Outrage over the area method on social media

[Reefgazer]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 12:20 PM, MistyMountain said:

I have seen lots of outrage over any math that is not the traditional right to left carrying method on social media always using one sample out of context and with someone who is not aware of the big picture of where the curriculum is going. I am sure there are some curriculums that do a poor job especially if they are skipping the concrete step but it is always just one example of a problem which does not tell you much about a curriculum.

The latest is there was a video floating around of a teacher slowly teaching and explaining the area method of multiplying two digit by two digit numbers and someone posted a video of them solving it faster the traditional way because they are just solving it not trying to explain a concept and then they start coffee and show the coffee being made while the teacher explaining the area method is still teaching the method. The problem is easy to solve mentally which I can do faster then the person solving it the traditional way but people are missing the point that it is about teaching a kid to understand what is happening not to solve it as fast as possible which if you are teaching the other way would not be as fast as you solve it anyway. I see this video shared by lots of people people saying how dumb it is and decrying 'common core math'. Most comments are how outrageous it is to teach the area method rather then the right to left procedure. I have seen hyperbole over breaking problems up into hundreds of parts in second grade math. It is fine if people want to teach only the 'traditional' method which teaching the process by carrying numbers but it drives me crazy they do not even know much about any other ways of doing things or why it is done or about number sense and why kids who do not have an innate number sense benefit from being able to break apart numbers. 

I think a lot of the outrage over new ways of doing things (whether the new ways are better or not) is because people see the absolute ineptness of so many students who come out of school unable to do basic arithmetic and wonder if the new methods are so superior, why can't Johnny multiply 9x7 or solve a simple division problem without a calculator?  It's not an unreasonable question.  So many adults learned "traditional" math and in fact, they *do* understand what they are doing, but the understanding came later on, after the process was down.  I don't think someone who learns traditional math necessarily doesn't "understand" what they are doing, they just learned process first. 

[Terabith]

Yes, at least my math education courses skim the surface of Common Core, but even the students who have some understanding of traditional math, do not understand what Common Core is trying to teach, where it’s going, and why.  I was at a massive advantage, having perused and used a variety of homeschool math curriculums of different styles and grade levels.  Not to mention having read How the Brain Learns Mathematics and Liping Ma.  Even the professor didn’t really understand why we might use Common Core math.  

I do think that a) all the writing about math pleases teachers who are more comfortable with writing than math, and b)is very developmentally inappropriate for young kids.  Verbal explanations are great.  But writing in primary grades is largely torture.  Even the professors don’t really understand the progression.  I also think sometimes we teach too many techniques to solve a given problem.  Kids get confused.  I think it’s better to get one or two approaches solid and then play with other techniques.  

That’s the other thing that gets me.  Elementary math teachers seem unaware of the concept of playing with math.  I don’t mean who can recite math facts fastest but wrestling with puzzles in a fun way.  

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Ok, this is a little different to me than having math specialists in elementary - it's more, elementary teachers - even if they were English majors or whatever, have to be really competent at math, at least to a basic university level.  

It's a different approach than saying, get math majors to be specialists in elementary that come into the classroom for just math, just like a music or guy teacher might be a specialist.

My DD took the math for elementary teachers sequence when she first started at the CC.  I was actually really impressed at the amount of conceptual instruction that went on-basically, the whole class was focused on making sure prospective teachers really, really understood WHY arithmetic and math through basic algebra and geometry works the way it does, and how to demonstrate and model that, recognize that a given student isn't understanding, and what methods might work. I don't know if her college is typical, but her math for teachers class, designed for community college freshmen, was much better than the one I had as a graduate student in the education department.

[vonfirmath]

2 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Is this the book? 

Mathemagic!: Number Tricks https://www.amazon.com/dp/1554534259/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_FkAsCbGW8M14C

 

No Its a Childcraft book. Like the readers we used to have in school with a variety of reading types inside.

[Bluegoat]

About teaching different approaches: I am not sure if this is necessarily a problem.  I've done this with my kids in Mathmammoth, and I think it's been helpful.  They will learn one strategy for subtraction, and practice, and then another.  

My kids have sometimes balked at this, but what I've told them is that a) some strategies are better for some situations than others, and b) they don't really know which they like best unless they have tried them, and more than once or twice.

To me though, what makes this works is that it is laid out in a vey clear way - this is another strategy, this is why it works, this is how you do it, and then there is enough practice to gain some confidence.

I've found doing this that my kids, and my friend's kids that I taught, don't always like it, but in other cases they found they really liked a new way of doing things. 

Where it seems to run into trouble, to me, is when everything is kind of undefined and not clearly related to what is happening mathematically, and the kids almost have to figure it out themselves, and there is no real chance to practice enough to cement any of the methods.

[Bluegoat]

5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I've been reading your posts with a lot of interest here and on other threads about what is going on with your student teaching etc. I'll admit- its been pretty disheartening though. I guess I always thought the poor instruction was more of a one off. Like we got a bad teacher here or there. Or someone had a "bad" district. Now I'm starting to wonder if there's any such thing as a "good" district. 

So I have to ask- if people majoring in Elementary Ed. or whatever it is to become an elementary school teacher aren't learning core math concepts at a level to be able to teach elementary students, and aren't learning the importance of phonics, or how to teach it, or even how to recognize dyslexia, then WHAT are they spending those years teaching? Is it seriously all classroom management?  This is just really sort of mind blowing to me.

I'm one of the ones who had really good elementary math instruction. My dd did not fair as well, but I honestly thought it was a bad roll of the teacher dice in a few cases. This is making me think the "bad rolls" are where the odds are because the teachers are getting terrible educations themselves at their own universities. 😞

 

I wonder this too - and where I live, the province demands all teachers take a two-year education degree.  What the heck are they actually talking about?