Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth

redibis07 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Re: Multiplication. I teach cross multiplication algorithm as well as the lattice method. The lattice method works best with students with dysgraphia (poor handwriting alignment) and serves as a check and balance to the algorithm (cross multiplication) in which students may accidentally add INSTEAD of multiplying. Also, lattice works better when multiplying large numbers such as 40995 x 75029 where the algorithm is a problem for students with alignment issues.

BruceDeitrickPrice Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Wonderful video. And scary. People who would impose the lattice method on children are guilty of child abuse.

Fideous Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - students with alignment issues? lol, quadricular sheets maybe? the lattice method sucks balls, period.

Darkgravx12 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - BruceDeitrickPrice (2 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Wonderful video. And scary. People who would impose the lattice method on children are guilty of child abuse. Remaining character count: Too true, we have a popular saying in the military it's called "k.i.s.s." which means "keep it simple stupid".there's no reason why cluster problems and lattice method wouldn't work sometimes, but to not teach a highly efficient basic method to a beginner student..

Darkgravx12 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - That's just retarded. In order to gain an understanding of the more "complex" methods, you NEED to teach the very basics first.

Darkgravx12 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - that still doesn't change the fact that you should teach beginner students the basics.

iiVI251 Says:

Oct 8, 2008 - This lady is an idiot.There is nothing else to be said.

lcfly Says:

Oct 8, 2008 - Teaching a child math and expecting them to build a grid to line up numbers is like using a crutch to walk. Math SHOULD be hard that's how we learn but the method we use should be as simple as possible and applicable in all cases. Easing up on curriculum standards in fields like math, science and even language is a road to failure for both the students and those responsible for teaching them.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 9, 2008 - I agree with the paragraph you read from "Everyday Mathematics". As a professional who works with math every day, if I can't do it in my head, I use a calculator or write a program to solve it. Otherwise, I need to answer for my wasted productivity. Students should move on past your traditionalist views and understand how to arrange today's larger problems so they can be solved efficiently in today's world, rather than learning the manual time-wasting methods of last century.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 9, 2008 - She has an idea. It's not a bad one, but the idiot part comes in when she's decided to take sides on a weak point. She also seems a bit stuck in the past. I'll buy the argument "Let's not teach anything new because it's not better", but I won't buy "Let's not teach anything new because us adults won't understand it.".

AceyBlade Says:

Oct 9, 2008 - This lady is talking about elementary school where basics are learnt. Basics are like the base of a house. If you don't have them your house will grumble. If you have strong base of a house then you can build much much bigger and stronger house. Thank god I live in Finland where the education standards are high and stuff like this is not accepted.

Gplex Says:

Oct 9, 2008 - Its more of "lets not try and fix a system that isnt broken", not something new.

farubino Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - they are all wrong. mathematics isn't about training children to be human calculators, it's about creative problem solving. all of these algorithms are just as brainless as using an electronic calculator, and will never get children excited about patterns, logic or creative reasoning.the mathematics education curriculum in this country is a total failure. google "Lockhart's Lament" for a dissection of the problem.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Understood, but my position is that we should move beyond what a calculator can do and focus on teaching kids to solve problems that they're more likely to need to solve, rather than something a calculator can do... Perhaps none of these methods are "better" (although I believe they do have merit in their own ways), but I am all for teaching a variety of new methods and attempting to change in the name of progress.

kanezor Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Schools in the Houston area use similar approaches to teaching math. Little thought goes into what they're doing with the numbers and especially heavy reliance upon calculators.I'm 22, I was taught math by a private school. I wasn't even ALLOWED a calculator in fifth grade. I'm watching my yougest sister and brother go through high school, and they can't even do long division or multi-digit multiplication. And rather than trying to teach them, their teacher tells them to just use a calculator!

redibis07 Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - When all you have is pen and scrap paper and you are in a store trying to figure out whether you should or shouldn't buy something... quadricular sheets aren't readily available. Drawing a lattice is.

redibis07 Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Lattice is basic. It is still multiplication - just not cross multiplication.

Gplex Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Problem with adding in new methods is that you are gambling with the kids future... only change something if it no longer works, else you will being dealing with the 10 or so years where people will be playing around trying to get rid off all the "bugs" in the new teaching system.

Darkgravx12 Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Yes, I realize that, I never said it was too complex to learn. I was only pointing out that the line method has always been dependable and easiest to learn - teachers so still start with that method at least, before anything else. Or perhaps display all three and let the student decide which one is easiest for him/her to use.

Darkgravx12 Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - that's what learning mathematics is about anyway right? Learn *ALL* the basics / facts about it, instead of being narrow-minded and only instructing half the facts instead of all the facts and methods. some students maybe not get it on their own or never TRY to investigate it on their own for that matter.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Meanwhile, the rest of the world teaches a variety of methods on more complex problems, shakes out the bugs, uses calculators to solve simple problems, and their kids grow up to use effective tools and be productive, while ours are stuck in the last century.The method doesn't really matter. We should be teaching kids how to figure things out, work out bugs, and learn how to learn... otherwise, they're stuck in tomorrow's world, only knowing how to do what we taught them today.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - Agreed, and well-put. I don't care how it's done, as long as our kids are skilled enough to solve the problems... The more algorithms they have to choose out of their toolbox, the better.

Gplex Says:

Oct 10, 2008 - but they are not doing that, they are showing more complex ways of working out the same simple problem.

KippTheKidd Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - They don't look more complex to me. To a kid who isn't familiar with ANY method, these are fine substitutions. On top of that, their mechanism is different... I think the cluster problems are great for learning; you can use simple things you know to learn and solve more complex things.It takes some time to learn and understand, but it could be much more beneficial than the standard methods.

Gplex Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - try teaching a kid those other methods... and you'll see what I mean.