5 ms·

They're simply trying to get kids to use more abstract thought. The wording is strange, but there's nothing particularly mystifying about the answers. The abs

by Natsu 13y ago

They're simply trying to get kids to use more abstract thought. The wording is strange, but there's nothing particularly mystifying about the answers. The abstractions are absurdly simple, but I'm not surprised that there are adults confused by this. I used to work for a factory and was constantly dismayed by how many adults are unable to read a tape measure.

anaphor 13y ago
Don't you think they should understand the most concrete instances of it before they're made to understand abstractions? Don't you think they should understand it with marbles and sticks before they understand it with very abstract concepts like arithmetic operators?
- Natsu 13y ago
  Actually, no. In this case, the link between numbers and objects and linking addition and subtraction to telling the "stories" of real activities is an important thing for them to know. Far better they realize that and see the importance, than that they memorize the one digit addition and subtraction tables but think them useless and forget them entirely during summer vacation.
greenyoda 13y ago
I'm not sure whether most 5-6 year old kids even have brains that have developed sufficiently to deal with abstract thought.
- Natsu 13y ago
  Never seen one imagine a cardboard box as a rocket ship, or such? That's simply abstract thought of another kind. To be honest, I feel more like rote schoolwork beats it out of them than the opposite, given how many children I've seen that are more capable than the adults, but that's a bit of a tangent. For the record, it's not actually that hard to teach younger kids advanced mathematics. Just turn it into a game. I managed to teach a ~10 year old about mutually tangent circles, after all. And I was certainly never bound by the imaginary limits of what kids were "supposed" to learn at a certain age. Roughly the first half of the "advanced" branches of math is giving funny names to things and learning a few tricks. Basic set theory, for example, would not be all that hard to teach to a young child, but most don't see any value in it. Anyhow, yes, that test is fairly confusingly worded (partly just from stupid and partly because we lack the context of the lessons). In particular, I agree that coins & coffee cups are a bridge too far, so they could certainly do better. But I guess people would rather WTF over the strange wording and downvote and such rather than consider whether little kids should be taught that there's more to addition than rote memorization of the addition tables? (For the record, yes, they should memorize the tables, too.) I found it quite simple to discern that they were taught to split the problems into the part they know and the whole thing, then look for the missing piece and turn the problems into "stories" connecting the numbers to real objects. Would everyone rather that kids learn that math is a bunch of boring number facts to memorize that have no (apparent) application to real life? Or is it the feeling that the way you were taught is plenty good and nobody should ever try to improve it, especially in a way that you don't understand? Or does this whole line of thinking simply make people uncomfortable and cause them to reject the thought entirely?
  - oftenwrong 13y ago
    When I was ~5 years old we did set theory in school. Venn diagrams made with hula hoops. Sorting dolls and blocks.
    - greenyoda 13y ago
      There are definitely some very advanced 5 year olds and some very talented teachers, and it's great that kids can have the opportunity to learn advanced stuff. However, a "core curriculum" has to be designed to be usable by average students and average teachers.
      - Natsu 13y ago
        Perhaps, but the way things are I feel more like we should try to improve upon the average person. Young kids don't know what is and isn't "hard" yet, so they're more apt to try. Makes it easier to teach them certain things than adults, because they won't just give up straight away.

by Natsu 13y ago

anaphor 13y ago

Don't you think they should understand the most concrete instances of it before they're made to understand abstractions? Don't you think they should understand it with marbles and sticks before they understand it with very abstract concepts like arithmetic operators?

Natsu 13y ago
Actually, no. In this case, the link between numbers and objects and linking addition and subtraction to telling the "stories" of real activities is an important thing for them to know. Far better they realize that and see the importance, than that they memorize the one digit addition and subtraction tables but think them useless and forget them entirely during summer vacation.

greenyoda 13y ago

I'm not sure whether most 5-6 year old kids even have brains that have developed sufficiently to deal with abstract thought.

Natsu 13y ago
Never seen one imagine a cardboard box as a rocket ship, or such? That's simply abstract thought of another kind. To be honest, I feel more like rote schoolwork beats it out of them than the opposite, given how many children I've seen that are more capable than the adults, but that's a bit of a tangent. For the record, it's not actually that hard to teach younger kids advanced mathematics. Just turn it into a game. I managed to teach a ~10 year old about mutually tangent circles, after all. And I was certainly never bound by the imaginary limits of what kids were "supposed" to learn at a certain age. Roughly the first half of the "advanced" branches of math is giving funny names to things and learning a few tricks. Basic set theory, for example, would not be all that hard to teach to a young child, but most don't see any value in it. Anyhow, yes, that test is fairly confusingly worded (partly just from stupid and partly because we lack the context of the lessons). In particular, I agree that coins & coffee cups are a bridge too far, so they could certainly do better. But I guess people would rather WTF over the strange wording and downvote and such rather than consider whether little kids should be taught that there's more to addition than rote memorization of the addition tables? (For the record, yes, they should memorize the tables, too.) I found it quite simple to discern that they were taught to split the problems into the part they know and the whole thing, then look for the missing piece and turn the problems into "stories" connecting the numbers to real objects. Would everyone rather that kids learn that math is a bunch of boring number facts to memorize that have no (apparent) application to real life? Or is it the feeling that the way you were taught is plenty good and nobody should ever try to improve it, especially in a way that you don't understand? Or does this whole line of thinking simply make people uncomfortable and cause them to reject the thought entirely?
- oftenwrong 13y ago
  When I was ~5 years old we did set theory in school. Venn diagrams made with hula hoops. Sorting dolls and blocks.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    There are definitely some very advanced 5 year olds and some very talented teachers, and it's great that kids can have the opportunity to learn advanced stuff. However, a "core curriculum" has to be designed to be usable by average students and average teachers.
    - Natsu 13y ago
      Perhaps, but the way things are I feel more like we should try to improve upon the average person. Young kids don't know what is and isn't "hard" yet, so they're more apt to try. Makes it easier to teach them certain things than adults, because they won't just give up straight away.