If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Son remember, simplification is valued over complication. Therefore, 427 - 316 = 111. Oh and Son, Common Core is wack, study it out   (shine.yahoo.com) divider line 318
    More: Cool, Common Core, complications, trade organization, homework, sons, individual differences, University of Arkansas, community colleges  
•       •       •

9746 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 8:55 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 06:45:57 PM
Common Core? I'm stuck on Phonetics.
 
2014-03-25 06:47:13 PM
What the fark is a number line, and how could it possibly be easier to remember than the basic rules of addition and subtraction?  Is this a leftover of that "New Math" they tried to teach my parents and failed so miserably that an entire generation was scared off of the subject?
 
2014-03-25 06:59:37 PM
You know, as one of the maybe 4 Farkers that doesn't have a BS, and who will readily admit to being terrible at math, this Common Core stuff looks really, really stupid.  Can any of you explain how this is possibly better than the way we all were taught in school?
 
2014-03-25 07:04:57 PM
Media focuses on maths- I was tole there would be none of that. Looking at the other parts of the curricula, including Science and especially History, this is what those crazy helicopter parents fear:
billsmovieemporium.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-25 07:10:09 PM
this doesn't look that bad to me.

there is a number line and Jack skipped back 3 dots which are labeled 100
then he skipped back 6 smaller dots that represent 1 a piece but forgot to skip back one more dot worth 10

number lines are a great way to teach math because they allow for negative numbers and fractions to be introduced entirely in one concept.

This isn't how you teach subtraction to a third grader -- but it is how you teach them greater concepts after they now carry addition and borrow subtraction
 
2014-03-25 07:10:46 PM

devildog123: You know, as one of the maybe 4 Farkers that doesn't have a BS, and who will readily admit to being terrible at math, this Common Core stuff looks really, really stupid.  Can any of you explain how this is possibly better than the way we all were taught in school?


I can't speak for other common core methods but the math is incredibly stupid.
 
2014-03-25 07:10:52 PM
I have a bigger problem with the fact an engineer can't figure out what the digit 6 means in the number 316 than the fact his retard kid can't do his own homework.
 
2014-03-25 07:11:05 PM

devildog123: You know, as one of the maybe 4 Farkers that doesn't have a BS, and who will readily admit to being terrible at math, this Common Core stuff looks really, really stupid.  Can any of you explain how this is possibly better than the way we all were taught in school?


I've been googling this whole Number Line concept for the past few minutes, and here's a perfect explanation as far as I can tell:

http://learnzillion.com/lessons/1583-solve-subtraction-problems-usin g- a-number-line

I fail to understand how this is a faster or better method of addition or subtraction.  For one thing, it uses more paper if you work it out by hand.  As the example in the article points out, it can introduce more errors if you don't divide the line correctly.  It's a "method" for sure, but I don't see any advantage to it.
 
2014-03-25 07:12:01 PM
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
I tried to push for a Ska-Core program at my local public school, but nooooo.  Those jerks in the curriculum office had to go "Common Core" instead. Then they had the nerve to ask me what I was doing in their office, and they said they were calling the Police. I told them the Police were more like second-wave ska, and didn't really fit the lesson plans I had laid out. And if they would just take a look at my notes, they'd understand things like that.
 
2014-03-25 07:12:59 PM
and the father is an asshole for not realizing the concept is the issue -- not the 3rd grade math problem.

his kid is probably in 6th grade (at least) -- and probably 8th grade because of the essay that is written is used to help the kid describe another's mistake -- to teach something is to truly understand the concept.
 
2014-03-25 07:14:50 PM
The parent's note shows the elaborate Common Core (CC) formula for solving a math program (as opposed to the simple strategy of subtracting the smaller number from the larger one)

Both of those things are subtraction. There's no "elaborate Common Core formula" for solving the subtraction problem. It's a simple number line where you go backwards 3 hundreds, 1 ten, and 6 ones. The way Frustrated Parent did it, and the way a lot of us were taught, is an algorithm for doing subtraction problems that results in the same answer.

Not sure why there's so much fear of teaching things differently.
 
