Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Being [b]told 56 = 7x8 and that the "way to remember it is 5,5,7,8"
does nothing to help with any part of maths (except 7x8)
Much better to spend a lesson looking at what 7x8 means.
Different ways of representing it.
Tactics to calculating it.
That is mathematics.[/b]
Sounds reasonable to me.
But, does this mean you see nothing positive in off-by-heart learning in general?
Or to stick with arithmitic: it’s not helpful for future learning to know times tablea off by heart?
Just wondering, ‘cause my kid’s gettin’ it shoved down her throat.. and I’m rubbish at counting.
Originally posted by @ashiitaka What a load of nonsense. If you can't do your simple times tables by grade 4, you can't hope to continue with mathematics.
Utter nonsense.
I managed a 2nd class honours without knowing my times tables by rote.
Learning times tables is as useful in maths as learning poetry.
Originally posted by @ashiitaka What a load of nonsense. If you can't do your simple times tables by grade 4, you can't hope to continue with mathematics.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Utter nonsense.
I managed a 2nd class honours without knowing my times tables by rote.
Learning times tables is as useful in maths as learning poetry.
Hi Wolfie
Did you face 'non calculator' papers in your teenage school years?
In which 'skills' such as long multiplication/division were tested?
You say you got a *Desmond* at some uni in maths? Which one?
I would think basic number bonds and multiplication facts up to 10 x 10 were the building blocks of numeric maths. And understanding more complex problems in the genre.
PS is *5 6 7 8* to remember 56 = 7 x 8. But you knew that. The backwards presentation always made it a difficult trick for me. Just accept it is a tricky one, and remember it!! Move on!
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43046142
A new check is proposed for Year 4 pupils (8/9 year-olds) on
their ability to recall multiplication facts up to 12x12.
Proposed by politicians and denounced by educators.
What value are times tables these days?
Why up to 12? (that was useful when there were 12 pennies in a shilling)
Rote learnin ...[text shortened]... in the future.
Shame on you Britain!
Why cannot government leave things to the experts? 😞
Let me guess, you view memorization like you do economic. It's just one big pie so you have to designate how much of the pie you will have and what it will be shared with.
Both are nonsensical, you do realize that, right? The human brain is a wondrous thing that can learn and memorize a staggering amount of facts if only trained to do so.
It's just like economics. Money is not just shared it is created, so why put limits on either?
Did you face 'non calculator' papers in your teenage school years?
In which 'skills' such as long multiplication/division were tested?
You say you got a *Desmond* at some uni in maths? Which one?
I would think basic number bonds and multiplication facts up to 10 x 10 were the building blocks of numeric maths. And understan ...[text shortened]... ays made it a difficult trick for me. Just accept it is a tricky one, and remember it!! Move on!
The calculator wasn't invented in my teenage years!
(Slight exaggeration ... I remember one boy bringing one to school)
Lots of slide-rule questions!
Don't recall long multiplication or division being specifically tested on GCSE "O" level papers.
Originally posted by @shavixmir Sounds reasonable to me.
But, does this mean you see nothing positive in off-by-heart learning in general?
Or to stick with arithmitic: it’s not helpful for future learning to know times tablea off by heart?
Just wondering, ‘cause my kid’s gettin’ it shoved down her throat.. and I’m rubbish at counting.
Total recall of some facts is useful though becoming less so.
Learning the alphabet has some use and it cannot be deduced - it has to be learnt.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 As a teacher and a Maths graduate the process of teaching and learning maths
has been a pet subject for me for some time. Learning tables by rote does nothing
to promote mathematical thinking and while it had some value in pre-calculator
days it is now worthless.
Far, far better to teach how to quickly calculate all multiplications up to 20x20.
(The loss of 2 seconds is insignificant compared to the real knowledge gained)
Originally posted by @joe-shmo What do you mean? You don't believe in an all knowing and all powerful central government? Kindly report yourself to your local socialist authorities immediately to be drawn and quartered...you treasonous fascist.
It’s called the Dept of Education. If you have a novel idea for how a national education framework which supports a population of millions of children and young adults should be run, I would be interested in reading about it.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Similar to UK.
Labour are perhaps more open to the current best thinking from experts than National.
2 members of my immediate family are/were teachers, my father and one of my sisters. My father had a novel method of teaching kids maths using characters and stories; I still read his students posting about his amazing classes on chat rooms on Facebook. It’s nice to see. He used to challenge the curriculum, it probably held him back in his career as a teacher.
Originally posted by @divegeester 2 members of my immediate family are/were teachers, my father and one of my sisters. My father had a novel method of teaching kids maths using characters and stories; I still read his students posting about his amazing classes on chat rooms on Facebook. It’s nice to see. He used to challenge the curriculum, it probably held him back in his career as a teacher.
That's brilliant - your pride is well justified. 🙂
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 That's brilliant - your pride is well justified. 🙂
Teaching is a tough job, well it is here in the UK it seems. I couldn’t and wouldn’t do it, but kudos to those who do. I suppose lecturing in University is a lot easier than teaching kids??
Education in the hands of Politicians (UK)
14 Feb '18 19:45
Back to Top