I had a very interest conversation awhile ago and I have been thinking should I mention it here or not. After cogitating on it for sometime, I have decided it is worthy of discussion. One of the main issues in maths education is the desire to teach the way you were taught, which is fine, if you were taught well. While visiting a school, I spent time with a couple of teachers discussing 2-digit multiplication. D, an older teacher who openly declares she isn’t a ‘maths person’, wanted to know why we didn’t just teach the algorithm and procedure because the rest was too confusing and a waste of time. She described the way she learnt as,
“43 x 4; 4 times 3 is 12, write down the 2, put the 1 on the doorstep, 4 x 4 is 16, plus the 1 on the doorstep. The answers 172. Done.”
I ask what the students were doing. D showed me and explained as she went:
“4 x 3 is 12, and they write down 12 on the first line. On the second line, they put down a zero; don’t know why they do that. Then they go 4 x 4 is 16 and put it in front of the zero, then they add it up. Don’t know why they have to do it this way; it takes too long and it doesn’t make sense to me.”
I ask if the students understood what they were doing and she responded,
“Yes, but it takes too long, why don’t we just teach them the quick way like I was taught.”
Another teacher was trying to help me explain the need for conceptual as well as procedural knowledge, but D wasn’t having a bar of it; too long, not fast enough. When I asked if she knew why the zero was written down before the ‘16’, she wasn’t particularly interested because she didn’t need it her way. When I pointed out that the 4 next to the 3 was actually 40 and so it was 40 x 4, she was a bit taken aback and ‘yeah, yeah, I knew that.’
Someone came in at that point and ask me a question about the assessment they were doing, so I wandered off. When I came back, the other teacher was trying to explain the lattice model of multiplication to her. That went down like a lead balloon!
It is argued that teachers’ mathematical beliefs can be categorised in multiple dimensions. These beliefs are said to originate from previous traditional learning experiences mainly during schooling. Once acquired, teachers’ beliefs are eventually reproduced in classroom instruction. It is also argued that, due to their conservative nature, educational environments foster and reinforce the development of traditional instructional beliefs. Although there is evidence that teachers’ beliefs influence their instructional behaviour, the nature of the relationship is complex and mediated by external factors.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2).
If this is the case, how do you go about changing beliefs and attitudes? The last sentence perhaps gives hope. Beliefs can be changed but it takes time, energy, persistence, and a willingness to look at another way that may be difficult to master. This is not only relevant to older teachers, with many young teachers happy to teach the way they were taught, particularly if they are not overly confident when teaching maths.
Some of my most successful interactions have been with experienced teachers. Breaking down the initial barriers can be a challenge, (sitting arms folded, staring at me, thinking ‘what does she know that I don’t! Humph,’) but usually, when they realise, one: I’ve been where they are, and reasonably recently, and two: I do have practical, workable ideas that are something they can do, they warm to me.
A prefect example of this is teacher, J. J has been a teacher for as long as me and, when directed to meet with me at the beginning of this year, (all classroom teachers were meeting with me to discuss maths moderation tasks,) she came reluctantly. There was a definite, ‘what can you tell me that I don’t already know’ attitude. I will be honest; she made me work for my money. Trying to find out how I could support her met a brick wall and everything I offered the response was, “Yes, but…” Eventually, after what seemed like a very long 30 minutes, I finally made a break through, and “Oh, I hadn’t thought about like that.” 15 minutes later she left and I felt exhausted. The next meeting I had with J, she bounced in the door, full of stories about success and engage her students were with maths. Come the last meeting, J tells me how much she has enjoyed teaching maths this year and she never thought she’d say that. That only took a year and I really hope that J can continue to feel positive about teaching maths.
The problem is, permanent change takes longer than a year. Conventional wisdom suggest 3 – 5 years; for some it will take less, others more. Government and big business want change but they have to be prepared to go with the long haul and frequently they aren’t and to paraphrase Eddie Mercury and Queen:
They want it all and they want it now.
Back to some maths.
How could you teach 2-digit by 1-digit multiplication and 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication for both conceptual and procedural understanding? This is how I do it:
After using MAB blocks to demonstrate the concrete model of multiplication move on to grid paper. This is directly linking multiplication and area. There are a number of games that make this link when students are learning their multiplication facts,(just put multiplication area games into Google.)
3 rows of 15 is a bit difficult to answer unless I know that I double 15 (30) and add one more group of 15 (45), so how do can I make it clearer?

