Post here if you want to be a brat

[Kage]

I'm hoping this doesn't become a cesspool of political hot topics.

 

But... I want to rant about how ludicrous this is.

 

http://instagram.com/p/tip3MSN0-T/

Example above says: Tell how to make 10 when adding 8+5.

 

Example above sounds just like.  BS in EE. Advanced mathematics. THE SIMPLE APPROACH.

 

Everything I see about common core mathematics makes me want to puke.

 

Also google's first suggestion when I typed in "common core" was "common core is stupid"

 

You know me so well and I'm at work

 

[Dogberry]

Math is pain. People who are good at math are wizards, and they should be feared and respected lest we face their wrath.

[Aya]

[Chillsmack]

I'm hoping this doesn't become a cesspool of political hot topics.

 

Dude, if you can find a place on the internet where people don't go critical-mass-emotional and turn everything into politics please let me know so I can live there lol

[Berrod Armstrong]

Just did some reading on that sort of math. Wow -- no, every math teacher/lecturer/professor I've ever had is going to scream bloody murder when they see that rubbish. Ewww, no.

 

I love math. And THAT? That is just a way to make people do more work to get the same result -- something that math does its BEST to avoid. Simpler is better.

[Telluride]

Feels your pain.

 

[video=youtube]

[Dat Oni]

lmiLxzx9RJE

[Kage]

Just did some reading on that sort of math. Wow -- no, every math teacher/lecturer/professor I've ever had is going to scream bloody murder when they see that rubbish. Ewww, no.

 

I love math. And THAT? That is just a way to make people do more work to get the same result -- something that math does its BEST to avoid. Simpler is better.

 

The frustrated parent would be me. If I had a desire to be a parent right now.

 

"Get terminated for using shit like this."

 

Also, the teacher SAYING IT IS RIGHT. Gugh. I'm sorry but it's simpler to think of 8+5 = 13 than it is to take 3 from 5. Then 8+2 = 10. Add three to get 13!

[C'kayah Polaali]

It amuses me that history textbooks typically use other history textbooks as primary sources, while with math people keep thinking "No, wait, I know! Let's scrap it all and do this batshit fucking crazy thing instead!"

 

Ask me about my homeschooling experiences teaching math.

 

We read Newton. :thumbsup:

[Naunet]

A bunch of people who think teaching math concepts to young kids is the same as solving a math problem when you are an adult...

 

If you look at the data, math scores have soared where Common Core strategies have been used, because the techniques actually show the kids why 727-316=111, instead of arriving at the answer seemingly magically and just memorizing math tables. Knowing the why of solving a problem is absolutely vital to applying critical thinking to future problems. The US's emphasis on memorizing calculation tables is one of the reasons we kind of suck at math nationally. When I'm instructing my 6th graders on the concept of solar radiation, convection, and conduction, I have to first get them to visualize radiation as waves. If I just skip to "convection is the movement of air in response to differences in temperature and density", they're not going to learn anything, and they're definitely not going to be able to apply the concepts to other ideas.

 

It's rather disingenuous to claim that the strategy used by a young kid when first learning to grasp subtraction will be used in its entirety ten, fifteen, twenty years later in that kid's life. This is an instruction tool, not an ultimate way to do things. As a teacher myself, I see the massive inherent value in these strategies.

[MadWater]

A bunch of people who think teaching math concepts to young kids is the same as solving a math problem when you are an adult...

 

If you look at the data, math scores have soared where Common Core strategies have been used, because the techniques actually show the kids why 727-316=111, instead of arriving at the answer seemingly magically and just memorizing math tables. Knowing the why of solving a problem is absolutely vital to applying critical thinking to future problems. The US's emphasis on memorizing calculation tables is one of the reasons we kind of suck at math nationally. When I'm instructing my 6th graders on the concept of solar radiation, convection, and conduction, I have to first get them to visualize radiation as waves. If I just skip to "convection is the movement of air in response to differences in temperature and density", they're not going to learn anything, and they're definitely not going to be able to apply the concepts to other ideas.

 

It's rather disingenuous to claim that the strategy used by a young kid when first learning to grasp subtraction will be used in its entirety ten, fifteen, twenty years later in that kid's life. This is an instruction tool, not an ultimate way to do things. As a teacher myself, I see the massive inherent value in these strategies.

 

As a 27-year-old aerospace engineering student, many of the Common Core math methods are exactly how I do mental arithmetic. I find they are excellent methods of computing sums, products, etc, when you don't have a calculator/computer/pencil and paper in front of you.

[Naunet]

As a 27-year-old aerospace engineering student, many of the Common Core math methods are exactly how I do mental arithmetic.

 

I meant more the whole physically drawing out the number line thing. But yes, even I do the "subtract multiples of 10/100/1x to get closer to the answer" thing in my head a lot.

