Why Students in the US need Common Core Math
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- The video gives research evidence on the reasons Common Core mathematics is needed in the US. It addresses the tasks and questions used in mathematics classrooms, mindset, problem solving, and advancement and tracking.
www.youcubed.org
Thank God for common core. By the time I get to college, there will be no competition.
+Beck Rockriver I was being sarcastic I hate common core.
+Beck Rockriver Oh wait a minute I get it haha
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Turds of a feather. . .
lol I was just about to dislike your comment then
I read the rest
I hardly believe a 6yr old said, "math is too much answer time and not enough learning time."
+Brianna Altman I wish your comment actually said something a bit less ridiculous. I find these absolute pronouncements against the Common Core just as incredible and vapid as the absolute pronouncements in favor of it. And when Common Core is forgotten about in a few years, as it inevitably will be, none of the serious issues of mathematics education will have been settled. While I disagree with some of what Jo Boaler says in this particular video, she's a knowledgeable and highly-respected mathematics educator, researcher, and teacher educator. She's not a research mathematician. That's not a criticism. Few research mathematicians are educators or very concerned with matters of teaching or learning. They work with others at the elite levels of abstract or applied mathematics, a tiny little fraction of the population. They generally don't try to communicate what they do with most people because they know perfectly well that the abstractions with which they work are outside the knowledge of most of us.
The level of mathematical knowledge needed to do what Jo Boaler does is less lofty than that of a research mathematician, but it is also far deeper about teaching and learning elementary mathematics (by which I mean math taught through basic calculus) than the vast majority of professional mathematicians have or care about. So empty challenges to someone like Boaler to demonstrate her mathematical "chops" simply indicate the ignorance of the challengers.
That doesn't make all mathematicians ignorant of key issues in math education (just as there are mathematics educators with Ph.Ds in pure mathematics). But it means that there are mathematicians whose opinions on what math we should be teaching to young children, when that math should be taught, or how it should be taught are simply that: opinions. And sometimes those opinions are far more a reflection of the politics of the mathematicians than they are of any actual knowledge of children's learning or teacher's optimal methodology.
Nolom Ebal don't underestimate smart kids. They can be very eager to learn. My little sister could read before me and she is two years younger
+Jim Heeren - There are many children that can read above their age groups but that does not mean they understand concepts.
@@MichaelGoldenberg I don't know how someone without a deep knowledge in mathematics can be a math educator.
@@AdmiralJustmanTo whom are you referring? And what is sufficiently deep knowledge? Do you have a broad syllabus of courses and skills as a prerequisite? To whom would that apply? How would mastery be judged and by whom?
Common core math(s) when taught by teachers who need scripts, lock step activities, and curricula spoon fed to them WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL. When it is taught by creative teachers who know when each student is ready for the next challenge can work. The system of standardized testing precludes individual pacing of creative thinking about abstract concepts. In the four different states where I taught, most of my colleagues were the former kind. I graduated high school in 77, still clueless about what squared and cubed really mean.
+chlorotica erotica But then a good teacher would do awesome within the old system... or any system for that matter.
squared is multiplying something by itself (like nine squared is 9*9) cubed is multiplying something by itself thrice ( 3 cubed is 3*3*3)
hope i can help :)
also you can define 2d and 3d spaces by either squaring or cubing the real number line
@@SMGsaus For what it’s worth, I think with any field now, it’s hard to communicate unless you know the terminology. Doctors and educators don’t use the same terminology. What’s an MET? (multiple education team) What’s a EHS? (electronic health system) -my sister is a doctor.
If I go to the hardware store, I can’t always tell them the name of the tool I need, but I can describe it. In the US, we don’t use the metric system. We don’t use Celsius, we don’t use military time- unless you’re in the military. So again, for what it’s worth!
As always put it on the teachers. I mean u could have taken a text book and read as well.
The summer school students learned more because there was an entire team of graduate students and college professors in the classroom to help them, not because the method is superior. How does Standford not see that?
They do see that. They are abject evil.
So if they had been doing the same one dimensional teaching as is common (here's a problem, you use this method to solve it, go), the kids would have learned just as much and would have gotten just as enthusiastic about learning?
Volbla
Yes.
CameronRounder High performers might have managed that, since high performers do survive current school mathematics curricula. But only the high performers would. Since these are summer-school students, they didn't come in with that level of performance, though someone who is slow-and-deep might be rescued in such a setting.
That comment shows a lack of understanding of how the project was executed. you need to look at the entire study, the MARS tasks and how a teacher as a facilitator can help students achieve high levels.
Because adding 187 steps to a math problem during a state test is going to make my life that much easier.
I love how everyone in the comments is spouting off about conspiracy theories but couldn't understand the idea that math is about quantities and manipulation of quantities. It requires the ability to visualize if you are to advance. I wouldn't rule common core out as a way to help kids visualize the arithmetic that's happening all around them.
i am still failing to understand how common core helps to remedy these failures. seems on the contrary it only worsen the focus on "performing"
I saw a video giving an example of a common core math problem and it was more confusing. It was also more time consuming. It didn't help me.
Agreed
My son is in first grade. I would say academically he is currently average. It was a little shaky at first but about half way through the year he got things down. He doesn't even know what 'multiplication' or 'division' is yet, but because of the way he is being taught addition and subtraction he already understands the principles. He can easily figure out in his head how many 2's ( or n's) are in a larger number (division) and can count by almost any number (multiplication). Every time I work with him on something he sees numbers and equations in incredibly insightful ways. He understands that 2 + 8, 10, 27 - 17 and 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 are all just different ways of writing the same value. The biggest problem with the teaching methods being used right now is that schools aren't doing enough to help parents understand. Kids come home with homework that is foreign to them and they can't help them. School need to send home handouts that explain new terminology and ways of thinking so parents can help their kids with their homework.
Or they should teach them the right way. As a Junior in high school with a little brother, I know for a fact the way I was taught is much easier and more helpful. I have straight A's in my math classes, Algebra, geometry and going on algebra 2 and then pre-cal next year. This new way won't do shit. I show my little bro how to do math the right way and hell, I made sure he was a head of the game and taught him fractions, even though he is in 3rd grade and fractions don't start until 5th grade. In the end this common core thing is just another scam. $$$$$ means more than the shit your kids learn. They could care less about their future,
+Cosmo I'm in 10th grade, 14 years old, AP Calc BC, 98% in the class. honestly, I wish I was taught with common core, its almost like abacus math, and it helps a lot with complex math. you'll understand in college, but not yet.
+Cosmo not everyone learns like you, that's the point, the point is to be growth minded, not to be "right"-minded
What people complaining fail to understand is that thinking about math in these fashions is how it's done by many high-level mathematicians as well as Chinese students that are kicking US students' asses. I teach in China, I know. In America they teach memorization without understanding.
China does not have real creativity powers, they simply steal technology, America actually creates things because they live in a place that allows this. Math abilities does not make a country or society successful.
zoticus1
I know they don't, but that's not the point. Most of those graduating in sciences and maths in American universities are foreigners, not Americans. So when they come here, they're getting lessons in creativity along with the math skills they already have. Just being creative isn't enough either if you don't have the skills to apply it.
creativity is not taught,like I said, it is cultural. Being creative is far more important than regurgitating school lessons, that are forgotten anyway.
Look to the intellectual and technological giants like Henry Ford, Tesla or Einstein; all of which were completely unorthodox and far more creative than concrete regurgitating data models.
zoticus1 not trying to derail your thought process, however, you do actually realize that 66% of your examples are, in fact, foreign?
Einstein lived abroad when he made his theory of relativity,but he moved here and had more years of creativity. ford was born here, tesla made all his contributions and inventions of consequence,simple facts.
A free thinking society is the most innovative society, alas we are not as free thinking as we once were. I believe we are culturally declining.
2+2=5
Ignorance is strength.
For a very large 2. Not ignorant, that is actually true.
tinyman392 Yeah that's true some 2's are pretty big.
KingRadbadical1988 the question would be what's the context behind that equation... not the actual equation itself... the context will determine if it is in fact ignorant or actually usable
take two smarties
take two more
put them together
there's 4
How the fuck is it 5? Whoever thinks that's right, is a complete moron.
