Well, the pandemic really didnt help, that was a pretty big factor around 2020 and onwards that almost certainly negatively effected aptitude across the board. That may or may not explain all of the drop in scores, but its definitely a pretty big factor to consider.
Anything that Bill Gates is somehow involved with is terrible. Therefore common core is also terrible. Carry the one, is obvious when explained to 7 year olds. They managed to teach me it 😂
The new approach does not at all engage the child’s capacity to think of problems in terms of abstract symbols. It’s not immediately obvious (to a child) how the ideas of dots and lines correspond to place value-meaning that teaching common core just robs them of an opportunity at understanding how numbers work.
I don't know which video you were watching, but to me it seems pretty obvious that the boy absolutely understands that 47 is 4 * 10 + 7 * 1 and what the connection between the dots and the lines is. So my guess is that if (after they fully comprehend "the new way") you teach the boy that ye olde way is the same, but less verbose and how the two connect they will absolutely be able to grasp that without problems and probably outperform children that learned math 30 years ago.
I graduated pre common core, so I learned the "old way." I have always been good at math (meaning always got new concepts quickly, scored well on test and generally liked math). My biggest issue with math teachers was they hated how much I did in my head and always told me to "show my work." To which my reply was always, "at this point in the process the answer is obvious, why do I need to write out the last 3 or 4 steps...." it was a source of frustration for all involved. All of this is to say, when I first saw common core math, I thought, "HEY! That is exactly what goes on in my brain when I do math. Yes, let's teach kids that so they can get math like I do and we can all like math." The problem I found... people who struggled with the old math, also struggle with the new math. This leads me to the sad conclusion that some people just have brains that easily get math and some people don't, and the way you show math doesn't really do much. Maybe there is a gray area where there is some benefit, but I think we just end up about back to balance. And maybe we lose some in the confusion of a new system. There isn't a silver bullet.
Yes, I was initially excited to see common core math, because I thought helping kids to see through the algorithms into the details would help them develop their own mental tricks and give them a stronger foundation for more advanced topics. I'm not sure we can actually say that common core approaches are actually *trading off speed for understanding* because if they did, then test scores would also suffer from the lack of speed. Speed is important for test-taking because calculating faster allows you more time to check your answers and get through the easy problems with enough time to ponder the hard ones. Given that the curriculum seems to have no effect on test scores, we can't say that the kids are worse off with common core because it lowers their calculation speed, because we don't actually know that it counterfactually lowers their calculation speed after they have practiced these mental math techniques for a while.
I've had a similar observation (common core math is sometimes similar to my mental process), but I think it also shows that mental processes don't always translate well to paper.
I think looking at the standardised test results so shortly after their adoption isnt entirely fair. I'm sure many teachers didn't like this new method, and parents of course arent going to know it, or want their kids learning this new way. There are going to be "growing pains" for adopting something new like this, especially since it takes much longer. Though, I do think I would've preferred that 10 dots became a line, like the tens side, to make the illustration that much clearer. I also can't imagine anyone expecting kids to do this long term. It seems to me just another way to learn addition. There are tons of tricks I learned growing up for all the mathematic operations, and I remember very few of them. Most math is either done in my head, with a calculator, or written out on a piece of paper that would look like chicken scratch to anyone else.
ive been hearing about this for 10 years and this is the first time ive bothered to look into what common core actually is but no it seems like some terrible new age idea that never got properly tested because the social sciences are all bunk.
I'm a genx who had double major in liberal arts and engineering. I'm now a coder and a father of 2. I can see the idea behind common core. When i was in elementary, we weren't really taught to do math. We were taught to memorize a bunch of procedures(algorithm) and the grown ups called that math. Those who struggled with memorizing them hated math. I've also met those who had a knack for memorizing things and they were quickly weeded out of college level intro physics, where memorizing is not enough. I amongst the 1/4 of the class that passed the gate keeper practiced the old way and tried to understand why we were taught those formulas and procedures. We wanted to understand where the formulas came from. College expects you to actually understand what you were taught and come up with something that you weren't, even during exams. That's how scientific progress is made. There's no answer in the back of the book that you have yet to write about your discovery What i don't agree with in this video is the guy is trying to measure performance based on the old yardstick. Again, the old tests measures how well you memorize procedures, not how well you understand math.
