State times tables test for school kids? yay or nay?

Dughorm

So primary school kids in England and Wales will have a state exam on their times tables against the clock. Would you support such a test here? Is there a need for it?

I think it's a great idea, a good grounding in basic maths is vital for everyday life.

I'm sure a suitable substitute could be put in place for kids with learning needs also.

http://news.sky.com/story/1615860/times-tables-to-be-tested-against-the-clock

Hammer89

I know them and know them very well, but the most use I get out of them is for the numbers part on Cats Does Countdown. Pointless sh*t in my view.

Canterelle

Don't know about a state test, as too nerve wracking for some kids. But definitely more emphasis on this basic building block of maths. Maybe more formal school assessment or test. My daughters school never bothered and her maths is a huge problem, sons school (well basically his teacher) puts huge emphasis on tables, so they will be able for division etc, and the difference is amazing.

One eyed Jack

We already do aptitude testing in english and math for primary school children -

http://www.schooldays.ie/articles/Standardised-testing-and-STen-scores

They give a much better picture than times-tables tests tbh.

kneemos

Essential for mental arithmetic.

foggy_lad

I would also include basic spelling and grammar which seems to be ignored in schools now because of dyslexia, AHDD, ADHD, ACDC, ABCD ETC ETC

or because it is too hard to teach when there are so many children whose parents don't speak English in the home or as a first language, This means their kids are well behind the normal class average and in need of extra help which is rarely available so the whole class suffers as teachers try to cope.

steddyeddy

Do I think that putting more pressure on kids will create a learning environment? No I don't.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do I think that putting more pressure on kids will create a learning environment? No I don't.

Works for the orientals.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

Works for the orientals.

Which Orientals?

endacl

There's a lot to be said for the old system of setting a bar and telling kids they have to jump to meet it, over the new system of asking them how high they can jump, and setting the bar slightly lower than that...

endacl

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would also include basic spelling and grammar which seems to be ignored in schools now because of dyslexia, AHDD, ADHD, ACDC, ABCD ETC ETC

You forgot BOLD.

freshpopcorn

We all ready have a Sigma Test for Maths and a Micra test for English.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which Orientals?

Chinese,Taiwanese,Japanese etc.

If 11 year olds can't be taught the times tables up to 12 times 12 then it's time for everyone to give up.

Canterelle

I know we already have standardised testing which is good. But I think there's a good need to cover basics such as tables too. IME the kid who is getting tables drilled into them again and again are better prepared for the rest of maths later on.

Irish Steve

Might also speed things up in the shops, had to wait a while back while the assistant went to look for a calculator to work out what 10 screws at 0,12c each was going to cost me!

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

Chinese,Taiwanese,Japanese etc.

Define "works" as used in your original sentence. This is oft claimed but not defined. The Orientals, as you describe them are certainly not leading many areas of research.

Samaris

Times tables were always a weak point of mine and it's actually been a problem for me when it comes to doing timed numerical tests. To be absolutely sure that 7x8=56 rather than wibble a moment as to if it isn't saves precious seconds.

Yeah, I actually rechecked 7x8 on the calculator to be sure.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Define "works" as used in your original sentence. This is oft claimed but not defined. The Orientals, as you describe them are certainly not leading many areas of research.

In a survey of the smartest students in maths and science the orientals came in the first five.

I don't really see the point in turning it into such a big production
If kids are behind with their maths, is teaching toward an arbitrary thing like this really going to help anyone?

Digital Solitude

Stupid idea IMO, being thought how to do mental arithmetic would be more useful than learning off the tables.

From another thread, but related

Peregrine wrote: »

I was recently told by my neighbour's young fella that he 'can't multiply 14 and 10 because it's not in the table'. Sigh.

kneemos

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Stupid idea IMO, being thought how to do mental arithmetic would be more useful than learning off the tables.

From another thread, but related

The tables make mental arithmetic easy.

Fleawuss

Any step taken to drive back the tide of complacency about laziness and stupidity is welcome imho.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't really see the point in turning it into such a big production
If kids are behind with their maths, is teaching toward an arbitrary thing like this really going to help anyone?

