Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, the answer is D. It requires the child mentally bump one number up to the nearest ten and reduce the other number by that same amount. It is a useful skill to be able to quickly estimate answers, especially when you start dealing with larger numbers. However, this is a question given to FIRST graders. First, as in 6 & 7 years old. It is not within the realm of how first graders think, which is concretely. It simply defies everything we understand about child development.
No matter what age, how is that the proper way of figuring out the answer, when all you know is 8 is in some place, and 6 is in some other place, and assuming those are the only two places available?
I don't see the issue IF the kids had been working concepts like that. To toss it out in a random assignment is a different story. Our kids did a lot of abstract thinking work in 1st grade, but they had examples in class so they knew the kinds of things to look for...which may or may not defeat the purpose .
ABSTRACT LOLZ, bwahahahaha
There is 8 and 6, period. The test makers completely screwed up with that one.
No matter what age, how is that the proper way of figuring out the answer, when all you know is 8 is in some place, and 6 is in some other place, and assuming those are the only two places available?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
ABSTRACT LOLZ, bwahahahaha
There is 8 and 6, period. The test makers completely screwed up with that one.
Someone posted the algebraic thinking that is being taught, so I am cutting and pasting it here:
I posted a link to the standards for First grade.
They give examples and are also teaching subtraction by this method.
Here's the logic (algebraic thinking is what they termed it)
Addition
8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14
They are teaching subtraction this way as well. The idea here is to add to ten and subtract the amount you used from the second number.
I calculate ages, dates, etc. in my head exactly the way you described. I don't think it is appropriate however to put this kind of question on a test. When I looked at the question, I first thought it was an error. My second thought was I was missing something with where the toys are located between the chest and shelf. Why can't they just ask the question:
Isn't that what is important, that the student can add 8 + 6 and get an answer of 14?
Exactly! What happened to learning one's 8s, e.g. 8+1, 8+2, etc?
Unfortunately, the business of education often revolves around marketing whatever "new, bright and shiny" concept or theory someone wants to put forth at a given time. Just as manufacturers try to persuade us that what we already own is outdated and inefficient so they can sell more goods (whether it be cars, cell phones or shampoo), "educational experts" want to persuade us that whatever was done is now is inadequate, and the solution is to spend a lot of money of professional development, workshops, curriculum, technology, etc. until the problem is fixed...or some "brilliant" mind comes up with an even better idea.
At the least, Common Core is about money; your state adopts CC, it gets federal money, grant money, etc. Then your school districts can brag about the "new, bright and shiny" things it has bought (net books for each student, perhaps?), and how much more cutting edge that district is than other ones.
I could argue similarly about a myriad of other catchphrase-ridden educational ideas, past and present (differentiated education? STEM? STEAM?).
I think CC has an additional element to it; I think it is not just detracting from good education, but that it is undermining it and teaching these ridiculous, illogical non-processes for problem solving. Phyllis Schlafly has a lot of good info on the public school system and CC, if anyone wants to read about this further.
I was an elementary teacher (mainly EC/K/1st) for 30 plus years and I'm having trouble understanding some of the 1st & 2nd grade math under Common Core. It used to be that I was confused by "fancy numbers" and "latticing" and things like that when I was a substitute teacher in 5th grade a few years ago, now I've regressed to the point where some 1st & 2nd grade math doesn't make sense anymore. Sheesh, I'm going to have to go back to preschool!
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
germaine, you forgot "cat whiskers".
Wow! Cat whiskers is another new term for me. What in the world are "cat whiskers"?
Maybe preschool will be too advanced for me and I'll need to start at infant level math.
BTW, I know that I'm making fun of CC and other newer math programs in my posts but I really don't have enough information to make an informed decision (since I'm retired & have not had any training in it and I don't teach it every day). Time will tell if it is a passing fad or a program that will be successful long term.
Wow! Cat whiskers is another new term for me. What in the world are "cat whiskers"?
Maybe preschool will be too advanced for me and I'll need to start at infant level math.
BTW, I know that I'm making fun of CC and other newer math programs in my posts but I really don't have enough information to make an informed decision (since I'm retired & have not had any training in it and I don't teach it every day). Time will tell if it is a passing fad or a program that will be successful long term.
I don't have a clue, I walked into an Alg I class a few weeks ago and heard the term. I looked at the teacher and she said "Required terminology". She's one of our Common Core gurus for Math and even she says she has no clue what's going on. She's a 23 year veteran.
The old way children had to learn addition tables, which took time and was error prone. The new way they only have to learn what numbers add up to multiples of 10, and how to add small numbers to multiples of 10. This can make math available to a lot more children, not just those who were born with an inclination towards math. A retarded child can learn the new way a lot faster than the old way. The only reason it seems strange and difficult is because we weren't taught that way. In other words it's not just selling something shiny new to replace old boring. It's a stroke of genius to realize doing it this way makes it available to more children. That's the key issue. Making math available to more children, not just to those born with math abilities.
It's very common, and has been throughout history, that the most brilliant strokes of genius often seemed like idiocy to the average person. In adopting the new way, they go through stages such as: That's stupid. That's silly. That's easy but so what? What's the point? I always knew that, but it was never worth mention. It's fine. It's the way we do things now.
But what most people never get, is that the new idea actually enables millions of people to do something better. They never see that, because they only see it as the new way vs the old way, and never multiply the small gain in ability by the millions of children who benefit from that gain.
However, I agree that it's a bad test question unless the children who take the test have definitely been extensively taught the new way. The average person would perceive it as a test error, and rightfully so, because such tests tend to be full of errors.
I don't have a clue, I walked into an Alg I class a few weeks ago and heard the term. I looked at the teacher and she said "Required terminology". She's one of our Common Core gurus for Math and even she says she has no clue what's going on. She's a 23 year veteran.
It looks like a way to make a simple concept more complicated to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
Whiskers
