- 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
1
Posted on 9/22/15 at 5:57 pm to Tigerfan56
Math was not my strongest suit I will admit. Having said that, I see a pattern in the problem you posted. But, where did the 3 come from in the 27+3? Is it because the the original problem had three values in it, i.e., 51, 28, and X? Probably a stupid question. but I am trying to understand.
This post was edited on 9/22/15 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 9/22/15 at 5:57 pm to ForeverLSU02
Most people assume common core is a certain way of teaching things, when it is actually goal oriented. No one mandates the way you teach. Just what you teach.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 5:58 pm to Peazey
Also, this reminds me of something from a while back in the day. Older folks have always been resistant to change.
Tom Lehrer - New Math
Tom Lehrer - New Math
Posted on 9/22/15 at 5:59 pm to BRgetthenet
quote:
Kids today are about as dumb as they were in the 1500's.
And I think I saw some on your lawn...you may want to invite them to get off it.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:00 pm to potent357
quote:
If you have 58 of something, and you take away 27 of them, you are left with 31 of them. Why do you need to got through all of the other steps to do this?
This is clearly a thread about how common core isn't hard to understand. But as the OT goes, it clearly cannot stay as that.
To answer your question, a deeper understanding of mathematics principles is more important than speedy calculation, in terms of development for a child. If you can't understand that reasoning, then there isn't hope for you. If common core accomplishes that, then good for this method.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:00 pm to Tigerfan56
I'm sorry but that method is fricking retarded.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:01 pm to Tigerfan56
What the proles do is of no concern to me.
The cream will rise to the top, just like always.
The cream will rise to the top, just like always.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:01 pm to Tigerfan56
Do they make the kids do this shite in calculus now?
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:01 pm to Peazey
I taught myself what is essentially the common core method when I was in grade school. I had the best math scores in my class until 8th grade. True story.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:01 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Why teach it at all since we all have calculators. The point is to give math context and meaning vs just being pointless memorization.
Only a complete retard cannot see the value in the new math. I wish I had been taught that way as it would have completely changed my perception of numbers.
not making fun, i'm genuinely curious: what about this method of subtraction is eye-opening to you?
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:02 pm to Robin Masters
Those are the ones I made with your wife. Come get them whenever you get done making fries.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:02 pm to Tigerfan56
Not all students learn in the same way. This method does not do a better job of teaching the basic concepts of math.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:03 pm to Peazey
quote:
I guess it's not that much different than how I do a lot of math in my head.
True. I wouldn't do that particular problem that way. But if I were to do 55 x 19 in my head, I would convert it into easier problems and think (55 x 20) - 55.
The example the OP referenced is an instance where they made it significantly more complicated. There's a very good argument against doing simple arithmetic that way--it can create unnecessary confusion that interferes with learning.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:08 pm to Motorboat
quote:
maybe I'm stupid and I've never been taught the method, but how and why does one get to this:
27+3=30
30+20=50
50+8=58
from this?
58-27=?
It is easier to do arithmetic and conceptualize arithmetic when dealing with round numbers. Getting to the next round number, putting aside the three it took to get there, jumping twenty to the next round number, seeing there is eight left then combine all of those jumps. I think it's an easier way to conceptualize the arithmetic and that you are finding the distance between the two numbers. My terminology is probably pretty off in how I expressed this.
I actually use a similar method when doing more complicated arithmetic in my head all the time. It's my personal method that I figured out when trying to find faster ways to do things in my head. Of course everyone thinks of things differently.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:11 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
The example the OP referenced is an instance where they made it significantly more complicated. There's a very good argument against doing simple arithmetic that way--it can create unnecessary confusion that interferes with learning.
I could see that. Maybe there's an optimal order that things can be learned.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:12 pm to Tigerfan56
You don't get what the big deal with the CC math is because you aren't in your 40's spending 2 hours trying to help a 3rd grader with math homework every night.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:13 pm to poe tay toes
quote:
not making fun, i'm genuinely curious: what about this method of subtraction is eye-opening to you?
Because its a logical way of taking a complex problem and breaking it down into more manageable pieces which you can use, thanks to a greater understanding of place value, to basically do most simple math in your head. I think it also allows the student to gain a control and mastery of math concepts at a younger age. Normally the students would be simply memorizing and writing out long math problems which is completely useless with the accessibility of calculators.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:15 pm to Peazey
quote:
I could see that. Maybe there's an optimal order that things can be learned.
For something like 58 - 27, might be better to simplify it to 58 - 20 - 7.
For 57 - 28 (so you have a case where traditional arithmetic carries a number), you could do 57 - 20 = 37, 37 - 7 =30, 30 - 1 = 29.
But it would still be better to reserve the Common Core method for larger, more complicated sets of numbers (like multiplying two 3-digit numbers). Simple arithmetic should be kept...simple. If you need tricks to figure out 58 - 27 you're screwed anyway.
Posted on 9/22/15 at 6:17 pm to Peazey
quote:
It is easier to do arithmetic and conceptualize arithmetic when dealing with round numbers. Getting to the next round number, putting aside the three it took to get there, jumping twenty to the next round number, seeing there is eight left then combine all of those jumps. I think it's an easier way to conceptualize the arithmetic and that you are finding the distance between the two numbers.
This is a pretty solid way of explaining the reasoning behind the method.
It is a way of writing down the process of counting from 27 to 58 using round numbers to find the difference between the 58 and 27.
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News