to be surprised that so many people do not know their times tables

[moffat]

I am on a Primary PGCE course and was very surprised in a Maths session when loads of students (ie trainee teachers) said that they didn't know all their times tables. Not being judgemental but I suppose with people using calculators/spreadsheets so much there is no need to memorise them all. Just wondered whether this was the norm.

We recited times tables every day from my first day at school - that would be the equivalent of Reception. We did it every day for the first two years. By the time we were in Year 2 I don't think there was one child in my class who had to think about them.

What was wrong with that?

Apparently it wasn't fair on the kids who couldn't learn their tables. I have come across maths teachers who resigned over it.

Some primary schools seem to only teach chunking for division, which annoys me as a secondary teacher because I then have to waste time teaching them the usual method so they can divide decimals easily.

Kids who don't know their times tables well really struggle with quite a few topics at GCSE; they get factorising or expanding brackets questions wrong not because they can't do the algebra but because their arithmetic isn't up to it. When my DS gets to school, I won't be just relying on them to teach him, we'll be doing them at home too.

Appletrees - I don't find fractions, algebra or division hard or more wearisome just because I haven't memorised my times tables.

Because I have never memorised them I have actually had to employ much more active methods of calculation in order to work out the answers.

The way I see it having to do a sums in my head means I am actively engaging (although perhaps subconsciously) with the problem rather than passively accessing my memory. It also means I have to understand how the numbers interact to get to the answer.

All of these things I see as a benefit and it certainly doesn't now and has never hindered me when it comes to basic maths.

Thinking back, we definitely did times tables the old fashioned way at school (and I was a child of the 80's) but for some reason I was unable to commit them to memory - I think because memorising is so ....well....passive and I've always questioned and wanted to root around problems. I probably developed my own way of being able to do multiplication to spice things up a bit at school!

lenak - I'm the same with memorising stuff - I just can't do it.

I could never memorise music, even something that I'd been practising/playing for months.

There are hymns I've probably played 100's of times in my life - yet there's no way I'd get past the first few bars of any of then.

The same for memorising tables.

I was a bit crap at maths in general. But I coped fine with fractions, algebra etc - I just did it slower as I worked it out. Certainly didn't impede me.

MaMoTTaT - that's interesting about the music.

I (used to) play piano - could read the music no problem - could never remember more than a couple of bars of the melody - and almost none of the chords - even on the most basic songs and stuff I'd been playing for months.

I even have trouble remembering nursery rhymes (on the piano) without a few attempts and duff notes first.

But not every kid learns well by chanting. And especially not when they do tests all the time with competitions about who can be fastest and so on. I know people who found it awful and who dont come out learning them. They need other ways to learn.

oh yes - I can sight read pretty well, even several staves at once. But memorise music - nah.

I did once after literally days of trying memorise one pieces of piano music - a piece of Grieg. It stuck for a week or so, then gradually over time - despite repeated effort to keep playing it so it stuck - I lost it.

But then you see I find reading music, and using both hands a feet so simple - all it requires is a little co-ordination and pracice - don't understand why any one else would have a problem with it

How would you simplify a fraction like 21/49 if you don't know your times tables?

in the same way that you'd simpilfy a fraction like 365/3765

But I'd say 'oh, 5 goes into both' and divide by 5, then see what I've got. If you don't know your times tables, how do you know what goes into 21 and 49?

I remember doing long division at school but haven't a clue how it works now. What is chunking?

Not so hot on memory of times tables. We did used to get tested on them a lot. I can do 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11. 4 and 6 I sort of remember. 7, 8 and 12 are a mystery. But I can work them out, and once I get the number I don't have to check it because it just sounds right in my head.

What is the rule for 11 times table after 9 x 11? Someone said it was easy even up to 99 x 11 (or was that a typo?)

XP used to struggle with maths, but he could always do his tables - he did some kind of hands spread out, fingers touching to each other kind of thing. He tried to explain it to me and a friend once but it was completely incomprehensible (though may have been his explaining skills, TBH) It was fascinating though.

ok ok ok - that was too easy

well I actually know 21 and 49

but if was one I wasn't sure of I'd ake the lowest number and use arithmawhatsit (can't spell it and my spellchecker isn't coming up with the right suggestions for any of my attempts ) to work out which numbers went into it.

Then I'd see if that number also went into 49. If not find another number that goes into it and so on.

Yes it takes longer - but when you're brain takes 3hrs to figure out how to work out a maths problem anyhow another extra minute or two makes no difference

and if all that fails I'd whip out the mobile and use the calculator

I always thought rote-learning was a total waste of time. I had to 'learn' the times tables but always just worked them out as I went along when we had to recite them. the only one that I actually remembered was the 6s, and I did maths right up to degree level.

For the kids that find maths challenging I suppose it might be helpful to have it rote-learned though.

I think it's exactly that, lifeinlimbo. The ones who find it challenging needs to have the tables at the tip of their tongue, so more attention left for other things.

