Times tables : why make children learn their 12x?

[Obelix]

Yeah but you are missing her point. Learning a sonnet of by heart is obviously far more important than giving children a grounding in science and engineering.

 

I would far rather my children learnt critical things like King Richards favourite animal than boring maths

 

I've always been in awe of people who knew the answer to that one in pub quizzes. You just never get them asking what 14x13 is, or asking someone to do long division in a pub quiz.....

[skinz]

I've always been in awe of people who knew the answer to that one in pub quizzes. You just never get them asking what 14x13 is, or asking someone to do long division in a pub quiz.....

 

If the winnings were £12 8s 9p they probably would.

[spilldig]

Perhaps one of those who feels vehemently that learning the 12x table off by heart is essential, could explain why. So far, you have all endorsed it as an unquestionably Good Thing, without giving any proper reasons.

 

Is it because you think it is good for children to be able to commit things to memory per se? I agree that it is a useful skill, but if that's the case, then learning the tables facts up to 10 x 10 surely demonstrates that they can do it. My question was, why do they need to learn them by heart beyond 10x? If you want to calculate 12x something (which is extremely rare in everyday life), you simply use the 6x and double it. There would be more of an argument for knowing 13x, 17x and 19 x, but no politician has ever suggested that. If the point is that things should be learnt for which instant recall is useful, then the 2x to 10x are enough. Children could use the extra time to learn a few sonnets, or Spanish words for food items, a list of breeds of dangerous dogs and how to recognise them, or some interesting facts about the kings and queens of England. Much more edifying and useful!

 

I knew my 11x and 12x tables by heart when at school, but have never needed them since decimal money and metric measurements came in...so I've now forgotten them and my life is none the worse for it. I actually use both systems of linear measurement (imperial and metric) in my work as a decorator and renovator, but I've never needed to know how many inches 9' 11" is, or whatever. If I need to multiply or divide big numbers, I use a pencil and paper or a calculator.

 

As I said, I have no objection whatsoever to children committing some things to memory, but if the content of rote learning exercises cannot be justified on a utility basis, what is the point?

 

As for 'dumbing down' ...I'd suggest that is what is happening when people cannot construct a simple argument for something they think is right, saying only that 'it's done elsewhere' or 'I had to do it' , therefore it must be right.

 

Of course education is being dumbed down. The standard of spelling and pronunciation I hear from young people is awful. Missing Gs of the end of words and Ts from the middle of words, being just two examples.

[barleycorn]

Yes, What a terrible thing asking our children to learn something.

 

Stupid government.

 

In fact while we're at it, we all know they use those new fangled calculator things so why bother with any times tables at all?

 

Is is because if they'd said 'actually we don't think the 12 or 11 times tables are relevant do we'll stop kids having to learn past the 10 times table' you and your sort would have been 'oh look, stupid government are dumbing our kids down again so they can buy more ivory back scratchers etc. etc.'

 

Take a good look at yourself - are you moaning about an issue, or just moaning about politics for the sake of it?

 

I think the issue is not that they are to be teaching up to x12 but rather that the cut off point is arbitrary. If there is no sound, logical reason for teaching above x10 then why waste the time?

Personally, I'd teach up to x20 for the reasons outlined by Obelix, stopping at 12 just seems a bit pointless.

 

jb

[Penistone999]

That's it, really.

 

What's the point of committing the 12x table to memory (see Tories' plans to shake up primary education yet again:rolleyes:) when the two imperial measurement systems which depended on it (shillings and pence pre-1971, and feet and inches) are now obsolete and certainly not used in schools?

 

I'm all for everyone knowing their tables up to 10x, but children might as well learn their 93x table off by heart, as their 12x, for all the use of it. Another stupid idea from the Ministry of Mis-Education.

 

 

A lot of people of a certain age still prefer to use imperial measurements and weights. I still measure in feet and inch`s . when i go in the butchers i ask for my meat in Pounds and ounces . when i weigh myself i work in stones , pounds and ounces.

 

there are 12 " in a foot ,so the 12x table is very important.

[aliceBB]

A lot of people of a certain age still prefer to use imperial measurements and weights. I still measure in feet and inch`s . when i go in the butchers i ask for my meat in Pounds and ounces . when i weigh myself i work in stones , pounds and ounces.

 

there are 12 " in a foot ,so the 12x table is very important.

 

So you think children should learn 12x table because you still work in imperial measurements, but you don't think punctuation matters? Right. Glad we've sorted that one out.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2015 at 23:02 ----------

 

I think the issue is not that they are to be teaching up to x12 but rather that the cut off point is arbitrary. If there is no sound, logical reason for teaching above x10 then why waste the time?

Personally, I'd teach up to x20 for the reasons outlined by Obelix, stopping at 12 just seems a bit pointless.

 

jb

 

Thank you for spotting the real point.

 

The whole question of what children should learn - and why is - fascinating.

 

However, if utility is the starting point (for which tables to teach), then it should be 2x to 10x, plus the prime numbers between 10 and 20. The rest (as I have demonstrated) are all easily calculable, assuming the child understands what mulitplication actually is.

 

Not sure that Obelix (or anyone else) has offered a convincing case for all tables up to 20x though. Nobody has yet come up with an everyday situation where instant recall of the 11x or 12x would be useful.

