CALCULATION STRATEGIES USED BY YEAR 5 CHILDREN

Alison Borthwick and Micky Harcourt-Heath University of East Anglia When working on mathematical questions, children choose from a range of calculation strategies. Although the NNS advises that different methods are taught for each of the four operations, this research shows that children often find it difficult to choose the most efficient and effective in order to answer the question. This paper reports on the findings from a sample of Year 5 children who were given questions from a !A paper and it e"amines the range of strategies used #$ them. INTRODUCTION One of the features described by the NNS ra!ework "#fEE$ %&&&' as contributing to (nu!eracy) is (an ability to calculate accurately and efficiently$ both !entally and with *encil and *a*er$ drawing on a range of calculation strategies) "*+,'+ -n the current cli!ate$ with the NNS about to undergo its first re-write$ we consider the section on calculations and e.*lore children)s calculations strategies with all four rules+ -n %&&&$ when the NNS was first launched$ co!*arisons were !ade between the U/ and other countries dee!ed !ore successful in their a**roach to teaching nu!ber$
Most countries 0 avoid *re!ature teaching of standard written !ethods in order not to 1eo*ardise the develo*!ent of !ental calculation strategies+ "#fEE$ %&&& *+2'

3larke and /a!ii "%&&4' have already shown through their research that children often resort to inefficient !ethods$ such as tallying or counting in ones+ -n its guidance on written calculations the NNS recognised that while standard written !ethods are (reliable and efficient *rocedures for calculating) they are (no use to so!eone who a**lies the! inaccurately and who cannot 1udge whether the answer is reasonable) "*+2'+ 5he children involved in this study are all (*roducts) of the NNS+ -n %&&&$ when the NNS was launched nation-wide$ these children were 1ust beginning school in their 6ece*tion year+ 5his *a*er considers how far the *rocess of teaching children to calculate has !oved forward since the ince*tion of the ra!ework+ 7e e.*lore if children are using a range of strategies and e.a!ine which these are+ METHODOLOGY AND CONTEXT 5he research re*orted here is a study carried out during the Su!!er 5er! of 8994+ #ata was collected fro! test *a*ers co!*leted by :ear ; children fro! 88 schools throughout Norfolk+ A range of <ri!ary$ =unior and Middle School settings were selected+ 6es*onses to four >uestions fro! each of &&; *a*ers were analysed for

their calculation strategies+ One >uestion each for addition$ subtraction$ !ulti*lication and division was used+ 5he four >uestions we selected were chosen as they had no conte.t$ and re>uired children to *erfor! a calculation "as o**osed to less abstract *roble!s that involve children in so!e inter*retation before a calculation can be carried out'+ FINDINGS 5he categories for strategies that children used are based u*on the NNS suggestions+ 7here we could not deter!ine the strategy a child had used$ or where the strategy fell outside our categories$ or indeed$ where children *rovided no res*onse$ we have included these in the category labelled (other)+ Addition &9? correct @ %9? incorrect
546 + 423 N !"#$ Co$$#%t N !"#$ In%o$$#%t %A 2 88 , ;; %9% &#$%#nt'(# Co$$#%t &; 4A &A &A B; &9 &#$%#nt'(# In%o$$#%t ; A2 2 2 %; %9

St'nd'$d ')(o$it*! 8,& N !"#$ Lin# &'$titionin( E+,'nd#d -#$ti%') Ot*#$ Tot'). %8 82; ;, A9, B&,

5able %C 6esults fro! &&; children for addition >uestion+

Out of all the >uestions we looked at$ the addition was least useful in ter!s of what it tells us because it did not involve any (bridging) through either ten or one hundred and so no conclusions about the effectiveness of the standard algorith! against other !ethods can be drawn+ 6es*onses were recorded as (standard algorith!) where children had re-written the calculation vertically$ although this does not necessarily !ean that the calculation was co!*leted in this way+ S "t$'%tion ,8? correct @ ;B? incorrect
3/0 1 /23 N !"#$ Co$$#%t N !"#$ In%o$$#%t &9 89 %9 2 ,,4 &#$%#nt'(# Co$$#%t ;8 B4 49 BB 88 &#$%#nt'(# In%o$$#%t ,B %, ,9 %8 2B

St'nd'$d A)(o$it*! && N !"#$ Lin# N#('ti-# N !"#$ Co ntin( On Ot*#$ %84 %; ;A %8&

Tot').

