Should I teach my kids correct math terms?

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Not sure about this one. We do use difference, sum, product and a few others, but not really addend and the like. I tend to shy away from correct terminology in phonics as well. For example, instead of consonant digraph we tend to use the AAS term "consonant team". I'd love to hear you thoughts as my oldest is know in 3rd grade and I'm rethinking this. So what say the hive? Yes, no, benefits, disadvantages (testing???)

[black_midori]

I say... if you'd have no idea what the term means as an adult unless someone gave additional information, then don't bother!! :D

 

I can't say that in my line of work (CPA) or personal life, I have EVER referred to things as addends or digraphs... so I'm not going to bother, myself. :)

 

Now, there are some technical terms that I DO use that I will definitely teach my kids - like what a debit and a credit actually ARE in double entry bookkeeping, and various parts of horse anatomy and tack items that I wince at when used incorrectly - but I expect many other people won't bother with those!! So, to each their own (as far as what does or doesn't matter to them, that is).

[Snickerdoodle]

Yes. We do use correct terminology.

 

My kids know what a minuend is and it's relationship to the sum. ;)

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Yes. We do use correct terminology.

 

My kids know what a minuend is and it's relationship to the sum. ;)

 

What do you think are the benefits? I'm good at math, but I had never learned the proper terminology (or maybe I forgot it). Descions, descions!

[ChristusG]

I've been wondering this too. I mean, I don't think I've ever used the words minuend, product, addend, etc.

[Ellie]

Yes. It just makes things easier to explain/teach/discuss.

[Snickerdoodle]

Well, for one thing, when you are learning something, anything, you often include the vocabulary of it.

 

I don't often talk of that "thingy" when speaking about something and expect to be understood.

 

EXCEPT: When I say, "Pick up that thingy from the floor, NOW!", I kind of do expect to be understood.

[Aubrey]

Basic vocab--sum, difference, etc--sure. Necessary for discussions, for solving problems later.

 

More complex vocab that NOBODY ever uses outside of school--addend, um, etc, lol--nope. I think they confuse the math & make it seem harder than it is. Sometimes the lingo of a subject is intended to shroud it in mystery, to weed out the onlookers, & I don't want anybody weeded out of math.

 

Now...once they understand the concept, if they come across the word, sure, we'd talk about it, but it would no longer have the power to baffle or frighten, kwim?

[justasque]

Yes to most of the math stuff. Minuend is pretty obscure; I wouldn't bother with it. Product will be seen again and again.

 

Having the vocabulary helps a student be able to express their thoughts about math. It starts to become more important around the pre-algebra stage. You just can't talk about some of this stuff without the vocab. Not a hill to die on, though - just model it by using the terms in context, explaining as you go:

"So what's the product of 2 and 3? Two times three equals...?"

 

I would say no to the phonics terms unless there's a general interest on the part of the child - only fairly specialized fields would use it, in comparison to the math where mathematical literacy is needed for a whole slew of scientific fields. But then I'm a math person...:D

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Yes. It just makes things easier to explain/teach/discuss.

 

:iagree:

 

I explain the minuend for the same reason that I explain the direct object. I don't think either are obscure terms or concepts, and none of my children have been intimidated by math or grammar language. In fact, correct terminology helps in teaching and discussing lessons.

 

TBH, I'm a little surprised to hear so many say that correct mathematical terms are just so much esoteric language.

[Spy Car]

Yes, we do. I don't think Minuend and Subtrahend are obscure :D

 

I'm less enamored with Multiplicand and Multiplier, and am going along with the more modern convention of calling both Factors.

 

I think knowing the proper terminology and having explicit knowing mathematical laws/properties is important.

 

I read a very interesting (to me :tongue_smilie:) discussion in (if memory serves)on math nomenclature in the preview of the recently released Art of Problem Solving pre-Algebra book, where they argued for some basic conventions that would serve in place of some contradictory practices between various countries now.

 

Short answer: yes.

 

Bill

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Well, for one thing, when you are learning something, anything, you often include the vocabulary of it.

 

I don't often talk of that "thingy" when speaking about something and expect to be understood.

 

EXCEPT: When I say, "Pick up that thingy from the floor, NOW!", I kind of do expect to be understood.

