/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15876208
classic is algorithmic, and can be done without understanding
common core relies on you being a natural prodigy.

sometimes the better method overall (common) isn't the best method for teaching

>>15876208
Complete structural change in how math is taught made it really hard for parents to assist their children with math homework (which is a necessity for proper education).
Common core is poorly thought out and doesn’t take the parent into much consideration despite the fact that education is a lot more effective when the parent takes part.

Explain what it is and I'll decide whether I hate it or not.

>>15876208
You want people learning math to already know it, common problem in math teaching in general

>>15876208
WTF am I even reading???????????

>>15876242
it's teaching them how to think intuitively about quantity instead of memorizing rote processes

>>15876208
I dont understand. Why are they using these tortured graphics to apply commutativity and distributivity? Why not just teach them explicitly?
Just say [math] 42 \cdot 8 = (40+2) \cdot 8 = 320 + 16 = 336 [/math].
And really the traditional way does the same thing. It just organizes it differently.

Also, whats with the number line? Obviously we learned what the operations looked like on a number line but we didnt use it for calculations because it wasnt as convenient.

The graphic for that addition is atroucious also. Just use a fucking equation.

>>15876244
>it's failing to teach them how to think intuitively
FTFY. Intuitively isn’t something that can be taught directly. It’s pretty subjective.

>>15876208
Multiplication isn't that bad, since that's not far removed from what you do when you're multiplying two numbers with two or more digits. Addition is silly, especially in that example since the first and second digits add up nicely without carryover. Subtraction is just stupid as hell, especially since at the end of it you're relying on a bunch of addition, which if you do the common core method will drag that out even further to the point of absurdity.

>>15876245
>Why are they using these tortured graphics
This was my reaction.
I don't know how common core is taught normally and in general I'm fine with teaching multiple approaches to problem-solving everybody learns differently, but in my experience solution approaches that add unnecessary complexity are often worse at teaching the fundamentals. Like instead of just learning a multi-step process you have to draw out lines and shapes and remember which number to goes where.
>>15876244
Is it actually doing that, though? It's still a rote process, just a different one. It might align more closely with how intuitive solvers approach the problem, but to a normal person it's just another process. People who don't have the intuition will still just follow the steps and make mistakes while people who do didn't need the instruction in the first place.

>>15876208
These are valid tricks for solving math problems, but there are two problems with it. First, you shouldn't impose one method for solving problems. If there are other tricks people can use, let them. If they want to do it the long way, let them. Some bureaucrat picking one specific algorithm for breaking down problems is absolutely not helpful.

Second, it fundamentally misses the actual math learning part. Mental math is absolutely not what math is about. Solving arithmetic problems is not what math is about. This sort shit is what leads people to say stuff like "I liked math until they started putting letters in it!" It's just totally wrong. Math is not about plugging in numbers to get an answer. It's about understanding the operations themselves. "You can just use a calculator" is a completely valid statement but, in my experience as a teacher, not having a full grasp on algebra leads to not even putting numbers into calculators correctly.

>>15876208
"common core" makes you worse at arithmetic. it trains you to waste time finding a "clever trick" to try and simplify a problem with a simple general solution. NO! Sometimes the cleverest solution is to just do the problem and not waste time on being a faggot. this is one of those cases.

>>15876208
i don't know what common core is but that feels somewhat similar to how i do math in my head.
try and get something to a "clean" number as fast as i can (multiple of 2, 5, 10) and then do math on that.

>>15876229
I think another fact it highlights is that most people do not have anything beyond rudimentary numeracy. And maybe this is okay.

>>15876380
Yeah. The whole intent was to teach everyone to think like kids who are naturally good at math. The issue is that people/kids who are good at mental math don't rely exclusively on one or two heuristics (instead having probably a dozen or so subconsciously and then intuitively applying them in an efficient manner) and trying to formalize a system around a few tricks ends up being retarded.

>>15876451
People don’t need much more to be functional. One issue with common core is it’s fundamentally trying to impress the idea of magnitude but that’s not a concept that is crucial to being able to do basic arithmetic.

