3 ms·
Can't say I've been following Common Core too closely (my kids are 3 and 1 respectively, so there'll be a bit before it affects me directly). But these example
by jkingsbery 11y ago
Can't say I've been following Common Core too closely (my kids are 3 and 1 respectively, so there'll be a bit before it affects me directly). But these example questions just seem completely to be arguing with a strawman:
The only difference in the elementary school question was bigger numbers.
The first middle school example contains only one additional step (being able to do algebra instead of just arithmetic). The explanation for the "old way" contains the word "simple" gratuitously - you might as well say that the CC version of the problem only requires "simple algebra."
For, the second middle school example, I definitely had questions that were multi-part like that in middle school. Also, each part is just applying the same formula a few different times - but the explanation given makes it seem like it's a whole new thing!
The explanations for the high school example is really the worst one though. "This question is an example of solving equations as a series of mechanical steps" and "This question is an example of solving equations as a process of reasoning" mean basically the same thing, just one is put in a derogatory manner.
The CC version of the question itself is also vague: can I pick any two equations that have the same solution? Should I pick equations that are the intermediate steps toward the solution? Does "y=5/3" count as one of the equations?
- contravariant 11y agoI also don't get their critique that the problems can be solved easily using simple mathematics. That's kind of the point of mathematics. Making the problems slightly more difficult (if it can be called that) doesn't really remedy the original problem, which is that they don't understand why something works.
- tempestn 11y agoRegarding the elementary one, there's a good reason for the larger numbers though. With 4x3, a student can get the right answer through a counting process. 1-2-3-4 5-6-7-8 9-10-11-12 For someone who hasn't either memorized multiplication tables or learned faster ways of working out the answer, that's likely the approach they will take. With 6x7 on the other hand, it's natural to look for a faster (better) way to solve the problem. I agree that the last question was vague / poorly state.