To not make DD correct her school work

[MayhapMayhem]

DS has dyscalculia and we have been spending the past few weeks trying to convince him that 43 = 34 etc

Teacher has returned some of DD's school work (Year below DS) and told her to do corrections. It's maths, her favourite subject and on the first page she has been marked 2/9. I haven't told her yet as she's going to be upset.

What has been marked wrong
47=28
34=12 (this has been corrected to 43=28)
63=18
16=6
45=20
27=14
36=18

In each case the teacher wanted the sum written the "other" way round I.e. 74, 61 etc.

On the next page
6+6=6*2=12 is marked as wrong.

AIBU to not make her "correct" it or should I tell her to write = b*a at the end of each sum?

FFS the child can do maths, pedantic teacher is asking her to go backwards to fit in with a syllabus, when she clearly understands the concept that will be explained in 13 pages time.

talk about how to demotivate someone! its hardly going to want to make anyone learn (through the school at any rate).

What a load of bollocks this all is. I am a secondary maths teacher and this is exactly the kind of thing that causes children to be confused about maths when they needn't be.

You can't mark 3*2 = 6 wrong EVER. It's always correct. If you start telling children they are wrong when they are right how will they ever trust their understanding?

Clearly if we are talking about the concept of 3+3 being 23 then even if the person writes 3 2 they have understood it. Where else have they got the 3 and 2 from?

I would be doing more than just not making her correct it, I would be contacting the school and correcting them.

X does not mean ‘lots of,’ it means ‘multiplied by

But "lots of" and "multiplied by" are the same thing. How else would you describe "multiplied
by?"

It's like saying "shared between" and "divided by" are not the same, what's the difference?

She’s going to go from insistence on the ‘right’ order here to being told in secondary that she should freely switch the order to make mental calculation easier

Right from the word go all children should be encouraged to develop their mental calculations by looking for shortcuts. My DD (7) doesn't get yet that if asked 12*2 she only needs to know her two times tables not her 12s. That's fine because she is only in year 2 but the idea that she wouldn't pick this up until secondary is shocking.

You can't be really say that throwing 4 dice and getting all threes, is the same thing as throwing 3 dice and getting all 4s

She isn't saying that though is she, her reasoning is there is a 3 on a dice and there are 4 such dice so 3*4.

There shouldn't even be a discussion, the fact that there is and that primary teachers actually mark children wrong for learning their times tables in a way that is slightly different to how the scheme says has made me so cross.

No wonder so many children hate maths if this is how primary approach it.

Secondary Maths teacher here, with some dyscalculia training.

@MayhapMayhem, two things.

In your post at 08:29 on Monday, the teacher has written 4 dot 3, not 4 x 3 or 4 (asterisk) 3.
Is it explained somewhere what operation that dot stands for in this particular exercise? It might be significant. It’s not like “+” which always means “plus”, for example, at least in most school Maths. They might use a triangle or square instead, and explain what it means in this question.

(I use a dot on the line to mean multiply, and a dot halfway up to mean a decimal point, but that’s not universal. In this case it could mean “dice, each showing a”, for example, so the whole thing would read “ 4 dice, each showing a 3.”)

In your post at 08:37 you ask when BODMAS became BIDMAS. It happens at some time between primary and secondary school, when students learn about Indices.
Brackets
Indices
Division.....

The dot as the teacher has written is used as the symbol for multiplication in several countries. It goes in the middle. The dot for decimals is at the bottom. It's been ages since I've seen it.

Yes, I agree it is. The decimal point dot can be at the bottom, halfway up or even be replaced by a comma.

But not usually here, in primary schools, in my limited experience.

But "lots of" and "multiplied by" are the same thing. How else would you describe "multiplied
by?"

It's like saying "shared between" and "divided by" are not the same, what's the difference?

They are the same when you get proficient. When you introduce the concept and are using visual methods they're not the same as the language produces different images. Half of maths in the early stages is about the language used to describe the visual methods.

You then have to slowly prove via visual methods and simply by spotting the patterns and linking to addition which is commutable, that they mean the same thing.

Lots of means groups of, multiplied means repeated.

Shared by means actual sharing out of sweets between bowls and divided by means chunking/ repeated subtraction, this is linked to using a number line and cutting segments or 'lots of' or groups of a number. So linking to counting in steps of 3 etc.

The idea is to give more visual mental strategies especially for those who need the visuals to understand better. There were identified issues in the way children around yr 1 and 2 were being introduced to division and this translated into large gaps in progress in the area of division. A strategic push was to teach multiplication and division in a way that led from repeated addition to repeated subtraction for y2- y4.

This was under the numeracy strategy around 15 years ago. I can't comment on what's going on now. I know Ive seen some pupils struggling with multiplication and I know they've misused out certain steps that used to be a part of the curriculum. The focus to just learn facts may have replaced it.

However I teach sen and tables facts don't help as they struggle to remember. I personally don't know my facts but find visual methods more helpful.

Going back to the op.

Wtf the 28 is I've no idea.

6+6=62=12 is marked as wrong. - under the old way this would be right. 6 repeated twice. If they're using the lots of way it's wrong. Two lots of 6, 2x6

Tbh it's a fucking minefield and it's an area I've raised a few times at work and had to bite my tongue over with my sons work. Luckily he has quickly understood. A child with dyscalculia could be extremely confused.

