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.

 92 More: Interesting
•       •       •

3324 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Sep 2014 at 8:45 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

God forbid your ugly brats be forced to learn how to read eh?

I didn't learn it that way.  Ipso facto ergo ad astra ad infinitum, it is the wrong way to learn.

I wouldn't use it for such a simple problem, but I do break things down in a similar way when I have to do math in my head.

nekom: I wouldn't use it for such a simple problem, but I do break things down in a similar way when I have to do math in my head.

I guess I do, too.  12 x 11?  120 + 12 = 132.  I'm guessing that this problem would be taught in about the 1st grade to lay a foundation for later learning.

If you think the ability to do math in this manner is stupid or useless....maybe it's not the math.

nekom: I wouldn't use it for such a simple problem, but I do break things down in a similar way when I have to do math in my head.

Principles are often taught with simple examples so that they can later be applied to more complex situations.

nekom: I wouldn't use it for such a simple problem, but I do break things down in a similar way when I have to do math in my head.

Of course. It takes a bit longer for a simple problem (like 9 + 6), but the technique has fantastic rewards when dealing with more complicated problems. It also lays the foundation for factoring. If you've been thinking about numbers and problems by decomposing the components since the time you were doing "simple math", the idea of factoring a more complicated problem is natural. If you haven't been doing it that whole time, factoring is foreign and confusing.

Maths techniques are first taught using very simple examples to make sure everyone understands how the technique works before moving on to more complex examples where the technique is more useful, but easier to get wrong if you aren't comfortable with how it works.

youdontsay.jpg

I learned pretty early on to get to 5's and 10's when doing math in my head.  43 X 12?  Thats (43x10)+(43x2).

"Like, what, man?"

The general consensus is that it is actually good education, but they seem rather upset that it's liberal federal government overreach.

So, vote for... Screw it.  Doesn't matter.

Developing an innate template for problem solving is more useful than rote memorization.

Not sure whats the problem here, wasn't officially taught that way myself some 30 years ago but even my grade-school brain figured out such shortcuts and tricks on its own.

This is just more Bill Oreilly-esque "the 1950s were the pinnacle of human achievement, any diversion is blasphemy" boomer nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses, right?

There is no "Common Core Math." It is a series of educational benchmarks. Teachers and schools set the curriculum. Teachers make up the lesson plans. They decide how things are taught.

9 + 6 = friendly decomposition. 4 simultaneous days rotate in same 24 hours of Earth oneism equal timecube

This (or at least something very similar) is actually a useful technique for fast mental math... not for 9+6 obviously, but for something larger. Quick... what's 79+63? 130twelve=142. 935+248? 11andseventythirteen=1183. Solve whatever jumps out, mash it into the rest, get answer in seconds without a calculator.

Meh. Let the kids play role-playing games in class:

"I cast an 8th level fireball!"

*tosses 8d10*
*crash!*

This is a useful "template" to remember: (a + b) × (a − b) = a² − b².

E.g.: 19 × 21 = 20² − 1². It's a matter of recognizing faster than you would decompose to 19 × 20 + 19 × 1.

turboke: This is a useful "template" to remember: (a + b) × (a − b) = a² − b².

E.g.: 19 × 21 = 20² − 1². It's a matter of recognizing faster than you would decompose to 19 × 20 + 19 × 1.

Or know the FOIL method which applies to all situations, not just one.

Just FYI, this is how smart people do really hard math in their head.

trerro: This (or at least something very similar) is actually a useful technique for fast mental math... not for 9+6 obviously, but for something larger. Quick... what's 79+63? 130twelve=142. 935+248? 11andseventythirteen=1183. Solve whatever jumps out, mash it into the rest, get answer in seconds without a calculator.

I would never add 79 and 63 in my head. I would quickly change it to 80 and 62. Much easier. And that's still a very basic example.

As I guess everyone else in the thread has already realized, this is how anyone who can actually do non-trivial arithmetic in their head does it--this or something very close. In fact, 9+6 is about as complicated as math gets where this ISN'T noticeably faster.

Most of us figured it out by ourselves after realizing that the "regular" way was slow and error-prone to the point of uselessness, which means by teaching kids a better way right from the start, Obama's eeeeeeeevil librul teacher's union thugs are cruelly depriving America's youth of the opportunity to figure that out for themselves. STOP ABUSING CHILDREN, OBAMA.

