Common Core is fucking with your children.

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Common Core is fucking with your children.

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

im convinced, i am gonna teach myself this common core poo poo since i am doing a math-heavy major and i feel like my elementary education hosed me over (i was always bad at math)

gently caress the human being reationaries who are just upset because they don't understand things

# ? May 26, 2014 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:11

Design Spots: Jan 24, 2009; by XyloJW

< no homo

# ? May 26, 2014 01:01

Design Spots: Jan 24, 2009; by XyloJW

my status on facebook is riviled devil

# ? May 26, 2014 01:01

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Justin Tyme posted:

...i feel like my elementary education hosed me over...

# ? May 26, 2014 01:03

Design Spots: Jan 24, 2009; by XyloJW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFZKu-5npY

# ? May 26, 2014 01:03

Design Spots: Jan 24, 2009; by XyloJW

youre hosed

# ? May 26, 2014 01:03

babypolis: Nov 4, 2009

Justin Tyme posted:

im convinced, i am gonna teach myself this common core poo poo since i am doing a math-heavy major and i feel like my elementary education hosed me over (i was always bad at math)

gently caress the human being reationaries who are just upset because they don't understand things

lol some 3rd grade bullshit aint gonna help you with calculus (im just as hosed as you are btw)

# ? May 26, 2014 01:04

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

I really like Calculus and all the problems it helps me to solve, but if you asked me to do it with a pencil and paper I'd be lost. Computers and programming have spoiled me.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:05

Cowman: Feb 14, 2006; Beware the Cow

This poo poo is pretty easy and makes sense. It's the same way we've always done it, they're just expanding things to show the steps in a clearer manner.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:05

babypolis: Nov 4, 2009

Cowman posted:

This poo poo is pretty easy and makes sense. It's the same way we've always done it, they're just expanding things to show the steps in a clearer manner.

best explanation i heard is that its just doing stuff like you would in your head, makes a lot more sense that way

# ? May 26, 2014 01:06

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

We really should just teach math as it always has been. Here are 50 worthless boring rote memorization problems. Figure them out or else you are going to work at fast food for the rest of your life.

Also, somehow you should understand something.. and maybe enjoy math. Who are we kidding, even we hate math!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcAZWgvFc1Q

# ? May 26, 2014 01:06

Cowman: Feb 14, 2006; Beware the Cow

babypolis posted:

best explanation i heard is that its just doing stuff like you would in your head, makes a lot more sense that way

Exactly. All this is doing is making kids write that stuff out. Other than the second image in the OP, all the problems make sense and are really easy. They're just focusing on splitting up the problems and showing the individual steps. It's 3rd grade math made easier so we don't have another generation of dumbasses who can't do basic addition in their head.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:09

Harald: Jul 10, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

In and of itself, the common core algorithm is just a different form of rote memorization. how can we be sure that it will actually lead to enhanced understanding compared to other algorithms?

# ? May 26, 2014 01:09

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Gulzin posted:

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.

I come back to see this poo poo insisting that it is difficult to teach children why you borrow and carry
I am sorry that you never had teachers that only told you to do and never why but borrowing and carrying is loving so goddamn simple as understanding the syntax of written numbers representing values

"the fact that we dont understand a thing we learn in science and math in K-12" followed by suggestion that education has apparently always been designed around calculators :psyduck:

# ? May 26, 2014 01:10

babypolis: Nov 4, 2009

Copley Depot posted:

In and of itself, the common core algorithm is just a different form of rote memorization. how can we be sure that it will actually lead to enhanced understanding compared to other algorithms?

i wonder the same thing but all the mathy ppl say its way better so what the gently caress do we know

# ? May 26, 2014 01:10

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Copley Depot posted:

In and of itself, the common core algorithm is just a different form of rote memorization. how can we be sure that it will actually lead to enhanced understanding compared to other algorithms?

There is no assurance. Bored student will still just do the minimum necessary to pass. If education can't figure out a way to engage people into finding a subject interesting enough to want to know more on their own, that's all you'll ever get.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:11

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

Copley Depot posted:

In and of itself, the common core algorithm is just a different form of rote memorization. how can we be sure that it will actually lead to enhanced understanding compared to other algorithms?