2014-03-25 07:17:09 PM
 427 - 316 = 

(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) - (3 * 100) - (1 * 10) - (6 * 1) =

(4 * 100) - (3 * 100) +
(2 * 10) - (1 * 10) +
(7 * 1) - (6 * 1) =

(4 - 3) * 100 +
(2 - 1) * 10 +
(7 - 6) * 1 = 

1 * 100 + 
1 * 10 +
1 * 1 =

111 

Looks like a lesson in magnitude and hints of distribution to me.

Next faux outrage.
 
2014-03-25 07:19:12 PM

Lsherm: It's a "method" for sure, but I don't see any advantage to it.


It's a teaching exercise, not a long term algorithm to be used for solving actual problems when the answer is the important part.

This is a way to show how parts of the numbers behave and interact.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 07:21:10 PM
We had number lines in grade school in the 70s. Anyone who thinks it's a Common Core invention is nuts.
 
2014-03-25 07:23:44 PM
It's a socialist plot to encourage the liberalization of kids. At least that is what my mother in law tells me. She learned this from emails with Fw:fw:FW:Fw:Fw: in the subject line, so you know it's legit
 
2014-03-25 07:23:57 PM

jbc: We had number lines in grade school in the 70s. Anyone who thinks it's a Common Core invention is nuts.


I'm sure students in the 70s did all sorts of lines.

i.imgur.com

Is this thing on?
 
2014-03-25 07:27:15 PM

Tr0mBoNe: Common Core? I'm stuck on Phonetics.


img.fark.net

/monkey fonics, FTW!
 
2014-03-25 07:27:51 PM
ITT:   Derp derp MATH

 Derp Derp Obama

Derp Derp, Derp Derp

You know who else is outraged at Common Core maths?

Victoria Jackson. She has a whole section of her website devoted to it. This is the company you keep, Common Core derpers.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-25 07:29:47 PM

NkThrasher: 427 - 316 = 

(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) - (3 * 100) - (1 * 10) - (6 * 1) =

(4 * 100) - (3 * 100) +
(2 * 10) - (1 * 10) +
(7 * 1) - (6 * 1) =

(4 - 3) * 100 +
(2 - 1) * 10 +
(7 - 6) * 1 = 

1 * 100 + 
1 * 10 +
1 * 1 =

111 

Looks like a lesson in magnitude and hints of distribution to me.

Next faux outrage.


I mean, I get that and all, but it just seems to concentrate on the parts of math that aren't very practical.

The thing about common core and, for that matter, education in the past 20 years in general, is that it's all heavily biased towards teaching to tests and being able to use one common way to figure out what people know.  The major problem with that idea is that people aren't machines; they don't all think or express what they know and don't know alike.  It's all looking for a black and white solution to a grayscale problem, something we as a nation do far too much of.
 
2014-03-25 07:30:55 PM
Grade school in the 80s, junior high and high school in the 90s. I was taught that number lines were one way of many to solve a math problem but not the only way. We learned multiplication tables, learned long division, fractions, decimals, etc. The teachers I had sort of presented number lines as a way of figuring it out for the kids who didn't pack the gear to figure out basic math the old fashioned way.

There was also this horrid reading program called "Beyond The Basal" which my school participated in. It encouraged "inventive spelling", did away with phonics, and had us read some terrible books in lieu of actual grammar/English lessons. Since I'm pretty rule based and can memorize things easily, spelling wasn't a problem for me, but many of my classmates were awful spellers for years and had a hard time composing a single sentence. They did away with Beyond the Basal when they realized that it wasn't helping anybody and leaving a lot of poorly educated kids in its wake. I like to think that Common Core will suffer a similar demise.
 
2014-03-25 07:31:13 PM
Common core is awesome. I can't side with her.
 
2014-03-25 07:33:23 PM

FriarReb98: NkThrasher: 427 - 316 = 

(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) - (3 * 100) - (1 * 10) - (6 * 1) =

(4 * 100) - (3 * 100) +
(2 * 10) - (1 * 10) +
(7 * 1) - (6 * 1) =

(4 - 3) * 100 +
(2 - 1) * 10 +
(7 - 6) * 1 = 

1 * 100 + 
1 * 10 +
1 * 1 =

111 

Looks like a lesson in magnitude and hints of distribution to me.

