|
im starting to think a lot of people are reptiles in human costumes and my preferred method of addition/subtraction is waiting for the horse clops to stop 
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Rhonyn Peacemaker posted:Look, it seems you guys don't understand the way this works. I made a couple phone calls to a few guys that were on the Washington state board that helped setup the adoption of the CC standards in our state (OSPI). They said this: well with a name like rhonyn obviously they're gonna give you some new-age crystal runaround poo poo what you expect
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
I'm all for updating U.S. state curriculums from "Teach a shitton of stuff with barely any detail" to "Teach a few important things a year in greater detail" so that kids have a chance to understand things more. As a History teacher I'd love to see poo poo like 6th graders having to learn about Ancient Egypt, ancient China, ancient Greece, Rome, and the Medieval Era to something like "Early American Colonial History", or just "Greece/Rome". Fat chance of that happening though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:it really seems like the additional benefit of that process is an understanding of things that are basically already self evident if you bother to give them syntax primer The examples given are 3rd grade common core; so yes, this is intended for retards. If you had any experience teaching high school maths, you'd wouldn't find it surprising that you have to teach 3rd grade maths to 7th graders. The techniques presented in common core are the same techniques I use to solve university maths and physics problems. I was even taught by physics professors to perform guesstimations. You think that kids don't constantly ask why they can't use their calculator when doing problems the traditional way? They know its bullshit busy work; so why not spend the time discussing why mathematics is formulated in such a way that it can be trivially solved by a chunk of metal?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
reminder that in tyool 2014, the american society still practices knowledgeshaming
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
The Big Pinch posted:Common Core will fail since it doesn't solve the actual problems. #3 is a feature. kids whose parents help them with their math homework perform worse on average
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Design Spots posted:
I'm not a math minor, but every one of these makes perfect sense to me. It's a way of thinking, you just need to get run through it once. Don't freak out about it because you saw the exercises before you took the lesson. Sabel posted:
This is how I estimate in my head, though not with 2-digit numbers of course. 7 is 5 and 2. Therefore, 15-5-2=8 is an easy way to think in base ten, instead of going straight to 15-7=8. The answer is C. An alternate answer could be 7+3=10, 15-10=5, 5+3=8. Edit: Common Core also has the huge advantage of getting teachers to cover the same general stuff at the same general time, making it a lot easier for topics to be tailored to specific ages (not to mention easier for kids to switch classes or schools). Literally Esoteric fucked around with this message at 05:37 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
i kinda get why they do this but its not hard to figure out how this poo poo works without explaining it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:i kinda get why they do this but its not hard to figure out how this poo poo works without explaining it. I know a lot of people who act like my adding method, and the estimation method for multiplication, are total wizardry. Grown adults who can't do this in their head, and can't remember how to do long division either. Given, we can use our phones as calculators, but that's why it's great to learn the estimation methods and not bother with long division anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Why don't they teach algorithms for computing digits of square roots anymore? No wonder we're falling behind in math.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
All this poo poo makes perfect sense, and it approximates the way most people do math in their heads, it's just that they hired a bunch of loving idiots to come up with terms like "number sentences" and "math facts" and other confusing poo poo that distracts people from what's going on. Once you penetrate through the thick shell of incomprehensible jargon, it's easy to understand and makes a good bit of sense. It's more of a miscommunication with parents/tutors/etc. than a problem with the curriculum itself. Further, studying numerical computing actually teaches you how inefficient the "standard" algorithms are for a lot of things. Good luck with computing large exponents without addition-chain exponentiation, fuckers! PT6A fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Literally Esoteric posted:I know a lot of people who act like my adding method, and the estimation method for multiplication, are total wizardry. Grown adults who can't do this in their head, and can't remember how to do long division either. the problem isnt math the problem is we dont teach kids basic problem solving skills
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:the problem isnt math the problem is we dont teach kids basic problem solving skills Fair point. That's why CC uses the iterative engineering problem solving process as one of its central themes - though it comes up more often in the science core.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
cc implementation will always be poo poo because it's been run through the magnificent for-profit engine of testing companies and consultants who are paid more for shuffling more poo poo around for no reason living proof that yes, in fact, teaching kids to do busywork without complaint will be a useful life skill mental math is cool though v|:^|v
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I feel like after kids are taught the algorithms and etc to do the math, which yes, is important to memorize, no one then goes and even takes 5 minutes aside to explain what anything really fundamentally is without going to the next step I mean that girl in that video someone linked earlier did all the common hyper-operations and their special case inverses/inverses within like 9 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-7tcTIrers Do the new standards do this stuff??
