The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXVII

[Mise]

I don't understand your complaint at all Quackers. If "common core" materially improves children's ability to do basic arithmetic, then how can this possibly be a bad thing?

 

[Quackers]

I don't understand your complaint at all Quackers. If "common core" materially improves children's ability to do basic arithmetic, then how can this possibly be a bad thing?

I just question whether it improves children's ability to do basic arithmetic. The way we were taught Mr M was far more straightforward then some of the common core example floating around the interwehbz.

I also question FP's assumption that innumeracy is a thing, i think my posts have proved him wrong.

'Innumerate' doesn't mean 'can't do any sums'

That's exactly what it means:

innumerate
ɪˈnjuːm(&#601rət/
adjective
adjective: innumerate

1.
without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic.
"to this day I am practically innumerate"

noun

in·nu·mer·ate
adjective \-rət\

: unable to understand and do basic mathematics

The report is misusing the word "innumerate" in my view. "Semi numerate" may be an adequate replacement.

 

[Mise]

Well, you say you're questioning it, but it sounds like you made up your mind about it first, then asked the question later...

It sounds entirely plausible to me that teaching a number of different methods for how to do arithmetic would make it easier for children to learn how to do arithmetic. It also sounds entirely plausible to me that the people in charge of making these decisions know a lot more about how to teach maths than I do.

 

[Quackers]

Well, you say you're questioning it, but it sounds like you made up your mind about it first, then asked the question later...

I'm no reactionary Mise, I have seen a few examples:

Take this image above. It makes sense in a roundabout sort of way. I reckon the old fashioned method is superior.

 

[Mise]

That's exactly how I add up.... I mean, that is literally, word for word, what I do when I add 26 + 17. I was taught a stupid method of adding 7 to 6 and carrying a 1, then adding 2 and 1 then adding the carried 1. But that method there, the one that I actually use, is a hell of a lot more intuitive for me.

EDIT: Actually I tell a lie, I would do it the other way and add 3 to 17, because 17 is closer to 20 than 26 is to 30. So I'd do 17+3 = 20, 26-3 = 23, 20+23 = 43.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's how I work as well; I have to admit I instinctively rounded the left-hand number, though Mise's method makes marginally more sense. Much quicker and easier to do mentally than the 'add the units and carry then add the tens' method, which is designed for working on paper in an examination and it shows.

 

[Quackers]

That's exactly how I add up.... I mean, that is literally, word for word, what I do when I add 26 + 17. I was taught a stupid method of adding 7 to 6 and carrying a 1, then adding 2 and 1 then adding the carried 1. But that method there, the one that I actually use, is a hell of a lot more intuitive for me.

I see, well another common argument is that people like you aren't taught their most intuitive method.

You've been taught the old fashioned method but came up with your own system. Probably as a result of doing them in your head and finding that's how your mind operates.

We don't need these fancy methods.

Personally, my method (i know you're interested ) is adding the 7 from 17 to 26, making 33 and then adding the 10.

 

[Traitorfish]

We don't need yer fancy book-lernin'.

 

[Flying Pig]

Didn't you literally just invoke the method which Mise and I use as one of these fancy new methods? And you also admitted that different people find different methods easier? So why on earth not teach lots of methods and let children use whichever they prefer?

 

[Quackers]

Didn't you literally just invoke the method which Mise and I use as one of these fancy new methods? And you also admitted that different people find different methods easier? So why on earth not teach lots of methods and let children use whichever they prefer?

It is a slight variant on the traditional method.
The common core example I posted is practically an abomination. Designed to make children even more confused.

Also, I acknowledge Mise and yourself used different methods but the pair of you have learned under the old system (and FP the ancient system #rekt), so being taught one method won't keep you locked into that way of doing sums. Being taught the Common Core method will just confuse everyone.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm going to quote Mise and the old maxim that one's eagerness to give an opinion usually declines as the intelligence of said opinion increases:

It sounds entirely plausible to me that [maths teachers] know a lot more about how to teach maths than I do.

