Ugh.

[conuly]

So, this person doesn't like the Everyday Math curriculum, nor... some other math series.

And she might have a very good point about that - the nieces' school went off Everyday Math because the teachers said they jumped around too much and it was confusing the kids. This is an opinion I can trust - it makes sense to me, and the people saying it presumably know what they're talking about.

Unfortunately, I can't trust this presenter's opinion. Her argument against these two curricula aren't "Kids find them confusing" or "I don't think they're teaching math" but "They aren't teaching math the way I learned it, and I don't understand how they're teaching it, so it's wrong wrong wrong!" So, of course, she demonstrates these methods... and it's obvious to me that she's clearly taking the slowest, most round-about method of doing this in order to prove her point. But she *doesn't* prove it.

The lattice method? That one that everybody derides as "who invented this"? I'd guess that if you know what you're doing and aren't unfamiliar with it (and no, "parents aren't familiar with other methods" is not a good reason to only do what you've always done) it's just about as fast as the more common method. (And it's not exactly new. A method that's been around since the 13th century CE and that appears in the very first printed arithmetic book? I'd say it has some staying power.) She says that her preferred method of division is "the most efficient" method, but it's only, in my view, more efficient when writing with pencil on paper. If you have to work something out in your head? Reasoning - which she thinks is just wrong wrong wrong - is the way to go, and, indeed, is how I do most of my math... and which is why, unlike most people I know, I never *do* reach for a calculator or a pad of paper if I come across a necessary math problem in the course of my day. (And nobody ever yet has explained to me how you can use long division to divide, say, 31 into 2000. Not without memorizing the 31 times table, that is....)

It may be that these two programs aren't teaching kids well. In fact, I've heard a lot of bad stuff about Everyday Math specifically, so I'm inclined to believe that. But unfortunately, she let the facts lie to the side while she spoke about her opinion that one form of problem solving is superior - so much that the others shouldn't be taught.

I was so annoyed by that detail that when she said what really should have been her shocker - a quote from the Everyday Math teacher's guide stating that of course, calculators are readily accessible (and so not all algorithms for basic arithmetic need to be mastered) - I started wondering why she didn't answer that important question - why IS it necessary to know how to do basic calculation? (Judging from the comments, most people don't know. I read a lot of "People who do this method would fail all their tests!!!" or "How can you show math on a test using that method? You wouldn't get any credit!!!!" or "If you don't learn the right method, how can you compete in college?" or "This is why students in other countries do better than our students" but not once did I see a comment explaining when math comes up in day to day life and it's better to use THIS method over THAT method. I find this much more disturbing than the original comment about calculators!)

And, really, thinking it through, I can think of a few ways to justify the calculator comment anyway. One person in the comments went "Well, math is easy when you strip it of the clutter, all those word problems". But who is better at math? The child who can tell you that 12 x 12 is 144 and that 6 x 12 is 72, but has no idea why he's memorized that or that the numbers exist outside of the book? Or the one who needs to use a calculator but who can work out all the right steps to find out how much paint you need to paint the walls (but not the doors or windows) of a given room? (All while the first child absentmindedly fills the room up with paint!)

Actually, what's even worse than the fact that the commenters didn't seem to know what we use math for is the fact that few of them realized she was selling something. They took her deliberately confused approach to these "alternative techniques" and assumed that meant that nobody can do any form of calculation using them. (I'm doubtful many of them understand why the standard algorithms work, to be honest, but I suspect none of them understands why it matters if they understand or not.)

Here's somebody's reply to it.
And here's part two!

Apparently he's since found a copy of (some of) the books to review, so I'm going to look that up to see what he says. It really irked me watching the first video (the firstest one, the one at the top) she talks about how at the end of the 4th grade curriculum there's a "world tour" project and "Where's the math?" Well, I don't know where the math is, honey, you're the one holding the book, you tell us! Off the top of my head I can think of any number of ways applied mathematics could go into planning a world tour, but without a copy of the book I can't tell you if they did that well or flopped miserably. Her implication, of course, was that connecting math to any other subject (such as geography or social studies) was wrong wrong wrong! because, after all, it's not how SHE was taught. (And maybe there IS no math there, I wouldn't know, but I'm interested in seeing another opinion because that first video was so obnoxious.)

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

My mother is somewhat technophobic and incredibly bad at math. She always has been. She took biology, but didn't do chemistry because she was advised that she wouldn't be able to manage the math in it, and knowing her abilities I completely agree. She uses very basic math regularly, because she makes quilts by sewing small squares together (after sewing a bunch of small stuffed squares). So, she figures out how many squares she wants by working out how many on each side and then multiplying. She can do this, because she has very basic math skills. She does this using pen and paper. What I find sad is that while she can do this, she has never learned how to use a calculator. So if the math problem is too complex, she just asks someone else to do it (for quilting it never is, but life sometimes has more complex things).