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:the problem isnt math the problem is we dont teach kids basic problem solving skills But we do. Some kids are dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:the problem isnt math the problem is we dont teach kids basic problem solving skills Uh, that's what Common Core is attempting to address. Assess a maths problem from a number of different view points and choose the best tools to get the job done. If you understand the tools and how they work together, you can perform the work in a order that suits you. Traditional algorithms are like a production line, you don't need to understand the plant layout in order to get the job done. The inflexibility with how they operate is a large reason why students disengage. It's not helpful to be taught the same thing over and over, if you can't comprehend how parts of the production line are put together.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
I dont think I bothered deconstructing how carry addition or subtraction worked until I was no longer in grade school
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:I blame western decadence,video games, fast food, etc. nah, japan basically has the nightmare industrial education system people always fearmonger about and it produced anime
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
also, the people who are convinced math is some sort of magic wonderland that's destroyed by evil soulcrushing instruction or whatever are completely delusional. i'm taking upper level math courses right now, i can tell you that it turns out they're loving hard and require lots of studying. the comparisons to music are especially hilarious because learning to play an instrument requires ridiculous amounts of time investment, and a music major is probably the hardest major offered by most colleges. there's a difference between liking music and making music, and there's a difference between thinking geometry is sort of cool and being able to solve differential equations/actually do math. saying "students shouldn't have to learn how to do math because we have computers now, they should just get a guided tour of the cool stuff" is like saying nobody should bother to learn instruments now that we have autotune. math is, in fact, hard, there's no way around it. we should figure out what we want kids to actually learn in grade school beyond "more than the chinese". if you want to teach them math teach them math, but realize it's hard. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:09 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
I don't think the basics are that hard. Up to Algebra II in high school is medium at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Math is hard. So why make it even harder by knee-capping our students when they are young. The music comparison comes straight from Lockhart's Lament. Seriously, just read this already: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf The idea is that mathematics is about proof. We don't even let students touch proofs until high-school geometry (sometimes we don't let them see them until they get to college). This is what we mathematicians do. We prove things. The way we teach math (rote memorization, formula chugging, all algorithm, no exploration or understanding) is exactly like teaching music without letting anyone play or even listen to music. You're right math is hard. Proofs are some of the hardest endeavors humans can do. We have problems in mathematics that last hundreds of years before being solved. That doesn't mean that learning math, REAL math isn't worthwhile. Edit: Also, no one is arguing that this is going to make math easier. It will just make the students understand it better. Just because something is hard doesn't mean there aren't better/worse ways to teach it. Also solving differential equations in undergrad is about as far from real math as algebra I is. There are real deep questions in differential equations, but the six algorithms you learned does not prepare you to be a mathematician. Geometry is a course that most pure mathematicians see as being closest to what we do. Gulzin fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:Math is hard. So why make it even harder by knee-capping our students when they are young. you are literally complaining about things that work but are locked in a usa-centric view youre rationalizing that they dont work theres nothing magical about the technique youre advocating and honestly nothing incredibly insightful beyond any teaching methods ive ever seen the only good thing about it (among others) is that it would be one more example to teach to drive home the idea that there is more than one way to solve problems and it is something within reach of the student to explore if you want to stop being disingenuous you can say the old ways work and this new way could be another way to reach the holdouts that it didnt work for; fingers crossed its applied sensibly
