Is it just me or did the author screw up during their lattice multiplcation process?

[Red Squirrel]

What's even more hilarious is common core subtraction.

Turn a grade 1 math problem into something that's more like advanced quantum physics calculus. I don't even get what's the point of purposely making things more complicated than they have to be. Is it to make people feel better of themselves for figuring it out?

I've always believed in the saying work smart, not hard. If you can find a way to simplify something, do it.

 

[IronWing]

WTF is this. As an engineer, I can give my full disapproval. Only the Obama administration National Governors Association can come up with this stupid bullshit.

Fixed for historical accuracy.

 

[her209]

Seriously? I've never had to draw vertical lines and never had any shifting errors.

The new method takes longer. You have to draw all those boxes and lines in addition to the numbers. Why would they want to make learning harder for kids? Why get rid of the old, faster method for the newer slower method? To sell the curriculum to a bunch of gullible fools like Brainonska up there.

I'd rather draw boxes rather than have to double check my work to make sure sure I didn't add numbers from the wrong columns.

 

[waggy]

What's even more hilarious is common core subtraction.

Turn a grade 1 math problem into something that's more like advanced quantum physics calculus. I don't even get what's the point of purposely making things more complicated than they have to be. Is it to make people feel better of themselves for figuring it out?

I've always believed in the saying work smart, not hard. If you can find a way to simplify something, do it.

add in the fact the point is not to get the correct answer but to fill out the boxes right.

 

[Hacp]

add in the fact the point is not to get the correct answer but to fill out the boxes right.

Again, it is to STIFLE creativity. We need to repeal the common core. I feel sorry for these kids when they get to college. College professors will have no patience waiting for them to draw their fancy boxes.

 

[her209]

The "new" method may be slightly simpler to perform, and from a pure mechanical arithmetic perspective, that is a reasonable goal.

The problem is that it hides the actual work, that the traditional long-multiplication technique exposes. In the "old" method, the shifts and individual multiplies are obvious to see, so it is easy to understand how it works, and the actual mathematics can be appreciated.

The new method uses a short-hand trick to hide the internal workings. It's quicker and easier, but gives less understanding.

Most kids learning at that age don't know why you're shifting the numbers. I know I sure as hell didn't . Its just what we're taught and that's we're supposed to do to get the correct answer.

Even then, the "traditional" way of mulitplying hides the actual work of say, 99x99 which broken down is adding 99 to itself 99 times. In other words, its easy to understand because that's the method you were taught.

 

[Ruptga]

I can't remember the last time I wrote out a multiplication problem. I memorized the tables through the 12s in fourth grade, that and a few mental math shortcuts are all I normally need. Failing that, I pull out the phone that I (and practically every man woman and trans in the first world) have near me at all times and use its calculator function.

So, naturally, I'm of the opinion that nobody needs to know how to multiply by hand according to any method. A passing familiarity won't hurt at all, but it's definitely not essential. If multiplying by hand weren't so easy I'm sure I would have forgotten how to do it a long time ago.

 

[IronWing]

What's even more hilarious is common core subtraction.

Turn a grade 1 math problem into something that's more like advanced quantum physics calculus. I don't even get what's the point of purposely making things more complicated than they have to be. Is it to make people feel better of themselves for figuring it out?

I've always believed in the saying work smart, not hard. If you can find a way to simplify something, do it.

I went and looked at the common core subtract method. All they are really doing is forcing the kids to show in a very explicit manner the work that goes into the same method we learned. It makes sense for learners to do this prior to taking all the shortcuts we use when documenting subtraction. We still do all the steps in our heads but only note specific intermediate results at points where mistakes are likely. I don't expect adults to come out of common core writing all that down each time they subtract anymore than I expect adults to use long division in their daily lives.

 

[Hacp]

Only in the common core would a savant, a mathematical genius, fail because he sees numbers differently. Seriously, we should learn to be more creative and reward thinking outside the box. This way is rote learning that will stifle creativity and bring American into the 15th century,.

 

[waggy]

Again, it is to STIFLE creativity. We need to repeal the common core. I feel sorry for these kids when they get to college. College professors will have no patience waiting for them to draw their fancy boxes.

there are a few articles that are saying that common core kids are in trouble when they get to higher math. Since they are learning different ways an slower ways to do the problems they are having problems.

but then you debate if higher levels of math is worth it for all kids.

 

[Ruptga]

Only in the common core would a savant, a mathematical genius, fail because he sees numbers differently. Seriously, we should learn to be more creative and reward thinking outside the box. This way is route learning that will stifle creativity and bring American into the 15th century,.

You're implying that educational standards were something other than that before. Education is rarely a place for creativity, unless you're being creative in the ways that they want you to be. It has been that way since at least the 90's, which is as far back as I can remember, and I'm certain it has been that way for far longer.

Come to think of it, I remember more than a few grade school teachers giving me shit grades because I would solve the problems in two or three steps, when they wanted every possible detail spelled out across half of a page. I legitimately could not understand what the hell they wanted from me, because the answers were so obvious. Common Core was barely hitting committee in 2009, and I'm telling you what happened a full ten years before.