For people who didn't like/learn from chanting, look up visual times tables or non-verbal times tables, and there are lots of other multisensory methods that some schools are using these days.

Even those that do plain old-fashioned memorisation don't always actually chant through the whole table, but use flash cards or write out table squares or do timed tests with the question part already written or play games with one person asking and the children answering, rather than having to sit there and say "seven times six is forty-two, seven times seven is forty-nine", etc., which is very easy to get the words mixed up.

I always used to simplify fractions in stages. So 21/49 is easy and only requires one stage. I'd go through the simple numbers first: are they even - 2 x table? No. Do any of the numbers add up to 3/6/9 - 3 x table? Yes, one does. Neither end in 0/5 so can't be divided by five. Once you have eliminated 2, all even numbers are out. Eliminating 3 and 5 eliminates bigger multiples like 9, 15. So you start to work through the prime numbers. 7 - bingo.

(Actually I did recognise both of these as 7s but that's how I would have worked it out if not)

365/3765

Both end in 5 so can be divided by 5, which gives

73/753

From that I believe 73 is a prime number, just because it doesn't jump out at me as being familiar.

So I suppose you are right and my (limited) memory of my times tables helped here. But I think the methods of working out whether a number belongs in a particular category (whether it's even, whether all the digits add up to 3/6/9, whether the last digit is 0 or 5, any combination of these) are more helpful.

The fraction thing is easy because even if you don't know all the times tables, you will know key ones - particularly the squares.

So I know 49 is 7 x 7 - it only takes a nano second in my head to work out that 7 also goes into 21.

Interestingly, before this thread I'd never heard of chunking - upon googling it, I realise it is the method I have always employed to do mental arithmatic - even though I was never actually taught to do it this way. I suppose a lot of people must use the same method, hence the reason its ended up on the curriculum.

I find the reading music / co-ordinated playing thing quite easy too - just wasn't tallented enough didn't have the commitment to get really good!

lenak - I often get the "oh I don't know how you can read 3 lines of music and play with boths hands and feet at the same time"

• well it's easy

but then people who are really good at maths often say "oh but it's really easy".........

and I disagree entirely

"even if you don't know all the times tables, you will know key ones"

Trust me, that's not necessarily true. Some kids who 'don't know their times tables' really don't know their times tables.

I did OU maths and would never have got to degree level without times tables. So maybe I didn't use it for my OU but without good times tables I would have found everything a lot harder and a lot slower and might have lost interest.

There was an ideological move away from rote learning -- instead off adding help for people who can't do it by rote they took it away from everyone else.

Absolutely stupid. Most people, for general use and getting a GCSE, need solid tables and number bonds, fractions (tables) algebra (tables) sequencing (tables) probability (tables) and geometry (tables).

No reason at all why you shouldn't focus on understanding as well as doing it by rote. Why not? There's six hours of school every day. Most teachers do. It's obvious, the old how many lots of beans or pink counters etc etc. Colouring in those pattern squares. Why not?

Because it was an ideological decision -- we mustn't do rote any more, we must be progressive and inclusive and if some people can't, no one can. Luckily the odd person like lenak whose mathematical ability would have been restrained by simple arithmetics have benefited. Hurrah for that. Never mind that scores of thousands of children have been leaving primary up to two years behind their appropriate level, despite all the teaching about understanding, and several different methods till they find one that clicks, and learning through application, and integration, and let's all hold hands and save the world.

well you could say that about just about anything noble - there will always be people for whom certain subjects just never make sense.

(I'm not sure actually they do integration in primary school these days, Appletrees )

Otherwise, I agree. Understanding and learning tables BOTH good to know, for most children. And especially those who struggle with maths. Methods that don't need chanting. Rhymes. Clock method. Flashcards. Patterns. Number squares. Stories. And chanting, for that matter. Try it all.

but Appletrees - I know people in there's 40's, 50s and even 60's who don't "know" their timetables.

Honestly - you can get through life without being able to recite the timestables

Of course in an ideal world everyone would write perfect English, speak perfect English, know maths up to A Level and not find any subject, or part of a subject like a brick wall in front of them.

In the real world people have their strengths and weaknesses - and usually find ways around their weaknesses - even if it does take them longer than the bright sparks who do Maths degrees.

Here's a thought...............

perhaps those that don't know their timestables are the sort that will drop Maths as soon as they've done their GSCE and wouldn't actually want to do degree level Maths anyhow.

I had them drilled into me as a child to. I can't for the life of me remember most of them now. You get taught them in primary school and then it's taken as read that you know them. perhaps the PGCE students just haven't retained them.

Clouds, I remember a bit of integration from my children's maths in the last fifteen years.. am I wrong about that? Maybe.

Mama, but those who do it to degree level don't need times tables either apparently mama.. so who does that leave? most people know how useful they are. Just because some people can't learn them shall we all not bother? Or shall we use the best method for enabling children to master the earliest arithmetic and give them confidence to progress?