Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 7:28:36 GMT -6
In some ways I think it gives an indication of who may be gifted in the class.... In some ways I believe its to help those who are having trouble understand.. Its foreign to us now but when we were young and sucking in knowledge perhaps it works.. Like everything new us old farts are just going to complain thats not how we did it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 12:15:06 GMT -6
I have 62 "things" that I am going to add 26 "things" to. Add them together the "old" way and you will have the answer. Why does a child need to have a "deeper understanding" of something so simple? If every math algorithm is "broken down" like the one above, can you imagine how long it will take just to get through addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division...let alone advance into integers, fractions, and algebra? Holy sh!t, use common sense...just because a method used to solve problems is "old" doesn't mean we get rid of it. The examples on the right of the chart above can be used to illustrate other ways to look at it, if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 17, 2014 13:51:40 GMT -6
I can agree with helencrump..... however, setting the bar too high for most students with this common core could be and will be a failed attempt at Education. Most all students will give up with the silly story telling and it's mind boggling attempt to throw you off. their may be 1% that will do this new learning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 17:41:16 GMT -6
I have 62 "things" that I am going to add 26 "things" to. Add them together the "old" way and you will have the answer. Why does a child need to have a "deeper understanding" of something so simple? If every math algorithm is "broken down" like the one above, can you imagine how long it will take just to get through addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division...let alone advance into integers, fractions, and algebra? Holy sh!t, use common sense...just because a method used to solve problems is "old" doesn't mean we get rid of it. The examples on the right of the chart above can be used to illustrate other ways to look at it, if necessary. Like Dylan sang in the sixties.The Times They Are A Changing.I don't like it any more than you-but we're going to have to live with it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 18:44:06 GMT -6
I have 62 "things" that I am going to add 26 "things" to. Add them together the "old" way and you will have the answer. Why does a child need to have a "deeper understanding" of something so simple? If every math algorithm is "broken down" like the one above, can you imagine how long it will take just to get through addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division...let alone advance into integers, fractions, and algebra? Holy sh!t, use common sense...just because a method used to solve problems is "old" doesn't mean we get rid of it. The examples on the right of the chart above can be used to illustrate other ways to look at it, if necessary. Like Dylan sang in the sixties.The Times They Are A Changing.I don't like it any more than you-but we're going to have to live with it.. I noticed you have no reasoned out rebuttal to my last post...just capitulation to authority. Throwing up your hands and "bending over" usually is a prescription for bad things to happen. An obvious lesson from history in the 1930's and 40's: Doing nothing is similar to what most Jews in every town and hamlet in Nazi-occupied Europe felt was the correct response to Nazi rules and regulations: "I don't like it any more than you, but we're going to have to live with it." Running silent to that particular "Change" was disastrous.
Nothing good will come from running silent about this particular changeover to our nation's educational system, either. Without a single vote from The People being cast.
We'll just agree to disagree. If I still had kids in public schools -I'd pull 'em immediately. What would you do?
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 17, 2014 19:15:29 GMT -6
Got that right! We pulled them for the many reasons, and one can see only as far as they want too.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 18, 2014 10:44:50 GMT -6
I am just throwing this out here for discussion. Is it possible that many are against Common Core because we are looking at it from the perspective of having to unlearn what we were taught and used over many years, and then relearn the new method? Does that make it twice as hard for us, compared to kids who are learning for the first time? I remember reading an article a few years ago about NASCAR pit crews. Back in the early days, they hired mechanics to service the car. In the newer era, the most successful teams chose to hire people without any previous mechanical experience because it was easier to train those people, rather than un-train the experienced wrenches and re-train them to work the way management wanted them to do. I would like to see some data for real life tests on kids started out on conventional teaching methods vs common core teaching methods, and see what the results are before endorsing or condemning common core. And, no, BB I am not going to take the time to search for those results myself. You started the topic Butterbean, give us a little more factual stuff.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 18, 2014 11:10:52 GMT -6
I have 62 "things" that I am going to add 26 "things" to. Add them together the "old" way and you will have the answer. Why does a child need to have a "deeper understanding" of something so simple? If every math algorithm is "broken down" like the one above, can you imagine how long it will take just to get through addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division...let alone advance into integers, fractions, and algebra? Holy sh!t, use common sense...just because a method used to solve problems is "old" doesn't mean we get rid of it. The examples on the right of the chart above can be used to illustrate other ways to look at it, if necessary. Don't take it personal and think I am arguing with you on this topic. Sometimes I like to throw things out there to promote discussion. I could see it might take longer initially to "learn" things but maybe the purpose of doing it early on, will make it easier to "problem solve" in the later grades? So it might take to the 2nd grade to learn stuff that we would have learned in kindergarten, but by their senior year, if they have more knowledge than they would have had under the old system, wouldn't that be better?
