|
then teach the distributive property before multiplication
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Dumbest math thing was the FOIL method. It worked for only the specific thing it thought and that was it and I thought it was dumb even then. I don't math any good any more but I've got a job so who the hell cares.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Dumbest math thing was the FOIL method. It worked for only the specific thing it thought and that was it and I thought it was dumb even then. I don't math any good any more but I've got a job so who the hell cares.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
idk foil is actually useful because it takes 10 minutes to teach and then it shows you how to multiply those things which isn't as easy to do in your head as subtracting two digits.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Is Common Core aatrek's rereg
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Watching you people explain how you do math in your head is really loving with me, can you guys really not add and subtract two digit numbers without breaking them down
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Watching you people explain how you do math in your head is really loving with me, can you guys really not add and subtract two digit numbers without breaking them down yeah I'm still wrapping my head around this a little bit
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:Watching you people explain how you do math in your head is really loving with me, can you guys really not add and subtract two digit numbers without breaking them down
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Ema Nymton posted:Has anyone posted Louis CK's Common Core Twitter rant yet? I ain't taking no math advice from a clinically depressed divorced mexican redhead comedian
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
lol what in the actual gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:i object to the suggestion that you were taught FOIL it has long been established that it was never taught until recently YOU DONT KNOW WHY MULTIPLICATION WORKS YOU ALGORITHM BOT Come-on dude. At least slander me right. I said FOIL was taught, and it was bad as many students didn't learn the distributive law. FOIL is fine for (2x+3)(4x+5) and bad for (2x^2+3x+2)(x+3) or (x+h)^3. Hence why teaching just algorithms is bad, and teaching multiple methods and properties is good. Also explaining why things work would be a good thing to learn how to do. I like how almost everyone who comes by disagrees with you, but man if you just keep posting you'll show them. lol, okay forget it. If this is in common core it's all bullshit. Gulzin fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
I'd have to see the lesson but I'm guessing that they're getting students to arbitrarily split the number 5 into two smaller sections. It's pretty much practicing 1+4=5, 2+3=5, 3+2=5, 4+1=5. The key difference is that they force the student to choose how to divide it up instead of just telling them 'Color 2 blocks red, and 3 blocks blue."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
that's a dumbshit way of doing it
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Show the hidden partners on your fingers to an adult. They'll never believe you. Only kids can hear me. SCREEEE
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I had to look it up: http://www.marioncs.org/webpages/jreesor/news.cfm Hidden Partner: number pairs that make a given sum (Example: in the number 5, 2 and 3 are hidden partners) Number Bond: visual way to break apart a number into part, part, whole  Cube stick: ?Squares in a row?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
The best word defined on that page is rekenrek
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Lightanchor posted:I had to look it up: http://www.marioncs.org/webpages/jreesor/news.cfm when i was in elementary school and they introduced fractions i had a hard time remembering if the numerator was on top or bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
argondamn posted:when i was in elementary school and they introduced fractions i had a hard time remembering if the numerator was on top or bottom. I've taught kids in elementary school who were somewhat baffled trying to get half of an odd number. In some cases they could visually do it, but they couldn't tell you the right answer since they'd never seen that combination in fractions before. I've also taught middle schoolers who assumed X or X^2 meant 0X or 0X^2 (which obviously fucks up the quadratic equation).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Does the minuend or the subtrahend come first?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
itt goons are either smug that they can solve math problems designed to be solved by children or admit that they are unable to understand how to solve math problems designed for children
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:So explain to me how to multiply 53 by 34. Also, explain why it works, don't just cite your bullshit algorithm.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
watching 17 pages of goons sperg out insisting they are smarter at math and teaching than a literal math professor because something something facebook meme am i right guys is pretty funny gee whiz this word problem sure is hard share if you agree now off to talk about how only really dumb children don't instinctively understand the number line
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:itt goons are either smug that they can solve math problems designed to be solved by children or admit that they are unable to understand how to solve math problems designed for children I'll also add that I can't get laid
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:Come-on dude. At least slander me right. good to see you dont fold so easy i didnt really have any respect for how you left before Gulzin posted:lol, okay forget it. If this is in common core it's all bullshit. Lightanchor posted:Show the hidden partners on your fingers to an adult. They'll never believe you. Only kids can hear me. SCREEEE
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Why do you think a forum full of nerds doesn't understand this? hmmm it might be because no one is doing that except to insist it's perfectly obvious while scratching their head like apes as they stare at the "complexity" of math problems for literal children