 

Well, we don't use thingy here either. ;) The number that is to be subtracted from works well here for minuend. But, I appreciate your input. Thanks!

 

You're all giving me food for thought. Can't say I'm feeling strongly either way yet.

[chepyl]

I have never heard the term minuend. I completed college level calculus without ever hearing the term. We use sum, product, etc. But I am not going to stress over a 6 year old knowing.g any of these terms. As we get to higher math, there is plenty of terminology to learn that is used regularly: mean, median, etc, we will learn that.

[duckens]

Have you ever heard someone say in frustration, "Math is like a foreign language for me!!!"

 

Well, yes, it is.

 

And these words are the vocabulary of that foreign language. With missing vocabulary, any language would be frustrating.

 

As your children grow, they may need these words at the higher levels of math. With the kids I have homeschooled, I review the less common words (subtrahend, addend) a few times, then drop it.

 

As a college level tutor, I met many frustrated students who did not know these words (numerator, denominator, reciprocal, function, vector, etc). They were shocked to learn the simple concept behind the big, scary vocabulary word.

 

The most important things for the student to learn is

1) there IS a specific it word for that "thingy." :D

2) the big, fancy word really means something pretty straightforward

3) how to re-find this word if they need it.

[veggiegal]

I teach the proper terminology, but I also let me kids know which math terminology is in common usage and they will see again and again, and which is not. So I emphasize (and use in my own teaching) terms like sum, difference, product, factor, etc. but seldom "minuend" "subtrahend" "addend", etc. But yes--teach your kids the proper terms so if they come across them, there's some faint bell in the back of their mind that goes: "Minuend? Oh, right...that's one of the terms in a subtraction problem...and I know it's not the difference (answer)."

 

With phonics, I also teach both. Some of the materials we have use the term "consonant digraph", and I make sure my kids know that just means the same thing as "consonant team" from AAS. In general, I think it is important to expose my boys to proper terminology, help them find a way to remember what it means and communicate with others (most folks just DON'T use terms like 'digraph' or 'subtrahend' in real life, and would be confused if you did), and also distinguish between 'technical terms' in common usage and those largely relegated to the footnotes of academic papers. JMHO.

[boscopup]

We learn them. Math Mammoth teaches them, but doesn't dwell on them. I told DS that minuend and subtrahend are in alphabetical order, so that's how he remembered it on the chapter test. Not a big deal. He regularly says "That's a missing addend problem!" in a happy voice. Learning the terms isn't scary. Coming across them later is scary if you've never seen them before. ;)

 

I don't base my teaching on what they'll use in adult life. If I did, I'd needed to skip completely over a LOT of topics, including literary analysis, history, etc. School isn't about learning just what you'll need to know as an adult.

[8filltheheart]

I do.

[Snickerdoodle]

The number that is to be subtracted from

 

vs

 

minuend

 

It really hasn't been a problem for the kids to learn the proper terminology.

 

I do expect when I ask the kid to prime factor a number that he understand the terminology.

 

Likewise, when I ask the younger to find the missing addend he knows what I mean.

[Paige]

I do but I don't stress about it. I care about terms like sum, product, factor, addend, but not so much with subtrahend. I am much more concerned with them knowing proper grammar terms. I don't care so much because I think it is intrinsically valuable but because those terms will come up on college entrance tests.

[Violet Crown]

We must be the troglodytes of the homeschool math world. We have our own made up names for everything. At the start, we say "plussing" and "minusing" to reduce the number of math terms needed. A brief dictionary of the In Austin math terminology:

 

Negative number = minus number

Equals = is the same as*

Reciprocal = flip cousin

Numerator/denominator = top number/bottom number

Prime factor = bottom-of-the-tree number

Long division = cave problem**

Equation with one variable = mystery scale**

System of equations = double mystery scales

Linear equation = who's-the-fastest line**

... and many more.***

 

So far, we've found that the girls pick up the usual terms as they go, and learning the "wrong" terms hasn't hindered them. We figure it's one less thing that they have to pay attention to while their little brains are picking up the math.

 

Now everyone can tell me why we're wrong. :D

 

*This one we feel is especially important, to avoid the inference that "equals" means "answer goes here" rather than "is the equivalent of."

