Tanya 93 said:

---

---

Is that how they teach multiplication these days?

agent-maroon said:

---

Tanya is correct. This is what my kids learned at a private school. First time they asked for help it took literally 15 minutes to realize that they were just trying to multiply.

---

It is the same thing conceptually, but kids that understand how do multiply without the boxes are just doing those steps in their head essentially.

It is dumb, but at least it is conceptually accurate. It is crazy for teachers to deduct points for not using this method though. If there are multiple methods to solve a problem, all should be acceptable. That is basic math.

I wouldn't call it stupid, but different. It depends on the age group when it's taught. I would say it's beneficial for 6th/7th graders right before they get to Algebra because the way they learn how to multiply

(3x^2+x+2)(2x+3)

is similar to that area model process they are showing.

Not political but pretty funny to watch.

I had a big debate with my son's teacher a few years ago over this when I kept telling her I don't get it. I told her we sent men to the moon using the old math and she just kind of stared at me blankly.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Tanya is correct. This is what my kids learned at a private school. First time they asked for help it took literally 15 minutes to realize that they were just trying to multiply.

---

It is the same thing conceptually, but kids that understand how do multiply without the boxes are just doing those steps in their head essentially.

It is dumb, but at least it is conceptually accurate. It is crazy for teachers to deduct points for not using this method though. If there are multiple methods to solve a problem, all should be acceptable. That is basic math.

---

Depends on what is being asked. If they just say solve then any method should suffice, but if they ask to solve using Gaussian elimination then they better show Gaussian elimination.

Anyway back to the funny tweets.

texaggierm said:

---

I wouldn't call it stupid, but different. It depends on the age group when it's taught. I would say it's beneficial for 6th/7th graders right before they get to Algebra because the way they learn how to multiply

(3x^2+x+2)(2x+3)

is similar to that area model process they are showing.

---

Right, it is just a new method. Different methods work for different people. You shouldn't have to learn all the methods if you find one that works for you and a teacher shouldn't only teach one method. Teach them all and let the kids decide what they like best.

texaggierm said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Tanya is correct. This is what my kids learned at a private school. First time they asked for help it took literally 15 minutes to realize that they were just trying to multiply.

---

It is the same thing conceptually, but kids that understand how do multiply without the boxes are just doing those steps in their head essentially.

It is dumb, but at least it is conceptually accurate. It is crazy for teachers to deduct points for not using this method though. If there are multiple methods to solve a problem, all should be acceptable. That is basic math.

---

Depends on what is being asked. If they just say solve then any method should suffice, but if they ask to solve using Gaussian elimination then they better show Gaussian elimination.

Anyway back to the funny tweets.

---

The first time he was asked to explain how he got the answer, my smart ass brat said his brain.

bonfarr said:

---

I had a big debate with my son's teacher a few years ago over this when I kept telling her I don't get it. I told her we sent men to the moon using the old math and she just kind of stared at me blankly.

---

Why would they change math? Math is math.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

---

Is that how they teach multiplication these days?

---

Yep

And it is stupid.

They have to draw those boxes on the test and Benny is losing points for doing it in his head. We just explained to him that he has to follow his teacher's directions even though we know he doesn't need to do it

---

When I was in 8th grade, had a math teacher who was one those number geniuses. She started every class with a string of numbers and "times" or "divided by" or "squared" and the like. Only she didn't write it on the blackboard, just gave the equations orally. Usually about 5-6 numbers long, and we weren't allowed to write the numbers down, all in our heads.

Oddly, that was her method for multiplication. So blame Mrs. Shea. She started it in 1973.

The common core method is closer to how I do math in my head than the "old" method. If I do 312 x 23 in my head, it goes like
312 * 2 is 624, a 0 at the end is 6240, 312 * 3 is 936, 936 plus 6240 is 62+9 = 71, 36+40 is 76, 7176

It's really fast, especially if you mostly care about approximating because you're working your way from big to small so your mistakes come at the smaller end and you're more likely to catch big errors. Plus you can start saying the answer before you're done calculating so you steal another fraction of a second.

But if you're doing it on paper, writing all that stuff out just takes a lot longer.

Now that I think about it, that's how I would do 312 x 23, but if it was 298 x 24, I would instead to:
300 * 25 is 7500, subtract two 25s is 7450, subtract one 300 is 7150, add a two is 7152

or 162 x 15
16 squared is 256 plus a 0 is 2560 less a 160 is 2400 plus a two 15s is 2430

So I think how I get an answer in my head probably works a bunch of different ways depending on the specific question. The more general way is to round the question to one that is really easy and then adjust back to the right answer, or if my mind doesn't offer a simple way, break it into 2-3 simple problems and work forwards like my first example.

Quote:

---

Why would they change math? Math is math.

---

Somebody needed a thesis for their EdD and then somehow worked their way into a position of influence. Nothing maintains your guru status and high salary better than having a complicated explanation that no one dares risk their own position by saying this method is too complicated.

Quote:

---

The common core method is closer to how I do math in my head than the "old" method. If I do 312 x 23 in my head, it goes like

312 * 2 is 624, a 0 at the end is 6240, 312 * 3 is 936, 936 plus 6240 is 62+9 = 71, 36+40 is 76, 7176

---

Hi! Mrs. Shea's grandson!

1300135

Prognightmare said:

---

Common core math debate on funny tweet thread.

---

Sorry

I am wondering how casting for "My 600 Pound Life" works.

Do they call you, or should you just show up at their door? I'll be a candidate by mid-May!

Well, Calvin never liked Susie, so.....maybe?

Tom Hagen said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

---

Is that how they teach multiplication these days?

---

My son still learned it the old way but doesn't go to public school

Dang allergies