You can use this tool to fastly destroy this thread and its images. Please only use this tool if:
- The thread contains illegal materials
- The thread contains personal information about you or somebody you know would not allow this
- The thread contains pornographic content
- You have intellectual property on part of the content

This tool is NOT here to let you remove things you don't like, and this tool is based on a trust principle.
If there are many threads/images you want to remove, it would probably be easier for you to directly contact us. You can provide us a list of all the threads you want to be destroyed. Please contact us at contact@4chanarchive.net or use the contact form. We will very fastly proceed to the destruction of all the content.

9+6 in Common Core 09/04/14(Thu)23:02 UTC+1 No.6735761 Report

Common core attempts to impart symbolic number operations instead of just memorizing "glyphs," apparently people are pissed about this because HUR HUR OMABA MIND CONTROL

>>6735761 See... the funny thing is I went to a Montessori school and we did this sort of stuff, along with using other symbol shit that DOESN'T involve memorization like that... it worked pretty decent... It's nice to see something like this because the mainstream for mathematics

my brain started hurting by watching this. btw, it cant be true they actually teach their children math just by memorizing simple sums (as opposed to this video).

When I was growing up in junior high, I actually developed the method used in common core for my own personal use.

I was in 7th grade math and I was struggling greatly, and the teacher called upon me to answer the question she'd written up on the overhead. It was something like 128 + 534. I tried talking my way through the problem with the teacher and I told her, "Well why don't we just round 128 up to 130 and 534 down to 530? 130 + 530 = 100 + 500 + 30 = 630. And can't we just account for the differences in numbers then? So 630 - 2 + 4 = 632"

And she looked at me and she was like, "Wow... That is really smart."

And she actually incorporated it into some teaching she did. Was I still failing pretty bad? Yup. But I passed barely at the end.

This is indeed pretty basic, but common core goes way beyond this. Like solving 5*18 in 108 steps. Check the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x2ZyXWHeMw

>>6735854 >>6735856 I thought of it the same way, it always pissed me off so much when teachers would try to just make me memorize basic shit like this. I'm glad that they're actually teaching kids how to do arithmetic these days, not just how to memorize how do do arithmetic.

>>6735883 It is real but people seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept. The idea is not "this is how you should add and multiply!". The idea is "here is another method that you can use to add and multiply and it makes sense because of...". They'll introduce different methods throughout the years in order to build a solid understanding of the concept instead of just teaching an algorithm in 2nd grade and then master it in the grades to come.

>>6735871 I probably would do that in a whole load of steps myself, they'd just be quick and you wouldn't write them all down. 5*18 is 5*10 + 5*8 which is 5 with a zero +5*10-2*5 etc. etc.

That's not even all the steps I would do up to that point.

I personally think it's good to teach that. As someone who teaches math, I know it doesn't come naturally to many children. It does to some; it did to me. Nobody taught me to break it down like that, but it's very easy to assume that becuase you figured that out yourself intuitively that everyone will.

The problem with asking a science/math board how best to teach people who are shit at math is that very few have experience with being REALLY shit at math.

>>6735898 Rote memorization has been shown to change the makeup of the brain in the early years. So by memorizing simple equations such as single digit times tables and such your brain reconfigures itself to accept it as fact and devotes more effort into the more complex aspects of math. I live in Canada and they teach our kids discovery math. Every province but Quebec has implemented this method and Quebec kicks the shot out of all other provinces in math scores.

>>6735919 I'm not saying this is the best way but the usual arguments against it "that it's too complicated for kids", "that they're throwing away the old methods", "that it's a communist plot", etc. are just nonsense. Using common core you still have multiplication tables and the most efficient ways of doing problems. The idea is to try and build more intuition and get the kids to think more about what they're doing.

I'm not saying it's the best way but most of the people speaking against it have no idea what they're talking about.

The right is against CC because "Federal takeover of education for the purpose of indoctrination." The left is against CC because required testing makes black kids look bad.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong about it, but it's much ado about nothing.

>>6735975 I was under the impression that everyone learns their own tricks for arithmetic and algebra as they go along, ignoring and indeed forgetting how they were taught arithmetic earlier in their life, while those that don't learn at all end up in careers where you don't need basic arithmetic anyways.

>>6735970 I don't get it, how can you even imagine the number system as the building base without first learning the basic multiplication tables? It covers the four major operators in one go and like >>6735919 You move on to fractions and shit? I went up to some calculus and have no fucking idea what angle they are working on with this method, should be saved for modern art class or something. I already see kids at the cash register who can't do basic math anyway, I reckon they are first gen prototypes.