 

**These derive from the games we use to introduce these concepts.

 

***And then of course our horrific nomenclature is exacerbated when they read The Number Devil. It was a proud moment for me when first dd, on her first day at Math Team, shot her hand into the air and announced the answer to be "first you have to find the rutabagas!"

Edited September 27, 2011 by Sharon in Austin

[Spy Car]

We learn them. Math Mammoth teaches them, but doesn't dwell on them. I told DS that minuend and subtrahend are in alphabetical order, so that's how he remembered it on the chapter test. Not a big deal. He regularly says "That's a missing addend problem!" in a happy voice. Learning the terms isn't scary. Coming across them later is scary if you've never seen them before. ;)

 

I don't base my teaching on what they'll use in adult life. If I did, I'd needed to skip completely over a LOT of topics, including literary analysis, history, etc. School isn't about learning just what you'll need to know as an adult.

 

That's the thing. If a child learns the proper terminology from the outset they don't know to be "intimidated" and/or bored with the nomenclature. It is just the non-scary, non-intimidating name they have for something they know.

 

But when you reach a certain age hearing words like "interrogative" (in Language Arts) or "commutative" (in math) can cause panic, when that need not be the case.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Now everyone can tell me why we're wrong. :D

 

 

I'm going with: "Keep Austin weird." :D

 

Bill

[Aubrey]

That's the thing. If a child learns the proper terminology from the outset they don't know to be "intimidated" and/or bored with the nomenclature. It is just the non-scary, non-intimidating name they have for something they know.

 

But when you reach a certain age hearing words like "interrogative" (in Language Arts) or "commutative" (in math) can cause panic, when that need not be the case.

 

Bill

 

My experience as a child was the opposite. On the rare occasion that a concept was taught first, the terminology didn't bother me. But when it was the other way around, I had a hang-up w/ the concept AND the term for years.

 

Maybe it's just a teaching issue--as in I needed better ones, lol--but I remember when things finally started clearing up in jr high or so, wondering why they'd felt the need to MAKE things so much harder?

 

To this day, I don't know why we can't just say "top #" & "bottom #" when it comes to division. Or "the one that's going in" or "being shared" or whatever. I mean, other than looking silly to other adults (who by & large don't know the terms, either, but are just pretending--irl, not on these boards).

 

Hmm...but that begs the question...what kind of person am I that "numerator" & "denominator" have come up in casual conversation w/ adults? No wonder people look at me like I have extra heads. :lol:

[foxbridgeacademy]

I don't know a lot of the terms used in math and I wish I did. Especially now that DS is getting into higher levels.

[Spy Car]

My experience as a child was the opposite. On the rare occasion that a concept was taught first, the terminology didn't bother me. But when it was the other way around, I had a hang-up w/ the concept AND the term for years.

 

I'm not saying teach the terminology first. To take just one example, one day my boy was playing with his C Rods and he called me over to see a "discovery" he had make.

 

Look Daddy a 3 Rod and a 2 Rod are the same as a 2 Rod and a 3 Rod.

 

So I made a bit of a deal of of his "discovery" of a very important mathematical concept. One that has a name, the Commutative Law. after than he owned the concept and he owned the name. Later when he went off to Kindergarten and he got 3+2=2+[ ] questions his hand would shoot up and he would say: Easy, that's the Commutitive Law.

 

All I did was give him a name for something he had already discovered on his own. And it stuck.

 

Maybe it's just a teaching issue--as in I needed better ones, lol--but I remember when things finally started clearing up in jr high or so, wondering why they'd felt the need to MAKE things so much harder?

 

To this day, I don't know why we can't just say "top #" & "bottom #" when it comes to division. Or "the one that's going in" or "being shared" or whatever. I mean, other than looking silly to other adults (who by & large don't know the terms, either, but are just pretending--irl, not on these boards).

 

Most adults walking around have no idea what "the object of a preposition" is either, so we shouldn't teach it? Of course not.

 

Hmm...but that begs the question...what kind of person am I that "numerator" & "denominator" have come up in casual conversation w/ adults? No wonder people look at me like I have extra heads. :lol:

 

I didn't want to mention it, but.....:D

 

Bill

[Nomen Nescio]

I don't see any advantage in not using the terminology. You would end up using some circumlocution when you needed to make a point in reference to them. Plus, it ties into the Latin if you're also teaching that.