Using the distributive property, split 15 into 10 + 5 (this is how 15 is represented using MAB, which you have used during the concrete model)
Now we have 3 rows of 10 and 3 rows of 5.
Knowing the commutative property, (i.e. 3 x 10 = 10 x 3 and 3 x 5 = 5 x 3), we can see (10 + 5) x 3 = (10 x 3) + (5 x 3) = 30 + 15 = 45.

Using grid paper takes up time and space, so let’s just represent it as a region.
Moving onto 2-digit by 2-digit, again using the distributive property. Often when students are learning 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication, they do the 3fives are 15, write down
the 5 in the ‘ones’ place, carry the one (pink above 1 in 15), 3 x 1 is 3 plus 1 makes 4. 1 x 5 is 5; 1 x 1 is 1. Write it down; add it up.
When we encourage students to only learn procedure, this is a common mistake, as they are reading 1 ten as 1 and not taking the true value into consideration. The area model is an excellent strategy to ensure that students do not ‘forget the zero’ as they can see quite clearly that they are multiplying by 10 not 1; yet 1 times 5 is often the language used with describing 10 times 5 in the algorithm.
Distributive property and the area model of multiplication are also vital for later on.
(This is just a side note, not something I’m teaching a three/four grade.)
Once students can see how the area model works, we need to move them on to using the algorithm. Again I would do this in steps, which again leads back to the students’ workings are the very beginning of this rant.
I know for some of you, this seems over kill, but I have found these steps provide a solid basis for both procedural and conceptual understanding; students can clearly see where each product belongs in the process and what it is representing so when they finally get to the ‘short’ method, they know what they are doing and why.
You will notice I have flipped 10 and 3 around in the final area model, simply because it makes it neater.
I am finishing with the final paragraph from the paper I included earlier:
Teachers’ mathematical beliefs are seen as self-perpetuating within the atmosphere of a system that promotes progressive teaching but in fact helps in maintaining traditional beliefs and practices. It was also argued that by the time an individual enters a teacher education program, these traditional conceptions are so solidified and entrenched in their personal philosophy that change to alternative beliefs is difficult although not impossible.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2).
In case of D, very difficult! Okay, so this was a Maths overkill blog, but sometimes I really worry about the teaching, or lack of teaching, that occurs in some of our classrooms. Now getting down off my soapbox!
Last photo is one taken with my new toy, a drone. Unfortunately everything seems to be an angle. (Yes, I know there’s a maths activity in there.)


“43 x 4; 4 times 3 is 12, write down the 2, put the 1 on the doorstep, 4 x 4 is 16, plus the 1 on the doorstep. The answers 172. Done.”
“4 x 3 is 12, and they write down 12 on the first line. On the second line, they put down a zero; don’t know why they do that. Then they go 4 x 4 is 16 and put it in front of the zero, then they add it up. Don’t know why they have to do it this way; it takes too long and it doesn’t make sense to me.”






A one-off lesson, removed from its basis, is not going to have the same impact. David Ingham, a former mentor of mine, called these the Kaos Torturer’s theory of teaching. Max is strapped to the torture table while the Kaos torturer consults the Koas Book of Torture. He finally finds something and says, “That’s a goodie.” It is obvious he’s already tried something else which hasn’t worked even though it should but Max seems immuned. Too many lessons are presented as ‘goodies’ rather than considering what is really needed.
































