The area model is used to teach conceptual understanding of multiplication and how it relates to area. It is not meant to replace the standard algorithm. It's a concrete and visual way to show multiplication understanding. In Common Core, students start learning the standard algorithm in fourth grade and master it in fifth grade. We don't give teaches a hard time for having students count on their fingers when they are learning to add, so why would we take away this strategy that builds a strong understanding of the way multiplication works? People that are upset with the area model or common core are often taking these teaching practices out of context. There is a reason the U.S. has low math test scores. We want to go straight to algorithm and memorized skills instead of true conceptual understanding. Our children will have jobs that do not even exist yet and will face problems in our world that we can't imagine. Why wouldn't we want to give them all the strategies we can and teach them to be flexible thinkers?
The US has one of the worst literacy rates in the developed world. Common core was to help. It didn't. You can see it in Gen Z. Stunned, triggered, almost helpless.
I never had a child in an American school, but I also haven't seen that anyone explains why this area method works at the earlier grades. When I started to learn basic geometry (not real geometry with theorems), we were taught how to compute the area of a rectangle. It took about 3 seconds to understand it. I can buy the notion that some kids will understand one method more easily than another. I don't buy the notion that the classic methods can't be explained to children.
the point is that you have a calculator like most kids these days. There's no point in forcing kids to memorize tables anymore. It's more important to learn about the concepts in the long run, because it's far better for problem solving.
Paper nowadays is so cheap that the poor can afford to waste it. Doing the "new method" on old days paper prices, then you need to be the equivalent of a millionare/Billionare to be that kid today. The "old method" which I was thought large multiplication saves hugely on paper usage because the old method saves on real estate in the calculations. New method is still too complicated method as it has too many steps to remember for many kids. The carry the tenth number should be the most complicated bit of the old method. Less steps to remember.
Okay, but I can see why they're doing this. Breaking down the problem the way Area Model does gets students used factoring so that algebra and higher math becomes a continuation of the basic math they learned. It's basically planning for the future so that they have an easier time with algebra and above. Higher math is where American students have been falling behind compared to foreign students. This teaches the concepts at a younger age. Thanks for the video though, very interesting.
As someone who's gone through common core I can say, yeah no it took me forever to learn because it was a lot to learn! I got so bored with it all the time, it was tedious having to draw out all those little boxes and stuff - everyone I knew hated that. I'm 17 now but I still have a burning passion for common core
@@itsohaya4096 I totally get that it is difficult and time consuming. It might be a total waste of time. I was just point out what they were trying to accomplish.
@@ronn9853 how about we listen to kids and ask them what's easier. Not everyone learns the same, there's neurodivergent kids that exist and it can confuse the living crap out of them. I learned the old way and had no issues with algebra
I never learned common core math as a kid. This is the first time I've seen it explained rather than just complained about, and holy crap, the way she did it (common core) makes so much more sense to me than the way he did. Watching her, I didn't feel stupid and inadequate! I'd have loved to have been taught this way!
I echo this. I never 'got' math when I was in school. I was in honors classes for everything else, but regular ed classes for math. Numbers just didn't stick in my head with the way we were taught. Her explanation makes so much more sense to me and as I looked more into the common core math, so did the ways they taught other types of problems. If I had been taught this way, I probably would have liked math classes a lot better. In fact, as I got older, these methods are what I used in my head for math, methods that I wasn't taught in school, but worked better for me. I hate hearing people complain about common core math and how it 'takes longer.' At least common core is teaching number sense to kids who math doesn't come naturally to.
What all the haters don’t understand is people like you guys. Sometimes, students don’t get it. They DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Continually banging them over the head with the exact same method just doesn’t work. They decide they’re stupid, and shut down. So, instead, now let’s try this method. It’s long. It’s annoying. But if this fits in your brain, and you get the answer? That’s brilliant. Now that you’ve got it, let me show you the shortcut algorithm. 9/10 times, when they get this method down, now suddenly the other method fits in their brains. NOT ALL STUDENTS ARE ALIKE. Teaching more ways to get the right answer? That’s important, so we can reach more learners- instead of them saying “eff this noise, math is too hard” and giving up.
So mabye if somebody is having troubles with math, they can be taught this way, otherwise, don't teach everybody using a method that is used for people who can't understand. This is just like genderfluid language, and the lefts attempt to get rid of gender language, and make it all gender neutral. Just because some people are offended by non-offensive language, does not mean that everybody should have to suffer.
@@d-real-moop7824 uh.... No. You're entirely incorrect in your thinking. That's hella flawed logic, very ignorant, and what the hell does that have to do with math? Just stop before you hurt yourself twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your bigotry.
Sorry folks. This is NOT new math or common core! What she is demonstrating is a basic principle of algebra. It is the "distributive law" and is basic to any binomial expansion. Any multiplication problem is essentially an application of the distributive law. I am 72 years old and this very technique was taught to me in advance placement math when I was a 7th grader. The distributive law is not usually presented as a method for a multiplication problem but there is certainly nothing wrong with the presentation. A good teacher will present several methods for solving a problem. One method will click for a student and the alternate method will click for another student. Students better know how to discover alternate methods in math or they will never survive trigonometric identities and calculus, much less anything beyond calculus. Good for her! Also, this goes back to at least the 17th century!!
Yep, she just blocked it instead of using FOIL. The "new math" is the same math, it's just taught in a way that teaches numeracy. A bunch of people who only learned the ritual of arithmetic (a problem common core seeks to correct) are having a tantrum about it. The saddest part is that these parents are gonna see algebra for the first time in *years* and decide it's common core, then raise a stink instead of helping their kids with it. These parents will hold their children back.
The two methods are complementary. The area model helps explain why the “old school” method works. Why do you “add” a 0 on the second line before multiplying? The area model answers this question. Ultimately, we want the children to use the “old method”. But showing them why it works helps develop critical thinking and the will to be able to explain the reason for things. Most school and university students hate proofs because they were not used to prove things, just to accept them. But the power of math resides in the capacity to demonstrate rules and theorems, because once they are proven, they become a universal truth.
you're correct, the issue that I've found in higher level math (8th grade students for example) is that many of them were never actually taught the standard algorithm, only area method, or repeated addition etc. As such these students are hopelessly behind their peers and rarely if ever is there time to give them the specific help they need because they are missing so much.
Just because it isn't the way you learned it, just because it takes longer, and just because you dont like it doesn't make it bad. We all learn differently and I frankly am happy that we are giving children multiple different methods and tools so they can learn using what works best for them.
100% Agree. All this griping just because it's not the way you're used to or it's how we've done it before is ignorant. Kids are grasping a concept in a new way and that's not a bad thing.
I believe the reason for this window method is two fold: Help them practice with a skill that will come in handy when later multiplying binomials instead of using the FOIL method And help them get started in breaking numbers apart for factoring or during factoring
Why? This method of multiplication is perfectly fine and, in fact, it will better prepare students for high school algebra when they learn about the distributive property.
@@yamatocannon1 Hello! Since you asked, I will explain. I've worked for a school district for over a decade as both an aid and a teacher, and I've seen how these poor teachers are run into the ground trying to teach their students the "preferred common core method", and how students struggle with this concept versus other tried and true methods. The fact of the matter is, all students are different. They think differently, and they learn differently. I was lucky to be diagnosed with ADD at a young age so that I could get the appropriate help I needed to survive school. I had a wonderful group of tutors who taught me several different ways to complete math problems. In the last decade, I worked with a WONDERFUL math coach who taught his students the same, that it's great to learn how to do something in as many ways as possible. It doesn't matter how you get the answer, as long as you get there. I think that's so important. I understand that most schools these days are digging their heels in to keep the common core way and are enforcing it in classrooms, but I also know from experience how it drives everyone bonkers. It's a subjective standpoint, sure, but it's definitely not a loved method where I'm from. Schools will always find more ways to "help our students", but there's a reason why my state produces the lowest test scores in the US, and we absolutely enforce the common core method. As I am currently still living in this state, my husband and I have a strong desire to homeschool our daughter, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's our decision, and we believe it is the right one for our child. Anyway, I hope I helped clear things up, since you rose up to challenge me. ;) Hope you have a fantastic day!
It is not about fast, core helps them think out the problems instead of memorization. When algebra time comes, core will help them better. I used to think the same way; I am 66 so I understand your frustration to change. But if I can learn it, so can any other parent/grandparent. You Tube helps a lot.
When I got introduced to multiplication this is what we were taught: we started by understanding what multiplication actually does. (Spoiler alert: It‘s addition). So we had a problem: 3x5. This means you have to add 5+5+5. 3 times a five. Or five times a three. We did this for all numbers from 1 to 10 until we could do them pretty fast. In German we call it „das kleine einmaleins“ which translates to „the small onetimesone“. We had to learn them by heart because that‘s a thing you just have to know. We used flashcards, computer games, had competitions, etc. to make sure we had at least some fun while learning it. Then suddenly there were problems like 11x3 or 12x5. Now obviously you can do this as 10x3 + 1x3. But since this gets pretty difficult once you reach higher numbers, we got intruduced to multiplication with borrowing. (But we were taught what the borrowing actually does). The area thing was taught later since it is kinda hard to understand how area calculations work. (I‘m not sure wether the children who are taught common core maths actually understand that they are calculating the area.)
The method the lady demonstrated helps when learning disabilities are involved. If you can learn and do it the standard way without issue, fantastic. However, several other methods like this are taught in order to have it "click" with everyone, not just those who get the standard way right off. Not everyone learns everything the same ways.
If you tried to teach me that long way in 3rd grade I would have never gotten it. And I'm a math idiot, never got past algebra. Doing 14 steps and art work is a waste of time on a simple concept.
This should be made clear in class. "OK, kids, now I'll show you this method for anyone who is confused by the first." This common core is a crutch and should be used as one - after a time you remove it, otherwise it only gets in the way.
Common core helps kids understand the numbers. Only learning the ritual of arithmetic without a strong foundation in how numbers work is of the reasons why people hit algebra and fall apart.
Teaching kids with different learning capabilities different ways on how to solve a math problem is how kids learn to solve the problem better. 1 specific way is not going to teach all kids how to do math. You can't teach a visual learner how to read a problem and figure it out just like someone who reads well on how to visualize a problem. Every kid is completely different. That is the problem with common core math. It's rigid, and it confuses most kids. When they go to ask their parents how to work the problem most parents can't even work it out for the child the common core way. Most parents don't even have time to learn it that way. I've seen my own kid struggle with common core math.
I was taught that box method in elementary school, however I can pretty much do that equation in my head faster than both of those 35×10=350 35×2=70 420
Common core concepts are designed to give you tools to recognize patterns and shapes with numbers. Training kids to just be fast calculators without a deeper understanding of what is going on places a ceiling on their ability when newer concepts are introduced.
@@whermanntxDidn’t you learn biology? Kids start with the simple stuff like memorization because their minds are still developing,and logical stuff comes next. But common core starts with the logical stuff, which can make learning difficult . There are some exceptions,but this counts for the majority of kids.
I've watched a few of these new multiplication videos since hearing about the method. I think it finally clicked for me why they shifted to this. When breaking numbers down to their large components (10s or 100s), you can more quickly get a ballpark estimate of the answer in your head. This is more applicable in real life when you're doing math on the fly in a grocery store or sorting a bill, etc. Nice video - the splicing the videos together really shows the difference.
Spencer: used car sales men love people like you. Always having to pull out your “calculator” every time a figure is mentioned. Not truly understanding how anything is calculated.
Everyone has their panties in a bunch over this method of multiplication. This method is taught alongside the standard form and kids are usually given a choice of which method theyd rather do. This method is good because it shows how the distributive property works and why standard multiplication works the way it does
So basically they are doing FOIL (first, outside, inside, last), but they are adding in boxes. I could see why breaking it down to initially explain it would help kids, but I don't think it is any simpler than doing it the old school way.
It’s basically (30+5) * (10+2) , if u intuitively rearrange the question into 35(10+2) it becomes much easier to solve. Now, if this method teaches students to intuitively think like that, then it’s great.
To me, both methods are identical. The common core method seems to explicitly separate the multiplication and addition steps where as the old method does both Simultaneously. IMO, the old method doesnt do both simultaneously well. In the first step of the old method, 2x5. When you carry the 1, explaining why we add 1 to the next multiplication is confusing to a new student. The common core method shows how the multiplication of 2x5 explicitly adds ten to the total. That’s all opinion though.
This is just the way you TEACH common core math. When kids have practiced this way for 12 years, they will be better able to do it in their head much faster. It has been proven with neuro science that this is the way the brain works. When I try to do it in my head the way I learned, I get lost. I skip a few steps of the way common core is taught. I say 35x10 = 350, then add 2 more 35's (or 70). 350 + 70 is a lot easier than carrying tens in your head.
The area model uses Algebra's binomial multiplication representation with each 2 digit number in expanded form. 35x12=(30+5)(10+2). It can be quicker with less chance of ERRORS! ALL methods are chosen by TEXTBOOKS, NOT Common Core! You must refer to 'old' school math that produced generations of math illiterates who could compute but easily confused by simple problems. Reagan found adults confused & stressed by word & multistep problems!