I think I had mild dyscalculia as I can only do maths using visual images in my head. I got very good at drawing dice dots very quickly in mental maths tests to work out sums at gcse. When I was taught a lot of the primary maths stuff on pgce and afterwards, I had many, many lightbulb moments.

Numicon is excellent for dyscalculia.

I am interested that she got 2 correct. So, she put two of the answers the other 9'correct') way round. This does a little bit signal to the teacher that she was not following a set method. I guess the teacher wanted her to practise the same routine. Not maths teacher, but I did think maths was about 'overlearning' and getting into habits to create 'automaticitiy'.

Both my DCs have pretty severe shape and space problem and one thing that holds them back is having about three different methods to get to the same place, and, thus, confusing themselves so it all becomes a bit hit and miss...

Is it possible the maths teacher wanted all the sums expressed in the same way for that reason?

When we chanted times tables at school, back in the day, we didn't have half the class doing the seven times table one way and half the other... (I have never been taught that is because it is 'lots of' though : not sure a small child understands the word'lot' in that sense.)

So is the teacher teaching wrongly?

That's what I'd be concerned about.

I know that the product is the same either way, but I can see the "logic" behind putting the 4 first in this instance.

I wonder what the 2 questions that were correct were.

I just realised, unless she has done this before or had some kind of online lesson/examples that showed exactly what the teacher wanted with hopefully explaining why, then no wonder she got it "wrong". And sending back just 2/9 because they're the wrong way around with no explanation, is not going to help or teach her anything.

"And sending back just 2/9 because they're the wrong way around with no explanation, is not going to help or teach her anything."

Well that's the biggest thing isn't it?

Op's daughter has obviously done her work & "got" the concept?

So is the teacher teaching wrongly?

Not really. It’s probably a matter of debate as to whether it’s worth teaching or not. But it isn’t necessarily ‘wrong’.

That's fine because she is only in year 2 but the idea that she wouldn't pick this up until secondary is shocking.

I’m certain it will be taught before secondary. Even the OP says the concept that multiplication is commutative is taught later on in the workbook.

"It’s probably a matter of debate as to whether it’s worth teaching or not."

Yes.

I suppose when we used to learn our tables (putting the "times" value first), it was apparent fairly soon that 4x2=8 & that 2x4=8, 3x4=12 & that also 4x3=12...

They still learn times tables and the fact that multiplication can be done in any order is also taught explicitly.

But I think this lesson is about understanding what multiplication is and how it is written down using the x symbol. If the order doesn’t matter you’re probably better off expecting children to put both answers so you can cement the concept that it can be done in any order.

Then you just skip the next step and go straight to transferring that knowledge to multiplying mentally.

I wonder what the 2 questions that were correct were.

1 x 1, 2 x 2, 3 x 3 etc. perhaps?

Coming back to the thread, I’m still struggling to understand the need to do the multiplication the correct way round. I get there will be implications for needing numbers correctly ordered in the future but that can be taught as and when.

For me, I would have thought malleability would have an advantage right now.

The only way I can make sense of why the teacher is saying it’s wrong is if I replace the assigned number, which is multiplied by a object. Eg a shopping list for a child’s party:

25 plates
2 bottles orange squash
2 packs ham
3 packs sliced cheese
1 jar jam
Etc

What your dd has written is:

Plates x 25
orange squash x 2
Etc

When dd was at school albeit older and she learnt her times tables, she initially learnt them as a stand alone times table, then as she went through them , I pointed out she knew the first part of the table and by the time she got to her 12’s, she knew almost all of them. She also learnt the divides.

I’m failing to see how your dd has gone wrong.

There is much sense in the teacher, introducing young children to multiplication, being very consistent in the way round she puts the numbers. For those who haven't spotted the commutativity (that it doesn't matter which way round the numbers are), it would be very confusing if the teacher was switching between
2 lots of 3 being 2 x 3
and
5 lots of 2 being 2 x 5.
But for the children who can see it doesn't matter (and some will never need it to be explained), I don't see any need for them to be forced to write things a particular way around.

This sounds confusing.

I’d be asking the teacher for an explanation of why she wants the numbers written a particular way round.
Whether I told my DC to correct the work would depend on how much sense the teachers explanation made to me.

But I wouldn’t be saying that e.g. 36=18 is wrong regardless of the teacher’s explanation for why she wants it written 63=18, as I’d be concerned that that would cause unnecessary confusion further down the line.

But for the children who can see it doesn't matter (and some will never need it to be explained), I don't see any need for them to be forced to write things a particular way around.

This is probably where the teaching sequence over the next few weeks comes into play. Although perhaps consistency is better than accuracy.

Is there any reason in secondary maths (or beyond) that you’d need to know the difference between 4x3 and 3x4? Is it actually important for anything?

Is there any reason in secondary maths (or beyond) that you’d need to know the difference between 4x3 and 3x4? Is it actually important for anything?

There is no difference between 4x3 and 3x4. For example you could have 4 people having £3 each could be represented as either £3 x 4 or 4 x £3 so no rule about which way round it would be written anyway) they have exactly the same value in all situations. There is no difference. At all. The teacher is wrong to teach it that way and if that's standard for primary (to correct children because they understand the maths using different methods to those prescribed by the scheme) then primary teaching is part of the problem we face with Mathematics at secondary.

Sorry my grammar not great there I am a bit riled!!

Here it's slightly more clear what she wants. But why then are 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 correct???