I see the times tables as a exercise in recall rather than computation.

Give them different calculations every time and they'll understand maths rather than "know" the answer.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

The tables make mental arithmetic easy.

You don't want it to be easy. You want it to be hard and to get good at it.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

In a survey of the smartest students in maths and science the orientals came in the first five.

Thanks for the reply. Does this translate into bright adults and a more intelligent society though?

iguana

kneemos wrote: »

The tables make mental arithmetic easy.

But they don't really. You just learn off the words; six by seven is forty two. You don't learn how to think of 6 as a number and how to calculate the value of 7 groupings of 6. And if you can't do that calculation rather than the repetition of words are you going to be able to calculate 6 by 13 or 13 by 42 quickly without a calculator or pen and paper?

Canterelle

Mental maths definitely is good for kids, it makes them access a certain part of the brain, recall if you will. They benefit hugely from knowing their times tables, and can do long division etc far more easily if the times tables are easily accessible in their heads. Like I said I don't know if a state exam is good for kids that age, there's enough pressure later on with the jc and lc.

cassid

Two of my children do kumon, you learn maths and english and assessed by accuracy and time for all assessments. It starts from the age of 5 so becomes a normal way of assessment. Many Indian children, and Chinese children in the class, very few Irish, the parents are gearing them for scholarships and the academic world from an early age. You have extra studies 7 days a week but you can see how well your own children are doing even after a short period of time. They both went from finger counters to automatically known the tables. They are not nervous getting graded as they are used to the strict format.

BunkMoreland

I'd be very rusty on my times tables. Don't really do Math in every day life and if I do I have the calculator on my phone.

I'm a software engineer and all through school you're told IT / programming is all about Math, load of ****e.

The Randy Riverbeast

Seems pointless to me. Knowing how to work them out quickly is better than just learning the answer. A state exam ion it would be a waste of money.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dughorm wrote: »

So primary school kids in England and Wales will have a state exam on their times tables against the clock. Would you support such a test here? Is there a need for it?

I think it's a great idea, a good grounding in basic maths is vital for everyday life.

I'm sure a suitable substitute could be put in place for kids with learning needs also.

http://news.sky.com/story/1615860/times-tables-to-be-tested-against-the-clock

No, because all it does is promote memory learning.

The Backwards Man

They'd be better off playing darts.

KungPao

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They'd be better off playing darts.

What's three treble 20s?
180!

What's two double tops?
80!

Gold Star for you, little Jonny!

The next chapter on checkouts is a little harder though, kids!

R.D. aka MR.D

I'm not a fan of memory learning.

For those talking about how it works for Asians. I've lived in Japan, Korea and China. The students are good at taking tests. As another posted mentioned that doesn't translate into them being advanced in research/innovation or whatever. It also stunts them socially.

As a teacher of English, I can teach any student to memorise any piece of writing with perfect pronunciation and everything but it doesn't mean they understand what the words mean.

The times tables for me are just words. When I was learning them, i could rhyme them off while also thinking about something else, it's just words coming out of my mouth.

For subjects like maths, you need practice.

kneemos

iguana wrote: »

But they don't really. You just learn off the words; six by seven is forty two. You don't learn how to think of 6 as a number and how to calculate the value of 7 groupings of 6. And if you can't do that calculation rather than the repetition of words are you going to be able to calculate 6 by 13 or 13 by 42 quickly without a calculator or pen and paper?

Yeah it's something you have for your lifetime.
It makes quick mental arithmetic easy in adulthood.You wouldn't know seven nines were sixty three without thinking if you hadn't learned it.
You are actually doing the calculations,it shows the relationship between numbers.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Does this translate into bright adults and a more intelligent society though?

Would have thought so yeah.