Based on the stats, it seems common core makes it easier for the kids that would normally be left behind ("basic scores"), but at the same time makes it MORE difficult for the children who would have intuitively figured out why the algorithm works either way (because for them, having it more complicated just makes the intuition more difficult to apply), see "proficient scores". All in all, it seems to drag the smartest and average kids down for the benefit of the slowest children. IMO that is not a good idea. You need those average and above average children to be as skilled as possible, because they''re the ones making up more skilled labour.
I think the new method fails to tackle the main problem it tries to address: "wants to be friends" is not a way to understand connection between ones and tens. We just substituted one brainless algorithm with a different one. There is no better understanding.
How about they just teach both? Idk why math teaches is all 1 or nothing, like it's nerf guns, but there are seriously a lot of different ways ti get to the same answer
1st grade parent here. I've been thinking about this a ton. Teaching children to be calculators is dumb. Likely the cause of a math anxiety epidemic and a population of teachers who just continue the status quo without understanding. "When will I use this in real life?" is a question everyone has heard. I mean, before calculators and computers, this made a ton of sense to make sure people knew how to calculate with a pencil .. or slide rule I guess. But, I support any method that emphasizes math intuition. As side quests, algorithms, mental tricks, hand tricks, etc., can be framed as "fun" or to develop interest, but if my kid was running around creating algebraic models, recognizing proportion relationships while baking a cake, or solving problems without remembering how to do long division well on paper (admit - who does this still?), that's a huge educational win. Math is such a powerful tool, and teaching kids to "see" the math in everyday life should be practiced and rehearsed in as many contexts as possible, with as much practice as possible using calculators, Python, p5.js or whatever. Math is just soo good. It's useful in countless ways, and that truth should be on infinite repeat by passionate teachers who "get it". The other benefits -- abstract problem solving, attention to detail, critical thinking, seeing patterns, whatever -- are important too, but just don't kill the vibes! With the dips in test scores, I feel there's so much more to the story. As is easily seen, teacher and parent push-back could sabotage new efforts; the method itself might need refinement; there could be a discrepancy between the test and what's actually being taught. I have no doubt it could be ironed out and raise more kids who both enjoy and know how to use math.
Sad to see a math professor can so completely miss the point of education. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to start teaching basic skills again instead of filling their heads with propaganda and flashy, colorful videos. I can find many convoluted ways to do simple operations, which from a mathematics point of view would be interesting and fun, but for teaching kids, we should stick to what works. All this bullshit is just the result of all these committees having to come up with something. There's no value in it.
I don't hate this video at all and I appreciate the perspective. However, the perspective doesn't resonate with me as a teacher, who has found great utility in using the "common core" ways of thinking at the middle school level to accelerate the translation of arithmetic operations to algebraic ones. I simply find it way easier to elicit that "lightbulb moment" from struggling students with newer methods than classical ones, and it makes teaching way easier. It may be because i deeply understand the new methods, where many teachers may be unconfident with them. I acknowledge that my biggest evidence here is anecdotal, but given that i dont want to flood a TH-cam comment with all the little ways I've observed it, i really do think the idea that "common core hasnt helped" is misguided. I'd point to the standardized tests as being the things that don't help, because they struggle to assess the things which common core helps with the most. Also i always take standardized test data with a large grain of salt. Its impossible to know for sure whether the questions on tests from year to year are the same difficulty, and test companies deliberately obfuscate any data related to test question details.
it's just the same thing but one has 10x the effort writting dots and lines one by one rather than simply writing the number they represent. If a child is at a point where they need dots to understand what a number represents, they're not at the point of adding 2 digit numbers together anyway. Pointless.