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 18, 2014 11:28:41 GMT -6
I am just throwing this out here for discussion. Is it possible that many are against Common Core because we are looking at it from the perspective of having to unlearn what we were taught and used over many years, and then relearn the new method? Does that make it twice as hard for us, compared to kids who are learning for the first time? I remember reading an article a few years ago about NASCAR pit crews. Back in the early days, they hired mechanics to service the car. In the newer era, the most successful teams chose to hire people without any previous mechanical experience because it was easier to train those people, rather than un-train the experienced wrenches and re-train them to work the way management wanted them to do. I would like to see some data for real life tests on kids started out on conventional teaching methods vs common core teaching methods, and see what the results are before endorsing or condemning common core. And, no, BB I am not going to take the time to search for those results myself. You started the topic Butterbean, give us a little more factual stuff. Dog, I can agree with you on it would be easier for a person too go right into this than too convert over.
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Aug 18, 2014 14:02:17 GMT -6
I am just throwing this out here for discussion. Is it possible that many are against Common Core because we are looking at it from the perspective of having to unlearn what we were taught and used over many years, and then relearn the new method? Does that make it twice as hard for us, compared to kids who are learning for the first time? I remember reading an article a few years ago about NASCAR pit crews. Back in the early days, they hired mechanics to service the car. In the newer era, the most successful teams chose to hire people without any previous mechanical experience because it was easier to train those people, rather than un-train the experienced wrenches and re-train them to work the way management wanted them to do. I would like to see some data for real life tests on kids started out on conventional teaching methods vs common core teaching methods, and see what the results are before endorsing or condemning common core. And, no, BB I am not going to take the time to search for those results myself. You started the topic Butterbean, give us a little more factual stuff. My grandaughter was visiting at the end of last school year, and had homework to complete. She was showing her aunt her math and she just whipped right through it, showing her work, and explaining it without any problem. She was in 2nd grade. So, she had already started in preschool, kindergarten, and 1st grade, with 'old' methods. Guess we will have to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 21:25:51 GMT -6
Here's a second grade problem taken directly from a new Common Core Houghton Mifflin textbook:
4. Brian has some boxes of paper clips. Some boxes hold 10 clips and some boxes hold 100. He has some paper clips left over. He has three more boxes with100 paper clips than he has boxes with 10 paper clips. He has two fewer paper clips left over than he has numbers of boxes with 100 paper clips. What number of paper clips could he have?
If American parents don't wake up and revolt soon...
(Courtesy of Michelle Malkin) Upon first looking at this I was tired and thought it was abnormal yes.. But then when you sit down with a fresh mind you understand i really isn't that difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 21:34:18 GMT -6
I have 62 "things" that I am going to add 26 "things" to. Add them together the "old" way and you will have the answer. Why does a child need to have a "deeper understanding" of something so simple? If every math algorithm is "broken down" like the one above, can you imagine how long it will take just to get through addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division...let alone advance into integers, fractions, and algebra? Holy sh!t, use common sense...just because a method used to solve problems is "old" doesn't mean we get rid of it. The examples on the right of the chart above can be used to illustrate other ways to look at it, if necessary. I think it helps the kid who just can't grasp it when you do it the long way.. And I'm trying to be nice so lets just say there are many people out there who didn't pick it up the old way... Plus there's a new technological world evolving that I don't think us old guys are ready for. www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/03354413427/changing-way-that-math-is-taught-to-children.shtml
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 19, 2014 6:36:27 GMT -6
Don't take it personal and think I am arguing with you on this topic. Sometimes I like to throw things out there to promote discussion. I could see it might take longer initially to "learn" things but maybe the purpose of doing it early on, will make it easier to "problem solve" in the later grades? So it might take to the 2nd grade to learn stuff that we would have learned in kindergarten, but by their senior year, if they have more knowledge than they would have had under the old system, wouldn't that be better? Dog, the question you have to ask yourself is this. What is the most efficient way to accomplish the task of adding 62 to 26? Clearly, the way we used to do it is far faster, without nearly the chance of an error. Whoever is steering this country has managed to muddle the brains of its citizens to be "open" to damned near anything in the name of "progress"
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 19, 2014 7:57:22 GMT -6
Don't take it personal and think I am arguing with you on this topic. Sometimes I like to throw things out there to promote discussion. I could see it might take longer initially to "learn" things but maybe the purpose of doing it early on, will make it easier to "problem solve" in the later grades? So it might take to the 2nd grade to learn stuff that we would have learned in kindergarten, but by their senior year, if they have more knowledge than they would have had under the old system, wouldn't that be better? Dog, the question you have to ask yourself is this. What is the most efficient way to accomplish the task of adding 62 to 26? Clearly, the way we used to do it is far faster, without nearly the chance of an error. Whoever is steering this country has managed to muddle the brains of its citizens to be "open" to d**ned near anything in the name of "progress" I don't need to ask myself that question, I DO know that the old way is clearly faster and probably more accurate. I am just wondering if this "new" method would be beneficial when the problems become much harder to solve. Does taking the easy path early on, result in struggles further down the road?
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 19, 2014 9:10:07 GMT -6
I believe it would sharpen a persons brain in the long run, however, I agree with sniper that we need the most accurate and fastest way to solve problems. Keep in mind that there will not be many who will get this new type of math, like jim.b said,'' only the top percentage in the class will get it'' and that would most likely be very low.
|
|