Are you unfamiliar with how awful the average person is at math?
From my own experience, it does not work for the majority of kids.Apparently so.
So how is it done in other countries?
Edit- IF this does make it easier to understand math for the majority of kids.. then fine that's great... but yes for this 37 year old, those examples do seem more confusing... looks to make something more complicated than it needs to be.
Again I'm all for it, if it does work for the majority of kids.
I honestly don't know. I remember reading in college once, though, that language in general plays a role in how easily people pick up math, due to organizational matters relating to how our brain processes language. The article was about how asian languages may be more conducive to higher level maths because of the way their languages work and how their brains process chunks of their languages in more mechanical and consistent ways compared to things like english, which have lots and lots of irregular exceptions.
I took 4 years of japanese in college, and their language is honestly pretty modular compared to english.
From my own experience, it does not work for the majority of kids.
I feel like it is the responsibility of teachers to actually read the standards. After all, college education should have provided a decent amount of research skills to do so. Most teachers that I know, who spent an hour together to read and discuss the standards, end up agreeing that they are good standards. One of my friends is a math teacher in his 70s. He is old school when it comes to math. He said the math CC standards are good. It is teachers who dont even bother to read them who dont like them.I've explained as much. I think, on the whole, Common Core is an abject failure. I think it's resulted in a greater number of children struggling to comprehend basics, it's more or less eliminated the support system of parents helping reinforce what we teach at home, and it's overall a much more cumbersome and time-consuming method to teach the curriculum. I don't know a single teacher who supports Common Core.
Well that's pretty cute: Asserting that I and the teachers I work with every day haven't actually read the standards. Bugger off with that.I feel like it is the responsibility of teachers to actually read the standards. After all, college education should have provided a decent amount of research skills to do so. Most teachers that I know, who spent an hour together to read and discuss the standards, end up agreeing that they are good standards. One of my friends is a math teacher in his 70s. He is old school when it comes to math. He said the math CC standards are good. It is teachers who dont even bother to read them who dont like them.
Uh, in this very thread there are more teachers advocating for it than not.You'll notice that the majority of people cheering on this method of teaching math aren't the parents, students or teachers involved with it.
Are you in a republican/conservative district? Republicans dont like Common Core. They made their decision about it before ever reading the standards.Well that's pretty cute: Asserting that I and the teachers I work with every day haven't actually read the standards. Bugger off with that.
This is not true. CC was an Obama reform. Same as Race to the Top.It's corruption. It was implemented by W. to teach to the test and who was in charge of creating these tests? A company that donates to republicans in fact I think the company was even owned by or had a ceo who was a Bush family member.
You'll notice that the majority of people cheering on this method of teaching math aren't the parents, students or teachers involved with it.
Funny thing is this is how I learned/taught myself how to do subtraction in my head as a kid lol
Tests changed with the times as well. You could not compare the data from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s if they all used different tests.Common core has been around for a decent amount of time now, right? Is there any data on what happened to test scores and proficiency in districts that implemented it?
I'm in New Jersey, in one of the more liberal districts.Are you in a republican/conservative district? Republicans dont like Common Core. They made their decision about it before ever reading the standards.
This, my understanding was that the fancypants methods people complain about and blame on "common core" actually have nothing to do with what CC mandates and everything to do with textbooks.Common core does not tell you how to teach anything, it tells what level of basic knowledge all students should have at what grade level. "Common core math" was just an alternative way to teach math that iirc was designed to really help autistic students. The reason it became "common core math" is that the text book manufacturers called it that and suckered bad districts into buying their books so they wouldn't get left behind.
Because it pushed memorization and following patterns rather than understanding what you were doing, and showing how you can manipulate numbers. Most people don't know why they do things in math, they just do the method they were shown. The way they do it now is to try to build a stronger foundation so people can actually advance more in math. To top it off, a lot of the things they teach is simply how people do math in their head now anyway.
Common core has been around for a decent amount of time now, right? Is there any data on what happened to test scores and proficiency in districts that implemented it?
You'll notice that the majority of people cheering on this method of teaching math aren't the parents, students or teachers involved with it.
Ecsuse your university expects each student to already know the principles of math, thus, simplifying it doesn't take away the understanding of how you got to your answer. 3rd graders actually need to understand not just the answer but why the answer is what it is. So yes, things will be a bit more complicated.Common core is stupid.
Even my University simplified math as much as possible.
And that was Game Dev.
Tests changed with the times as well. You could not compare the data from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s if they all used different tests.
The thing though is, Common Core is just a goal of what you need to know. How it's taught will vary by school districts as each adopts a different curriculum. Also it's clear that the material given to parents isn't equal in all school districts either. I'm not even sure if the tests are standard so looking at the data is going to vary depending on how things were implemented and tested.
OK I get that, but my state at least (California) tests for proficiency in math and reading and you can see the results year by year, school by school. Even if the tests change year by year, the results should be improving if a school's particular change is working, right?
Otherwise how in the world are we supposed to know if this is actually working?
OK I get that, but my state at least (California) tests for proficiency in math and reading and you can see the results year by year, school by school. Even if the tests change year by year, the results should be improving if a school's particular change is working, right?
Otherwise how in the world are we supposed to know if this is actually working?