Almost all schools teach both methods. The longer form is for kids to get concrete understanding operations. They are later taught the standard algorithm, after understanding multiplication.
The area model multiplication would have made more sense to me than the way I learned it. I never understood why you skipped a place and added an arbitrary 0 until I taught myself that it was like 35 X 10 and that's where the zero came from. Don't just do something and say that's the way the method works.I have a lot of trouble with that. I teach computer science and web development to students now and I always explain why something is called something and why the method is that way so it sticks better than memorizing for the sake of memorizing. Also the area multiplication makes sense if you're doing math in your head.
The problem is this common core may be better for the select few who are struggling for the math to click. Once a person learns how/why it makes no sense, and for the kids who are not struggling this is just another way to confuse them and possibly earn a wrong answer even though they could get the right answer. This common core should be used for tutoring
I had trouble with alignment too as a youngster until my mom and fourth grade teacher explained that the place value above the line corresponded with the place value below the line. I never needed the zeros or x's some people used as place holders.
As a adult with dyscalculia, I found it easier to follow along and not get lost with common core. Although, it does seem needlessly long and thorough for most. I can see the benefit for someone like myself.
I kinda love common core. It's not the time that it takes that matters....its how deeply it makes them think and break down the problem to truly understand it. And they will add more time to SATs if necessary. Just relax people. It will be ok.
I think the new math is confusing as it's different, but I also recognize it's more in line with how our brains calculate when we don't have paper... I've always broken numbers up (similar to the video) in my mind... If we were standing in a field with no paper and you asked me what 354 + 282 My brain would automatically say... Hmm, well 300 + 200 is 500... So 500.... 50 + 80 is 130, which added to that original 500 would bring me up to 630... 4+2 is 6, so 636 - it would take just a couple seconds to calculate mentally using this method. I would not picture stacking 354 above 282 and carrying numbers in my mind like you would with traditional math on paper. The way our brains work abstractly with numbers is much more similar to 'common core math' than it is to traditional. I think it's important to understand both. There are lots of different ways to visualize math, and multiple ways to solve the same problem...Giving students the opportunity to try many of them is great. Different tactics will work better for different kids. UNLIKE when I was a kid and there was ONE "recognized" method, and a lot of just rote memorization.
The new way is much more obvious why it gives the correct answer, whereas most people don't know why the old school method works they just use it. Which is the main issue with why people are bad at math nowadays. They don't know why any of it works they just want the equations and then struggle to understand more complex topics. Whats even funnier is I can do area math in my head faster than you can write down using the old method, so the issue with how long it takes seems redundant. Obviously you're faster at the old method. Its what you were taught and have used for years.
The classic way is the same, but optimized. 35×12 = 35×10 + 35×2. There's no value in multiplying the unit digits separately, as this should be building on the knowledge gained when learning to multiple multi-digit numbers by a single-digit number.
@@avishevin1976 the “old optimized method” falls apart quickly once you start getting more digits involved. 265 x 103 is a lot easier to understand in the area method if you are just starting to learn math. Both methods work, but ultimately what matters the most isn’t how fast you can do it, but that you understand why it works.
I noticed that as well! I said wait, and now all of a sudden she comes in with the old method of addition.? I see now that it gives the student a separate way of doing the problem, sure it may take longer but the old method of multiplication and division were quite confusing. For example doing old school addition versus old school multiplication is very different. It's confusing to understand how to work the old method of multiplication. So now if they just can't get it, like I was, there is another option. Where only using the old school addition and subtraction is needed, and the old and confusing method of multiplication and division is no longer needed.
@@phillippardo5712 you don't need to understand why it works the first time you use the old multiplication. All you need is to remember the method and follow it. Do 10 multiplications a day for a week and you will remember it, even if you don't understand why it works. Do you understand how a circle area is calculated? You don't need to, in order to use the formula. Just as you don't need to understand how exactly a screw holds your drywall, as long as you know how to use it right :)
Helping kids understand math is NOT IMPORTANT??? The area model uses Algebra's binomial multiplication representation with each 2 digit number in expanded form. 35x12=(30+5)(10+2). It can be quicker with less chance of ERRORS!
Hello, everyone, I'm here as a standard algorithm proponent. First teach them about prime and composite numbers. Notice that both the multiplicand and its multiplier are composite. 35 is 5x7, and 12 can either be broken down into 2x6 or 3x4. Obviously this is lower level math so I need to break down the 12, not the 35. so I can either do 35x2 to get 70 and multiply 70 by 6 to get 420; or I can multiply 35x 3 to get 105, then multiply 105x4 to produce 420.
I’m assume “standard” algorithm means the previously taught method… if so: The method you outlined in your post is quite literally common core. You only reduced one number into different factors before multiplying through and adding, where as common core broke down both numbers.
I had no idea this stupidity was going on in our public schools (no children). Strictly from an efficiency standpoint I'd never use Common Core. Why would you add so many unnecessary and confusing steps? Someone else is drawing that stupid box and I've already finished...
sixtyinsix they normally teach this stuff when you’re first learning a new math concept and then afterwards teach you the speedier method because things like the area model are used first so that you can better understand the “why” of the different math concepts
It's bad. My daughters teacher in 2nd grade (she's now in 6th) actually told me to keep teaching my daughter the normal way to do double digit addition. She said she wasn't allowed to teach them any way but this dumb way.
@@lesterine77 the sad part with both parents and teachers is that they themselves don't understand this "new" way and so refuse to learn it because it isn't what they are used to. While yes this is a more roundabout way to get the answer this method wasn't built for that purpose. It was built to teach conceptual understanding to build the basics for most other math since multiplication is at the heart of most mathematical concepts. Most people taught old math cannot tell you why they are doing it or why that answer works beyond that is the way I was taught and I memorized it.
Can't speak to the ups or downs of common core due to my lack of familiarity, but I will say that despite learning the "classic" multiplication method when I was in school, this new area model is actually a written out way of how I have always done my mental math. There is no way I could ever do the classic written out way in my head, but splitting apart into multiple pieces makes way more sense as I spatially pull apart and add the numerical images mentally. I'd argue that schools should probably teach both methods to students since they each seem to be useful for different purposes.
I get it now why the answer is 420 because all the people who thought this was a good idea did it on 420 because anyone who believes this is better then the old way is high AF
The way that is taught in schools now is more intuitive. What you are doing is an abstract way of thinking about it as it comes down to "follow these exact set of rules and it will work out i promise". The box method is a drawn out, on paper method for how you are suppose to do mental math. Essentially the new method says "break up the constituant parts, then put them back together" which is incredibly simple to understand. The box method even gives a visualization of this process for when students are first learning the process. I don't get the backlash at all
The backlash is because the political right-wing leadership and talking heads in the US hate public education. Anything public education does is wrong and terrible because it's _public_ education - It's big government. But they can't just frame it as being bad _because_ it's public education. So instead they try to portray it as being worse than the old way. They do this by confusing the audience, often by leaving out context and explanations that students receive in class, or by finding a bad decision made by one teacher and conflating that single teacher's decision with the whole of "common core". Common core also has English standards. You will hear very few complaints about common core English compared to complaints about common core math. This is because most people don't actually understand math at all, so it's easy to confuse them and make things seem worse when talking about math. Anyone who understands the _why_ in math will recognize what's going on here when they see an example of how the technique works, and they will also recognize that these "new" methods (which actually aren't that new) are easier to justify and explain than the standard algorithms.
The amount of stupid parents in the comments explains a lot about why kids are struggling. Their own parents can't figure out the rationale behind basic math.
Yes, the method you learned is faster. The method that is now being taught actually explains what is happening behind the numbers. Theres a good reason most of you didn’t pursue things with lots of numbers. You don’t understand the fundamentals. If you can’t see why common core is better for someone learning numbers for the first time (like a child) then you probably can’t do calculus lol
I have a bachelor's degree in theoretical mathmatics, and so I obviously had to take a large amount of higher level math courses. I am worried about how kids who do pursue higher math will do without having any knowledge of practical computation methods. Calculus is hard enough on it's own. Now calculus students have to unlearn silly things like the "attached zeros" rule in addition to learning the new stuff that comes with calculus.
1) Kids are taught both methods. 2) The goal of "common core math" isn't to get the answer the fastest way possible, it's to develop the best understanding of what's happening. You can teach a kid to recognize sight words and that's great. But when they encounter words they don't know, they have no skills for decoding it. You teach phonetics so that kids can decode words they've never seen before. It's exactly the same thing with "new" math. We're trying to help kids conceptualize numbers. How they can be broken up and put back together, reformed and manipulated. 35 x 12 is (35 x 10) + (35 x 2), it's also (40 x 12) - (5 x 12), it's also a lot of other things beyond what "old school" math teaches kids it is. So is it slower? Yes. Does it make for better understanding of numbers? Also yes.
Ok, but numbers don’t necessarily need to be understood and broken down the same way words are. Most kids can just as easily conceptualize numbers and quantity by counting on fingers and using concepts such as physically drawing 8 apples for the question “if John has 8 apples and eats 3, how many does he have left?” And then crossing out 3 to count the remainder. That’s way more simple and easy to understand and remember than this way. Now, this way may help for a small selection of kids who need a different angle of approach. But for the majority, the old way is way more effective. Especially when you take into consideration that when away from school when you need to do math on the fly, this method isn’t going to cut it. And in many ways, it’s unnecessary. If I’m trying to add taxes to my total bill. I’d be better off developing the skill through repetition and mental math than trying to conceptualize numbers from every possible angle. Most will naturally realize these concepts over time anyway without school making them do it. Or at the very least, using this method when they’re just learning how to count period is way too complicated and advanced. It’s using the FOIL method thats used for algebra, more than a few years above their realistic learning level.
@@sealink129 Let me know when they can do 35 x 12 by counting it out on their fingers. People hanging on to "My way is the best/only way!" is exactly why progress is so difficult.
@@Darkslide632 you must not have read my entire comment then. I never said it was the only way, nor that it was solely the best. Just that it was best for most people. Some may benefit from this method, but in most people’s everyday life, they will literally never use this. Heck, practically the only time they’ll need to know multiplication like that example at all, is for things like construction and maybe bulk grocery shopping. And at that point, most will simply use a calculator. I’m not saying that this method isn’t useful or that it has no value, (and maybe it came across that way but that’s not what I meant), I just meant that in situations that need this kind of multiplication, it’s almost never a situation where knowing the complexities of math and numbers is needed to understand how to reach the product. And that I think that 2nd/3rd grade is too young to be learning what is essentially algebra level comprehension which in itself isn’t taught until well into 6th/7th grade
Nah this is really a good model for math problems with larger, less simple numbers. It is honestly kind of how one might try to do it in their head but just drawn out on paper. The concept is great for teaching critical thinking. I see the problem being what it always was in school -- Kids so focused copying what's on the board they don't have time to grasp the critical thinking part of breaking a seemingly difficult problem into its fundamental comments. They'll be focused on remembering all the little rules and steps, trying to regurgitate information, fail to correctly carry one number or something little , get the problem wrong, the system will fail them, and place in a remedial class only to have their potential stripped away. When instead all they would need to get them thinking critically was one little tip bubble that said "think about how easy multiply 10 * 30 is, or 2 * 5, we are doing that here also, but by applying each of the numbers' core units to their smaller components and then multiplying" Tldr; this method is almost like trying to solve it in your head. And that's what kids need to start with... thinking critically....
Or you could teach the MULTIPLICATION tables so the kids are not drawing stupid squares and all types of nonsense to get the answer. It is any wonder kids are not learning math??????
Your multiplication tables went past 12? But in all seriousness… how do you think the kids solve for numbers in the box? By already knowing 2x5= 10. Ie: knowing their times tables.
Who gets confused? The children or the parents? I think people are confused and they are saying the children are confused. Of course, this is not the calculation that we will use when we are under time pressure. In these cases, we can use whatever we like. When I took my standard exams, and they did not specify what computation methdo should be used, you can even use Magic Maths. You know, the kind like 5x = 10×/2. No one will tell you it is wrong. But these maths are not the exam type maths... This is the conceptual maths. The kind that you will need when you are solving higher maths formulae. You know, the kinds of half numbers half Greek letters.
This is very interesting. I thought going into this I'd hate the idea of this new math. BUT, I really liked the teacher in this video; she really broke it down nicely and I think her students will be taught well.
Tell that to all the Chinese kids memorizing their multiplication tables on their 5-6th birthday. It doesn't get more mental math than that. As for logic, in the time it takes to do one of these problems, you can explain to a kid why fundamentally multiplication is addition done many times so it all ends up being the same anyways, which is why it doesn't matter at all how you multiply 5x3 or 3x5. It really isn't that hard to understand, drawing out 35x12 or 12x35 would of proven the same point. If you did this example once to prove the point, great, I'd support it. If you're asking a kid to do this every time they have a multiplication problem, you're wasting the kid's time and potential.
Common Core DOES fact tables. I don't understand why people think it doesn't!!! You overlook the value of counting objects that visualize & prove the math. Understanding math often uses methods, like counting objects, that are NOT practical. Common Core ONLY requires traditional methods but wants alternative to avoid "one size fits all". Other methods are picked by teachers & textbooks!!