[MadWater]

As a 27-year-old aerospace engineering student, many of the Common Core math methods are exactly how I do mental arithmetic.

 

I meant more the whole physically drawing out the number line thing. But yes, even I do the "subtract multiples of 10/100/1x to get closer to the answer" thing in my head a lot.

 

Well that's just so you have something to grade =P. You're effectively mentally drawing out a number line though. It's much handier than the "old school" subtraction algorithm, which is far less convenient and far more prone to error if you can't actually write it down. As adults, with simple calculators costing about 14 cents (which are only necessary if you don't have any kind of electronic device), pencil-and-paper methods of doing arithmetic problems are kind of pointless, imo.

[Blue]

Let's see... I hate how hypocrite the politicians of my country (Italy) are being in relation to the terroristic attack in Paris. Everyone is Charlie Hebdo now, and apparently they forgot of all the satirical stand-up comedians, journalists and reporters they banned and fired from TV channels (all our main TV channels are owned by politicians, 3 to the Left and 3 to Silvio Berlusconi (who belongs to the Right) supposedly, but the co-director of the Left's TV channels is also a secretary to Berlusconi so you can guess who has the monopoly in the end), all because they dared talking of the church, of the politics, of how corrupted our government is, and most of all, of Berlusconi. You can read all of his crap on the wiki if you want, from his passion for minor prostitutes, how abuse of power for personal affairs, his fiscal evasion etc. He'll put any gangster you've had in the US to shame.

 

Thank goodness there's the Internet, or Italy would have no satire left to be seen.

 

And yet, today every one of our politicians shows off his Je Suis Charlie banner. It's fucking disgusting.

[Kage]

I have seen no sufficient data saying math scores have -soared- or that gaps have been sufficiently closed as they've stated. What I have seen are trends where testing to standards have raised proficiencies in the subject that the tests are standard to.

 

Unless something is being fucked up, if I test towards X way of testing, I should be getting proficient in being tested that way.

 

In this case, being taught how to learn something and then being tested on how you learned something is different than the practice and implementation of it. Yes, people learn to do things in different ways and thus it helps them to approach problems in a way that they can actually perform it. In fact, some people can learn and perform without any of the concepts in the common core modules.

 

Most people -probably- wouldn't find the examples seen around as ludicrous if the people in charge of implementation such as the workbooks didn't make things ridiculous.

 

Yes, maybe you do want to find 10 out of the numbers 5 and 8. But when I want to add 5 to 8 I'm not going to finish at 10. 8 + (5-3) is still equal to 13. (5-3) + 8 = 10 +3 is still 13. It is, for some, easier to learn that it is easier to make it to a simple number such as 10s 100s 1000s and then use the remainder in whatever form but I do think it is ridiculous to believe that it is and should be a/the standard form of learning that will be tested towards and performed.

 

In my opinion, in its current implementation, it's trying to test how people think in the way they teach you to perform it than asking you quite simply to perform it.

 

I memorized the table of 12x12. And by table it wasn't the grid type it was actually just columns and rows of what times what equaled what.

1x1=1

1x2=2

etc.

I spent a whole summer memorizing it. 2 years later and I was bored in class and not understanding fuck all any of the methods being used to teach multiplication. I think it took me a couple of years before I understood the method at all. (Don't get me into fractions either).

 

Because hell, I -think- solving the following problem would be the same for common core and for some of us mentally. A box of food is $8.50. I give the cashier $10. How much should I expect to give back without the cashier using the register or my use of a calculator.

Would I really do

$10.00

- $8.50

 

No... I'd probably use this: 50 cents brings me to the nearest dollar ($9) and $10-$9 is $1 so the answer is $1.50.

 

Unfortunately, I certainly would not know I am doing the same thing when I look at so many of these workbooks. I think it's ludicrous to believe that's not a big flaw.

[Shizuno]

Honestly, my biggest issue is what I've seen on my younger brother's homeworks and tests. What they're being taught is one thing. But when a kid solves the problem on a test using older methods, but arrives at the correct answer, the question should be correct, right?

 

My calling of BS is when they mark a correct answer wrong because they didn't use the core method of arriving at the answer.

[Zyrusticae]

Interesting post I saw on common core math (btw, this thread is the very first I've heard of it so I have zero understanding of what it actually is):

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) not only rated countries by mathematics achievement, but also examined math instruction in the top-performing countries. My understanding is that the NCTM has been guided by these findings. One thing the TIMSS found is that effective teaching doesn't always look the same. Some countries used calculators and real-world problems effectively. Others, like Japan, did not. But what all the high achieving countries had in common is that solving math problems was about focusing on understanding connections and concepts over procedure. In the classrooms studied in the United States, however, problems were always implemented as procedural exercises.

