|
this man gets paid to teach english
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Don Tacorleone posted:Skimming over the documents posted in this thread it seems pretty easy to grasp and it's how I naturally added numbers in my head (while taught with a traditional curriculum), i.e. 83+22 is (80+20) and (3+2) 105 i bet you cant even tell me why 83 + 22 is 105 observe this simpler method 83 +2 +5 +10 + now ive got a 22 -10 -5 -2 problem to work on let me get a sheet of paper just hang on the good news is were at 100 and if you know anything about the provantages of the base-10 system with math statements you know that being here is better than memorizing the algorithmic complexity of borrow and carry or anything else ...10 +5 +2 is 17 22 -17 22 -2 -10 -5 equals... equals... 22 -2 -10 -5 equals 5 100 + 5 is 105 the answer to whatever the original problem was is 105 what do you mean you want to speak to my supervisor im here to give you correct change its not my fault if your fries are cold now mom mom can you pick me up it happened again i begged them to supply me with graphing paper i begged them gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 20:27 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
DeepQantas posted:Haha, the more I listen to this video, the more I realize how hosed you guys are. Bill Gates designed your curriculum... This isn't really true, but I will elaborate. Basically, plutocrats (who were usually born upper-middle class at minimum) honestly believe that you can compensate for a poor home life with improved education standards. You absolutely cannot. The very notion is myopic. You could have the best education standards ever devised, but basic human reasoning would tell you it does not matter if a child has no motivation. Look at what happened with Zuckerberg's 100 million dollar grant to Newark, which highlights this reality extremely well. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
i hope this thread teaches everyone the important lesson that even if you got a phd you still can be a complete moron
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
DeepQantas posted:If you don't want to watch the whole 2 hour video (you should, tho) just check the part at 1:10:14: This person is insane. Are you a dummy?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
He's saying that common core is going to result in sex ed being taught every day in every subject. They're going to teach your 5 year old that it is ok for johnny to have two daddies, and they're going to do it Math.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:09
|
|
Akumu posted:Everything in those images makes perfect sense, and if you can't understand it you're a god-damned idiot.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
everything is terrible, and i regret making this thread. gas it already
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
dude the op of a thread has a close thread button
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:dude the op of a thread has a close thread button on you now
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
I skipped over most of the thread but its funny that someone linked a two hour libertarian rant from a crazy person and said "you should watch the whole thing"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Design Spots posted:on you now  MYAAAH 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
a cop posted:This person is insane. Are you a dummy? Design Spots posted:everything is terrible, and i regret making this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
DeepQantas posted:If you don't want to watch the whole 2 hour video (you should, tho) just check the part at 1:10:14: why would you link to the dumbest part? oh boo hoo stupid parents cant spend 5 mins to understand this Carol Pizzamom posted:Man a thread where I lean towards Rhonyn posts. Ya'll really done it at least someone else shares my shameet it" when that is the dumbest criticism possible
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
edit :gently caress double post
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
a cop posted:I skipped over most of the thread but its funny that someone linked a two hour libertarian rant from a crazy person and said "you should watch the whole thing" loving lol
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Has anyone posted Louis CK's Common Core Twitter rant yet? http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/louis_c_k_blasts_the_common_core_it_feels_like_a_dark_time/ And on Letterman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSKnCBcEDo
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
so um, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxYfimNeCtY jfc
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
aatrek is loving your children.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Also you should watch the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
doesnt the first 30 seconds with the sinister choice of color coding palette give away the ending
