- Aug 6, 2004
- 5,922
- 1
- 71
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
I had no idea that kids are learning math like this. It seems so inefficient.
I had no idea that kids are learning math like this. It seems so inefficient.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Right, but there's no reason to do that when you don't have to do it in your head.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Right, but there's no reason to do that when you don't have to do it in your head.
Originally posted by: KMc
Wow, what perfect timing. I am going through this with my daughter right now. They are teaching the "partial products" and "lattice" methods. I said forget that and just taught her the old fashioned way. Much more efficient and it works exactly the same way every time. Luckily her teacher doesn't care how they work the problem.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Right, but there's no reason to do that when you don't have to do it in your head.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Originally posted by: SpecialEd
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Right, but there's no reason to do that when you don't have to do it in your head.
As far as I can tell, this method is not different from the paper method.
Originally posted by: chuckywang
If I had a kid and he/she was taught using the "Partial Products" or "Lattice" method, I'd transfer him/her to another school.
Talk about a cop out by our educational system. It's like they're saying "Our kids aren't learning multiplication in 5th grade. It must be the algorithm's fault and not the fault of the teachers or parents or culture inside schools".
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SpecialEd
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BigJ
Looking at the first example (only 3:20) that's similar to how a lot of people do it in their heads. 26 x 31 = (20 x 31) + (6 x 31) = 620 + 186 = 806
Right, but there's no reason to do that when you don't have to do it in your head.
As far as I can tell, this method is not different from the paper method.
This way isn't (in this specific case), but more people break it down further and do the 20x31 as 10x31, then they multiply it by 2. Then depending on how good their multiplication tables are, they may break 6 down further. What I was getting at was breaking down the equation.
Originally posted by: bonkers325
what a cumbersome approach to simple math. imagine doing something like that in calculus
Originally posted by: MrsJello
I'm in a class right now about teaching math, as part of my elementary education major. We're learning mostly through CGI-- cognitively guided instruction-- in which the kids work through story problems and have to come up with their own methods of solving problems in ways that work best for them. The main point of the method is that kids learn with more understanding than they would just through algorithms. They also have to logically explain why they got that answer.
It is important for kids to learn how to do math well, but it isn't necessary for kids to learn an algorithm to do it. The standard algorithms don't really make any logical sense. The lattice method seems even more confusing, though. The turk method at least was logical, and for long division, it was pretty much the same though process that was represented.
I haven't seen Everyday Math books above first grade yet, but it seems that their focus is more on real life skills. When was the last time that you had to use pencil and paper to figure out a problem? Using calculators isn't awful if the kids understand what's happening when you do arithmetic.
The atlases in the 4th and 5th grade Everyday Math books were pretty odd, though.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: bonkers325
what a cumbersome approach to simple math. imagine doing something like that in calculus
Seems to me that they're trying to teach people to use math more effectively in their daily life. Most people don't use calculus on a regular basis, and you highlighted exactly why this wouldn't apply to calculus - this is a method of doing simple math.