Can Timed Tests Help Develop a Growth Mindset?
Yesterday, during a PD session, I was asked my thoughts on timed tests. With all the talk about growth versus fixed mindsets, the topic of timed tests for facts has become a popular topic. My thoughts may not match up with the popular thought of the moment, but I’m going to post it anyway. (If you don’t know about growth versus fixed mindsets check out this quick synopsis.)
Our education system is famous for its pendulum swings and math education is right in the thick of some now. One is the debate about timed tests. For quite awhile the pendulum has been over on the side of using timed tests daily. Now, that pendulum is swinging to never using timed tests. (See this article and this article.)
While I’m not a big fan of timed tests, especially the way they are often used in classrooms, I am a firm believer in moderation…in everything in my life. For example, I have a massive sweet tooth. If I try to go without candy, a few days later I’ll end up eating 5 candy bars in one day. Instead, of going back and forth between the two extremes (no candy to 5 in a day), I find it easier to allow myself a candy bar now and then when appropriate. And that is where I stand on timed tests. If we go to the extreme of no timed tests I think we are going to see it not work and the backlash to it will swing us back to daily drill & kill. Instead, lets help teachers to learn the difference between using timed tests to TEACH versus using timed tests to ASSESS.
Teachers who do timed tests every day as their “fact practice” are using the tests to teach. However, by using them in that way teachers are facilitating a fixed mindset in their students; “I must be bad at math because I’m not good at these tests,” or “I must be good at math because I’m fast at these tests.”
Teachers who use timed tests every once in a while to assess how well their students are progressing with their understanding and development could actually use the tests as an opportunity to develop growth mindsets in their students. What if every once in a while (maybe once a month, maybe every two weeks??) we assessed our students to see how many facts they can get correct in a minute….but instead of telling them they didn’t get enough correct in that minute, what if we had them keep a graph every time so they could chart their progress? Or try having a set number of facts (ones that particular child has been working on building their understanding of) and time them to see how long they take to do them all…then later assess those same facts again to see if they can get through the set faster than they did previously. Wouldn’t this help them see where they are and encourage them to grow in their understanding and fluency?
I am intrigued, yet concerned with the movement to do away with timed tests. I’ve seen the damage they can do to kids when they are pressured to perform, especially in front of the whole class (I’m sure we all have those memories of standing at the chalkboard). However, just because teachers in the past might have taken timed tests to the extreme by using them daily and in ways that put extreme pressure on students, does that mean we shouldn’t encourage kids to get faster at math?
I am a firm believer in the power of building a solid foundational understanding that helps children think flexibly about mathematics. I encourage teachers daily to use number talks, put mathematics in context, and go deep with their students to develop a conceptual understanding. I complain all the time about how Common Core has put the introduction to multiplication & division starting in 3rd grade and by the end of that year they need to know the facts from memory, hell, I even wrote a book to help teachers develop students’ flexibility with numbers as a lead into developing fluency with addition and not once in there did I ever encourage the use of timed tests. But I still think there is a time and place to encourage kids to become faster with math (notice I said faster, not FAST), because I’ve worked with school districts who only emphasized the conceptual understanding of math and did not spend time helping develop procedural fluency. I see that without both, our students can often struggle to work with deeper tasks because they can’t work fluently with the “menial math” in order to get to the deeper understandings.
What do you think? Could we actually use timed tests in a way that helps develop a growth mindset in our students and helps them to see how they are growing and becoming more fluent in their math understandings instead of the way we all remember timed tests being used?
About The Author
I really like that you have separated the difference between teaching and assess facts. It all comes down to being purposeful in everything we do. I think flashcards get a bad rap as well. Either use them or don’t use them and there is no in-between. Well, what if we have just finish building our understanding of the “making a ten” strategy? I think it would be purposeful practice to get all the flash cards with and 8 or 9 as an addend to automatize the strategy. If it doesn’t have and 8 or 9 it doesn’t make the pile on that day. There needs to be a balance and I believe that is where the disconnect lies.
My concern with timed test: how do we identify the number of questions that need to be correct in any amount of time AND still stay within the fluency definition as defined by NCTM? I think its tough to quantify and put a time on what is fluent.
gleftchy, I think the answer to your question lies in the “fast” vs “faster” distinction. Maybe we just help students identify their baseline, then move toward getting “faster” in the sense that they improve that baseline regularly (through sensible instructional strategies like what Christina has suggested).
I also think having the same “target” (like what Common Core mandates) is not necessarily supportive of establishing growth mindsets. What if a kid hits the target on the first try? Then what do they have to work for? And how will they develop that work ethic (and in the end sense of accomplishment) when the target is so easy for them? I guess I’m saying the “target” should be individualized (according to their ‘baseline’).
Kim, I totally agree. I don’t want my high kids getting into a fixed mindset and sitting in their “comfort zone” because they have already attained the goal. We need to figure out a way to set the bar for each child so that it puts them into their “stretch zone” and not their comfort or their stress zone.
P.S. So nice to hear from you! Hope all is well.
Yes, Graham. I think we are too concerned with “how many in a minute” and that is what most people associate with timed timed tests and how we need to assess fluency. So, I think we need to change our view to just helping individual children grow in how many they personally get correct in a set time. With my own personal children I have never given them a worksheet, done flashcards, or given them a timed test to see how fast they are. I know that the two who are in school (going into 1st and 2nd grade) are really good thinkers of mathematics. I’ve seen it through observation, through questioning them, and doing informal “math talks” with them. But for my child who is going into 2nd grade this year I am going to want to know which particular facts he knows and which he doesn’t so that I can help him be fluent by the end of the year (if he isn’t already). Once I know which facts he doesn’t know, I’m not going to drill him with flashcards to build his fluency. Instead I’m going to do more math talks and purposeful practice (LOVE that!) around those targeted facts in relation to the ones he does know. Thanks for your sharing your insights, Graham. BTW, I share your video all the time with teachers about “know from memory” versus “memorization.” I think that plays into this discussion as well.
Hi All,
Lest we forget, games are possibly the most effective means of developing fact fluency, and have the lovely fringe benefit of being fun. Nice post. Provocative.
Thanks for adding that in. I come from a game playing family and agree that they are such a fantastic way to practice.
Awesome post! Could this post please become mandatory for pre-service teachers and veterans? Teachers need to understand the meaning of fluency – fluency is yes quick recall but also efficiency and appropriate strategy use. As a coach, I see way too much emphasis on the fast part of the definition. Having kids track their own progress is a great idea, I have seen this method work. I once read what gets graphed increases- and quick recall is true to that. I have my teachers strive for 20 minutes of a fact practice game session each week and I see kids making progress.
This guy has some interesting observations and discussion about mindsets. You may not have read it. Here it is:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/mindset/