Formal Thinking Strategies: A Prerequisite for Learning Basic Facts?

Abstract

Recent investigations by Thornton (1978) and Rathmell (1978) have argued for teaching of thinking strategies in the learning of basic facts. To fully understand the problem of basic fact instruction and how thinking strategies relate to such instruction, the following questions must be carefully examined: (a) Are thinking strategies indeed necessary for learning basic facts? and (b) Will formal instruction in thinking strategies attain the goals they are designed to achieve? In addressing the first of these issues, one must consider whether the drill method has, in fact, been ineffective in basic fact acquisition. Recent studies have failed to address this point and most often begin with the assumption that the drill method for facts has failed and that more appropriate programs must be implemented. Rathmell (1978) cites the results of a study undertaken by Brownell and Chazal (1935). The importance of this study must be emphasized for it comprises the essence of Rathmell's rationale (i.e., that formal instruction in thinking strategies facilitates the learning of basic facts). The study takes on added significance since Thornton (1978) cites the work of Rathmell as a justification for her work. Caution must be exercised, however, in interpreting the findings of Brownell and Chazal. Brownell and Chazal examined the performance of 32 third-grade pupils on a test of 100 addition combinations of which 16 were chosen for more detailed analysis. (These 16 consisted of the 10 most difficult and 6 others of average difficulty.) Through interviews it was ascertained that 22.7% of the combinations were counted, 14.1% were solved indirectly, 23.8% were incorrectly guessed, and 39.5% were known as memorized facts, for a total of 76.2% correct responses. Students were then drilled on the addition combinations for a period of one month at which time a second administration of the test of 100 combinations occurred. Again the same 32 children were interviewed on the same 16 combinations. At this time 48.8% of the combinations were known as memorized facts with the other percentages remaining essentially the same for a total of 85% correct responses. To concude from this study that the drill method failed is indeed a gross over-