What exacly are benefits of this "new" method? It is slower, requires more steps and at the end you are still left with 2 numbers you have to add "normally"?.. The only benefit i see is that kid does not have to actually add 7 + 6 because he is doing it "one by one"... but seriously, adding two 1 digit numbers is not something that should be an issue even at 1'st grade level. I am not buying into the "more comprehensible" idea. "Carry the one" is just as arbitrary as "one wants to be its friends". You can easily explain carry the one to child as "You write the number and the one in 13 does not fit anymore! It will join new friends in another column". The whole thing looks like someone trying to "fix" education without clear idea what exacly to fix. Just like most reforms in education that are making things worse more often than they are making things better..
I think this is a good view on the topic. I know a lot of older folks don’t like change which I think is fair. I also honestly unsure how much Common Core has helped with math comprehension, but I believe they are going in the right direction and they just aren’t hitting the mark. I think any way we can make concepts easier to grasp and give kids a deeper understanding will help them not to fall behind, to be able to learn other concepts easier, and might even make more kids like math. I think it is sad how many people that I went to school with were left behind by math. They had a hard time and had no one to help them so they hated math and they were unable to see how beautiful and interesting math can be. I accredit a lot of my interest in math to good teachers who cared about me learning. I believe one of the main reasons I ended up studying math at University was because of teachers who showed me how amazing math could be like the one who showed me and tried to explain Gabriel’s Horn to a class that didn’t know calculus at all. In general I think kids getting left behind and curiosity and understanding being under-promoted are some of the biggest downfalls of the education system in the US.
i don't see why a deeper comprehension of something as simple as arithmetic was really needed. and doesn't this imply we are teaching a method for dumb kids to the general population? we are slowing the best kids down to match the speed of the slow ones.
As a computer science engineer and a parent, how can I opt out of my child out of learning math this way? Are homeschooling and private schools the only options?
The concept of counting by digit column is at least 20 years old. The difference is that we used the concept method and continued on to the practical method. Making tally marks and dinky dots your whole life is no way to make calculations or work figures long term.
Its not supposed to be done long term. Its supposed to teach an intuitive way to learn it, and once they understand the core of what is happening, you help them learn faster ways to calculate it. There are tons of shortcuts in math for faster calculations. Even with the "old ways" of doing math. I know tons of tricks for doing multiplication for example that are way faster than doing the "traditional' way of math, by using known multiplication tables as reference points. For example, calculating 54 times 9 is faster if you do 54 times 10 minus 54. This is because 54*10 can be done without the "traditional" method as it's a special case where you just add a 0. Then something like subtraction tends to be faster than multiplication. This can be especially true for really big numbers. Same with stuff like 654*999. Same trick can be used. You can use tricks like that all over to quicken your ability to calculate, that is far faster than the traditional style for certain patterns. But you cant learn those faster methods until you learn how to do the basics first. And thats what common core is trying to do. Common core is trying to be more intuitive than the traditional methods so children can more easily visualize what is going on. Just like how the traditional method is more intuitive than using memorized times tables to speed up calculations, even though its slower. And there are even faster methods to multiply really big numbers using special algorithms like what computers do. Computers dont multiply doing the traditional method because there are faster ways. The goal of school is to get kids to understand the material. You start with slower more intuitive methods, and work your way up from there. Its not designed to be long term. I remember back when I was in school and learned lattice multiplication for example. It was one of the first ways I learned how to multiply, and then only later did we learn the traditional method. But the lattice method made it easier to see what was actually going on. Now, addition is simple enough that it really doesnt need this change imo, but common core does some pretty interesting things when it comes to learning other parts of math. Whether its actually better or not is hard to say, but I dont think the answer is as clear cut as people tend to try to make it seem. There are positives and negatives about it. But ultimately none of these are supposed to be the "end goal" of how you solve the problems. The goal is to teach the underlying mechanisms, and then faster methods and shortcuts can be learned later once the students actually understand the core principle behind it, rather than just learning some method without learning a deeper intuitive understanding. And that deeper intuitive understanding will become important when math gets more complicated later on, with stuff like algebra, geometry, and calculus. People who only learn how to use a specific method without actually understanding the underlying math tend to get lost when moving up to higher level math.
