So, let me get this straight. It's ok to get the WRONG answer, just as long as you show you went through some kind of really complicated, thought provoking method to get it? Well, I really really hope the next plane I get on that the engineers who helped design it didn't do this "common core" stuff. I can see the headline now: "Wings fall off plane because of bad calculations. But engineers thought REALLY hard about it."

So, let me get this straight. It's ok to get the WRONG answer, just as long as you show you went through some kind of really complicated, thought provoking method to get it? Well, I really really hope the next plane I get on that the engineers who helped design it didn't do this "common core" stuff. I can see the headline now: "Wings fall off plane because of bad calculations. But engineers thought REALLY hard about it."

 

You have hit the nail on the head. As I said in an earlier post, nothing wrong with getting the young ones to think, but they need some basic facts first. Think of all the inventions developed in this nation from the telephone to the space craft that put our guys on the moon to all the tech devices we now have. We managed to do that without all the so-called eduational innovations that we have seen in recent times.

That might as well be in Latin to me.

 

Latina est gaudium. In universitas magister mei dicit: si hoc legere scis nimium eruditione habes.

 

Yeah, I still don't understand what's happening in common core math standards.

Admittedly, I don't have a real good understanding of the how's and why's this needs to be taught. But I do get the need to encourage critical thinking. I think much of the problem we have is the way we were taught is so ingrained in our heads, it's tough to wrap our minds around the new method. Like switching to the metric system, which by all accounts is a better more logical system, yet the US is the only major country in the world that has not adopted it. I think the standard method is still being taught, even with this common core method. And just because the old way continues to work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to continue to evolve and find better methods.

Latina est gaudium. In universitas magister mei dicit: si hoc legere scis nimium eruditione habes.

 

Yeah, I still don't understand what's happening in common core math standards.

 

I guess I am "overeducated"!

I guess I am "overeducated"!

 

O! Me oportet exercere Latinam meam. Hoc gaudium est.

 

I understand the premise at work in doing subtraction this way. In truth, it does make a little more sense to essentially count backwards than using the rather ludicrous system we all used to learn subtraction.

 

Honestly, is that number line really any more nonsensical at first sight than looking at the following without having the background to know what it meant?

 

O! Me oportet exercere Latinam meam. Hoc gaudium est.

 

Gratias Deo pro Google Translate.

I was not a huge fan and I'm still lukewarm. But I do see the scaffolding approach that was mentioned. You can see this especially with solving story problems, one of the hardest things for kids.

 

They are taught how to draw out and diagram a simple story problem, in a way that the method is more complicated than it appears it needs to be. However, as they move to the next grade and the story problems get harder, this method becomes ingrained and a simpler and sure fire way to the answer.

Does the ACT want you to think real hard or get the answer correct? Does Georgia Tech want you to think real hard or get the answer correct? Do the Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace engineering firms want you to think real hard or get the answer correct?

Does the ACT want you to think real hard or get the answer correct? Does Georgia Tech want you to think real hard or get the answer correct? Do the Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace engineering firms want you to think real hard or get the answer correct?

 

I had several engineering professors at UC that often times said they didn't care if you used a calculator, or even had a formula sheet...it was a matter of knowing which formula to use in each circumstance. They said, in the real world, you'll always have reference materials to fall back on.

This seems stupid to me...

 

All those "you'll need this in the real world" lines I got from teachers were lies.

So, let me get this straight. It's ok to get the WRONG answer, just as long as you show you went through some kind of really complicated, thought provoking method to get it? Well, I really really hope the next plane I get on that the engineers who helped design it didn't do this "common core" stuff. I can see the headline now: "Wings fall off plane because of bad calculations. But engineers thought REALLY hard about it."

 

That is just not true. Many times there are multiple answers and students do get credit for understanding the concept/s. They will not be proficient without solving it correctly.

In the simplest form students have to be able to understand and demonstrate math three ways with the concepts, visual representation, computation/algorithm, and written expression to truly be able to eventually understand and use math, especially at higher levels.

 

Computation has been by far the most used way to teach and learn math, however, memorization (whether facts or the procedure/process) is a huge key to this method and that just is not the most efficient way to learn. In fact there are very very bright people that do not memorize well. This method catches up with almost everyone during Algebra 1. If the majority of what you learned was procedurally/computation, you are most likely not to understand Algebra II and beyond. Many kids do well in Math until Algebra II and this is why, they just do not understand the concepts.

 

Which leads me back to what I stated earlier, concepts are learned through those three ways.

 

Thus Getslow, that is why the number line does not seem any better, however, when you combine all three visual, algorithm and written it is significantly more likely to be learned and stick.

 

I know some will go off the deep end with this next statement. You necessarily do not have to know your multiplications tables/facts by memory to do higher level math, although it helps. You do have to understand the concept of multiplying, dividing, adding and subtracting, though to get there.

"Dang boss, I'm sorry that building I designed collapsed. Don't know HOW I thought 1 pound per square foot floor rating would be ok. But hey, you should have seen the extremely complicated process I went through to get that calculation, You would have been proud"!

Thus Getslow, that is why the number line does not seem any better, however, when you combine all three visual, algorithm and written it is significantly more likely to be learned and stick.

 

Sorry if it didn't come off that way; my statement was meant to suggest that I have no problem with teaching subtraction this way. Makes perfect sense. I've had a mathematical mind for as long as I can remember so I'm not going to be one to judge how kids best learn basic arithmetical functions. As far as public schools go, learn in whatever way is best for the most kids.