Yes this is insanity. Not "comfortable" with 9+6? How do you get "comfortable" with a simple addition problem? Their "friend" 10, how can a number be a "friend"? "partner" 9 and "decompose" 6? WHAT???? We know 6 is made up of parts? Yeah 6 ones, how do they know to pick 1 and 5 for the problem? "Anchor" the 9 to the 1 "allowing out students to "that 10", which 10? And now we have 10+5 which is more comfortable that 9+6? I happen to be quite "comfortable" with either and equally. Just learn your damn addition tables and be done with it. To have to sit down and go through all that just to add 9+6? Partner, decompose, anchor, allow, be comfortable................... ..............9+6=15! [video=youtube;uc3Pv5Q_AdA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc3Pv5Q_AdA[/video]
Okay this is crazy I learned mathematics like this by ROTE MEMORIZATION and I had issues but had to get a perfect score before doing the next one this based on grade level, but I know my math in my head well enough to figure out daily math and do so decently enough. This is crazy 9+6=15 if a teacher pulled this on my kid if I had one and they were not doing it the "school way" I would say are the answers right yes or no, if yes then shut the hell up. An older relative is a teacher ,retired, she used to use this similar sort of method when she taught mentally limited children who needed to work on their basic mathematics in special education and would use similar techniques, the reason mainstreamed students didn't it takes longer than rote memorization which foundations later mathematics use.
I still can't figure out the "and we know parts of 6 are 5+1 so they can somehow get a 1 to go with the 9. Well if they KNOW 5+1=6 why don't they know 9+6=15?????? Remember the lightening rounds using flash cards. The winning side would have 9+6=15 in about .2 seconds. Imagine them all having to do this on a chalkboard.
I was taught to do math in my head like this back in the 60's and 70's. I dont get the big deal. Why are the conservatives so against the Common Core? Just because it perceived as change?
I certainly wasn't in the 50's and 60's and none of my kids had it through the 80's and early 90's and it's a big deal because the students aren't getting it and it is unnecessary, math is much easier to learn and accomplish rather than this complicated roundabout way of doing it.
When you understand what they are teaching it makes math much simpler and you understand it. The OP oversimpifies it.The point of this exercise is not to make 9+6 easier to calculate. The point is to make much more complicated probelms like 14365.75 + 7482.25 easier to calculate. Did you learn to use a slide rule, not that that is directly related but is seems like manipulating the numbers in your mind was common to both and you KNEW how the math worked. I dont get the resistance.
It's real easy to teach that if you increase 9 by 6 you get 15. There is nothing complicated about adding that once you know your basic addition tables and the fact is under this new math they aren't learning either. You're correct it's not related to this we are not teaching advanced calculation in grade school they need a BASIC working knowledge of addition subtraction multiplication an division. And we are failing at doing so. I've seen this math with my grandchildren and the fact that they bring their homework home and have can't do their homework and when their parents try to help them they say "that's not how you do it", and we say well yes it is let's learn your tables and then you will know what 9+6 equals and they start on this convoluted system which they don't understand. Here it is, you have 9 peanuts in one hand and you have 6 peanuts in the other put them together and you 15 why because if you increase 9 by 6 you get 15. No need to anchor numbers or deconstruct numbers, just add them together and BINGO.
I'd say that's actually a really smart thing to teach. Instead of telling students that this is the answer deal with it, it actually explains the logic behind it. The only reason I'd say people don't like this is because it's instilling children on the power of 10, making them more likely to want to use the metric system.
I gave you the logic behind it and it doesn't take anchoring numbers and desconstructing them. Put 9 peanuts in one hand, put 6 peanuts in the other, put them together and count how many you have? See vuella increase 9 by 6 and you get 15. How does your way explain it better? The metric system works the same way. Find 9mm on the ruler, count ahead 6 millimeters and where are you? 15. No need to "deconstruct" the 6 (and how do you know 5+1=6 to get to the 1?), no need to anchor the 9mm on the 10mm. But then you think the government has to spend tax payer dollars instructing us on how to roast marshmellows.
Because it's the logic behind it, it's a process now not something you have to memorize. In other words, it's a formula now. Would you rather know a formula that you can use in any situation or would you rather have to memorize each individual answer?
The human brain has an amazing ability to learn and recall facts rather quickly. And the process of starting with 9 peanuts and combining with 6 and ending up with 15 is rather simple. And we need kids to learn BASIC addition. A working knowledge. No wonder our kids rank so far behind in basic math. 9 - 6 = 3....wait how did he know that where is the core math to get to that? 308 - 30= where are the core math steps to get there? I can do it in my head faster than the "core math"
I think it's about understanding as opposed to memorisation. How does anyone know what nine is? It's not innate in our minds, we only know the concept "nine" because someone told that a row of these ......... when added up comes to 9. Put an extra one there and we are told it's 10. So we get to work out that 9 plus 1 is 10. We also get told that these aaaaaaaaa are also 9, they don't have to be dots. So aaaaaaaaa + a is 10. We are told that there can be 9 of anything and if we add another same thing we get 10 of them. We have to learn and understand the symbols that we call "numbers" and we have to learn and understand the various relationships between them. There's always a place for memorisation of processes, of course there is, but understanding the logic behind those processes provides greater learning than memorising a string of processes. Learning means being able to apply, knowing how things work is the point. Remembering is very low on the scale of learning, always has been, understanding and applying are higher up and always have been. http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching-resources/effective-practice/revised-blooms-taxonomy/
As much as I would love to agree with you, that's how I learned how to subtract big numbers. Nor is this the first time that we're seeing this type of math before. It's just simply grouping numbers together in a way that makes sense. The fact is, that this isn't some sort of new approach to math. Take this for example, I watched this as a kid. It explained math to me in pretty similar ways to Common Core. [video=youtube;c-SD_3J-CUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SD_3J-CUI[/video] Look at 8,9:30,10:40,12:20, and I think I've proven my point. Just because you learned something differently growing up, doesn't mean that education theory is the same now. Nor does it mean a different approach is a bad one.
