He finished it up really fast except for questions 6 and 10. He asked me for help. I don't have a flippin' clue as to what "number is pictured here". I asked Mr. B. He didn't know either. We giggled at each other without mercy.
39 and 45?
There is nothing on the sheet that gives a hit as to what the boxes represent.
It's driving me absolutely crazy!
Yes, I had to learn the hard way too when my daughter went through
this nonsense. In my book it confuses the kids more than just teaching
them the 1, 10, 100 and so on...
Anyway, you are right boomer: three tens and nine ones = 39
four tens and five ones = 45 When they start figuring out the millions,
it gets really retarded.
0 Replies
JPB
1
Reply
Wed 9 Sep, 2009 04:44 pm
@littlek,
I was on board with it too, since I had a spatial type learner, until she struggled with "Japanese-style long division". I wrote a note to the teacher excusing her from having to learn how to divide the Japanese way. I promised to make sure she had that knowledge should she ever move to Japan.
0 Replies
DrewDad
2
Reply
Wed 9 Sep, 2009 04:44 pm
@boomerang,
"Base eight is just like base ten.... if you're missing two fingers."
JPB - I get that, but still.... I guess I'm biased by my time in SpEd.
0 Replies
boomerang
1
Reply
Wed 9 Sep, 2009 05:01 pm
Drew Dad! Thank you! That was too funny.
Honestly that's how me and Mr. B felt while giggling over Mo's homework. Mr. B was all like "can you believe they trusted us to raise this kid and we can't even do third grade math?" It was a silly moment.
I don't know why the thing is all crunched up. The color-it-in grid is underneath it on a standard 8.5x11 sheet.
It's only the second day of school so I'm not ready to out myself as the batshit maniac from hell mom quite yet by going bananas over this assignment.
If it's any consolation, Boomerang: Although I'm a physicist by training and supposedly know my way around math, I don't have the slightest clue what problem Moe is supposed to solve here. Obviously I have missed some crucial developments in arithmetics. On my next visit to Portland, do you think Mo might be so kind as to tutor me ?
Oh! Having read the thread, I recognize it now. For some time in elementary school, we arithmeticked with little wood blocks, too. In retrospect I wonder why they didn't just cut through the geometry and called the long rectangles 'X' and the small ones 'I'. That way we would at least have learned Roman numerals.
Calamity Jane wrote:
When they start figuring out the millions, it gets really retarded.
Maybe so, but national security comes first: We have to ween our kids off of those Arabic numerals and the whole philosophy behind them. Better to stick with the tried and trusted Roman model and its young, wood block cousin, where multiplication is a chore and numerals stop at 'M'. (That's 1000 for you Arabic-infected evildoers.)
The question as asked "The number pictured here" does not reference relative size, but only quantity. That would be like graphically representing the planets, then asking how many planets are in the solar system, then claiming that Saturn counts as more planets than Mars, because it's bigger.
That teacher is an idiot! Here are the correct answers as the question is asked: Question 6 = 12 and Question 12 = 9.
Have a look-see at the definition of "number", there is no reference to relative size, in fact just the opposite as relative size can be ignored as per "7. the full count of a collection..."
1. a numeral or group of numerals.
2. the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units, or the like: A number of people were hurt in the accident. The number of homeless children in the city has risen alarmingly.
3. a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or in noting a total.
4. the particular numeral assigned to an object so as to designate its place in a series: house number; license number.
5. one of a series of things distinguished by or marked with numerals.
6. a certain collection, company, or quantity not precisely reckoned, but usually considerable or large: I've gone there a number of times.
7. the full count of a collection or company.
8. a collection or company.
9. a quantity of individuals: Their number was more than 20,000.
In fact I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of formalized learning styles is a complete waste of time...utter garbage!
Quote:
Learning Styles is Nonsense
Baroness Susan Greenfield, the director of the Royal Institution and a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, considers the notion of learning styles to be "a waste of valuable time and resources" (Julie Henry, Telegraph via Education News):
According to Susan Greenfield, however, the practice is "nonsense" from a neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain. It is when the senses are activated together - the sound of a voice is synchronisation with the movement of a person's lips - that brain cells fire more strongly than when stimuli are received apart.
"The rationale for employing Vak learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that Vak [visual, auditory, kinesthetic], or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits."
Thirty years without independent evidence!
Commenting on student-centered learning about a year ago, I said that learning styles were not as important as the modality of the task:
When I began school more than a few years ago, I never "discovered [my] own learning styles." I still don't know what my learning style is. And it doesn't seem to have slowed me down as far as learning is concerned. When I think about the activities in which I engaged: studying various "book" subjects, taking Wood Shop, playing baritone horn in the band, and being on the wrestling team in high school, if there is such a thing as a learning style (at least in a way that it significantly affects learning), it seems obvious that the modality of the activity decides what "style" of learning should be employed.
As Greenfield states, "our senses [are] working in unison." A little bit of reflection confirms this: When playing baritone horn, I was using my ear for music, my eyes for reading music notation and watching the director, my fingers on the valves and lips on the mouthpiece for controlling the pitch, and my entire body for correct posture. And it didn't matter which of my "learning styles" I preferred. I had to use what was needed for the modality of playing music, in this case auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities working together.
Greenfield is not alone. Daniel Willingham, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Virginia (American Educator), says,
What cognitive science has taught us is that children do differ in their abilities with different modalities, but teaching the child in his best modality doesn’t affect his educational achievement. What does matter is whether the child is taught in the content’s best modality. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modality.
Willingham's article is worth reading in its entirety, but two of his points are:
Some memories are stored as visual and auditory representations"but most memories are stored in terms of meaning.
The different visual, auditory, and meaning-based representations in our minds cannot serve as substitutes for one another.
Thomas, it's mind boggling how they teach the children simple math here. I find our German system so much easier - only thing you have to be good at is memorizing the multiplication tables. Now in the U.S. it is taught more visual, yet more confusing (to me at least).
My children bring these home too and while I can see how someone could be confused, I don't get all the hate and discontent focused at the teacher here. The big block represents the tens digit and the small ones the ones digit. Sure, the explanation could be better, but it's just a worksheet.
I still have my math workbook from 1976 or so....same ol' system...and I remember enjoying working with the 'blocks"...but I have always had a thing for boxes and cubes and such.
0 Replies
Chumly
0
Reply
Thu 10 Sep, 2009 12:35 pm
@engineer,
Nope x2.
As discussed, not from the perspective of the in-context text as previously defined, because the question as asked "The number pictured here" does not reference relative size, but only quantity. That would be like graphically representing the planets, then asking how many planets are in the solar system, then claiming that Saturn counts as more planets than Mars, because it's bigger.
Further as discussed, there is the false presumption of formalized learning styles as per "The different visual, auditory, and meaning-based representations in our minds cannot serve as substitutes for one another."
0 Replies
boomerang
1
Reply
Thu 10 Sep, 2009 01:40 pm
I'm with Chumly -- without a key to indicate what each object means the diagram doesn't represent a number. If the "sticks" had been scored into 10s it would have made sense immediately.
My first thought was that the diagram somehow related to the block of 100 numbers below it -- 10 rows, 10 columns -- that we were supposed to find the numbers outlined in the diagram and do something with the numbers designated. But that didn't work out either.
I'm not mad at the teacher at all. I just thought it was strange and I couldn't quite figure it out.
I agree it is confusing. When my children came home with these, there were instructions and often they had done them in class, so they didn't need any help. I don't agree with the "That teacher is an idiot!" remark without a lot more evidence than is presented here.