 

[MongGrel]

I was going to mention base numbers or alternate universes, but NM.

 

[disappoint]

I was going to mention base numbers or alternate universes, but NM.

Why not? Go right ahead. Or start a new thread if you want. It'll be better than some of the other threads I've seen from some trolls who shan't be named.

 

[pmv]

Seriously? I've never had to draw vertical lines and never had any shifting errors.

The new method takes longer. You have to draw all those boxes and lines in addition to the numbers. Why would they want to make learning harder for kids? Why get rid of the old, faster method for the newer slower method? To sell the curriculum to a bunch of gullible fools like Brainonska up there.

Yeah, its the same thing with a different format for putting down your intermediate results, but (having tried it) it takes a bit longer just because of all the tedious line drawing.

Presumably when the children do it they have the grid pre-printed?

I don't think its terrible, but I don't really see the benefit either.

 

[alkemyst]

you guys need to go to your schools and complain.

I was at an open house and some teachers weren't even there.

 

[Markbnj]

Teaching people to actually understand what their doing >>> rote memorization. Unfortunately, there is a learning curve for both teachers to learn to teach this way and it's alien to parents, who learned it in more traditional ways, and so people just dismiss it outright.

The old way of multiplying numbers had nothing to do with rote memorization, and I don't see any evidence that American students have gotten better at math since we ditched multiplication tables. As someone else mentioned this is just a different, and to me more complicated and less understandable way of writing it out.

 

[drebo]

Just imagine the indignation a people here would feel if they developed a better way of doing something that was far superior in the long run to the old ways, then have all the people not in their field come along and say it is crap, the old ways are best, etc...

My issue with this is that it doesn't teach the kids what multiplication actually is...it teaches them a trick to get the right answer.

Why not just give them a calculator in grade 1? It's practically the same thing.

 

[drebo]

Most kids learning at that age don't know why you're shifting the numbers. I know I sure as hell didn't . Its just what we're taught and that's we're supposed to do to get the correct answer.

Even then, the "traditional" way of mulitplying hides the actual work of say, 99x99 which broken down is adding 99 to itself 99 times. In other words, its easy to understand because that's the method you were taught.

1's place, 10's place, 100's place. You learn that in first fucking grade (or at least you used to.)

You're not "shifting" anything.

 

[drebo]

there are a few articles that are saying that common core kids are in trouble when they get to higher math. Since they are learning different ways an slower ways to do the problems they are having problems.

but then you debate if higher levels of math is worth it for all kids.

The entire idea around "Common Core" is that if all kids can't do something, none of them should.

There will be no "higher maths" once today's first graders reach high school. Why bother learning things like algebra, trigonometry, and statistics in school? It's not like the fry cook at McDonalds needs to know the circumference of the burger he's cooking, and everyone's going to be earning a billion dollars an hour doing menial tasks like being a stock broker or CEO...so higher maths not necessary.

 

[disappoint]

The entire idea around "Common Core" is that if all kids can't do something, none of them should.

There will be no "higher maths" once today's first graders reach high school. Why bother learning things like algebra, trigonometry, and statistics in school? It's not like the fry cook at McDonalds needs to know the circumference of the burger he's cooking, and everyone's going to be earning a billion dollars an hour doing menial tasks like being a stock broker or CEO...so higher maths not necessary.

Sounds like mentally ill thinking doesn't it? Not by you. I mean by the people who run things. Who make the laws, decisions on how to teach your kids. Short sighted. Sometimes it seems like the lawmakers are selling this country out piece by piece. Taking kickbacks from lobbyists to make laws they know are not in the long term best interest of this nation.

Speaking of mental illness, I was just in the Health and Fitness subforum. Not one discussion on mental illness. I wonder why that is. It's like the topic no one wants to touch. Reminds me of folks that say things like "Part of me thinks X, but my heart tells me Y". What the? Your heart is a muscle that pumps blood. That's it. That's all it does. It doesn't do any thinking. All of your thinking originates in your brain. Or in a lot of cases, someone else's.

Now there is a left and right brain, a logical and emotional part of the brain, and the subconscious and conscious side to our brains but instead of coming to grips with this reality people make stuff up about the heart? That seems weird to me. Ok maybe it's just an expression. I understand that. But it just underlines to me some people's penchant for leaning away from reality.

Sorry about the rant. My subconscious made me do it. Just kidding. Maybe...

 

[DrPizza]

This is the way multiplication is now taught in schools. I had to learn it just to teach my children and it hurts my damn head. The regular (old) way is so much better.

I'm going to disagree with our (old) way being so much better. Americans learn math via a lot of more or less unrelated algorithms that they have to memorize. The average high school student doesn't "understand" math, they just know "how" to do it. Memorize the procedure for this, memorize the procedure for that.

Perhaps it'll be simplest to illustrate this with 2x2. Let's say 36 times 47. Let's do it "backwards" from the American (we think we're superior, hence we're the only country in the world to not use the metric system, though our system has been defined in terms of SI units since the 1890s) method. The American method would have you multiply the 6 and 7 first.