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Is this supposed to fix the failing public schools in America? Or does that have nothing to do with curriculum?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:you keep saying stuff like this and its just characterization i could say things are like bla bla bla and what these common core creeps wanna do is kneecap our chrilden No no no no no. The old ways do not work. That much is clear. Will the new ways work? I don't know, but they are better. I am not alone in this, the mathematical community is pretty clearly behind this http://www.nctm.org/ccssmposition/ . Students should see multiple ways to attack problems. Students should also see the foundations on how these methods work. I was taught by the old ways. I would not be a mathematician unless an interested and awesome professor in Calculus II took me aside and showed me what math was about. I hated math and I wanted to be an engineer. After spending time working on real math and learning real math from him, I switched my major and didn't stop until I got a doctorate. Almost every other mathematician has a similar story. There is a reason why the mathematics community has continually fought against the K-12 mathematics curriculum. Lockhart's Lament is hosted on the MAA website by Keith Devlin. The MAA is the Mathematical Association of America (one of the two big math societies in the USA), and Keith Devlin (the NPR math guy) is one of the most publicly prominent mathematicians alive. Here, even HE is behind this: http://profkeithdevlin.org/2013/06/19/faulty-logic-in-the-new-math-wars-skirmish/ Stop trying to say you know the old methods are better when everyone, all the research, every thinker in mathematics is saying YOU ARE loving WRONG. E: Here, have MORE mathematicians and mathematics education researchers view. http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/CommonCoreVI.pdf ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/ZimbaMilgramStotskyFinal.pdf http://uanews.org/story/ua-professor-starts-company-to-focus-on-supporting-common-core-mathematics-standards Here, just have a big list: http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/statements-of-support/ Gulzin fucked around with this message at 07:50 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:No no no no no. The old ways do not work. That much is clear. How did you decide that the current system is failing? Schools that aren't filled with poor people in the US rank the same as other countries. The problem is poverty, not the curriculum. Some kids won't like math, no matter what you do, and clearly not all kids hate math right now. Obviously you should teach the theory behind algorithms you use to calculate, but what this solution seems to do is produce kids who literally cannot add two random numbers without a calculator
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
The people who are against the advocates of teaching theory seem to use the argument that the people who advocate teaching theory don't want kids to memorize anything and just watch youtube videos on cool math concepts and not have to do any math, which doesn't seem to be the case? perhaps a misunderstanding is at play ^______________^
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:How did you decide that the current system is failing? Schools that aren't filled with poor people in the US rank the same as other countries. The problem is poverty, not the curriculum. Some kids won't like math, no matter what you do, and clearly not all kids hate math right now. Obviously you should teach the theory behind algorithms you use to calculate, but what this solution seems to do is produce kids who literally cannot add two random numbers without a calculator You are saying that there isn't poverty in other countries? There are a lot of issues that effect our students, but the curriculum is not helping, and this isn't me saying it. It is mathematics education researchers. Why not change what we can? Edit: Also, some students would love math and become mathematicians if they were taught correctly. That is the real reason I care about this. I am a mathematician who didn't know I wanted to be one until I was an engineering student in college. Most mathematicians I know have similar stories. Maybe we are missing a bunch more bright minds because we make math as dull and painful as possible in K-12. When people find out what I do, they always say "I hate math". Like it is a badge of loving honor. No English Literature professor has to hear "I hate literature". No Chemist has to constantly hear "I hate Chemistry". As mathematics is pretty loving basic to human knowledge, I would like this attitude to change. It isn't a maybe, it is reality. We are losing mathematicians: http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf Gulzin fucked around with this message at 08:08 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:No no no no no. The old ways do not work. That much is clear. weve been fighting for a change in mathematics education since the last major change in the early 2000s completely derailed it and we have since extruded an entire batch of students the full length of k12 on a poo poo curriculum yes i understand what you consider the old curriculum is bad we already know you werent being taught the full lesson plans i was exposed to that covered the poo poo youre suggesting no one on planet earth has ever covered i like how your original post had just that one link mentioned that 2001 blue-ribbon panel of good intentions for improving math education  oh gee more links oh god the number lines number lines for fractions how revolutionary the quickfire listing of more links just tells me its crap you havent read