@@eragon78 i mean is basic math really a problem where we need this sped method? i think they are just using lowest common denominator thinking to lower the standards to the slowest kid's level.
@@007kingifrit You dont need any method as long as kids understand the fundamentals of what is ultimately going on. In the modern world with calculators in everyone's pocket, knowing how to do fast mental math is more of a small perk rather than a necessity. And better mental math will also come once kids understand it better. I was just explaining how trading off faster methods of calculation which are less intuitive for slower methods which are more intuitive can help kids learn. Even for the "traditional" way of doing things, it wasnt the fastest, but it was more intuitive to understand than the fastest. So my point was moreso that this tradeoff already existed, and we found it justified before, this is just one step further in that same direction of trading off speed for understanding.
Umm what if I do kinda both, as in I often group the ones and tens in a similar fashion however I then do regular math to quickly calculate the groups, I kinda get how this new method would help kids understand but the limitation of the speed is damning, and I doubt this would actually increase anything in education
Always wonder what combination of factors is leading to lower test scores. I think it's much more than just curriculum
Likely
the fact that verbal scores are tracking math indicates it's external factors, and has nothing to do with curriculum.
Well, the pandemic really didnt help, that was a pretty big factor around 2020 and onwards that almost certainly negatively effected aptitude across the board. That may or may not explain all of the drop in scores, but its definitely a pretty big factor to consider.
@@PaulHobbs23 are they tracking? science improved and reading was stable according to the video
Anything that Bill Gates is somehow involved with is terrible. Therefore common core is also terrible. Carry the one, is obvious when explained to 7 year olds. They managed to teach me it 😂
The new approach does not at all engage the child’s capacity to think of problems in terms of abstract symbols. It’s not immediately obvious (to a child) how the ideas of dots and lines correspond to place value-meaning that teaching common core just robs them of an opportunity at understanding how numbers work.
I don't know which video you were watching, but to me it seems pretty obvious that the boy absolutely understands that 47 is 4 * 10 + 7 * 1 and what the connection between the dots and the lines is. So my guess is that if (after they fully comprehend "the new way") you teach the boy that ye olde way is the same, but less verbose and how the two connect they will absolutely be able to grasp that without problems and probably outperform children that learned math 30 years ago.
Thanks for doing what you do. Critical thinking is sorely lacking.
I graduated pre common core, so I learned the "old way." I have always been good at math (meaning always got new concepts quickly, scored well on test and generally liked math). My biggest issue with math teachers was they hated how much I did in my head and always told me to "show my work." To which my reply was always, "at this point in the process the answer is obvious, why do I need to write out the last 3 or 4 steps...." it was a source of frustration for all involved.
All of this is to say, when I first saw common core math, I thought, "HEY! That is exactly what goes on in my brain when I do math. Yes, let's teach kids that so they can get math like I do and we can all like math."
The problem I found... people who struggled with the old math, also struggle with the new math.
This leads me to the sad conclusion that some people just have brains that easily get math and some people don't, and the way you show math doesn't really do much. Maybe there is a gray area where there is some benefit, but I think we just end up about back to balance. And maybe we lose some in the confusion of a new system.
There isn't a silver bullet.
Yes, I was initially excited to see common core math, because I thought helping kids to see through the algorithms into the details would help them develop their own mental tricks and give them a stronger foundation for more advanced topics.