Because we memorized the word nine to represent that many. I guess we could have called in zip but nine is the word that was chosen. And core math is innate???? It's not that complicated you know, nine is nine just as eight is eight. No those a's are a's, there are nine of them. If I add another a to them it becomes the next number which we call ten. We represent the number nine with the symbol "9" and represent the number ten with the symbol "10". And for basic math that will get most kids out of school and into a job all they need to learn is basic rote math in order to do simply equations they might run into later in life. I learned basic math by memorizing my tables, I sucked at algerba because math is just not my thing but go enough to suffice. THAT is all we need for the vast majority of students who are not going to go through life having to perform and understand advance math. We are failing to do this and have been failing since the "new math" has been introduced and now evolved into this core math. I was talking about this with my daughter and she told me about how her son was struggling with his 2nd grade math last year and couldn't get his homework and she showed him how to subtract basic numbers and he said not that is WRONG, they are teaching it as wrong. He had to do it this new way and was totally confused as was my daughter. She wrote a note to the teacher about it and got a note back asking her to NOT try to help him because she would only confuse him with basic math. No wonder kids in stores and fast food places can't easily make change if they are having to anchor and partner and deconstruct, and aren't "comfortable" with $.16 minus $.09. Go figger. We raised one of the most educated citizenry on simple concepts for decades, now we are raising one of most uneducated.
Numbers are a human invention and as such are a social phenomenon. We use 3 instead of III for social reasons. It's just coding, like the alphabet and words. You can read my code because we both have the same language and the way we were taught to code and decode are similar in that languge. As for how maths is taught now, I didn't have a clue then and I don't have a clue now, but I would hope it's being taught for understanding. Some things can be learned by rote, sure, but most need to be on an understanding basis. You can't learn to use mathematical language if all you're going to do is memorise things. That's as bad as kids being taught to memorise the Koran and then being told that's all they need to know to get on in the world.
When I'm adding larger numbers in my head, I pretty much do it that way. I rearrange the numbers so that I can work with them easier. Much easier to do it in my head that way. That said, we need to be forcing memorization of math facts (as they were termed when my kids were in elementary school), i.e. the multiplication tables, etc. Kids need to know that part (the simple arithmetic) to the point of automaticity.
Because a lot of crap is out there that has the name "common core" on it. I agree, the actual common core standards aren't too bad. To read them see below. http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ - - - Updated - - - New ways of teaching math are always hated. When I was young (schooled in 1970s and early 1980s), it was New Math. I use methods similar to what was shown when I do math in my head. In terms of the complaint about the decomposition of numbers (i.e. breakign them down). Kindergarden common core standards have them decomposing numbers from 1 to 10. Part of the problem is that the standards are being imposed on people who haven't been taught with the assumption of those standards earlier. Please show proof that kids aren't getting it.
I'll do this in my head not using paper and a pen or devices and I learned Rote Math and problem solving. 21,848. Took me 36 seconds. And I'm not overly good at math but can round numbers and then figure out the rest in my head seems old fashioned math education worked for me.
They're now stepping into the boundaries and telling kids that 1 and 1 literally makes 3. An education system based more on effort than knowledge will always be a failed one.
Well, with arithmetic, you need both. You need a certain amount of memorization and you need to know the formula. For example, you should have memorized what the results are of adding numbers from 1 to 9 to each other. 9+6=15 should be automatic, you shouldn't need to memorize. That said, using the method in the op for 86+37=123 or larger numbers is a good idea. (86+14=100. 37-14=23. sum is 100+23 or 123). The same goes with the times tables. All children should learn that 2x3 is the same as 3+3, but they should also have memorized that 2x3=6. - - - Updated - - - Please show where they are tellign kids that 1 and 1 makes 3.
The general point is what was showcased in the video is a sign of things to come. As it is, most public schools are lying to their students in areas that involve Science and Social Studies. Example: The state of Texas has removed the history of the Holocaust from their textbooks. If we forget history, it's doomed to repeat. I guess we'll never learn.
Again, show me where they are teaching 1+1=3. Also, Common core doesnt' say a thing about what is taught in history. It merely tells the techniques that they need to use. That sounds like a Texas aberration. Below is the link to Common Core Standards. Please tell me where in those standards that any specific history content is required to be taught. http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/
The FOI Learned this in pilot training, I'm sure this applies to all sorts of learning. According to the Fundamentals of Instruction (FOI), the levels of learning are as follows: Rote (just memorizing) Understanding (knowing why the above is true) Application (being able to apply the understanding to things you actually do as a pilot) Correlation (being able to see the connection between the application of this skill and others) The first step for me was always rote memorization...didn't care about what it all meant at first or the correlation. Memorize it = Step 1. Maybe that's not the greatest way to go about it, but it worked for me most of the time.