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:lol what in the actual gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'd have to see the lesson but I'm guessing that they're getting students to arbitrarily split the number 5 into two smaller sections. It's pretty much practicing 1+4=5, 2+3=5, 3+2=5, 4+1=5. The key difference is that they force the student to choose how to divide it up instead of just telling them 'Color 2 blocks red, and 3 blocks blue." And the fact they loving use terms like cube sticks and number bond. Then call them partners seriously keep your loving terminology the same. Call them boxes. E: if this poo poo is for real can anyone tell me where I can get a copy of like third grader or second grader common core lesson book? I'd love to pick one up and try to make heads or tails of it. E2: Holy poo poo I may have found it on their website for anyone to grab. (this one is grade 2 but they all appear to be there.) http://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-2-mathematics-module-1 Al Borland fucked around with this message at 05:45 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Why do you think a forum full of nerds doesn't understand this? Because most college students don't. 53 34 = 212 +1590 = 1802 The 0 at the 1590 comes from the fact the algorithm really is just: 53(30+4)=1590+212 (it is just distributing). Could they teach that, sure. Do they? No. So I end up with most of my college students not getting this, or that it is anything that even has a reason. This same line of teaching is also why Calculus I has really simple concepts but it is hard for most students because they can't figure out (x+h)^3 because FOIL fails. gary oldmans diary posted:im interested in what changes common core has at higher grade levels and in science but at lower math levels it seems like it is giving no faith in students abilities to do anything In general it moves most concepts up a grade and stuffs proofs back into Geometry. The idea is if they understand the concepts better, they will be better at algebra, geometry, functions. They actually teach more about functions now than was ever expected before. This is a good thing. The no faith in lower grades is likely them trying to force teachers to actually teach it. I feel there is a large problem with Elementary teachers trying to avoid teaching math. I haven't taught math for elementary teachers yet (and likely never will), but I have heard every math education professor I have ever met privately gripe about it. However, I do agree with you that curriculum should not supplant pedagogy. So three things to be said: 1. This is not perfect, it is just a bit better. Even CC hate superstar mathematician John Milgrand said that (he said it was better than 90% of state standards). 2. This is not what I would do if I was given the power. I would likely abolish the entire curriculum. Make Algebra I and II a single year. Put a required Statistics course in high-school. Put Graph Theory or Discrete Math with Geometry and teach it with real proofs. 3. Standardized testing is going to wreck it all anyways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
That Milgram guy was saying that the common core standard for college readiness was passing Algebra II, and that he had to fight for them to change it from Algebra I. And that is bad.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:Because most college students don't. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Haha this entire thread is basically the worst. Anyone defending the standards is doing so disregarding the tests and anyone against the standards is looking at the issues with testing to the exclusion of the rest. Basically the problem with this poo poo is that the problems they put on the tests are testing whether you know a particular algorithm or not, and not actually testing whether you can do math or not. The lecture materials are fine except all of them come with a whole book chapter of problems that require you use a dumb, crappy method. Source: tutoring 5th-8th grade kids for a year and looking at the dumbest loving practice booklet you ever did see.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
i really wish we could throw a government dime into research on head start fade instead of just disregarding it maybe enrollment was just never high enough to reach what you might call a critical mass where the classroom itself could be ahead and thus stay ahead instead of a minority of students that must conform
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:word problem Math Situation. Keep up. For real though this is pretty much how I think about math and always hated that the old methods of teaching math made it seem so arbitrary and rigid. I think some of the common core questions are a little ridiculous, but the concept of teaching kids how and why math works the way it does is pretty baller.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Why do you think a forum full of nerds doesn't understand this? lol everyone on this forum is retarded
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Dumbest math thing was the FOIL method. It worked for only the specific thing it thought and that was it and I thought it was dumb even then. I don't math any good any more but I've got a job so who the hell cares. that specific thing basically never ever stops cropping up in maths though Gulzin posted:So three things to be said:
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:that specific thing basically never ever stops cropping up in maths though Holy gently caress discrete math to high schoolers though? That's gonna be like trying to teach a westboro church member gay rights.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Al Borland posted:Holy gently caress discrete math to high schoolers though? That's gonna be like trying to teach a westboro church member gay rights. there's basic number theory poo poo that can be taught to high-schoolers
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Yeah there's a difference between group theory and, after you teach all the basic algebraic operations, teaching what a function or multiplication or what a number or the equals sign 'is'
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