 

What the seemingly convoluted methods of the CC do is allow students to build connections and construct solutions based on their understanding of how numbers work. The procedures and algorithms of the past gave us efficient plug in formulas for solving problems but left us without any understanding of why our solutions were correct, or incorrect. And if we forgot a procedure, we had nothing to fall back on.

 

As a former secondary math teacher I saw this frequently when students tried to find sums, products of fractions. They remembered being taught a procedure called cross-multiplication, or cross-products, but they never understood the algebra on which it is based. So they would misapply it to products of fractions rather than using to solve proportions. The same proportion that can be solved using the cross product gimmick can be solved more efficiently by simply understanding that multiplying equivalent fractions by the same number results in another pair of equivalent fractions. Think of geometric formulas. If you know what perimeter is, or area, you don't need to memorize a formula. On the Va. Grade 6 SOL students are given a formula sheet. The formula for finding perimeter of a rectangle is p = 2L + 2W. What? Just add together all the sides.

I can actually see the logic in this, since I personally had a difficult time with math simply because so much of the curriculum consisted of rote memorization of formulas and patterns instead of giving me an understanding of the underlying math.

 

It's also worth noting that arithmetic itself is a really basic skill that's not really very important in the grand scheme of things (you can just use a calculator for it, after all), and as such using it for helping people understand number concepts as opposed to focusing on speed (which is obviously pointless when calculators are instantaneous) makes a lot of sense. Whether or not their teaching methods actually help students arrive at said understanding is obviously beyond me, but, again, I can see the method behind the madness.

[Naunet]

Math problems/tests have never just graded on the correct answer in all of my years of schooling. Showing your work and doing that work properly was half if not more of the points given to the question.

 

@Kage: Your math equations are incorrect. (5-3) + 8 = 10, not 13. The process involved would be adding whatever number you need from 8 to get to 10 (2), and then subtracting that from 5 (gets you 3), which you would then add to 10. Looks more like 8 + (10-8) + (5-(10-8)) = 13. Your example with what cashiers do with counting change is rather a good one. But honestly, there is nothing "bad" about the problem in your linked image. Students are having trouble transitioning from raw memorization (a rather depthless "understanding") to the new method, which is both understandable and expected. The backlash has been unnecessarily exacerbated by adults who refuse to accept that maybe the way they learned things was not the best and are determined to keep their kids in the dark. It's honestly rather disturbing to me that a lot of the argument against Common Core standards boils down to, "I didn't need to know this, so neither does my kid." What a stagnant view of education! Education is a science, and as such the techniques used to deliver it will change over time - just as our understanding of the world changes over time. Everyone would be much better off if they accepted that fact.

 

Honestly, the guy with a BS in Electronics Engineering who couldn't understand that rather simple homework problem was likely suffering from his own stubbornness and preconceived notions of how things should work. I'm a teacher, so I don't really like calling people "stupid" (at least when it comes to how they understand things), but he was rather blind.

 

Might there be places to fine-tune the standards? Are there areas that need improvement? Certainly. Many schools are not providing teachers with adequate training to deliver instruction up to the new standards, which is a huge problem. If the teacher (who likely was not themselves instructed in this manner) can't deliver the content properly, then it's folly to think a student will be able to take it in. In order to ensure a successful transition, we must equip teachers with the proper tools - the lesson plans, specific methods, and alternative strategies (this is a BIG one). Schools where effort has gone to doing this have seen great success in elevating students' understanding and ability in the updated subjects.

 

I encourage you to read this article about how the math standards in the Common Core came to be; hopefully you find it enlightening.

[C'kayah Polaali]

Math problems/tests have never just graded on the correct answer in all of my years of schooling. Showing your work and doing that work properly was half if not more of the points given to the question.

 

And thank God for that!

 

Students are having trouble transitioning from raw memorization (a rather depthless "understanding") to the new method, which is both understandable and expected.

 

For me, the jury is still out about whether or not the Common Core produces better understanding. I will say that it would be difficult for it to encourage worse understanding than traditional procedural memorization.

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the way math is taught today is how little playfulness there is around it. Math isn't stodgy. It isn't boring. Yet kids are expected to grind through a bunch of "practical" math before they even get a hint that it's fun to play with. I've known a number of mathematicians, and most of them got their initial love of math by learning it in a very playful environment. One got his start playing games with his mathematician grandmother: playing games with a compass (the point-and-pencil kind) and the like. Most of them never really understood there was anything serious about what they were doing. They were simply playing games.

 

The essay Lockhart's Lament was a big influence on me when I was teaching my daughters math. I wished I'd have run across it earlier, because we spent an awful lot of time working through the Singapore curriculum, and an awful lot of energy trying to make up fun things to do with what they were learning.

