Serious Common Core (USA)

[Cresselia~~]

I'm not even sure if this is truly real, but this looks absolutely disastrous to me.
If it's really real, then too bad.

http://www.infowars.com/you-wont-be...-core-is-using-to-teach-our-kids-subtraction/

I don't think this is how a human brain works.
I think it looks more like programming.
It at least seems to me that they are making something simple into something complicated, and I don't think it's a good way.
It took me a while to understand what's going on, but I personally think this method should only be used when someone's estimating subtraction of large numbers (of at least 4 digits).

I wonder what benefits there are (ie: why people prefer this over the regular subtraction we had)

 

[jeb4]

I've seen a similar method like that before. The last step is kind of a trial and error process though.

Who knows. Maybe kids these days are too stupid to learn borrowing in the old fashion method.

 

[whistle]

u have bill for 28.95. u have 30 cash. do u do 30-28.95 in ur head or do u think +0.05 for 29 then +1 for 30? if u do 1st method i feel sry 4 u

edit: grammer

 

[Myzozoa]

im not going to opine on the curriculum since i dont know shit about it however, i will say that the technique used to solve that problem seems really dumb for such a low number, however if i want to do a really large calculation in my head i will totally use that type of technique, and I can use those techniques to get to an answer really fast. If you want to solve 43 x 43 in your head, it's way faster to do (40+3)x (40+3) than to try and do the same steps you would do if you had a pencil and paper at hand (or at least thats how my brain works). This is just the same sort of 'math trick' only it's for addition, instead of multiplication. It only seems dumb because the numbers are low, imo. Still, the second problem in the article (427-316=111) looks really tedious as well, so fuck that, math should be less bs than that imo.

the irony is that the authors of the article probably cant do large calculations in their head because they dont get the techniques that theyre attempting to critique.

 

[Cresselia~~]

u have bill for 28.95. u have 30 cash. do u do 30-28.95 in ur head or do u think +0.05 for 29 then +1 for 30? if u do 1st method i feel sry 4 u

edit: grammer

If the curriculum allows both methods, then I wouldn't care about it.
Problem is, it's marking the first method as wrong.

And I personally use the first method.

And just to let you know.
Every Chinese in my generation use the first method, so I don't think you need to feel sorry for us.

 

[billymills]

u have bill for 28.95. u have 30 cash. do u do 30-28.95 in ur head or do u think +0.05 for 29 then +1 for 30? if u do 1st method i feel sry 4 u

edit: grammer

This is a useful method when you are subtracting from a number ending in a lot of zeros, or if you don't have any paper. For any complicated problem simple addition works faster and is easier to convey.

Though admittedly, they chose the worst possible examples to illustrate the method.

 

[Trax]

Your first problem here is that you're using infowars as a source. That said if it's legit, that's a really illogical way to perform subtraction.


Oh, and whistle, your two methods are the same thing -- one is just the other in reverse.

 

[Celever]

Your first problem here is that you're using infowars as a source. That said if it's legit, that's a really illogical way to perform subtraction.


Oh, and whistle, your two methods are the same thing -- one is just the other in reverse.

Yeah, that's what the thing in the OP is doing as well. I don't even understand it... I have to say though, I think this is an American only thing jynx . I have younger cousins etc. and I just asked them how their school teaches them subtraction, and sure as hell they do the "old-fashioned way" of 32-12=20.

 

[elcheeso]

I don't believe this is a nation wide thing. Like... Common Core is a federal standard, but the methods in which teachers interpret these requirements differ. It's the same with any standards for teaching, teachers will interpret the "best" way to enforce said standards in different ways. For example, these are the principles under Common Core that students have to learn for mathematics:

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary, right? Then there are more standards for certain age levels and so on. There's nothing (to my knowledge) that explicitly says that the "old fashioned" way is wrong, and interpreting it that way is probably just teachers being stupid or Alex Jones being a reactionary idiot who can't help but make a jab at Obamacare when talking about something not even vaguely related to said subject. Ultimately, some teachers will interpret the standards in ways that make things more difficult for them to teach or for kids to learn. It's just how things are if you expect any sort of standardisation on any level for education. Plus, from my admittedly limited reading on the subject, it might not actually be a bad thing despite the ways we were taught shit. Supposedly some states have seen moderately higher results from their students after adopting these standards. Old people not understanding and also hating things those newfangled kids are being taught THESE DAYS is nothing new.

