4 ms·
I agree. For learning, the method shown is fine. Why? Because it teaches and honors place value, an extremely important concept in developing numeracy. I'm
by dhimes 16y ago
I agree. For learning, the method shown is fine. Why? Because it teaches and honors place value, an extremely important concept in developing numeracy. I'm fine with any method that uses that.
I am not fine with something my kids call the "lattice method." The point of this method is simply to get the correct answer for multiplying large numbers. Is it clever? Yes. Does it work? Yes. But it does not teach math. If the educators' goal is simply to give a technique that works and gives the correct answer, teach them to use the calculator on their cell phones.
Lattice method for multiplication:
http://www.coolmath4kids.com/times-tables/times-tables-lesson-lattice-multiplication-1.html http://www.coolmath4kids.com/times-tables/times-tables-lesso...
- decklin 16y agoI'm not sure why you think this lattice method does not teach place value. The page you linked to doesn't explain (at all) why it works, sure, but the method is just a clever way of notating place. I would expect any good teacher to get his or her students to understand that, and not just mindlessly fill in numbers.
- dhimes 16y agoI would expect any good teacher to get his or her students to understand that That's not how I've seen it used. I've seen it used as a procedure for getting the answer. Compare that to the method shown in the npr link, first line: the numerals are 2 and 3, but the numbers multiplied 20 and 30. That's what I mean by teaching place value. In the the old-school method I learned, we respected place-value by indenting (from the right), optionally writing the zeros.