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:It worked for you. Great. It also worked for me. I then learned other methods that were better. Gulzin posted:No no no no no. The old ways do not work. That much is clear. not a good trait professor and its not only that you simply support the addition of this to the curriculum but you said we dont need to teach how to perform the fast concise effective algorithms we all know anymore that sounds like a great idea  your ability to ascertain the needs of our youngest students is bafflingly misguided i am glad you are not teaching at that level gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 08:15 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:You are saying that there isn't poverty in other countries? There are no other first world countries without a functioning social state and with large race-based underclasses. As racial minorities start to appear in Europe and their social states are dismantled by neoliberal clowns the exact same thing is happening, see the Turks in Germany and Muslim minorities in general. You completely ignore this and keep screaming that the US educational system is worse than Hitler when non-poor, non-minority schools perform as well or better than the countries people claim are infinitely better. The level of absolute, pants on head loving insane panic people have about US schools has always been the most ridiculous thing. They're fine. The problem is poverty icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:17 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:i like how your original post had just that one link mentioned that 2001 blue-ribbon panel of good intentions for improving math education What exactly are you talking about? Lockhart's Lament is an old stand-by that explains how mathematicians feel about K-12 education. It is no way is supporting common core. I read those articles. I am not sure that you have. Maybe you should look at the authors and institutions. These are what is being said by ivy league mathematicians. They are all saying this: YOU ARE loving WRONG. But please, tell us about this magical education you got. Explain why it hasn't been spread across the country. Explain how developing common standards is bad. icantfindaname posted:There are no other first world countries without a functioning social state and with large race-based underclasses. As racial minorities start to appear in Europe and their social states are dismantled by neoliberal clowns the exact same thing is happening, see the Turks in Germany and Muslim minorities in general. You completely ignore this and keep screaming that the US educational system is worse than Hitler when non-poor, non-minority schools perform as well or better than the countries people claim are infinitely better. I did? I said our math curriculum is failing our students. I didn't say we were worse than Hitler. Do we really have to be at loving nazi level of bad to want to improve our kids lives? gary oldmans diary posted:you get all bullshitty and change your answers according to how argumentative youre feeling Holy poo poo, that is dense. Do you really understand how you are not a standard case, and the curriculum is failing because the curriculum you were taught is not the normal curriculum? I have no idea what magical bullshit fairy land you were taught at, but it is not the median student experience. Hence I didn't change my argument at all. Furthermore, a good teacher can make even the most bullshit curriculum work. Finally, I don't care if the old algorithms are taught. It is fine if they are, it is fine if we teach other methods to solve the problems. I just said they were not chosen for clarity, and most people do not know why they work. http://profkeithdevlin.org/2013/06/19/faulty-logic-in-the-new-math-wars-skirmish/ posted:De-emphasized, yes, for the reason I alluded to above. The need for a strong focus on those particular algorithms evaporated with the dawn of the computer age. No good teacher would withhold mention or discussion of the standard algorithms, not least because they have huge historical significance. That last remark of the authors is simply not true (though I dare say you could find the occasional teacher who acted is such a way). How about this. Every time I said "the old methods do not work" I mean: "for the median student, the old methods do not work". Gulzin fucked around with this message at 08:25 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:What exactly are you talking about? Lockhart's Lament is an old stand-by that explains how mathematicians feel about K-12 education. It is no way is supporting common core. id wager i could go to any elementary school and find an experienced teacher of that grade better equipped to teach that exact thing you are a loving idiot kids do not care about adding to 2 to get to 5 so you can add 5 and reduce to a significant figure of the 10s place and you stopped at 5 because its a mnemonically significant figure in base 10 because 10 has factors of 2 and 5 and *faaart* do