Current Events > Firefighter DESTROYS modern math teaching

(+) Yeah! (+)

There is probably some benefit to the way it is taught that way as far as expanding people's minds and how much information they can hold vs doing it the short way. It probably raises iq levels or kids abilities to process more information and think things through. . Processing shapes and everything else.

kg88222 posted...

There is probably some benefit to the way it is taught that way as far as expanding people's minds and how much information they can hold vs doing it the short way. It probably raises iq levels or kids abilities to process more information and think things through. . Processing shapes and everything else.

Why would you make such an assumption?

---

Teaches kids how to listen better. With technology and everything people can get lazy and rush through things. It's more the thought process. It's probably done that way to balance things out. Some teachers were probably looking for different ways to do things for that reason, because they were struggling getting kids to listen in other ways.

I don't understand either method, but then I was never good at math.
---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Older people are so resistant to this, then they wonder why no one wants to go into mathematics-heavy fields as a career. This way works a lot better for more people, and far fewer people are deterred from eventually learning higher maths.

If you need to do this to multiply 35 and 12 then you're already not cut out for higher maths. There's no need to do this convoluted garbage. Like we don't teach how to do Square root manually anymore because it's a waste of fucking time. Not only will you almost never actually use a decimal approximation of irrational roots but higher maths just leave roots in the equation and "2" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

---

In other words that fire fighter isn't as good at math as he thinks he is although he's applying the short version in different ways to expand his knowledge. More hands on. But there is a reason why it's done that way and what he is doing too. That fire fighter probably wouldn't be able to do all that if he wasn't taught to first think.

Unfortunately too many people will take that the wrong way to trash common core and firefighters. Because they don't know how to think. He's basically applying common core to the short version and then doing other things at the same time. It's more an adverstisement for common core. He isn't trashing it. He's applying it.

More like fire fighter completely misses the point. Developing number sense is much more important than remembering "steps."

Most people don't even understand why the way he did it works despite being taught that this is "the way". It's practically the same thing as what she did. He broke apart the 12 into (10+2).

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

If you need to do this to multiply 35 and 12 then you're already not cut out for higher maths.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say with such confidence. Obviously they're using easy numbers to demonstrate the method.

---

Ryuko_Chan posted...

the point of the modern way is you can easily do it in your head quickly

the problem is schools expect kids to show their work

if you have to show your work then the old fashioned way is better, because showing your work with the modern way takes much longer

its a stupid paradox. schools need to get rid of the whole "show your work" thing if they want the modern way to be useful. if a kid wants to cheat hes gonna cheat regardless of if he has to show his work. its just pointless.

The reason why you show your work isn't because of cheating. It's to know what area your messed up in sot he teacher can correct you if need be.

---

It's actually the title here that is wrong. The actual video is modern math applied. It's an advertisement for common core and how it can be applied..

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Yes, if you don't understand WHY something works you get marked down on a question asking WHY something works. Why does the video above work? For the same reasons the method explained in the OP works. Why does the standard algorithm work? Because it follows the method explained.
What is "proper math"? Do you need to go into calculus, set theory, and proofs? Virtually every beginning course on integration is going to start with Riemann sums. They're not efficient and they give a warped understanding of what integration means, but they SHOW the WHY of why integration works.

Explain the standard method of multiplication and explain WHY it works. Go ahead, take 35*12 step by step and explain why each step is correct. If you can't do that, you don't really understand mathematics and it's going to cause issues when you start needing to multiply (12x^2+2x-1)(3x^3-6x+2).

You should be able to pass any math class if you can get the right answer, but if you get the wrong answer partial credit only applies if you show your work and do you work right.

I don't support punishing people who have an intuition for conventional math techniques to aid the kids who never liked math in the first place.

If people don't like STEM then help them chase their dreams, don't pervert STEM to be more obtuse and hobble the kids who like their numbers.

As an introverted child math was one of my few solaces. It was somewhere where I could "be right" as opposed to all social situations. If they had ruined math back then and made me wrong just because I always had a good intuition for numbers and so taking these roundabout steps wouldn't have made sense for me I don't know what I would have done. But I feel extremely sad for whatever current child that applies to.

You wanna help the kids who are slow to understand math with some weird artsy box or something, fine, but don't punish the people who always did better with numbers than people.


---

The main reasons the method shown on the right is helpful?

-It is a good way to introduce geometry to students to help them visualize mathematics in their heads. It is never too early to introduce geometric reasoning to students. Furthermore, linking the area of squares to comparing products and sums is another way to help students visualize orders of magnitude.