No, no, that's the wrong answer.
The right answer is:
2 + 2 = FISH
Just like:
1+1+1= the Holy Trinity
1:28 "There is no such thing as a "math gene" or "math gift". Yeah, tell that to Newton. You know the guy that was so "un-gifted" at math, that he invented calculus, when he couldn't explain to others how elliptical orbits worked.... I mean, we've all done something like that, right?
+mhotl We have no idea how his brain was forced to work as a kid. Also some people may have a more analytical brain, but you aren't just born understanding math. Your life and your brain make up has an effect on how it handles math. Inventing new math is less mathematical and more creativity anyhow.
TheSkepticSkwerl We know exactly how he was educated as a child.
From Wikipedia:
On June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough. He started as a subsizar-paying his way by performing valet's duties-until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, which guaranteed him four more years until he would get his M.A.[13] At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle, whom Newton supplemented with modern philosophers such as Descartes, and astronomers such as Galileo and Thomas Street, through whom he learned of Kepler's work. He set down in his notebook a series of 'Quaestiones' about mechanical philosophy as he found it. In 1665, he discovered the generalised binomial theorem and began to develop a mathematical theory that later became calculus. Soon after Newton had obtained his B.A. degree in August 1665, the university temporarily closed as a precaution against the Great Plague. Although he had been undistinguished as a Cambridge student,[14] Newton's private studies at his home in Woolsthorpe over the subsequent two years saw the development of his theories on calculus,[15] optics, and the law of gravitation.
+mhotl Educated, where and when has nothing to do with how his brain was forced to work. What did he do on saturdays? What did he enjoy doing? There are a 1000 factors as to how and where his brain traveled during his free time, and so on. When i was in 3rd grade, i was exceptional at math. They had me in a sort of pre-algebra class, and i remember thinking "whats below zero?" when i was at home. and tried to figure it out on my own. Things like that we will never know about him. And because we cant, we don't know how much of his "math creativity" was "nature vs nurture"
I've said this before and I'm gonna say it again, Math is easy, learning math sucks.
We aren't expecting kids to invent calculus or anything like that, just to learn it. And learning math is something that is either extremely easy, or extremely difficult, and it all depends on the teacher for most students. Smarter students will no doubt learn regardless of the teacher, but when I was helping out a friend with his introductory calculus course a few months ago, I was trying to read his course notes and his professor's lecture slides, and holy fuck they made no sense at all, I've been doing math like that for a long ass time and even then his professor's lectures made no sense. I prescribed him MIT's first year calculus book and after reading through the first chapter and clearing up some inconsistencies, we were able to tear through shit. And honestly, it doesn't get harder than that. I'm in my third year at university now and as far as my engineering degree goes, mechanically speaking, the math hasn't gotten more complicated just new tricks here and there and a small increase in difficulty, but overall its not much more difficult than the first year courses I took.
The vast majority of people aren't dumb and are absolutely capable of learning math even at the highest level, They just have shit teachers.
No this couldnt be further from the truth if u actually think math is easy u are stupid i know soo many people who finished college and dont know how much is 2% of 100 i for one like math and i like to solve problems and most people dont have the talent for this so when u say everyone can do math at the highest level u must be kidding or just stupid
The mistake here is pretending that there is any such animal as "Common Core Math." There is not. There is a set of content standards; there is a set of standards of practice for both students and teachers (which is very similar to the Process Standards from NCTM going back more than a decade).
And then there are a bunch of curricular packages (mostly textbook series for various grade bands, but also some online material, most notably (and horridly) ENGAGE-NY, which has been forced on all public schools in NY State and Louisiana). Those materials are not "the Common Core" but merely various implementations that CLAIM to be aligned to the standards. Period. So anyone who uses the term "Common Core Math" other than to refer to the standards is in error. And that goes for Dr. Boaler, much as I respect her and her work. It's just silly and misleading and dangerous to pretend that there is some monolithic entity that is isomorphic to COMMON CORE MATH. There isn't. And likely won't be.
Those who know the history of math education in the US know about "The" New Math, c. the late 1950s into the early 1970s. But again, no such animal ever existed. There were a bunch of separate projects funded by the federal government to design new approaches to math. Some produced textbooks, but few of those got published and distributed past the pilot schools/district with which each individual project worked. One series, however, did get widely published and used: the Dolciani series. Some people, including people who generally hate what NCTM was pushing in the '90s and henceforth and also hate "Common Core Math" to the extent that it is similar to those '90s reform math texts, really LOVE Dolciani. Others despise it. I have mixed feelings about the series. It is VERY formalistic, much more like college math books than anything that appeared in the US prior to the '60s for K-12. As someone who now knows a lot of math, they're okay. But as a kid, I probably would have found them dry and off-putting. And my dad, who had to try to help my younger brothers with homework out of those books, was at a loss, despite having studied math through calculus in school. It was too far from his own experience.
What we see now is people who are reacting against Common Core math books similarly to how my father reacted in the '60s to Dolciani, but he was not a right-wing Teabilly who blamed everything on the fact that there is a black man in the White House. He didn't blame it on Eisenhower or JFK, either. He just knew that he was out of his depth. Today's Teabillies can't ever admit that something is out of their experience, let alone out of their depth, and then withhold judgment. Instead, they put 2 and 2 together and get "Communist conspiracy led by a Nigerian Islamist socialist American-hating N-word."
Note, I'm NOT claiming that all the materials being hawked by publishers as "Common Core Math" are any good. Maybe NONE of them are. But that's not really the issue. Most of what people are screaming about and finding a host of conspiracies behind (see all the crazy videos to the right and many of the nastier comments below) is just ideas about teaching math better that have been around for decades. The math isn't new, and neither, really, is most of the pedagogy. Most of it makes perfect sense if done intelligently, but of course is confusing if it's presented badly (seriously, folks: what ISN'T confusing in math if presented badly?) or if you've never seen it before and are so angry that you won't even stop to think about how it might be sensible either because you're embarrassed to say to your child that you don't get it or you're so bloody sure that the black fellow in DC is trying to suck out your kids' brains and sell the country to China or Russia or Saudi Arabia (despite Obama's crappy ed policies, they're not left-wing, but represent typical neo-liberal/neo-conservative corporate capitalism at its naked worst; and the math standards are a mixture of those wacky policies coupled with progressive math education ideas, swirled together so that only those of us who can remain calm and objective and who have the background to sort things out, see what is really going on).
Bottom line: calm the fudge down, folks. When the smoke clears and the Common Core and Obama are gone, most professionals in math education will still want your kids to learn how to approach math more deeply and thoughtfully than you were presented with. That's the nature of people who actually care about more than a small elite learning math. I'm one of them. Jo Boaler is one of them. There are thousands of us out there. We're (mostly) pretty smart folks who spend our lives studying math, kids, learning, and teaching. You may certainly disagree with anything or everything we think and say, but that doesn't make it Communism or (for the most part) corporate capitalism, either. You can fight it, but you're not really helping your kids when you do so blindly and with great prejudice, when you swallow every horror story your read and hear, when you react out of fear and ignorance (and tell yourself it's really out of deep knowledge of mathematics and its teaching when few Americans really know mathematics deeply or are at all familiar with research on teaching and learning the subject at various levels), and kick and scream that you know more about all this than any college professor or K-12 teacher (you might be right to some extent about any given teacher, of course). I wait patiently for parents who take the time to actually think rather than just react emotionally. Those who do the former often find that there's a good deal to like out there, no matter what label is put on it, and the anti-Communist lunatics who post videos here are for the most part out of their minds. But of course, I can't stop Teabillies from drinking their tea, and if you need to believe that progressive math (before or after the Common Core label got placed on it) is really about "dumbing down" kids, be my guest. Your loss, and, sadly, your kids' loss.
Right on!
Even as a child, I was using similar methods (I made them up myself) to help speed up my work and test my understanding of the material. This is the kind of mathematical prowess that comes after a deep insight (those “aha” moments). These days I’m a software engineer. I would have loved to have learned these methods in school instead of having to fight for every single “aha” moment. In my opinion, Common Core Math = Mentat Training. Thanks for such a great talk.
hahahahaha yeah right.