 

Annie Bynol makes a good point about geometry applications (of the 12x table), but I would be interested to know what use they serve in 'most sciences', as Obelix claims. Some examples would be useful, rather than vague assertions.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2015 at 23:04 ----------

 

Of course education is being dumbed down. The standard of spelling and pronunciation I hear from young people is awful. Missing Gs of the end of words and Ts from the middle of words, being just two examples.

 

That would be 'off', then. The irony...

 

And your last sentence has no main verb, by the way. (A present participle - such as 'being' - cannot be a main verb).

Edited February 4, 2015 by aliceBB

[Obelix]

So you think children should learn 12x table because you still work in imperial measurements, but you don't think punctuation matters? Right. Glad we've sorted that one out.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2015 at 23:02 ----------

 

 

Thank you for spotting the real point.

 

The whole question of what children should learn - and why is - fascinating.

 

However, if utility is the starting point (for which tables to teach), then it should be 2x to 10x, plus the prime numbers between 10 and 20. The rest (as I have demonstrated) are all easily calculable, assuming the child understands what mulitplication actually is.

 

Not sure that Obelix (or anyone else) has offered a convincing case for all tables up to 20x though. Nobody has yet come up with an everyday situation where instant recall of the 11x or 12x would be useful.

 

Annie Bynol makes a good point about geometry applications (of the 12x table), but I would be interested to know what use they serve in 'most sciences', as Obelix claims. Some examples would be useful, rather than vague assertions.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2015 at 23:04 ----------

 

 

That would be 'off', then. The irony...

 

And your last sentence has no main verb, by the way. (A present participle - such as 'being' - cannot be a main verb).

 

Generally speaking in science and engineering you are always doing calculations. For example this evening I'm designing some radio transceivers for my Scouts to build. I need the resonant frequency for the local oscillator to be 455kHz, so I have to work out the correct capacitor for the circuit. Equation is F= 1/(2pi*sqrt(LC)). I've then to work out the impedance of the capacitor for the followon stage Xc=1(2*pi*FC)

 

Both of which need mutiplication, both of which involve splitting it down into manageable parts. You get much more options with manageable parts if you only have to reduce it to the times 20 rather than the times 12 table.

 

Take an electrician working out current carrying capacity of a copper cable. You take the area of the cable and apply various scaling factors to the cable. Many cable runs can be up to 20 meters in the average house.

 

There are no "specific" hard and fast areas where it's useful to be able to do this sort of mental arithmetic because it's so ubiqutious - it's useful everywhere in almost every scientific and technical discipline from computing (especially if you work with hex) through to biology

[JonBladesman]

I think we should be teaching children how to think about thinking. If they knew how and not what to think, learning would be easier and you'd see a massive improvement overall.

 

We're stuck in the dark ages when it comes to education.

[aliceBB]

I think we should be teaching children how to think about thinking. If they knew how and not what to think, learning would be easier and you'd see a massive improvement overall.

 

We're stuck in the dark ages when it comes to education.

 

It is difficult to disagree with that.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2015 at 23:43 ----------

 

Generally speaking in science and engineering you are always doing calculations. For example this evening I'm designing some radio transceivers for my Scouts to build. I need the resonant frequency for the local oscillator to be 455kHz, so I have to work out the correct capacitor for the circuit. Equation is F= 1/(2pi*sqrt(LC)). I've then to work out the impedance of the capacitor for the followon stage Xc=1(2*pi*FC)

 

Both of which need mutiplication, both of which involve splitting it down into manageable parts. You get much more options with manageable parts if you only have to reduce it to the times 20 rather than the times 12 table.

 

Take an electrician working out current carrying capacity of a copper cable. You take the area of the cable and apply various scaling factors to the cable. Many cable runs can be up to 20 meters in the average house.

 

There are no "specific" hard and fast areas where it's useful to be able to do this sort of mental arithmetic because it's so ubiqutious - it's useful everywhere in almost every scientific and technical discipline from computing (especially if you work with hex) through to biology

 

I am not disputing that mental arithmetic (ie the rapid solving of problems involving the four rules of number, decimals and fractions) is generally useful (and not just in scientific applications), but I think your cabling examples are very 'niche' - useful for electricians, perhaps, but most people do not need to do such calculations, ever. It's rather like saying that every child should learn the words for numbers up to 10 in Serbo Croat in case they ever go on to learn Eastern European languages at university.

 

I think it is much more important that children understand what they are doing with Maths, and are not afraid of it, or bored by it. You can only get so far with learning maths facts by rote - you have to be able to apply those facts, and if you do not understand the logic/rules, then you will have no idea whether the answer you come up with is likely to be right or not.

Edited February 4, 2015 by aliceBB

[Obelix]

I'm not going to sit down and show you and endless series of examples for you to just call them "niche". By definition every example is going to be niche - the point is it is useful in almost every area of science, and engineering and finance, and a large number of technical subjects.

 

It's like saying there's no point in learning more than a thousand words, because it's possible to get by perfectly adequately with those. If you said that someone might want to expand their vocabulary to use extra words, I could successfully argue that knowing a sentence doesnt have a main verb in is "niche" because you only use it to score points in an internet debate...

 

As for understanding, that's like saying you don't need to learn to speak and know how to construct a regular verb by rote as long as you know how it's constructed and you can sit and work it out when you need to. You are not the only one that considers understanding to be key either, so please don't present it as if you are.