good these days).

We have made good progress, much to my delight. We have not really hit the wall yet (but knock on wood - it’s only been 3 weeks). Interestingly, the exercises she is having the most trouble with are ones that require remembering the names of things. We are almost done with learning all the presidents. I would have thought she would not have had a problem with this - she is visualizing the pictures no problem, but cannot remember the name that goes with the picture? MAS which I would have suspected to be hard for her - she was stuck on the having to remember the 4 names of things, while saying the alphabet, but no problem with sounds or numbers. She finally figured out how to get past the name thing (said she realized if she repeated it in her head, she remembered it??) and we now are already on level 8.
The tramp with adding the numbers is hard for her. But she just passed the last level - it took her the last week or so to get.

I saw your post on the balancing board - I thought that was an interesting observation? I think you are right with the sensory motor issues? I know we have some left/right brain issues with the name/sound/symbol, but it must be at a different level. I’m also wondering if the Tomatis we did, helped her vestibular system more than I thought (it’s suppose to really work it). We did some more Tomatis before we did the PACE and I’m glad we did - I suspect that is why we are progressing rapidly. This last round of Tomatis, we did alot of left brain work and focus on the language center.

If we plateau soon, I may look into getting a balance board and see what happens?

Congrats on the sound system too - I don’t think I’ll ever win that battle.

Dea,

You have done so amazingly well next to what we have done. I honestly think you have got further in 3 weeks than we did in 12.
If it is vestibular, then maybe we will get much further next year after finishing Neuronet.

I actually think that except for the AP part, we might have been better off waiting a year. I was impatient though but at least wise enough to know it was risky and got the training myself. For us, the AP part was a practical alternative to LIPS, which I think he needed.

BTW, the new resource teacher at his school (you remember my stories last year) knows LIPS, Seeing Stars, PG, V & V, On Cloud Nine—and those are only the ones I can remember. I am going to have her evaluate him and see if he is beyond needing LIPS or not after PACE. He has no memory for letters so I def. want him to do Seeing Stars. I started it with him last year with good results, but then realized that his sound-symbol relationships weren’t stable enough.

Beth

Mary —
You mentioned that your daughter was diagnosed as “dyseidesic”. What is that? Other references in your post sounded a lot like my daughter who has issues with written expression. Thanks. Linda

I would consider having these type of time test waived in the IIEP. Some people may never be able to have the instant recall and the the ability to speak or write the answers in the time allotted. However, these people can be found as teachers and engineers. It is not a predictor of the ability to do math.

After having been involved in teaching facts to automaticity for over twenty-five years in a Southern rural area - I can say without hesitation that virtually any child who has a concrete understanding of times tables, addition, even the idea of maps - can be taught to automaticity and achieve very high rates. It would be in my opinion an extremely rare neurological disorder which could interfere with such speeds. I am aware of different potentials, but overall we’ve seen a window of performance (example - 5-9th graders can write math digits in performing calculations at 45 digits per minute with ease - we’ve demanded 60dpm as indicating mastery and have achieved it with a variety of children - including the learning disabled, conduct disordered, ESOL, emotionally disturbed, and even Yankees :) There are mixed results with those having signficant neurological signs or with significant retardation (as would be logically expected.)

There are rare exceptions to this - just guessing I would say that between the IQ ranges of 85-150 that signficantly less than 1% of the population would have those performance limitations.

Ken Campbell, author, Great Leaps Reading
President, Florida’s Council for Children with Behavior Disorders

a lack of visual memory for words. Dysphonesia refers to an inability to correlate sound with symbols (although this may be a very rough definition).

The way my daughter was tested was as follows (at least the part that I know about). She was given ten simple words one at a time orally and asked to write down what she heard. Anything close to being phonetically accurate was marked correct. Then she was given ten simple words (that she could easily read in text) one at a time on flashcards. A flashcard would be shown to her and then put away, after which she was supposed to write down the word she had seen.

My daughter scored 7 out of 10 correct on the dysphonesia test. She scored 0 out of 10 correct on the dyseidesia test. This was astonishing to me, because the words were very simple ones that she could read with ease (for example, “ball”). That’s when I was given the dyseidesia diagnosis.