Just look at the results of common core when young adults 18 to 20 are asked what is 3x3x3 is.
One thing that hardly anyone understands is that there is a difference between calculating and math. Being good at calculating does have anything to do with understanding and solving math problems. Calculating can be done by calculators, math can't.
As adults, there are a limited number of mathematical tasks that we need to perform - setting up a household budget, evaluating a mortgage etc. 99% of people will never be solving differential equations in their daily lives
By that reckoning, math education beyond fifth grade is futility.
Those mathematicians you speak of also have a tendency to do simple math from rote in their heads.
Common Core is impractical and timely. In today's fast pace society, one has to be able to move and think quickly in order to succeed. The truth is that most people will not have college degrees. Anyways, Common Core can't be used in a number of real world scenarios. Electricians, plumbers, carpenters, contractors, mechanics, accountants, architects, software engineers, IT specialists, pilots, military personnel, physicists, social workers, logistics workers, healthcare workers, and emergency management workers, to name a few, have no need for Common Core. Company CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and other corporate heads hove no need for Common Core either. To me, it seems that Common is a tool for increasing graduation rates, which increases colleges' PROFIT MARGINS. The purpose of education should be to empower students with the proper knowledge so that they can make informed and prudent decisions. But instead, the "answer" always leans towards MORE MONEY! We live under the guise of INFINITE ECONOMIC GROWTH, and businesses, including colleges, are taking advantage of this. I'll give an example. In 1861, a new Union Soldier Private made $13 per month. Today, a new US Army Private (E-!) makes $1,566.90 per month. If you use the substitution method, then the projected salary for the same position will be $188,859.66 per month by the year 2171. This is just basic math.
"Common Core is impractical and timely" by which I assume you meant "time-consuming" rather than "coming at the appropriate moment." And the rest of your comments are equally helpful.
I taught 2nd grade cc. It didn't seem to understand childhood development. They asked them to do things that they were developmentally not ready to do.
What I've noticed is that although the intent of the common core is one thing..... what's actually happening in schools is that everyone has to be on the same page on the same day within a given district - the textbook rules... which in fact is creating more of a fixed mindset not less. In the largest district in my area, we have seen more not less testing as a result of the common core not only in math but in all subjects.
Yes yes yes!!! You are so right!
Yes. This is because many teachers and administrators do not fully understand the intent of the common core standards so they are just changing the topics they teach to align with those described in the core documents and in some cases, even eliminating topics because they mistakenly believe that they are now not permitted to teach these topics. They are teaching the same way that they have always taught. There needs to be a major cultural shift in how mathematics is taught and learned. Until this happens, the common core standards won't be very effective.
That is what CC is all about. They are dubming down our kids.
"computers" do all the thinking?? The people in power, like Bill Gates, their kids go to private schools that do not teach CC.
Gee, I wonder why?
***** Nepal, you do a wonderful job of mouthing crap you heard from Glenn Beck and Faux Snooze and other Teabilly purveyors of dumbth. But frankly, you don't know the first thing about math, math education, or education in general. Anyone who uses the phrase "dumbing down" other than to make fun of it is, on my view, so dumb to begin with that there would be know way or need to "dumb them down."
Michael Goldenberg Thanks. You sound very intelligent also. I do not "listen" to anyone. I simply review the facts and make my own decision.
But obviously you believe in our government and trust them.
Very foolish for such an intelligent person like yourself.
"Math should never be associated with speed" what absolute nonsense. Maybe I should have told that to my teachers while I was taking my tests. or had the cashiers tell me that while I was waiting for change. What good is all this "understanding" if the answer is unnecessarily complicated? The point should be how to get from point A to point B. You teach Common Core and how math is supposed to be taught side by side and then allow a test group to pick which method they want. Ill bet the students pick the original way almost always.
Cashiers have cash registers. They don't do math. They operate a cash register. They scan barcodes and whatnot. Perhaps if you had used your vast knowledge to notice why they were being slow, you would realize it was because they were learning a new system and not because they were bad at basic arithmetic. Speed shouldn't be valued over accuracy.
Not sure what your point was but let's start with the cashiers. Yes, they do math. Most have to tally up their tills at the end of a shift to make sure the money is accounted for. And if you're a small business owner responsible for your own payroll you'd better know some math. Or hire a good accountant who knows math. I'm not a fan of unnecessary complication. Ideally, both should be addressed: speed and accuracy. We aren't all graduate students who have years to finalize our theses. Speed usually comes from repetition. Accuracy comes from paying attention. And I'm flattered you think I display "vast knowledge" simply from reading an opinion I posted on CZcams while investigating common core. You, sir (or madam) must truly be an intellectual giant.
Math isn't associated with speed though... Computation is done by computers where they have optimized algorithms for speed. Humans don't have the computability power of a computer. One would rather have humans have the high level understanding of how to create those algorithms, which have a long development process, but since it is a deeper understanding, we can make computers do these much more efficiently.
> or had the cashiers tell me that while I was waiting for change.
your understanding of what MATH is impressed me a lot.
there's a difference between functional math skills like money and solving calculus problems. Dont conflate the two.
I wanna say this as a person who's been removed from education for about 5 or so years now (cause I graduated) I learned math the "Old way" Of understanding the concept, and executing on it.
I "understand" the idea of teaching kids how to "visualize" math problems. We did that when we learned how to do multiplication and Division back in third grade using blocks that were split by 100s 10s and 1s. So for example, you have a problem like "Sally gets 3 students to collect apples, and each student gets 5 apples, how many apples did each student get" Well, Make 3 circles, put 5 in each circle, add them together, TADA 15. You could even do the inverse, Have 15 apples and want to know how many each student got. Take 15 and break it into 3 groups evenly. boom. Wanna know how many students gathered the apples? Well if you have 15 apples and you know 1 student can gather 5 apples? 3 students.
But there's also a reason why our teachers taught us the basic concepts of multiplication and division, but we also learned how to do that process quickly, that was thanks to us learning about multiplication tables and such. There's a reason why in my school district, there was a heavy emphasis on teaching math as dealing with numbers, instead of trying to visualize it, because you gotta understand the concepts to be able to do bigger problems. And you can't be having people trying to draw out each step.
At the end, I think Common Core "As an idea" is good, I think it's a good way to teach the "concept" But don't just make it the "only" way to visualize math. I remember when I was in math classes all my years I found like "dirty math secrets" to make solving problems faster, and it felt kind of cheaty, but in reality I was just doing math my own "way" getting the right answer.
I'd be interested in going through this as an adult. I hated math as a kid, failed several times during high school and college, and was definitely a math-phobe for a long time!
As a current student, I'll tell you if anything, it makes math harder. Math is math, there's no way of completely changing the way you do it. This common core bs is saying students MUST draw diagrams, split numbers for "friendly" numbers, etc. for full credit on assignments. For most students, this makes doable math problems into a major mess of drawings and extra steps that are unnecessary!
The problem is, CCS or any other standards don't teach concepts; teachers teach concepts. Teachers who taught in terms of procedures before CCS will still teach in terms of procedures, albeit more complicated ones. Furthermore, many teachers who taught conceptually pre-CCS now teach procedurally, since, in many cases, CCS-based curriculum doesn't accurately convey mathematical concepts, but the teachers will have to adopt the new style anyway because of the CCS evaluation system.
Math is math? Tell that to professional mathematicians and professors, who frequently specialize in different mathematical theories which view the same mathematical phenomena under different rules and systems and perspectives.
I think you should not declare any absolutes about fields you know nothing about. Believe me I talk to more mathematicians in a week than you have in your life
Sam Takara Same. the way she's talking about it, makes it seem more relatable.
@@duckydude1382 You dont understand mathematics. Stop trying to hold future generations back just because you're insecure about your own intelligence
I mostly agree with the diagnostic. And I'm sure many people would. But not with the cure, because it can easily be implemented incorrectly and lead to more confusion instead of more understanding.
