« First « Previous Comments 32 - 71 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
Scandinavian countries don't do any of the three R's prior to age 7, except in narrow instances revolving around play with toys.
Yeah, I've heard this too. My takeaway is that they need a lot of engaged play, and that they have their own way of learning regardless of what we try to teach. I've seen small kids that were really good at math, though. So, it doesn't make sense to me to hold back, just because some kids in Finland end up smart with no formal instruction at a young age.
Finally, the biggest problem area in Education is GEOGRAPHY.
The common core way of adding is the same darn thing. Borrow a 2 from the 7 to add it to the 8 and get 10. Then add that to the 5. I don't know when it is most appropriate to learn this concept, but it is no harder than the way we learned to subtract in the 70s or 80s.
Also, why is a standard a method?
Why add to subtract? Why not just subtract?
www.youtube.com/embed/KxJ4nbqx8CY
Which method is easier? The traditional method.
By the time the student is in calculus, in a situation where the student need to find the "roots" or "zeros" of a quadratic, the teacher could care less which method the student uses. Often it's favorable (easy) becasue the problem isn't about finding roos of a quadratic, that's just a subroutine in the middle of the problem.
But shouldn't a person be able to add 26 + 17 without writing anything down ? And very fucking easily for that matter ? Wtf ?
But these days, becasue of calculators, you will see high school kids going to the calculator to add 8 + 5. So how do you help students develop "number sense." Answer: You teach it and practice it. But the truth is you show students methods and practice things. But ultimately it comes down to what do they internalize. Ultimately the students internal understanding is something that they build for themselves. The teacher is a guide, saying, "try this." "Try this." But for a lot of procedural algorithmic math skills, just like anything else, a lot is going to depend on the students internalization which comes from practice, and how they view it.
Some methods are wildly popular for a reason. Other methods are uncommon for a reason.
You never let me down. There's a reason you're a Trump supporter.
1st Graders don't look at anything a quarter as difficult for Reading. They're expected to parse and follow those instructions.
Do you have another explanation why the preferred Common Core method is used nowhere else at no time in history with 1st graders? Is it because of all the great experience teaching it, it was considered too easy to grasp?
A teachers job is hard enough without parental support and this just throws the entire early learning math years in the wood chipper in my opinion.
So much better, and more interesting than what I was doing in fist and second grade math. Drills have their place, but it wasn't exercising that part of my brain nearly as well as this.
Of course they'll try to teach it in the classroom, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone over 45 and teaching taking it that seriously.
If you think it's a mental shortcut to make 10 by "decomposing" a 7 into 2 and 5 and then "anchoring" the 2 to 8 to make 10 and then adding the remaining 5 to get 15, instead of just memorizing that 8++7=15, then to your Good Health.
Nobody said it was a good way to figure out what 8 + 7 is. They said that it is a shortcut for doing more complicated problems in your head. Using 8 + 7 as an example is a convenient way to learn the method. Obviously, 8 + 7 should be memorized at some point.
If these things are being taught to kids at an unappropriate age, then everybody should be complaining, because all kids would be failing. If it is only Obama haters that are complaining, that's a different type of motivation. Are 6 yr old kids failing math all over the country?
That was the opening of the thread.
I agree that one has to learn what 8+5 is out of memory. On the other hand, they are not teaching what 8+5 is here. They are teaching a method with a simple example, to make it easy to learn the method. The method can then be applied to more complicated examples later. Using simple examples to teach a concept and then building up to more complicated cases is a very common way of teaching anything. I'm guessing that is the philosophy behind choosing this example, but it's a safe and logical bet.
The number of kids failing math should have increased drastically on introduction of common core. Grades should have plummeted. Where is that data? I'm open to learning.
In Fall 2015 the NAEP tested a representative sample of high school seniors in the 2016 graduating class. After seven years of Common Core curriculum and assessment, the NAEP tests showed:
The average performance of high school seniors dropped in math and failed to improve in reading from 2013 to 2015. Performance was also down on both tests from 1992, the first year that similar tests were used.
There was a decline in the percentage of students in both public and private schools that are rated as prepared for college-level work in reading and math. In 2013, 39% of students were considered ready for college math and 38% were prepared for college-level reading. But in 2015, only 37% were prepared for college.
Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.
Test scores for students in 4th and 8th grade who have been trapped in Common Core classrooms with Common Core curriculum for pretty much their entire school careers showed a similar decline in math.
Terry Mazany, the chairman of the governing board for the test, called these results “worrisome.”
Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. The number of students scoring below “basic” in both subjects also increased from 2013. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most.
Why all over the world, at all times, has the traditional subtraction method of "Carrying the 1" dominated?
Finally, you made the assertion that common core standards are not developmentally appropriate. I made the comment that failure rates would have gone through the roof if that were true. I don't see any evidence of that.
Making orange juice by processing oranges in some way, and grilling steaks over a fire in some way have both been around for centuries, why has grilling steaks dominated ?
The reason is you are talking about different things. Using the method described to confirm in your mind that 8 + 5 = 13, is simple and it's a pattern that can be expanded to understand that 59 + 43 = 102 (in your head instantly) . So it's a basic pattern for mental arithmetic. It's not being taught as a substitute for the traditional method, but it is being taught first.
Isn't giving students a choice in the methods they use something you argued in favor of earlier ?
My god Marcus, reading comprehension?!
This isn't choice, this is my way or the highway, where "my way" seems to be entirely arbitrary.
« First « Previous Comments 32 - 71 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
Since when does 8+5 = indicate subtraction?
#CommonCore