Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

# Common Core

 Posts: 840 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/15/2016 11:34:33 PMPosted: 2 years agoWhile I think that a national push to increase standards is necessary, I don't think that the method of doing so in relation to mathematics specifically is sound.I've attempted to research where the crazy versions of computation for math is coming from. My background educationally includes heavy mathematics/sciences (all the calcs, diff eq, linear algebra, discrete mathematics, etc). I tutor in mathematics and have had very real run-ins with "common core math" and it's atrocious.People argue that the common core standards don't define curriculum and that it's state imposed. However, I have read that there is recommended curriculum for the common core standards. Regardless of where it's coming from it needs to stop.The thing that I love about math is that there are many ways to arrive at the same solution and this allows people of different learning abilities to find the best one that works for them. The problem that I see with common core math is that it is only one of many ways to solve problems.Any clarification of where these nonsense problems and structure come from are greatly appreciated as well.
 Posts: 16 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/3/2016 7:05:01 PMPosted: 1 year agoI've attempted to research where the crazy versions of computation for math is coming from. "some of the new algorithms we are teaching kids are an attempt to tie the algorithm to the concepts involved, instead of it being an arbitrary procedure.example: the subtraction algorithm in which you borrow a 1 from the tens column has no connection to place value as we teach it to children. the tens column is tens, and 'borrowing a 1' is violating that place value. it's no more than writing a separate sub problem and is confusing.in contrast, the 'counting up' method of subtraction is a work around that most people do intuitively because addition is easier than subtraction. counting up to the nearest 10, then the nearest hundred instead of subtraction is using sets, and grouping sets like that makes intuitive sense.It may seem weird, but do you remember how hard it was to learn the standard subtraction algorithm? the new ways should allow more students to access the knowledge, instead of getting frustrated by what seem like arbitrary rules.
 Posts: 840 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/3/2016 11:09:34 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 4/3/2016 7:05:01 PM, Jjjohn wrote:I've attempted to research where the crazy versions of computation for math is coming from. "some of the new algorithms we are teaching kids are an attempt to tie the algorithm to the concepts involved, instead of it being an arbitrary procedure.example: the subtraction algorithm in which you borrow a 1 from the tens column has no connection to place value as we teach it to children. the tens column is tens, and 'borrowing a 1' is violating that place value. it's no more than writing a separate sub problem and is confusing.Magic Nine, Counting Down/Back, Reverse Addition, Math Ladder, Rounding and Compensating, Number Lines, Partitioning, Bridging, By Ones and Tens, Estimation, etc.in contrast, the 'counting up' method of subtraction is a work around that most people do intuitively because addition is easier than subtraction. counting up to the nearest 10, then the nearest hundred instead of subtraction is using sets, and grouping sets like that makes intuitive sense.It may seem weird, but do you remember how hard it was to learn the standard subtraction algorithm? the new ways should allow more students to access the knowledge, instead of getting frustrated by what seem like arbitrary rules.At 4/3/2016 7:05:01 PM, Jjjohn wrote:I've attempted to research where the crazy versions of computation for math is coming from. "some of the new algorithms we are teaching kids are an attempt to tie the algorithm to the concepts involved, instead of it being an arbitrary procedure.example: the subtraction algorithm in which you borrow a 1 from the tens column has no connection to place value as we teach it to children. the tens column is tens, and 'borrowing a 1' is violating that place value. it's no more than writing a separate sub problem and is confusing.in contrast, the 'counting up' method of subtraction is a work around that most people do intuitively because addition is easier than subtraction. counting up to the nearest 10, then the nearest hundred instead of subtraction is using sets, and grouping sets like that makes intuitive sense.It may seem weird, but do you remember how hard it was to learn the standard subtraction algorithm? the new ways should allow more students to access the knowledge, instead of getting frustrated by what seem like arbitrary rules.I have a natural affinity for math, so I would not say that I shared your difficulty in learning subtraction (I approached it as addition in my head). I am well aware of the "logic" behind the common core methods meaning how it gets from problem to solution. I approve a national standard for academic progress overall. I don't agree with forcing a single algorithm for solving, not sure where this push is coming from. Like I said, as a math tutor I've found that kids learn things many ways and by forcing them to only use one tool when there are many available is not a positive thing in my opinion. I do see that "Common Core" at it's core doesn't force this algorithm but it comes recommended from where and why?
© 2018 Debate.org. All rights reserved.