Next faux outrage.

I mean, I get that and all, but it just seems to concentrate on the parts of math that aren't very practical.

The thing about common core and, for that matter, education in the past 20 years in general, is that it's all heavily biased towards teaching to tests and being able to use one common way to figure out what people know.  The major problem with that idea is that people aren't machines; they don't all think or express what they know and don't know alike.  It's all looking for a black and white solution to a grayscale problem, something we as a nation do far too much of.


And how is any of that related to the fact that the "number line" method highlights that numbers are really collections of other numbers that are of differing magnitudes and you can piecemeal operations involving them?

This would seem to be an example of an *alternate* method of teaching, apart from the standard "stack two numbers on top of eachother, borrow from the left to subtract on the right" algorithm that we practically all use because it's the most efficient.

This is one problem, on one page, of one document.  This is not the entirety of how subtraction or number theory is taught.

I really do not understand why so many people have trouble realizing that.
 
2014-03-25 07:33:26 PM

NkThrasher: This is a way to show how parts of the numbers behave and interact.


This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.
 
2014-03-25 07:37:59 PM
And just in case there are those out there that are interested but can't follow the math, now with comments:

Start the problem
427 - 316 = 

Realize that what we're doing in the number line is breaking the numbers up into 100s, 10s, and 1s
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) - (3 * 100) - (1 * 10) - (6 * 1) =

Rearrange them so we're subtracting like magnitudes, this is the same as the numberline kid saying "I have 3 100s to subtract from 4 100s!"
(4 * 100) - (3 * 100) +
(2 * 10) - (1 * 10) +
(7 * 1) - (6 * 1) =

Rearrange a little again, realizing that we don't need to have the magnitude listed twice, now we have three single digit subtraction problems to do.  This is the numberline kid saying "That's really just 3 subtracted from 4!"
(4 - 3) * 100 +
(2 - 1) * 10 +
(7 - 6) * 1 = 

We did them!
1 * 100 + 
1 * 10 +
1 * 1 =

Sum everything back up
111
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 07:41:25 PM

NkThrasher: FriarReb98: NkThrasher: 427 - 316 = 

(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) - (3 * 100) - (1 * 10) - (6 * 1) =

(4 * 100) - (3 * 100) +
(2 * 10) - (1 * 10) +
(7 * 1) - (6 * 1) =

(4 - 3) * 100 +
(2 - 1) * 10 +
(7 - 6) * 1 = 

1 * 100 + 
1 * 10 +
1 * 1 =

111 

Looks like a lesson in magnitude and hints of distribution to me.

Next faux outrage.

I mean, I get that and all, but it just seems to concentrate on the parts of math that aren't very practical.

The thing about common core and, for that matter, education in the past 20 years in general, is that it's all heavily biased towards teaching to tests and being able to use one common way to figure out what people know.  The major problem with that idea is that people aren't machines; they don't all think or express what they know and don't know alike.  It's all looking for a black and white solution to a grayscale problem, something we as a nation do far too much of.

And how is any of that related to the fact that the "number line" method highlights that numbers are really collections of other numbers that are of differing magnitudes and you can piecemeal operations involving them?

This would seem to be an example of an *alternate* method of teaching, apart from the standard "stack two numbers on top of eachother, borrow from the left to subtract on the right" algorithm that we practically all use because it's the most efficient.

This is one problem, on one page, of one document.  This is not the entirety of how subtraction or number theory is taught.

I really do not understand why so many people have trouble realizing that.


Because the folks against Common Core are generally the same ones who think evolution is a myth, teachers are overpaid, Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslin, and we faked the moon landings. They're not terribly interested in making sure kids are educated, and they sure as hell aren't interested in facts.
 
2014-03-25 07:41:52 PM

Lsherm: This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.


Numbers do whatever you want them to.  This *ISN'T* about getting an answer to the subtraction problem, it's about understanding other ways to think about the value '427'.

