|
dee eight posted:What is muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle http://thefw.com/alex-trebek-jerk/ it was the battle of hastings in 1066.
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 9, 2025 10:40 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:So somebody posted a paper by one of America's leading mathematicians giving specific examples of how the old new math was hosed, nobody in this thread appears to be in the field of pedagogical research, but half the posters here are confident that the old system was fine and that innumeracy in this country can be blamed on the stupidity of the youth today/Americans in general. Okay then. "the old new math" lol
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
hes right
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
DSauer posted:I really like geometry but the way you're taught it is loving retarded. Here's a bunch of formulas to remember but we're not going to tell you why they work! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YokKp3pwVFc&t=15s
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
neither of these is confusing, the person in the first one is retarded
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I just don't understand why you can't do 15 - 7 in your head without all that other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
b/c teaching problem solving and not just "15-7=8" is an important thing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:neither of these is confusing, the person in the first one is retarded but whats missing is why the extra instructions are actually beneficial to someone who already knows how to add Moridin920 posted:I just don't understand why you can't do 15 - 7 in your head without all that other poo poo. ...and also a math problem it will help trust me
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Pretty much all I've taken from this is that I'm really loving glad I'm not in school anymore. The whole "teach for the test, actual learning be damned" thing started up when I was in elementary school and education will continue to be broken until they realize how fundamentally hosed that mentality is. It seems like a step in the right direction, but I still see a lot of the same weird bullshit that comes up every time they try to improve things, like "We'll call it a number sentence and they'll understand it better for...reasons!"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:b/c teaching problem solving and not just "15-7=8" is an important thing lol they'll learn that when they learn to add and subtract single and double digit numbers quickly in their heads
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Kimmalah posted:Pretty much all I've taken from this is that I'm really loving glad I'm not in school anymore. The whole "teach for the test, actual learning be damned" thing started up when I was in elementary school and education will continue to be broken until they realize how fundamentally hosed that mentality is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmPT24fC6wY
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
i cant wait for there to be math and american math oh wait
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:you mean the one that has a set of instructions to follow isnt confusing no i mean literally neither one is confusing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I just don't understand why you can't do 15 - 7 in your head without all that other poo poo. like i don't give a gently caress how you arrived at it as long as you understand how you arrived at it rather than just knowing it because you memorized it on a chart, you don't have to use my dumb rear end method you would imagine that thinking comes fairly naturally but i guess not 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:no i mean literally neither one is confusing no poo poo that one has instructions on what youre supposed to do the other problem wouldnt be confusing to anyone who even knows what its asking for but it remains pointless
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
i thought the whole point of common core was to introduce kids to all different kinds of ways of doing math and then later on they can choose to use whatever method makes sense to them the most. also the grading isn't A-F anymore it's going to be 1-4, with 4 being proficient and 1 being barely understanding. thank god i graduated high school years ago, this poo poo is going to be implemented worse than no child left behind
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but yes Delerium makes pretty cool music sometimes I guess.  fits my needs posted:i thought the whole point of common core was to introduce kids to all different kinds of ways of doing math and then later on they can choose to use whatever method makes sense to them the most. also the grading isn't A-F anymore it's going to be 1-4, with 4 being proficient and 1 being barely understanding. They were kind of already doing this when I was in school, but it was kind of sporadic so some schools used A-F and others used the newer terminology. We also had to do this huge years long writing portfolio project to be turned in our senior year of school and that was how they graded it. I don't really see the problem other than "In my day we used F for failure!" 