-It is really helpful for students when they multiply binomials - teachers in previous years would just teach "hey multiply using this method" and then once Algebra I comes around they'd just teach kids "FOIL" and then kids really have no idea what they're actually doing. Teaching kids that (35)(23) can be done by expressing it as (30 + 5)(20 + 3) will really help them down the line when they have to multiply (x^2 - 3)(2x^2 - 4x + 1).

-This reinforces the distributive property, which is really important, because kids in previous years usually know to distribute, but they're not really sure why it works.

And most importantly, it is important to note that the method that the firefighter used is mathematically the exact same thing. The algorithm that he did is basically splitting (35)(12) into (35)(10) + (35)(2), whereas the teacher on the right is doing (30)(10) + (5)(10) + (30)(2) + (5)(2), but again, a really cool thing to show students would be to have them explain *why* mathematically the two methods get you the same answer. You could even use this to reinforce or introduce something like combining like terms (i.e. showing students that (30)(10) + (5)(10) is equivalent to (35)(10), and explaining why that is), so then this way they don't get lost when you say 3x + 5x = 8x.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

What an incredibly stupid thing to say with such confidence. Obviously they're using easy numbers to demonstrate the method.

There's no possible combination of two 2-digit numbers that would make this hard.

I feel like this is a regression kind of like how blind reading schools had 3 dimensional letters raised before Braille was invented.

But hey you don't need to take it from me:

https://www.pacificresearch.org/common-core-has-failed-americas-students/

BUT KOCHSSSSSSSZZZZZ

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pacific-research-institute/

---

MSCMC posted...

i really hope you're joking

Im serious. This is way less convulted. Its also a nice way to multiply for those who are artistically inclined but are challenged by math.

I honestly think common core is bs. I don't know enough about it but just seems like republican engineering in education meant to dumb the population down more. I think it's BIll Gates baby if i remember correctly. Kids from my generation were educated mathetics in mroe a traditional way and learned other subjects to expand our iq in a lot of ways on how to deal with people and theory and imagination etc.

It's just prepping people and a blanket approach to menial jobs where people can process things quickly but don't even really have the skills to understand what they are processing. Why younger generations will probably be happier in menial jobs than older generations and less miserable. But either way. It's garbage.

Bill Gates wants people brain dead as far as human emotions and he's succeeding in ways. That's meant to be an advertisement for common core though. It's like if you learn common core you can do this and be a fireman. It's crap.

kg88222 posted...

I honestly think common core is bs. I don't know enough about it but

so you self-admittedly don't know what you're talking about but go on to bitch anyway

No just being honest and my analysis is probably correct and fair to what it is on both sides of the spectrum. Where people will all supposedly be on the same page but will lack skills in other ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Za8BtLgKv8

This video is pretty funny because it's not that far off from what education is now. The first time I watched it i laughed. The second time people are becoming pretty boring and ridiculous.

joe40001 posted...

You should be able to pass any math class if you can get the right answer, but if you get the wrong answer partial credit only applies if you show your work and do you work right.

I don't support punishing people who have an intuition for conventional math techniques to aid the kids who never liked math in the first place.

64/16
Cancel the 6s
4/1
4

Right answer, completely wrong method. The point of the test isn't to get the correct answer, it's to show understanding.
Here's a classic: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/3x9.png
In higher level math, it's often easy to guess the answer and verify. Sometimes that helps to work backwards and solve the problem, but if you don't show that you can actually complete the problem it's pointless. I can say, "P != NP", but there's no point to just saying so without proving it.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses-equity

Bye bye advanced math for all grades 10 and below lol

---

ZMythos posted...

Also a lot of people ITT are mischaracterizing what the teacher on the right is doing. The area model is what is known as "scaffolding", it's a conceptual stepping stone used to teach students why multiplication requires careful attention to place value.

In fact, Common Core actually does include the firefighter's method. It's a 5th grade standard.

Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about expects students to multiply using an area model though middle school. The standard algorithm exists because it's efficient. But without a conceptual foundation kids have no clue what's really happening when they multiply two numbers together.

Just reminding people that BOTH methods are taught in school

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

As a teacher I can say that nobody wants to teach math this way. I get the point but it just is slower and in a way more complicated.

If you're not teaching math at a conceptual level then you need to reevaluate your practice.

---

Tbh I didn't expect this topic to blow up like this lmao

---

wackyteen posted...