As a math teacher, I'm interested in having students who can think, and more importantly, want to think. I'm not interested in students being able to rapidly multiply, but rather ones who know when/why to multiply. I think of math class as an opportunity to learn "problem solving". How's this for a math problem: "You have a building you'd like to paint. Make a plan." There are opportunities here to do real problem design -- first figure out what you need to know (e.g. dimensions, windows, etc.), and think of an approach to solve the problem (e.g. figure paint area, cost, choose paints, think about repainting, even colors and design). A problem like this gives kids practice at "performance" but focuses on learning and exploring the problem. And, while a child who spends a day on a problem like this won't do as many performance repetitions, they will neither ask questions like "what's the point of this? when in my life would I ever need to paint something?"
I think the ideas of "common core" are valuable, and it's unfortunate that those who wish to politicize it are missing the point. Common core is not about "the federal government telling me what to do"... it's about rethinking the actual goals of education so our kids learn what's valuable for this century.
One thing I wish the video addressed more was explaining alternatives to the standard progression of math subjects (e.g. algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, calculus). I find that even young students can understand advanced concepts when they are presented in the "problem solving" format. E.g., they may not have the tools to traditionally solve partial differential equations, but can often solve the problems with estimation because they have a solid intuition about the problem.
whatisron
You forget something very important: young children have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex, meaning they're not able to effectively grasp and manipulate abstract ideas. Traditional math (the one I was taught in Canada and also tutored by my parents) teaches in concrete terms. This is why today I'm a third year student in a chemistey-physics double major program. I've learned the foundation first before being introduced to abstract models of thinking.
I've seen parents on the internet complaining about their six/seven year olds being confused with abstract math ideas (an attempt to introduce them to algebra without actually naming it).
"In San Francisco the school board voted unanimously to remove any advanced classes before 10th grade."
Absolutely insane.
This doesn't "help or hinder" any student's ability to learn simple concepts. It just makes it a lot more complicated than it needs to be; and while common core is definitely logically correct, it's better to save time by doing things in a more simple and less time consuming approach. I am very glad I was young enough that this didn't exsist yet and I got to learn a much more simpler and easier approach to addition and subtraction.
"it's better to save time by doing things in a more simple and less time consuming approach" -> using a calculator is far simpler and less time-consuming than any of the old algorithms.
"There is no math gene or math gift." So why do I understand and even sometimes think in numbers while all my friends who learned math right beside me in the same classroom can't?
I agree with your question. I suck at math. But I excel in languages and music. My dad is brilliant at maths and sucks at languages and music. He does understand the tone fractions in music. And also the frequency relationships but doesn’t have the feel.
When he helped me with math, I slowly learned it. Because he could explain how to chunk a maths problem.
As someone who learns biology, i felt so wrong that someone with a degree could say “there is no math gift”. It is so horrifyingly terrible.
There are gifted people the thing is those gifts are not what made u superior to other since we are unique in our own way.
To deny the uniqueness of individual is the same as denying the identity of one. It’s so wrong and so misleading.
If common Core was taught when I was in school, I would have been so turned off faster then you could have blinked. It's not teaching math. It's about making egos feel good, and maybe .. showing you the slowest possible ways to grasp something. Thank goodness I was taught the both the old/new methods, alternating... because I would have otherwise looked at my teachers like they were fuckheads otherwise, and did when they insisted I show my work, even when I did it right infront of them, even for long division.
And those that have been turned off by math over the last century or so? Screw them, right?
Let me guess: you never had to take a proof-intensive mathematics class. Because if you had, your professor undobutedly expected you to prove some "obvious" simple theorems, like the uniqueness of the additive identity element in a group. And if your answer was, "it's obvious," you would be flunked out in short order.
The only problem with folks who don't know what mathematics is actually about weighing in on mathematics curricula is tha's about either, but they think they do because they did okay in K-12 math, the classes that have (almost) nothing to do with actual mathematics, at least as taught in this benighted country.
@Michael Math scores are on the decline in the U.S. since the implementation of common core. www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/results-are-in--common-co_b_9819736.html
Want to immediately promote the failure of Common Core?
"This half of the stadium will be solving ten questions using Common Core, and the other half with traditional methods. If you finish early, you can get up, and go sit by the wall to play with your phone while you wait. You will not be evaluated on how you got your answer, only on a correct answer."
Use common core to do basic long division, and use only students at the college level in predominately Liberal areas (because they were the ones supporting it en mass).
Give them 10 minutes to solve the problem (there are situations in the real world that have "time limits.")
I'll bet you that half the stadium fails.
As a parent of two young kids a year or two removed from kindergarten, this new method of teaching math doesn't scare us since both my wife and I have advance engineering degrees (masters of science in computer/electrical engineering). We understand the method, and can easily adapt and support our kids at home with HW. But how are parents with low math skills able to assist their kids? I can see my friends struggling to understand and assist their children with this problem.
Since I have a bachlors degree (not in math) i dont really consider my self stupid. I have always done well in math. But how is anyone suppose to understand common core math when we are not given any instruction, so we fail to understand about coloring blocks for math
Per the cdescription; Where is the research evidence? This is just this lady giving her opinions.
Does anyone know if this video is available or will be available in different languages?
1:21 "we know that this is not because the students are lacking in any way. There is no such thing as a math gene or a math gift"
Hello there, I found your problem. Cheers.
Interesting. I didn't like Maths when I was a student. I didn't appreciate the beauty of mathematics until I graduated from college. It is more fun to learn Maths at a self paced fashion.
At 9:40 - 9:50 she basically says students don't need to know how to calculate. Meaning Common Core Math they rely on calculators. No wonder why kids in middle school don't know how to multiply or divide.
For a country full of people who are terrible at math, these comment sections are really amazing. The fact that people can't understand common core math illustrates the very problem with our countries current understanding of math. We have a nation of people who know how to compute, but not how to do math. We don't need kids to learn how to compute quickly, they will never be faster then a calculator. We need a nation of people who can understand when the problem they face requires math to solve, and then to know what kind of questions they need to ask to be able to compute the answer that will solve their problem. Nobody graduates college and goes on to be employed doing long devision.
Really great points in the beginning and throughout. But I am wondering, if she looked around the country how common core is *really* used to change math education. Indeed, kids are now taking more high speed tests, not less, and common core math for early ages is, well, way too advanced---contrary to her advice at about 16 min into the video.
CC math, in reality, is tied to performance evaluations, tests, and once that happens, any good idea gets lost.
I had the same feeling. I wonder if she should have just left the term "Common Core" out of her video.
Maths tasks or "wichan" proficiency... I am assuming I heard this wrong or am spelling it incorrectly?
Statistic can make anything look good. 2/3 of people don't know this.
wait... don't know what? ... oh i get it now hahahahaha
59.7% of all statistics on the Internet are completely made up.
Last night I helped my second grader do his math homework and became introduced to this debate. I'm an Electrical Engineer with minors in Mathematics and computer science. I don't know about all this political stuff, all I know is the way they are teaching my son to add and multiply is stupid as hell. I won't have it. I'm teaching him the sensible way. This common core nonsense is going to lead to big problems when they try to do higher level mathematics.
+Devin Billings The point is to shotgun blast everyone to get them to join in. Just because it seems slow, doesn't make it worse.
+TheSkepticSkwerl In many professions speed efficiency is EVERYTHING, especiaclly things like engineering and programming. More operations means more power being sucked up and less to distribute to more important tasks. I agree that math is VERY lacking when it comes to geometrical concepts and critical thinking, that being said as stated above the complete rewriting of multiplication is not just inefficient it gives the wrong idea, your answer isnt an actual value that represents the answer, its a value proportional to the actual answer which must be modified by adding zeros. Not to mention her idea of "squared" is somewhat scary
... are parabolas square? No but the function you use to derive them from is squared right? SQUARED doesnt mean "its shaped like a square" SQUARED means "symmetrical on both sides" Not only is this very misleading but it puts absolutely NO blame on teachers/book publishers emphasizing things other than hard calculations. Throwing the whole system out on a tantrum because you dont like one thing about it is pretty ridiculous.
+smartdave599 I'm talking about adding. If I'm subtracting yes I borrow the one in my head. But i'm not sure why every time I give a specific example about adding you say something about subtracting that doesn't relate at all to what I just said.
