- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Parent reply to Common Core Math
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:00 pm
Sorry if german.
14
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:06 pm to theenemy
That question is ridiculous. Just teach them math.
Why would people support this nonsense?
Why would people support this nonsense?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:11 pm to theenemy
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:16 pm to theenemy
I don't understand the point of teaching why 2+2=4 when "because it does" is a completely acceptable answer.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:18 pm to theenemy
What does Common Core call their number line approach? The Loch Ness Method?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:19 pm to theenemy
First the "number line" makes no sense. It has points identified as 427, 327, 227, and 121. This does not comport with subtracting 316 from 427 - it is laid out to subtract 306 from 427.
I have no idea who wrote the handwritten (incorrect) numbers as part of the 'solution.' Are these numbers part of Jack's supposed attempt to solve the problem, which some other student is evaluating?
Or is it part of the student's evaluation of Jack's work?
I'd say the problem itself is flawed.
I understand that you should not go thru these gyrations if you are simply wanting to subtract 316 from 427. However, it is worthwhile to be able to look at subtraction (or any other operation) as manipulations on a number line.
This gives you experience in dealing with subsets of numbers which can be combined in various ways to represent some other operation.
This ability will come in handy later on when students are required to deal with polynomial addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.
To only be able to do the mechanical subtraction process is of no help when dealing with the abstract terms in a polynomial - but to be able to group like terms together with a larger operation in mind is very useful.
But, as for this 'problem' itself, it seems to be a flawed example - I would not know how to address it as it is presented in this pic.
I have no idea who wrote the handwritten (incorrect) numbers as part of the 'solution.' Are these numbers part of Jack's supposed attempt to solve the problem, which some other student is evaluating?
Or is it part of the student's evaluation of Jack's work?
I'd say the problem itself is flawed.
I understand that you should not go thru these gyrations if you are simply wanting to subtract 316 from 427. However, it is worthwhile to be able to look at subtraction (or any other operation) as manipulations on a number line.
This gives you experience in dealing with subsets of numbers which can be combined in various ways to represent some other operation.
This ability will come in handy later on when students are required to deal with polynomial addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.
To only be able to do the mechanical subtraction process is of no help when dealing with the abstract terms in a polynomial - but to be able to group like terms together with a larger operation in mind is very useful.
But, as for this 'problem' itself, it seems to be a flawed example - I would not know how to address it as it is presented in this pic.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:25 pm to ChineseBandit58
327 is 100 less than 427 on the # line. 316 is 11 less than 327 on the # line. This gives the answer of 111.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:32 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:
316 is 11 less than 327 on the # line. This gives the answer of 111.
Yes - but there are only six 'spots' on the number line and the last point is labeled as 121, not 111.
The number line itself is flawed. You cannot go from 227 to 111 in six integer steps.
As I said, I have no idea how to address this problem without starting with the fact that the number line itself is flawed = which makes it difficult to evaluate Jack's response to a fundamentally unsolvable problem.
The handwritten numbers from '227' down to '121' make no sense either. First the sequence doesn't produce a '111' at the end, and second, the number '117' is missing.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:40 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
don't understand the point of teaching why 2+2=4 when "because it does" i
teaching 2 plus 2 from a theoretical standpoint would take graduate level number theory.
these fuxking liberals are of their rocker.
like taxes, science, business, psychology, etc..
.they have no fuxking clue what they are taking about, yet claim to be "educated". What a joke.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:40 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Yes - but there are only six 'spots' on the number line and the last point is labeled as 121, not 111.
The number line itself is flawed. You cannot go from 227 to 111 in six integer steps.
That number line should represent 427-306. Right?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:42 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
es - but there are only six 'spots' on the number line and the last point is labeled as 121, not 111.
The number line itself is flawed. You cannot go from 227 to 111 in six integer steps.
The assignment is to determine what Jack did WRONG and then tell him.
So, of course there is a "flaw" in the number line. The assignment is to find that flaw.
I am not supporting the Common Core stuff.
But, to point out that the number line is not correct....well...that is the POINT
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:44 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
nm
Ahh, I see. You have a point. Jack drew a flawed number line.
Ahh, I see. You have a point. Jack drew a flawed number line.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:47 pm to theenemy
quote:
he number line is not supposed to be flawed, jack's method is supposed to be flawed.
I'm guessing the number line was provided to jack.
Maybe so. I have to admit that I didn't even look at the problem. I just read the instructions and saw that "Jack" did it wrong.
My apologies if that is the case. I'm not interested enough to go see
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:48 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
My apologies if that is the case. I'm not interested enough to go see
No I think you were right. I edited.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:51 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
But, to point out that the number line is not correct....well...that is the POINT
Maybe so - but that is a tall assignment for an elementary (I am supposing that this is not a high school class) student.
To ask a fifth grader to evaluate another student's response to a flawed problem statement is pretty outrageous in my opinion.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:51 pm to theenemy
Do a Youtube search for Tom Lehrers' "New Math" a pedagogic thing that was dreamt up in the mid 60's., maybe do a little research on the idea too. The song will make you laugh your arse off with the two in your mind. At the end of the song you will know how you arrived at the answer, but the last lyric line sets the joke to it as he says next up will be to do in base 8. He was a math prof at Harvard and a musical practitioner of satire and comedy. There are some more songs that will pop up. The element song is one of them, he rattles of the periodic table at a ferocious speed like an auctioneer.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:54 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Maybe so - but that is a tall assignment for an elementary (I am supposing that this is not a high school class) student.
To ask a fifth grader to evaluate another student's response to a flawed problem statement is pretty outrageous in my opinion.
1) I would assume that this material (finding errors) was covered within the coursework. Hell, this may have simply been a homework assignment.
2) I find that is an effective teaching method. (the "find the error...not Common Core itself. I have zero experience with CC)
Posted on 3/22/14 at 1:55 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:
327 is 100 less than 427 on the # line. 316 is 11 less than 327 on the # line. This gives the answer of 111.
ok, but how hard is to do 427-316=111? Are we trying to make our kids stupid?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 2:00 pm to willthezombie
quote:
ok, but how hard is to do 427-316=111? Are we trying to make our kids stupid?
Hell, all we have to do is teach the kid to ask Siri. I just did and Siri said "111"
Apple Core >>>> Common Core
Posted on 3/22/14 at 2:07 pm to theenemy
In the 70's I drove my teacher's nut. My dad, being a machinist taught me to break down fractions down into decimals to get the answer. Teacher: "That's not how to work the problem. Me: The answer is right, isn't it. Teach: Yes, but. Me: Well what's the problem then.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News