The new math

[Que]

That was exactly the way it appeared on the math test for a 6th grader

Now that I have obsessed about it can you find out if it was a or b and would they accept either, and if not, why not?

Obviously not at the moment.

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

Please tell me they are not teaching kids to add on their fingers?

Twenty five years ago the schools for gifted students did. Unless it was a larger number and then they had blocks or sticks. Today they've come to the conclusion that kids are too smart for that and should just skip straight to the end and the results are. . .what you'd expect from putting a kid who can't walk on a bicycle. Which is exactly what you advocate doing.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Now that I have obsessed about it can you find out if it was a or b and would they accept either, and if not, why not?

Obviously not at the moment.

The answer "6+6+6=18" was marked as incorrect, and "3+3+3+3+3+3=18" was written in by the teacher as the correct answer.

email sent to the teacher to ask the reasoning. I think it is that the kids were taught to interpret it syntactically as 3+3+3+3+3+3=18 because mathematically they are equivalent.

But that is my speculation (and since they are mathematically they are equivalent I'd expect either answer to able acceptable but that was not the case)

 

[RobDownSouth]

The answer "6+6+6=18" was marked as incorrect, and "3+3+3+3+3+3=18" was written in by the teacher as the correct answer.

email sent to the teacher to ask the reasoning. I think it is that the kids were taught to interpret it syntactically as 3+3+3+3+3+3=18 because mathematically they are equivalent.

But that is my speculation (and since they are mathematically they are equivalent I'd expect either answer to able acceptable but that was not the case)

Google is my friend.

Just found the explanation:
They teach children to automatically associate "x" or "times" with "groups of".

Using that as a foundation, the answer to 6x3 is six groups of 3, or 3+3+3+3+3+3.

I grok that.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Google is my friend.

Just found the explanation:
They teach children to automatically associate "x" or "times" with "groups of".

Using that as a foundation, the answer to 6x3 is six groups of 3, or 3+3+3+3+3+3.

I grok that.

So it is not really math they are teaching in math, it is english.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The option wasn't given, but I would write it as six times three equals 18. Fuck that New Math crap.

Actually, I would just say "18" because I would have no need to do any calculating on such a simple question. Adding, the way you are doing here, works okay for small numbers but try it when you are multiplying 9,257 by 22,366. With numbers of that size, I would have to write the numbers down and do long multiplication or, better yet, use a pocket calculator.

 

[Sean Renaud]

However Boxi, that's the problem. You're an adult. You're beyond "If you have five apples, and Johnny eats one and Annie eats one and Kevin eats one how many do you have?" You'd probably either solve as you went or put it as 5-3=2. However it's 5-1-1-1=2 and when you're a first grader it's important to know.

I swear it's like none of you have ever had to teach ANYTHING.

 

[Killswitch]

Logically, the answer is 6+6+6.

666 heh.

 

[Kitty]

 

[Boxlicker101]

However Boxi, that's the problem. You're an adult. You're beyond "If you have five apples, and Johnny eats one and Annie eats one and Kevin eats one how many do you have?" You'd probably either solve as you went or put it as 5-3=2. However it's 5-1-1-1=2 and when you're a first grader it's important to know.

I swear it's like none of you have ever had to teach ANYTHING.

When I was in elementary school, many years ago, I learned the basic math tables. I was then able to adapt them to any kind of arithmetical equations I have been called on to solve. None of my teachers had any problem teaching me.

For first graders, that might be important to know, but nobody stays a first grader forever and, eventually, people start eating a percentage or fraction of the apples.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So basically like the generation before mine you didn't so much learn math you learned relationships. I mean I learned Japanese the same way playing video games and watching Anime.

I can give you tables for days but what you've done is memorize not understand. Now if you want to argue that in math puppets are better than thinkers I don't even have an argument. Other than you may not really know the process. If you know that 12x12=144 but not that 12x13=156 you've basically proven to me nothing more impressive than Arnold is Terminator and Sly is Rocky. You might not even know what either man looks or sounds like.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

When I was in elementary school, many years ago, I learned the basic math tables. I was then able to adapt them to any kind of arithmetical equations I have been called on to solve. None of my teachers had any problem teaching me.

For first graders, that might be important to know, but nobody stays a first grader forever and, eventually, people start eating a percentage or fraction of the apples.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE began life in 1859 as a tinkers journal where readers submitted nifty ideas, 95% of which were useful to the snowbound farmer in need of ideas for removing stumps in his cornfield or improving his moonshine.

Today its 95% navel-gazing and unicorn farts posted by simpering faggots at State U, as is most of modern education.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So it is not really math they are teaching in math, it is english.

well, that's one way of looking at it.

Put another way, even the most AJ-esque dullard can use rote memorization to learn multiplication tables. #ThosePeople struggle relating them to word problems, and later to higher math concepts like algebra.

I think this is a pretty good method to teach linguistic/symbolic substitution (now that I understand the "why" behind it).

 

[subdued_passion]

So it is not really math they are teaching in math, it is english.

I'd classify it as comprehension. Understanding word problems is important for day to day application of maths.

However Boxi, that's the problem. You're an adult. You're beyond "If you have five apples, and Johnny eats one and Annie eats one and Kevin eats one how many do you have?" You'd probably either solve as you went or put it as 5-3=2. However it's 5-1-1-1=2 and when you're a first grader it's important to know.

I swear it's like none of you have ever had to teach ANYTHING.

Can you imagine how scary it would be to have a teacher who thinks like that?

