Times tables : why make children learn their 12x?

[aliceBB]

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.

I disagree. I have asked several scientists and Science teachers about this and they say that whilst some kids do know their tables up to x20 (or even beyond) by heart, this is not necessary for much of the Maths and Science that is taught up to A level. Kids who go on to excel in Maths and Science (and presumably engineering etc) have a natural love of and aptitude for maths and they don't need to commit a load of maths facts to memory; they are mentally agile enough to find the correct answer(s) in quickest (and often most creative) way. Or they use a calculator or computer programme quickly and accurately. Beyond that, having been made to learn times tables beyond x10 does not equip them any better for the world of engineering or scientific research. I'm sure that on occasions, someone somewhere will need to know what 29 x 46 is, or the number of square centimetres in 3.78 square metres. It doesn't mean they have to know their times tables up to x20 off by heart. An understanding of the mathematical concept(s) involved plus an ability to use a pen and paper or calculator, is all that is needed.

 

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.

No, it isn't, and in any case, acquiring and using new vocabulary (I am assuming that is what you mean by 'words'?) is a completely different process from learning one's times tables off by heart. Children learn not only new vocabulary, but new semantic meanings, more complex grammatical structures and pragmatics in an organic way (assuming they are interacted with by adults and not ignored for much of the day), not by committing a list to memory - which is what, effectively, learning the times tables boils down to, for most kids. You can learn your tables without understanding the concept of multiplication. You cannot sit down and learn a load of new words then use them in an appropriate context without understanding their meaning or how they function grammatically in speech. Language development (in particular grammar) is hardwired into human brains - it happens almost against all the odds, in some cases. Lexis acquisition is slightly different - it needs cultural input.

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...

You could say it, but you would be wrong.

 

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.

Again, you may know about electronics and the complexities of electrical cabling work, but you have a faulty grasp of how language is learnt. First, are you referring to native language learning, or foreign language? If the latter, before or after the age of about 11?

 

Let's assume we are learning a foreign language after adolescence kicks in, (as that seems to be the only context where you might want to learn to 'construct' verbs by rote). In fact, regular verbs are not the problem. Know how to conjugate one verb in whatever tense, and you can do all the rest. It's the irregular ones you have to commit to memory. Understanding (of why they conjugate as oddly as they do) is not required for those - you just need to have them at your fingertips.

 

And you still haven't produced any useful, everyday evidence/examples to support the knee-jerk reaction on this forum that knowing the 11x and 12 x tables is better than knowing them just up to 10x. Unless you have 11 or 12 children (probably to be discouraged), when would you ever need to multiply or divide something by 11 or 12 in normal life?

Edited February 5, 2015 by aliceBB

[Obelix]

I disagree. I have asked several scientists and Science teachers about this and they say that whilst some kids do know their tables up to x20 (or even beyond) by heart, this is not necessary for much of the Maths and Science that is taught up to A level. Kids twho go on to excel in Maths and Science (and presumably engineering etc) have a natural love of and aptitude for maths and they don't need to commit a load of maths facts to memory; they are mentally agile enough to find the correct answer(s) in quickest (and often most creative) way. Or they use a calculator or computer programme quickly and accurately.

 

It takes a considerable time to get pencil and paper out, to work out the answer. Same for a calculator. It might not seem it but when you are doing work involving this sort of calculation and are literally doing dozens if not hundreds then reaching for a calculator or sheet of paper takes much longer, and is much more error prone than doing it mentally.

 

I snipped your excellent anaylsis of language not because it was incorrect but because it wasn't relevant. You pointed out clearly that my arguments about language are wrong - that's because I set up an absurd example. You are doing the same with arithmetic (not maths - times tables are noting more than arithmetic).

 

It's not necessary to understand arithmetic. Learning the timestable is not learning maths. It's learning a tool that must be learnt in order to make use of it - like learning the alphabet, like learning how a doorkey is used (not how the lock works - just how to use it) like learning how to cross a road (not learning how the pelican corssing works - just leanring how to use it). Learning the times tables and how to use them is nothing more than a mental spanner to be used when investigating a real problem that does require understanding.

 

The reasons for going beyond x10 to x20 is that you have four times the number space in which to play. If your answer goes beyond 2 significant digits, then you cannot easily work it if you are equipped to only go to 10x10 mentally. The x12 was there purely for the English measurements and money, but by going to x20 you gain a much larger set of spanners apply to problems.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Obelix

[alchresearch]

Or they use a calculator or computer programme quickly and accurately.

 

So if that's the case, why learn anything? Just give every child a mobile device with internet access.

 

It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where the teacher asks the class to do a sum. They all look blankly then pull out their calculators. Millhouse is the first to answer with "low battery".

[aliceBB]

So if that's the case, why learn anything? Just give every child a mobile device with internet access.

 

It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where the teacher asks the class to do a sum. They all look blankly then pull out their calculators. Millhouse is the first to answer with "low battery".

 

You are missing the point. There are some things which are inherently useful for a child/human being to know/understand/remember without looking them up, and some things which aren't.

 

My argument is that the 12x time is not one of those useful things (for reasons I have already explained). It might have been once (ie back in the days when currency and linear measurement involved base 12) but it isn't any more.

 

I would be interested to know what facts/instant recall bits of 'knowledge' you all think are really useful for children to commit to memory?

[Joe-b-1]

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.

 

You are 100% right Jon.

I reckon that is or at least should be included in a current incentive (been going for 5/6 years now) called learning to learn (link below). Thing is as there is no exam and no instant effect on league tables I'm not sure how seriously it is taken. I know teachers receive training in how to deliver this type of thing but since most people developed their own ways of thinking it isn't as easy as getting across things based on logic, problem solving or facts. To be fair my school has had plenty of training sessions for staff on this.

 

http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/cfl/LearningInSchools/L2L/index.asp

[Bruno]

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.

 

Logarithms and anti logarithms! I could never get my head around those

[barleycorn]

... 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... Some examples would be useful, rather than vague assertions.

One word, shopping. When doing the weekly shop it is not only handy to be able to mentally calculate how much you are spending on the way round but to also be able to compare prices between different brands where the price/per item/weight is stated differently on each.

 

Example: You buy 170g of fresh ginger at 79p/100g, approximately how much should it cost?

I, for one, don't know my 17 times table so have to add 56 to 80 to obtain the answer. This takes a few seconds longer out of my life, seconds I am loathe to lose.

 

jb

[JonBladesman]

One word, shopping. When doing the weekly shop it is not only handy to be able to mentally calculate how much you are spending on the way round but to also be able to compare prices between different brands where the price/per item/weight is stated differently on each.

 

Example: You buy 170g of fresh ginger at 79p/100g, approximately how much should it cost?

I, for one, don't know my 17 times table so have to add 56 to 80 to obtain the answer. This takes a few seconds longer out of my life, seconds I am loathe to lose.

 

jb

 

What's this "jb" I keep seeing lol

[vwkittie]

We were supposed to learn times tables up to 12x by heart at school, I never could, never did and it's never, ever been a problem.

 

A lot of people bleat on about so called 'dumbing down' when they have absolutely no idea what is taught in schools and probably couldn't complete the work themselves if they tried.

[barleycorn]

What's this "jb" I keep seeing lol

 

It's my initials. JB = John Barleycorn

 

jb