Twelve times twelve by eleven

13»

Comments

  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Ai_1, I use mathematical reasoning that I learned at school to process ad hoc sets of numbers. Reciting times tables does not play a part in this. I've answered all the mathematical problems on this thread in my head without knowing my 144 x table. Your argument suggests a problem can only be solved if you have learnt the answer previously or you count up.
    The press moaned about calculators when I did my O level. Blaming education issues on calculators is absurd and that is what annoys me.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    morstar wrote:
    Ai_1, I use mathematical reasoning that I learned at school to process ad hoc sets of numbers. Reciting times tables does not play a part in this. I've answered all the mathematical problems on this thread in my head without knowing my 144 x table. Your argument suggests a problem can only be solved if you have learnt the answer previously or you count up.
    The press moaned about calculators when I did my O level. Blaming education issues on calculators is absurd and that is what annoys me.
    I never mentioned reciting anything. I'm simply pointing out that knowing 5x6=30 without the use of a calculator is a function of learning from "tables" or counting it up in your head. You disagree?
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    I guess we run the risk of getting into a semantics debate here.
    Take the thread title. Somebody may know 12x12 is 144. How do you then get to the final answer if you've never done your 144 times table. I call that mathematical reasoning.
    Studying times tables is a basic tool in the teaching of mathematical reasoning. I'm not anti studying x's tables. Learning x times tables verbatim, which is a possible outcome of current rhetoric has nothing to do with learning mathematical reasoning. That is my problem with this whole idea that we may measure success of maths education on measuring x's table knowledge.
    The reason so many struggle with maths is it has no context in the school environment for less academically capable individuals. Maths is a practical subject and should be taught to huge chunk of the population in a primarily practical setting e.g. Home economics (weights, temperatures, volumes) cdt (measurements, trig.), sports (trajectories, scientific principles etc.) Get kids out of the classroom and engaged with learning.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    morstar wrote:
    I guess we run the risk of getting into a semantics debate here.
    Take the thread title. Somebody may know 12x12 is 144. How do you then get to the final answer if you've never done your 144 times table. I call that mathematical reasoning.
    Studying times tables is a basic tool in the teaching of mathematical reasoning. I'm not anti studying x's tables. Learning x times tables verbatim, which is a possible outcome of current rhetoric has nothing to do with learning mathematical reasoning. That is my problem with this whole idea that we may measure success of maths education on measuring x's table knowledge.
    The reason so many struggle with maths is it has no context in the school environment for less academically capable individuals. Maths is a practical subject and should be taught to huge chunk of the population in a primarily practical setting e.g. Home economics (weights, temperatures, volumes) cdt (measurements, trig.), sports (trajectories, scientific principles etc.) Get kids out of the classroom and engaged with learning.
    I agree with all of that

Categories