,88

;2A

,8

;B

5able 8C 6esults fro! &&; children for subtraction >uestion+

7here answers were correct$ res*onses fell into three !ain categories+ %9? of the whole sa!*le of children used the standard algorith! "deco!*osition or e>ual addition recorded vertically'$ %A? of children used a nu!ber line and %A? of children used (other) strategies+ 3ounting on was used effectively by ;? of the children+ 7ith the increased e!*hasis in teaching subtraction by counting on using a nu!ber line !odel "Anghileri$ 8999D 5ho!*son$ %&&&' we e.*ected to see a higher *ro*ortion of children choosing this strategy+ 7here a nu!ber line was used$ however$ a high *ro*ortion of the answers were correct "%A? of the whole sa!*le correct co!*ared with only 8? incorrect'+ 3o!*ared to this$ al!ost half of the children choosing to use the standard algorith! answered incorrectly "%9? of the whole sa!*le of children answered correctly co!*ared to &? answering incorrectly'+ M )ti,)i%'tion 88? correct @ 2B? incorrect
56 + 24 N !"#$ Co$$#%t N !"#$ In%o$$#%t ,& B, ;2 ;B8 228 &#$%#nt'(# Co$$#%t 8& 4; A9 , 88 &#$%#nt'(# In%o$$#%t 2% A; 29 &4 2B

St'nd'$d A)(o$it*! 89 G$id M#t*od E+,'nd#d 4#$ti%') Ot*#$ Tot'). %;4 8; 88 88A

5able AC 6esults fro! &&; children for !ulti*lication >uestion+

7here answers were correct$ %4? of the whole sa!*le of children had used the grid !ethod and 8? of children had used each of the re!aining three strategiesD the standard algorith!$ the e.*anded vertical !ethod or (other) strategies+ 7hen using the grid !ethod$ twice as !any children answered correctly as incorrectly "%;4 children correct co!*ared to B, incorrect'+ 7hen this !ethod was used and the answer was incorrect$ the !ethod was usually sound but ele!ents of the !ental !athe!atics re>uired along the way were incorrect+ or e.a!*le$ children recorded an answer of %99 for the *artial *roduct of ;9 . 89+ Di-i.ion 8%? correct @ 2&? incorrect
222 5 3 N !"#$ Co$$#%t N !"#$ In%o$$#%t &#$%#nt'(# Co$$#%t &#$%#nt'(# In%o$$#%t

St'nd'$d A)(o$it*! 84 C* n6in( Do7n C* n6in( U, N !"#$ Lin# Ot*#$ Tot'). ,, 29 89 ,4 894

8B 8; A; 8A 42B 2B&

,B 4, 42 ,2 4 8%

;8 A4 AA ;A &, 2&

5able ,C 6esults fro! &&; children for division >uestion+

Of those children answering correctly$ the s*read across the categories was reasonably even with A? of the whole sa!*le using the standard algorith!$ ,? chunking down$ 2? chunking u*$ 8? using a nu!ber line and ;? using (other) strategies+ Of those answering incorrectly$ the s*read across the first four categories was again fairly even with A? using the standard algorith!$ A? chunking u*$ ,? chunking down and 8? using a nu!ber line+ An overwhel!ing 4B? fell into the (other) category that included those who did not atte!*t the >uestion+ DISCUSSION Overall the results for subtraction and division were e.*ected to be lower than for addition and !ulti*lication although we were sur*rised by how low they were+ However$ the results for !ulti*lication !irrored al!ost e.actly the results for division which (a!bushed) "Stenhouse$ %&24' us so!ewhat+ -n other words$ we were very sur*rised by what the data was telling us+ or !ulti*lication$ when (other) !ethods were used and the answer was incorrect$ evidence of the grid !ethod being taught was seen but the !odel of the grid was dro**ed+ or e.a!*le$ children recorded only two of the four *artial *roducts$ !ost often ;9 . 89 and 4 . , giving an incorrect answer of %98, "see igure %'+ 5his shows that children are not secure with the conce*t of !ulti*lication when thought of as an array+