PLL

It's just memory not arithmetic. I recently scored the highest grade of the year in a college statistics exam but I couldn't answer what everyone else deemed the easiest question... It was worded which meant working out what skill to apply to the problem. I couldn't work it out. The rest of the exam was all from memory and repetition.
I'm great at exams but not great at explaining things or knowing what knowledge to apply where. That is what should be taught more.

thee glitz

iguana wrote: »

And if you can't do that calculation rather than the repetition of words are you going to be able to calculate 6 by 13 or 13 by 42 quickly without a calculator or pen and paper?

13 by 42 is 420 + 120 + 6 = 546. I hope most people here could compute that in under 10secs.

meeeeh

One of my teachers did similar test at eight or nine with homemade table. I would normally get A at maths then but that test I barely scrapped for positive. Not because I couldn't multiply but because I didn't practice the table at home enough. One of the best at it in the class was a guy who had to repeat a year a few years later because of maths.

Anyway maybe it's different school system but I would say checking it at eleven is a bit late anyway and timed test on limited amount of stuff that can be memorized easily is a bit redundant.

Btw I didn't go to school in Ireland.

CruelCoin

Hammer89 wrote: »

I know them and know them very well, but the most use I get out of them is for the numbers part on Cats Does Countdown. Pointless sh*t in my view.

Huh?

You're telling me that you never need to know basic maths like 5*6, 11*8, etc?

iguana

thee glitz wrote: »

13 by 42 is 420 + 120 + 6 = 546. I hope most people here could compute that in under 10secs.

The fact that you can work that out shows numerical understanding. A lot of children just learn to regurgitate the words of the tables so they know that 6x7=42 but they don't really understand why or how to make the calculation, so doing what you just did is impossible to them.

When I work out 13x42 I think (13x6)x7. With mental arithmetic there isn't always one correct way to do a calculation. Numbers are fairly fluid and certain ways of calculating will feel more natural to different people. It's best to give children the tools to work out how to do the calculations themselves in a way that makes sense to them rather than drill them with words that they don't necessarily fully understand.

kneemos

iguana wrote: »

The fact that you can work that out shows numerical understanding. A lot of children just learn to regurgitate the words of the tables so they know that 6x7=42 but they don't really understand why or how to make the calculation, so doing what you just did is impossible to them.

When I work out 13x42 I think (13x6)x7. With mental arithmetic there isn't always one correct way to do a calculation. Numbers are fairly fluid and certain ways of calculating will feel more natural to different people. It's best to give children the tools to work out how to do the calculations themselves in a way that makes sense to them rather than drill them with words that they don't necessarily fully understand.

No,the tables are like learning to spell,it's basic essential knowledge that you use throughout your life.

CruelCoin

iguana wrote: »

The fact that you can work that out shows numerical understanding. A lot of children just learn to regurgitate the words of the tables so they know that 6x7=42 but they don't really understand why or how to make the calculation, so doing what you just did is impossible to them.

When I work out 13x42 I think (13x6)x7.

((13*10)*4)+(13*2) masterrace reporting in.

meeeeh

kneemos wrote: »

No,the tables are like learning to spell,it's basic essential knowledge that you use throughout your life.

But it's still ok if it takes you six seconds instead of three to come up with an answer. And if kids have trouble with coming up with an answer at all at 11, then they are already behind. You can learn to multiply at twenty just as well as at ten. However you need the understanding how to get there to learn more complex stuff in mats. For me they are just testing the wrong thing and they are a bit late doing it.

CruelCoin

CruelCoin wrote: »

((13*10)*4)+(13*2) masterrace reporting in.

I'd go the (42 * 10) + (42 * 3) route ;s

The Backwards Man

(4 x 13) x 10 + 26

One eyed Jack

42
x13

---

126 (42*3)
420 (42*10, just add 0)

---

546



(for some reason the lines don't show up on the touch site)

The Backwards Man

One eyed Jack wrote: »

42
x13

---

126 (42*3)
420 (42*10, just add 0)

---

546

Good job you edited, I was starting to think you were my accountant

MadsL

"You'll never always have a calculator with you"

Oh wait....

Fleawuss

AH doing sums? This doesn't add up. There's a common denominator here but I don't know what is. X marks the spot I think.