Every "Common Core BLARGH" rant I've seen, about math at least, is coming from people that:
a. Found math dead simple in school and yet never considered that others didn't or that people use different rubrics to manipulate numbers
b. Suck at math already and yet still think that the "old way" is the "best way" because that's how they learned it even if they suck at it

The subtraction method is a good example; you add up from the subtrahend to the minuend using convenient steps of even powers of ten, then combine your addends to find the difference.  It eliminates borrowing and actually subtraction in the first place, the way that most people calculate change in their heads.  Curious after seeing people squealing about it on facebook, I dove into it to figure out the method.  I was able to show that it had the following advantages:
1. No borrowing and the multiple steps involved
2. No subtraction which is harder than addition
3. Fewer overall steps in any situation one would use borrowing

Its drawback was that there were more steps, though strictly addition, if borrowing wasn't needed.

The interesting thing is that the group b people seemed to appreciate it, while group a still thought it was a liberal conspiracy.

Looks like someone didn't get over yesterday's thread.

For the love of god.  Look they teach it to you using the easiest to show so then when you get to bigger numbers you can chunk it.  I hate this shiat, just stop.  "new math" works just as well as "old math"  they are doing what your brain does without you even thinking about it.

Yes you don't need to do that for 9+6 but when you get to a harder question it's easier.

jxb465: I would never add 79 and 63 in my head. I would quickly change it to 80 and 62. Much easier. And that's still a very basic example.

I can agree, but it's senseless and wasteful to teach this to 2nd graders. Not to mention that as they progress in classes, further common core math becomes more an more jumbled and nonsensical. Yes, it teaches how to break down numbers, but it's excessively inefficient. More unfortunate is that common core is not limited to only math. Common core changes history and teaches falsehoods. Common core teaches English as a second language. (That was proverbial.) Common core is designed to take all rational thought and change it irrational. It's all purposeful so that as the children turn into drones, they will not question something that goes against natural understanding. It's yet another petal from an evil flower.

/so sorry, this is from the comments

sxacho: Looks like someone didn't get over yesterday's thread.

[img.fark.net image 662x800]

I still want to know what's up with the dog.

JusticeandIndependence: I still want to know what's up with the dog.

He's all like "I get his shoes!  What?  It's my thing!"

JusticeandIndependence: sxacho: Looks like someone didn't get over yesterday's thread.

[img.fark.net image 662x800]

I still want to know what's up with the dog.

I don't know. Liberal pig-dogs?

But that ACLU guy totally reminds me of this guy.

I think whoever came up with this crap should be buried 9+6 feet under and left to decompose.

Hack Patooey: I learned pretty early on to get to 5's and 10's when doing math in my head.  43 X 12?  Thats (43x10)+(43x2).

God, that's so much easier that trying to remember times tables. I wished they'd taught me that way, rather than doing the dumb "memorize these massive lists of numbers perfectly, then count them out the appropriate number of times for each problem, adding the appropriate number of zeroes to the back of each line for reasons that we will never explain to you even though its really simple" method I got instead >:(

eredan: I think whoever came up with this crap should be buried 9+6 feet under and left to decompose.

I just dont see how this method passes the simplest rigor.

Saiga410: eredan: I think whoever came up with this crap should be buried 9+6 feet under and left to decompose.

I just dont see how this method passes the simplest rigor.

It isn't about 9+6.  It's about a building block to understanding why ********* + ****** = 15 vs.

1+1=2
2+2=4 memorization.

It's supposed to be a building block to critical thinking.  I'm an IT manager and people who understand the why are hard to come by vs. those that passed some certs.

JusticeandIndependence: Saiga410: eredan: I think whoever came up with this crap should be buried 9+6 feet under and left to decompose.

I just dont see how this method passes the simplest rigor.

It isn't about 9+6.  It's about a building block to understanding why ********* + ****** = 15 vs.

1+1=2
2+2=4 memorization.

It's supposed to be a building block to critical thinking.  I'm an IT manager and people who understand the why are hard to come by vs. those that passed some certs.

Americans, by and large, hate math, suck at it, and have a shiatty understanding of it.

So of course it makes total sense that so many people want kids to be taught the exact same way they were.

