Posted on 03/21/2014 11:13:57 PM PDT by chessplayer
Well, if you happen to have a hundred dollar bill in your wallet, you could give him that too or better yet, just give him all the money in your wallet.
It is really a stupid example. If someone handed me $30 for a $12 purchase, I'd assume that he was a foreigner and didn't understand U.S. currency.
I’ve taught undergrads physics for years. I know the fundamentals aren’t being taught.
The elementary operations of arithmetic, like the ordinary digital operations of our feet and hands can -- and should -- be reduced to sub-cortical processes at an early age, so that they can be applied to difficult conceptual problems without effort.
The Common Core arithmetic approach is like trying to teach people to use a computer who don't know how to type. They focus so much on finding the letters on the keyboard that their conceptual path through accomplishing a task is quickly lost in details that aren't really part of the problem domain. It's not really necessary that everyone learn to touch type, just that they know where the letters are without thinking.
Conceptual and mental arithmetic can always be returned to at a later phase without any danger that the student will be so mired in methodology that he won't be able to grasp concepts; in fact the connection will be easier, as your peers who could easily learn advanced mathematics while you struggled with it proves.
Common Core is just the latest phase in a disastrous educationist program that has been going on since the catastrophe called "New Math" was introduced in 1963. Each time the approach of teaching math concepts before formalism and drill has been tried it has been abandoned in favor of the traditional method. Each time the educationists refuse to understand that they really do not understand how people learn math. After each failure they regroup and introduce a New-New Math that is even sillier than before. The sad fact is that most educationists are mathematically innumerate, and therefore unqualified to teach the subject -- even to children -- themselves.
Excellent observation ... but could you do it without being so condescending?
This statement is correct.
Learning at such a high level is great for kids who are really bright and motivated
This statement is false.
Really bright kids have the same issues that poorly motivated or less gifted children have with this approach to mathematics. The history, which we started accumulating in 1963 with the advent of "New Math" is clear: teaching conceptual mathematics at the starting point does not work in any cohort. It is simply less damaging to smarter people, who are able to recover from misteaching. That's all.
Maybe you can't communicate with FReepers because you're a condescending, insulting jerk, who thinks a lot more of himself than he should, and you're being put in your place for it.
I've forgotten more math in one day than you've learned in your entire life. The chance that there is any math that you know -- and could teach this FReeper pig is vanishingly small. [I know, I know, your "super sophisticated math brain" doesn't grasp the concept of limits. Here's how it works: For every epsilon greater than zero, the chance that you know more math than I do is less than that.]
[Anyway Miggy, you know me...]
Less likely than it is that you’ve misread me.
No, What's the name of the second baseman, and the name of the first baseman is answered by the name of the shortstop.
Hooz on first ... brother of Hootch.
Now, I've told you that you were wrong many times, and to be fair to my point of view, you were. But I don't believe we've ever gotten down into the mud quite that low.
Here’s the future of teaching math:
2 + 2 = 5.....because we say it is.
Pauli quote not withstanding, there is a definite air of condescension even when responding to a humorous offering, Herr Doktor.
I’m just a harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Common Core State Standards Initiative
Here's the future of math:
You have seven, you take three away. How does seven feel about that?
You have one million. Somebody tries to subtract three. You don't let them, because: a) Racism.
Two sensitive, caring, interior designers want to be married. Because of his opposition to the natural love these two [possible] men [actually one of them is not sure] feel for each other, the Christian cake-baker they've targeted er, selected, should be forced to a) give them a cake b) attend one year nightly reeducation classes so he can understand why his Church and 7,000 years of civilization have been so tragically mistaken c) Personally photograph the wedding and honeymoon d) immediately give up his own children for adoption in their perfect, nurturing, caring, home e) all of the above.
A mean rich person owns a Wendy's franchise. To pay for his history of oppression of Blacks, Latinos, wimmin, transgendered, asexual, and indigenous people he should a) support an immediate tripling of the minimum wage b) buy electric cars for all of his employees c) change his menu to veggie burgers and tofu nuggets whose preparation is supervised only by Ethical Vegans d) reach out to his community by paying the crack dealers in his neighborhood to play Xbox when they have to lay low e) all of the above.
You gave any answer other than e) to the previous two questions because: a) Homophobia and Racism.
That my friend, is the future of math.
>> “This is a real life example of what happens in hardware stores across the country each and every day.” <<
.
Only where the buyer is so stupid that he doesn’t know that 20 is more than 12, and the clerk is in the same shape.
You’d make a great deceptive screwel teechur.
.
What, no ‘Bama fone?
LOL ... are you sure you don’t do stand-up on the side?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.