Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth

[yankeesfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

I had no idea that kids are learning math like this. It seems so inefficient.

 

[dj2004]

I suck at math.

 

[mwtgg]

Who taught her to write 8's?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[SLCentral]

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

Yeah, and it makes sense, I mean, it teaches kids how to think logically and reason out things, but it doesn't give a education in how to do basic arithmetic. Not to mention it takes twice as long by hand. This, as well as the other reform methods, is just dumb.

 

[BigJ]

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.

I absolutely agree.

 

[mjrand]

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.

Absolutely agree with you. In my head I always simplify it like that. Pointless to do that on paper though.

 

[eits]

the "new age" ways of learning multiplication were bullshyt... however, i easily do division in my head by "reasoning" the problem. it's a LOT easier than doing long division. for example, 133/6... easy as hell. you just do in your head exactly what she did on the board... 22*6=132... 132+1=133... so, 133/6=22.166666666 etc.

 

[Pepsi90919]

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.

how much paper does one waste with that lattice method

 

[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.

 

[DaWhim]

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

oh damn! I never learned that way to do two digits multiplication. i didn't grow up in the US either.

 

[mugs]

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

I've only gotten that far as well, and that's very similar to how I do math in my head, except I usually use multiplication instead of addition, i.e.

12x42
=
6x84
=
3x168
=
300 + 180 + 24
= 504

It works especially well when you can use a lot of factors of 2, because it's easy to double any number. I'm a computer guy, so I deal with a lot of powers of 2.

I think it's advantageous to learn it both ways. So many people have a hard time doing mental math, because they don't figure out how to break it down into easier operations.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[dawnbug]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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".

Agreed. There is no excuse for this other than bad teaching. I learned the traditional methods of multiplication and division in 2nd/3rd/4th grade, and that was in PUBLIC SCHOOL. Must be a Washington State thing.

<------------Lives in Northern Virginia

 

[bonkers325]

what a cumbersome approach to simple math. imagine doing something like that in calculus

 

[SpecialEd]

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.

ahh, I get it. I didn't watch the video, so that may have contributed to my misunderstanding

 

[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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

Actually, the algorithm makes perfectly logical sense, it just takes a little longer to grasp. IF the parents have raised their kid right (ie: The kid is curious and cares about learning) the kid will investigate on his/her own and figure it out. That's what I did eventually. Or if the teacher is worth anything, he/she will teach it to the kid properly.

Until they understand it, they will probably be content to know "If I do this, it works, and it's faster".

The Lattice method is a POS. It doesn't teach sh!t and is the most inefficient algorithm out there.

The TERC method is how one does mental math, but that's the point. It's MENTAL math, and while the method is good for teaching mental math, it is inefficient when written down and takes way too much time.

The Everyday Math Method is the best of the 3 IMO, but is slow. As for the teaching place value stuff, it's the teacher's/parent's/kid's job to learn/teach it.

And using Calculators for anything involving basic arithmetic is pathetic IMO. Since when are college students not able to do 6x4 in their head? Let's see them do 1000x300 in their head. I'm a college freshman and as I typed the 3rd word of this sentence I figured it out.

Using pencil and paper to solve a problem isn't meant to be used as an everyday method now that calculators are around, but that's not why it's taught. When pencil and paper are used, the brain processes the concept and the kid learns it. When a calculator is used, at best the kid memorizes it, but totally bypasses the concept and in the end the kid learns NOTHING.

Using a calculator for basic arithmetic is like typing the alphabet in kindergarten as opposed to writing it. Do you learn to write that way? No.

BAM!!!

 

[bonkers325]

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.

my point is that they're using asinine techniques to break down *simple* math. you get taught arithmetic in elementary school - algebra and trig in junior high school and high school - perhaps calculus in high school and maybe in college. how are you going to digest complex problems with those kind of mathematical analysis techniques in a reasonable amount of time? additionally, how are you going to survive tests that forbids the use of calculators?

 

[Minjin]

Did anyone learn how to figure out square roots by hand? I've seen it done a few times but we never actively learned it in school. I get the impression that it was phased out not long before I started school.

 

[desteffy]

Math education in the US schools is in big trouble...