I'm not sure we can actually say that common core approaches are actually *trading off speed for understanding* because if they did, then test scores would also suffer from the lack of speed. Speed is important for test-taking because calculating faster allows you more time to check your answers and get through the easy problems with enough time to ponder the hard ones. Given that the curriculum seems to have no effect on test scores, we can't say that the kids are worse off with common core because it lowers their calculation speed, because we don't actually know that it counterfactually lowers their calculation speed after they have practiced these mental math techniques for a while.
I've had a similar observation (common core math is sometimes similar to my mental process), but I think it also shows that mental processes don't always translate well to paper.
I think looking at the standardised test results so shortly after their adoption isnt entirely fair. I'm sure many teachers didn't like this new method, and parents of course arent going to know it, or want their kids learning this new way. There are going to be "growing pains" for adopting something new like this, especially since it takes much longer.
Though, I do think I would've preferred that 10 dots became a line, like the tens side, to make the illustration that much clearer.
I also can't imagine anyone expecting kids to do this long term. It seems to me just another way to learn addition. There are tons of tricks I learned growing up for all the mathematic operations, and I remember very few of them. Most math is either done in my head, with a calculator, or written out on a piece of paper that would look like chicken scratch to anyone else.
"I do think I would've preferred that 10 dots became a line" great suggestion though
ive been hearing about this for 10 years and this is the first time ive bothered to look into what common core actually is but no it seems like some terrible new age idea that never got properly tested because the social sciences are all bunk.
I'm a genx who had double major in liberal arts and engineering. I'm now a coder and a father of 2. I can see the idea behind common core.
When i was in elementary, we weren't really taught to do math. We were taught to memorize a bunch of procedures(algorithm) and the grown ups called that math. Those who struggled with memorizing them hated math.
I've also met those who had a knack for memorizing things and they were quickly weeded out of college level intro physics, where memorizing is not enough. I amongst the 1/4 of the class that passed the gate keeper practiced the old way and tried to understand why we were taught those formulas and procedures. We wanted to understand where the formulas came from. College expects you to actually understand what you were taught and come up with something that you weren't, even during exams. That's how scientific progress is made. There's no answer in the back of the book that you have yet to write about your discovery
What i don't agree with in this video is the guy is trying to measure performance based on the old yardstick. Again, the old tests measures how well you memorize procedures, not how well you understand math.
To be fair against common core, from what I've seen of it it's just memorising algorithms too. But with pointless steps added.
Based on the stats, it seems common core makes it easier for the kids that would normally be left behind ("basic scores"), but at the same time makes it MORE difficult for the children who would have intuitively figured out why the algorithm works either way (because for them, having it more complicated just makes the intuition more difficult to apply), see "proficient scores".
All in all, it seems to drag the smartest and average kids down for the benefit of the slowest children. IMO that is not a good idea. You need those average and above average children to be as skilled as possible, because they''re the ones making up more skilled labour.
It's probably just to help kids transition easier to the numerical form. It's not like this is going to be the final way they learn it.
I like common core maths because I feel that our species should become extinct soon, and this will only help
I think the new method fails to tackle the main problem it tries to address: "wants to be friends" is not a way to understand connection between ones and tens. We just substituted one brainless algorithm with a different one. There is no better understanding.
How about they just teach both? Idk why math teaches is all 1 or nothing, like it's nerf guns, but there are seriously a lot of different ways ti get to the same answer
1st grade parent here. I've been thinking about this a ton. Teaching children to be calculators is dumb. Likely the cause of a math anxiety epidemic and a population of teachers who just continue the status quo without understanding. "When will I use this in real life?" is a question everyone has heard. I mean, before calculators and computers, this made a ton of sense to make sure people knew how to calculate with a pencil .. or slide rule I guess.
But, I support any method that emphasizes math intuition. As side quests, algorithms, mental tricks, hand tricks, etc., can be framed as "fun" or to develop interest, but if my kid was running around creating algebraic models, recognizing proportion relationships while baking a cake, or solving problems without remembering how to do long division well on paper (admit - who does this still?), that's a huge educational win. Math is such a powerful tool, and teaching kids to "see" the math in everyday life should be practiced and rehearsed in as many contexts as possible, with as much practice as possible using calculators, Python, p5.js or whatever.