Hi again... I admit that I multiply like this... IN MY HEAD! I would NEVER teach a kid this, as the first method.... But the POINT that everyone glosses over, is that children FIRST need to learn basic math... Many don't.... which is why multiplication and division, and even adding and subtracting is so difficult... When a child is not proficient is basic mult tables, and adding.. they will not even get common core.
Hi, DavidRio Stanczak. I disagree with your claim. You don't need to be proficient in basic multiplication tables, etc. to be successful in math. I never memorized my multiplication tables. I sometimes still add things on my fingers. And when I do computations in my head, they are often similar in nature to the method shown in this video. And now I'm a PhD candidate in mathematics at a top 30 math PhD program in the US. The "common core" stuff has always made sense to me. I was lucky, since I was always able to pick up on this stuff when it was taught in the boring old "just memorize everything" way. Now, the newer methods might not make sense to everyone, and we should strive to improve what we do. But I'm sure there will be people who would have miserably failed under the old system who will flourish under this system.
Calculus: Old school d/dx (x^2+1) •x^2 becomes 2x^(2-1) which equals 2x. 1 is a constant and so it becomes zero • so d/dx (x^2+1) equals 2x+0=2x Calculus: Common core style d/dx (x^2+1) •First we plot a graph for all real values of x •Then we note down the values of the slope at each value of x •Then we design a function whose solution set is this exact set of values and that’s how we find the derivative!
Math is a visual subject. Especially when you get to higher level math. Those who never succeeded at higher level math or were just “okay” at it didn’t understand this. All equations, from simple addition to the highest levels of calculus, create images. You see this first in algebra with graphing and then in geometry with shapes. Eventually you’ll see it in calculus with limits and more. The whole point of this way of teaching it is to create intuition and visuals for kids to be able to better understand math. Sure, you just solved a problem that had no relevance to anything. But math in real life is used on real things and is relevant to everything we do. So being able to visualize it makes you much more likely to succeed later on with math and in STEM.
This is true for me. Common core makes more sense to me now at age 65 then anything attempted to be taught to me years ago. I can visualize and chunk groups of numbers together in my head which was never a concept from the old school ways.
I know yall are in here getting your panties in a bunch but you're lucky you understand the short way. I had to take dumb math in high school because the core parts of math multiplication and division did not make sense to me. I would understand algebra 1&2 but I would get the multiplication and division wrong. I'm 29 years old and I'm getting ready to go back to school and try to get an associates because I decided to only get a certificate before so I wouldn't have to take college math. I'm currently studying for the math placement tests. common core has literally brought me to tears happy because it finally fucking makes sense and I feel like a god damn math genius. They've realized that the old way of teaching kids are leaving a lot of smart kids with brains that are wired a bit different behind. My mother could never help me with math because it did no good. She would be like this guy and just be like do this and there is the answer but my brain was like, "SCREEEEEEEEE but why?" If common core was a thing when I was in school I have ZERO doubt in my mind that I would have had a significantly better GPA because I would have across the board D's and F's in math. I also wouldn't have spent countless hours at the kitchen table silently crying to myself until I passed out and gave up.
You're not alone. I teach math at the university level. I've seen so many students who say that my class was the first math class where they actually understood what was going on, and that they actually enjoyed a math class for the first time. I don't always teach them the fastest ways to do things; rather, I teach them _why_ things work. I'm glad you're doing much better with mathematics now! Keep up of the good work, and never be satisfied with a _how_ answer that doesn't also include a _why._ :)
skill testing question: how do you do calculus using common core? seriously? the picture will swell into something like the sisteen chapel. what collosal NONSENSE.
Back in the day, I took a few Calculus courses. I wish they used a more Common Core New Math approach and less in the grueling repetition of functions and equations. What I needed for my major was the concepts rather than the computation.
@@yunmoh628 actually, calculus deals with integrals or summations: the area under the curve. i remember the prof using little rectangles, dx, to represent the rectangles under the curve you were adding up and get the value of the area under the curve or the solution for the integral. and that was all the mickey mouse, area rectangles that were ever needed. similar approach was done when explaining derivatives, or rate of change or slope of a curve at a point or line. a little bar was used to visualize the slope made by connecting points, etc. that was all the visual needed, the rest was up to your brain. maybe your professor sucked.
The guy isn't saying *why* you do any of his steps - it's faster for him because he's memorized the steps, but it's really bad as far as teaching, because there's no explanation of why. The woman is an actual teacher, and she's going slowly to make sure she doesn't skip steps, and she is showing the *connection* between multiplying, and geometry. You would be amazed how many college kids don't know that you multiply Length times Width to get Area of a rectangle, because nobody showed them that! Finally, this way of splitting up ones and tens, shows *why* we do things like carrying (place value) ... and it sets the stage for Algebra later on, when you multiply (3x + 5) times (1x +2) and it's similar to (30 + 5) times (10 + 2) that you learned as a kid. [I'm nearly 50, but I *do* remember learning the reasoning behind multiplying and carrying, back when teachers were given time to explain. The goal of Common Core is to bring that back!]
I can’t handle these new methods. I already let my child know that he won’t use 95% of what he learned in school. He just has to play the game to get good grades and graduate.
The purpose of the box/rectangle/area model is to lay the foundation for the distributive property. The area model is useful for understanding not just multiplication and division, but factoring polynomials, fractions, percents, ratios, and how this stuff is all connected. There is a lot of good stuff in common core, unfortunately, the teachers don't understand what they are doing either, so this teacher was a bad person to explain the area model. Two afternoons working on the area model to get a grasp of the distributive property, and it changes the world for most students. The ability to manipulate numbers/symbols using the distributive property is essential to making math easier, including what most people of think of as formal high school algebra. The long division sign is shorthand for the, wait for it, rectangle/area model. You will find the area model in Ray's Arithmetic published in the late 1800's. Those kids came out of 8th grade able to survey land, manage a small business, and do basic accounting doing math about 15-30 minutes a day, going to school for 6 months out of the year. This is hardly some new-fangled thing.
It's not about getting to the answer quickly. It's just another way of thinking about what it means to multiply numbers in reality. Its good to challenge the mind to think differently, and learn that there are many ways to solve a problem. It's not meant to be taught as a replacement for other methods, just another tool in your mathematical toolbox.
The area model represents the way we think when we are working these problems out in our heads. If you become proficient at it, you need pen & paper less & less. The old school method requires pen & paper, always.
When I do simple arithmetic on paper I use the traditional method. However I realize now then when I do simple arithmetic on especially multiplication in my head I used her method. I just never drew a box in my head though but It works its just a different way. Im sure once you get used to it on paper you can do it just as fast as traditional
I actually learned both ways growing up, I was taught the traditional method originally but they also showed us how to do it with the box although I never used it except for homework and quiz assignments. The box method was easier for some kids in my class, however they didn't understand why it worked which is the biggest issue and what makes it so hard for kids and very hard for parents trying to explain it to them.
That is the problem of implementation. Schools taught kids to memorize & follow recipes with little time explaining. Textbook writers & Teachers ALSO need training to teach meaningful math properly!
In a classroom we have a lot of different types of students. It's important to remember that they all are at different acdemic levels , each have different needs..some stduents understand math better if given them a visual for it. Some students can't memorize fact tables or forget it. The common core takes into account all those differences and adocates for a more inclusiv method. This doesn't "cripples" anyone. Learning more that one method is always beneficial for advanced kids..
To be honest with all, it does seem like the long way to grandma’s house. But what I understand, is that this is not the only way kids are being taught. The other faster method that we all know(stacked) is the one mostly covered, but by teaching this to the children should be that they understand the relationship between the ones, tens, and hundreds place and how they all come together in the multiplication process so then when they come back to the mostly used multiplication process, in their mind they understand the relationship between the numbers and can possibly calculate faster and more efficient.
How I learned to do it : 35 X 12 Add a 0 to 35 (350) Double 35 (70) (420) From left to right in my head, takes 3 seconds. How it looked on paper : 35 x 12 ----------- 420 Wasting children' time for no reason is bad, I think only the answer should be written.
Thank god I was in a Virginia elementary school (they don’t follow common core) I would failed everything. Like the “old school” way is the way I did it and even with that I was still struggling but god if I was expected to do it that way I think I would have died.
They are adding more steps and multiplying and adding more than they need to. What happened to memorizing your multiplication tables? I teach college classes and students do not know how to calculate percentages.
"Why don't kids memorize there multiplication tables, why don't they just memorize all of math instead of learning how to discover why things work?" And we wonder why america is fallen so far behind in mathematics since the cold war.
"their" not "there". Rote has its uses. When memorization is practiced it builds the portion of the brain that stores knowledge. When that portion is built sufficiently, the problem solving portion can then ask the bigger "why" questions. Knowledge builds on knowledge. People are not taught to build a smartphone before they learn how to use one.
@@lauriesolis1026 tHeIr NoT tHeRe. Its an internet comment not an essay. Youre a tool. Plus, you're analogy with the smart phone shows you didn't comprehend what I said. And it litteraly has no bearing as every country that doesn't do it in a memorization way produces far better mathematicians.
@Laurie Solis - You are, of course, correct. Thank you for sharing. People seem to be missing the critical step that follows "understanding the concepts"....and that is actually being able to quickly and accurately solve problems, and produce results. All too frequently, "easy to learn" doesn't equate to "easy to use". We need to be focused more on teaching the tools and techniques that can provide fast/precise "problem solving skills". Frequently, that requires...(gasp!)...memorizing things!
@The Multi Gamer - She corrected your grammar because bad grammar reflects a bad education....and thus adversely affects your credibility. (And it's "You're", not "Youre" a tool.) As a math tutor, I must have missed the part where the 7 top scoring countries in math education don't teach memorization.* (#1.Singapore, #2.Australia, #3. Russia, #4. Iran, #5. Japan, #6. China, #7. India) *Spoiler Alert: they all teach advanced visualization/memorization/mental math problem solving skills....AKA "work". (And grammar, too. lol.) Some teach different methods/techniques of visualization and mental math, but the end results are that they all produce consistently higher math problem solving skills than the U.S. and other countries.
Hi...Try this on for size... Divide 12 by 2; because if you notice, every number multiplied by 5 is a half of itself in decimal form. Therefore, divide 12/2 and get 6. There are 7 5's in 35. 6*7 = 42. Multiply by ten; because the 6 was in decimal form. 42*10= 420
Old School - it breaks the equation down to 35 x 10 (350) and 35 x 2 (70) = 420, and that over times becomes easy to visualize and do mentally. Common core is longer and more jumbled and definitely not something easy to visualize, how are people defending it? It's total bull.
not saying that this common core math looks good, but it is kind of ironic how the old school or checkerbox method of multiplication that we learned in school was only due to the price to print back when mathematicians were formalizing multiplication. it was the cheapest one out of all and the speed of doing it now is simply because we are used to it not strictly due to the way its organized. technically i believe cross multiplication ( multiply by units) is a more streamlined organizational system but not done very often so many of us would do it a lot slower than a method we are used to.
The only people that think common core is the better method is teachers. And the only reason teachers think it’s better is because the school board told them to say it’s better.
Sounds like something Archie Bunker would say as Edith Bunker masters the common core concepts and adapts the process as she calculates the money Archie owes her for the services she has provided to their household since they have been married. ruclips.net/video/ABrl1mKWLNw/видео.html
The so called hippy dippy method is why it works, gives an intuitive understanding of the distributive property of multiplication and sets the kids up for algebra and equations later. teach your kids the area method so that they can multiply it out the old fashioned way. It will give them a much deeper understanding. Breakout the numbers so that they get an intuitive understanding of what carrying means , not just that its above 9. Thats rote learning
@@ronvidvomsumpfle6493 Funny enough I managed to learn how to do multiplication 50 years ago without drawing boxes and then go on to get an Honours degree in Mathematics followed by a Master's degree.
I am a 4th grade teacher and I'd like to set some things straight about Common Core Math. This is one of several strategies students are taught to conceptualize multiplication. Once the strategies are taught, students are allowed to pick the strategy that works best for them. This particular strategy helps students visualize how to break apart the numbers and multiply them. They do this becuase it's a lot easier to muliply numbers that end in a 0. It actually gives kids confidence in math because they realize large numbers can just be broken up into smaller numbers. As adults, many of us already realize this due to exposure and maturity with place value. However, many kids have a hard time conceptualizing that this is possible- especially if they're only taught the standard algorithm process. The standard algorithm, or "old way", is a great short-cut that is still taught, but is a 6th grade standard. If a student is already taught it by parents, I never say it's wrong or not allowed. I just say I'd like them to try these ways as well and see if it helps them make more sense of the problem. Common core was designed to match students' intellectual and developmental growth through teaching kids several different methods. The key idea here is to find what way works for you. Once 6th grade rolls around is when the standard is stressed more for efficiency purposes. However, we want to teach kids how and why we do something before we teach them a shortcut.
wow this was my first exposure to common core math and i have to say... it's identical to the old school method. you're just not seeing it lol. it's funny because you did the exact same steps but you just didn't write them down. you did them verbally. i think the problem with common core is that it's exactly right -- the parents learned the multiplication method on paper but don't actually understand what they're doing, so they have issues teaching it to their kids which is what I suppose common core is aiming to fix. maybe the parents can understand basic algebra and the foil method (a + b)(c + d) = ac + ad + bc + bd and then they'll understand that this is what old school multiplication truly is as well as this new common core math. it all seems so trivial. sad to see parents struggling with this
The purpose of this strategy is to help students develop the understanding of the magnitude of the numbers keeping place value in tact. This is stepping stone in the process of developing multiplication understanding. The inserted strategy is one we still teach in the common core math sequence once students understand the place value involved in the numbers and how that place value affects the final product. After 4th grade, students are expected to become proficient with the standard algorithm. Unless you are taking the SATs mid year 4th grade, you will have moved past this strategy to the standard algorithm. You can see this expectation in the standards. They are publically available.
