I'm late the party on this core curriculum stuff..
Options
_John_
Posts: 8,642 Member
But I would have bugged teachers to death if I'd had shit like this in school.
0
Replies
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with it because it is teaching kids how to break big problems up into smaller problems, which is how you actually solve problems in the real world. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about it, so there might be some inane bull **** I'd disagree with, but this seems fine to me.0
-
I don't disagree, but that's kinda how I do mental math. But then again, I was that one kid taking 11th grade math in 9th grade, so....
Oooooh look, a SQUIRREL!
0 -
Don't they all show that you subtract a smaller number from a bigger number to get a smaller number?
If this is "regular" math, I would hate to see what they do for word problems.
0 -
I think I'm having an anxiety attack.0
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with it because it is teaching kids how to break big problems up into smaller problems, which is how you actually solve problems in the real world. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about it, so there might be some inane bull **** I'd disagree with, but this seems fine to me.
The problem I have with teaching math this way, isn't the completely convoluted problems to help kids understand math... but the fact that they leave no room for the kids to take shortcuts. It's either do it the convoluted way or get it completely wrong, even when work is shown and the answer is correct.0 -
BTW, I think the answer is C0
-
I personally was so far beyond needing to break down such a simple problem that it would have shortcircuited my brain to even try as a youngster.
I could add columns of 3 and 4 digit numbers in my head at about 5-6 yo (thanks yatzee), and it was a skill that took me years to get back after I had to learn the way to show my work in elementary.
I personally think showing work is vastly overrated anyway. If this is supposed to be the age of learning how everyone best does it, then I don't see why because I'm so such much smarter than the teachers that I have to show them how I arrived at a correct answer.0 -
I do it that way in my head, sure.I don't think there is anything wrong with it because it is teaching kids how to break big problems up into smaller problems, which is how you actually solve problems in the real world. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about it, so there might be some inane bull **** I'd disagree with, but this seems fine to me.
But the problem with this math is that it starts with the end. It expects children to already know math in order to learn it. It's backwards.
Some things I've read are that high school students are having a much easier time with Common Core than younger children and that makes sense because they already have the foundation.0 -
Also, of all those choices only one gets the correct answer. The kid has to know that the answer is 8 in order to know how to solve the problem to arrive at 8. Or the kids has to know 5+2=7 in order to subtract correctly.
It's just all so weird.0 -
I personally was so far beyond needing to break down such a simple problem that it would have shortcircuited my brain to even try as a youngster.
I could add columns of 3 and 4 digit numbers in my head at about 5-6 yo (thanks yatzee), and it was a skill that took me years to get back after I had to learn the way to show my work in elementary.
I personally think showing work is vastly overrated anyway. If this is supposed to be the age of learning how everyone best does it, then I don't see why because I'm so such much smarter than the teachers that I have to show them how I arrived at a correct answer.
I had a similar conversation with my daughter with all the circles and dots pictures she had to decipher that what the page was asking was 3x4. She rolled her eyes and said "well, this is really unnecessary."0 -
0 -
But I would have bugged teachers to death if I'd had shit like this in school.
I've stared at this for five minutes, and I still don't understand what it's asking.0 -
OMG! *tiptoes back out*
I'm not allowed to talk about this anymore.0 -
It's actually really simple once someone explains it -- but, again, you have to already know the answer to GET the answer.But I would have bugged teachers to death if I'd had shit like this in school.
I've stared at this for five minutes, and I still don't understand what it's asking.
Basically, you subtract whatever you need to get to the nearest round number. In this case, you subtract 5 to get 10. Then you subtract the remaining number (2 because 5+2=7) and you get the answer, 8.
With a larger number, you keep subtracting to round numbers until you can't anymore, then add all the numbers you subtracted in order to get the number.
So for 1,053-500, you subtract 3, then 50, then 500. Then you add 500+50+3 and get 553, which is the answer.0 -
I'm not defending it. Not even a little bit. It's ridiculous. But it makes some sense once someone explains it. However, it makes sense to me because I already know basic math. If I didn't, I'd be paralyzed with fear.
It's actually really simple once someone explains it -- but, again, you have to already know the answer to GET the answer.But I would have bugged teachers to death if I'd had shit like this in school.
I've stared at this for five minutes, and I still don't understand what it's asking.
Basically, you subtract whatever you need to get to the nearest round number. In this case, you subtract 5 to get 10. Then you subtract the remaining number (2 because 5+2=7) and you get the answer, 8.
With a larger number, you keep subtracting to round numbers until you can't anymore, then add all the numbers you subtracted in order to get the number.
So for 1,053-500, you subtract 3, then 50, then 500. Then you add 500+50+3 and get 53, which is the answer.
Know what I think of that?
fu[/b]ck no0 -
0
-
I'm not defending it. Not even a little bit. It's ridiculous. But it makes some sense once someone explains it. However, it makes sense to me because I already know basic math. If I didn't, I'd be paralyzed with fear.
It's actually really simple once someone explains it -- but, again, you have to already know the answer to GET the answer.But I would have bugged teachers to death if I'd had shit like this in school.
I've stared at this for five minutes, and I still don't understand what it's asking.
Basically, you subtract whatever you need to get to the nearest round number. In this case, you subtract 5 to get 10. Then you subtract the remaining number (2 because 5+2=7) and you get the answer, 8.
With a larger number, you keep subtracting to round numbers until you can't anymore, then add all the numbers you subtracted in order to get the number.
So for 1,053-500, you subtract 3, then 50, then 500. Then you add 500+50+3 and get 53, which is the answer.
Know what I think of that?
fu[/b]ck no
This made my head hurt. And yeah, I'd be paralized with fear too.0