The best way to know if teaching methodology is working is by reading up on University educational research studies, that are peer reviewed, and do qualitative data analysis throughout many years. Just reading test scores from some company is a bullshit measure and people really need to get over those results.OK I get that, but my state at least (California) tests for proficiency in math and reading and you can see the results year by year, school by school. Even if the tests change year by year, the results should be improving if a school's particular change is working, right?
Otherwise how in the world are we supposed to know if this is actually working?
I would bet money that this problem is part of a sequence of problems explaining the entire mathmatical computation. The problem is probably completely taken out of context and if we looked at the entire set of questions we'd all agree this is a good and proper way to learn math.This makes a ton of sense to me. If I'm adding something like 292 + 141, I mainly just process 41 − 8 in my head. Without really thinking about it, I've already done 292 + 8 to "make 300". And almost instantly I've pictured the number 400. The most time consuming step is then the 41 − 8.
People have different ways of doing mental math, so I'm glad kids are learning multiple methods. It probably seems like overkill for something as simple as 8 + 5, but it'll be useful when you're adding three digit numbers. It'll be faster to "make 300" than to break the above problem down into 2 + 1 + 90 + 40 + 200 + 100.
I think the real problem is that teachers aren't explaining and/or kids aren't fully understanding why each method works. This was a problem back in my day too, when I was learning what you might call the traditional methods. Like ask someone why addition is done from right-to-left (eg: start with least significant digit) and subtraction is done from left-to-right. Or ask them how long division works and what the remainder in each step represents. The new methods seem like gibberish if you don't understand what they're getting at, but those old methods were gibberish too if you don't know how they work.
I was always getting points taken off in school for this. I could do math in my head because of a system of my own devise, but there was no "work" to show because it was visual.The solution I always advocated is "stop making students show their work you dummies." A student has already "shown their work" by arriving at the correct answer, you don't need to make them do the extra work of explicitly trying to codify their thought process if they already know how to get the right answer. If they need a pen and paper for particularly difficult problems then they'll use it, no need to make it mandatory.
the benefits of this type of education can't be felt in a single year to year, or even multiple years of examination. It's a change that will manifest when the person is at the end of their formal education, like leaving college, and how they use it in their lives, because the change will be their overall grasp of mathematics as a society. It's a macro change, not a micro change.
This hasn't been around long enough to bare those kinds of fruits. It'll be literally a generational change.
The best way to know if teaching methodology is working is by reading up on University educational research studies, that are peer reviewed, and do qualitative data analysis throughout many years. Just reading test scores from some company is a bullshit measure and people really need to get over those results.
Was there any kind of testing or studies done to determine that this will create the results that you're predicting, before implementing it live?
I'm a parent. My daughter has a learning disability...as I did. I would get math problems correct but I'd get the answer in a very different way. I was criticized for it when trying to show my work. My daughter figures things out as I did but with little to no stigmatism because the curriculum encourages finding ways to solve the problem rather than just telling the answer.You'll notice that the majority of people cheering on this method of teaching math aren't the parents, students or teachers involved with it.
Yes, quite literally I described a study funded by NASA at my magnet school when I was young.
Exactly. I was actually kind of jealous of kids that had the opportunity to learn common core math. I seems like the natural evolution of how math should be taught.Common Core tries to teach number theory but most people just memorized math facts and formulas. It doesn't help that most parents and teachers weren't taught this way, so they have trouble helping.
Like, a Common Core way to solve something might take 6 steps instead of 2, but those 6 steps can be completed in like 1/4 of the time.
I'm a parent. My daughter has a learning disability...as I did. I would get math problems correct but I'd get the answer in a very different way. I was criticized for it when trying to show my work. My daughter figures things out as I did but with little to no stigmatism because the curriculum encourages finding ways to solve the problem rather than just telling the answer.
CC requires students to learn how 10s place and 1s place work and how it interacts with other math facts. To all the people who keep saying CC is just the standard, they are only partly correct but missing the brilliance of CC. the standards now require understanding of how math principles work and not the brute force answer. The material is a reflection in this fundamental change in how we teach and learn math.
Parents really need to redirect their anger toward Pearson. Unfortunately, Pearon likely has politicians in their pockets.A lot of problems with common core come from the makers if the text books and materials. There's lots of terrible curriculum, same as always.
Allowing states, particularly conservative ones, to disregard national standards is not a good thing. But by all means cheer for this because it makes you feel less dumb as a parent. We will never be able to fix our education system by allowing fuckwads to govern it.
Edit
Ultimately we live in a nation of people who have poor critical thinking skills, and can't handle learning or helping their kids with new methods because it's not how they memorized how to do it. This issue is compounded by the quality of many schools being poor already. Regardless of the method, standards, etc., these issues are going to be difficult to overcome.
Do you have the data on that? Sorry I missed it, but the post I found seemed to just say that kids who were chosen for a certain program all did well with calculus and you were surprised by it. How were they chosen? How were kids at your school chosen to go there in the first place? I'd be interested in seeing the actual study.
I'm not challenging your story, I'm just looking for information.
Do you have the data on that? Sorry I missed it, but the post I found seemed to just say that kids who were chosen for a certain program all did well with calculus and you were surprised by it. How were they chosen? How were kids at your school chosen to go there in the first place? I'd be interested in seeing the actual study.
I'm not challenging your story, I'm just looking for information. I'm a parent at the stage of starting to choose schools and the entire education path for my kids, so I'm just trying to absorb as much info as possible.