It just happened that I had taught my daughter basic decoding skills using Reading Reflex a few months earlier. I could tell right away that, had I not done Reading Reflex, my daughter would have tested as totally dysphonesic also. I figured that if I could correct my daughter’s dysphonesia, I could also correct her dyseidesia. This has been true, at least to a certain extent.

Prior to this dyslexia testing, my daughter had been in vision therapy for 8 months to correct severe developmental vision delays. I figured that the years of not seeing very well were responsible for the dyseidesia. As luck would have it, I stumbled onto PACE (http://www.learninginfo.com) shortly after we had this testing done and decided it give it a try. It gave my daughter a tremendous boost in terms of visual processing skills, to the point where her reading finally became fluent.

For the last two years, however, my daughter’s spelling ability has lagged three to four years behind her reading level (currently reads on an ending 6th grade level but spells — in her writing — on a 2nd/3rd grade level). I figured this was the dyseidesia still manifesting, despite several different approaches to spelling we have tried. About four months ago I started using a combination of Sequential Spelling from Avko (http://www.avko.org) and Megawords (http://www.epsbooks.com), and I have to say that this combination seems to have finally broken through some of the ice. For the very first time, dd was able to learn 15 difficult words in a week for a spelling test at school. The teacher (had the same one last year) was amazed! This is a major breakthrough for my dd. I think the final one will be when she can actually spell correctly when she writes. She currently still mis-spells simple words such as “was” and “are” when she writes, sometimes in multiple ways in the same sentence. But I think we will get there someday. My next step is to add in some Glass Analysis work (very similar to the Avko approach, but slightly different technique).

Although my dd’s major problem was developmental vision delays, she also had severe phonological awareness delays. Vision therapy followed by PACE addressed the visual efficiency and visual processing problems, but she still needed Phono-Graphix to address the phonological piece.

Mary

Respectfully I don’t believe your statements to be true. For automaticity to be proven, it has to be demonstrated. Automaticity is equated with performance speed in either a written or verbal format. Automaticity of math facts is equated with the ability and potential to perform math. So a lack of automaticity is used as an indicator of poor math ability or potential. There are a multitude of reasons that would hinder performance speed. Performance speed does not prove mastery and does not disprove the ability to perform higher level math or mathematical reasoning. I have known adults in mathematical based careers that do not have automaticity of math facts. Written performance is hindered by poor fine motor control, poor spatial skills, and poor visual tracking skills. Verbal performance is hindered by personality traits such as shyness, the ability to handle stress, cultural norms where high performance would be judged as being rude to others, and language processing difficulties. Also, children with poor memory processing issues can take years to learn math facts to the automaticity levels demanded by some school systems. I have seen such children and they are not rare occurrences. Because these children cannot perform like trained rats to the level demanded by some school systems, they often are diverted to lower level math classes. These children are also trained to believe that they cannot do math. This is a sad system that at an early age shapes these students academic career.

Actually, I think lack of automaticity is often due to lack of appropriate training. My own daughter had a great deal of difficulty remembering math facts. When you have a bright child who can understand math concepts but absolutely cannot remember that 2+2=4, this problem is very noticeable.

What I have seen work for many children — in terms of being able to just remember the facts — is Math Facts the Fun Way (http://www.citycreek.com). It is often assumed that repetition and drill are the only way to teach math facts, but MFFY uses a silly story format that works very quickly for many children who have been unable to learn the math facts in traditional ways. This is probably because most children have no difficulty remembering stories and silliness.

Once the facts are learned, it’s possible to work on speed and automaticity. Spending 5 or 10 minutes every day on math drill over a long period of time will gradually increase automaticity. Quarter Mile Math software is a good program for this.

After 10 minutes a day of QMM every day for four months, my daughter’s automaticity with math facts was better than quite a few classmates in her 5th grade class. She will never be the fastest in the class, and she still has a tendency to lose automaticity without a “maintenance” level of drill every week (once or twice a week seems to be enough), but her abilities are very much different from her “2+2=totally blank look” days.

The advantage my daughter has is that her parents don’t rely on the school to provide what she needs. Most children don’t have that edge.

