Maths homework help please

OP Loads of good (and varied!) ideas on here. Try some out and see what DGD enjoys doing.
I used to have a set of exam papers from when I was 10. All, including arithmetic, were 95-100% with one exception. The table test. It always made me panic, I couldn't come up with instant answers. I just couldn't learn them although I was clearly USING multiplication to work out answers. I got into grammar school and had no further problems, in due course getting a comfortable, not a 'scraped', pass at O level. Obviously I had somehow learnt them but i think it happened by using them, not by learning them by rote. I think I used to go through the table adding until I got to the bit I needed which is not possible in a quick fire table test.
I then became a primary teacher. I always ensured that my pupils first understood what tables were. We made them from plastic or wooden cubes. We drew buildings with various rows of windows. The chanting only came after the children understood what tables were from holding them or drawing them in many different forms.
Some children find it far more difficult to learn tables than others however hard they try.
My advice would be try plenty of games, on and off line, use concrete equipment, beads, counters, cotton reels, whatever is around and they'll come in time.

Away from multiplication tables, I'm doing some numeracy work with a lad in his 20s who's starting an apprenticeship. We've been looking at fractions, decimals, and percentages. While we were talking about money as decimals, I showed him a pounds, shillings and pence addition - the expression on his face was priceless! He just couldn't understand why it was so complicated - and then I told him about stones, pounds and ounces; yards, feet and inches.....

The ten is always 1 less than the number you're multiplying by as well in the 9x.

So as an example for 6x9

6-1=5
5+4=9
So 6x9=54

Iv always found the add on method the best if I get stuck.

But for the 9s, here's a trick - the product always adds up to 9. For example, 9 x 3 = 27 and if you add across, 2+7 = 9. Same with all the 9s. Try it.

Good point DD. We solved the problem by setting over 4 classes - in maths only. I was very happy with a biggish group who were coping well but had lots of questions. My friend enjoyed her smaller group of high achievers. There was another group like mine and a small one which needed a lot of support with teacher and TA. It worked well and was flexible enough to allow ransfers between groups.

NanaMacGeek I agree with you about the beauty of maths! I feel the same about the beauty of German word order and irregular verbs. Yes, I know that makes me a bit odd, but I don't care.

Years ago, my daughter had to do GCSE maths course work on Pythagorean triples - a2 + b2 = c2 (3,4,5; 5,12,13, etc). I hadn't realised how many fascinating patterns could be found. Explaining the patterns was even more fascinating. Long after she had finished the coursework, I became obsessed with them. Amazingly, I realised that I'd already started 'playing' with the patterns at primary school.

At the age of 11, there's a 7 year gap in children's ability in maths. Some have the skills of an average 14 year old, while others have the skills of an average 7 year old - and everywhere in between. Primary school teachers need to be abler to teach those who are well on the way to GCSE level.

I was taught very badly at GCE level and didn't want to take it any further because I ended up hating it (because of the algebra) - but wished I had later as it could have been useful.

I used to tutor maths to older pupils who needed support. I found many had never mastered their times tables and were completely freaked out when they tried to learn them. They were often provided with charts to use, 0 - 10 along the top and the same down the sides with each box containing the number at the top of the column multiplied by the number at the corresponding row. One thing I found that seemed to help was to show them just how much they already knew. They knew their 2x table, and the 4x table, also most of the 3x. None of them had trouble with the 5x and 10x and the tricks with the 9x table are very effective. We crossed out the answers we knew on the chart which included both 3x9 and 9x3 for example. As these were older pupils, they also knew square numbers, which were also discarded. The 6x 7x and 8x tables caused most problems but they knew all the lower multiples of the numbers and they were all crossed out too. In the end, they were left with about 5 multiplications that they needed to learn. I then tackled those few individually, trying to work out the best way to help them to learn. Basically, once they were happy that 7x8 (8x7) = 56 they felt they had got it! I'm hopeless at arithmetic but am blown away by the beauty of mathematics. I struggled at school, assuming I was hopeless at maths. I'm not, I just didn't respond well to the way I was taught and it knocked my confidence for years. My last job required complex mathematics and it was great.

PS. I only know about the system in England.

To be honest, a grade C/Level 4 in GCSE maths doesn't guarantee a very high standard. These days, most reasonably able students will have GCSEs in English, maths, science, a humanity and a foreign language plus other subjects such as art, music or a technology. BEd courses usually look for Bs across all subjects, as do the more prestigious primary PGCE courses. I think that's how it should be. In Finland, even primary school teachers have to have a masters, which is possibly one of the reasons they achieve so highly. My children (and the rest of the class) were doing tasks such as triangulation and simultaneous equations before they left primary school, but I've seen secondary school pupils, who went on to achieve a C, struggle with those.

I do think it's necessary to be a few jumps ahead. Not sure about now but I had 'o' grade maths and arithmetic when I undertook PGDE in 1971. One of these was a requirement.
Like you, I can handle simple equations but not beyond that. I think it's because I couldn't see a practical need for pure maths and so wasn't interested in the theoretical!

Probably not Jalima, but many here are saying that the basic grounding is often what is lacking.

Is it necessary for a KS2 teacher to be more than competent in maths up to, say, GCSE level which is beyond what they would be teaching anyway?

purse it?

Pursue it

I can't write either.

^I think we should make a distinction between maths and numeracy.
My tables and computation skills are excellent and %ages fractions and decimal working cause me no problems.^
The niceties of algebra and trig were never mastered and I've never felt the lack!
Trigonometry was OK (ish) too but it was the algebra that was my undoing!

I'm not talking about simple equations - I mean the ones that go on for pages, probably necessary beyond 'A' level for anyone who wants to purse it beyond for a career.