It’s a good example of over engineering, desu. They were too concentrated on creating a system to try to teach intuitive math, without ever considering that maybe intuition isn’t something that can be readily taught.

>>15876208
is this what boomers pushed though?
I don't really agree with the arithmetic tables
you should be able to do these computations easily in base 10
instead of division they should start with remainder theorem and they should introduce modular arithmetic while they're at it.
You can literally teach time reading while doing it.
like look at how they added 23 to 15 just looking at the decimal values you should be able to do this in your head: 23+15 = 20+3 + 10+5 = 30+8 = 38
42*8 = 4*8*10 + 2*8 = 320 + 16 = 336

>>15876472
I’ve thought similarly. I don’t know if it’s a failure, yet. To be honest I think the same people who suck at math are still going to suck at math.

But also if you complain about common core being confusing it instantly outs you as innumerate. I have never seen anything out of common core which wasn’t obvious.

>>15876524
>But also if you complain about common core being confusing it instantly outs you as innumerate.
It's not that it's confusing, it's that it needlessly complicates something which is instantly intuitive for the intelligent and largely explainable to the unintelligent. They reinvented the wheel for something that's worked perfectly since the Classical Era.

>>15876528
By "needlessly complicates" I mean that it requires students to do more work and to write more work out on the page to satisfy teachers. By contrast, an intuitive mathematician will only feel bothered by having to explain all those steps every time when asked to show their work on tests and homework problems, and someone who doesn't understand it won't be helped by it. Even some forms of basic arithmetic like long division become a chore to explicate over and over when you can write shorthand and show the teacher you know what you're doing.

I just want to add it's probably complicated by the lowering of standards and refusal to fail students who fail around the same time.
I agree it may not be the best approach for mainstream education, but to really know that we need to have standards and hold to them.

>>15876524
> But also if you complain about common core being confusing it instantly outs you as innumerate. I have never seen anything out of common core which wasn’t obvious.
The issue with common core is as I outlined here
>>15876229
Parental engagement in education is fundamentally advantageous. Common core’s failure is that parents can’t easily pick up on the new teaching mechanisms to help their children.
>parents should take the extra effort to learn how to work with common core
This is a common counter argument I’ve come across, but it’s always going to be a more efficient use of that parents time to just teach math how they learned it.

Common core just isn’t a well thought out system, and the continued decline in education levels in America supports the opinion that common core was not successful.

>>15876208
I truly realized I was high IQ when I found out dysgenic normies have to be taught all of this trash, rather than coming up with it on your own while idly playing on the Gameboy Advance.
I learned literally nothing from 9 years of basic school.

>>15876227
On the contrary, it's intentionally convoluted to make it seem like something that can't be understood.

>>15876551
I agree with you. You are taking a system level view of the issue which is how it ought to be viewed.

I’m just saying on a personal level, if I see a boomer—or god-forbid someone on /sci/—making threads about common core being confusing, you’re insta-branded as a retard. There’s no escaping your judgment. Sorry.

While we’re on the topic of America’s shit education system, though. Math instruction in this country has been and is a travesty. It will be difficult to ever properly correct out of it. Forget common core, new math was also rejected for being too confusing because it had the gall to teach children about sets.

American education is in tatters. And the only reason America doesn’t feel the consequences of this is because it sucks up well-educated people from other countries. Decent homegrown mathematicians, engineers, and physicists are in shockingly short supply, at least compared to what you’d expect from a country of 300 million.

>>15876812
And now look at you. Just a worthless faggot

>>15876208
do you guys seriously not do all these things in your head?
this is basically how I do mental math

>>15876299
it's building intuition for a more flexible way of thinking about numbers
there's no such thing as an inherently intuitive problem solver, literally everyone in the world, even retards, has some innate sense of quantity. What matters is guiding them in the right direction. The kids themselves aren't bitching about this, just the parents who didn't learn it in the same way

>>15876470
being good at mental arithmetic doesn't mean you're "naturally good at math"
it's better to teach them a few handy tricks and then practice practice practice. The likelihood of them finding tricks and patterns on their own increases. The reason math education sucks so much is because it's taught as a bunch of rote computations and steps, and then kids never get past basic quantitative reasoning

>>15876208
Common Core is a psyop to make the population dumber and hate math, which worsens brain development at every stage.
The Democrats do not want educated citizens, they want retards who will vote for Democrat gimmedats.

