I remember my grandma chiding me for not memorizing log tables in school. Times change, and primary educational theory is hardly in the zeitgeist.
I’m not an expert, but most changes from what “we” (which I’m taking anyone aged 5-10 between 1980 and 2000 roughly) experienced to what “kids nowadays” (there are two epochs, 2000-2010, 2010-now) experience are due to the greater availability of data tools
With data and technology being more available the way math is taught had to change (although we have calculators with us permenantly now, so we need to rote-memorize less, we need to focus more on what the calculator is doing behind the scenes so we understand the processes), in order to ameliorate the other issue: stratification of learning between rich/poor, and between NA/LATAM/AMEA/EU
When you actually read the requirements, and compare them to the image, it makes a bit more sense
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
Reason abstractly and quantitatively
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
Model with mathematics
Use appropriate tools strategically
Attend to precision
Look for and make use of structure
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Without wanting to be too glib, how would one differently integrate the above bullet points into an educational schema that allows flexibility for different learning styles, classroom environments, levels of literacy, competency, variations in age/development/background/homelife, disabilities over the course of 5 years while tracking other learnings in key educational areas to complement the syllabus?
These things get a bad reputation but the moment to attempt to tackle the problem yourself, you start to see how massively complex and difficult it is.
Are you perhaps saying that trying to teach an understanding of a concept like place value or carrying is more complicated than just getting the answer to an arithmetic problem? I have no idea why that should be the case, where would you get such an idea anyway?
It’s almost like teachers have developed new ways to teach that are different but maybe a more effective way for kids to learn.
People always get so weird about newer math teaching techniques. I get that it’s new and doesn’t make sense to us because it’s not how we learned, but the kneejerk reaction of “this is obviously worse than how I learned” without any understanding of the method or why it might teach better fundamentals is… Silly
Is this how they teach addition these days?
I remember my grandma chiding me for not memorizing log tables in school. Times change, and primary educational theory is hardly in the zeitgeist.
I’m not an expert, but most changes from what “we” (which I’m taking anyone aged 5-10 between 1980 and 2000 roughly) experienced to what “kids nowadays” (there are two epochs, 2000-2010, 2010-now) experience are due to the greater availability of data tools
With data and technology being more available the way math is taught had to change (although we have calculators with us permenantly now, so we need to rote-memorize less, we need to focus more on what the calculator is doing behind the scenes so we understand the processes), in order to ameliorate the other issue: stratification of learning between rich/poor, and between NA/LATAM/AMEA/EU
When you actually read the requirements, and compare them to the image, it makes a bit more sense
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
Reason abstractly and quantitatively
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
Model with mathematics
Use appropriate tools strategically
Attend to precision
Look for and make use of structure
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Without wanting to be too glib, how would one differently integrate the above bullet points into an educational schema that allows flexibility for different learning styles, classroom environments, levels of literacy, competency, variations in age/development/background/homelife, disabilities over the course of 5 years while tracking other learnings in key educational areas to complement the syllabus?
These things get a bad reputation but the moment to attempt to tackle the problem yourself, you start to see how massively complex and difficult it is.
Um…
I just meant that it looks more effort to count and lassoo the tens and ones than it is to just add it up the old fashioned way with a “doorstep”.
Are you perhaps saying that trying to teach an understanding of a concept like place value or carrying is more complicated than just getting the answer to an arithmetic problem? I have no idea why that should be the case, where would you get such an idea anyway?
well that’s the point I was making, there is no “just”
I know… we never had these graphical things to help us, yet we somehow managed to learn it…
It’s almost like teachers have developed new ways to teach that are different but maybe a more effective way for kids to learn.
People always get so weird about newer math teaching techniques. I get that it’s new and doesn’t make sense to us because it’s not how we learned, but the kneejerk reaction of “this is obviously worse than how I learned” without any understanding of the method or why it might teach better fundamentals is… Silly