Because of electronics, there's no longer any need to be able to perform arithmetic manually. So the emphasis is on understanding.
However, whether the new method actually helps with understanding is very questionable. Any educational change which makes it more difficult for parents to help their children can't be a good idea.
Mitchell must pass the 'Hardest Maths Assignment Ever'. He cheats and ends up earning the mythical grade of 101%, breaking maths and the world as we know it in the process. The kids' only hope in fixing this is a boy genius who was frozen years ago and has not been properly defrosted.
I think the idea is that a lot of kids, when learning the carrying method, don't really understand what they're doing - they just learn the technique. The new method, while it takes longer, helps kids to understand what 53+37 means. And it's easier to do in your head.
Theres many ways to do the more basic maths and some ways stick better in peoples minds than others...looking at that sum i could of done it in my head with ease but the aim is to teach the method and it'll probably require a load of very expensive extra material thus making the company a load of money.
If it makes kids understand maths better, I'm all for it.
I'm not mathematically minded at all and really struggled with it at school. I could always get the answer but could never get it down on paper in deconstructed form how I'd got it. Even now I struggle to do that kind of thing on paper, which is a pain in the backside when I'm working out budgets for TV shows.
Obviously, computers have replaced a lot of this but it's good if the kid understands the working of the sum.
I don't think this makes it easier, just more tedious - and on a slight difference in technique, we were taught that the 'carry' was marked below where the '9' would be, rather than at the top - the 'at the top' position being reserved for subtraction where you are taking one from the next digit along.
I don't understand how turning 7 into 5+2 is making it clearer or easier because you just turned a single addition 3+7 into two additions 3+5+2 so I really hope this is just one of those 'until you have got it' type techniques because there is no reason to split '7' if you aren't then also going to split '5'.
Then again, I dare say things have changed somewhat since the heady days of cave painting and trying to figure out if that was 'egog' or ugog' because half a weasel is big money!
I don't think this makes it easier, just more tedious - and on a slight difference in technique, we were taught that the 'carry' was marked below where the '9' would be, rather than at the top - the 'at the top' position being reserved for subtraction where you are taking one from the next digit along.
I don't understand how turning 7 into 5+2 is making it clearer or easier because you just turned a single addition 3+7 into two additions 3+5+2 so I really hope this is just one of those 'until you have got it' type techniques because there is no reason to split '7' if you aren't then also going to split '5'.
Then again, I dare say things have changed somewhat since the heady days of cave painting and trying to figure out if that was 'egog' or ugog' because half a weasel is big money!
I think splitting the 7 into 5 and 2 is unnecessary, as is splitting the 30 into 3 lots of 10. However, I can see why saying 53+37 = 53+30+7 is easier to understand than 53+37 = (7+3)+(5+3+1)*10
Because of electronics, there's no longer any need to be able to perform arithmetic manually. So the emphasis is on understanding.
However, whether the new method actually helps with understanding is very questionable. Any educational change which makes it more difficult for parents to help their children can't be a good idea.
While I agree with your implied point that technology is available to make simple maths easy to do, I still find the need to do mental maths in everyday life.
There are companies that I have worked for where mobile phones are not allowed in the work area, so workers can't just whip out their phone and use the calculator. These companies didn't provide calculators because the expectation was that to do the job the workers could do basic maths. Since most of the people I was training were either not allowed to bring in anything from outside because of food regulations or security, or they were too tight to buy a calculator of their own for warehouse work, then the only option was to get good at mental maths or be moved off the job. I lost quite a few otherwise-capable lads because their mental maths just wasn't up to it.
Yesterday I was cooking and wanted to work out the calories in 285g carrot when carrot is 42 calories/100g. In my head I added 42+42+42= 126 which would be 300g of carrot. I then needed to subtract 15 grams worth of carrot and first found what 10g would be. Obviously you can just shift the decimal point one place to do that so it's 4.2. As 5 is half of 10, the remaining 5 grams must be half of 4.2 calories so that was 2.1. Add 4.2 and 2.1 to get 6.3 and then deduct that from the 126 = a final answer of 119.7. I just called it 120.
The above might sound complicated but it's really not and I had an answer in seconds. The thing is, I wasn't using pencil and paper to work it out. If I was then I'd have used 'old maths' rather than the new because it would be much quicker than writing all that out.
This new one seems to be the written out process of how you might do it in your head. If that's what they're trying to teach, so that the children can work things out in their heads then that's a good idea imo. If this is going to be the end of it and they're going to continue to write out their sums in this method as they get older then that would be daft as the other method would be quicker. If it also never progresses beyond writing it down and they actually don't do it in their heads at any point then that would be bad too.