you think this poo poo is going to glaze over fewer eyes you think it is not merely supplicant methodology but something to replace hard-earned time-tested teaching Gulzin posted:Holy poo poo, that is dense. Do you really understand how you are not a standard case, and the curriculum is failing because the curriculum you were taught is not the normal curriculum? I have no idea what magical bullshit fairy land you were taught at, but it is not the median student experience. if you were never exposed to that i would advocate that you look into lesson plans older than you were exposed to your posts read exactly as i would expect of someone who did not seriously examine pre-2000 educational standards and thinks the current quagmire the us is in is some eternal thing gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 08:31 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:tell me why you think it takes an ivy league education in 2014 to explain why you carry a 1 in addition Are you seriously saying that mathematics education researchers do not know what curriculum works and which doesn't? The people who specifically research this exact thing? You are seriously saying that an elementary school teacher knows more about mathematics education than national researchers? Tell me you are kidding about this. Do you also think that your neighbor with the knee that can tell storms knows more than climate scientists? Edit: gary oldmans diary posted:your posts read exactly as i would expect of someone who did not seriously examine pre-2000 educational standards and thinks the current quagmire the us is in is some eternal thing Enough bullshit I LEARNED IN MY DAY... Back this up. I want to see the research. Gulzin fucked around with this message at 08:33 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:Enough bullshit I LEARNED IN MY DAY... Back this up. I want to see the research. seriously thats what youre about now you seem to be in a position better-suited to requisition such materials those materials than me why dont you tell me exactly the failings of the textbooks and lesson plans you were taught by how they literally never explained anything at all and how there was a stark lack of number lines you distinctly recall thinking i am at this point convinced that if your textbooks and lesson plans were as bad as you say that you didnt even graduate high school before 2006 let alone teach
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
I dunno what all the hubbub is about, but all that stuff in the first post is how I eventually learned to do math in my head, even though no one taught me it like that. Looks like first-step math stuff for just breaking numbers down and estimating and making things like addition and subtraction into easier 2 step processes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:you want me to find copies of my old textbooks No, find me some research article that actually backs up your claim that the old standards worked. I also posted researchers backing up my point in those links you didn't read.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
i hope he has yet another appeal to authority on how teaching children why you carry is actually an insanely complicated thing for some reason only in america for some reason only with this most recent group of kidsGulzin posted:No, find me some research article that actually backs up your claim that the old standards worked. I also posted researchers backing up my point in those links you didn't read.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Gulzin posted:No, find me some research article that actually backs up your claim that the old standards worked. I also posted researchers backing up my point in those links you didn't read. ??????? That's not how this works, you are the one who has to come up with evidence that they didn't work. I can imagine an education that's a whole lot loving worse, so clearly it's not completely broken. We don't have a crippling shortage of mathematicians, engineers, or accountants. The only evidence for the claim that it's broken you've presented is "I, personally, disliked it". Like holy poo poo do you not see how saying "It's completely, totally, irredeemably broken, despite the fact that this isn't really self evident, and it's on you to prove otherwise" It's not going to be perfect. Like I said, some people just won't like math. That's OK icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 09:01 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
it is his stated opinion that one is a retard if they think teachers at all teach the why of each of the steps of multiplication or much of anything else everything is memorization there is nothing else AND NEVER HAS BEEN so loving out of touch its crazy he might as well say it is literally a fact that in the us math class consists of being locked in a cube with a textbook full of problems and no explanations btw Gulzin i did find a 1998 precalc book its not addition and subtraction but it does manage to express that the curriculum as designed did account for stuff like walking you through proofs and poo poo crazy gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 09:03 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 09:01
|
|