4 ms·

1. You can't shortcut your way out of not knowing the multiplication table and basic arithmetic. Nobody does this. 2. The "formal way" as you put it is complex

by eglover 12y ago

1. You can't shortcut your way out of not knowing the multiplication table and basic arithmetic. Nobody does this. 2. The "formal way" as you put it is complex and unnecessary. It makes things harder, especially once you hit algebra. If you can't do simple two digit addition in your head by the time you start learning things that involve larger processes like inequalities and quadratic equations you WILL slow down and possibly become frustrated and lose confidence. If you want to get by in these subjects you have to start to depend on the calculator. But guess what? Now you want to be a computer science major and all of the sudden you have to learn how to graph trig functions and find the instantaneous rate under a curve. Calculators can't help you now. In fact, everything you've just spent 4+ years cheating on must be fully understood at the manual level to even begin to grasp what you need to know now.... What you see in common core is not some magic a genius cabal created out of a Darwinian spite for the rest of mankind. It is an easier process that is used to create a much stronger foundation in mathematics. Nobody is telling kids to not know their multiplication tables, what they are saying is that there is an easier and quicker way to learn math. That being said, I don't like monopolies and putting one on education is a dismal thing to do. With privatisation (real privatisation down to the accreditation level) you allow different things to be tried rather than one state staying, "This is how things will be done, hopefully we won't all be retarded in 20 years. If not, let's take credit and ignore that thing called the internet. If so, blame the current administration." If enough people honestly believe "new math" (good song by Tom Lehrer) is the way to go, they can teach it to their kids. If people think what is proven to be better is... well... better, let them do it. When major differences appear in children from the same generation with one group knowing math and another not (like Asia vs. America), there'll be no complaining to do.

joeclark77 12y ago
> The "formal way" as you put it is complex and unnecessary. It makes things harder, especially once you hit algebra. If you can't do simple two digit addition in your head by the time you start learning things that involve larger processes like inequalities and quadratic equations you WILL slow down and possibly become frustrated and lose confidence. But how do you learn to do two digit addition in your head? You learn by doing two digit addition on paper over and over again. Students who are good at this will begin to notice patterns and develop shortcuts. You cannot just skip the learning and go right to the shortcuts. This is the kind of stuff they're peddling under common core: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346625.php http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346625.php http://twitchy.com/2014/04/10/common-core-insanity-for-six-year-olds-nyc-mom-knows-garbage-math-when-she-sees-it-pic/ http://twitchy.com/2014/04/10/common-core-insanity-for-six-y...
- eglover 12y ago
  Nobody is talking about shorcuts. You learn by starting with the tens place and moving on to the ones place. LEFT to RIGHT. NOT right to left. 27+38 30 + 20 = 50 7+8 = 5+8+2 = 5+10 = 15 50 + 15 = 65 This is a lightning fast process that you do on paper to understand, and in your head in practice. Carrying, as I've said 3 times now is inefficient, slow, and harms the future possibility of doing well in upper level math. BTW, I'm no stranger to the alternative media. Hell, I still watch the Infowars feed. (I would also say that the english side of common core is appalling.) But you have to recognize that the stuff is 99% bullshit, just as with the case with FOX and CNN. (Note that math can NOT be memorized, you're dealing with infinity.) These sites pander to a specific audience just like everyone else. Hateful/scared people love hateful/scared sites. Its a shame everyone has to spin everything into something bigger than it actually is. Just the facts. This kind of math is faster, easier to learn, and easier to do. It's results (already proven) create a higher confidence in math and a better ability to perform at the higher levels. This stuff isn't new in any way. It's the same as using an abacus. (You know, those things they used in old one room schoolhouses where you slide the ones and ten places?) And tell me, how well do you think modern Americans compare to children in the 19th century with math? You sell yourself as someone who might know about a certain book by Charlotte Iserbyt, so I assume you know where I'm going with this. Check out the Khan Academy site listed in the OP and do a little for yourself. Learn it in order to understand it.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    First of all, I think that technique is nuts as an educational method. Five and six year olds cannot instantly intuit that 27+38 = (20+30)+(5+8+2) in their heads before they've ever had lessons on doing math the mechanical way, carrying the one, etc. They need to know how to add before they can start doing intuitive pre-processing in their heads. They may be able to do the pre-processing later, after they've seen a lot of math problems, but you can't just skip the basics. Second of all, did you follow the Twitchy link I posted? At the bottom of the page they have about ten other links to other posts, each pointing to a "technique" or "problem" in a common core math book more absurd than the last. Your "abacus-like" method is less insane than some of them, but the sum total is entirely consistent with what I'm saying: it's a cargo cult mentality.

by eglover 12y ago

joeclark77 12y ago

> The "formal way" as you put it is complex and unnecessary. It makes things harder, especially once you hit algebra. If you can't do simple two digit addition in your head by the time you start learning things that involve larger processes like inequalities and quadratic equations you WILL slow down and possibly become frustrated and lose confidence. But how do you learn to do two digit addition in your head? You learn by doing two digit addition on paper over and over again. Students who are good at this will begin to notice patterns and develop shortcuts. You cannot just skip the learning and go right to the shortcuts. This is the kind of stuff they're peddling under common core: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346625.php http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346625.php http://twitchy.com/2014/04/10/common-core-insanity-for-six-year-olds-nyc-mom-knows-garbage-math-when-she-sees-it-pic/ http://twitchy.com/2014/04/10/common-core-insanity-for-six-y...

eglover 12y ago
Nobody is talking about shorcuts. You learn by starting with the tens place and moving on to the ones place. LEFT to RIGHT. NOT right to left. 27+38 30 + 20 = 50 7+8 = 5+8+2 = 5+10 = 15 50 + 15 = 65 This is a lightning fast process that you do on paper to understand, and in your head in practice. Carrying, as I've said 3 times now is inefficient, slow, and harms the future possibility of doing well in upper level math. BTW, I'm no stranger to the alternative media. Hell, I still watch the Infowars feed. (I would also say that the english side of common core is appalling.) But you have to recognize that the stuff is 99% bullshit, just as with the case with FOX and CNN. (Note that math can NOT be memorized, you're dealing with infinity.) These sites pander to a specific audience just like everyone else. Hateful/scared people love hateful/scared sites. Its a shame everyone has to spin everything into something bigger than it actually is. Just the facts. This kind of math is faster, easier to learn, and easier to do. It's results (already proven) create a higher confidence in math and a better ability to perform at the higher levels. This stuff isn't new in any way. It's the same as using an abacus. (You know, those things they used in old one room schoolhouses where you slide the ones and ten places?) And tell me, how well do you think modern Americans compare to children in the 19th century with math? You sell yourself as someone who might know about a certain book by Charlotte Iserbyt, so I assume you know where I'm going with this. Check out the Khan Academy site listed in the OP and do a little for yourself. Learn it in order to understand it.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  First of all, I think that technique is nuts as an educational method. Five and six year olds cannot instantly intuit that 27+38 = (20+30)+(5+8+2) in their heads before they've ever had lessons on doing math the mechanical way, carrying the one, etc. They need to know how to add before they can start doing intuitive pre-processing in their heads. They may be able to do the pre-processing later, after they've seen a lot of math problems, but you can't just skip the basics. Second of all, did you follow the Twitchy link I posted? At the bottom of the page they have about ten other links to other posts, each pointing to a "technique" or "problem" in a common core math book more absurd than the last. Your "abacus-like" method is less insane than some of them, but the sum total is entirely consistent with what I'm saying: it's a cargo cult mentality.