I think splitting the 7 into 5 and 2 is unnecessary, as is splitting the 30 into 3 lots of 10. However, I can see why saying 53+37 = 53+30+7 is easier to understand than 53+37 = (7+3)+(5+3+1)*10
Agree with the part about 5s, no need to break it down that far. It makes harder if anything. 3+5+2 instead of 3+7. At least with the 10s the last digit stays the same which is easy for anyone to do.
What was wrong with the old way it was easier ,And why the did to change it?
To cater for dumb kids presumably.
Their example added 53 to 37; next I suppose would be to deconstruct the 37 to 37 ones. They effectively all they have to do is count, starting from 53.
But that's what some children already do who haven't yet mastered proper arithmetic. The method breaks down however with bigger numbers.
Great, now we are faced with the impossibility of two crimes that both require the perpetrator to be taken out and shot, so we have to decide which is worse, and I don't think the DS legal system is set up to handle that.
Their example added 53 to 37; next I suppose would be to deconstruct the 37 to 37 ones. They effectively all they have to do is count, starting from 53.
But that's what some children already do who haven't yet mastered proper arithmetic. The method breaks down however with bigger numbers.
I never understood maths and wasn't a dumb child. Quite the opposite in fact, I was top of the class all through high school in other subjects, I just struggled with maths because my brain wasn't wired for it. There are lots of kids like that, and it doesn't make them dumb. I'm glad that we're finally realising everyone learns in different ways and not everyone will use the same methods or be good at the same things. I found it much easier using the method OP posted than I was taught at school.
What was wrong with the old way it was easier ,And why the did to change it?
I read that this crazy system is being introduced in a lot of states and has not been well received at all by the parents of children being taught by this method and many have moved their children to schools still teaching the traditional method of maths.
Quite how this new maths allows children to do more complex and longer problems is a mystery.
Don't they teach a similar system in this country which is why a lot of parents have had to relearn how to do these maths so they can help with homework etc.
No doubt these idiotic teachings from the same people that said children did not need to be totaly conversant with their 2 to 12 times tables.
No little wonder that mental arithmetic is,for a lot of children,all but impossible.
Just wondering around the supermarket looking at prices you are,almost unknowingly,using mental arithmetic and tables to work out the best bargain!
The problem is that the big,nasty world does not support these daft systems and the poor kids are at a loss when called upon to do mental calculations quickly and frequently.
I never understood maths and wasn't a dumb child. Quite the opposite in fact, I was top of the class all through high school in other subjects, I just struggled with maths because my brain wasn't wired for it. There are lots of kids like that, and it doesn't make them dumb. I'm glad that we're finally realising everyone learns in different ways and not everyone will use the same methods or be good at the same things. I found it much easier using the method OP posted than I was taught at school.
I agree. Children (and adults) understand things in different ways and should be introduced to many different ways to solve problems.
I can see that something like the new way might be good for working it out in your head. In fact I think it's almost how I do it. If I had to add 53 and 37 in my head I'd probably go something like 53 plus 30 (which is really 3 tens) is 53, 63, 73, 83 plus 7 is 90. But I might break it down differently on different occasions. Being able to break down and manipulate numbers in your head is a useful skill. It's something I sort of learnt as an adult. I don't think I could do that as a child because we were constrained by the old method which works fine on paper but doesn't work well in your head.
If I had to add 53 and 37 in my head I'd probably go something like 53 plus 30 (which is really 3 tens) is 53, 63, 73, 83 plus 7 is 90. But I might break it down differently on different occasions.
I would adjust 53 down by 3 and 37 up by 3 so that the sum is 50+40, which can be trivially seen to be 90.
Similar methods for finding approximate solutions I think are taught now (from what I remember helping kids with their homework).
I think splitting the 7 into 5 and 2 is unnecessary, as is splitting the 30 into 3 lots of 10. However, I can see why saying 53+37 = 53+30+7 is easier to understand than 53+37 = (7+3)+(5+3+1)*10
Comments
I only found out as someone post the image of the sum on F.B
However, whether the new method actually helps with understanding is very questionable. Any educational change which makes it more difficult for parents to help their children can't be a good idea.
A weird explanation. The deconstruction method still includes "carrying" when they add 58 and 2.
I'm not mathematically minded at all and really struggled with it at school. I could always get the answer but could never get it down on paper in deconstructed form how I'd got it. Even now I struggle to do that kind of thing on paper, which is a pain in the backside when I'm working out budgets for TV shows.
