Mel Robbins Top 2025 Episodes Countdown
Christina’s thoughts on Timed Math Tests
Welcome fellow Recovering Traditionalists to Episode 217, where we’re diving into a hot topic: the Science of Math.
One of my focuses here at Build Math Minds is helping educators see connections between math concepts. And ever since I started looking for connections in math, I’ve also started seeing them in all areas of my life.
Recently, I had two situations—listening to a podcast and sitting in a meeting with state math supervisors—that got me thinking about what we mean when we talk about the “Science of Math.” And more importantly, how we need to be careful about applying research from other areas to mathematics without questioning whether it actually fits.
So let’s dive in.
PART 1: WOMEN ARE NOT SMALL MEN, AND MATH IS NOT READING
First, the podcast moment that sparked this whole thing.
I was listening to Mel Robbins count down her top podcast moments from 2025, and a doctor talking about women’s health said something that stopped me in my tracks. She said, “Women are not small men.”
And yet, for decades, all the research about men’s health—how men lose weight, how men’s bodies respond to medication, all of it—was just taken and applied to women. As if women’s bodies work exactly the same way, just… smaller.
But that’s not how it works. Women’s bodies are different. They respond differently. And applying men’s research to women without questioning it has caused real harm.
And as soon as I heard that, I thought: That’s exactly what’s happening in education.
Too often, research done in the learning and teaching of one subject area is taken and applied to other content areas. Because it worked for kids learning to read, it should work for learning math, right?
Wrong.
Math is not reading. The way our brains process mathematical thinking is different from how we process language. The way kids develop number sense is different from how they develop phonemic awareness. And yet, we keep taking reading research and saying, “Well, if this works to help kids read, then it should also work to help kids learn math.”
That’s like saying, “This helped 100 men lose weight, so it should help 100 women lose weight.” It’s just not the case.
Now, I’m not saying there’s no overlap. Of course there is. But we have to stop assuming that what works in reading will automatically work in math. We need to ask: Was this research done with mathematics? Or are we just borrowing from another field and hoping it fits?
PART 2: IT ISN’T ALWAYS ABOUT THE ACT, BUT THE THING IT DOES
Alright, now let me tell you about the second situation that got me thinking about this.
I was in a recent meeting with some state supervisors of math, and we were talking about timed tests. I’m actually not opposed to timed tests. In fact, I did a video not long ago about the need for more timed activities in math.
The research does show that timed tests can increase retention of facts. Practice, and specifically practice within a time constraint, can increase fluency.
But here’s my question: Did those same studies also look at the level of anxiety those students had around math? Did they evaluate how much those students enjoyed doing math? Did they measure whether those students started avoiding math altogether?
Just because something works doesn’t mean it’s the best way. And it definitely doesn’t mean we should ignore the negative side effects.
So when you see something that research says works for developing students’ math fluency, but there’s something in your gut telling you it just feels wrong, here’s what I want you to do:
List out the benefits of what doing that thing does for students. Then look to see if you can get those same benefits without all the yucky stuff.
Let me show you what I mean through the example of timed tests.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF TIMED TESTS?
So, what are the actual benefits of timed tests? Let’s break it down:
Benefit #1: It pushes students to get faster with retrieving their facts.
Benefit #2: They get that feeling of pride when they see they’re getting faster.
Benefit #3: They get a sense of achievement when they hit a goal.
Benefit #4: Those measurements along the way gives them something to strive toward.
Now, here’s something I read in a book recently—and I wish I could remember which one—but it said that school is like practice without any games.
Think about that. Could you imagine playing a sport where all you ever did was practice, and you never got the thrill of playing in a game?
In sports, kids push themselves in practice because they want to show off their hard work in the games. The game pushes them in their practice, even when practice isn’t always fun.
Now, I get that a timed test isn’t at all like playing in a game. But it is a way to show off their progress—as long as we do it right.
And here’s the other thing: not only is the final measurement powerful, but benchmarks or goals along the way are what drive humans.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you never measure yourself, how do you know you’re making progress? When you can see progress happening, that’s what motivates you to keep going.
And if you have specific benchmarks along the way to your goal, you have those moments of feeling accomplished as you hit them. Instead of that far-out goal of losing 50 pounds, when you hit 5, 10, 20 pounds, that pride comes along the way.
So here’s my question: In math, what goals are we helping students set?
I’m not saying we need to go back to the old way we did timed tests, where we punished kids if they didn’t hit benchmarks. But we should be helping them set personalized goals and then celebrating when they hit benchmarks along the way.
If you want to hear my detailed thoughts on timed activities and things you can do besides traditional timed tests, I’ll link up my other video about timed tests in the show notes.
But here’s the point: Those are the powerful parts of using timed tests. So use activities that give those benefits without the downsides we’ve all seen in the past.
TWO THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
Alright, to wrap this up, I want to leave you with two things to think about when you hear about what “the Science” tells us we should be doing:
Number 1: Was the research done with mathematics? Or was it in another subject area, and people are just applying it to the learning and teaching of math?
Number 2: If the science looks good, but it still feels not quite right to you because of the bad side effects, then find the parts that do help students and find ways to do that without the bad parts.
Don’t just accept research at face value. Ask questions. Dig deeper. And trust your gut when something doesn’t feel right for your students.
VIRTUAL MATH SUMMIT
And if you’re like me and want to hear more people’s take on the Science of Math, then get registered for free for the 2026 Virtual Math Summit.
One of my favorite math researchers, Douglas Clements, is doing a live session about The Science of Math. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say, and I hope you’ll join us for his session.
Go to VirtualMathSummit.com to register for free.
Alright, my fellow Recovering Traditionalists, I hope this helped build your math mind so you can build the math minds of your students.
Have a great day!
Subscribe and Review in iTunes
Other Ways to Listen To This Episode
Pin This To Pinterest for Later