Both methods you see in the video are the same. Only the way of writing it down is different. I never saw the area model multiplication, it's kinda interesting to see the break down. I was taught using the 'old method'. And with this multiplication I was taught to make it simpler. So I would've changed the sum to 70 * 6 which is 420 ofcourse. So when you double one side you have to divide the other side. It doesnt work with all multiplications, but it speeds it up a lot.
I'm retired and find common core much easier to grasp the overall concept. In the beginning it appears longer because you have to adapt a new concept from what you're familiar with. For me, I see the bigger picture and the more I work with it I find myself naturally chunking groups of numbers in my head without writing them out in the big box. You can't do that in the old school way. Let's go hippie dippy...35 x 12 you start with 350 add 70 (35 x 2), group your hundreds = 400 plus 2 tens = 420. It looks harder written out when in fact is quicker in your head. It's just part of the learning process. This old dog can learn new tricks and I like it.
The new method shows why multiplication works. The method we were taught growing up is an algorithm. It's efficient and works every time. However, it's not intuitive and cannot expand on to other systems. Why, for example, do you put a zero on the last digit based upon what tens place you are in? We all do it, but mathematically, why is that okay? This new method shows a geometric proof of how to do multiplication. It shows why the old style works. And it's aimed at trying to help students move beyond memorizing and algorithm. (What's also nice, is it shows how to simplify math and which digits are the most important for doing calculations.) One of the biggest issues people are having with students is creative thinking skills. Students are very good at memorizing models but figuring out how to apply old models onto new systems is difficult. Yes, the new method is clunkier. Yes, our way is much faster. But students if understand the new method, we can show them the old style a little later, and it will make a lot more sense.
Common Core is intended to teach the concept of why the math works out the way it does, but when the teacher does not ask questions while teaching it the intent is lost. For example: When she broke out the 35 into 30 and 5, she did not ask anybody if they knew whey she was doing that. All the kids learn, in this extremely long process, is how to find an answer, just like in the old math. How many of us, for years, did the old school math and still didn't understand why. Common core is good for teaching why, if they do it right, but then go back and teach the more efficient methods after that. Then you get the best of both worlds.
So I’m 25 I was probably in the first wave of students who did “ new math “ as they called it then because actually you can do this for addition with this method . It makes it so overly complicated for such a simple equation.And what makes it worse is that the parents can’t even help because they don’t understand because fact of the mater is that this MAKE’S NO SENCE . My mom and I had to tell the teacher that I could do the multiplication in fact the the normal way I was faster than the rest of the class but the was she was doing it was so overly difficult . It literally came down to me telling her I can do it the way you’re doing it and continue to fail and not get it or I can do it the normal way and actually understand the math. The good thing is I only did that for one year .
Even if common core works (I don't know what studies have been done in that regard, so I don't know what actually leads to a deeper proficiency at math), he has a really good point about the SAT. You're pressed for time as it is--you don't need _more_ steps in problem-solving.
You don't have to know about the "studies". People who study these things are academic fucktards who are completely clueless and make things up as they go.
The whole idea is so kids understand the why of math, and not just the most efficient way to arrive at the answer, it prepares them for more advanced math later.
Wait. but you did the same things in the same order as she did. [(2*30)+(2*5)] + [(10*30)+(10*5)]. The only difference is that she wrote them out horizontally instead of vertically. Traditional multiplication is only faster if you're able to visualize what numbers you're multiplying in your head, which some kids can't do especially when they're learning a new concept.
Yep, they did the exact same math, just presented in different ways. And I am willing to bet that for people who haven't been forced to use the standard algorithm over and over again for years, the "area model" makes a heck of a lot more sense.
@twistedblktrekie And neither of us used addition at all (at least nothing we couldn't easily do in our heads)! Using factors is much different than either of the methods everyone else is using are to each other. It doesn't work with every problem, but seeing factors can be quicker for some problems. The main point is that there is no one way to do math. I have a problem with people trying to teach that there is only one way to do math. a lot of people seem stuck in thinking that the 'traditional' way is the way it should be taught. I think it should be taught in the way the student gets it first and then teach other ways that come up with the same answer and show how they are the same.
There's also the consideration of its variables of 35 so you could reach the same answer with (10×35)+(2×35) =420 as well hence 350 + 70 = 420 Pemdas was a wonderful step by step thing
Joe Casson - Yes, the standard algorithm is, generally speaking, faster. That's the whole point. It was designed for efficiency. But it hides the actual mathematical ideas that are taking place. Do you understand what's actually going on when you use the standard algorithm? The steps taken in the area model are, mathematically speaking, the _same steps_ you do in the standard algorithm. However, in the area model, it's much clearer what's actually going on when you multiply two numbers together. The idea behind common core starts with a simple question: What is the point of mathematics classes in primary and secondary education? In the past, the point was to get students to be computationally efficient so that they could succeed in other science classes so that the US could be a leader in technology and space exploration (pre-common core education policy is rooted in Cold War era politics). But technology is so much better and more prevalent today than ever before. Despite what everyone's teacher used to tell them, yes, most people _do_ have a calculator with them at all times. We have easily-accessible powerful computational software available for free online! Why should we value computational efficiency by hand anymore? Computers/calculators are easily accessible and do these computations more accurately in less time! So what's the point? The point, now, is to develop number sense. To actually _understand_ what's going on in mathematics. Mathematics is all logic-based. There is a _reason_ for _everything_ in mathematics, and there is a lot of power in being able to think critically about a single concept in a variety of ways. Now, sometimes teachers' methods fall flat, and maybe some of the common core standards aren't developmentally appropriate. But if you actually take some time to think about the purpose of math education instead of just shouting that your children should be just as bad at math as you were, then you'll see that the main idea behind common core makes a lot of sense.
U did the same only you chose 10*35 and 2*35 u take the extra time explaining it to 4th or 5th graders, not boomers who already know the math u being deceitful In addition. U know how to do it. But not why. This will set them up perfect for factoring, expansion and distributive property.
What's garbage is that most teachers teaching math are not even good at it themselves and they do not understand how to teach it properly. We need to go back to having people teach the subject that they like and are actually good at. Just because you have a teaching degree and you passed a couple of math classes in undergrad doesn't mean you will be good at teaching it.
twistedblktrekie my statement was not against common core math. I agree with it completely as long as a teacher knows how to teach it, many teachers tweak it and end up teaching to tests still and not properly explaining the "why.". In the state of Florida for someone to teach elementary math they do not need Calculus 1. They need that if they want to be a math teacher for middle grades and higher. And elementary school is where it all starts, if you do not set the foundation students will struggle the whole time. My son is in first grade and I have seen first hand the impact to him of having a teacher that cannot effectively teach math. Luckily I love math, and I do not just know algorithms nor do I believe memorizing them makes you good at math, so I am able to help fill in the gap for my son but so many parents cannot do that. If our teaching models were so good we wouldn't have so many kids struggle through just to pass tests because so much of teaching is still focused on rote memorization and not problem solving. Of course it is getting better slowly and I would say the most affected generation of crappy teaching models was the millennial generation. I am much older and I work with millennials who have many great people skills and negotiating skills but when it comes to basic problem solving many of them struggle in the work place and look to others to make big decisions. Hopefully it will continue to get better due to open dialog like this. :)
You realize both methods do the same thing? 5x2 + 30x2 + 10x5 + 30x10 is what you’re doing with old school math. The area model just shows that same method in a more visible way.
and absolutely no need to, and a complete waste of time, but a good way to completely confuse a young child, whats the matter with some of you people, id rather have my children learn the things they will need coming right out of high school, skills they can use now, to a kid those extra steps are confusing and difficult, and they can't figure out why they are even needed, and if they choose to want a better career, then they can go to college and learn the advanced skills they may need.
You should never have to long winded extra operations to do a different operation unless absolutely necessary. Why add 4 numbers to multiply, which would require learning to carry and use traditional vertical addition, when you could just learn to do the traditional vertical multiplication, carry in basically the same way as addition and do significantly less extra addition, all taking up much less space than the other method?
Why do you want to be limited to ONLY "one size fits all" OLD methods? Teachers should adapt to learners. Try mental math or counting change with traditional vertical methods!!
TheMysticEmperor If all we want is practicality, then we stop at arithmetic. How many among use have practical use of quadratic equations? How many had practivcal use of angles of depression? Maths are not just about being practical. It is also a tool to better understand things around us. I don't know how many of use compute the surface area of a circle on a daily basis.
Sigh.... what this poster doesn't understand is that the old way is just memorization that you still have to use your pencil and paper for as an adult. The Area Model is teaching other concepts to help in upper math and to teach the brain to do all calculations in the head. No relying on calculators or even writing. This and another form are taught in India. They teach at least 3 ways to do the same problem. That is why Indian kids are so advanced in math. The entire class can answer hundreds of thousands calculations verbally without writing anything down because they learn these upper thought processes. This guy literally has no idea what he's talking about because he has no experience and is therefore shortsited. My son is the top 4th % in math in the nation. He taught the area model to his 2nd grade class. It helped all of them. And since it's a 4th grade concept; they were ahead of the curve. An opinion is not experience. All this guy has is an opinion.
People implementing the common core should understand that the goal of finding the answers fast is to help children tackle higher level math faster. We can't do common core on timed state tests. Too many process that many kids will find it hard to follow. Unncessesary processes only confuse kids.
![Why you didn't learn tetration in school[Tetration]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ea1_1aVfwl4/mqdefault.jpg)
On February 16, 2019 this video hit 100,000 views. Thanks everybody for spreading the joys of common core!
Thank you for the help
This lady😲 is crazy for teaching her students this method. I also saw PewDiePie making fun of her. ruclips.net/video/pNCkp6x5yT8/видео.html
Most jacked up method to multiplication.
@@SapphirakClaymore thanks for sharing! ruclips.net/video/pNCkp6x5yT8/видео.html is where it begins.
April 7, 2020 - 208,332 views
The area model is used to teach conceptual understanding of multiplication and how it relates to area. It is not meant to replace the standard algorithm. It's a concrete and visual way to show multiplication understanding. In Common Core, students start learning the standard algorithm in fourth grade and master it in fifth grade. We don't give teaches a hard time for having students count on their fingers when they are learning to add, so why would we take away this strategy that builds a strong understanding of the way multiplication works? People that are upset with the area model or common core are often taking these teaching practices out of context. There is a reason the U.S. has low math test scores. We want to go straight to algorithm and memorized skills instead of true conceptual understanding. Our children will have jobs that do not even exist yet and will face problems in our world that we can't imagine. Why wouldn't we want to give them all the strategies we can and teach them to be flexible thinkers?
The US has one of the worst literacy rates in the developed world. Common core was to help. It didn't. You can see it in Gen Z. Stunned, triggered, almost helpless.
I never had a child in an American school, but I also haven't seen that anyone explains why this area method works at the earlier grades. When I started to learn basic geometry (not real geometry with theorems), we were taught how to compute the area of a rectangle. It took about 3 seconds to understand it.
I can buy the notion that some kids will understand one method more easily than another. I don't buy the notion that the classic methods can't be explained to children.
I don't think my calculator has an option for "draw a large box"
Hehehehe
mines too
the point is that you have a calculator like most kids these days. There's no point in forcing kids to memorize tables anymore. It's more important to learn about the concepts in the long run, because it's far better for problem solving.
Paper nowadays is so cheap that the poor can afford to waste it. Doing the "new method" on old days paper prices, then you need to be the equivalent of a millionare/Billionare to be that kid today.
The "old method" which I was thought large multiplication saves hugely on paper usage because the old method saves on real estate in the calculations. New method is still too complicated method as it has too many steps to remember for many kids. The carry the tenth number should be the most complicated bit of the old method. Less steps to remember.
@@fernank017 If everyone has a calculator, why bother drawing boxes???? Why bother lerning anything?
Okay, but I can see why they're doing this. Breaking down the problem the way Area Model does gets students used factoring so that algebra and higher math becomes a continuation of the basic math they learned. It's basically planning for the future so that they have an easier time with algebra and above. Higher math is where American students have been falling behind compared to foreign students. This teaches the concepts at a younger age. Thanks for the video though, very interesting.
ROFL! Not.
@@SilverSingingMethod Just telling you facts, bro.
As someone who's gone through common core I can say, yeah no it took me forever to learn because it was a lot to learn! I got so bored with it all the time, it was tedious having to draw out all those little boxes and stuff - everyone I knew hated that.