Kimmalah fucked around with this message at 23:18 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
im just gonna go throw up and keep drinking
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
e: nm I guess the more I think about it the more it makes sense
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Kids are too stupid to teach
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
maths is an outdated concept just buy the kids a subscription to the wolfram alpha "app" for their ipods and be done with it
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:you said the guy of the first one was retarded From what I can see your position is that we don't need to belabor the connection of the operations and algorithms we use to the concept of the number line, because everybody already gets it so it's a waste of time. But people don't get it. There are so many people looking at these ways of expressing subtraction, which are valid but different from the algorithm that they are used to, and saying it makes no sense. Not that it makes no sense to teach it this way, but that they literally can't see how it works. I'm trying my hardest to find the study I read a while back that surveyed a bunch of education majors who were about to go and teach math to elementary schoolers, and 80% of them couldn't explain why borrowing worked, as in its connection to decimal notation and the number line. Not having any luck so far, but I'll keep you updated.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Personally I'm just glad that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has more say in school curriculum than administrators, parents, teachers, or voters
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
i was never taught the number line or whatever but how the gently caress do you get a teaching degree without understanding and being able to describe borrowing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
i wish i was paid buy a state to batardise the circumlum, i have a sol that makes me weak
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
gently caress common core. Students nowadays are already functionally retarded, we don't need to make them worse. gently caress common core
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:you would imagine that thinking comes fairly naturally but i guess not I took Intro to Logic and it was literally poo poo like 'circle the supporting arguments' and 'circle the conclusion' toward the beginning and people were loving that up Rational thought is a developed skill
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Akumu posted:From what I can see your position is that we don't need to belabor the connection of the operations and algorithms we use to the concept of the number line, because everybody already gets it so it's a waste of time. the only problem with going back to an older curriculum is where are we going to find a new supply of TI-82s because surely 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:nobody whose only been taught with the current curriculum may get a number line but my position is that this band aid is attempting to fix what we broke changing the math curriculum in the early 2000s when what we need to do is just revamp to any loving 90s textbook for k-12 math or just look at math as its being taught in the rest of the world instead of thinking we need to to reinvent math education because even though we have a poo poo rating for math education amongst the world we remain this special snowflake and know what were doing better than them But all the jackasses on Facebook who can't understand this poo poo weren't in elementary school in the aughts.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:nobody whose only been taught with the current curriculum may get a number line but my position is that this band aid is attempting to fix what we broke changing the math curriculum in the early 2000s when what we need to do is just revamp to any loving 90s textbook for k-12 math or just look at math as its being taught in the rest of the world instead of thinking we need to to reinvent math education because even though we have a poo poo rating for math education amongst the world we remain this special snowflake and know what were doing better than them 90s math teaching was just as hosed up and bad though? I went to school in the 90s and the curriculum was loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I took Intro to Logic and it was literally poo poo like 'circle the supporting arguments' and 'circle the conclusion' toward the beginning and people were loving that up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzUQ2p1ESs
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:nobody whose only been taught with the current curriculum may get a number line but my position is that this band aid is attempting to fix what we broke changing the math curriculum in the early 2000s when what we need to do is just revamp to any loving 90s textbook for k-12 math or just look at math as its being taught in the rest of the world instead of thinking we need to to reinvent math education because even though we have a poo poo rating for math education amongst the world we remain this special snowflake and know what were doing better than them I come back to still see this poo poo. You seriously think that the curriculum in the 90's was great? You also think most teachers taught via the reform method over the last ten years? Fine, you want effort, here it is: We are falling behind in all aspects of science and mathematics. The reason we are falling behind has NOTHING to do with the fact we can't compute correctly and EVERYTHING to do with the fact we don't understand a thing we learn in science and math in K-12. Just being able to do the computations means nothing. The old methods were developed before we had computers, and are irrelevant now that we have them. The algorithm you learned to add and subtract was chosen for only one reason. SPEED. Do you really know why you have to carry and borrow? Do you really understand what you are doing when you multiply two digit numbers? You know the algorithm by heart because you were forced to memorize it, but I doubt most of you