Parents & Teachers

Is memorizing times tables enough for math?

Here's an honest look at what times table practice can do and what it can't. Knowing its limits is what lets you use it well.

What the research says

A 2025 article published by the Chartered College of Teaching, written by researchers at Loughborough University and the University of Nottingham, makes a point most times table apps and resources ignore: remembering multiplication facts quickly doesn’t, on its own, improve reasoning or problem-solving.

In practice: a child who knows 4×3 instantly doesn’t necessarily know how to use it. They might not recognize it in a real situation (“I have 4 boxes of 3 apples: do I need multiplication here?”), might not be able to draw it, or might not connect it to related facts, unless someone teaches them how.

The researchers also point out a risk: when times tables are practiced separately from the rest of math (at home, in a dedicated app, with no link to classwork), children don’t see how those facts connect to what they already know. They end up with a tool they don’t always know how to use.

This isn’t an argument against memorizing: the authors say clearly that “quick recall of multiplication facts frees up valuable cognitive resources” for harder tasks. Fast recall is necessary. It just isn’t enough.

What this means in practice

Practicing times tables has a limit: it builds memory, not understanding. For most children that’s not a problem, because they build the connections in class. For children who struggle with times tables, though, the risk is that too much speed practice crowds out the understanding they need most.

Try this

Celebrate fast answers, but also ask: can you tell me what 4×7 means in a real situation?
If your child’s school uses times tables in word problems and reasoning, that’s even better than drill alone: it builds both.
Don’t judge a method by speed alone. Can your child use what they know, or only recall it out of context?

→ TabTabTab builds the memory. Your child's teacher builds the connections. Both matter.

Sources

Guy, Cragg & Gilmore (2025) — expert commentary

Last reviewed: 2026-08-01