I'm 17 now but I still have a burning passion for common core
@@itsohaya4096 I totally get that it is difficult and time consuming. It might be a total waste of time. I was just point out what they were trying to accomplish.
@@ronn9853 how about we listen to kids and ask them what's easier. Not everyone learns the same, there's neurodivergent kids that exist and it can confuse the living crap out of them. I learned the old way and had no issues with algebra
I never learned common core math as a kid. This is the first time I've seen it explained rather than just complained about, and holy crap, the way she did it (common core) makes so much more sense to me than the way he did. Watching her, I didn't feel stupid and inadequate! I'd have loved to have been taught this way!
@twistedblktrekie thanks for the lattice reference.
I echo this. I never 'got' math when I was in school. I was in honors classes for everything else, but regular ed classes for math. Numbers just didn't stick in my head with the way we were taught. Her explanation makes so much more sense to me and as I looked more into the common core math, so did the ways they taught other types of problems. If I had been taught this way, I probably would have liked math classes a lot better. In fact, as I got older, these methods are what I used in my head for math, methods that I wasn't taught in school, but worked better for me. I hate hearing people complain about common core math and how it 'takes longer.' At least common core is teaching number sense to kids who math doesn't come naturally to.
What all the haters don’t understand is people like you guys. Sometimes, students don’t get it. They DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Continually banging them over the head with the exact same method just doesn’t work. They decide they’re stupid, and shut down. So, instead, now let’s try this method. It’s long. It’s annoying. But if this fits in your brain, and you get the answer? That’s brilliant. Now that you’ve got it, let me show you the shortcut algorithm. 9/10 times, when they get this method down, now suddenly the other method fits in their brains. NOT ALL STUDENTS ARE ALIKE. Teaching more ways to get the right answer? That’s important, so we can reach more learners- instead of them saying “eff this noise, math is too hard” and giving up.
So mabye if somebody is having troubles with math, they can be taught this way, otherwise, don't teach everybody using a method that is used for people who can't understand. This is just like genderfluid language, and the lefts attempt to get rid of gender language, and make it all gender neutral. Just because some people are offended by non-offensive language, does not mean that everybody should have to suffer.
@@d-real-moop7824 uh.... No. You're entirely incorrect in your thinking. That's hella flawed logic, very ignorant, and what the hell does that have to do with math? Just stop before you hurt yourself twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your bigotry.
In my head: (35x10)+(35x2)=350+70=420
I did it in my head the same way you did it.
@@justice3043
I did the same way like Sonja. It took me 10 seconds.
But when you’re a 3rd Grader 😬
I don’t think like that at all
Basically it.
Sorry folks. This is NOT new math or common core! What she is demonstrating is a basic principle of algebra. It is the "distributive law" and is basic to any binomial expansion. Any multiplication problem is essentially an application of the distributive law. I am 72 years old and this very technique was taught to me in advance placement math when I was a 7th grader. The distributive law is not usually presented as a method for a multiplication problem but there is certainly nothing wrong with the presentation. A good teacher will present several methods for solving a problem. One method will click for a student and the alternate method will click for another student. Students better know how to discover alternate methods in math or they will never survive trigonometric identities and calculus, much less anything beyond calculus. Good for her! Also, this goes back to at least the 17th century!!
Yep, she just blocked it instead of using FOIL. The "new math" is the same math, it's just taught in a way that teaches numeracy. A bunch of people who only learned the ritual of arithmetic (a problem common core seeks to correct) are having a tantrum about it.
The saddest part is that these parents are gonna see algebra for the first time in *years* and decide it's common core, then raise a stink instead of helping their kids with it. These parents will hold their children back.
The two methods are complementary. The area model helps explain why the “old school” method works. Why do you “add” a 0 on the second line before multiplying? The area model answers this question. Ultimately, we want the children to use the “old method”. But showing them why it works helps develop critical thinking and the will to be able to explain the reason for things. Most school and university students hate proofs because they were not used to prove things, just to accept them. But the power of math resides in the capacity to demonstrate rules and theorems, because once they are proven, they become a universal truth.
I agree, the outrage here is unfounded. Although it would be a bit overboard if students were having to draw it out like this for every problem imo.
you're correct, the issue that I've found in higher level math (8th grade students for example) is that many of them were never actually taught the standard algorithm, only area method, or repeated addition etc. As such these students are hopelessly behind their peers and rarely if ever is there time to give them the specific help they need because they are missing so much.
@@saraspence4788 I've watched 8th graders count out 19 X 24 using 24 individual dots in 19 different groups, it is honestly astounding.
Just because it isn't the way you learned it, just because it takes longer, and just because you dont like it doesn't make it bad. We all learn differently and I frankly am happy that we are giving children multiple different methods and tools so they can learn using what works best for them.
100% Agree. All this griping just because it's not the way you're used to or it's how we've done it before is ignorant. Kids are grasping a concept in a new way and that's not a bad thing.
I believe the reason for this window method is two fold:
Help them practice with a skill that will come in handy when later multiplying binomials instead of using the FOIL method
And help them get started in breaking numbers apart for factoring or during factoring
This is why I’m homeschooling my daughter.
correct
Why? This method of multiplication is perfectly fine and, in fact, it will better prepare students for high school algebra when they learn about the distributive property.
@@yamatocannon1 Hello! Since you asked, I will explain. I've worked for a school district for over a decade as both an aid and a teacher, and I've seen how these poor teachers are run into the ground trying to teach their students the "preferred common core method", and how students struggle with this concept versus other tried and true methods. The fact of the matter is, all students are different. They think differently, and they learn differently. I was lucky to be diagnosed with ADD at a young age so that I could get the appropriate help I needed to survive school. I had a wonderful group of tutors who taught me several different ways to complete math problems.
In the last decade, I worked with a WONDERFUL math coach who taught his students the same, that it's great to learn how to do something in as many ways as possible. It doesn't matter how you get the answer, as long as you get there. I think that's so important. I understand that most schools these days are digging their heels in to keep the common core way and are enforcing it in classrooms, but I also know from experience how it drives everyone bonkers. It's a subjective standpoint, sure, but it's definitely not a loved method where I'm from. Schools will always find more ways to "help our students", but there's a reason why my state produces the lowest test scores in the US, and we absolutely enforce the common core method. As I am currently still living in this state, my husband and I have a strong desire to homeschool our daughter, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's our decision, and we believe it is the right one for our child. Anyway, I hope I helped clear things up, since you rose up to challenge me. ;) Hope you have a fantastic day!
It is not about fast, core helps them think out the problems instead of memorization. When algebra time comes, core will help them better. I used to think the same way; I am 66 so I understand your frustration to change. But if I can learn it, so can any other parent/grandparent. You Tube helps a lot.
When I got introduced to multiplication this is what we were taught:
we started by understanding what multiplication actually does. (Spoiler alert: It‘s addition). So we had a problem: 3x5. This means you have to add 5+5+5. 3 times a five. Or five times a three.
We did this for all numbers from 1 to 10 until we could do them pretty fast. In German we call it „das kleine einmaleins“ which translates to „the small onetimesone“. We had to learn them by heart because that‘s a thing you just have to know. We used flashcards, computer games, had competitions, etc. to make sure we had at least some fun while learning it.
Then suddenly there were problems like 11x3 or 12x5. Now obviously you can do this as 10x3 + 1x3. But since this gets pretty difficult once you reach higher numbers, we got intruduced to multiplication with borrowing. (But we were taught what the borrowing actually does).
The area thing was taught later since it is kinda hard to understand how area calculations work. (I‘m not sure wether the children who are taught common core maths actually understand that they are calculating the area.)
The method the lady demonstrated helps when learning disabilities are involved. If you can learn and do it the standard way without issue, fantastic. However, several other methods like this are taught in order to have it "click" with everyone, not just those who get the standard way right off. Not everyone learns everything the same ways.
If you tried to teach me that long way in 3rd grade I would have never gotten it. And I'm a math idiot, never got past algebra. Doing 14 steps and art work is a waste of time on a simple concept.
This should be made clear in class. "OK, kids, now I'll show you this method for anyone who is confused by the first."
This common core is a crutch and should be used as one - after a time you remove it, otherwise it only gets in the way.
Common core helps kids understand the numbers. Only learning the ritual of arithmetic without a strong foundation in how numbers work is of the reasons why people hit algebra and fall apart.
Teaching kids with different learning capabilities different ways on how to solve a math problem is how kids learn to solve the problem better. 1 specific way is not going to teach all kids how to do math. You can't teach a visual learner how to read a problem and figure it out just like someone who reads well on how to visualize a problem. Every kid is completely different. That is the problem with common core math. It's rigid, and it confuses most kids. When they go to ask their parents how to work the problem most parents can't even work it out for the child the common core way. Most parents don't even have time to learn it that way. I've seen my own kid struggle with common core math.
I mean for these math problems it’s easier to do it on your head….
35 X 10 = 350
35 X 2 = 70
350 + 70 = 420
Thats exactly what I did too lol.
That's exactly what "new math" is teaching kids to do. Manipulate numbers.
I was taught that box method in elementary school, however I can pretty much do that equation in my head faster than both of those
35×10=350
35×2=70
420
They're kidding, right???? Why go through all those unnecessary steps when the regular is so much faster and makes more sense???
Common core concepts are designed to give you tools to recognize patterns and shapes with numbers. Training kids to just be fast calculators without a deeper understanding of what is going on places a ceiling on their ability when newer concepts are introduced.
@@whermanntxDidn’t you learn biology? Kids start with the simple stuff like memorization because their minds are still developing,and logical stuff comes next.
But common core starts with the logical stuff, which can make learning difficult .
There are some exceptions,but this counts for the majority of kids.
I've watched a few of these new multiplication videos since hearing about the method. I think it finally clicked for me why they shifted to this. When breaking numbers down to their large components (10s or 100s), you can more quickly get a ballpark estimate of the answer in your head. This is more applicable in real life when you're doing math on the fly in a grocery store or sorting a bill, etc.
Nice video - the splicing the videos together really shows the difference.
I’ve never been in an adult situation where I couldn’t use my phone calculator
Exactly! Or if you already know how to count back change really well then you dont ever use common core in real life experiences, just in school.
If you get good at these problems, you can do this in your head without pulling out your phone
math is useless
Spencer: used car sales men love people like you. Always having to pull out your “calculator” every time a figure is mentioned. Not truly understanding how anything is calculated.
The problem is it doesn’t scale. Try it with 4 digit numbers
That was my first critique.
Everyone has their panties in a bunch over this method of multiplication. This method is taught alongside the standard form and kids are usually given a choice of which method theyd rather do. This method is good because it shows how the distributive property works and why standard multiplication works the way it does
So basically they are doing FOIL (first, outside, inside, last), but they are adding in boxes. I could see why breaking it down to initially explain it would help kids, but I don't think it is any simpler than doing it the old school way.
It’s basically (30+5) * (10+2) , if u intuitively rearrange the question into 35(10+2) it becomes much easier to solve. Now, if this method teaches students to intuitively think like that, then it’s great.
Class: 35 * 12
HW: 2x^2 - 4 = 3
Test: compute the derivative of y = ln(sinx) * 4x^3 - e^arctan(3x)
Hallam P. Hello chain rule
4(cot(x)x^3+3x^2ln(sin(x))) -((3e^arctan(3x))/(9x^2+1)), chain rule all the way
Did you factor in the wavering flux capacitor?
To me, both methods are identical. The common core method seems to explicitly separate the multiplication and addition steps where as the old method does both Simultaneously.
IMO, the old method doesnt do both simultaneously well. In the first step of the old method, 2x5. When you carry the 1, explaining why we add 1 to the next multiplication is confusing to a new student. The common core method shows how the multiplication of 2x5 explicitly adds ten to the total.
That’s all opinion though.
This is just the way you TEACH common core math. When kids have practiced this way for 12 years, they will be better able to do it in their head much faster. It has been proven with neuro science that this is the way the brain works. When I try to do it in my head the way I learned, I get lost. I skip a few steps of the way common core is taught. I say 35x10 = 350, then add 2 more 35's (or 70). 350 + 70 is a lot easier than carrying tens in your head.
That common core method was probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life.
My sweet summer child... let's hope you never find cnn.
Works for a lot of kids in my experience.
If it works, what's the problem with it?
The area model uses Algebra's binomial multiplication representation with each 2 digit number in expanded form. 35x12=(30+5)(10+2). It can be quicker with less chance of ERRORS!
ALL methods are chosen by TEXTBOOKS, NOT Common Core!
You must refer to 'old' school math that produced generations of math illiterates who could compute but easily confused by simple problems.
Reagan found adults confused & stressed by word & multistep problems!
Almost all schools teach both methods. The longer form is for kids to get concrete understanding operations. They are later taught the standard algorithm, after understanding multiplication.
The area model multiplication would have made more sense to me than the way I learned it. I never understood why you skipped a place and added an arbitrary 0 until I taught myself that it was like 35 X 10 and that's where the zero came from. Don't just do something and say that's the way the method works.I have a lot of trouble with that. I teach computer science and web development to students now and I always explain why something is called something and why the method is that way so it sticks better than memorizing for the sake of memorizing.