+smartdave599 Why in the world would you be manipulating large numbers in your head? To show off? That's ridiculous. The point is getting the right answer and knowing what you are doing with the information.
+Devin Maxey-Billings You realize that the common core addition and subtraction methods are just introductory, and help kids keep in mind the representation of the numbers and what they mean. I am also an Electrical Engineer, so I understand your concern about doing simple problems quickly, but when children are young and getting impressions about math and how numbers work, the concepts are more important than doing rote problems quickly. When they are in middle and high school, that's when they will have practiced the simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division so often that it will become quick in their head (no matter the method- and they will have mastered the multiplication tables by repetition).
It makes sense to me to teach kids in a way so that the fairly simple concepts of discrete mathematics are the foundation of what they learn, not memorize how to do problems that a computer in their pocket can solve WAAY quicker.
In any case, you can't say that solving simple addition/multiplication makes you any better at engineering. Sure, re-checking calculations done by a computer and knowing whether an answer makes sense is important, but doing that relies more on the math CONCEPTS (such as two even numbers added, subtracted or multiplied together are always even), and less on being able to do math problems quickly in your head.
Students in the U.S. need 2 things:
1) Desire to learn (and desire to be rewarded for their accomplishments)
2) Nationwide incorporation of resources like Khan Academy & AOPS-Alcumus into learning process. At least these two.
3) Good, not trash-looking student books. Serious-looking ones promote neatness, which to my mind is a very important aspect of learning how to appreciate mathematics.
I've tutored high-school students, even though I'm not such a great mathematician myself. But I can totally understand when a student is bored and simply not willing to use his brains. Why? Well, that's what he's been taught all the time - to avoid using brains.
Only 5 out of 30 students were truly self motivated to do work on Khan Academy in my 8th grade Math class. I like it as a reteaching tool for basics but it falls short in some areas. I would not rely on Khan Academy for math instruction.
I beg your pardon, If the students get the correct sum with out "Core math" have they not learned?
they actually want to hinder people's ability to think by limiting them and forcing them to work in a way the brain isn't good at.
There are different methods to answer the same problem. It's important to understand all of them and use them. It'll give you a holistic understand of why something works the way it does.
2:25 “Math is too much answer time and not enough learning time.” He is being (probably) being taught common core. When you compare “old math” to common core math, common core takes sooo much longer to solve a problem then common core (because common core adds way to many unnecessary steps to a simple problem). The 6 year old is saying that it takes too long to answer all the over complicated common core problems and that the teacher isn’t spending enough time explaining and teaching.
people failed in math not because of lessons but trying to do a one size fits all method of teaching. And simply fact in every class room there is a class clown who the teacher spends most the lesson yelling at.
you also have people with learning disabilities who's brain isn't wired for math.
I have Adhd and ASD math is my worst subject in addition subtraction, multiplication, division and algebra. This is due my brain having a hard time processing numbers. 1+2+4= looks greek to me in the long run.
when it comes to geometry and trig i can understand due to you are figuring out math problem using shapes which is what i understand best.
Thing is i was never given any help from schools, my schooling was pretty much full of hearing the teacher yell at my classes, class clown.
from the few vids i saw kids are no longer learning correct answers, but having the correct answer be the "how" they figure out the correct answer. This has no practical application. and learning correct answers as in counting is more impotent.
the way students need to write out answers is asinine as well, and just lengthens test taking with over complicated replies.
1+1=2 2 being the answer should be correct. in math there are an infinite amount of ways to sole a math problem. but in the brass tacks of it all 1+1=2 is the simpler equation to solve.
BINGO! When I was in grade school (in the 80s), the teachers always skipped over the geometry chapter. I didn't actually start to learn it until sophomore year of high school. And even then, our teacher wouldn't explain things the way we needed it explaining. He would explain it the way he understood it. When we'd ask him to explain it again, he would just repeat what he said. Out of a class of 20+ students, all but 1 failed 3rd quarter, we were all passed with a D. That one student that didn't fail? Went onto an honors class.
I'm an artist by nature, but I'm also logical. I had a learning disability that went un-diagnosed until 5th grade. They didn't test kids entering school for learning disabilities, back then. I still don't get math word problems, I need to see the numbers (and letters in the case of algebra). Geometry wasn't fun for me. If I could see the triangle, I couldn't explain why/how. There was no need for me to take more than algebra or geometry, so I didn't take higher math classes. I took what I needed and graduated high school n 3 years.
Why are all the comments so negative? What are people suggesting, continuing to produce students who can't invert basic functions, or don't know what to do if a parameter isn't called x? I don't know how the US Common Core is implemented, but that is irrelevant for the points made in this video.
The current so-called math teaching around the globe fails miserably. Understanding must come first. Maybe, if necessary, training for speed can follow, but that consists of simple, repetitive exercise that doesn't require a teacher. Thus, the focus in a classroom should lie on reflection and formal model building.
The fact remains that there is nothing wrong with the "old" system. If it's being taught incorrectly, then THAT problem needs to be fixed. I'm great at math and I learned it all before ever hearing of Common Core.
This doesn't actually address any of the complaints I have ever heard from teachers or parents.....
The phrase "...instead of just following teacher's methods..." is how Common Core gets corrupted when it moves from theory to practice. The biggest problem with Common Core isn't it's goals but it's implementation.
You're trying to teach students to think and understand with teachers who don't.
@5:03 Reminds me of proton NMR peak splitting in organic chemistry.
When I went to community college most people there that came from high school had to go to remedial maths because they never took any advanced maths in high school and never payed attention to it when they did.Everybody who cared from my high school in math did quite well in math in college but those who didn't did not.
I think that making simpler equations more complex does prepare students at a younger age to conceptually grasp the principles behind advanced algebra and calculus. Idk any specifics but how does that logic not make sense?
I don't agree at all with this method of teaching. If you truly want students to learn math, teach them the different applications of it. Physics is a subject that most grade schools are scared to even teach, and beautifully makes the connection between math and the real world.
It seems to me that presentation of early physics in terms of observation and experiment goes with this approach to exploration of mathematics quite well. It should become a great foundation for the more formalized aspects of physics, especially the deep, advanced forms that are not so tangible, such as quantum mechanics.
Yes airbornerecon11, you hit the nail on the head. Physics teaches applications of algebra as does chemistry. Biology teaches the applications of statistics. Puzzle solving is a fun Sunday morning activity.
What grade schools teach Physics??? Last I time I was in school, Physics wasn't until at least high school.
I understand the purpose of giving students a deeper understanding of math beyond rule memorization, but this is something that should be in the teaching and lecture section of the classes, not the testing and questions.
If you’re really teaching kids to UNDERSTAND math, then their answers should be marked as correct no matter how they arrived at those answers. I came up with all kinds of odd shortcuts and visualizations to solve math problems in different ways in my head as a kid, but forcing kids to do it one way you’re not instilling creativity, you’re trampling it.
I absolutely hate the new common core math! I'm in geometry and it's SO DIFFICULT. It's ridiculous and I can't teach myself geometry. It was so much easier to do notes and examples rather than to go right into the problems and not have any instruction as to what I need to do. I hate writing learning logs too! Sometimes they don't even make sense in what they're asking us to write!!!!
Finally. Theory and concept are expressed in mathematics instead of getting the old "because it is".
The title of the video: "Why Students in the US need Common Core Math"
The title it should be: "Why Students in the US DON'T NEED Common Core Math & Should YEET it OUT THEIR LIFE"
the professor here is right for the most part, and i agree mathematics should be more engaging and more multidimensional. and i agree that what she taught was certainly more effective, you can't argue with results after all. the problem is not necessarily the material, but a combination of the material and the ones teaching it. keep in mind most grade school math teachers don't have math degrees, all they need to teach grade school math is a bachelor's degree in something, and a teaching class under their belt. when they are told to teach these methods they may not fully understand it themselves, so what do they do? they refer verbatim to the method used in the book and tell students 'do it this way' and mark their answers wrong if they do it another way. case and point, the viral common core math problem. solve 5 x 3 using repeated addition. the student answers with 5+5+5=15. the teacher marks this wrong and writes 3+3+3+3+3. is this not the precise thing you said is detrimental to student learning? clearly the student demonstrates his knowledge of the commutative nature of multiplication, yet he is deducted points for this. not to mention the fact that multiplication doesn't necessarily imply the first be the multiplier and the second be the multiplicand. so not only is this detrimental to learning, but it's not even factually correct. if you want schools to teach these methods of math, you should first require them to have a math degree to teach it. then maybe it will be effective.