I feel like I'm a terrible math major because I had no problems with using algorithms to calculate things when given actual numbers, but I pretty much fall apart when it comes to doing proofs. I mean, I head a hell of a time during Abstract Algebra, because while I could see where my professor was going with proofs done as examples and could follow it then, when it came time to take the exam, I'd be pretty lost on a bunch of problems. The Numerical Analysis course I took this past semester wasn't much better. Like I understand that proofs are pretty much the thing you have to do when it comes to higher level math, and I just can't help but feel like I made a terrible mistake deciding to be a math major. The reason I chose math as a major is because I was so good with it during middle and high school (advanced classes through the entirely of those years, acing all of my classes), loved all of my teachers (with some exceptions) during those years, and came in to college with the first year of Calculus under my belt. Probably helped that I had a mom who drilled me on math during elementary school, forcing me to memorize the multiplication tables at second grade and constantly drilling me with math problems during summer vacations, which I always complained about at the time, but really helped me when I went back to school for the next year. Chinese moms, gotta love em. Advanced classes in middle school (plus some help from an Asian test prep school) helped me get into the best public high school in New York, with the year's credit of Algebra I that's practically a requirement to get in there, and then I really had no problems with math in school afterwards except for failing to hand in some research assignments in an "advanced" Algebra II class Sophomore year that had a research component. Hell, I still love my middle school math teacher who taught us Algebra I and the beginnings of Geometry in 7th and 8th grade (to the point where I was looking to see whether he still taught at my middle school and whether I could go and visit him there sometime in the future) and the Pre-Calc teacher I had in Junior year who was the school Math Team coordinator (Math Team was huge, tons of kids got signed up for it by their parents Freshman year that they had to have multiple first period sections for all the students involved) and died of cancer a couple years back (his obit getting a mention in the New York Times). Hell, I even parlayed my math knowledge (plus a couple of years at aforementioned Asian test prep school on the weekends and during the summer) to get a full 1600 on my SATs (sure, I know that really doesn't mean much in the greater scheme of things, but it's something I'm still proud of). I was originally going to do Engineering in college, but after a bad experience with a Physics class in high school (I mistakenly signed up for AP Physics thinking that it was going to be a research focused class like my previous Biology and Chemistry classes I took Freshman and Sophomore years which I had no real problems with) and not doing much better in it my first year of college, I figured that Engineering was really mostly just math plus physics, so I could drop the physics and stick with the math. And I was fine during my first couple of years when doing Calculus. Linear Algebra was more difficult, but I got most of it. Differential Equations was a bit wonky but I powered through it. Abstract Algebra was harder, but I mostly got it. Number Theory irritated the poo poo outta me, and Numerical Analysis was pretty much a foreign language, albeit one I got the rudimentary beginnings of due to previous experience in Abstract Algebra. Now that I'm just about 2 classes close to being done with my degree, I've been questioning whether it was the right choice ever since more rigorous proofs started showing up... Probably should just stick to Applied Math instead, since I was great working with numbers, but not with those damnable proofs. I can understand why these new teaching standards could help students that have problems with math learn better at the moment, but I can't help but feel that I'd be so slowed down doing this kinda poo poo if I was learning it like this. The lower level stuff especially just looks pretty dumb to me. But now that I'm more experienced with math, I can see how doing addition like in the examples posted is like how one would do math in your head, it's pretty much how I do it now, but I needed a grounding in the addition algorithms with carrying the one and all that in order to understand it in the first place, and then developed the mental arithmetic stiff later. Like, my mom made sure to drill into me why adding works that way, and why you needed to leave a blank space on the second line when multiplying out two digit numbers, so much so that I could explain it to other kids when my teacher asked me to do an example on the board when we did learn it in school. And now I go to a college (City University of New York) where the vast majority of kids who enter Freshman year need a remedial class in basic Algebra, and then never touch math again for their majors besides maybe a Trig or Statistics class, not even Pre-Calc. Hell, Calculus is a goddamn 200 level class rather than the basic 100 level poo poo it should be here... I get that most high schools are dropping the ball when it comes to math education, although I didn't understand that at first because math came so easily to me along with pretty much everyone else I interacted with in my advanced math classes and my high school. Was talking with my brother (who pretty much had the same experience with math during middle and high school as I did, except he only went to the second best public high school in the city) last year about dropping test scores for underprivileged minorities (blacks and Latinos, since test scores basically stayed flat or improved for Asians) after the implementation of the Common Core standards, and he basically said that the two of us never had any problems with math exams, and if we could do it, why can't everyone else? I used to think pretty much the exact same way, but now see why that's such a terrible argument. If Common Core helps bring up these standards, and gets more people to understand math, then I'm all for it. Just wish that it was being implemented better though... Like I don't think that you need to explain the distributive property of multiplication to kids who are just learning how to do double digit multiplication, but I can see how it'd be helpful to some who don't understand how the multiplication algorithm worked. Didn't really cover properties like distributivity, associativity, and commutativity until my middle school Algebra I classes. Stuff like FOIL is also a lot easier to learn if you understand the distributive property, but my class didn't need it when we did so and we understood what was going on. Again, anecdote from an advanced class, but I guess some people need some help in that regard. Don't think you need to start kids on the field axioms and set theory concerning the Reals, Rationals, Integers, and Naturals that early though. Maybe high school before you start touching that kinda stuff. GhostStalker fucked around with this message at 11:09 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 11:05
|
|