How comfortable would you feel instead of saying 'I just can't do maths', saying 'I just can't read'?
So, if people say 'I just can't do maths' do they mean they are fine with arithmetic, money, geometry etc etc but came unstuck when it came to complicated algebraic equations, 'A' level and beyond?

but I honestly think that nobody who is not competent in maths should be teaching maths to primary school. Would you be happy with a poor English speaker teaching English to your children?

Therein lies the problem, Badenkate, most primary KS2 teachers have to be competent in all curriculum subjects - English, Maths, Science, History, Geography, Art, Languages etc. it's a very tall order. Very few schools have specialist subject teachers at a young age, except in the independent sector.

yes, daphnedill, somewhere it went wrong for me because I could conjugate every foreign verb in every tense and apply them correctly, but understanding Maths - non, nein, nee.

Maths not media. PS I also thought the dienes system was excellent in helping children understand place value without which they'd be stumped!

I think we should make a distinction between maths and numeracy.
My tables and computation skills are excellent and %ages fractions and decimal working cause me no problems.
The niceties of algebra and trig were never mastered and I've never felt the lack!
I was well-taught in primary school, where we were taught arithmetic only, but my 1st year maths teacher was dreadful-throwing entirely new concepts at us without explanation. I felt stupid at the time and only later realised that it was her fault and not mine!
As an upper-primary teacher I was confident that I could tackle all the work involved and told pupils about my rotten maths experiences. This encouraged them to ask for help and further explanation whenever they needed to.
I was often complimented on my skills in teaching media.

I'm quite surprised that people who say they were good at languages claim they were weak in maths. Most good linguists I know are also good at maths. In both cases, the learner is dealing with abstract but logical concepts and pedagogy is quite similar. A good memory is helpful, but so is being able to apply the 'rules'. Teaching should be structured (it often isn't) and needs constant reinforcemnet. From the beginning, it's essential to understand numbers, just as it is to understand how language works.

I guess I was lucky, because I was taught maths well. At the time, it was thought very trendy - we used a system called Dienes - I don't know if it's still used. My children were both taught well too.

But the 'idiot's way of getting to the correct answer' may well be sufficient for the point at which the children were at, but it doesn't build the understanding for the child to go onto the next stage. And then you have to teach another 'idiot's way'. No one is saying make the children feel inadequate - but it needs some mathematical understanding to know where the child is having a problem. I've worked with secondary pupils who have struggled with their maths and it usually goes back to a lack of a basic knowledge of how numbers work. No, you certainly don't have to be a brilliant mathematician - in fact, they would be some of the worst possible teachers - but I honestly think that nobody who is not competent in maths should be teaching maths to primary school. Would you be happy with a poor English speaker teaching English to your children?

You have a point, Badenkate, and I remember teaching Maths with the explanation and answer book on my lap under the desk because I really didn't have much of a clue! However, and I still remember this, several parents came into school to tell me their children were really enjoying Maths with me because I explained the idiot's way of getting to the correct answer and didn't used to make anyone feel inadequate! A lot depends on the teacher, and I don't believe he/she necessarily has to be a brilliant mathematician.

I wasn't intending to denigrate any of those who have problems with maths - I quite understand that many people do. My problem is with the attitude that in some way it's not important. How comfortable would you feel instead of saying 'I just can't do maths', saying 'I just can't read'? This just doesn't seem to happen in other countries, and I think to some extent it reflects the importance that has been placed in the past on classical rather than scientific education and is still evident to some extent today.

I have been out of the education arena for some time, so things may (I hope) be different now, but when I was doing my teaching practice in the 70s, I spent most of my time in primary schools, and I well remember listening to a group of teachers discussing maths teaching. At that time, one of the standard set of books for maths in junior schools was the 'alpha' and 'beta' series: 'alpha' was for the more able classes, 'beta' slightly lower. The comments that stuck in my mind were in the order of 'I'm doing the beta books thank goodness. I can't do the alpha myself'! These were teachers who were going to explain the basic groundwork of maths to young children and clearly didn't know it themselves. What hope did their students have of understanding what they were doing - and then developing that understanding as their school life continued? Maths is a building block subject and if you don't understand the first steps, it becomes much harder to move on in the subject.

Sorry about the rant, but I feel so strongly about this. I'm going to sit down now with a nice cup of tea

Ginny, I think that's the problem with teaching maths in primary school. Those who do not understand why others don't understand rarely teach in primary schools.

When I got my exam results I remember saying I'd be happy to sit them all again, provided I passed Maths. (Luckily I got a good grade. Phew!)
Like Ginny42, languages, (3 foreign ones) are my forte, and I join the line of people - mainly females - who employ that "self-deprecating giggle" when speaking about my mathematical ability. Sadly, struggling with Maths is viewed as a national disease among those of us who just don't get it, and I still haven't found a cure.
Some of the modern methods do make more sense, and hopefully some of the younger teachers will embrace more technology to back up their lessons.

Interesting video dd. I see what you mean about imagining they're using the abacus. Surprised they're using it in the exam. Thinking about it, as long as they know where to find the answer, with repeated checking, they will eventually not have to rely on the abacus as much.

I'm enjoying revising my x tables with the ideas here. I agree about confusion re the decomposition method of subtraction. Not the same at all, but gets the same answer.

Badenkate, I take your point, but think we all have different skills and strengths. I was taught a long, long time ago, so perhaps modern methods would have made more sense. I apparently started out well enough in the lower levels, but remember when others could make assumptions/informed guesses about numbers, I never could. I couldn't make that leap or see that link. Languages were my forte. I remember my best friend(still is) who went on to become Head of Maths in a large comp, saying to me aged c. 8/9, 'I just don't know why you don't understand.'