Can't wait for the calculus common core video.
at 16:24 what is "wichan" proficiency?
Basic math back at 99 was kicking my ass. Can't imagine tryna explain to my son this new bullshit. Smh I'm gonna need a tutor for me to help him.
Could be, but it has nothing to do with Common Core mathematics standards.
I taught my daughter algebraic and pre algebraic equations the old-fashioned way and she said this is so much easier than the way they are teaching us. She understood the concepts and 30 seconds but just cries when she has to use the techniques in school that 27 states are using because they get money for teaching Core math this way
ok so if someone hasn't already pointed it out in the slide at 1:11 it says
%50 of students in 2 year colleges
%60 are placed in remedial math
only %25 pass
so my math based on those numbers
100 students enroll 50 are actually counted 30 are in remedial math and 7-8 will actually pass
if you use the full sample size %100 what do you get? well you get to half the other numbers so the stats look more like this
%100 of students in 2 year college
%30 are in remedial math
%12.5 pass
100 enroll 30 are remedial 3-4 will actually pass leaving us with a grand total of %26-27 of all students who enrolled not being able to complete their educations yet %66 or 66 out of every 100 high school students are failing based on the statement that 2/3 are failing math at that level so where does that leave us...
college 73 finish and high school only 34 finish
how with a nearly %50 defecit do we not have more people with degrees then diplomas?
math is its own language you either speak it or you dont and if you don't you know just enough to be able to count money and tell time and even some people have trouble grasping that 100 and 60 are the same on a microwave...if this is your argument for common core I hate to tell you that some get it and some don't and more often the ones that get it can't explain it and when they try they confuse others. people who are good at math understand naturally the common core math that you are pushing and many adults use this type of math in their heads without realizing it but how can you expect children to freely have abstract thoughts about a subject that is entirely bound by rules. or to comprhend that 3x5 is not the same as 5x3 because one is 3 groups of 5 while the other is 5 groups of 3 but both equal 15.
trying to teach kids math at a deeper thought level is crazy when most of them need more work on fundamental math skills like recognizing that 60 sec is the same as 1min instead they are confused with asking themselves how do i get to 15 is it 5, 3 times or is it 3, 5 times... btw I failed math in school because I was bored out of my mind with learning the same carp over and over the last 10-12 weeks of every school year is when you learned anything really new the rest of the time was repeating what you had already learned your entire school life up to that point and making the numbers larger...maybe we should focus on pin pointing the ones who struggle for real and the ones that are gifted and have 3 classes of learning ability...instead of trying to make everyone fit into one mold that a few think fits...
Amusing to see someone claim the elite will use another teaching method for their kids, and singling out Gates and his generation as examples of people who learned math a different way. Expensive private schools don't do rote memorization, because parents don't want what that produces: middle-level performers. Gates' generation learned an earlier, also visciously attacked math curriculum - New Math.Parents hated it, because it emphasized set theory, which they'd never heard of. Isn't it funny, then, that today's programming languages, the one's that run the devices you're reading, are based on set theory (now called type theory.) Makes you wonder ....
Long video but worth watching because she addresses so many concerns that parents have about their children's math education. Really interesting!
+Brian Coyle Very true. I feel that problems such as these will always mean that American public schools will never be able to match international schools. Americans are too strong-headed to allow any revolution in terms of how their children are taught. Even public teachers are torpedoing this new program instead of trying to fix the things that they find objectionable (and there ARE objectionable things in CC that should be fixed, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.)
EVERY example of a 'terrible' math problem I see from CC seems very valid and sensible for a child to develop a basic understanding of the underlying rules, but parents want to reject it because they find it alien. Of course they do- they were failed by the previous curriculum! They don't recognize a math problem that isn't presented to them in the format of old school style that they were taught!
I GOT THROWN OUT OF SCHOOL @ THE END OF THIRD GRADE AND WITH JUST THOSE SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE MATH 9X TABLES AND KNEW HOW TO READ THEY WERE NOT TEACHING KIDS THE RIGHT WAY NOW WHAT I SEE IS CRAP FROM THE "ALTERNATIVE"SCHOOLS ARE SIMPLY ATTEMPTS AT MAKING OF FORCING KIDS TO COMPLY AND CONFORM THIS cc IS A SURE FIRE WAY TO PRODUCE A GENERATION OF INFANTILE EMOTIONAL IDIOTS TO LABOR IN FACTORIES I WAS ROBBED OF AN EDUCATION BY THE LEFTWING SOCIALIST UNION OF TEACHERS AND MATH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE IYT TAKES JUST MORE THAN TWO NEUTRONS TO SUSTAIN A CRITICAL SELF SUSTAINING FISSION REACTION AND NO AMOUNT OF REMEDIATION IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT NO WELL CONSTRUCTED ARGUMENT WILL EITHER AND FR PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF I ONLY PRAY YOU ARE JUST IGNORANT AS TO THE NATURE OF COMMON CORE AND NOT WILLINGLY COMPLICIT BECAUSE THIS COMMON CORE WILL DESTROY THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL AND THE FUTURE ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF THE COUNTRY , NOW I STUDY LANGUAGES ' PHYSICS ALL SCIENCES' ESP BIOCHEM' NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND HISTORY I LOVE IT ALL AND IF I WERE TAUGHT WHAT THESE SUBJECTS WERE USED FOR , IE UNDERSTANDING NATURE AND THE PHYSICAL I WOULD'VE BEEN MORE MOTIVATED TO LEARN THESE THINGS BUT INSTEAD MORE EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON MY BEHAVIOR AND NOT BEING LATE NOT ON SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS INFINITELY MORE INTERESTING LOOK INTO THE CREATION OF COMMON CORE AND THE PEOPLESURROUNDING IT AND THE LEGAL DISCLAIMER ON THE COPYRIGHT . THIS IS AN INSIDIOUS INSANE COLLECTIVIST BRAINWASHING TACTIC WHY ALL THE EMPHASIS ON FOLLOWING THE CROWD AND GROUPTHINK AND IF WE THOUGHT USA WAS BEHIND BEFORE WAIT UNTIL A WHOLE GENERATION OF UNEDUCATED ASSHOLES TAKE THEIR PLACES INN CONGRESSWITH THEIR COMMUNIST CORE ED TAKE THE REIGNS OF POWER THE RAPID DESTRUCTION OF THE COUNTRY IF WE MAKE IT THAT LONG
No one in the US can be tossed out of school in 3rd grade, so once again, it's obvious that you're making up your comments.
If I'm not mistaken, that (set theory) sounds more for the high school or college curriculum, than elementary or middle school. Confusing kids at the elementary level is downright cruel. Kids that young are to learn basic math type lessons - addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Still not going to stop me from carrying 1.
Ive always hated math because i couldnt memorize the formulas and specific compounding rules, and would doubt myself when attempting to solve trigonometric functions and quadratic functions.
I'm a relativly smart-ish kid and I usually don't get fail classes, but i did math because I forgot to show THIS step
You know slope? Like
Y=Mx+b
So yeah let me give an example
Y=2/3x+5
You would normally graph that but I can't, this isn't the one I failed. I can't give an example but I forgot what the original problem was like. I did miss 1/2 of the problems because I didn't change
2/3x+5=y to y=2/3x+5
Allllllso: i forget how but I got a X and Y intercept thing so like...
M=2/3x(X axis)x7 (y axis)+10 (idk)
And your support to times the opposite by 0 to get the awnser, like so.
M=2/3x+7y+{10
2/3x0=0, so
It would be 0+7y+10=the X axis, 17. Backward for Y
What I did wrong was this
I left out the 0 in 0+7y+10
Yep. And I missed every single one.