Mary

Your daughter is lucky to have a parent(s) who can and are willing to work with her. I know you did not imply, but I quess I still want to get on my soapbox. Many kids still have problems with automaticity regardless of the program and how much the parents work with them. I worked with my son for years to learn the math facts. He is now in High School and he does know the math facts, but it is not rapid response and sometimes he still makes mistakes. He has an average IQ and parents who have not relied on the school system. I have spent years on working with him one on one for hours. It was not usually to spend 6 hours after his school day trying different teaching methods and working with his homework. He does have processing problems. You can say 7X6 = 42 to him and he will repeat back 7X8 = 42. This can go on for several rounds with variations until you move on to the next math fact. His hearing is fine. The above post by Ken C. dismisses kids with these types of processing problems at less than 1%. I think it is higher, but probably less than 2%. Still that would mean statistically one to two kids with these type of problems in every school at the learning to read age level. For these types of kids the system needs to be flexible. Automaticity is preferrable and should be tried, however there can be mastery of math and mathematical reasoning without it. My son is proof.

CH - You can easily dismiss a career with charged statements, “Because these children cannot perform like trained rats…”Those of us who have worked sucessfully daily with children with significant problems/difficulties - do not take kindly to being dismissed as if we are experimenting with the lowest of God’s creatures - rats!

The above post by Ken C. dismisses kids with these types of processing problems at less than 1%. I think it is higher, but probably less than 2%

CH - Get a grip - your beliefs are in the same ballpark as my own.

Automaticity is preferrable and should be tried, however there can be mastery of math and mathematical reasoning without it. My son is proof.

CH - If this is what you believe why all the venom? I do not disagree nor does the science. Nor do we inflict cruelties upon those who have difficulties meeting the criteria of automaticity - we see their performance potential, based upon their indidualized performances (preferably a long, charted history) and base decision upon the individual capabilities. This is the very essence of special education.

It was not usually to spend 6 hours after his school day trying different teaching methods and working with his homework.

This statement bothered me. If God had wished your child to be a great quarterback, seamstress, mechanic, violinist, minister, painter, counselor…….how would this six hours of seeming torture benefit?? Six hours of homework!!! Satan requires less in Hell itself - (my opinion) Don’t let the cure kill. If six hours were regularly required of anyone less than twelve - when would there be time to enjoy the love of family, enjoy life??

Finally, one can conceptually master many concepts without having the pieces be automatic. Yet, to dismiss the working toward automaticity as unsound must be convincingly responded to. (Speaking dialectical Southern, we can end sentences with prepositions and/or infinitives.)

You are taking this way too personally. As to dismissing a career which I assume to be yours - you are assuming I have more knowledge about your career than I have. I never said or implied that you experiment with children as rats. Frankly, I was annoyed with your statement in a previous post that mentioned the 1% of children with processing problems as rare. I don’t really argue with your figures, but “rare” is a term that needs to be put in context. It is likely that every teacher will encounter students with these type of processing problems. After all, this is a BB that focuses on children in the small percentages. You seem to imply these types of processing problems would only occur with extreme neurological cases or with retardation. This I do disagree with (respectfully). The trained rat comment was not directed at you. However, there are school systems that put undue pressure on children who simply cannot perform at the level demanded to prove automaticity verbally or in written form. This forums has contained heart breaking stories of children with poor fine motor skills or other relevant disabilities having to perform time test over and over again and never succeeding at the required speed. At a certain point, this does become abusive and does deserve the “trained rat” analogy. There are school systems whose policy is to fail such children. As to your comments about the hours I spent working with my son - You are way out of line. Many school system, even “good” systems have no concept on how to work with learning disabilities. The special ed staff is few and over whelmed and the burden fall to the parents and the children. My child takes drum lessons, plays hours of video games, goes swimming on weekends and has a education that the school could not provide.

A teacher properly trained in working with automaticity would have the wherewithall (sp?) to understand the “tool skills” of the child he/she is working with. Though, for the most part, in my special ed classrooms over the years - it appeared to me there existed a rather narrow performance window (in everything from words read per minute to digits typed per minute) there were exceptions. Yet with perseverance and working toward a relevent goal, these children’s performance capabilities could be brought up signficantly - enough so as to approximate the rates in the “regular” population.

Automaticity training when used with an equal ratio chart - (one needs to see if the child has plateaued out on a skill) - is a powerful learning system for all children - provided the task is appropriate to need and function……but all of this is very basic - I wonder what was going on in the district in which your child suffered.

I would guess that undertrained, undersupported, underpaid, and overwhelmed staff were the culprit. To support not only children in need but the elderly is not the sign of a political liberal - it is the sign of civilization.