Also the area multiplication makes sense if you're doing math in your head.
The problem is this common core may be better for the select few who are struggling for the math to click. Once a person learns how/why it makes no sense, and for the kids who are not struggling this is just another way to confuse them and possibly earn a wrong answer even though they could get the right answer. This common core should be used for tutoring
Never has a problem understanding the arbitrary zero. Why is it such a problem for some?
I had trouble with alignment too as a youngster until my mom and fourth grade teacher explained that the place value above the line corresponded with the place value below the line. I never needed the zeros or x's some people used as place holders.
@brendasandoval484 it's the why you do it that wasn't explained very well for me.
As a adult with dyscalculia, I found it easier to follow along and not get lost with common core.
Although, it does seem needlessly long and thorough for most. I can see the benefit for someone like myself.
There is no way to do this on a standardized test. Like you will never finish.
@twistedblktrekie No they don't.
I kinda love common core. It's not the time that it takes that matters....its how deeply it makes them think and break down the problem to truly understand it. And they will add more time to SATs if necessary. Just relax people. It will be ok.
It is a long journey to reach the answer by this new method.
I think the new math is confusing as it's different, but I also recognize it's more in line with how our brains calculate when we don't have paper... I've always broken numbers up (similar to the video) in my mind...
If we were standing in a field with no paper and you asked me what 354 + 282 My brain would automatically say... Hmm, well 300 + 200 is 500... So 500.... 50 + 80 is 130, which added to that original 500 would bring me up to 630... 4+2 is 6, so 636 - it would take just a couple seconds to calculate mentally using this method.
I would not picture stacking 354 above 282 and carrying numbers in my mind like you would with traditional math on paper. The way our brains work abstractly with numbers is much more similar to 'common core math' than it is to traditional. I think it's important to understand both.
There are lots of different ways to visualize math, and multiple ways to solve the same problem...Giving students the opportunity to try many of them is great. Different tactics will work better for different kids. UNLIKE when I was a kid and there was ONE "recognized" method, and a lot of just rote memorization.
The new way is much more obvious why it gives the correct answer, whereas most people don't know why the old school method works they just use it. Which is the main issue with why people are bad at math nowadays. They don't know why any of it works they just want the equations and then struggle to understand more complex topics. Whats even funnier is I can do area math in my head faster than you can write down using the old method, so the issue with how long it takes seems redundant. Obviously you're faster at the old method. Its what you were taught and have used for years.
The classic way is the same, but optimized. 35×12 = 35×10 + 35×2. There's no value in multiplying the unit digits separately, as this should be building on the knowledge gained when learning to multiple multi-digit numbers by a single-digit number.
@@avishevin1976 the “old optimized method” falls apart quickly once you start getting more digits involved. 265 x 103 is a lot easier to understand in the area method if you are just starting to learn math.
Both methods work, but ultimately what matters the most isn’t how fast you can do it, but that you understand why it works.
Why did she do the multiplication with common core but addition (Step 3) with old-school method even if an addition method exists in common core?
Common Core ONLY requires the "OLD" method but wants alternatives to avoid "one size fits all" limitations. Teachers decide which methods to use.
@twistedblktrekie you can see how much better at math high school kids are today, oh wait a minute....they aren't
I noticed that as well! I said wait, and now all of a sudden she comes in with the old method of addition.?
I see now that it gives the student a separate way of doing the problem, sure it may take longer but the old method of multiplication and division were quite confusing. For example doing old school addition versus old school multiplication is very different. It's confusing to understand how to work the old method of multiplication. So now if they just can't get it, like I was, there is another option. Where only using the old school addition and subtraction is needed, and the old and confusing method of multiplication and division is no longer needed.
@@phillippardo5712 you don't need to understand why it works the first time you use the old multiplication. All you need is to remember the method and follow it. Do 10 multiplications a day for a week and you will remember it, even if you don't understand why it works.
Do you understand how a circle area is calculated? You don't need to, in order to use the formula.
Just as you don't need to understand how exactly a screw holds your drywall, as long as you know how to use it right :)
This extra time that they’re waisting they could be teaching these kids about credit, money management and investments.
Helping kids understand math is NOT IMPORTANT???
The area model uses Algebra's binomial multiplication representation with each 2 digit number in expanded form. 35x12=(30+5)(10+2). It can be quicker with less chance of ERRORS!
Hello, everyone, I'm here as a standard algorithm proponent. First teach them about prime and composite numbers. Notice that both the multiplicand and its multiplier are composite. 35 is 5x7, and 12 can either be broken down into 2x6 or 3x4. Obviously this is lower level math so I need to break down the 12, not the 35. so I can either do 35x2 to get 70 and multiply 70 by 6 to get 420; or I can multiply 35x 3 to get 105, then multiply 105x4 to produce 420.
I’m assume “standard” algorithm means the previously taught method… if so: The method you outlined in your post is quite literally common core.
You only reduced one number into different factors before multiplying through and adding, where as common core broke down both numbers.
I had no idea this stupidity was going on in our public schools (no children). Strictly from an efficiency standpoint I'd never use Common Core. Why would you add so many unnecessary and confusing steps? Someone else is drawing that stupid box and I've already finished...
It makes more sense with algebra than polynomial long division at least to me
@twistedblktrekie speak english please
sixtyinsix they normally teach this stuff when you’re first learning a new math concept and then afterwards teach you the speedier method because things like the area model are used first so that you can better understand the “why” of the different math concepts
It's bad. My daughters teacher in 2nd grade (she's now in 6th) actually told me to keep teaching my daughter the normal way to do double digit addition. She said she wasn't allowed to teach them any way but this dumb way.
@@lesterine77 the sad part with both parents and teachers is that they themselves don't understand this "new" way and so refuse to learn it because it isn't what they are used to. While yes this is a more roundabout way to get the answer this method wasn't built for that purpose. It was built to teach conceptual understanding to build the basics for most other math since multiplication is at the heart of most mathematical concepts. Most people taught old math cannot tell you why they are doing it or why that answer works beyond that is the way I was taught and I memorized it.
Can't speak to the ups or downs of common core due to my lack of familiarity, but I will say that despite learning the "classic" multiplication method when I was in school, this new area model is actually a written out way of how I have always done my mental math. There is no way I could ever do the classic written out way in my head, but splitting apart into multiple pieces makes way more sense as I spatially pull apart and add the numerical images mentally. I'd argue that schools should probably teach both methods to students since they each seem to be useful for different purposes.
I get it now why the answer is 420 because all the people who thought this was a good idea did it on 420 because anyone who believes this is better then the old way is high AF
The way that is taught in schools now is more intuitive. What you are doing is an abstract way of thinking about it as it comes down to "follow these exact set of rules and it will work out i promise". The box method is a drawn out, on paper method for how you are suppose to do mental math. Essentially the new method says "break up the constituant parts, then put them back together" which is incredibly simple to understand. The box method even gives a visualization of this process for when students are first learning the process. I don't get the backlash at all
And it can be extended into other contexts, notably algebraic expressions.
The backlash is because the political right-wing leadership and talking heads in the US hate public education. Anything public education does is wrong and terrible because it's _public_ education - It's big government. But they can't just frame it as being bad _because_ it's public education. So instead they try to portray it as being worse than the old way. They do this by confusing the audience, often by leaving out context and explanations that students receive in class, or by finding a bad decision made by one teacher and conflating that single teacher's decision with the whole of "common core".
Common core also has English standards. You will hear very few complaints about common core English compared to complaints about common core math. This is because most people don't actually understand math at all, so it's easy to confuse them and make things seem worse when talking about math.
Anyone who understands the _why_ in math will recognize what's going on here when they see an example of how the technique works, and they will also recognize that these "new" methods (which actually aren't that new) are easier to justify and explain than the standard algorithms.
No wonder kids are suffering in school. How f'in ignorant. By the time they finish that problem it would be summer vacation.
LOL! Very true, Chuck!
The amount of stupid parents in the comments explains a lot about why kids are struggling. Their own parents can't figure out the rationale behind basic math.
Yes, the method you learned is faster. The method that is now being taught actually explains what is happening behind the numbers.
Theres a good reason most of you didn’t pursue things with lots of numbers. You don’t understand the fundamentals. If you can’t see why common core is better for someone learning numbers for the first time (like a child) then you probably can’t do calculus lol
I have a bachelor's degree in theoretical mathmatics, and so I obviously had to take a large amount of higher level math courses. I am worried about how kids who do pursue higher math will do without having any knowledge of practical computation methods. Calculus is hard enough on it's own. Now calculus students have to unlearn silly things like the "attached zeros" rule in addition to learning the new stuff that comes with calculus.
1) Kids are taught both methods.
2) The goal of "common core math" isn't to get the answer the fastest way possible, it's to develop the best understanding of what's happening.
You can teach a kid to recognize sight words and that's great. But when they encounter words they don't know, they have no skills for decoding it. You teach phonetics so that kids can decode words they've never seen before. It's exactly the same thing with "new" math. We're trying to help kids conceptualize numbers. How they can be broken up and put back together, reformed and manipulated. 35 x 12 is (35 x 10) + (35 x 2), it's also (40 x 12) - (5 x 12), it's also a lot of other things beyond what "old school" math teaches kids it is.
So is it slower? Yes. Does it make for better understanding of numbers? Also yes.
wrong
@@jeffreyambrose5202 Very insightful.
Ok, but numbers don’t necessarily need to be understood and broken down the same way words are. Most kids can just as easily conceptualize numbers and quantity by counting on fingers and using concepts such as physically drawing 8 apples for the question “if John has 8 apples and eats 3, how many does he have left?” And then crossing out 3 to count the remainder. That’s way more simple and easy to understand and remember than this way. Now, this way may help for a small selection of kids who need a different angle of approach. But for the majority, the old way is way more effective. Especially when you take into consideration that when away from school when you need to do math on the fly, this method isn’t going to cut it. And in many ways, it’s unnecessary. If I’m trying to add taxes to my total bill. I’d be better off developing the skill through repetition and mental math than trying to conceptualize numbers from every possible angle. Most will naturally realize these concepts over time anyway without school making them do it. Or at the very least, using this method when they’re just learning how to count period is way too complicated and advanced. It’s using the FOIL method thats used for algebra, more than a few years above their realistic learning level.
@@sealink129 Let me know when they can do 35 x 12 by counting it out on their fingers.
People hanging on to "My way is the best/only way!" is exactly why progress is so difficult.
@@Darkslide632 you must not have read my entire comment then. I never said it was the only way, nor that it was solely the best. Just that it was best for most people. Some may benefit from this method, but in most people’s everyday life, they will literally never use this. Heck, practically the only time they’ll need to know multiplication like that example at all, is for things like construction and maybe bulk grocery shopping. And at that point, most will simply use a calculator. I’m not saying that this method isn’t useful or that it has no value, (and maybe it came across that way but that’s not what I meant), I just meant that in situations that need this kind of multiplication, it’s almost never a situation where knowing the complexities of math and numbers is needed to understand how to reach the product. And that I think that 2nd/3rd grade is too young to be learning what is essentially algebra level comprehension which in itself isn’t taught until well into 6th/7th grade
Nah this is really a good model for math problems with larger, less simple numbers. It is honestly kind of how one might try to do it in their head but just drawn out on paper. The concept is great for teaching critical thinking. I see the problem being what it always was in school -- Kids so focused copying what's on the board they don't have time to grasp the critical thinking part of breaking a seemingly difficult problem into its fundamental comments. They'll be focused on remembering all the little rules and steps, trying to regurgitate information, fail to correctly carry one number or something little , get the problem wrong, the system will fail them, and place in a remedial class only to have their potential stripped away. When instead all they would need to get them thinking critically was one little tip bubble that said "think about how easy multiply 10 * 30 is, or 2 * 5, we are doing that here also, but by applying each of the numbers' core units to their smaller components and then multiplying"
Tldr; this method is almost like trying to solve it in your head. And that's what kids need to start with... thinking critically....
Or you could teach the MULTIPLICATION tables so the kids are not drawing stupid squares and all types of nonsense to get the answer. It is any wonder kids are not learning math??????
Your multiplication tables went past 12?
But in all seriousness… how do you think the kids solve for numbers in the box? By already knowing 2x5= 10. Ie: knowing their times tables.
@@samihawasli7408 The sad thing is they are just doing more work to get the answer and it is not really helping them learn math at all.
Who gets confused? The children or the parents? I think people are confused and they are saying the children are confused. Of course, this is not the calculation that we will use when we are under time pressure. In these cases, we can use whatever we like. When I took my standard exams, and they did not specify what computation methdo should be used, you can even use Magic Maths. You know, the kind like 5x = 10×/2. No one will tell you it is wrong.
But these maths are not the exam type maths... This is the conceptual maths. The kind that you will need when you are solving higher maths formulae. You know, the kinds of half numbers half Greek letters.
This is very interesting. I thought going into this I'd hate the idea of this new math. BUT, I really liked the teacher in this video; she really broke it down nicely and I think her students will be taught well.
