Common Core Or Traditional Math

[King Arceus]

I'd like to start a discussion about which method you believe is better. Common Core aims to develop deeper critical thinking and understanding of math problems. You are suppose to use easy numbers to solve these kinds of problems. It also is suppose to be easier for teachers to monitor progress. This video explains it better than I can:

Then we have traditional math. This is what the older members of the forum were likely taught. You'll solve the answer in as few steps as possible. You aren't using number lines or anything else to distract you from getting the answer.

I believe traditional math to be better because common core has problems with more steps. The more steps you have, the more likely you are to make a mistake. Traditional math also takes less time to do.

 

[SkyeVictini]

Yes, I totally agree with traditional math being better. All those steps used in Common Core only make things more complicated for not only the student, but the parents helping with homework. If you make one mistake or miss a step, you basically have to start all over, escalating the already insane amounts of stress put on students nowadays.

And don't even get me started on the standardized tests. Did we really need more of them?

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I can kind of see why they're doing this, but it just seems unnecessarily complicated. I suppose it's a good idea if the student has trouble understand how to solve a problem the traditional way or if the student wants to enhance their understanding of the concept, but they shouldn't be mandating this kind of approach.

 

[TheGuy]

I didn't watch the video provided by KA however I've had quite a bit of experience with Common Core Mathematics. I was taught the more traditional way and excelled. I'm a gifted math student, was always ahead and took AP Calculus BC as a Sophomore. In the final three years of High School I did a lot of math tutoring, a lot of which was to students who were just being caught my the transition to Common Core. In addition, my mom is an elementary school math teacher, so my exposure has been pretty great.

My conclusion is this: The conventional and traditional methods are good ways for students to solve very specific types of problems but they don't provide the real understanding of mathematics and of numbers to be able to do harder problems more quickly and to apply numbers and think about them more abstractly. The Common Core method requires students to really understand how numbers work and how manipulating them can allow for students to solve problems that students taught the conventional way may not see. In essence, the more steps mean greater understanding and greater success in the long wrong. I made many of these connections without having to be taught them but the large majority of students cannot.

Here's the problem: Teachers don't know how to teach this way. In fact, many of them don't understand the connections themselves and thus often leave students to fend for themselves on harder tests that require students to understand the problem and justify their answer. Some can do an excellent job teaching this way, utilizing the Socratic Method is one way of doing this, but many fail to meet that standard. The second is that traditionally, parents and/ or siblings will help struggling students but these parents and siblings don't understand the connections and don't understand the vocabulary (number lines, manipulatives, etc) because they simply weren't taught them. It requires the students to have learned what each step is looking for and what the vocabulary means from their teachers. Parents get frustrated that they can't help a 5th grader do their homework and thus horror stories are born.

The solution: Better teachers, more training, and examples. One of America's societal problems is that we get a lackluster set of teachers (especially in mathematics) because the pay is so low. If teachers were paid more, we'd have more qualified people becoming teachers as opposed to becoming engineers or other professions with higher salaries. The teachers need more training to know how to teach these new ways and help them see the connections clearly and that needs to start with helping teachers see the connections. Lastly, teachers need to use examples, whether this comes in a textbook or on a worksheet if a student has a problem with very specific vocabulary they need to have a written example in their notes or textbooks so that tutors and parents can know what the problem is specifically looking for.

And that's my many time unpopular Common Core math monologue.

td;lr: Common Core is extremely innovative but there's a learning curve.

 

[MrIronGolem27]

I've done high-level math competitions for many years (still do), and I finished Algebra I just last year (because they don't let you skip to Calculus). This year (the year after last year), I took a look at all the new Algebra textbooks (which kept getting put in my face by people who kept demanding answers), and my reaction was,

"...my gosh. They really changed these textbooks!"

(My Algebra I teacher seemed to agree.)

Not only are the new Common Core textbooks EXTREMELY ambiguous, but they are also unnecessarily long and complicated. There are far shorter ways to teach the topics covered in those books, and they seem more like a catch-up guide for struggling students than something for the average student.

This I (at full risk of sounding racist) think relates to the (apparent) relation between race and academic performance these days, and the emergence of the "Asian nerd" stereotype (not that any student cannot perform well, but their tendency to do so seems to vary disturbingly), as if the government was trying to make whites dominant again. (Seriously, those who survive survive, and those who try to be idiots are not going to survive, and right now, the government is being an idiot on so many levels.)

Furthermore, this wordiness has (what I think to be) a disturbing similarity with the ACT (a test of which I just took a sample). The ACT test might have different subjects, but eventually, it's one thing - READING. They stick tons and tons of unnecessary reading into it.

In Common Core, there's walls of text, but hardly any math. I've seen more math in a Grade 6 traditional math book than in an Algebra Common Core textbook. I'm concerned that students will grow up thinking they know math, but then the real world hits them (metaphorically and literally).

But hey, that's just my two cents.

 

[Ice Espeon]

This "Common Core" sounds really intriguing. I had never heard of it before entering this thread as I guess it hasn't made it across the Atlantic to the UK yet. It seems like it could be an interesting idea as a way to speed up mental arithmetic in general, but it may not be great for younger children who do not think quickly enough to process the steps as fast as traditional methods. I'd definitely like to learn more about this, however (now that I've got four months of nothing before going to university for a Maths-related degree (Physics )).