Tbh I didn't expect this topic to blow up like this lmao

I feel personally attacked by you for this topic.

---

ZMythos posted...

I feel personally attacked by you for this topic.

I was just shitposting lol.

The topic did make me realize that once you learn the teachers method it's nearly as fast as the firefighters method if you can handle the mental math.

---

I always got marked down for not showing my work in math, and that's fair. Watching the video, the main difference I saw was that one method was explained and the other was run through to prove a point. They convey the same information to me

---

wackyteen posted...

I was just shitposting lol.

The topic did make me realize that once you learn the teachers method it's nearly as fast as the firefighters method if you can handle the mental math.

They're really the same method just organized differently

---

Why does this need to be explained 100x why the new method is being taught?

CruelBuffalo posted...

Why does this need to be explained 100x why the new method is being taught?

It's not that we don't know why. It's that the "why" is stupid and the results are worse than what we're doing before unless your only goal is "graduate elementary school"

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's not that we don't know why. It's that the "why" is stupid and the results are worse than what we're doing before unless your only goal is "graduate elementary school"

The results are worse? What studies do you have showing that

CruelBuffalo posted...

The results are worse? What studies do you have showing that

Post #115

Or if you just want a link to an article about the study issue here

https://www.the74million.org/article/song-did-common-core-standards-work-new-study- finds-small-but-disturbing-negative-impacts-on-students-academic-achievement/

The short answer: worse in all categories, most pronounced effect on reading level, and unsurprisingly this method of teaching had been especially bad for ESL students.

The actual study was conducted by C-SAIL and I think you have to pay to read it or at least I can't find it anywhere for free.

---

Reading level...this is math. Is there one showing that math scores have dropped?

CruelBuffalo posted...

Reading level...this is math. Is there one showing that math scores have dropped?

All academic categories dropped. Reading level was just the most significant one.

We also found a significant negative seven-year impact on grade 8 mathematics. While most of our results were statistically non-significant, they tended to be in the negative direction.

Sounds like you need more common core reading education.

---

While most of our results were statistically non-significant

I think you do actually

You guys really don't know anything about common core or what standards are, do you?

---

This video is just elitist "hehehe kids today don't know shit" fuel.

The way on the right is fundamentally better. It explains why the traditional way (the way on the left) works the way it does. It might take longer initially but it explains the building blocks of how to quickly multiply big numbers in your head in a more direct way than the way on the left.

---

I dont see why people get their panties all twisted up over common core

These two methods are essentially doing the same thing just packaged a little differently. It's the same idea of splitting numbers apart into their ones, tens, hundreds etc places

---

CruelBuffalo posted...

While most of our results were statistically non-significant

I think you do actually

Most non significant, several significant, almost all of them negative. Especially negative for ESL children or those with disabilities. No significant positive results.

What good is a system like that? Why even waste all the money upending all our textbooks if there's no benefit?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Most non significant, several significant, almost all of them negative. Especially negative for ESL children or those with disabilities. No significant positive results.

What good is a system like that? Why even waste all the money upending all our textbooks if there's no benefit?

Well, there are a lot of reasons we pursue bad policies, but in this case I'd just say that one study isn't conclusive evidence, especially in this field. I stay away from education policy because it's too difficult and requires content knowledge I don't have the time to learn but if you google common core impact tests the first result is a brookings article showing it's good

---

Btw I'm proud of some of you guys for actually stepping back and thinking about it instead of falling for the videos message and title of the topic

---

LMFAO!!!
caps

Balrog0 posted...

Well, there are a lot of reasons we pursue bad policies, but in this case I'd just say that one study isn't conclusive evidence, especially in this field. I stay away from education policy because it's too difficult and requires content knowledge I don't have the time to learn but if you google common core impact tests the first result is a brookings article showing it's good

Tests are a completely different thing that I also have a lot of issues with. American current education curriculums aren't designed to teach you the material they're supposed to cover. They're designed to teach you to pass the test at the end of the year. I think there's a lot to be gained by investigating ways to remove treats entirely from our grading policy.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Well, there are a lot of reasons we pursue bad policies, but in this case I'd just say that one study isn't conclusive evidence, especially in this field. I stay away from education policy because it's too difficult and requires content knowledge I don't have the time to learn but if you google common core impact tests the first result is a brookings article showing it's good

Common core is absolutely insufficient at best for ELLs, harmful at worst, at least as far as whats actually encoded in policy.

The CCSS for English is basically just a continuation of disastrous English-only policies.

---