Math is just soo good. It's useful in countless ways, and that truth should be on infinite repeat by passionate teachers who "get it". The other benefits -- abstract problem solving, attention to detail, critical thinking, seeing patterns, whatever -- are important too, but just don't kill the vibes!
With the dips in test scores, I feel there's so much more to the story. As is easily seen, teacher and parent push-back could sabotage new efforts; the method itself might need refinement; there could be a discrepancy between the test and what's actually being taught. I have no doubt it could be ironed out and raise more kids who both enjoy and know how to use math.
Sad to see a math professor can so completely miss the point of education. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to start teaching basic skills again instead of filling their heads with propaganda and flashy, colorful videos.
I can find many convoluted ways to do simple operations, which from a mathematics point of view would be interesting and fun, but for teaching kids, we should stick to what works. All this bullshit is just the result of all these committees having to come up with something. There's no value in it.
I don't hate this video at all and I appreciate the perspective. However, the perspective doesn't resonate with me as a teacher, who has found great utility in using the "common core" ways of thinking at the middle school level to accelerate the translation of arithmetic operations to algebraic ones. I simply find it way easier to elicit that "lightbulb moment" from struggling students with newer methods than classical ones, and it makes teaching way easier. It may be because i deeply understand the new methods, where many teachers may be unconfident with them.
I acknowledge that my biggest evidence here is anecdotal, but given that i dont want to flood a TH-cam comment with all the little ways I've observed it, i really do think the idea that "common core hasnt helped" is misguided. I'd point to the standardized tests as being the things that don't help, because they struggle to assess the things which common core helps with the most.
Also i always take standardized test data with a large grain of salt. Its impossible to know for sure whether the questions on tests from year to year are the same difficulty, and test companies deliberately obfuscate any data related to test question details.
I really enjoyed your curious and unbiased evaluation. We've got a good-thinker over here.
it's just the same thing but one has 10x the effort writting dots and lines one by one rather than simply writing the number they represent.
If a child is at a point where they need dots to understand what a number represents, they're not at the point of adding 2 digit numbers together anyway. Pointless.
thank you for having a rational discussion about this.
What exacly are benefits of this "new" method? It is slower, requires more steps and at the end you are still left with 2 numbers you have to add "normally"?..
The only benefit i see is that kid does not have to actually add 7 + 6 because he is doing it "one by one"... but seriously, adding two 1 digit numbers is not something that should be an issue even at 1'st grade level.
I am not buying into the "more comprehensible" idea. "Carry the one" is just as arbitrary as "one wants to be its friends". You can easily explain carry the one to child as "You write the number and the one in 13 does not fit anymore! It will join new friends in another column".
The whole thing looks like someone trying to "fix" education without clear idea what exacly to fix. Just like most reforms in education that are making things worse more often than they are making things better..
I think this is a good view on the topic. I know a lot of older folks don’t like change which I think is fair. I also honestly unsure how much Common Core has helped with math comprehension, but I believe they are going in the right direction and they just aren’t hitting the mark. I think any way we can make concepts easier to grasp and give kids a deeper understanding will help them not to fall behind, to be able to learn other concepts easier, and might even make more kids like math. I think it is sad how many people that I went to school with were left behind by math. They had a hard time and had no one to help them so they hated math and they were unable to see how beautiful and interesting math can be. I accredit a lot of my interest in math to good teachers who cared about me learning. I believe one of the main reasons I ended up studying math at University was because of teachers who showed me how amazing math could be like the one who showed me and tried to explain Gabriel’s Horn to a class that didn’t know calculus at all. In general I think kids getting left behind and curiosity and understanding being under-promoted are some of the biggest downfalls of the education system in the US.
i don't see why a deeper comprehension of something as simple as arithmetic was really needed. and doesn't this imply we are teaching a method for dumb kids to the general population? we are slowing the best kids down to match the speed of the slow ones.