Because it is based off of the properties we really want them to understand.

Getting to 40 is better than 41 as 40 is just 4*10, and 41=4*10+1. It's emphasizing that whole positional number thingy.
Subtraction in terms of getting to 10 is far better than just some borrow and carry method.
Estimation is a more useful skill these days than getting the exact number, because you can use estimation to check your computer/calculator computation.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:12

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Soviet block countries tried to do this exact thing decades ago.

All my parents (and anybody else) remember from this is that teachers wasted lots of hours on explaining formal principles of very intuitive concepts without ever expanding on how such principles could be used in more advanced math.

In the end everybody uses the "normal" math without giving a poo poo about all the philosophy of math stuff (which is a valid thing to learn about, but not within the limitations of the elementary teaching circles).

# ? May 26, 2014 01:12

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

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.

thank god i graduated high school years ago, this poo poo is going to be implemented worse than no child left behind

yeah different methods are great but unless you're claiming your new one is the best method, 100% hands down why the gently caress would you then proceed to ban the use of all others besides yours?

# ? May 26, 2014 01:12

Fur20: Nov 14, 2007; すご▞い！
君は働か░い
フ▙▓ズなんだね！

Gulzin posted:

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!

I understand what's going on here and I see how it's efficient, but all I can think is... so? I'm not seeing the critical thinking, it's just memorization of a different technique. It sounds like the teams that designed it envision independent problem solving as the Common Core's endgame, and yet all I see is getting rid of one chart and replacing it with a different one.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:12

Harald: Jul 10, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

DSauer posted:

There is no assurance. Bored student will still just do the minimum necessary to pass.

That's kind of what I'm afraid of. Its kind of breaking things down into really granular steps. Which can be good for demonstrating how things work..but you also want to make sure students eventually move beyond that.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:13

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

gary oldmans diary posted:

I come back to see this poo poo insisting that it is difficult to teach children why you borrow and carry
I am sorry that you never had teachers that only told you to do and never why but borrowing and carrying is loving so goddamn simple as understanding the syntax of written numbers representing values

"the fact that we dont understand a thing we learn in science and math in K-12" followed by suggestion that education has apparently always been designed around calculators

You failed to read.

I said it WASN'T designed around calculators. The new methods are.

Okay, explain borrowing. What methodology is it using. How does it relate to the base 10 positional number system. Why would knowing such a thing matter?

This new system answers all of those. The old system really doesn't.

Also, why do I need a complicated algorithm to subtract. From a educational psychology standpoint, it is much easier to follow the method common core gives me. It just takes more paper.

Edit:

The White Dragon posted:

I understand what's going on here and I see how it's efficient, but all I can think is... so? I'm not seeing the critical thinking, it's just memorization of a different technique. It sounds like the teams that designed it envision independent problem solving as the Common Core's endgame, and yet all I see is getting rid of one chart and replacing it with a different one.

It is using the positional number system to an advantage. The question is basically why do I go to where I go to. I don't memorize that this is what I add in this situation, I ask, what makes the left-most digit a 0. If I do that, it is less numbers to worry about. 1440 is easier to work with than 1443. 1500 is easier to work with than 1400.

The idea of this method is based around understanding what positions in our number system mean. Those can be very useful.

Here is an example (with understanding distribution) of multiplying two two-digit numbers:

43*79 = (40+3)(70+9)=40*70+40*9+3*70+3*9=2800+360+210+27=3397

Gulzin fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 26, 2014

# ? May 26, 2014 01:13

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Copley Depot posted:

That's kind of what I'm afraid of. Its kind of breaking things down into really granular steps. Which can be good for demonstrating how things work..but you also want to make sure students eventually move beyond that.

Won't happen unless the material is interesting enough for a kid to go, "Oh cool!", and want to learn more about it so they're exposed to more cool poo poo. That's probably hard to do with elementary mathematics. Kids aren't really going to understand that to get at the really neat interesting stuff you do need to have a foundation in things that are probably boring but necessary.

