Kid Looks Like A Genius With 8 + 5 Doesn’t Add Up To 10

[boedicca]

All the conservatards raging in this thread are hilarious.

"BAWWW, Y R U TEECHING KIDS A DIFFRENT WAY 2 APPROACH A PROLLEM? STICK W/ TRADITION U FASCIST"

Enlightened progressives like mysylf recognize the need for innovation in problem solving, and are constantly coming up with new ways to solve problems.

You conservatards can have fun doing things "just the way they've always been done." The civilized world won't miss you luddites.

It's not a different way to approach a "problem". It's fake math that pins the bogometer.

8+5=13

Anyone who cares about engineering, science, accounting and the like knows that Precision Matters.

Fuzzy math is for fuzzy thinking.

 

[R.D.]

All the conservatards raging in this thread are hilarious.

"BAWWW, Y R U TEECHING KIDS A DIFFRENT WAY 2 APPROACH A PROLLEM? STICK W/ TRADITION U FASCIST"

Enlightened progressives like mysylf recognize the need for innovation in problem solving, and are constantly coming up with new ways to solve problems.

You conservatards can have fun doing things "just the way they've always been done." The civilized world won't miss you luddites.

Hey enlighten dipstick.

Simple addition doesn't need new innovative ways to be solved. That's why it's simple addition

 

[Rikurzhen]

Because instructional time is finite and there are opportunity costs for choices that we make.

I'm so glad that I teach the way I do.

While instructional time is still finite, it is much more efficiently used.

And what do you have to say about the Alberta results which arose from teaching your way?

 

[RKMBrown]

All the conservatards raging in this thread are hilarious.

"BAWWW, Y R U TEECHING KIDS A DIFFRENT WAY 2 APPROACH A PROLLEM? STICK W/ TRADITION U FASCIST"

Enlightened progressives like mysylf recognize the need for innovation in problem solving, and are constantly coming up with new ways to solve problems.

You conservatards can have fun doing things "just the way they've always been done." The civilized world won't miss you luddites.

Hey enlighten dipstick.

Simple addition doesn't need new innovative ways to be solved. That's why it's simple addition

Uhmmm the associative property of addition is not new...

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Wrong. You use the word too when you could easily substitute the word also. My use of the word to, was correct. I guess you failed English and Math?

You're a moron, and if you were a public school teacher you'd be a dangerous moron.

You're an ignorant POS.

And you sound just like a public school teacher's union goon...except in your case, you were probably a janitor.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

A few years ago, Forbes ranked Calgary, Alberta as the best city in the world for quality of life, of cities with a population of one million or more. Education, healthcare, transportation, crime, literacy, business infrastructure, telecommunications, etc. were some of the fourteen or so criteria on which the evaluation was based. I know one thing about Calgary and Edmonton. I know that 40% of their adult population isn't illiterate, as is the case in many of America's cities.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. You use the word too when you could easily substitute the word also. My use of the word to, was correct. I guess you failed English and Math?

You're a moron, and if you were a public school teacher you'd be a dangerous moron.

You're an ignorant POS.

And you sound just like a public school teacher's union goon...except in your case, you were probably a janitor.

ROFL. Go read a 1st grade elementary school math book so you can stop embarrassing yourself you POS little twit.

 

[R.D.]

All the conservatards raging in this thread are hilarious.

"BAWWW, Y R U TEECHING KIDS A DIFFRENT WAY 2 APPROACH A PROLLEM? STICK W/ TRADITION U FASCIST"

Enlightened progressives like mysylf recognize the need for innovation in problem solving, and are constantly coming up with new ways to solve problems.

You conservatards can have fun doing things "just the way they've always been done." The civilized world won't miss you luddites.

Hey enlighten dipstick.

Simple addition doesn't need new innovative ways to be solved. That's why it's simple addition

Uhmmm the associative property of addition is not new...

M'ok

You make one wonder if degrees go stale

 

[asterism]

It is not difficult to memorize the sums of any two single digits because there are only 100, and most are trivial. For example, adding one or zero to any other. Once you have learned them, adding multidigit numbers becomes a simple matter. This just looks like a solution in search of a problem, like they've given up on kids being able to memorize trivial things.

Memorizing things that have no meaning are of little use when it comes to understanding a process.

It is of great use when moving on to more advanced concepts, because you're not continually getting bogged down trying to calculate for the 10th time in a row what 8 + 5 equals. All this does is put process in where it's really not needed. I memorized addition and multiplication tables for all the single digits. That freed my mind up to handle algebra and calculus.