As a computer science engineer and a parent, how can I opt out of my child out of learning math this way? Are homeschooling and private schools the only options?
khan academy and art of problem solving are great resources
We don’t need children to care about math at all professor… only that they are able to accomplish it practically… and quickly.
if this were true, why not just teach them to use a calculator?
@@GrifGrey Because we want the child to be able to accomplish it practically in the absence of a reference. We want the child to become a reference.
Any tips for someone looking to get a start on statistics?
in what context? normally one would say major in statistics
The concept of counting by digit column is at least 20 years old. The difference is that we used the concept method and continued on to the practical method. Making tally marks and dinky dots your whole life is no way to make calculations or work figures long term.
Its not supposed to be done long term. Its supposed to teach an intuitive way to learn it, and once they understand the core of what is happening, you help them learn faster ways to calculate it.
There are tons of shortcuts in math for faster calculations. Even with the "old ways" of doing math. I know tons of tricks for doing multiplication for example that are way faster than doing the "traditional' way of math, by using known multiplication tables as reference points. For example, calculating 54 times 9 is faster if you do 54 times 10 minus 54. This is because 54*10 can be done without the "traditional" method as it's a special case where you just add a 0. Then something like subtraction tends to be faster than multiplication. This can be especially true for really big numbers. Same with stuff like 654*999. Same trick can be used.
You can use tricks like that all over to quicken your ability to calculate, that is far faster than the traditional style for certain patterns.
But you cant learn those faster methods until you learn how to do the basics first. And thats what common core is trying to do. Common core is trying to be more intuitive than the traditional methods so children can more easily visualize what is going on. Just like how the traditional method is more intuitive than using memorized times tables to speed up calculations, even though its slower. And there are even faster methods to multiply really big numbers using special algorithms like what computers do. Computers dont multiply doing the traditional method because there are faster ways.
The goal of school is to get kids to understand the material. You start with slower more intuitive methods, and work your way up from there. Its not designed to be long term. I remember back when I was in school and learned lattice multiplication for example. It was one of the first ways I learned how to multiply, and then only later did we learn the traditional method. But the lattice method made it easier to see what was actually going on.
Now, addition is simple enough that it really doesnt need this change imo, but common core does some pretty interesting things when it comes to learning other parts of math. Whether its actually better or not is hard to say, but I dont think the answer is as clear cut as people tend to try to make it seem. There are positives and negatives about it.
But ultimately none of these are supposed to be the "end goal" of how you solve the problems. The goal is to teach the underlying mechanisms, and then faster methods and shortcuts can be learned later once the students actually understand the core principle behind it, rather than just learning some method without learning a deeper intuitive understanding. And that deeper intuitive understanding will become important when math gets more complicated later on, with stuff like algebra, geometry, and calculus. People who only learn how to use a specific method without actually understanding the underlying math tend to get lost when moving up to higher level math.
@@eragon78 i mean is basic math really a problem where we need this sped method? i think they are just using lowest common denominator thinking to lower the standards to the slowest kid's level.
@@007kingifrit You dont need any method as long as kids understand the fundamentals of what is ultimately going on. In the modern world with calculators in everyone's pocket, knowing how to do fast mental math is more of a small perk rather than a necessity. And better mental math will also come once kids understand it better.
I was just explaining how trading off faster methods of calculation which are less intuitive for slower methods which are more intuitive can help kids learn. Even for the "traditional" way of doing things, it wasnt the fastest, but it was more intuitive to understand than the fastest.
So my point was moreso that this tradeoff already existed, and we found it justified before, this is just one step further in that same direction of trading off speed for understanding.
Umm what if I do kinda both, as in I often group the ones and tens in a similar fashion however I then do regular math to quickly calculate the groups, I kinda get how this new method would help kids understand but the limitation of the speed is damning, and I doubt this would actually increase anything in education