400 + 20 + 7 = 427
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 427
4 hops of 100 + 2 hops of 10 + 7 hops of 1 = 427 hops
 
2014-03-25 07:48:06 PM
Oy vey.  I get the feeling that there are going to be a lot of outrageous homework questions forwarded to your aunt's inbox and then to you that are "from the Common Core".

Rebrand the common core as something else.  They won't notice.
 
2014-03-25 07:48:28 PM
grmmmie.smugmug.com
 
2014-03-25 07:49:13 PM

NkThrasher: Lsherm: This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.

Numbers do whatever you want them to.  This *ISN'T* about getting an answer to the subtraction problem, it's about understanding other ways to think about the value '427'.

400 + 20 + 7 = 427
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 427
4 hops of 100 + 2 hops of 10 + 7 hops of 1 = 427 hops


As someone who has to ask what base you are in when you say 427, I dig what you are saying. May be tough to get it across to some people... there's algebra in them hills if you throw away the line.
 
2014-03-25 07:52:21 PM

NkThrasher: Lsherm: This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.

Numbers do whatever you want them to.  This *ISN'T* about getting an answer to the subtraction problem, it's about understanding other ways to think about the value '427'.

400 + 20 + 7 = 427
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 427
4 hops of 100 + 2 hops of 10 + 7 hops of 1 = 427 hops


Clearly, this is all a ruse to prepare us for the onslaught of The Metric System.
ts1.mm.bing.net
You know who else tried to force us to use kilometers...
 
2014-03-25 07:53:32 PM

Tr0mBoNe: As someone who has to ask what base you are in when you say 427, I dig what you are saying. May be tough to get it across to some people... there's algebra in them hills if you throw away the line.


Sigh, I know.  I've been arguing this problem for nigh on a week on the facey-spaces.

What's sad is how cool this problem really is when you break it down into the steps the kids are doing to solve it.  They are doing algebra, they just don't realize it.  And that's *beautiful*, intuitive understandings of how the numbers are interacting with each other are supremely valuable in understanding more complicated things later on.
 
2014-03-25 08:05:04 PM
Jesus f*cking Christ.

It's teaching the concept behind the mechanics.

These dipshiats - and some of you people in this thread are included in that group - think that it's a bad thing for children to learn other than by rote repetition. And that is f*cking retarded.
 
2014-03-25 08:06:30 PM

NkThrasher: Sigh, I know.  I've been arguing this problem for nigh on a week on the facey-spaces.

What's sad is how cool this problem really is when you break it down into the steps the kids are doing to solve it.  They are doing algebra, they just don't realize it.  And that's *beautiful*, intuitive understandings of how the numbers are interacting with each other are supremely valuable in understanding more complicated things later on.


I've said that numbers are like a series of buckets but I get misquoted all the time.
 
2014-03-25 08:10:10 PM

Tr0mBoNe: I've said that numbers are like a series of buckets but I get misquoted all the time.


That's a good way of putting it.

I taught my niece multi-digit subtraction using legos.  2x4 bricks were 100s, 2x2s were 10s, 2x1s were 1s.  Stack up your "numbers", put them next to each other, take off layers as necessary in pairs, one from each.

Suddenly subtraction sheets were an opportunity to build castles and tear them apart again.  She even realized that it didn't matter if she started with the big ones or the little ones or the ones in the middle.  It still worked.  MAGIC.
 
2014-03-25 08:11:06 PM
Oh, is this another one of those times some assclown makes up shiat wholecloth and pretends it's a Common Core thing?

Why, yes it is!
 
2014-03-25 08:11:40 PM

NkThrasher: Lsherm: This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.

Numbers do whatever you want them to.  This *ISN'T* about getting an answer to the subtraction problem, it's about understanding other ways to think about the value '427'.

400 + 20 + 7 = 427
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 427
4 hops of 100 + 2 hops of 10 + 7 hops of 1 = 427 hops


It's not a question about subtraction at all, it's a question about the algorithm/method.  That's probably what bothers me.  I completely understand it (I've been calculating tips using the same shortcut for decades) but if a kid uses something else and it works, then what's the value in testing the method and not the answer?  This isn't a math question as much as it's a method question.  It's like asking a kid to throw a basketball in the hoop but failing him if he doesn't do it with one hand.
 