You people just don't get it! The purpose is the instill a deeper understanding of math (not just rote memorization of rules and computation). The math "speed" will come later.....you need a strong foundation first. Not everything is a damn conspiracy....companies won't workers that can think critically so that no matter what problem is out there...they will have the foundational skills to solve it....they won't just say, "well, I've never had a problem like this come up in engineering class". And then walk away from the problem (unsolved) with their hands in the air....
Thank you!!! I'm so tired of crazy wingnuts who think they should have some say in education. Of all things!! Education!! Stupid people determining curriculum for schools is like telling a vegan to BBQ some brisket. I hope someone teaches these people's kids critical thinking because they sure as shit won't learn it at home. I just don't get why they're so scared of a little more socialism and a little less Jesus. The smartest countries are typically "godless" and socialist. Don't they understand their kids need to be indoctrinated into these worlds if they can ever succeed in a world with their precious free market?? I almost hate the internet because it has given hillbillies a place to not only express stupidity, but find validation in the masses who will agree.
YEA AND BRING EVERYONE DOWN TO THE LOWEST LEVEL OF CREATIVITY DO U REALISE SOCIALISM HAS BEEN A FAILURE AND FROM LATVIA TO ROMAINIA TO GREECE TO RUSSIA TO CHINA TO VIETNAM TO CAMBODIA TO NAZI GERMANY ,ALSO A LEFTWING SOCIALIST SHITHOLE JUST A NATIONALISTIC SOCIALISM WELL OVER 150MILLION DEAD JUST FROM COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISMS ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION HOW CAN ANYONE NOT SEE THAT EVEN THE SOFT SOCIALIST COUNTRIES ONLY EXIST BECAUSE NATO IE USA PROVIDE MILITARY PROTECTION SO THEY CAN STEAL FROM PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE TO SUPPLY LAZY USELESS PEOPLE
THOSE GODLESS SOCIALISTS IN NAZI GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION AND THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN MY OPINION CREATED THE MORAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITIONS TO EMOTIONALLY SEPARATE THEIR MIND FROM THE SUFFERING REALITY OF OTHERS JESUS SAID BE YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT STEAL FROM THEIR BROTHER AND DIVIDE IT AMONGST THOSE TOO LAZY TO EARN IT I AM AN ATHEIST BUT I HAVE NOTICED CHRISTIAN NATIONS ARE THE LEAST CRUEL IN NATURE AND "GODLESS" ONES ARE THE WORST STATICS AND HISTORY PROVE ME RIGHTOUS
Robby Lafont in first grade? I think it's the other way around, first comes speed, understanding can come later.
It's not so much memorization, as much as it is to understand how numbers work when you add, subtract, multiply and divide - which is how we were taught back in the day. Memorization is more AFTER you learn how numbers work. Once you understand how the numbers work, then memorization just makes it much easier and quicker to do math. This Common Core nonsense seems to be making something out of nothing, but failing miserably. I'm all for Common Core if it's another way to see how numbers work with one another. But not if it's confusing as hell to understand what Common Core is trying to make them understand. I personally would NOT teach my kid(s) Common Core (or have them learn it). If they learn math, they will learn it the same way I did - even if it might take a little longer. Who knows? Maybe s/he'll pick it up quicker than I did and do MUCH better than I did. If so, I will be SO damn proud!!! Isn't that what we want - for our kids to do better than us so that we (and they) can have a brighter future???
Yeah, that's great and all for the classroom, but how dare you give a child an "incorrect" on a math problem if they come to a conclusion logically and we'll explained. You are still testing students with "performance" math during testing. Let them be creative in the classroom, but don't limit responses to the way you would like to see them.
It doesnt matter in the real world how many steps you had to take to get an answer. It is still logically correct.
I will check out that youcubed site. Any chance I have to teach my kids will help! I'm just not going to rely on our public education system.
If "the way you would like to see them" is what the whole class is about, then the responses SHOULD be limited. If, for example, a class is all about multiplication, and someone solves a problem using only addition, over and over and over and over again, and the whole point of the lesson is to show the use of multiplication, then the student is wrong. It doesn't matter if the answer is right, and it doesn't matter if the person is a child. In Common Core, it is not about getting the right answer. It is about showing the understanding of the problem (which, ironically, WOULD be the example given above).
Bravo! I agree
Note, I am in no way an expert on the subject, I don't even live in the US. But here's my 2 cents. It seems the issue with common core is an implementation one. At 10:44, the slide compares one dimensional and Multidimensional mathematics, essentially, 1D maths is just copying a process from the teacher and based on the videos criticizing common core this is what common core is in your average American Classroom. You must do it exactly how the teacher does it with all the steps or its wrong. They tried to implement these steps as a way to understand the maths better but students just ended up copying the steps as they had in the past except now everyone is up in arms because the steps are convoluted. It seems what is needed is an improvement in implementation and training for teachers in how to properly teach maths to help students understand.
Im 48 yrs old went to public n private school had no problem w old math n neither did anyone else
The common denominator to having engaging class is to have an engaging teacher devoted to balancing the attention span of the students though preparation or their own teaching skill. This sounds like the preparation part of the equation, no pun intended.
Leonardo Alejandro Reyna "One's desire to learn what motivates", are you referring to the teacher's desire to learn what motivates students? or are you referring to the student's need to learn what motivates themselves?
Having the student as the focal point sounds rather powerless. What if the course is not related to what interest the student? ie. student is interested in fashion and the subject is math.
It's much more reasonable to presume teacher is the responsible one to make math more engaging.
Motivation is a part of the equation i think. But going to the course with student's motivation as the focal point isn't very empowering as a teacher.
I don't at all disagree students have different affinity for one subject over the other due primarily to their natural ability.
But I do see a lot of barely functional teachers who otherwise could have gotten students to learn better if they only put some efforts into being more mindful of individual students and associate the course content with more real life examples.
No way. The uncommon core math was much better.
She continually addresses the students who are struggling, with no significant mention of those who excel in math in its form pre-common-core. The thing in skill development in people is that if you focus on the strong areas, your return on investment is much higher than if you are focusing on strengthening your weak areas. Yes, math classes should change in that like all subjects, homework doesn't actually benefit students learning (look at Finland) so homework should be primarily abolished, and people test differently, so like all subjects, offer different testing methods. Otherwise, you're basically claiming that a child is dumb when in reality it's more like you're testing a fish's ability to climb a tree.
Nowhere does Common Core "encourage longer tasks that have space inside them to learn." (9:20+) Boaler is making up this attribution.
The area problem Boaler recommends, "How many rectangles can you draw with an area of 48 in.²?", may be even more detrimental to effective learning than the example it replaces because it ignores the possibility that sides can be non-integral lengths, which makes the number of possible rectangles infinite. Boxing students into simplistic answers is promoting dumbed-down math, not engendering thinking ability.
Upshot? People without real math degrees shouldn't be demonstrating math teaching techniques or suggesting math education policy. And nothing in this video is about what is actually written in Common Core.
When you ask kids what their role in math class is and they say getting answers right, not learning...what?
Several colleagues have denounced Professor Boaler and her claims, which are contradicted by her own data. It's publicly available if you'd like to read it, but it's a waste of a half-hour, math scores are falling under Common Core (NAEP 2013-2015).
Stanford should present to each of the district school boards and curriculum "specialists" within the state to eliminate the enforcement of pacing plans, which force teachers to teach a prescribed amount of curriculum within a set amount of time. It is difficult to create a "time to learn" for students when your boss is telling you "time is up". In my experience it's not that teachers don't understand the CCSS, it's that the rollout and implementation doesn't coincide with its supposed intent. Also, the Smarter Balanced assessments (which is an oxymoron in and of itself) do not support her message. The message sounds great, but is not practical in a classroom setting. Stanford can come in and teach the way they want to teach, however, most teachers that work at the school throughout the year are not allowed the freedom to do the same.
I thought your example of (n+1)^2 interesting. I wish I had a teacher using these techniques when I was a freshman in high school. I barely got thru it because of an overbearing, sarcastic type who ridiculed students who didn't have an attention span to cope with his boring style. Later in college I performed with A's in calculus, managing to discover my creativity.
Mathematics courses in 2 year colleges is how institutional class and racism are expressed in higher education in the United States.
