Parents' frustration with distance learning -- "Common Core Math Methods"

  • Thread starter Thread starter berkeman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Core Math methods
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
97 replies · 17K views
Having gone back to the beginning of this thread there seems to be a misconception that a problem with Common Core is the unfamiliar teaching methods. Common Core does not specify how a subject is taught but establishes performance expectation for students by year four and eight in primary school. Teaching methods are left to the teacher.

Below is a link to an NPR podcast explaining the Common Core program. (About 11 minutes)

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2013/07/30/common-core-explained

berkeman said:
I spent a lot of time on my smartphone in the late 1970s when I was graduating high school and going through undergrad and doing my MSEE. Oh wait...
@berkeman, you know when you time travel, you're not supposed to bring advanced technology back to the past.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu and berkeman
Physics news on Phys.org
... you know when you time travel, you're not supposed to bring advanced technology back to the past.

tech like your time machine? Maybe that rule answers the "where is everybody" question.
 
The rule first came up when Mark Twain wrote the story A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. In the movie version Bing Crosby brought back a lighter.
 
hmmm27 said:
12x12, late '60s... maybe the excuse for stopping at 10x10 is that "dozen" is now considered archaic ?

Meh, make them go to 16x16 to be modern.
Make it with Roman Numerals. Or Binary. Or with Complex Numbers.;).
 
No real problem in memorizing Multiplication Tables or Multiplication Facts. Memorizing does not have to mean without-understanding. Why stop at 10s? Why stop at 12s? But remember some integer square is easier. I cannot explain why. 15 x 15 = 225; I computed this on paper a couple of times and never forgot the fact. Interesting about 13x13 and 14x14, because the resulting digits in the Ones and the tens place are switched. We may remember 256 as a certain square because of what we read on labels and other places about memory storage,... 16x16=256.
 
symbolipoint said:
Why stop at 10s?
In my case (mid-1960s) we stopped at 9*9. I just assumed that's because if you know up to 9 by 9, you know all the single-digit combinations, and can use the long multiplication to figure any longer ones.

I'm not sure, does the multiplication algorithm (see example) have a name?

312
x 14
1248
3120
4368
 
gmax137 said:
In my case (mid-1960s) we stopped at 9*9. I just assumed that's because if you know up to 9 by 9, you know all the single-digit combinations, and can use the long multiplication to figure any longer ones.
Same here.
 
gmax137 said:
I'm not sure, does the multiplication algorithm (see example) have a name?

312
x 14
1248
3120
4368
Long Multiplication, or Long-hand Multiplication; but I am uncertain of the exact name.

An alternative was sometimes taught, "Lattice" Method, which is not much different except that the digits were arranged in a rectangular arrangement with rows and columns. (Hard to show here.)