Times tables : why make children learn their 12x?

[Harrystottle]

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 .

 

Apart from the fact that they are not. If you ask anyone how tall they are they don't say 184 centimetres, they say six foot one. Ask someone how much weight they lost at slimming world last week and they won't say five hundred grams, they'll say one pound.

 

I remember metrication. Because it was all tens and hundreds every school child would automatically become better at maths because the metric system was so much simpler.

 

How do we reckon that worked out?

 

The metric system is awful, full of horrible clunky words that just don't fit in the English language. Try and write a beautiful song or poem with the word kilometre or centilitre in it. Can't be done.

[adamf]

Maybe we should make darts a compulsory sporting activity in schools then?

 

You only need to know up to 3 X 20 for that, not 12 X 12.

[aliceBB]

Totally missed the point.

 

11 and 12s are useful. Any number calculations which children have to do in their heads are useful.

You misunderstand the concept of 'usefulness' (specific application) as opposed to 'utility' (any reward). You also seem to be confusing facts which are known by heart, and calculations (mental processes which help you arrive at an answer when you don't know it by heart).

 

But the whole point is that it is a challenge for pupils to learn them. They then plan how to learn them, and is a challenge to achieve full marks on tests. This process can then be applied to other things aside from Maths which they wish to learn.

It is not the whole point, but it is a point. However, if taken to its logical conclusion, you could use it to justify making children learn things which are extremely unlikely ever to be useful to them. Why not, for example, require them to learn by hear the bus timetables of Denpasar, or the volumes of lava thrown out by every volcanic eruption since records began?

 

Rote has its place, and the tree hugging left try to banish it because they believe that children thinking is somehow damaging to their brain.

It is nothing to do with tree hugging, and nobody who knows anything about education would claim that thinking damages brains. (You miss the point however, as the whole aim of rote learning is that the learner does not need to think once they have committed something to memory. Duh).

 

Look at the targets set - times tables, read a book, write a story - simple tasks which 8 year olds could do if taught correctly. Yet people are up in arms about it, asking why there is a need for it!

Stop exaggerating. Nobody is 'up in arms'; it is simply a discussion as to what facts (e.g. tables facts) children can usefully be asked to commit to memory and which are less useful. Reading a book and writing a story are fine by me, although the Ed Min's vague pontification about how 11 year olds must be able to 'use spelling, punctuation and grammar accurately' shows just how out of touch she is with the process of formal learning. To most of us, 'accurately' means precisely and without errors. So she is demanding that all 11 years olds produce written English of a standard equivalent to that of a professional journalist, or published author? Given that most adults cannot do this (and never could) how does she expect all 11 year olds to achieve it? Or does 'accurately' mean something different to Tory Education Ministers?

 

16 x 7

 

Work at 10 x 7 first, then 6 x 7, then add together

 

The skill here is holding the first number in their head, whilst working out the second.

True, but it is not an argument for committing the 16x times table to memory; quite the opposite, in fact. Edited February 8, 2015 by aliceBB

[Mr Gobby]

Loved to do this at school and it kept your mind sharp .We may not need it today, but i don't see what harm it does either.

[aliceBB]

Loved to do this at school and it kept your mind sharp .We may not need it today, but i don't see what harm it does either.

 

I suppose it must depend on your definition of 'sharp'! To me, a sharp mind can think/reason, not just regurgitate.

 

What harm does it do? Who knows? I don't expect it has ever been measured. It may do no 'harm' at all. But when the curriculum is as crowded as it is, with children being expected to reach objective standards in many more subjects and skills than was ever the case even 15 years ago, teachers have to justify how the time is spent.

 

Our local primary has stopped taking kids to the pool to teach them to swim because they couldn't justify the 2 hours of curriculum time per week. Under those kinds of pressures, they have to justify how every minute is filled. Saying 'It does no harm' is not enough, I'm afraid.

[the_bloke]

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.

 

Perhaps all those old times table books that were hidden in the back of cupboards after 1997 that go up to the 12 times table are cheaper to use than buying millions of new ones that only go up to 10.

 

Or perhaps teaching children to push themselves past the 10 times table - the easiest to remember after the 1 times table - is something that we should be encouraging rather than finding excuses as to why we shouldn't do it. You forget that children aren't just taught the table, they are presented with mathematical problems where they have to use the table and apply it to the question to get the answer - they have to think about the maths behind it.

 

A large amount of things taught in school have little use in the real world, but it doesn't stop them being mechanisms to encourage learning, free thinking, questioning and developing logic and problem solving skills.

 

I've never performed integration and differentiation since A level Maths, but if I hadn't been capable of doing so at 16 I wouldn't be capable of performing the complex work I do today.

[aliceBB]

 

Or perhaps teaching children to push themselves past the 10 times table - the easiest to remember after the 1 times table - is something that we should be encouraging rather than finding excuses as to why we shouldn't do it.

 

I cannot think anyone disagrees with children being pushed or challenged - we are simply trying to establish how best that can be done.

 

You forget that children aren't just taught the table, they are presented with mathematical problems where they have to use the table and apply it to the question to get the answer - they have to think about the maths behind it.

I haven't forgotten that at all, but it is a separate issue from whether knowing the 12x table by heart (instead of being able to work it out from the 2x and the 6x) is a good use of their time.

[cgksheff]

........... is a good use of their time.

 

Time?

Tables can be learnt whilst walking to school.

[the_bloke]

I cannot think anyone disagrees with children being pushed or challenged - we are simply trying to establish how best that can be done.

 

I haven't forgotten that at all, but it is a separate issue from whether knowing the 12x table by heart (instead of being able to work it out from the 2x and the 6x) is a good use of their time.

 

Perhaps the powers that be prefer that children know 11x12 = 132 rather than 2(10x6) + (2x6) = 132? (You an see which is quicker)

 

In a nation that still uses the imperial system of feet and inches and pounds and ounces even when decimalisation was generations ago - lets not forget all measurements in the US are still imperial too - is learning the 11 and 12 times table such a hardship?

 

For whom is scrapping the 11 and 12 times table easier for, the pupil who won't know the difference or be given any choice, or the parent who probably struggles with the 6, 7, 8, and 9 times table as well?

[whiteowl]

Perhaps the powers that be prefer that children know 11x12 = 132 rather than 2(10x6) + (2x6) = 132? (You an see which is quicker)

 

In a nation that still uses the imperial system of feet and inches and pounds and ounces even when decimalisation was generations ago - lets not forget all measurements in the US are still imperial too - is learning the 11 and 12 times table such a hardship?

 

For whom is scrapping the 11 and 12 times table easier for, the pupil who won't know the difference or be given any choice, or the parent who probably struggles with the 6, 7, 8, and 9 times table as well?

 

My bold - I think the point being made is not that they shouldn't learn times tables but how far should they go. With 11 and 12 you mention imperial measurements so shouldn't 14 and 16 be there as well ? (ounces and pounds, etc).

 

Also - I struggle to do a double quote but earlier in the thread it was said,

"If you ask anyone how tall they are they don't say 184 centimetres, they say six foot one." - I reckon that should read, if you ask anyone over a certain age they will answer in feet and inches, not most kids these days.