I can do reasonable levels of math (I had problems learning calculus but did quite well before then) using pen and paper, but my working memory is so tiny that I have difficulty doing math in my head (or remembering phone numbers or small lists, etc.) My problem is that while I'm solving the problem, some part of the info has fallen out of my working memory. But I can do reasonable approximations for most real world problems. When I was shopping with my mother as a child, I would be the one to figure out that if the item was X% off then the cost would be about $Y.

Sometimes I think my mother would have been better off with even less ability to do math on pen and paper, but feeling comfortable with a calculator. They didn't have them when she was growing up, so it wasn't an option. But these days you can get a cheap little credit card sized calculator that will easily do any basic math you've got as long as you know what numbers and what operations to feed it.

[codeman38.livejournal.com]

Haven't watched the videos yet-- lots of speech, no captioning, and I'm not in a very good auditory-processing state at the moment-- but I loved this comment of yours:

But who is better at math? The child who can tell you that 12 x 12 is 144 and that 6 x 12 is 72, but has no idea why he's memorized that or that the numbers exist outside of the book? Or the one who needs to use a calculator but who can work out all the right steps to find out how much paint you need to paint the walls (but not the doors or windows) of a given room?

That latter kid? Was me. I was the kid who was terrible at arithmetic, but once we got into algebra, I understood a lot of things intuitively that some of my classmates just couldn't grasp.

Also, I found that some of the "alternative" ways of doing basic arithmetic (didn't do Everyday Math, but did watch one of those Human Calculator videos) were more intuitive for me than the "standard" ways of doing them. Lattice multiplication, in particular, sticks in my head as being a lot easier than the "regular" way. The big issue for me wasn't in the methods-- it was in the fact that I couldn't remember the simple addition and multiplication tables, and always had to derive the sum/product of two one-digit numbers!

[conuly]

Also, I found that some of the "alternative" ways of doing basic arithmetic (didn't do Everyday Math, but did watch one of those Human Calculator videos) were more intuitive for me than the "standard" ways of doing them.

And this is the best reason for teaching kids more than one way to do things. Some things won't stick with some kids.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I favor the teaching of arithmetic first and most importantly in terms of money, from how to make change and how many weeks' allowance will buy the new skates to how to figure whether or not a real-estate deal is sound and how to minimize your taxes if you win the lottery.

Children and teenagers have a keen interest in money, as who doesn't, right? Every aspect of arithmetic, and a fair amount of algebra, may be taught in the context of money management. That's the math that all people actually use throughout their lives, and being good at it has clear and obvious advantages.

The other math that people actually use and need is measurement, and what they mostly need to measure is ingredients for cooking, materials for building, travel time and expense, and property boundaries. All of which directly relates to the money as well. So, if two people wanted to drive to Chicago, rent a truck there, load up a houseful of stuff and come back, how much would it cost, how long would it take, and what's the difference between staying in motels and eating in restaurants, and camping in state parks cooking your own food?

A person who can plan a budget for such a trip, taking into account all the different factors, is a person who knows enough math. A person who can't, is a person who doesn't, who's likely to have lifelong difficulties from not knowing how to use math to make good plans.

The easiest way to teach children about money is to help them earn some. The easiest way to teach them measurement math is to shop with them, cook with them, sew with them, build and fix stuff with them, give them the map and let them navigate on trips. Calculators are a convenience for those who have already solidly memorized their addition/subtraction and multiplication/division tables - and those do need to be memorized; there's no way around it; therefore using calculators before high school is counter-productive.

Unfortunately, in school math, what you get is math-on-paper, boring and frustrating story-problems about imaginary people buying paint and taking trips. It's not at all the same as buying your own paint and taking your own trip.

Note, too, that once a kid has successfully figured out how to change her room from dingy off-white to sunshine yellow, she will forever after know how it's done, and will not need a hundred more story-problems to reinforce the skills. That's the difference betwen abstract and hands-on learning: hands-on learning sticks.

For people who want more complicated math in their lives, there's also astronomy, navigation and ballistics, all of which have many fun and practical applications to engage the enquiring young mind.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

An article on math education I think you'll like:

Why nerds must rescue the American economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34827516/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/?ns=technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets)

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I even get the argument. I got about halfway through the video. Why not just learn both ways? I learned the Standard growing up, and I find it convenient, but I have very little internal sense of how or why it works. The longer ways don't strike me as handy for everyday use, but I think they would have helped me understand math better rather than just memorizing it.