[Delilah Scythewood]

I've gotten into this with my aunt, who teaches second grade in a small town outside of Bozeman, Montana. She thinks it's amazing, yet my cousin (a fifth grade math teacher in a town a few hours away) thinks it's insanity. Her kids are having such a hard time with it even though she's learned how to teach them.

 

I mean...it's great that we're learning a different approach to math.

 

But it's also like "Why are we taking ten extra steps to solve a problem I learned how to do in three?".

[Mae]

Why does 427-316=111? Because you had a group of 427 units, then you removed 316 of them, leaving only 111 units left. That's the why. There's nothing magical about it, even with my fail-math brain I understood this logic by 3rd grade at the latest. Someone probably could've shown me this logic in kindergarten with a sack of beans and while I might have struggled to count to numbers quite that high, I would've gotten it.

 

I totally sympathize with "Frustrated Parent". 

 

 

 

 

Anyways. "Professional Protesters", GTFO my planet. You don't believe in the causes you 'stand for', you just want to stand somewhere and make trouble because you'll get in the news. Or your protests turn into exercises in hypocrisy.

[C'kayah Polaali]

I've gotten into this with my aunt, who teaches second grade in a small town outside of Bozeman, Montana. She thinks it's amazing, yet my cousin (a fifth grade math teacher in a town a few hours away) thinks it's insanity. Her kids are having such a hard time with it even though she's learned how to teach them.

 

Which is where Naunet's comment about having alternate strategies comes in. We both know that different people can have wildly different ways of learning. What works great for some people is awful for others.

[Melkire]

I'm... not seeing the issue. Never heard of Common Core (at least, not by that name), but from what I'm reading here it's basically mental approaches to math recorded as formulaic strategies.

 

If I see a problem that goes, "1000 - 865 = ?", my brain doesn't sit there and do

 

1000

- 865

135

 

No, my brain goes "well it's 200 to get from 800 to 1000, but adding 200 to 865 gets me 1065 so really I need to subtract 65 from 200. 60 from 200 is 140 and I still have another 5 to take away so that's 135". And my brain does that really, really fast, without even really thinking about it.

 

...if that's really all that Common Core is, then I don't see the problem with it, save that it looks really convoluted when written down.

[Delilah Scythewood]

I've gotten into this with my aunt, who teaches second grade in a small town outside of Bozeman, Montana. She thinks it's amazing, yet my cousin (a fifth grade math teacher in a town a few hours away) thinks it's insanity. Her kids are having such a hard time with it even though she's learned how to teach them.

 

Which is where Naunet's comment about having alternate strategies comes in. We both know that different people can have wildly different ways of learning. What works great for some people is awful for others.

Indeed, which is where my next thought is "Why force it on the kids who can't grasp it? As long as they're learning how why not just let the kids who get Common Core use that and the ones who can't use a different method or the old one?"

 

But one of the problems is it's been Common Core or gtfo for some of these schools. Which I cringe at so hard I want to turtle inside my hoodie that they're laying down the law for how a child should learn something and restricting their use of creativity and growth because 'our way is best way'.

 

 

If I see a problem that goes, "1000 - 865 = ?", my brain doesn't sit there and do

 

 

1000

- 865

 

135

 

No, my brain goes "well it's 200 to get from 800 to 1000, but adding 200 to 865 gets me 1065 so really I need to subtract 65 from 200. 60 from 200 is 140 and I still have another 5 to take away so that's 135". And my brain does that really, really fast, without even really thinking about it.

 

...if that's really all that Common Core is, then I don't see the problem with it, save that it looks really convoluted when written down.

 

I do the same thing. The written down part is what confuses some people because it's taking something that normally calculates itself in your head almost automatically and trying to map it out step by step. When I helped my fifteen year old sister with her schooling? It was a nightmare.

[Naunet]

I do the same thing. The written down part is what confuses some people because it's taking something that normally calculates itself in your head almost automatically and trying to map it out step by step. When I helped my fifteen year old sister with her schooling? It was a nightmare.

 

It's self-awareness. The idea is that once kids make the connection (and the writing down part may be necessary for a lot of kids to get it - just not all, which is where the alternative teaching strategies and having a diversified approach comes in), they will be better equipped to confidently apply the theory to much more complex problems. If they don't understand the methods thoroughly, there's a high likelihood that they will misapply methods to problems where it isn't appropriate (this is something that actually happens). It's absolutely sound.

 

It's also entirely possible to teach to the Common Core math standard in ways other than physically writing out a diagram, and I can guarantee you that teachers who know their stuff will do exactly that. The idea that kids learn differently is not something that teachers are ignorant of, and the Common Core standards do not dictate a single way of teaching. They simply lay out the systems needed to uplift student understanding to a level higher than what they were at previously.