igure %

igure 8

or subtraction$ there was an obvious distinction between those schools where the nu!ber line had been taught e.clusively as the calculation strategy co!*ared to those who had offered a wide range+ or e.a!*le$ in one school where they had only

taught the nu!ber line$ ,% out of ,B children answering correctly used this strategy+ igure 8 shows a ty*ical e.a!*le+ 7here children answered incorrectly$ !any had atte!*ted to *artition the nu!bers but then took the larger fro! the s!aller regardless of whether this was a**ro*riate+ See igure A+

igure A

igure ,

One final observation !ade for subtraction is ty*ified in igure , where children have atte!*ted to use one of the standard written algorith!s "in this case deco!*osition'+-n this e.a!*le you can see that the child has so!e notion of the ste*s involved in deco!*osition but is not secure enough to co!*lete the routine successfully+ 5he !ost worrying finding for us was the high nu!ber of children who had *rovided either no res*onse or one that suggested they had no strategy available to the! for the division >uestion "4B? e>uivalent to 42B children'+ 5he !ethod suggested by the NNS for division is based on (chunking u*) or (chunking down) "re*eated subtraction or addition using !ulti*les of the divisor'+ However$ the children answering this >uestion used a wide range of !ethods+ 5hese ranged fro! the al!ost intuitive "see igure ;' to the !uch !ore individual and inefficient "see igures 4 and 2'+ 7hilst these two children both have inefficient strategies they do at least show so!e understanding of the conce*t of division "as sharing rather than grou*ing' but they are not ready for a standard algorith!+ igure B de!onstrates that children who are atte!*ting to use the standard algorith! without a secure knowledge of what division !eans are unsuccessful+

igure ;

igure 4

7hen a**roaching !ulti*lication and division >uestions$ and to an e.tent subtraction >uestions$ !any children a**eared not to have a strategy at their dis*osal+ or e.a!*le see igure &+

igures 2$ B and & CONCLUSION 5he 1ustification for teaching standard written !ethods according to conversations we have had with teachers$ usually centres around neatness$ a condensed !ethod$ its logic and co!*actness+ :et as <lunkett "%&2&' argues Ethe reasons for teaching the standard written algorith! are out of dateF and their e.istence leads to Efrustration$ unha**iness and a deteriorating attitude to !athe!aticsF+ As Anghileri notes$
All *u*ils are e.*ected ulti!ately to use efficient written !ethods for calculating but the only way such !ethods can be !eaningful is if they are develo*ed *rogressively to su**ort and e.tend !ental strategies+ "Anghileri$ 8999$ *+%9B'

5his research shows that when children use a strategy$ which is based on !ental !ethods$ they usually reach the correct solution+ Often$ children see! not to have any strategies on which to draw$ es*ecially if those based on !ental !ethods have not been taught+ REFERENCES
Anghileri$ =+C 8999$ Teaching Num#er Sense. GondonC 3ontinuu!+ 3larke$ + H /a!ii$ 3+C %&&4$ (-dentification of Multi*licative 5hinking in 3hildren in Irades %-;)+ %ournal for &esearch in 'athematics (ducation$ 20 "%'$ ,%-;%+ #fEEC %&&&$ )ramework for Teaching 'athematics from &eception to Year *, GondonC #fEE+ <lunkett$ S+C %&2&$ (#eco!*osition and all that rot)+ 'athematics in school, 2 "A'$ 8-2+ Stenhouse$ G+C %&24$ (5o act in an historical conte.t)+ Working memo Num#er +,University of East Anglia+ 5ho!*son$ -+"Ed'C %&&&$ ,ssues in teaching numerac$ in primar$ schools, Buckingha!C o*en University <ress+