lucky kids!

my teachers made me learn by hand first and then by calculator.

but it does dumb down the kids to where they can't do simple mathematics.

we have such a lack of math in our classrooms, because the teachers aren't that good at it, so they avoid it.

It's almost as if they are trying to make kids dumber.

EEP, what overly complicated methods.

This is happening up North too... at the post-secondary level.

Skip to the bottom for the short version :)

In my first year business math class the grading system was as follows - 4 tests @ 25% each. The average question was given 2 marks for the correct answer and 1 mark for showing your work.

After having the first test returned, I learned that showing your work meant to write down the buttons you pushed on your business calculator. I didn't like this lesson, so on the second test I asked the teacher to take note of how I handed in my test before everyone else. Didn't influence his decision and I still only received 2 out of 3 on almost all the questions. By test 3 I didn't much care so continued to do math the old fashioned way and boycott my calculator. Once again, I achieve close to the maximum 67% I can.

Here is the good part. On the fourth and final test I stupidly listened to the instructor (as I didn't want to risk failing) and just use the darn calculator. Bad idea, I think I got just about every question wrong on that test... but oddly gained some marks for showing my work (wrong work mind you, but I guess I described pressing those buttons well).

*sigh* so in the end I failed that class (which is funny to me as an A+ student who had already completed a more extensive business math course in highschool). It was a silly school anyway... so I dropped out and pursued technology over marketing.

LONG STORY SHORT - I FAILED OUT OF COLLEGE FOR NOT SHOWING MY WORK... WORK BEING WHAT BUTTONS I WAS SUPPOSED TO PRESS ON MY CALCULATOR.

Why didn't you file an complaint ? This obviously is bad teaching.

I learned the algorithm she mentions at the beginning of the video in grade school, however, I use the so called "cluster" method to do complicated multiplications in my head. I think it's actually superior, since it forces students to think about what multiplication really is (iterative addition) rather than blindly following the "advanced multiplication algorithm" without having any understanding of why they are carrying or adding the way they do. This is the first i've heard this mentioned officially, though, I just started doing it on my own because it is vastly more efficient for mental arithmetic.

edit: well, I watched more of the video and they stretched out the method a little bit. I would break it down by saying "10x26 is 260, times 3 is (600 + (10*6*3)=780 + 26 is 806". And yes, I can do that in about 10 seconds in my head.

edit 2: The lattice method is RIDICULOUS

edit 3: Just because I use the cluster method doesn't mean I think it should be taught. I happen to take advanced math courses, but most people don't need that kind of facility. They should learn the regular way.

Because the school was a joke and I quickly determined that I would not be continuing my education there. I enrolled in another school who offered me full credit for the first year, provided I passed their math tests (which I did, with flying colours).

Also, the instructor was dying of cancer... so it would have been bad karma to lodge a complaint.

I posted this a few months back.

Still quite shocking.

I do the same thing in my head, actually when I see a math problem I think of it in many different ways. I'm really good at math and always have been, that's why I think of numbers the way I do. However, children aren't good at math before they even learn it and this just confuses them. Teaching the old algorithm gives them a firm foundation to understanding math and numbers and the way they interact together. Once they have mastered that, then they can go on to look at numbers in the many different ways that we do.

Just because it's a different way to do Math that the parents don't understand, it's wrong. That's what she's telling parents, who will blindly agree that Yes, It's different and I don't understand it, so it must be wrong.

The Lattice is weird, but sound. If you're doing something on paper. The other method.. well.. that IS everyday math.

When I need 15 squashes at 3.99 ea.. I don't sit there with a pad of paper and figure it out using the 'teacher' method. I round. I use the second method.. (i.e. 10x 3.99 = 39.90 + 5 x 3.99) it breaks things down into simplier math in order to make it possible to do in your head.

Would I use that while I'm programming? No. I need precise answers. Then again.. when I'm REALLY needing precise answers, I turn to a calculator.

I had this argument with my teacher all the time.

Teacher: Show your work.
Me: I did it in my head.
Teacher: Then you don't get a good grade.

WHY?! Because I'm smart? Because I don't do things the slow way? I failed my first College Algebra class AND got the highest grade on the final. Because I didn't need her 'busywork' in order to figure out the problems, and the final was sent from the University head office and didn't require us to turn in the work, just the answers.