 

[CaptKirby]

this looks terrible since I did it in paint, but this is an example of how you subtract if you have any sense at all (I think there might be some other good way, but idk first grade was a long time ago)

whatever this common core shit you linked is one of the most redundant things I have ever seen, the best solution is always the one that does the most while being the simplest

I may be remembering how to express the subtraction wrong here, because you add the 1s in pairs, but with one set becoming 14 and 11 (+10 +10), and the other set becoming 3 and 7 (+1 +1), it is certainly a bit of a confusing notation the way I have here; you could always just cross out the number and write the new one for the 3 and 7 (and to save the most time of all, could just cross out the entire left column without leaving an explanation :x )

 

[toshimelonhead]

The Common Core method seems backwards to me. Wouldn't it make sense to learn math through small bits of memorization, and then use these small bits to build on to abstract principles instead of jumping straight to the abstract principles? Making it overly complicated to begin with is a great way of turning kids off of math, especially when "their way" is much more straight forward and gets the answer faster. For figuring out 43^2 for instance, I took (40 * 40) = 1600, then took (2 * 40 * 3) = 240, and then 3 * 3 = 9 to get 1849. Most kids do not have that intuition especially when math itself is an intimidating subject at any level.

 

[Jorgen]

People have been bitching about this shit on facebook and stuff for a long time now. Smogon so slow smh

Anyway I don't really have any strong opinions on the "right way" to do arithmetic. Whatever algorithm you use to solve 24 + 76 - 31 is fine as long as it gets the right answer and has some sort of logic to it. Math is nice and objective like that.

By the time you get to algebra, most of the stuff you're not going to need a calculator for should be rote anyway. However, it is important to teach more than just multiplication tables during the arithmetic stage so that children aren't blindsided when there's no escaping the fact that math is more about procedural knowledge than rote memorization.

 

[Lemonade]

California is trying to switch to this and I really hope it doesn't happen based on what I've seen. Maybe the example is super contrived, but the second method takes WAY longer to calculate, and when you are actually doing math you don't want a lot of time to be for BASIC arithmetic. I would imagine how you do mental math is based on how you learned it on paper, and somehow I don't think kids will be very good at remembering everything they need to with the second method. I think most people who use math at all can attest to the importance of mental math.

The change example is nice and all, but the difference is the cashier actually has some physical representation of the money being returned in the form of bills and coins = not actually mental math. And the cash register tells you the change anyway <_<

 

[Stellar]

elcheeso is right in that Common Core does not dictate specific instructional methods. You may use any instructional method as long as you attend to the standards.

 

[billymills]

Then the concern is the standards are too low, not that the standards are mandating this specific poor practice.

 

[Zebstrika]

the 2nd method looks like it might only be better for a big number, where you only need 1 step for each digit, and the example is shitty because 32-12 is obviously 20 and that's not a 4 step problem, not sure why they went from 12 to 15 to 20 to 30 to 32 and not just 12 to 20 to 32

 

[Darth Manaphy]

You know...this is the first time I've seen this...and if the picture is true, you know what this whole thing reminds me of? New Math. Some states are already completely dropping it because they declared it stupid. Which to be honest, as a PhD Student in Electrical Engineering who has taken four ridiculously difficult mathematics graduate classes, I have no fucking clue why they did the new method. In fact, if it wasn't for reading the rest of this thread I wouldn't have known that they're breaking up the problem into sizable chunks. This is something that most people learn on their own after doing math for any time and it's more of a practical way of doing giant problems as Zebstrika just said. Even then, the step sizes are just stupid.

The kids aren't going to learn anything. They're just going to get more confused and consider math even more of an unnecessary tool than it is. Parts of me are fearing a world where new professionals are afraid of math because they weren't allowed to do problems in a straightforward way and thus never actually got the appreciation for dealing with this method.

Any system that overcomplicates math is not worth teaching. It'll be the equivalent of getting Fourth Graders to read and analyze Moby Dick because they know the words (which considering that a good part of it is all about whale biology...)