 

[about_average]

Because of common core, kids today are literally being taught that 2+2 = 5.

I have a feeling that at your school the meaning of "literally" was never taught.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Can you imagine how scary it would be to have a teacher who thinks like that?

Actually had one. It's less scary and more incredibly frustrating because they treat you like you're stupid for not getting it and you feel stupid and then if you're as lucky as me someone breaks it down into it's individual parts for you.

That's why I keep saying what a lot of these people are proposing is taking kids who can't walk and throwing them on a bike. I'm sure you can find someone who could ride before they could walk, just like there are movies about kung fu masters who could jump kick out the womb but for the rest of us there are necessary steps.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'd classify it as comprehension. Understanding word problems is important for day to day application of maths.

It seems to me that drawing a distinction about the grouping or order of numbers in a mathematical operation that has the same value can only introduce confusion rather than comprehension about the associative power of addition and multiplication.

If one wants to make the point about the true substantive difference between "six threes" and "three sixes," it would make far more sense to illustrate that difference within the context of subtraction or division.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It seems to me that drawing a distinction about the grouping or order of numbers in a mathematical operation that has the same value can only introduce confusion rather than comprehension about the associative power of addition and multiplication.

If one wants to make the point about the true substantive difference between "six threes" and "three sixes," it would make far more sense to illustrate that difference within the context of subtraction or division.

How would you do that in a way that would be simpler?

While I understand the theory I have my doubts on it's prac app but I'm not seeing how putting it in a different context helps and depending on your job I can see the value of doing it this way. Eggs (generally) come in dozens. They are not twelve groups of X they are X groups of 12.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How would you do that in a way that would be simpler?

While I understand the theory I have my doubts on it's prac app but I'm not seeing how putting it in a different context helps and depending on your job I can see the value of doing it this way. Eggs (generally) come in dozens. They are not twelve groups of X they are X groups of 12.

The point is not "simpler." The point is that two mathematical operations have an "associative" property and two operations do not. I just think a teacher should affirm that fact in a way that solidifies a student's understanding of it and avoid verbal descriptions that might tend to confuse.

Your analogy to a dozen eggs merely describes their packaging. It tells us nothing about the mathematical relevance of "twelve groups of X vs. X groups of 12"). Nor does it establish any other mathematical relevance to, say, two groups of six as compared to six groups of two. Because in addition and multiplication there is no relevancy.

There is relevancy only in other mathematical operations. The emphasis has to stay on the operations, NOT individual values or grouping of values on which the operation is being applied.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So basically you're saying teach math and to that I agree.

 

[Balladeer08]

Mathematics is a language. It is read left to right just as English is.

The literal English translation of 6 x 3 is "Six times three" or to put it less awkwardly, "Count to three, six times."

Mathmatics has some rules and acrobatics that are allowed while retainign the same meaning.

Using multiplicative identity, 6x3 is also 3x6.

So answer one and two are both correct.

It is also "Three times six" or "Count to six, three times."

Since usually these things are taught in an order from more simpler concept, but more difficult solves to more advanced concepts but ultimately simpler solves, the correct answer is probably the first, but if I am thinking in groups of things in my head I would solve it as Lemonbread did.

The only notation that would clearly delineate if you had 6 groups of three or tree groups of 6 would be" 6(3) or 3(6). It is a distinction without a difference because whether you had 3 packs of 6 wolves, or 6 packs of 3 wolves you still have 18 wolves so not understanding the intent of the person posing the problem makes no difference.

I always hated that about mathematics instruction. The instructor would say, "This is he way you are going to solve for the area under a curve for now, but eventually you will be doing it a simpler way."

I object to teaching additive method for multiplication because it is inefficient, and unnecessary. Generations of mathematics students successfully learned their multiplication tables.

If the objection is the difficulty of rote memorization, anyone with an IQ over about 80 can do it. To do the additive method you already had to memorize equally long additive tables.

Please tell me they are not teaching kids to add on their fingers?

Good grief!

After all this verbalization is over, do any of the kids know what 6 X 3 = ??????????????????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo&list=PL55DC151808F6A79D&index=2

 

[domroger]

Revelations ,666 = sign of the beast (Satan ).

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It seems to me that drawing a distinction about the grouping or order of numbers in a mathematical operation that has the same value can only introduce confusion rather than comprehension about the associative power of addition and multiplication.

If one wants to make the point about the true substantive difference between "six threes" and "three sixes," it would make far more sense to illustrate that difference within the context of subtraction or division.

Colonel, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It seems to me that drawing a distinction about the grouping or order of numbers in a mathematical operation that has the same value can only introduce confusion rather than comprehension about the associative power of addition and multiplication.

If one wants to make the point about the true substantive difference between "six threes" and "three sixes," it would make far more sense to illustrate that difference within the context of subtraction or division.

There is a distinction when you get to higher or longer numbers. 6 * 3 or 3 * 6 is simple enough that it can be written either way. But, what about something like 5,356,401 * 127. The smaller number would always be the multiplier. If course, if you have a decimal involved, such as 234.65 * 1,310, the number with the fewer digits would be the multiplier, even though, in this case, the multiplicand is smaller.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

So it is not really math they are teaching in math, it is english.

Errrm no, not really.

It's a way to give children a physical visualization of what they are doing, or attempting to do.

e.g. 6 x (lots of) 3 sweets. That is the way it mathematically reads.

As opposed to an abstract 6x3=3x6=18

Ax3=18

What's A?

That comes later

Woof!