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Trojan? Parents who cant figure out Common Core need to know more about Trojan.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:The math in the OP makes sense to me and is something people who understand math tend to intuitively do. They basically break apart numbers in an equation such that the individual steps are all much easier solutions than having to do it in a single step. If you've ever done mental math for multiplying two larger numbers (like doing 34x72 in your head), then you've probably naturally broken the numbers into factors that were easier to work with, then combined them in the end. It's actually a kind of cool method because breaking the numbers into various factors or fractions is in itself math that shows you understand conceptually what the numbers you're working with mean. 32 isn't just 32, it's 30+2 or 10+10+10+2 or whatever, it's all the same thing just written differently. I, too, am of this opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:doesnt the first 30 seconds with the sinister choice of color coding palette give away the ending Sometimes, when you encounter a rabbit hole the only way to find out how deep it goes is to dive right in. It starts getting real good around ~15 minutes but I guess you could stop watching after that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Lamebot posted:I, too, am of this opinion. Yeah, what he said. AFAIK there's exactly 3 ways to do mental arithmetic: (a) immediately see the answer, (b) use imaginary paper, or (c) this. Do enough of (b) and you'll end up inventing (c) on your own, from necessity. I think it's loving stupid to teach it as a way of doing arithmetic with actual paper & pencil though.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Nomikos posted:Yeah, what he said. AFAIK there's exactly 3 ways to do mental arithmetic: (a) immediately see the answer, (b) use imaginary paper, or (c) this. Do enough of (b) and you'll end up inventing (c) on your own, from necessity. a good idea run amok between idea and implementation
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Design Spots posted:
I think how they do this is stupid: I look at it as 26+4 = 30 that's easy so then add 13. 43. Now that I actually got some sleep and revisited this thread it looks good This is how kids should be learning it. Some of the stuff is retarded, but this is closer to right. Not completely, but closer. Now if only we would stop teaching our kids loving feet and fahrenheit.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Al Borland posted:Now if only we would stop teaching our kids loving feet and fahrenheit.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Al Borland posted:I think how they do this is stupid: The cool thing is that they are supposed to encourage you to solve it in whatever way is easy for you. There's many paths to the same goal, not just a robotic algorithm. This becomes important later down the line when you don't have an easy algorithm to tell you how to rearrange a function in order to integrate.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd call holding large numbers in your head a 'robotic algorithm' and your entire second paragraph seems like nonsense
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
This lady's here to talk about childhood developmental psychology and chew bubblegum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tSQlJE6VuA tl;dw Kids can't do abstract thinking in kindergarten like CC wants them to
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
gently caress the ROW posted:I don't know if I'd call holding large numbers in your head a 'robotic algorithm' and your entire second paragraph seems like nonsense I'm referring to the algorithm where you line up the two numbers and add or subtract each column in turn. For the second paragraph, I'm thinking of stuff like this: http://www.math.hmc.edu/calculus/tutorials/complete_sq/ You have to get used to manipulating functions in whatever way makes it easier.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
i wish we could capture with an mri that moment where something in math goes from barely understood natural it always felt like something happened all-at-once when it happened while awake
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I guess I just don't get the core concept. Everybody is familiar with drunk math where you make the numbers smaller
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
you go left adding enough to each digit place to 0 or 5 then 0 as many as you can then go back right adding enough to use up whats left while keeping track of what youve used and whats left to use which youre constantly taking from by estimation since actually subtracting from this would defeat the point basically doing it the way kids who keep guessing until they get the right answer do it the ordinary way is to quickly go from the ones place leftward only keeping track of the incrementing sum that is the finished sum when theres nothing left to add seriously the supposedly complicated algorithm actually looks a lot simpler and not really any more memory intensive but the other way probably works better if you just dont plan on explaining the syntax of written numbers and just hope the kids will figure that out doing the work so maybe it is designed specifically for classrooms insanely overcrowded
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
what?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
basically if you dont trust kids to be able to add numbers that will have sums between 11 and 19 and would rather use a proxy 10 instead using of a "carry" (totally eliminated that carry concept well done) mentally adding numbers that sum to 10 or less: ok mentally adding number that will pass 10: slow down better break that up into a few steps too hard for mankind we have calculators ya know
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
If the right-wing hates it, it's probably best to keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
best to keep doing it but revise the testing and graded work to not care what internal processes the kids use or care if they intentionally forget the phrase "math statements" in disgust
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
if you don't teach the distributive property before the multiplication algorithm, then it makes no drat sense at all
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:06
|
|