 

[SotS]

I see and understand both ways coming in handy. Personally I only really use "Traditional" math, but while calculating in the mind I do tend to run a more Common Core approach.

I think that we should have stuck with Traditional for early grades and then introduced Common Core only in the later grades.

 

[Mora]

Common Core basically looks like how I do math in my head sometimes. Not because it's really any easier, it's just easier for me to keep track of in my head if I think about subtraction as distance instead of visualizing the traditional set up. It's how I figure out change if someone's being difficult and hands me $21.14 when the total is 14.09. (Don't be that guy.) If I had a sheet of paper, I'd prefer the standard way. I still like the traditional method better; it's not like it's confusing. And I don't agree that the traditional method doesn't show you what you're doing. As long as you have a basic understanding of math, you shouldn't be struggling to figure out which number is the divisor and if it goes inside the house or out. Maybe teachers just need to do a better job of explaining why you're doing what you're doing. Thje way my teacher explained division to me was by telling me that it was the opposite of multiplication. While true, it was difficult as a six-year old for me to wrap my mind around the concept. Maybe if she had given me nine spoons and told me to divide them into three equal groups, I would have gotten it. I had to resort to that method to explain to a friend why she couldn't just divide by zero. Honestly, there are many other things that are much more difficult to understand what you're doing and not just how. Like using an infinite number of rectangles to approximate the are under a curve. Or how could an infinite series of terms possibly converge.

 

[Raizen]

This sounds like the kind of thing that would be taught as part of a remedial math course, something that wouldn't be necessary for everyone to have to deal with. If that's all it was, there probably wouldn't be so many people making a big deal about it. As I see it, the main concern shouldn't be whether someone doesn't like that it's someone else's idea, but whether it gets results.

Much of the problem that children have with math is that it seems so abstract. They're presented with numbers and are told that they represent quantities. Sometimes, they're given a formula for solving a category of problem, but aren't given or develop an intuitive understanding of why it works. Of course, a lack of motivation can't be ruled out as a problem. Learning something new is often hard. To make matters worse, children usually don't see or have explained to them the value of math when they learn it. Because of this, math usually doesn't stand a chance for their attention compared to, say, some free-to-play iPhone app. Are they lazy? Probably not. But they do understand the immediate rewards of pretty colors on a glowing display screen.

Does common core prepare students for high school and college level math? Much of college trigonometry involves memorizing formulas, and is very fast-paced. There's not much time to attempt to gain an intuitive understanding of how the formulas work. It seems that the focus of common core is to help students to gain an intuitive understanding. How that will help them remains to be seen.

When it comes to something important like education, it's pretty silly to try to make a grand, sweeping change without an understanding of the consequences. Yet, we've seen this roll-the-dice-and-see approach applied to a number of public policies, lately. If you know what you're doing, and there is a guaranteed positive outcome, great. If you don't, don't pretend to. Don't become too attached to a theory just because it's your own.

 

[crann777]

Personally I only really use "Traditional" math, but while calculating in the mind I do tend to run a more Common Core approach.

And that's more or less what Common Core is about. We (meaning anybody over 20) learned how to do math the Traditional way, and then (hopefully) came up methods to do it quickly in our heads. CC is just cutting out the middle man. Whether students will be able to pick up on that long-term remains to be seen.
I've seen three big problems with Common Core. First, CC is more concerned about the process than the results. Sure, early math courses always ask to "show your work," but with more steps involved there are more places for the answer to go awry. Second, CC tries to apply one or two "mental math" models to everybody. I understand the examples in that video, but I do "mental math" in a completely different fashion. Is my way necessarily wrong if I get the correct answer? According to Common Core, yes. Finally, CC questions are usually super ambiguous. "Billy has seven apples and five pennies. How many does Billy have?" How many of what?

 

[Otaku]

When it comes to something important like education, it's pretty silly to try to make a grand, sweeping change...

If you stop their Raizen, you will have a very true statement. Educational needs will vary from individual to individual. The education system operates best when there is as little separation as possible between the student and parents as there are between the teacher and what is being taught. The fundamental principle of a "common core" is flawed; the idea that you can and should create and enforce a "common core" to education is highly dubious even if done with good intent.

 

[TheGuy]

If you stop their Raizen, you will have a very true statement. Educational needs will vary from individual to individual. The education system operates best when there is as little separation as possible between the student and parents as there are between the teacher and what is being taught. The fundamental principle of a "common core" is flawed; the idea that you can and should create and enforce a "common core" to education is highly dubious even if done with good intent.

I think for the sake of this thread, Common Core and what is called "Common Core Math" needs to be defined. Common Core started when a group of governors decided that it might be a good idea to have common standards across all the states. Standards are not books, methods, or curriculum, standards are nothing more than a list of concepts one is supposed to learn at each grade level. Common Core became an idea when these state officials noticed that because the world (and especially the US) is more interconnected more and more students are moving from one state to another. It was thought it would be a good idea for those students to move to have the same standards regardless of where they were, that way students who move wouldn't start behind. These standards also require deeper understanding, more writing, and justifications, in reading and math.

"Common Core Math" has come to be through education professionals who wrote textbooks that meet the Common Core Standards. In trying to meet these standards these educators felt that what is now called "Common Core Math" was the solution. There is no forced curriculum or "Common Core Math" taught to all students. School Districts and teachers retain the autonomy to determine the curriculum and what is taught in class so long as certain concepts are learned by the students.