Tell that to all the Chinese kids memorizing their multiplication tables on their 5-6th birthday. It doesn't get more mental math than that. As for logic, in the time it takes to do one of these problems, you can explain to a kid why fundamentally multiplication is addition done many times so it all ends up being the same anyways, which is why it doesn't matter at all how you multiply 5x3 or 3x5. It really isn't that hard to understand, drawing out 35x12 or 12x35 would of proven the same point. If you did this example once to prove the point, great, I'd support it. If you're asking a kid to do this every time they have a multiplication problem, you're wasting the kid's time and potential.
+Wei Wang it also makes the addition pretty messy.
Common Core DOES fact tables. I don't understand why people think it doesn't!!! You overlook the value of counting objects that visualize & prove the math. Understanding math often uses methods, like counting objects, that are NOT practical. Common Core ONLY requires traditional methods but wants alternative to avoid "one size fits all". Other methods are picked by teachers & textbooks!!
Hi again... I admit that I multiply like this... IN MY HEAD! I would NEVER teach a kid this, as the first method.... But the POINT that everyone glosses over, is that children FIRST need to learn basic math... Many don't.... which is why multiplication and division, and even adding and subtracting is so difficult... When a child is not proficient is basic mult tables, and adding.. they will not even get common core.
Hi, DavidRio Stanczak. I disagree with your claim. You don't need to be proficient in basic multiplication tables, etc. to be successful in math.
I never memorized my multiplication tables. I sometimes still add things on my fingers. And when I do computations in my head, they are often similar in nature to the method shown in this video. And now I'm a PhD candidate in mathematics at a top 30 math PhD program in the US.
The "common core" stuff has always made sense to me. I was lucky, since I was always able to pick up on this stuff when it was taught in the boring old "just memorize everything" way. Now, the newer methods might not make sense to everyone, and we should strive to improve what we do. But I'm sure there will be people who would have miserably failed under the old system who will flourish under this system.
Calculus: Old school
d/dx (x^2+1)
•x^2 becomes 2x^(2-1) which equals 2x. 1 is a constant and so it becomes zero
• so d/dx (x^2+1) equals 2x+0=2x
Calculus: Common core style
d/dx (x^2+1)
•First we plot a graph for all real values of x
•Then we note down the values of the slope at each value of x
•Then we design a function whose solution set is this exact set of values and that’s how we find the derivative!
Math is a visual subject. Especially when you get to higher level math. Those who never succeeded at higher level math or were just “okay” at it didn’t understand this. All equations, from simple addition to the highest levels of calculus, create images. You see this first in algebra with graphing and then in geometry with shapes. Eventually you’ll see it in calculus with limits and more. The whole point of this way of teaching it is to create intuition and visuals for kids to be able to better understand math. Sure, you just solved a problem that had no relevance to anything. But math in real life is used on real things and is relevant to everything we do. So being able to visualize it makes you much more likely to succeed later on with math and in STEM.
This is true for me. Common core makes more sense to me now at age 65 then anything attempted to be taught to me years ago. I can visualize and chunk groups of numbers together in my head which was never a concept from the old school ways.
Good grief...the common core math would take you five times as long and use up way more space. Who came up with that!?!
Kid at his first job after learning math this way: "Let me get my notepad so I can do the math to give you your change."
bwahahahaha
I know yall are in here getting your panties in a bunch but you're lucky you understand the short way. I had to take dumb math in high school because the core parts of math multiplication and division did not make sense to me. I would understand algebra 1&2 but I would get the multiplication and division wrong. I'm 29 years old and I'm getting ready to go back to school and try to get an associates because I decided to only get a certificate before so I wouldn't have to take college math. I'm currently studying for the math placement tests. common core has literally brought me to tears happy because it finally fucking makes sense and I feel like a god damn math genius. They've realized that the old way of teaching kids are leaving a lot of smart kids with brains that are wired a bit different behind. My mother could never help me with math because it did no good. She would be like this guy and just be like do this and there is the answer but my brain was like, "SCREEEEEEEEE but why?" If common core was a thing when I was in school I have ZERO doubt in my mind that I would have had a significantly better GPA because I would have across the board D's and F's in math. I also wouldn't have spent countless hours at the kitchen table silently crying to myself until I passed out and gave up.
You're not alone. I teach math at the university level. I've seen so many students who say that my class was the first math class where they actually understood what was going on, and that they actually enjoyed a math class for the first time.
I don't always teach them the fastest ways to do things; rather, I teach them _why_ things work.
I'm glad you're doing much better with mathematics now! Keep up of the good work, and never be satisfied with a _how_ answer that doesn't also include a _why._ :)
skill testing question: how do you do calculus using common core?
seriously? the picture will swell into something like the sisteen chapel.
what collosal NONSENSE.
Back in the day, I took a few Calculus courses. I wish they used a more Common Core New Math approach and less in the grueling repetition of functions and equations. What I needed for my major was the concepts rather than the computation.
@@yunmoh628 actually, calculus deals with integrals or summations: the area under the curve. i remember the prof using little rectangles, dx, to represent the rectangles under the curve you were adding up and get the value of the area under the curve or the solution for the integral.
and that was all the mickey mouse, area rectangles that were ever needed.
similar approach was done when explaining derivatives, or rate of change or slope of a curve at a point or line. a little bar was used to visualize the slope made by connecting points, etc. that was all the visual needed, the rest was up to your brain.
maybe your professor sucked.
The guy isn't saying *why* you do any of his steps - it's faster for him because he's memorized the steps, but it's really bad as far as teaching, because there's no explanation of why. The woman is an actual teacher, and she's going slowly to make sure she doesn't skip steps, and she is showing the *connection* between multiplying, and geometry. You would be amazed how many college kids don't know that you multiply Length times Width to get Area of a rectangle, because nobody showed them that! Finally, this way of splitting up ones and tens, shows *why* we do things like carrying (place value) ... and it sets the stage for Algebra later on, when you multiply (3x + 5) times (1x +2) and it's similar to (30 + 5) times (10 + 2) that you learned as a kid. [I'm nearly 50, but I *do* remember learning the reasoning behind multiplying and carrying, back when teachers were given time to explain. The goal of Common Core is to bring that back!]
I can’t handle these new methods. I already let my child know that he won’t use 95% of what he learned in school. He just has to play the game to get good grades and graduate.
How is he passing school then? Really wondering
Maybe he won't use what he's learning in school but the smart kids will
@@yamatocannon1 so true
The purpose of the box/rectangle/area model is to lay the foundation for the distributive property. The area model is useful for understanding not just multiplication and division, but factoring polynomials, fractions, percents, ratios, and how this stuff is all connected. There is a lot of good stuff in common core, unfortunately, the teachers don't understand what they are doing either, so this teacher was a bad person to explain the area model. Two afternoons working on the area model to get a grasp of the distributive property, and it changes the world for most students. The ability to manipulate numbers/symbols using the distributive property is essential to making math easier, including what most people of think of as formal high school algebra. The long division sign is shorthand for the, wait for it, rectangle/area model. You will find the area model in Ray's Arithmetic published in the late 1800's. Those kids came out of 8th grade able to survey land, manage a small business, and do basic accounting doing math about 15-30 minutes a day, going to school for 6 months out of the year. This is hardly some new-fangled thing.
35x12 is an awfully easy example to do in your head. Something like 73x62 would be much harder for most.
It's not about getting to the answer quickly. It's just another way of thinking about what it means to multiply numbers in reality. Its good to challenge the mind to think differently, and learn that there are many ways to solve a problem. It's not meant to be taught as a replacement for other methods, just another tool in your mathematical toolbox.
I can easily do that in my head. Just take 35X10, and 2X35, and add it up
The area model represents the way we think when we are working these problems out in our heads. If you become proficient at it, you need pen & paper less & less. The old school method requires pen & paper, always.
Wut? I can totally calculate several multiplication with old method just by thinking in head.
When I do simple arithmetic on paper I use the traditional method. However I realize now then when I do simple arithmetic on especially multiplication in my head I used her method. I just never drew a box in my head though but It works its just a different way. Im sure once you get used to it on paper you can do it just as fast as traditional
exactly. Its the basis of what he did. He just believes it comes pre-packaged and works hey presto and you do it as an act of faith.
I actually learned both ways growing up, I was taught the traditional method originally but they also showed us how to do it with the box although I never used it except for homework and quiz assignments. The box method was easier for some kids in my class, however they didn't understand why it worked which is the biggest issue and what makes it so hard for kids and very hard for parents trying to explain it to them.
That is the problem of implementation. Schools taught kids to memorize & follow recipes with little time explaining. Textbook writers & Teachers ALSO need training to teach meaningful math properly!
When your Professor want your thesis 50 pages long
In a classroom we have a lot of different types of students. It's important to remember that they all are at different acdemic levels , each have different needs..some stduents understand math better if given them a visual for it. Some students can't memorize fact tables or forget it. The common core takes into account all those differences and adocates for a more inclusiv method. This doesn't "cripples" anyone. Learning more that one method is always beneficial for advanced kids..
35 × 12 = 70 × 6 = 420.
Not common core math. 10 times faster.
is this snit banned from schools yet?
To be honest with all, it does seem like the long way to grandma’s house. But what I understand, is that this is not the only way kids are being taught. The other faster method that we all know(stacked) is the one mostly covered, but by teaching this to the children should be that they understand the relationship between the ones, tens, and hundreds place and how they all come together in the multiplication process so then when they come back to the mostly used multiplication process, in their mind they understand the relationship between the numbers and can possibly calculate faster and more efficient.
How I learned to do it : 35 X 12
Add a 0 to 35 (350)
Double 35 (70)
(420)
From left to right in my head, takes 3 seconds. How it looked on paper : 35 x 12
-----------
420
Wasting children' time for no reason is bad, I think only the answer should be written.
Thank god I was in a Virginia elementary school (they don’t follow common core) I would failed everything. Like the “old school” way is the way I did it and even with that I was still struggling but god if I was expected to do it that way I think I would have died.
They are adding more steps and multiplying and adding more than they need to. What happened to memorizing your multiplication tables? I teach college classes and students do not know how to calculate percentages.
"Why don't kids memorize there multiplication tables, why don't they just memorize all of math instead of learning how to discover why things work?" And we wonder why america is fallen so far behind in mathematics since the cold war.
"their" not "there". Rote has its uses. When memorization is practiced it builds the portion of the brain that stores knowledge. When that portion is built sufficiently, the problem solving portion can then ask the bigger "why" questions. Knowledge builds on knowledge. People are not taught to build a smartphone before they learn how to use one.
@@lauriesolis1026 tHeIr NoT tHeRe. Its an internet comment not an essay. Youre a tool. Plus, you're analogy with the smart phone shows you didn't comprehend what I said. And it litteraly has no bearing as every country that doesn't do it in a memorization way produces far better mathematicians.
@Laurie Solis - You are, of course, correct. Thank you for sharing. People seem to be missing the critical step that follows "understanding the concepts"....and that is actually being able to quickly and accurately solve problems, and produce results. All too frequently, "easy to learn" doesn't equate to "easy to use". We need to be focused more on teaching the tools and techniques that can provide fast/precise "problem solving skills". Frequently, that requires...(gasp!)...memorizing things!
@The Multi Gamer - She corrected your grammar because bad grammar reflects a bad education....and thus adversely affects your credibility. (And it's "You're", not "Youre" a tool.)
As a math tutor, I must have missed the part where the 7 top scoring countries in math education don't teach memorization.* (#1.Singapore, #2.Australia, #3. Russia, #4. Iran, #5. Japan, #6. China, #7. India) *Spoiler Alert: they all teach advanced visualization/memorization/mental math problem solving skills....AKA "work". (And grammar, too. lol.) Some teach different methods/techniques of visualization and mental math, but the end results are that they all produce consistently higher math problem solving skills than the U.S. and other countries.
Hi...Try this on for size... Divide 12 by 2; because if you notice, every number multiplied by 5 is a half of itself in decimal form. Therefore, divide 12/2 and get 6. There are 7 5's in 35. 6*7 = 42. Multiply by ten; because the 6 was in decimal form. 42*10= 420
Yes, any number multiplied by 5 and divided by 10 will be half of itself. You are just taking extra steps to divide by 2.
Old School - it breaks the equation down to 35 x 10 (350) and 35 x 2 (70) = 420, and that over times becomes easy to visualize and do mentally. Common core is longer and more jumbled and definitely not something easy to visualize, how are people defending it? It's total bull.
not saying that this common core math looks good, but it is kind of ironic how the old school or checkerbox method of multiplication that we learned in school was only due to the price to print back when mathematicians were formalizing multiplication. it was the cheapest one out of all and the speed of doing it now is simply because we are used to it not strictly due to the way its organized. technically i believe cross multiplication ( multiply by units) is a more streamlined organizational system but not done very often so many of us would do it a lot slower than a method we are used to.
The only people that think common core is the better method is teachers. And the only reason teachers think it’s better is because the school board told them to say it’s better.
One must also consider that teachers are less academically inclined than they were 40 years ago.
It's a great time waster, that's for sure!