 

[Mise]

Well it would have been nice to have been taught the method that was more intuitive to me up front, instead of being told that there is one and only one way of adding up and if you do it any other way then you're adding up wrong...

And it wasn't really until I was older that I started doing it differently. Imagine how much easier it would have been in primary school if I had been taught the other method.

Seriously, you're simply opposed to it for the sake of it Quackers. This is allowing children to learn basic maths in a way that is more intuitive for each individual. It would have helped me and I'm sure it will help other people to learn maths a lot easier. I just can't see how any rational minded person would be so reflexively opposed to this, without even a scrap of evidence or teaching experience...

 

[Mise]

Also, that common core example is not an abomination -- it is literally how I add up and is perfectly intuitive and understandable for me. That you find it an abomination only shows how dangerous and counter-productive it is to teach one single method of adding up. If you were taught that particular method, you would struggle with basic maths, while I would have no trouble at all. This is presumably the exact problem that the common core method attempts to address.

 

[Samson]

Surely the point is that the student should use the one the method they find easier, not have the method specified by the examiner.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's exactly how I add up.... I mean, that is literally, word for word, what I do when I add 26 + 17. I was taught a stupid method of adding 7 to 6 and carrying a 1, then adding 2 and 1 then adding the carried 1.

I think the "stupid" method is for when you have a pencil and paper. It's a more useful method when you are calculating the sum of more than one number at a time since you don't have to hold all the rounding corrections somewhere. Though, doing the above mentally, I did a version of what you do. I stripped the 7 off the second number to make it an even 10 then added it back.

 

[Yeekim]

Personally, my method (i know you're interested ) is adding the 7 from 17 to 26, making 33 and then adding the 10.

I'd do the other way round: first add 10, getting 36, then add 7.

 

[Tee Kay]

I actually round down to the nearest five then add the remainder. 25+15+3 = 43

 

[Mise]

I think the "stupid" method is for when you have a pencil and paper. It's a more useful method when you are calculating the sum of more than one number at a time since you don't have to hold all the rounding corrections somewhere. Though, doing the above mentally, I did a version of what you do. I stripped the 7 off the second number to make it an even 10 then added it back.

See, I don't even use it on pen & paper... I pretty much just add them up in the same way: group all the 10s first (quick wins), then add and subtract from each other number so that they make groups of 10s, then add whatever's left over.

I can see why it's not stupid on pen & paper though. It's probably different for me because mostly I'm writing several numbers in a line, rather than one number on each line.

 

[Borachio]

26 + 17 = ?

I go: 7 + 6 = 13, + 20 = 47.

I can do arithmetic fine. I just never get the right answer.

I'll try again:

7 + 6 = 13, + 26 = 57.

Is that right?

You know, I was fine until I spent a year on Number Theory and Topology. I seem to have fried my brain completely.

 

[Hygro]

I'd do the other way round: first add 10, getting 36, then add 7.

The common core will also teach this method. That's also my method.

I actually round down to the nearest five then add the remainder. 25+15+3 = 43

The common core will also teach this method as well I think.

It is a slight variant on the traditional method.
The common core example I posted is practically an abomination. Designed to make children even more confused.

Also, I acknowledge Mise and yourself used different methods but the pair of you have learned under the old system (and FP the ancient system #rekt), so being taught one method won't keep you locked into that way of doing sums. Being taught the Common Core method will just confuse everyone.

Go back to my earlier posts. The common core will teach all of the methods. The system doesn't "confuse everyone" because the system allows kids to pick the most sensible method for them. More reading, Quackers, less pontificating.

You wrote in the post I didn't quote that it made sense for Mise to learn the carry-the-one method and he could devise his own. Aside from Mise taking a while to get to his own, this is where socio-economic backgrounds make sense. Mise will figure it out because he was uni-bound and had a fair upbringing. A kid whose concern is "am I eating today" isn't going to muse on the topic until he comes up with a solution. If the first method didn't click with him, he's SoL.