2014-03-25 08:20:38 PM

Lsherm: It's not a question about subtraction at all, it's a question about the algorithm/method.  That's probably what bothers me.  I completely understand it (I've been calculating tips using the same shortcut for decades) but if a kid uses something else and it works, then what's the value in testing the method and not the answer?  This isn't a math question as much as it's a method question.  It's like asking a kid to throw a basketball in the hoop but failing him if he doesn't do it with one hand.


Don't know what to tell you mate, a decade and change ago I got docked points for not "showing work" on math problems, meaning I hadn't shown I'd followed a legitimate path to the answer even if I had the right one.

And in geometry I was tested on "completing the square" instead of quadratic formula (X = (-B +/- root(B^2 - 4AC)) / 2A, still got it), to show that I had some understanding of what was going on with it, even though later on when problems requiring it came up I'd always be using the quadratic formula.

This is no different, and existed ~20 years ago when I was in grade school.  I remember number-lines and hopping around to add and subtract.  This is hardly new, and hardly a problem.
 
2014-03-25 08:25:20 PM
NkThrasher:  It still worked.  MAGIC.

You, sir, are a mathamagician!
 
2014-03-25 08:26:52 PM

NkThrasher: This is hardly new, and hardly a problem.


Well I'd say it's a problem if we're failing kids because they don't grasp one method over another.  It's asinine.
 
2014-03-25 08:27:49 PM
Sure, any electrical engineer can subtract one number from another but what are they actually doing? Students are being taught the relationship between the numbers. Why are you carrying the numbers? These relationships and the other processes students will be learning can be taken and applied to the next level of thinking in mathematics.

Yes it takes more steps and more paper at the beginning when students are learning but so does any concept. My students are starting this in the second and third grade and doing just fine with it, thank you very much. A few of my students are even learning concepts that I had taught to sixth graders just three years ago.

This engineer is so stuck in how he was taught that he can't think outside the box...which I thought was what engineers do.
 
2014-03-25 08:29:14 PM

Lsherm: NkThrasher: This is hardly new, and hardly a problem.

Well I'd say it's a problem if we're failing kids because they don't grasp one method over another.  It's asinine.


Aaaand since the only result from a  find on page from TFA for "fail" is a link to an article about Glen Beck...

...Where are you seeing kids get 'failed'?  Sure they might not get a 100% gold star sticker with a smiley face to put next to their rainbow, but that's very different than failing.
 
2014-03-25 08:33:33 PM

Lsherm: NkThrasher: Lsherm: This is the part I'm genuinely not seeing.  Numbers don't behave or interact outside of operations that have specific rules.  Granted, this correctly shows the operation, but is it really any better than the old fashioned way?  It just seems like extra work to reach the same result.  Even worse, it requires keeping track of more numbers in your head (if you aren't doing it on paper) so it's not a particularly efficient method of doing addition or subtraction, either.  I realize the results will be the same, but what concept are they teaching here?  It's just a long-form method of addition and subtraction.

Numbers do whatever you want them to.  This *ISN'T* about getting an answer to the subtraction problem, it's about understanding other ways to think about the value '427'.

400 + 20 + 7 = 427
(4 * 100) + (2 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 427
4 hops of 100 + 2 hops of 10 + 7 hops of 1 = 427 hops

It's not a question about subtraction at all, it's a question about the algorithm/method.  That's probably what bothers me.  I completely understand it (I've been calculating tips using the same shortcut for decades) but if a kid uses something else and it works, then what's the value in testing the method and not the answer?  This isn't a math question as much as it's a method question.  It's like asking a kid to throw a basketball in the hoop but failing him if he doesn't do it with one hand.


As a kid who went to numerous basketball camps and clinics, getting yelled at and being forced to run laps for not following whatever method the coach prescribed is pretty common.  I don't want to be pedantic here, but learning to properly layup and reverse with both hands is a common repetitive instructional technique and you're "failing" if you can't do that when it's the lesson being taught.  Don't even get me started on how many hours (probably days of my life) we spent practicing the proper form for a defensive slide.