>>15877422
>make the population dumber and hate math
by what mechanism?

>>15877403
>it's building intuition for a more flexible way of thinking about numbers
I'll believe it when I see it.
>there's no such thing as an inherently intuitive problem solver
Not true at all. The opposite is true actually everyone has some problem solving intuition it's part of being human. Smart people just have more of it. And some are extraordinarily gifted at mathematics in particular and quickly recognize patterns and derive and piece together concepts from traditional instruction. It happens in classical music as well, Mozart is perhaps the most well-known child prodigy.

>>15877422
Yes, of course, because if anything screams educated today it’s being aligned with the Republican party.

>>15876841
>making threads about common core being confusing, you’re insta-branded as a retard.
It's more likely you're just unable to cope with the subjective word "confusing" and are unable to extrapolate the obviously intended point (eg as this anon says here: "needlessly complicated" or "too confusing for children".)
>>15877403
>The kids themselves aren't bitching about this
Absolutely irrelevant. Kids are rarely in a position to critique at all. That doesn't mean they aren't being slowed down by meaningless details or that their instruction quality isn't worse.

>>15877469
>yuja wang
patrician taste

>>15876208
My boomer dad was the one who taught me common core, without the trademark name of course. It is not boomers that dislike it, it is the kids. The whore teachers simply can't explain it so the result is math classes are now even harder and more irrational. Math proficiency is at an all time low because of these untested top-to-bottom programs. If you have to choose between simple and complicated pick the simple one, shove your verbose white collar failure response up your ass please or I will shove it for you.

>>15877469
>smart people learn to think in an intuitive way faster than the general population
does not mean
>the average kid can't learn to think in an intuitive way

>>15877478
there's really not much association either way with basic education. Certainly the white middle class people that make up the Republican base are more educated than the multicultural ghetto masses and whatever is left of the union corruption machine. The Democrat reputation for education tends more toward the over-credentialed PhDs in grievance studies and silicon valley bubble people with science degrees and no real life or world experience.

>>15877505
Teaching kids rote methods that are similar to intuitive methods does not mean kids will learn to think intuitively.
Have you ever actually taught a child anything, ever?

>>15877508
define "intuition"

>>15877479
>Sure buddy… you were, uh… speaking for the children when you claimed to be retarded

Common core just teaches what anyone who has basic numerical intuition already does. The main problem it has in my opinion are that after going through 10 layers of bureaucracy that it teaches this in a rather obtuse manner.

Another issue is that they force students to do it this way rather than in whichever way makes sense to them. Back in middle school I got sick when we started algebra and missed a week, so I taught it to myself online. Apparently, we had to do some retarded shit with these blocks (physical objects), and the teacher had a fit at me because I did it the normal way and not with their stupid method, even though I got the correct answers.

>>15877526
That's the obvious context. Missing that means you're the retard.
>>15877512
>Ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning
IOW common core people claim to be developing a person's ability to just work out math problems without walking through a series of steps. I'm skeptical that this actually does what it's claimed to do. It's just a different sequence of reasoning that people will still have to apply, but potentially one that's in fact more cumbersome to apply rote than the traditional algorithm.

>>15876208
Same reason they complained about New Math (aka today's math before common core) back in the 50's: they just hate change because it reminds them of their aging

>>15876208
really weird examples that don't seem helpful

>>15876245
mathlets can’t into abstractions. They need someone to draw a picture for them

>>15879040
Mathematics is concrete and programmatic. Unhinged schizos use "abstraction" to hide their lack of understanding and keep true genius out of Big Math.

>>15879042
>Frets abstraction
>Can't make sense of it
>Weak temperament
>Claims to know maths
>Nope.jpg

It already worked perfectly, and then they created Common Core because dark skins are bad at math, and the new system just treats everyone like a retard, hindering the growth of the brightest. no child left behind

>>15876208
TIL the Maths I do in my head is called common core
>>15876380
Same I never knew it had a name I just thought of it has how you do Maths