11 Plus Exams Forum

How long should children roughly aim to complete multiplication squares that are mixed up with times tables 1-12? This is to help with the maths in verbal reasoning.

Thanks.

Without meaning to change the subject (it was a great question but the only answer I can give to it is 'asap'), I am pining now for the very latest in home interior decor:

http://www.e-quip4education.co.uk/acata ... 00251.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh I do sooo want one for my living room

Why stop at your living room? Looking at the link it seems that other people bought more than one of these desirable items!

"People who bought this item also bought:

1. Curricular Maths Activity Carpets Set of 4 (Ref: KK0067)
2. 100 Square Counting Grid Carpet 2000mm x 2000mm (Ref: KK00250)
3. Back to Nature Square Bug Placement Rug (Ref: KK00256)"

I'd say aim for less than three minutes with no errors.

I'd say what's the point? You can fill in one of these squares without knowing your table facts in random order - for each table you just count in 2, 3, 4 etc. It makes no difference you've jumbled the order of the tables.

Great at improving your writing speed and ability to count fast in 2, 3, 4 etc, so is that why people seem to think multiplication squares are the bees knees?

But the carpets do look good.

Of course multiplication squares test the knowledge of individual multiplication facts. Perhaps you are doing it wrongly. Start with a blank grid each time and then slot in the numbers one to twelve along the top and down the left side. Every grid is different. I really can't see how it could become an exercise in counting in threes (or whatever). It's not the only way to revise multiplication but it's certainly not useless.

It all depends how you child fills it in whether it is a test of random recall, or becomes counting in threes or whatever.

If they fill it in square by square, left to right, then it will be what you hope it to be. But if they don't complete it next door box by next door box, but in sequential number order, then it will become a test of counting in 3s or whatever.

I haven't been very clear so explained in another way, let's say you have put 1 to 12 (but out of order) along two adjacent sides of the number square.

Let's say the child has to multiply out 3 x 1, 3x 3, 3 x7 etc etc on one of the rows (i.e. the 3 x table in random order) - well they can fill it in in sequential order by jumping around from box to box, and then it is simply a matter of being able to count up in 3s. My DD does this every week in the school times table test.

3 mins sounds very quick for a multiplication table up to 12 x 12.

I wouldn't allow a child to complete a square in that way. It's far too time consuming and defeats the purpose of the exercise. Three minutes is not too ambitious. My DD, aged 9 is capable of doing this. I use a grid with her every couple of weeks to make sure her tables don't become rusty. I know some DC who have had Kumon tuition who can do it in two minutes. There probably isn't much point in using a grid if your child is still at the counting on through the stations stage. It's better if it's used with children who already know their tables.

That's probably right about it working best if you know your tables already - but then being awkward, I'd still questions its use other than to be an interesting competition, a bit like speed stacking. I'm going to time myself today. I'm not so sure that you can read it all or write fast enough to fill in 144 numbers in 2 mins.

Also, if you like this is as practice for jumbled up multiplication facts it still doesn't quite hit the button as the child is still doing one table at a time, albeit in random order if they don't cheat like mine!!

A worksheet would jumble up the tables too, and give you the chance to chuck in some division facts, and missing numbers at the same time.

Yes, worksheets are useful too. Like I said, multiplication squares are not the only way to revise tables. The OP asked for an idea of how quickly they should be completed and I simply offered my opinion as no-one else had answered their question as posed. My reply began with "I'd say..." as did your response. I took that as a bit of a dig directed at me and I really don't see what your issue is. You have now twice questioned my suggested timings with the implication that I am lying. I deeply resent this. Where possible, I try to offer helpful advice on this forum as goodness knows I've been fortunate enough to benefit from others' postings. What would be the point of suggesting an unrealistic target time? I hope when you time yourself you are pleasantly surprised by how quickly you can complete the task.