Jumping Jesus Christos, this is getting gorram redonkulous. Common Core is not going to impregnate your dogs and force them to have gay turtle marriage abortions while singing God Save The Atheist.

It's a set of standards, not a teaching method. No, it is not like how you and I were taught, but maybe (just maybe) we didn't have the best foundation in education, as evidenced by the nation's failing education rankings as compared to the rest of the world. What we have been doing is not working, so why not try something different?

Anybody who complains about "common core methods" is both stupid and reactionary. Take 15 seconds to read the problem and understand the method that your snowflake's teacher is using. You will be both helpful to your student as well as gain a new perspective on things. But, no matter what you do, stop farking complaining about common core. It is not going to force you to attend candlelight vigils for OWS.

You know how math teachers can teach a bunch of different ways to solve a problem because students respond better to different techniques?  This seems like one of those techniques that some students caught on to and, as adults, they now feel like every kid should just learn this one way.  Teaching just one way saves time, but only works for a percentage of the class and to hear parents tell it, many kids just don't "get" this way.  Perhaps teachers should go back to teaching a few different ways instead of mandating just one very long one.

sxacho: jxb465: I would never add 79 and 63 in my head. I would quickly change it to 80 and 62. Much easier. And that's still a very basic example.

I can agree, but it's senseless and wasteful to teach this to 2nd graders. Not to mention that as they progress in classes, further common core math becomes more an more jumbled and nonsensical. Yes, it teaches how to break down numbers, but it's excessively inefficient. More unfortunate is that common core is not limited to only math. Common core changes history and teaches falsehoods. Common core teaches English as a second language. (That was proverbial.) Common core is designed to take all rational thought and change it irrational. It's all purposeful so that as the children turn into drones, they will not question something that goes against natural understanding. It's yet another petal from an evil flower.

/so sorry, this is from the comments

I disagree. I was completely lost in elementary math classes because all they taught was rote memorization and I didn't have any goddamn idea what the hell was going on and no one would explain it to me. That, in turn, farked up my confidence regarding math for the rest of my life and led me to believe it was just something I'd never comprehendcoontil I got to geometry and my 9th grade teacher bothered to actually answer my questions). If I'd been taught math like this -if I'd been taught the theory and the basics behind why it worked the way it did the same way they teach you English grammar and composition- then I'd have totally gotten it from day 1 and never had this whole complex about it. This method actually makes math simpler and easier to understand because it shows how it is a basic mechanical relation, rather than this nebulous list of arcane horseshiat lacking all rhyme, reason, or purpose that I'm supposed to accept uncritically "just cause" that I was presented with as a kid. This is way better than "just teaching the basics" because "the basics" doesn't explain shiat to you about why anything works the way it does.

Heron: sxacho: jxb465: I would never add 79 and 63 in my head. I would quickly change it to 80 and 62. Much easier. And that's still a very basic example.

I can agree, but it's senseless and wasteful to teach this to 2nd graders. Not to mention that as they progress in classes, further common core math becomes more an more jumbled and nonsensical. Yes, it teaches how to break down numbers, but it's excessively inefficient. More unfortunate is that common core is not limited to only math. Common core changes history and teaches falsehoods. Common core teaches English as a second language. (That was proverbial.) Common core is designed to take all rational thought and change it irrational. It's all purposeful so that as the children turn into drones, they will not question something that goes against natural understanding. It's yet another petal from an evil flower.

/so sorry, this is from the comments

I disagree....

Gah! Sorry, I jumped the gun and responded before reading all your post sxacho because of how suddenly passionate I got thinking of how screwed over I was by not learning this way :( I disagree with the commenter in question, but you're entirely right to post it for mockery.

gadian: to hear parents tell it, many kids just don't "get" this way.

Honestly, from the parents that I have talked to, it is the parents that don't "get" this way of teaching and they then attribute their own inabilities to their children in order to somehow demonize the "common core method." Which doesn't exist.

gadian: Perhaps teachers should go back to teaching a few different ways instead of mandating just one very long one.

When we do away with standardized tests, maybe we can think about teaching 28 kids 28 different ways to reach the same conclusion. Until then, the students are measured by certain benchmarks and are expected to be able to show and explain certain concepts.

nekom: I wouldn't use it for such a simple problem, but I do break things down in a similar way when I have to do math in my head.