Let's multiply the 30 and 40 first. 1200. Then, more or less grouped together (which is done automatically with the lattice system), 6 40s (240 more, running total 1440 for those mentally multiplying) and 7 30s (another 210, 1650 for those keeping tally in their head) and finally the 6 times 7 for 42 more (1692). So, for many of those students writing it out, the work looks like: 1200 + 240 + 210 + 42. Cue in parents, "my way is a little better because it's just slightly quicker! Plus I understand it." No, the average parent doesn't *understand* it; they just know *how* to do it and can describe that process better.

Now, fast forward 4 years. Algebra time. Instead of 36 and 47, it's (x+6) and (x+7). Holy shit, it's the exact same thing to the common core kids. Nothing new. (Does that help explain why at about 4th grade, US kids are keeping pace with those in other kids, but around Algebra time, we look like idiots?) To Americans who learned the old "superior" method, now the idiotic kids in America have to learn FOIL stands for first, outer, inner, last. And, like I said, math becomes a pile of disjunct procedures that American kids have to memorize - no understanding happens for the vast majority of them.

Unfortunately, and this is a huge failure, there has been virtually zero training for teachers who have had CC thrust upon them. This is especially true of elementary teachers who (not all of them) are generally very poor at math. They don't *understand* the new procedures or why these new methods are being taught instead of the old methods. If teachers don't understand, how the hell are they going to teach the students so that the students understand??

 

[drebo]

I'm going to disagree with our (old) way being so much better. Americans learn math via a lot of more or less unrelated algorithms that they have to memorize. The average high school student doesn't "understand" math, they just know "how" to do it. Memorize the procedure for this, memorize the procedure for that.

Perhaps it'll be simplest to illustrate this with 2x2. Let's say 36 times 47. Let's do it "backwards" from the American (we think we're superior, hence we're the only country in the world to not use the metric system, though our system has been defined in terms of SI units since the 1890s) method. The American method would have you multiply the 6 and 7 first.

Let's multiply the 30 and 40 first. 1200. Then, more or less grouped together (which is done automatically with the lattice system), 6 40s (240 more, running total 1440 for those mentally multiplying) and 7 30s (another 210, 1650 for those keeping tally in their head) and finally the 6 times 7 for 42 more (1692). So, for many of those students writing it out, the work looks like: 1200 + 240 + 210 + 42. Cue in parents, "my way is a little better because it's just slightly quicker! Plus I understand it." No, the average parent doesn't *understand* it; they just know *how* to do it and can describe that process better.

Now, fast forward 4 years. Algebra time. Instead of 36 and 47, it's (x+6) and (x+7). Holy shit, it's the exact same thing to the common core kids. Nothing new. (Does that help explain why at about 4th grade, US kids are keeping pace with those in other kids, but around Algebra time, we look like idiots?) To Americans who learned the old "superior" method, now the idiotic kids in America have to learn FOIL stands for first, outer, inner, last. And, like I said, math becomes a pile of disjunct procedures that American kids have to memorize - no understanding happens for the vast majority of them.

Unfortunately, and this is a huge failure, there has been virtually zero training for teachers who have had CC thrust upon them. This is especially true of elementary teachers who (not all of them) are generally very poor at math. They don't *understand* the new procedures or why these new methods are being taught instead of the old methods. If teachers don't understand, how the hell are they going to teach the students so that the students understand??

I don't have a problem teaching the kids tricks to find the answer...but only AFTER (an this is the key part) they have learned WHY.

Don't start with the trick. Teach the kid why 30*40 is part of figuring out the answer to 36*47. Then teach them the lattice method, because drawing seemingly random diagonal lines through a series of boxes is not a clear way to teach them what multiplication actually is. I'd much rather just teach them that 36*47 = 6*7 + 40*6 + 3*7 + 40*30...or even more basic, at its core, it means 36 added to itself 47 times. You'd be surprised how many adults I've met that don't understand that.

Yes, I realize that the lattice method sort of does the former, but in an extremely non-obvious way.

 

[Ruptga]

To me, it does the former in a pretty obvious way. But, I'm an intuitive learner, and I do best when I see how it works before I see the details of why it works. There are also a lot of people that can't grasp how to do something until they see why it works, and a good teacher will be able to accommodate both.

 

[OverVolt]

You got them. It's a corporate scam.

Teaching people to actually understand what their doing >>> rote memorization. Unfortunately, there is a learning curve for both teachers to learn to teach this way and it's alien to parents, who learned it in more traditional ways, and so people just dismiss it outright.

An interesting article on how improvements in math education, developed in the US, were never widely adopted here, but have been fairly successfully adopted in other places like Japan: NYTimes Link

Yea, I've seen that article. I'm betting in Japan they had more of a true cultural shift as oppose to McGraw Hill and Pearson printing materials for teachers and going "here you have to use this" but don't explain.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just learned this morning. I have a son in 3rd grade, I found it while looking for stuff online. Meh.

edit: The more I do the lattice method, the more it seems better.