>>6735975 The optimal way to do mental math differs depending on whether someone's saying it out loud to you or whether it's written down for you, and whether you're saying the answer out loud, writing it down, or holding it in your head. And even then, it can be different depending on how you hold numbers in your head (whether you visualize digits, imagine the sound of the words, imagine feeling an abacus, or whatever).

That's why we traditionally just teach a straightforward way to get the correct answer, and let people sort out for themselves how to git gud.

>this is how they're teaching math >tfw I was doing basic algebra at 5 because it was in a fucking game >7+x=12 >I fucking knew it was five because I can count past ten without having to write shit down The worst part is not that they're using certain things to introduce concepts, it's that they're using this stuff to FUCKING GRADE THEM. I swear if I ever get to grade a test and I see someone show all their work, I will beat their ass, even if they're 50 years old. You get good at math by internalizing, not externalizing.

>>6736094 actually thats pretty cool, they are teaching them to think of numbers as coordinates in an hypercube or at least that what it looks like. They could maybe visualize mathematical operations like vectors

>>6735761 Hm.. that's a very interesting idea. I used the helm of awe because before you do a seidr ritual, one must purify yourself with water by saying a very lengthy verse over it as you make the sign of the Helm of Awe on your third eye while saying, "I bear the helm of awe between my brows, something something something spooky rhyme" in order to calm anger.

It's just that its completely routine to do that, I can't see how it caused anything strange. Either way I guess maybe I just shouldn't have done that? Actually yeah you're probably right.

But how should I stop the nightmares? Will they just stop themselves once my mind finishes "fighting itself" and cleanses my psyche?

>>6735871 >>6736215 It's done to convey the underlying general idea. The method isn't meant to be used for computation. We live in an age where people walk around with computers in their pockets by the time these kids grow up it will only get more useless to waste their time teaching them multiplication tables. Instead they need to be able to intuitively reason with the underlying concepts of multiplication so that they have the tools to approach all sorts of problems conceptually. If you ask a normal person to pose an algebraic equation for some question they'll probably shit themselves and not be able to do it.

It's like how in axiomatic set theory one would start with an alphabet, construct a language w/grammar, construct a predicate logic on top of that, intepret the predicates as fundametnal set theory relations, pick out a set of sentences in said logic (set of axioms) and describe the sentences they entail. Doing this it takes pages and pages just to be able to describe some basic set theory concepts, even longer to begin constructing the number sets and arithmetic operations. Of course, doing this it's possible to prove what one would normally consider very trivial things over the span of several pages. No one would do it in practice but it's important for people to know and understand.

>>6736485 What I'm getting at is that the point is not to teach answers to arbitrary calculations, it's important to teach the underlying mechanics that let you solve any arbitrary calculation. That's why knowing why you have two apples is more important than the answer itself.

>>6736491 >you have no idea, what mathematics actually is

The manipulation of numerical abstract sums, sets of sums, and how these relate to each-other.

I'm not entirely sure why you believe that insulting me, and then not providing an argument for WHY I am wrong, or why I am what you say I am.... is an argument.

>>6736497 You at least agree that pulling your phone out of your pocket and typing in the numbers is far slower than doing the simple addition in your head like a normal person, right?

Wow. So you actually think the concepts of addition and subtraction aren't learned from experience as an objective observer in the universe by a young age? Do you really think humans are that stupid? You think if a child is not taught something explicitly, it will never learn it?

>Isn't that what we pay teachers to teach our children, you idiot?

So if it is taught, it is inherently valuable and should always be taught? Great logic.

>>6736499 >I'm not entirely sure why you believe that insulting me, no anon, i dont need to insult you, you insult yourself plenty

>not providing an argument for WHY I am wrong none of this is rocket science, if you cant realize it on your own, jesus himself cant help you. and I'm not even jesus

>>6736501 Sure, but don't you think over time if a person were to do that, they would become adept at relatively simple addition and subtraction and not need to use a phone or calculator? Surely the abstract conceptualization of addition and subtraction do not need to be taught and arise naturally in human minds.

>>6736502 >So you actually think the concepts of addition and subtraction aren't learned from experience as an objective observer in the universe by a young age? Do you really think humans are that stupid? You think if a child is not taught something explicitly, it will never learn it?