Sounds like something Archie Bunker would say as Edith Bunker masters the common core concepts and adapts the process as she calculates the money Archie owes her for the services she has provided to their household since they have been married. ruclips.net/video/ABrl1mKWLNw/видео.html
The so called hippy dippy method is why it works, gives an intuitive understanding of the distributive property of multiplication and sets the kids up for algebra and equations later.
teach your kids the area method so that they can multiply it out the old fashioned way. It will give them a much deeper understanding. Breakout the numbers so that they get an intuitive understanding of what carrying means , not just that its above 9. Thats rote learning
What is this convoluted unnecessary box drawing nonsense?
LOL
@@ronvidvomsumpfle6493 Funny enough I managed to learn how to do multiplication 50 years ago without drawing boxes and then go on to get an Honours degree in Mathematics followed by a Master's degree.
I am a 4th grade teacher and I'd like to set some things straight about Common Core Math. This is one of several strategies students are taught to conceptualize multiplication. Once the strategies are taught, students are allowed to pick the strategy that works best for them. This particular strategy helps students visualize how to break apart the numbers and multiply them. They do this becuase it's a lot easier to muliply numbers that end in a 0. It actually gives kids confidence in math because they realize large numbers can just be broken up into smaller numbers. As adults, many of us already realize this due to exposure and maturity with place value. However, many kids have a hard time conceptualizing that this is possible- especially if they're only taught the standard algorithm process. The standard algorithm, or "old way", is a great short-cut that is still taught, but is a 6th grade standard. If a student is already taught it by parents, I never say it's wrong or not allowed. I just say I'd like them to try these ways as well and see if it helps them make more sense of the problem. Common core was designed to match students' intellectual and developmental growth through teaching kids several different methods. The key idea here is to find what way works for you. Once 6th grade rolls around is when the standard is stressed more for efficiency purposes. However, we want to teach kids how and why we do something before we teach them a shortcut.
wow this was my first exposure to common core math and i have to say... it's identical to the old school method. you're just not seeing it lol. it's funny because you did the exact same steps but you just didn't write them down. you did them verbally. i think the problem with common core is that it's exactly right -- the parents learned the multiplication method on paper but don't actually understand what they're doing, so they have issues teaching it to their kids which is what I suppose common core is aiming to fix.
maybe the parents can understand basic algebra and the foil method (a + b)(c + d) = ac + ad + bc + bd and then they'll understand that this is what old school multiplication truly is as well as this new common core math. it all seems so trivial. sad to see parents struggling with this
The purpose of this strategy is to help students develop the understanding of the magnitude of the numbers keeping place value in tact. This is stepping stone in the process of developing multiplication understanding. The inserted strategy is one we still teach in the common core math sequence once students understand the place value involved in the numbers and how that place value affects the final product. After 4th grade, students are expected to become proficient with the standard algorithm. Unless you are taking the SATs mid year 4th grade, you will have moved past this strategy to the standard algorithm. You can see this expectation in the standards. They are publically available.
I worked it out in my head in less than 5 seconds. Why make maths so hard.
Both methods you see in the video are the same. Only the way of writing it down is different. I never saw the area model multiplication, it's kinda interesting to see the break down. I was taught using the 'old method'. And with this multiplication I was taught to make it simpler. So I would've changed the sum to 70 * 6 which is 420 ofcourse. So when you double one side you have to divide the other side. It doesnt work with all multiplications, but it speeds it up a lot.
I'm retired and find common core much easier to grasp the overall concept. In the beginning it appears longer because you have to adapt a new concept from what you're familiar with. For me, I see the bigger picture and the more I work with it I find myself naturally chunking groups of numbers in my head without writing them out in the big box. You can't do that in the old school way. Let's go hippie dippy...35 x 12 you start with 350 add 70 (35 x 2), group your hundreds = 400 plus 2 tens = 420. It looks harder written out when in fact is quicker in your head. It's just part of the learning process. This old dog can learn new tricks and I like it.
wrong
The new method shows why multiplication works.
The method we were taught growing up is an algorithm. It's efficient and works every time. However, it's not intuitive and cannot expand on to other systems.
Why, for example, do you put a zero on the last digit based upon what tens place you are in? We all do it, but mathematically, why is that okay?
This new method shows a geometric proof of how to do multiplication. It shows why the old style works. And it's aimed at trying to help students move beyond memorizing and algorithm. (What's also nice, is it shows how to simplify math and which digits are the most important for doing calculations.)
One of the biggest issues people are having with students is creative thinking skills. Students are very good at memorizing models but figuring out how to apply old models onto new systems is difficult.
Yes, the new method is clunkier. Yes, our way is much faster. But students if understand the new method, we can show them the old style a little later, and it will make a lot more sense.
I have to admit, the common core method is kind of fun, but you can't use it in university, and it is too cumbersome for daily life.
Imo it's far easier to multiply (10 + 7)*)(10 + 3) vs 17*13 in your head.
Common Core is intended to teach the concept of why the math works out the way it does, but when the teacher does not ask questions while teaching it the intent is lost. For example: When she broke out the 35 into 30 and 5, she did not ask anybody if they knew whey she was doing that. All the kids learn, in this extremely long process, is how to find an answer, just like in the old math. How many of us, for years, did the old school math and still didn't understand why. Common core is good for teaching why, if they do it right, but then go back and teach the more efficient methods after that. Then you get the best of both worlds.
So I’m 25 I was probably in the first wave of students who did “ new math “ as they called it then because actually you can do this for addition with this method . It makes it so overly complicated for such a simple equation.And what makes it worse is that the parents can’t even help because they don’t understand because fact of the mater is that this MAKE’S NO SENCE . My mom and I had to tell the teacher that I could do the multiplication in fact the the normal way I was faster than the rest of the class but the was she was doing it was so overly difficult . It literally came down to me telling her I can do it the way you’re doing it and continue to fail and not get it or I can do it the normal way and actually understand the math. The good thing is I only did that for one year .
A teacher should certainly allow any method that works. I'm surprised this was a problem, sorry to hear it.
Even if common core works (I don't know what studies have been done in that regard, so I don't know what actually leads to a deeper proficiency at math), he has a really good point about the SAT. You're pressed for time as it is--you don't need _more_ steps in problem-solving.
You don't have to know about the "studies". People who study these things are academic fucktards who are completely clueless and make things up as they go.
She didn't check off the 10 at the end. Guess she better start again!
The whole idea is so kids understand the why of math, and not just the most efficient way to arrive at the answer, it prepares them for more advanced math later.
Wait. but you did the same things in the same order as she did. [(2*30)+(2*5)] + [(10*30)+(10*5)]. The only difference is that she wrote them out horizontally instead of vertically. Traditional multiplication is only faster if you're able to visualize what numbers you're multiplying in your head, which some kids can't do especially when they're learning a new concept.
Yep, they did the exact same math, just presented in different ways. And I am willing to bet that for people who haven't been forced to use the standard algorithm over and over again for years, the "area model" makes a heck of a lot more sense.
My way of doing that problem was to take 12=6*2 so that (35*12)=35*2*6becomes 70*6=420. It sound longer than it is in my head.
@twistedblktrekie And neither of us used addition at all (at least nothing we couldn't easily do in our heads)! Using factors is much different than either of the methods everyone else is using are to each other. It doesn't work with every problem, but seeing factors can be quicker for some problems. The main point is that there is no one way to do math. I have a problem with people trying to teach that there is only one way to do math. a lot of people seem stuck in thinking that the 'traditional' way is the way it should be taught. I think it should be taught in the way the student gets it first and then teach other ways that come up with the same answer and show how they are the same.
There's also the consideration of its variables of 35 so you could reach the same answer with (10×35)+(2×35) =420 as well hence 350 + 70 = 420
Pemdas was a wonderful step by step thing
Joe Casson - Yes, the standard algorithm is, generally speaking, faster. That's the whole point. It was designed for efficiency. But it hides the actual mathematical ideas that are taking place. Do you understand what's actually going on when you use the standard algorithm?
The steps taken in the area model are, mathematically speaking, the _same steps_ you do in the standard algorithm. However, in the area model, it's much clearer what's actually going on when you multiply two numbers together.
The idea behind common core starts with a simple question: What is the point of mathematics classes in primary and secondary education?
In the past, the point was to get students to be computationally efficient so that they could succeed in other science classes so that the US could be a leader in technology and space exploration (pre-common core education policy is rooted in Cold War era politics).
But technology is so much better and more prevalent today than ever before. Despite what everyone's teacher used to tell them, yes, most people _do_ have a calculator with them at all times. We have easily-accessible powerful computational software available for free online! Why should we value computational efficiency by hand anymore? Computers/calculators are easily accessible and do these computations more accurately in less time!
So what's the point? The point, now, is to develop number sense. To actually _understand_ what's going on in mathematics. Mathematics is all logic-based. There is a _reason_ for _everything_ in mathematics, and there is a lot of power in being able to think critically about a single concept in a variety of ways.
Now, sometimes teachers' methods fall flat, and maybe some of the common core standards aren't developmentally appropriate. But if you actually take some time to think about the purpose of math education instead of just shouting that your children should be just as bad at math as you were, then you'll see that the main idea behind common core makes a lot of sense.
Common core is a joke and needs gone asap
U.S. math education WAS a joke!!
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html
@twistedblktrekie algorithms are the basics of tech; face it the method with the boxes is inefficient
Marissa Sensabaugh agreed
Exactly, in real life bosses don’t care how you get the answer, they just want it to be correct
This is a ridiculous amount of work for a simple math problem. Who ever came up with Common core should be waterboarded.
Honestly common core is the reason I’ve failed math classes in highschool.
U did the same only you chose 10*35 and 2*35
u take the extra time explaining it to 4th or 5th graders, not boomers who already know the math u being deceitful
In addition. U know how to do it. But not why. This will set them up perfect for factoring, expansion and distributive property.
420, how appropriate, you'd have to be fucking high to think common core math is a good idea.
Haha, good point 👍
LOOOOL
I know right
What's garbage is that most teachers teaching math are not even good at it themselves and they do not understand how to teach it properly. We need to go back to having people teach the subject that they like and are actually good at. Just because you have a teaching degree and you passed a couple of math classes in undergrad doesn't mean you will be good at teaching it.
twistedblktrekie my statement was not against common core math. I agree with it completely as long as a teacher knows how to teach it, many teachers tweak it and end up teaching to tests still and not properly explaining the "why.". In the state of Florida for someone to teach elementary math they do not need Calculus 1. They need that if they want to be a math teacher for middle grades and higher. And elementary school is where it all starts, if you do not set the foundation students will struggle the whole time. My son is in first grade and I have seen first hand the impact to him of having a teacher that cannot effectively teach math. Luckily I love math, and I do not just know algorithms nor do I believe memorizing them makes you good at math, so I am able to help fill in the gap for my son but so many parents cannot do that. If our teaching models were so good we wouldn't have so many kids struggle through just to pass tests because so much of teaching is still focused on rote memorization and not problem solving. Of course it is getting better slowly and I would say the most affected generation of crappy teaching models was the millennial generation. I am much older and I work with millennials who have many great people skills and negotiating skills but when it comes to basic problem solving many of them struggle in the work place and look to others to make big decisions. Hopefully it will continue to get better due to open dialog like this. :)
You realize both methods do the same thing? 5x2 + 30x2 + 10x5 + 30x10 is what you’re doing with old school math. The area model just shows that same method in a more visible way.
and absolutely no need to, and a complete waste of time, but a good way to completely confuse a young child, whats the matter with some of you people, id rather have my children learn the things they will need coming right out of high school, skills they can use now, to a kid those extra steps are confusing and difficult, and they can't figure out why they are even needed, and if they choose to want a better career, then they can go to college and learn the advanced skills they may need.
You should never have to long winded extra operations to do a different operation unless absolutely necessary. Why add 4 numbers to multiply, which would require learning to carry and use traditional vertical addition, when you could just learn to do the traditional vertical multiplication, carry in basically the same way as addition and do significantly less extra addition, all taking up much less space than the other method?
Why do you want to be limited to ONLY "one size fits all" OLD methods? Teachers should adapt to learners. Try mental math or counting change with traditional vertical methods!!
TheMysticEmperor If all we want is practicality, then we stop at arithmetic. How many among use have practical use of quadratic equations? How many had practivcal use of angles of depression? Maths are not just about being practical. It is also a tool to better understand things around us. I don't know how many of use compute the surface area of a circle on a daily basis.
Sigh.... what this poster doesn't understand is that the old way is just memorization that you still have to use your pencil and paper for as an adult.
The Area Model is teaching other concepts to help in upper math and to teach the brain to do all calculations in the head.
No relying on calculators or even writing.
This and another form are taught in India. They teach at least 3 ways to do the same problem.
That is why Indian kids are so advanced in math. The entire class can answer hundreds of thousands calculations verbally without writing anything down because they learn these upper thought processes.
This guy literally has no idea what he's talking about because he has no experience and is therefore shortsited.
My son is the top 4th % in math in the nation. He taught the area model to his 2nd grade class. It helped all of them. And since it's a 4th grade concept; they were ahead of the curve.
An opinion is not experience. All this guy has is an opinion.
People implementing the common core should understand that the goal of finding the answers fast is to help children tackle higher level math faster. We can't do common core on timed state tests. Too many process that many kids will find it hard to follow. Unncessesary processes only confuse kids.
Right