understand why it works. When they were teaching this algorithm, it didn't matter. It was more important to teach you a basic life skill without needing an abacus or slide-rule. This was chosen before the invention of computers and calculators. People HAD to be quick and accurate with these computations in all aspects of life. We don't have to be now. If you get stranded on a desert island without your cell-phone, a computer, or a calculator, then you probably will not care what 52-32 is. The emphasis of our education should no longer be quick accurate hand calculations. My calculator will be as quick, as accurate, and more trustworthy than your pencil and paper (unless you are Art Benjamin.. yes look him up). Furthermore, as the goal is no longer quick computations, the goal should be understanding, and their method is far better for understanding than what you learned when you were in school. I feel that the first month of my freshmen classes are often spent undoing the damage of current high-school curriculum. I don't care if you can't compute 242*24145 off the top of your head. I do care that you don't understand that 1^{2/3}=1. When our kids are learning about subtraction, what matters is that they understand what it is, and how our base 10 number system helps. Knowing what subtraction is, and how it works is more important to what I do than understand how to compute 41254-23177 quickly. I'd wager even engineers would agree with me on this. Setting up word problems and designing solution techniques is far more useful than any set of rote algebra problems I could give you. So maybe if you understand the process, you can let a computer do the computations for you. If you understand the process, you will have a better ability to estimate if the computer is right, and a better approach to solving the problem. Let me explain with the example in the most common video I find attacking Common Core. They show this WHACKY method for computing 52-32. These numbers were chosen to make it look ridiculous, but I bet their method is quicker to do in your head for things like 41254-23177, which is similar to what I do in my head when I am in front of the classroom (it is 18077 by the way). So here is their method: 32+3=35 35+5=40 40+10=50 50+2=52. So 3+5+10+2=20. Done! But that is so crazy and SOOO much harder than the normal algorithm. Except, it makes them actually understand what subtraction is, and even makes it easier to grasp how our base 10 number system plays in. Why did they go to 35? because it is half-way in our number system. Once we have that, an extra 5 takes us to 40, and that 0 at the end means a lot, especially in our mental arithmetic. Here is how I would go about this in my head: 32+10=42 42+10=52 So 2 10's is 20 Notice how I would never do the borrow method you learned? I understand the base 10 number system, I don't need an algorithm. Let me show you this on 41254-23177 when you get good at the common core method 23177+3=23180 23180+20=23200 23200+800=24000 24000+6000=30000 30000+10000=40000 40000+1000=41000 41000+200=41200 41200+50=41250 41250+4=41254 so biggest to smallest: 10000+6000+1000+800+200+50+20+4+3=10000+8000+70+7=18077 See how I am using the base 10 number system to my advantage. So can you! So can your kids! No, it is not faster than your algorithm, but I bet if you look at it and understand how it works, you wouldn't need to memorize anything to do it. Also, if your professor taught calculus as memorize these rules to derivatives and integrals instead of the importance of the intermediate value theorem, the extreme value theorem, and how to set up related rates problems, you were hosed again. I want my students to actually understand what the gently caress they are doing. I don't give a poo poo if they need calculators to compute 2942*1241241.. Edit: Accretionist posted:Who actually remembers the properties names, though? I just picture stuff as piles of relationships. People who actually need to use them. Say, any student who takes Linear Algebra and needs to know that for matrices A*B is NOT B*A. Every math major that ever exists has to take abstract algebra. They actually SEE why things like the associative property matter. Edit 2: No need to insult you. You are probably pretty smart, just wrong. Gulzin fucked around with this message at 23:57 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
So I read all this after it broke my brain. I have apparently been doing common core math since 2nd grade when I told my teachers that their method was stupid as poo poo and came up with my own method of counting and addition. No wonder I'm a goddamn savant at math. Who knew I was the progenitor of common core. You can all pretty much thank me. My wife was reading it and she literally said "isn't that how you do math?". I started laughing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Every one of you numb nuts without teaching experience or education discussing education as if you understand anything at all is sad
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
i am smarter than you, i ate a valium 5 minutes ago and washing it down with alchool
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:Every one of you numb nuts without teaching experience or education discussing education as if you understand anything at all is sad yea lets have corrupt sex
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
This is great and all but wouldn't it be better to teach kids how to use a calculator instead, skip all this arithmetic crap that computers made obsolete and go straight into Calculus day one?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
i like how you are all corrupt and sex starved
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
lets just use facebook
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 9, 2025 10:40 |
|
|
Design Spots posted:i am smarter than you, i ate a valium 5 minutes ago and washing it down with alchool I had a chemistry professor explain that he was smart enough to know they were building a level of medication in his blood, so he would take half of his pills right away to get himself to that level first. He also taught us how to freebase coke.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:00
|
|