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is not difficult to memorize the sums of any two single digits because there are only 100, and most are trivial. For example, adding one or zero to any other. Once you have learned them, adding multidigit numbers becomes a simple matter. This just looks like a solution in search of a problem, like they've given up on kids being able to memorize trivial things.

Memorizing things that have no meaning are of little use when it comes to understanding a process.

It is of great use when moving on to more advanced concepts, because you're not continually getting bogged down trying to calculate for the 10th time in a row what 8 + 5 equals. All this does is put process in where it's really not needed. I memorized addition and multiplication tables for all the single digits. That freed my mind up to handle algebra and calculus.

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using only memorization, post your results.

 

[rightwinger]

All the conservatards raging in this thread are hilarious.

"BAWWW, Y R U TEECHING KIDS A DIFFRENT WAY 2 APPROACH A PROLLEM? STICK W/ TRADITION U FASCIST"

Enlightened progressives like mysylf recognize the need for innovation in problem solving, and are constantly coming up with new ways to solve problems.

You conservatards can have fun doing things "just the way they've always been done." The civilized world won't miss you luddites.

It's not a different way to approach a "problem". It's fake math that pins the bogometer.

8+5=13

Anyone who cares about engineering, science, accounting and the like knows that Precision Matters.

Fuzzy math is for fuzzy thinking.

Actually, in real life, precision does not always matter

Most decisions come down to ....Is Option A better than Option B?

Rather than coming to a precise analysis, most decisions can be made by ballpark estimation where it is clear that Option A is clearly the better choice

 

[jon_berzerk]

Kid Looks Like a Genius with Matter-of-Fact Retort Why Common Core Math Problem 8 5 Doesn 8217 t Add Up

So who’s right? The educators who insist on making the fundamentals of mathematics as complex as a Rubik’s cube, or the kid who probably has secret access to his mom’s old flashcards and sees this as a foolish waste of time?


Then add 3?!?!?

they are making a base ten

arrive at a 10 -100-1000

then add the remaining

the question asked was confusing

the kid was correct in which way the question was asked

they should have asked how can you arrive at 13 using a base ten

8+2 =10 plus the remainder 3 = 13

 

[asterism]

It is not difficult to memorize the sums of any two single digits because there are only 100, and most are trivial. For example, adding one or zero to any other. Once you have learned them, adding multidigit numbers becomes a simple matter. This just looks like a solution in search of a problem, like they've given up on kids being able to memorize trivial things.

Memorizing things that have no meaning are of little use when it comes to understanding a process.

It is of great use when moving on to more advanced concepts, because you're not continually getting bogged down trying to calculate for the 10th time in a row what 8 + 5 equals. All this does is put process in where it's really not needed. I memorized addition and multiplication tables for all the single digits. That freed my mind up to handle algebra and calculus.

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using only memorization, post your results.

That's a false premise because I never said that memorization only was correct. But I can do it using only memorization.

The area under the curve y=10-x^2 between the x axis on x=-3 and x=5:

Solve for x=5 minus x=-3 using (10x-1/3x^3)

((10*5) - ((5^3/)3) - (10*-3)-((-3^3)/3))

((50-(125/3)) - ((-30)-(-27/3)))

8 +1/3 - (-21)

29 +1/3

 

[Capstone]

...if you read the "teacher's" writing on the kid's paper, what she said is perfectly clear. ...

Apparently not. In order to make the teacher's math work, we'd have to interpret "take 2 from 5" as 5-3, as in: take 2 apples from the group of 5 apples and place them in a different group of 8 apples to create a group of 10 apples. The teacher's semantics were anything but clear.

 

[RKMBrown]

Kid Looks Like a Genius with Matter-of-Fact Retort Why Common Core Math Problem 8 5 Doesn 8217 t Add Up

So who’s right? The educators who insist on making the fundamentals of mathematics as complex as a Rubik’s cube, or the kid who probably has secret access to his mom’s old flashcards and sees this as a foolish waste of time?


Then add 3?!?!?

they are making a base ten

arrive at a 10 -100-1000

then add the remaining

the question asked was confusing

the kid was correct in which way the question was asked

they should have asked how can you arrive at 13 using a base ten

8+2 =10 plus the remainder 3 = 13

The question was not confusing, it was out of context.

 

[RKMBrown]

Memorizing things that have no meaning are of little use when it comes to understanding a process.

It is of great use when moving on to more advanced concepts, because you're not continually getting bogged down trying to calculate for the 10th time in a row what 8 + 5 equals. All this does is put process in where it's really not needed. I memorized addition and multiplication tables for all the single digits. That freed my mind up to handle algebra and calculus.