12:40 You are absolutely correct about crude student grouping that stifles lower and higher achieving students. The idea that the higher achieving students will teach the lower achieving students is unfair to students who have mastered material and want to move on to larger challenges.
She's right, the old way of teaching math is boring, and doesn't work for many students. Common core definitely has major problems, but the idea behind it is worthwhile
"Currently almost 2/3 of students in the US are failing maths." - The sky is falling.
I doubt these alarmist blanket statements. If they are based on community college statistics, one should also note that all those students going to 4-year colleges are a great deal more successful with math. Also, there are many reasons why students struggle with math - or school in general. Saying that before common core math teachers simply made students memorize formulas and steps and now they suddenly make them think and reason is simply disingenuous. Most teachers have always done that. I feel for all the students that got caught in this "transition" to common core, with their teachers out on training all the time and still figuring out themselves how to implement this. Common Core is only as good as its implementation, and some of this implementation is still very weak. The much emphasized new "rigor" in practice often looks like new confusion and disorganization. That is not to say there is no value in common core methods. Yet it is not fair to experiment with other people's children. Their education is important and they won't get a second shot when the education experts have ironed out the kinks in a couple of years. I would have preferred smaller scale pilot projects until a solid program is in place.
Some of Common Core is good, but there is quite a lot wrong with it. In earlier grades, the level of abstraction is too high, and unnecessarily so. Deep abstract understanding usually comes after familiarity and functional use. Common core tries to go in the other direction, and falls with the classic trope of a teacher lecturing to students on abstract theory, while they have no idea what it means or how to apply it.
Except there's one massive hole in this line of reasoning
1.The US is lagging behind in math.
2.They don't use common core
3.Other countries use common core.
4.Therefore the US should use common core.
It's like saying:
1. Turtles run slower than Cheetahs
2. Turtles don't have fur
3. Cheetahs have fur
4. Therefore we should breed turtles with fur.
Might there be some OTHER explanation for why Turtles run slower?
+CapAnson12345 Correlation does not imply causation, but it's a good place to start.
+Leila Umfleet No, a good place to start is not with the entire population of a state or country. It would be much better in smaller sample populations. Work out the kinks, and measure for variance compared to classical math education methods. This is BS.
As an actual educator, Common Core isn't perfect, but it offers a hell of a lot more successful strategies than former curricula ever did. I'm not surprised by the downvotes; CZcams is the antithesis to any means of rational education.
so your saying that math should be longer and more complicated and have a much broader, annoying, more confusing solution despite having a 68% failing rate? SMART!
Although I don't necessarily agree to this either, even if the current system is faulty, common core is a huge step in the wrong direction. It's just as confusing to the claimed 60% who dropped down as the old system, and it is also causing students who actually understand math in the old system to get worse grades because they are forced to use this overly-complicated and time-consuming system.
Mathematics is like philosophy. The deeper you go the more time you need to solve-understand it. Its not only about intellect but time too.
It is a miracle that some kids are not distracted by the enormous amount of "entertainment" sources. How can a kid ignore a video game or go out and linger with friends. Its just that education should be viewed more like "fun" or exciting.
Let kids discover the patterns instead of just throw them a formula, not having a clue why the formula is like this. Knowing is different than memorizing.
Technology should help in education, Coursera, edx, udacity are nice organizations though they need improvements.
There has to be a way to standardize these methods so that we can minimize the negative effects of human subjective interaction, like teachers, parents etc. I guess technology will be the key once again.
I agree 100%. I've been telling a lot of people about the dumbed down math curriculum that exists in this country that only teaches computation, but does not teach mathematical reasoning so that the students understand how to apply the concepts. In the real world, no one cares if you can do computations, because the computer does all of that. What we need are graduates that can apply math concepts to real world problems, and most of our graduates cannot do that.
“Math is too much answer time and too little learning time” yeah...for some reason I doubt a 6 year old said that...
Ms. Jo Boaler, please demonstrate your mathematics skill?
+bill Y. Talk about an empty "challenge." In what manner would you accept a demonstration of mathematical skill?
+Michael Goldenberg
I was hoping I could learn some real teaching strategies on helping kids, like explaining "divided by 0" or (-)*(-) from prof Jo B. I am disappointed. Plenty theory but no real problem solving example. On the other hand, Liping Ma is a much better helper, real life example and useful skills.
+bill Y. You didn't pose a particular question; it sounded like some sort of request that wasn't meant to be met. That said, have you read any of her books? And if you have actual questions, while this wouldn't be the ideal place to post them, I might offer some ideas. I love explaining why division by 0 is undefined, for example.
read some of her books, taker her class, google her....
Im a 8th grade student in a public middle school in an accelerated math class. Currently we are learning two grades below what we should be learning do to us not learning common core 6th grade and 7th grade. We are not being helped by this new program, its almost like they just said screw the older kids and hope they figure it out. Sure common core sounds like a good idea for a student that will be learning it all his life but when your in the 8th grade and you been learning the traditional way Its nothing but stress and a bad time. Its like were nobodies and there just praying that actual kids who have been learning common core show up sooner. This is so evil and I can't believe that the people who made this had no thought about the people who have been learning the old methods all there life.
"If a Train left NYC and headed toward Chicago at 3 p.m. EDT and a different train departed Chicago at 3 p.m. CDT and both trains are Non-stop and BOTH are traveling at 100 mph, why don't they crash?
Well, obviously, they're traveling at the same speed at the same time in same direction. Therefore distance is same.
lol... I never said they left the SAME day ... but I like your comment
but another answer would be (if they left the same day) the "Modern safety" would have side-tracks ... thanks for all the comments ...stay safe and have some fun folks
do people have so limited imagination / poor ability to THINK and imagine that they NEED common core way to show them? Why do I get feeling that they are spoiling kids with this, making them dumber and dumber with each generation'
not just dumber, but more pigeon-holed and specialized, obedient also because it's narrowing the kids' thinking.
because its true every word u said :)
it's gotten so bad that I think that's what they're trying to do
We need special schools for ppl w learning disabilities so they dont hinder regular students n they need more time which is fine n ppl wont make fun of them
Volcano nice presentation.
How much Wood would a Woodchuck chuck if a Woodchuck could chuck wood? ... the answer is 1 cord of wood
just because NOBODY knows that ... so I gave an answer LOL
Thanks, I'm gonna learn the new way and apply it and know and keep the old way.
This entire video is a non-sequitur. Take the chart at 10:40, for example. She's implying that pre-Common Core teaching methods are on the left, and Common Core teaching methods are on the right. That's simply not true. The CCS teach one procedure for completing a task and do not give credit for any alternative method. All of the qualities on the right are not exclusive to CCS, they're simply good teaching. All the teachers who neglect to do those things pre-CCS will continue to neglect those things under CCS. It seems like everyone who supports CCS somehow fail to apply their oh-so-lofty principles to their own system.
I don't know if this comment will be read but here's my problem with this particular presentation of common core math. Too Many Labeled "Methods." just present the content and why, for example, area of a circle can be understood in these number of ways. there is absolutely no need to put a name onto every method unless you go further into academia. yes, engage students cognitively but the whole classificatory naming system is a big obstacle to getting actual content across.
McCaffrey ain't doing this now, Stanford
This Common Core system still does not serve the students best at mathematics. From my experience, meeting the people at the math competitions I've gone to, all of the people there find the math taught in schools too easy, at any level. As a freshman, I placed into precalculus honors and have an average above 100 without studying at all. Instead, schools should directly teach a wider variety of mathematics like discrete math (more advanced combinatorics, set theory, graph theory, etc.) and number theory, which are actually interesting.
Did you catch the part about how open methods can allow high-achievers and those seriously inspired about mathematics to take their work far deeper as part of exercising their own learning and development?
The high achievers will eventually just be doing their own thing independent of what is going on in class. If you want an example of something open that would interest high achievers, then take a look at the power round of some math contest:
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx3ZXN0ZXJucGFhcm1sdGVhbXxneDo0MDZlYTU2N2VhMmUwNDUw
No kidding. You are going to judge a national curriculum based on elite kids who go to math competitions? Good luck with that approach.
I kinda agree.