Yeah, same here.  It's not a bad way to do math.

Uncle Tractor: Meh. Let the kids play role-playing games in class:

"I cast an 8th level fireball!"

*tosses 8d10*
*crash!*

Heh, RPG dice and "fake dice" video games made me do a lot of math, and were the best education I got on probability before college.

Heron: Gah! Sorry, I jumped the gun and responded before reading all your post sxacho because of how suddenly passionate I got thinking of how screwed over I was by not learning this way :( I disagree with the commenter in question, but you're entirely right to post it for mockery.

Ha, I know. I think this way likely makes a lot more sense to kids just learning. I learned to carry the one, or borrow a ten. That's it.

Now my son is in second grade and he's learning it this way, so I'm relearning it this way too. It's not what we're used to but I think it's pretty cool.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: gadian: to hear parents tell it, many kids just don't "get" this way.

Honestly, from the parents that I have talked to, it is the parents that don't "get" this way of teaching and they then attribute their own inabilities to their children in order to somehow demonize the "common core method." Which doesn't exist.

I have a feeling that this may be what's going on in many cases.  No matter what you teach, no matter how you teach it, sometimes some kids are going to come home and ask their parents for help.  Some kids aren't going to take immediately to the base 10 method, just like some kids are going to take immediately to a more traditional method.  When these kids come home and asks their parents for help, it seems like the parents are screaming "Why the hell are they teaching math like this?!?  Common core is the devil's work!" instead of taking some time to figure out the method and helping their kid out.

Why is there a The Blaze link on the Geek tab?

I refuse.

Three Crooked Squirrels: it seems like the parents are screaming "Why the hell are they teaching math like this?!?  Common core is the devil's work!" instead of taking some time to figure out the method and helping their kid out.

rAmen

I was like that, for about 5 seconds. Then I realized that I already know complex math, but my daughter does not. How do I help her to learn those methods? By reinforcing the methods used at school. So, instead of railing against "common core methods," I embraced the method that is being taught. That's when I realized that I might have been learning math the wrong way all this time, because the method that my kid's school uses is actually quite useful.

As a Canadian teacher I can't tell you how often I've had a kid come into my primary classroom eager to show me how he "already knows multiplication."

"7x4"
"28!"
"5x4"
"20!"
"How many wheels are on 5 cars?"
"Huh?  No, I said ask me a multiplication question!"

Heaven forbid they have memorized wrong.  They bounce all around the multiplication tables/addition chart giving answers without thinking them through.

I get it.  There are issues with basic fact mastery in Canada (and presumably the States as well).  In our quest to make sure students actually understand what they are doing, some schools and teachers never actually get around to what math educations experts call "targeted practice" - practicing basic fact strategies like the ones shown here that can be used while you memorize.  If we only teach the strategy, and we don't give it ample practice, then we will have grade five students still counting on their fingers.  But that is not math's fault.  If my kids left Grade 3 adding 99+99 by lining up the digits vertically and going through the tedious process of adding each column instead of realizing they can use 100+100 as a base, I'd be mighty disappointed in myself.

As Heron notes above, the basics are really just basic.  A math-adept adult does not need to line up the digits and use pencil and paper all the time (though this is certainly often useful).  The math-adept adult can manipulate numbers, estimate, and deduce whether or not an answer is reasonable.  He/she can also line up the digits and use pencil and paper when needed.  I know kids can do the same - I've seen it happen.

"The simplest thought, like the concept of the number 1, requires an elaborate logical underpinning."
-- Carl Sagan

If all you want is rote memorization, the ability to parrot back the phrase "nine plus six equals fifteen" is all you need.

If you want to teach mathematics - "why 9 plus 6 equals 15", to borrow from TFA (emphasis added) - you'll need more than simply vocal cords.

// I'm reminded of that horse they "taught" to do simple arithmetic
// you can train a horse to stop stamping his foot; you probably can't teach them quantification

I don't honestly remember if I was taught to do mental math that way, but I sure as hell today break down problems exactly like that video suggested kids should do. It's far more flexible and easy to handle than memorizing a ton of tables.

HaHa, hillbillies. Your kids are going to learn something in school, and they are going to be like you.

rumpelstiltskin: HaHa, hillbillies. Your kids are going to learn something in school, and they are going to be like you.

Or not.

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.