Obviously, computers have replaced a lot of this but it's good if the kid understands the working of the sum.
I don't understand how turning 7 into 5+2 is making it clearer or easier because you just turned a single addition 3+7 into two additions 3+5+2 so I really hope this is just one of those 'until you have got it' type techniques because there is no reason to split '7' if you aren't then also going to split '5'.
Then again, I dare say things have changed somewhat since the heady days of cave painting and trying to figure out if that was 'egog' or ugog' because half a weasel is big money!
I think splitting the 7 into 5 and 2 is unnecessary, as is splitting the 30 into 3 lots of 10. However, I can see why saying 53+37 = 53+30+7 is easier to understand than 53+37 = (7+3)+(5+3+1)*10
Nothing has changed.
There are companies that I have worked for where mobile phones are not allowed in the work area, so workers can't just whip out their phone and use the calculator. These companies didn't provide calculators because the expectation was that to do the job the workers could do basic maths. Since most of the people I was training were either not allowed to bring in anything from outside because of food regulations or security, or they were too tight to buy a calculator of their own for warehouse work, then the only option was to get good at mental maths or be moved off the job. I lost quite a few otherwise-capable lads because their mental maths just wasn't up to it.
Here are the bizarre ways I turn Celcius in Fahrenheit.
Yesterday I was cooking and wanted to work out the calories in 285g carrot when carrot is 42 calories/100g. In my head I added 42+42+42= 126 which would be 300g of carrot. I then needed to subtract 15 grams worth of carrot and first found what 10g would be. Obviously you can just shift the decimal point one place to do that so it's 4.2. As 5 is half of 10, the remaining 5 grams must be half of 4.2 calories so that was 2.1. Add 4.2 and 2.1 to get 6.3 and then deduct that from the 126 = a final answer of 119.7. I just called it 120.
The above might sound complicated but it's really not and I had an answer in seconds. The thing is, I wasn't using pencil and paper to work it out. If I was then I'd have used 'old maths' rather than the new because it would be much quicker than writing all that out.
This new one seems to be the written out process of how you might do it in your head. If that's what they're trying to teach, so that the children can work things out in their heads then that's a good idea imo. If this is going to be the end of it and they're going to continue to write out their sums in this method as they get older then that would be daft as the other method would be quicker. If it also never progresses beyond writing it down and they actually don't do it in their heads at any point then that would be bad too.
Agree with the part about 5s, no need to break it down that far. It makes harder if anything. 3+5+2 instead of 3+7. At least with the 10s the last digit stays the same which is easy for anyone to do.
End of.
To cater for dumb kids presumably.
Their example added 53 to 37; next I suppose would be to deconstruct the 37 to 37 ones. They effectively all they have to do is count, starting from 53.
But that's what some children already do who haven't yet mastered proper arithmetic. The method breaks down however with bigger numbers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWaJ0sy03g
I never understood maths and wasn't a dumb child. Quite the opposite in fact, I was top of the class all through high school in other subjects, I just struggled with maths because my brain wasn't wired for it. There are lots of kids like that, and it doesn't make them dumb. I'm glad that we're finally realising everyone learns in different ways and not everyone will use the same methods or be good at the same things. I found it much easier using the method OP posted than I was taught at school.
Quite how this new maths allows children to do more complex and longer problems is a mystery.
Don't they teach a similar system in this country which is why a lot of parents have had to relearn how to do these maths so they can help with homework etc.
No doubt these idiotic teachings from the same people that said children did not need to be totaly conversant with their 2 to 12 times tables.
No little wonder that mental arithmetic is,for a lot of children,all but impossible.
Just wondering around the supermarket looking at prices you are,almost unknowingly,using mental arithmetic and tables to work out the best bargain!
The problem is that the big,nasty world does not support these daft systems and the poor kids are at a loss when called upon to do mental calculations quickly and frequently.
I can see that something like the new way might be good for working it out in your head. In fact I think it's almost how I do it. If I had to add 53 and 37 in my head I'd probably go something like 53 plus 30 (which is really 3 tens) is 53, 63, 73, 83 plus 7 is 90. But I might break it down differently on different occasions. Being able to break down and manipulate numbers in your head is a useful skill. It's something I sort of learnt as an adult. I don't think I could do that as a child because we were constrained by the old method which works fine on paper but doesn't work well in your head.
I would adjust 53 down by 3 and 37 up by 3 so that the sum is 50+40, which can be trivially seen to be 90.
Similar methods for finding approximate solutions I think are taught now (from what I remember helping kids with their homework).
So that's where the 2 came from.