Forums

/ Lifestyle / Opinion

shalteir:

This was a great thread early on, although the mathematical content went up over the head of teachers like myself, in primary.

I was really interested in the issues from the original posts, can there be a cease fire on the differences here which have become more focussed on the personal rather than the professional?

Or perhaps this thread has run its course and should be laid to rest down the pages?

I'd agree.

We were having a fruitful discussion on whether it is better to estimate by counting the zeros (add in logarithmic space, to get technical) or by doing simple multiplications and divisions in one's head.

That has now been destroyed.

 I'm rather late to the party but hey, ho...

I find it depressing that anyone can justify children not know their times tables and not recognising just how limited and disadvantaged such pupils are as a result.

Of course it's not just the lack of tables that is the problem - as many pupils who don't know their tables cannot recognise number bonds within 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 etc.

Most of the pupils I teach need a ruler to use as a number line for counting on and a tables card for multiplication (division, even using the card, is usually beyond them).

Most of those pupils can tell me (or work out) the "stations" of each table but are unable, as mentioned earlier, to apply them to individual calculations - ie they can say the "stations" of the 4 times table but cannot tell you what 4 x 6 is (until I've re-trained them in the use of their fingers or the ruler as they say the stations).

This loss of "automaticity" results from NOT chanting properly - there is no point in chanting stations without a reference point for the repeat addition within.  However, chanting four fours are sixteen, four fives are twenty (etc) eventually results in automatic recall of the facts which can then be applied within calculations.

Nonsense about using computer or telephone technology is just that - nonsense.  Apart from the fact that it is substantially slower than automaticity pupils are not allowed such technology in exam situations (use of a phone in a Higher exam would result in being removed from the exam and disqualification).

Over a number of decades the role of memorisation in education has been reduced dramatically - many will argue that it is pointless even in the face of classes of pupils unable to recall the most basic of facts.  It is the vogue today to teach "units" then move on to the next topic whilst expecting children to recall the facts of previous units.  Until we teach them to use their memories effectively there will be no instant or automatic recall even for very able children.

I may teach the least able children but I also support, in their classes, very able pupils with a range of specific difficulties and I'm appalled by how many pupils cannot recall or apply relatively simple number facts (bonds and tables etc) and how that hinders them in far more complex maths.

Mine have conquered the 9x table by using the 'each station adds to nine and each answer starts with the number before' method (ie 9x2 = 18, 18 comprises 1 and 8 which add to 9, the answer starts with the number one less than the 2 you were multiplying by).  It's not as quick as automatic recall but it's faster than using the card and doesn't require there to be a card.

By the time children are at secondary the ideal time for memorisation has passed and, although I spend more time on repeating the tables than most, the way the curriculum is driven forward doesn't allow even me enough time to concentrate on re-teaching these very basic skills.

It's right up there with trying to teach the basics of phonics and grammar in secondary.  40 odd years ago it would have been difficult to imagine a pupil who couldn't equate noun with a naming word.  I've heard secondary teachers suggest that such basics are not being covered in primary.  I know for a fact that they are - but pupils have such very limited recall today that they are unable to retain the information they are taught.

Part of the problem is that education is politicised rather than personalised. Teachers are forced to teach a curriculum that sounds good; a lovely shiny curriculum that will logically transport children from infancy to graduation.

MathsMA:

I ate (8) and I ate (8) and I got sick (6) on the floor (4).

And my standard reply to this one is the product of 1 ate and 1 ate is actually negative sick on the floor.

shalteir:

...

I'm certainly not squabbling with you.   I'm delighted you drilled your students in multiplication tables - I was just pointing out that is an unusual thing to do these days.

weebecka:

...

What's up with you suddenly?