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using only memorization, post your results.

That's a false premise because I never said that memorization only was correct. But I can do it using only memorization.

The area under the curve y=10-x^2 between the x axis on x=-3 and x=5:

Solve for x=5 minus x=-3 using (10x-1/3x^3)

((10*5) - ((5^3/)3) - (10*-3)-((-3^3)/3))

((50-(125/3)) - ((-30)-(-27/3)))

8 +1/3 - (-21)

29 +1/3

Fail. You said only use a CC method that does not apply to determining area under a curve. You were supposed to only use equivalent math tables as per your own defined rules. You had to go off and use a formula that has nothing to do with the math table memorization technique. Why is that?

 

[RKMBrown]

...if you read the "teacher's" writing on the kid's paper, what she said is perfectly clear. ...

Apparently not. In order to make the teacher's math work, we'd have to interpret "take 2 from 5" as 5-3, as in: take 2 apples from the group of 5 apples and place them in a different group of 8 apples to create a group of 10 apples. The teacher's semantics were anything but clear.

Wrong they were perfectly clear. Your problem is you are trying to read a sentence out of context, then blaming the writer and teacher for your mistake.

 

[asterism]

It is of great use when moving on to more advanced concepts, because you're not continually getting bogged down trying to calculate for the 10th time in a row what 8 + 5 equals. All this does is put process in where it's really not needed. I memorized addition and multiplication tables for all the single digits. That freed my mind up to handle algebra and calculus.

Why can't there be room for both? When children start to add, then they need to fool around with the process of putting things together. They need to play with numbers, see what happens when you add two positive numbers, what happens when you add two negatives, discover the patterns. Then, they are better equipped to memorize. Because when you memorize with a solid foundation, it's easier to know if the answer that popped into your head makes sense, or if you've memorized wrong.

You'd have a point if the current CC method was one of many ways to learn basic arithmetic, but it's not. It is being used as the only way which is not good.

I learned the number line method, memorization, estimation (similar to the process described in the OP), binary, base 6, and hex in grade school. It was done quite well. There are no Common Core lessons for different methods in grade school, just this one foreign and inefficient method. That's why this is a problem. It's not intuitive and it doesn't actually help later.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core arithmetic method. Post your results.

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using only memorization, post your results.

That's a false premise because I never said that memorization only was correct. But I can do it using only memorization.

The area under the curve y=10-x^2 between the x axis on x=-3 and x=5:

Solve for x=5 minus x=-3 using (10x-1/3x^3)

((10*5) - ((5^3/)3) - (10*-3)-((-3^3)/3))

((50-(125/3)) - ((-30)-(-27/3)))

8 +1/3 - (-21)

29 +1/3

Fail. You said only use a CC method that does not apply to determining area under a curve. You were supposed to only use equivalent math tables as per your own defined rules. You had to go off and use a formula that has nothing to do with the math table memorization technique. Why is that?

I used memorization only to solve the problem as you demanded. You did not demand that I only use equivalent math tables, and I didn't define any rules. You are correct that I worded my initial demand incorrectly so I'll try again:

Try to calculate the area underneath a curve using the Common Core method for the arithmetic portion. Post your results.

 

[rightwinger]

...if you read the "teacher's" writing on the kid's paper, what she said is perfectly clear. ...

Apparently not. In order to make the teacher's math work, we'd have to interpret "take 2 from 5" as 5-3, as in: take 2 apples from the group of 5 apples and place them in a different group of 8 apples to create a group of 10 apples. The teacher's semantics were anything but clear.

It is hard to tell without knowing the full context of the exercise

Like most things that cause conservative outrage in this country, we only see one question and that ONE question is used as justification to condemn ALL of Common Core

I would have to know what the lesson plan the kids were being taught, what specific skills they were trying to teach and what other questions and classroom exercises covered that material

 

[Delta4Embassy]

...if you read the "teacher's" writing on the kid's paper, what she said is perfectly clear. ...

Apparently not. In order to make the teacher's math work, we'd have to interpret "take 2 from 5" as 5-3, as in: take 2 apples from the group of 5 apples and place them in a different group of 8 apples to create a group of 10 apples. The teacher's semantics were anything but clear.

It is hard to tell without knowing the full context of the exercise

Like most things that cause conservative outrage in this country, we only see one question and that ONE question is used as justification to condemn ALL of Common Core

I would have to know what the lesson plan the kids were being taught, what specific skills they were trying to teach and what other questions and classroom exercises covered that material

(raises hand from the back) What's common core?