Take something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXIMUkSXX0

And figure out how to make basic arithmetic just as interesting. Of course what I find interesting is probably not going to be interesting a first grader who is really more interested in figuring out what this paste tastes like.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 01:18 on May 26, 2014

# ? May 26, 2014 01:15

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

The White Dragon posted:

I understand what's going on here and I see how it's efficient, but all I can think is... so? I'm not seeing the critical thinking, it's just memorization of a different technique. It sounds like the teams that designed it envision independent problem solving as the Common Core's endgame, and yet all I see is getting rid of one chart and replacing it with a different one.

no this is the first system ever developed before this nobody ever really understood why youre supposed to borrow or carry
'Merica solved that 1 for you

# ? May 26, 2014 01:15

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

gary oldmans diary posted:

no this is the first system ever developed before this nobody ever really understood why youre supposed to borrow or carry
'Merica solved that 1 for you

Why should I even have to learn to carry or borrow?

Why should that algorithm be part of math?

Because your teachers told you so? Do you use it?

# ? May 26, 2014 01:18

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Gulzin posted:

Because it is based off of the properties we really want them to understand.

Getting to 40 is better than 41 as 40 is just 4*10, and 41=4*10+1. It's emphasizing that whole positional number thingy.
Subtraction in terms of getting to 10 is far better than just some borrow and carry method.
Estimation is a more useful skill these days than getting the exact number, because you can use estimation to check your computer/calculator computation.

regular arithmetic is also "based on the properties of math". how the gently caress would you have arithmetic that's not? like it's not some magic that results in a correct answer, the algorithm is what it is directly because of the mathematical axioms that underlie it. if those theorems were different the algorithm would be too.

for the record i don't think common core will hurt education, i just don't think it will help much beyond standardizing curriculum across the nation (which is a worthwhile goal by itself)

# ? May 26, 2014 01:20

Harald: Jul 10, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Gulzin posted:

You failed to read.

I said it WASN'T designed around calculators. The new methods are.

Okay, explain borrowing. What methodology is it using. How does it relate to the base 10 positional number system. Why would knowing such a thing matter?

This new system answers all of those. The old system really doesn't.

Also, why do I need a complicated algorithm to subtract. From a educational psychology standpoint, it is much easier to follow the method common core gives me. It just takes more paper.

Learning to carry and borrow taught me the base 10 system. I mean it's right there as part of the method. You carry over because you have an extra 10.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:20

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

Copley Depot posted:

Learning to carry and borrow taught me the base 10 system. I mean it's right there as part of the method.

And I contend the new system makes those links clearer, and helps kids understand that subtraction is really just inverse addition.

E: I am not saying Common Core will cure out math woes. Students will still never see proofs until they become math majors. Seriously read: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf to understand how a large group of mathematicians (including myself) feel about how math is taught in K-12.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:21

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

I feel like the problem is not that kids are too stupid to intuitively grasp 15-7=8, the problem is that we have terrible teachers.

And really when you pay teachers nothing it's not like you're attracting the best and brightest. You get the people that actually like teaching and that's good but honestly most of my teachers were garbage.

And gently caress that 'oh you just don't like them because you're not doing well in their class' poo poo too. They were bad.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:21

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Wonder if I could demand that my provincial government refund all the money my parents spent in taxes on the poo poo education I got in elementary/high school.

Just teach kids Binary. Computers are better at arithmetic than they'll ever be anyway.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:22

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Gulzin posted:

You failed to read.

I said it WASN'T designed around calculators. The new methods are.

Okay, explain borrowing. What methodology is it using. How does it relate to the base 10 positional number system. Why would knowing such a thing matter?

This new system answers all of those. The old system really doesn't.

Also, why do I need a complicated algorithm to subtract. From a educational psychology standpoint, it is much easier to follow the method common core gives me. It just takes more paper.

if it were 1 technique only done by the teacher that would be a tool to help students who dont already understand borrow and carry that would be something
not loving student memorization and repetition of a methodology that for the sake of being able to stop midway with estimate results in an overall less effective implementation

there is unquestionably more merit to new ways of expressing concepts to students than new ways of time killing busy work

# ? May 26, 2014 01:23

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Copley Depot posted:

Learning to carry and borrow taught me the base 10 system. I mean it's right there as part of the method. You carry over because you have an extra 10.

what new math is thiiiiss!?