 

You may have heard the old line Carthāgō dēlenda est -- Carthage must be destroyed. The -ndus -nda -ndum ending indicates something to be done in the future, as in agenda - things to do. Addend is from the Latin addendum, for 'that which is to be added.' Subtrahendum - 'that which is to be drawn out from under.' Minuendum -- 'that which is to be made lesser.'

 

It all sort of ties together.

[Spy Car]

I don't see any advantage in not using the terminology. You would end up using some circumlocution when you needed to make a point in reference to them. Plus, it ties into the Latin if you're also teaching that.

 

You may have heard the old line Carthāgō dēlenda est -- Carthage must be destroyed. The -ndus -nda -ndum ending indicates something to be done in the future, as in agenda - things to do. Addend is from the Latin addendum, for 'that which is to be added.' Subtrahendum - 'that which is to be drawn out from under.' Minuendum -- 'that which is to be made lesser.'

 

It all sort of ties together.

 

Thank you for this!

 

Bill

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Thank you everyone! I enjoyed hearing you views. Thanks for helping me sort this one out.

[kalanamak]

I use them as I describe the math, but have not yet required my son to babble them back. He used "partial products" on his own the other day and I reinforced it by agreeing that was the name. He is required to use words like numerator and denominator, as I will not put up with "the top number and the bottom number".

[Aubrey]

I'm not saying teach the terminology first. To take just one example, one day my boy was playing with his C Rods and he called me over to see a "discovery" he had make.

 

Look Daddy a 3 Rod and a 2 Rod are the same as a 2 Rod and a 3 Rod.

 

So I made a bit of a deal of of his "discovery" of a very important mathematical concept. One that has a name, the Commutative Law. after than he owned the concept and he owned the name. Later when he went off to Kindergarten and he got 3+2=2+[ ] questions his hand would shoot up and he would say: Easy, that's the Commutitive Law.

 

All I did was give him a name for something he had already discovered on his own. And it stuck.

 

Sure--this. But it seems the antithesis of what you said before:

 

That's the thing. If a child learns the proper terminology from the outset they don't know to be "intimidated" and/or bored with the nomenclature. It is just the non-scary, non-intimidating name they have for something they know.

 

But I think it was just an issue of terminology: by "outset" you meant sometime at the beginning. I took you very literally to mean FIRST thing.

 

And I find that amusingly ironic. :lol:

[Spy Car]

Sure--this. But it seems the antithesis of what you said before:

 

 

But I think it was just an issue of terminology: by "outset" you meant sometime at the beginning. I took you very literally to mean FIRST thing.

 

And I find that amusingly ironic. :lol:

 

Good grief :D

 

Bill

[Lizzie in Ma]

I'd say yes, it is the grammar of math. It is the way math will be described as well as explained in their texts. As basic as knowing how many teaspoons in a tablespoon.

[mytwomonkeys]

our curriculum uses correct terminology, so we do use it here. i don't know that it's of utter importance or necessary, but i see no reason to stray from the curriculum either.

[Haiku]

I teach my kids the correct terminology, and I correct them when they use different words. To me, there seems no point in teaching them the wrong terminology, because when they get older and encounter more sophisticated math, they will just have to relearn it correctly. More work.

 

The thing that drives me crazy about most math curricula is the insistent use of the term "number sentence." I hate that. I substitute "equation."

 

Tara

[mrsrevmeg]

That's the thing. If a child learns the proper terminology from the outset they don't know to be "intimidated" and/or bored with the nomenclature. It is just the non-scary, non-intimidating name they have for something they know.

 

But when you reach a certain age hearing words like "interrogative" (in Language Arts) or "commutative" (in math) can cause panic, when that need not be the case.

 

Bill

 

 

I fully agree. My oldest son spent grades K-5 in public school. He was not introduced to math and grammar vocabulary. Some things have been harder to work through than they should. My youngest son, who has never known anything other than homeschool, has no problem being told to write an expository paragraph, or to find the the congruent triangles. He also likes to look for the binomial nomenclature on seed packets. It's just his form of normal.