I can understand you not liking more than one method, but there's very little wrong with teaching more than one method to arrive at a conclusion.  I don't see what's bad about this at all, but then I haven't been primed with to hate the phrase "common core".

They really need to change that name.  Call it "no child left behind phase II".
 
2014-03-25 08:35:21 PM

Rapmaster2000: Call it "no child left behind phase II"


or "Ways to teach kids things".
 
2014-03-25 08:36:48 PM

NkThrasher: Lsherm: NkThrasher: This is hardly new, and hardly a problem.

Well I'd say it's a problem if we're failing kids because they don't grasp one method over another.  It's asinine.

Aaaand since the only result from a  find on page from TFA for "fail" is a link to an article about Glen Beck...

...Where are you seeing kids get 'failed'?  Sure they might not get a 100% gold star sticker with a smiley face to put next to their rainbow, but that's very different than failing.


That's not what I meant - I meant a test designed around the method instead of the correct answer.  That question wasn't about "111" - it was about finding the error in the number line.  It's equally discouraging to the student and just as likely to make math frustrating.  You could very well know the correct answer to the mathematical problem without getting the answer to that test question correct.  You've already spent the thread arguing about the difference, so this should make sense to you.
 
2014-03-25 08:38:34 PM

Uranus Megahertz: Sure, any electrical engineer can subtract one number from another but what are they actually doing? Students are being taught the relationship between the numbers. Why are you carrying the numbers? These relationships and the other processes students will be learning can be taken and applied to the next level of thinking in mathematics.

Yes it takes more steps and more paper at the beginning when students are learning but so does any concept. My students are starting this in the second and third grade and doing just fine with it, thank you very much. A few of my students are even learning concepts that I had taught to sixth graders just three years ago.

This engineer is so stuck in how he was taught that he can't think outside the box...which I thought was what engineers do.


As one with an electrical engineering bachelor's from Purdue, I can attest to many engineers not thinking outside the box.  Engineers can be very rigid in thought and intolerant of ideas that are different from their own.  This is likely why there are so many engineers that become terrorists.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?_r=0
 
2014-03-25 08:41:54 PM

Rapmaster2000: I don't see what's bad about this at all, but then I haven't been primed with to hate the phrase "common core".


I don't even know what common core is.  I just don't like the methodology because I'm old and the brief research I've done about number line teaching strikes me as inefficient.  So get off my lawn, fark off, stay away from my daughter, and learn math the old-school way :)

/back in my day you couldn't pass 1st grade if you hadn't memorized multiplication tables
 
2014-03-25 08:43:38 PM

Lsherm: That's not what I meant - I meant a test designed around the method instead of the correct answer.  That question wasn't about "111" - it was about finding the error in the number line.  It's equally discouraging to the student and just as likely to make math frustrating.  You could very well know the correct answer to the mathematical problem without getting the answer to that test question correct.  You've already spent the thread arguing about the difference, so this should make sense to you.


...So your objection is to the question being phrased as "Figure out what went wrong in this process we've taught you when it was executed by someone else"?
 
2014-03-25 08:44:05 PM

Lsherm: Rapmaster2000: I don't see what's bad about this at all, but then I haven't been primed with to hate the phrase "common core".

I don't even know what common core is.  I just don't like the methodology because I'm old and the brief research I've done about number line teaching strikes me as inefficient.


It's definitely inefficient, but we're teaching kids about numbers.  They don't need to be efficient.  They have nowhere to be.
 
2014-03-25 08:51:50 PM
Has anyone pointed out yet that it's not teaching kids to solve problems this way?

If no one has pointed that out yet, let me: This is not supposed to replace the kind of math the dad wrote on the paper. It's illustrating how numbers work on a number line.
 
2014-03-25 08:59:08 PM

Tr0mBoNe: NkThrasher:  It still worked.  MAGIC.

You, sir, are a mathamagician!


Is he from mathmagicland? I'll get my toga so we can play 9 ball.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report