# ? May 26, 2014 01:24

Concerned Citizen: Jul 22, 2007; Ramrod XTreme

gary oldmans diary posted:

no this is the first system ever developed before this nobody ever really understood why youre supposed to borrow or carry
'Merica solved that 1 for you

gulzin's point is that the ability to subtract 2133 from 6747 by learning an algorithm is a pointless skill in the year 2014. it makes more sense to teach math in a way that prepares students for more difficult math. that does not mean that no one knew why you borrow or carry before this, but it does mean that a student needs to learn why before they're considered proficient in the topic.

lol @ your complaint about "having to show your work long after you get it." yeah because math has always been the epitome of interesting and never involves solving problem after problem using the exact same method

# ? May 26, 2014 01:25

Concerned Citizen: Jul 22, 2007; Ramrod XTreme

gary oldmans diary posted:

what new math is thiiiiss!?

i'm wondering if you actually understood the 'new math' reference the other poster used or if you are just making fun of the phrase you read in this thread?

# ? May 26, 2014 01:26

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Concerned Citizen posted:

gulzin's point is that the ability to subtract 2133 from 6747 by learning an algorithm is a pointless skill in the year 2014. it makes more sense to teach math in a way that prepares students for more difficult math. that does not mean that no one knew why you borrow or carry before this, but it does mean that a student needs to learn why before they're considered proficient in the topic.

lol @ your complaint about "having to show your work long after you get it." yeah because math has always been the epitome of interesting and never involves solving problem after problem using the exact same method

if you are still showing your work on addition and subtraction youre probably retarded
this isn't just teaching math so students understand the concepts it is an actual implementation they are supposed to memorize and perform sound familiar

# ? May 26, 2014 01:29

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Concerned Citizen posted:

i'm wondering if you actually understood the 'new math' reference the other poster used or if you are just making fun of the phrase you read in this thread?

He objectively does not.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:29

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

gary oldmans diary posted:

if it were 1 technique only done by the teacher that would be a tool to help students who dont already understand borrow and carry that would be something
not loving student memorization and repetition of a methodology that for the sake of being able to stop midway with estimate results in an overall less effective implementation

there is unquestionably more merit to new ways of expressing concepts to students than new ways of time killing busy work

I'm all for eliminating busy work. I just disagree that explaining why this work is busy work. Most mathematicians (especially those teaching) really hate the idea of memorizing your way out of problems. Understanding is what matters, not memorizing. I keep trying to say that if you understand the positional number system, you do not have to memorize those algorithms. You do have to memorize borrow and carry.

Also, understanding those algorithms makes algebra easier.

6x^2+2x+3 looks an awful lot like 600+20+3 in many those common core algorithms.

However, I don't think this is a magic bullet. You want to solve the education problems: the first best step is to stop No Child Left Behind and put something better in there (say an accreditation system like colleges have).

# ? May 26, 2014 01:31

Harald: Jul 10, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

change math tests to all essay format to make sure that students understand the theories at work

# ? May 26, 2014 01:31

Gulzin: Jan 3, 2004; A little gnome hasn't hurt anybody

Copley Depot posted:

change math tests to all essay format to make sure that students understand the theories at work

This is how we teach upper division mathematics.

Here is a problem from a recent final:
Prove that a group G with |G|=47 is cyclic.

That was it and they had a page to do it.

# ? May 26, 2014 01:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:11

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Gulzin posted:

This is how we teach upper division mathematics.

Here is a problem from a recent final:
Prove that a group G with |G|=47 is cyclic.

That was it and they had a page to do it.

code:

#include <iostream>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    int G = 47;

    while (G == 47)
    {
        std::cout << "G is cyclic!\n";
    }

    return(0);
}

Do I win?

Edit: Now it actually works!

Sauer fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 26, 2014

# ? May 26, 2014 01:38

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Common Core is fucking with your children.

«‹›19 »