 

[Stratos]

honestly you're an idiot if you think the old system was perfect; yes for those of us who are math whizzes it may have been but the rest of the population is required to take math up to pre-calculus (at least in my state) and a large majority of these kids still haven't figured out that math is anything but rote memorization. A girl in one of my classes was complaining that her 96 in pre-calculus went down because she got a 90 on a test ("but 90 is a good grade! why did it drop?") you tell me someone who understands number theory to that astounding of a degree got a 96 in an advanced algebra course by anything but rote memorization? One girl in one of my classes who took Calc BC last year said that when the teacher would hand out free response questions (every friday), he would tell the class on Thursday what year it would be from, but not which question. She would go home and rote memorize the answers to all six of the free response questions from that exam year to maintain an A in the class, as opposed to properly learning the material because she still didn't know that math wasn't just memorization. As fucking ridiculous as the method they used here of breaking up 32-12 is, at least they're trying to show that you can manipulate numbers in more than one way in order to handle them. maybe if we taught kids a little more of the theory behind math they'd hate it less—and not spend hours a day on their math homework only to learn nothing.

 

[billymills]

In my experience, math is taught as rote memorization. Those that excel at math are those that learn that there is more to it.

I remember thinking through a problem in grade 5, and realizing when I did multiplication, I could factor a 2 out of the second number, and multiply it first. Effectively doing multiplication in smaller, easier steps. I remember being proud of it because it meant I could do massive mulitiplications, in my head. The ability to simplify the problem was useless on paper. The method in the opening post is the same thing except with respect to addition. It would be silly to argue the method does not have its uses, but to be taught that doing math algorithmically is incorrect in any sense is awful. It is the easiest and most straightforward way to solve problems. Can you imagine if the problem above was multiplication, and the proposed solution was to factor 12 into 2 x 2 x 3, and then do the multiplication in steps?

The method in question is basically teaching the associtivity of addition. In my opinion, this is indicative of a larger problem. We do not teach mathematical theory very well at all. A lot of the simple tricks are derived very quickly from mathematical principles. Simplifying multiplication could be taught be taught alongside prime factorization, or modular arithmetic, both of which are applicable topics that should be taught.

It seems the curriculum is trying to found math on powers of ten and physical representations, rather than its abstract nature. This is good for teaching concepts like scientific notation, or for getting an appreciation of large numbers (relevant xkcd), but it sets up students poorly for teaching anything remotely abstract, such as functional notation, trigonometry, or calculus.

 

[phalanx]

what is that.

if anything to work it out you do
2-2 = 0
3-1 = 2
whats all this other stuff for?

 

[Oglemi]

From my understanding while in the education program, the goal of the Common Core method is not to completely replace the old method, but to teach both to students and show them that there's always more than one way of reaching the correct answer in math. In the past, we were told that there's only one formula and one method to get to the right answer; they're now working towards a standardized system that allows for multiple paths to be taken to reach the correct answer.

However, like most things in education, the Common Core is open to interpretation by the teaching faculty, meaning that how it's implemented does not always reflect on the goals of the program. I think this is where most of the backlash to the program is coming from; teachers are hardlining that students use only the "new method" when working on problems when it's significantly easier to use the "old method."

 

[phalanx]

but addition to work out subtraction is just plain stupid.
why can't things be left alone

 

[Ace Emerald]

I'd like to join the chorus of people saying that teaching kids different ways of doing math contributes to the overall understanding of math, and also going to add that the people condemning the common core are relying on ignorance and unfamiliarity to spread their message.

Hide

Take for example this sensationalist picture included in the article. Now I left public school before common core and I'm not at all familiar with numberline subtraction. But its pretty easy to figure out if you calm down a second and stop freaking out about stuff you don't understand to see that it's just subtracting by groups of ten powers. It took me all of a few seconds to realize that "Jack" simply forgot to subtract the 10 in 316. The letter from "frustrated parent" is incredibly ridiculous. The question isn't asking the student to solve the problem, its asking the student to think critically about the problem and derive the error. I find it really hard to believe anyone with a BS in engineering couldn't reverse engineer the method and purpose of the problem, and I'm actually inclined to think this might be fake.

I'm not saying common core is perfect, I'm not a teaching or education specialist. But I do know that these groups are throwing stuff that only looks hard because we haven't done it, and exaggerating the situation immensely.

 

[v]

are elementary school ruining math?

 

[Darth Manaphy]

are elementary school ruining math?

Actually that made me remember something that really made me question something similar.

One of my old elementary school friends became an elementary school teacher (at the school we went to as well). She was definitely not anywhere near in the top in the class and she wasn't really that good in school in general. Yet, now she's an elementary school teacher tasked with teaching children the material she didn't seem to get when she was their age.

Now it is possible that she changed completely since I last knew her over a decade ago...but it brings some questions about "Do the teachers actually know anything they're supposed to be teaching or are they just going by the book and hoping that no one calls them out on it?"