What child of six do you know who regularly counts large sums (hundreds or thousands) of objects, sorts them into piles, and then adds them together?

But that's beside the point....

Are you honestly defending the concept of the educational facility NOT teaching children Mathematics?

As in... you are trying to say that teaching children math is superfluous because they "Learn it from experience", "so why not use common core, because they don't really need to be taught math anyway"?

Seriously? You fucking shill, asshat... this is probably the most transparent bullshit I have ever seen.

If you were just defending common core, that would be one thing....

but you are actually defending NOT teaching children math, BECAUSE you want to teach them common core instead?

>>6736511 Uh, no, it's the opposite. If people rely on calculators/phones to do their math, they're going to have a harder time doing it by themselves.

>>6736515 >What child of six do you know who regularly counts large sums (hundreds or thousands) of objects, sorts them into piles, and then adds them together?

You underestimate the human mind so damn much. Small children are very capable of abstract conceptualization without being taught.

>Are you honestly defending the concept of the educational facility NOT teaching children Mathematics?

No, never.

>As in... you are trying to say that teaching children math is superfluous because they "Learn it from experience", "so why not use common core, because they don't really need to be taught math anyway"?

No, never.

>but you are actually defending NOT teaching children math, BECAUSE you want to teach them common core instead?

>>6736502 >So you actually think the concepts of addition and subtraction aren't learned from experience as an objective observer in the universe by a young age?

>which part of common core is not math?

Q.E.D. Strawman fallacy.

YOU are defending the position of NOT teaching children mathematics.

Your reasoning was that they "learn it from experience"

You are simultaniously defending common core.

Ergo, You are defending Common Core, AND the concept of NOT TEACHING MATH TO CHILDREN.

Furthermore, these related concepts join together in your perspective of reality:

You don't believe that common core is math, AND you want it taught to children BECAUSE OF THAT.

>>6736532 if i eat 500 calories of rice per meal and eat on average 2.5 meals a day and rice is 23 grams per 98 calories

I need enough rice to last me 12 weeks, i have budgeted 250 dollars for this. now is this enough money to buy the white rice at 0.74 dollar per kilo gram or the brown rice at 1.02 dollars per kilogram

>>6736511 >Surely the abstract conceptualization of addition and subtraction do not need to be taught and arise naturally in human minds.

OR:

>>6736502 >So you actually think the concepts of addition and subtraction aren't learned from experience as an objective observer in the universe by a young age? Do you really think humans are that stupid? You think if a child is not taught something explicitly, it will never learn it?

>>6736536 I agree. Also showing the work is more important than actually arriving to the correct result, since it shows that you have understood the underlying principle (or where you have made a mistake, in case of wrong answer) instead of just rote memorization.

I trust now that I have shown you the precise nature of the befuddled clusterfuck that was the argument of the person I was actually talking to, you have come to understand why his entire point was that common core doesn't teach children math, and THAT'S WHY HE WANTS IT TAUGHT... right?

>>6736560 >I trust now that I have shown you the precise nature of the befuddled clusterfuck that was the argument of the person I was actually talking to, you have come to understand why his entire point was that common core doesn't teach children math, and THAT'S WHY HE WANTS IT TAUGHT... right?

yes I understand what a strawman is, you dont need to explain again

This is just outright stating something that anyone who isn't dim will realize with little assistance. Public education is meant to be a big ol' well-lit sign that says "go this way to not be a retard," and goddamn if this doesn't accomplish that. I don't understand enough about an elementary schooler's development in math to make a sound judgement, but a lot of this does seem like the stuff that went through my own head, when I was a kid. Be that as it may, this is skating around the real issue here, which is that elementary school is basically a glorified daycare, except there are young African youths-in-training on growth spurts, who can terrorize the class with iron fists. I mean really, does someone need 4 years of college and a mediocre middle class salary to teach this to a child? It wasn't even a public school teacher that gave me an edge in math. It was a preacher at my church who happened to be that church's accountant, and he did it with a 40 year-old textbook.

>>6736578 I'm pretty sure that I just said that someone did teach me. It just wasn't a public school teacher. And he didn't spend countless man hours deliberating on how to spoon-feed me the information as much as possible.

>>6736567 I don't quite follow? The strings of numbers start to get rather long after the (80+3)(80+3) step, and holding them in mind for (41/200)(41/200) is hard. Your method isn't very good.

>>6736595 So you agree with my initial statement that it's better to count these things in your head rather than whipping out a calculator, then? Good!

All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.