My boss never asked me to 'show my work' just give him the right answer.

So this math is different. It still gets the right answer and allows people to do math in everyday situations. Where exactly is the harm Mrs. Reporter lady? Oh.. right.. You can't do a show on "Kids today are learning different than you did when you were in school." but you can do a show on "The Dangers of the new school ciriculum and how your kid isn't learning!"

I use that second method like a lot of people without paper and pen. Though talking through it with another person will earn you some pretty strange looks! It sounds incredibly complicated, but it works. I LOVE that lattice thingy though, that's really cool! Wish they had taught us that in school.

'Course I managed to place into calc when I was a freshman in college based on the entrance tests. Hadn't taken pre-calc in any form, and heard an awful lot of "you learned this in pre-calc!". That was fun... Didn't do so hot. Much better at stats, but I've always pretty much sucked at math.

I don't have a problem with these methods being taught as long as the children are taught the fundamentals first. I can look at #'s in many ways and often use multiple methods to come up with answers in my head but I can only take it to a certain level. Without the discipline and methodology learned by having to "show my work" I wouldn't have been able to do well in higher level math classes at university, I could understand the concepts without problem but being able to apply it was a different story.

My daughter is in fifth grade and I often engage her with math problems in everyday situations. The first time I showed her the "traditional" methods for multiplication and division she looked at me like I truly was from another planet. Every reason I have been given by educators why methods like these are used is not because they are a new and superior way of learning but because they are quick to teach and the teachers don't have enough time to teach more because they are preparing the students for the standardized tests they have to take and do well on in order to get federal funding $'s. The education system in the country has been dumbed down and simplified just like a lot of other things in our culture. Sometimes it feels like catering to the lowest common denominator is all we're capable of as a society. No child left behind? Left behind what?

And being able to show your work does apply in the real world. Accountants must show their work, taxpayers must be able to show their work, and if I give my VP an effectiveness report that is going to be used to make major financial decisions I darn well better be able to show my work.

I agree with you that learning a new method is not wrong, but not teaching the basic principles because we can do it with a calculator is. Also having a 50-60 page atlas in your math book is wrong and devoting time in your math class to create a world or USA tour is unappropriated use of class time.

I feel that she might of gone overboard on the negative aspects on "other methods" but was right on with the other stuff that the text books were trying to slip into the curriculum.

I've done business accounting, and I've done my taxes. The IRS doesn't care that I write out the...

10 r3/13
13/133
13
0
3

Bit. All they care about is the 10 and 3/13ths. They want the answers, the numbers that matter. They don't care if you used a calculator or your next door neighbor, as long as all the answers are on the worksheet. Yes, they require the answers above in boxes A B and D to figure out box E. But they don't need ALL the math (the work) to show how you got from 100+200+500+3700 to get box B. They just want the final answer in B.

Accounting is the same way. You don't show the 'Work' you show all the final answers, and then the total for all the final answers at the bottom. A spreadsheet would be horrid if every interest calculation was written out and done the long way (on a separate piece of paper please)

As for your VP, he doesn't care how you multiplied or divided, whether you used long division or some lattice. He cares that you include the relevant information. The final answer, and the numbers you used to achieve that final answer. Not the actual math (step by step) inbetween.

But Monk, I have to agree with you on the "No child gets ahead" comment. I HATE the no child gets ahead system and it IS dumbing down America one kid at a time. Standardized tests are a political device, not a teaching one. Teachers will all tell you how ridiculous it is.

I think she misrepresented that. I doubt it was an atlas, more likely it was a very involved math problem. From the glances I saw it had charts, and graphs, it was probably a 'major project' which needed math to figure it out. I don't think the authors included a course on geography into their book.

My Math portion of the SAT's had alot of geography as well..

If a train leaves boston at 8:00 going 30 mph...

I like this. Variety. So long as it is taught and left to the student to use the method that gives the best results would be nice. I can imagine students who have different abilities to learn with different methods having more luck with some of these methods that others would probably find stupid.

Kind of the idea that steven Hawkins is able to do math that others aren't due to his different sets of tools