Is this a "common core" problem?

[TheHuckster]

THIS has been my point all along.

No it hasn't. Or you made a horrible attempt at making that point for the past 80+ posts. Your point has been 5 + 5 + 5 is the only correct way, and 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 is definitively the wrong way.

[Kheldarson]

FINALLY somebody else gets it!

THIS has been my point all along. The kid "used the formula" (i.e. "repeated addition") to solve the problem.

The fact that he wrote 5 + 5 + 5 should count.

Should, but doesn't have to. If it's not the lesson being taught, that is he didn't follow directions, then the teacher is under no obligation to give credit and that has nothing to do with Common Core.

[HYHYBT]

Just like the authority figure who came up with the math question decided that multiplication was NOT commutative

...and here's at least part of the problem: jumping to unfounded conclusions. Look again: nothing in this says multiplication isn't commutative. Not even a SUGGESTION that 3x5 and 5x3 do not have the same product. What it does teach is that there is, nonetheless, a difference between five groups of three and three groups of five (again, the difference NOT being how much there is altogether), and that, for the purposes of this class at least, you can tell which is which by the order. So the only question is, what's so wrong with adding that ADDITIONAL part to the lesson on top of the rest?

[wolfie]

FINALLY somebody else gets it!

THIS has been my point all along. The kid "used the formula" (i.e. "repeated addition") to solve the problem.

The fact that he wrote 5 + 5 + 5 should count.

I realize this is a special case (in that one of the factors is "5"), but has the kid ever seen tally marks? If so, it would be natural to view the repeated addition in "5 x 3" as 5+5+5, since 15 expressed in tally marks is 3 bundles of 5 marks each.

[s_stabeler]

...and here's at least part of the problem: jumping to unfounded conclusions. Look again: nothing in this says multiplication isn't commutative. Not even a SUGGESTION that 3x5 and 5x3 do not have the same product. What it does teach is that there is, nonetheless, a difference between five groups of three and three groups of five (again, the difference NOT being how much there is altogether), and that, for the purposes of this class at least, you can tell which is which by the order. So the only question is, what's so wrong with adding that ADDITIONAL part to the lesson on top of the rest?

a) the way the assignment is marked, it looks as if the student is being told that 5+5+5 is not a valid way of calculating 3x5- as such, the teacher should probably have included more explanation for the mark. (something along the lines of "while not incorrect, you are supposed to use the second number as the number of groups")
b) this is an assignment for third-graders. As I have said before, they are just learning how to multiply at this point. It's probably not a good idea to over-complicate the issue at this level, since you risk confusing the kid.)
c) the test doesn't include any mention of how to group the numbers, so that means you are marking the question based on your own interpretation, not what the question actually asked

[Kheldarson]

c) the test doesn't include any mention of how to group the numbers, so that means you are marking the question based on your own interpretation, not what the question actually asked

All of your points can be answered with this: it all depends on how the lesson was taught. If they were taught that 5 x 3 = 3+3+3+3+3 = 15 and 3x5 = 5+5+5 = 15, then the teacher is in their rights to mark it wrong. But we can't say either way because we have one photo. That's the issue with the entire discussion and outrage: it doesn't take into account the lesson plans.

[Gravekeeper]

That's the issue with the entire discussion and outrage: it doesn't take into account the lesson plans.

I do believe I said this on page one as the first reply to this thread. And yet, here we are. -.-

[s_stabeler]

All of your points can be answered with this: it all depends on how the lesson was taught. If they were taught that 5 x 3 = 3+3+3+3+3 = 15 and 3x5 = 5+5+5 = 15, then the teacher is in their rights to mark it wrong. But we can't say either way because we have one photo. That's the issue with the entire discussion and outrage: it doesn't take into account the lesson plans.

it answers if the assignment was graded according to what the kid was taught. That is only part of what the OP asked. The teacher may have been right to mark it wrong according to the mark scheme provided- however, there is room for debate on if third grade is an appropriate time to be introducing what is apparently something only used at a fairly high level of maths. (specifically, I can't remember any maths studied during compulsory education where it mattered if you added up 5 3s or 3 5s. If it matters at a higher level, then wouldn't the time to introduce the principle be when it actually needs to be used? You don't (for example) expect an elementary kid to know what Binary Numbers even are, let alone use them.)

Basically, my concern is that, if this is a part of Common Core, that Common Core is making things too complicated too quickly. At third grade level, kids are only just learning to multiply two numbers correctly. Do you REALLY need to introduce more complexity right away?

[Gravekeeper]

Basically, my concern is that, if this is a part of Common Core, that Common Core is making things too complicated too quickly. At third grade level, kids are only just learning to multiply two numbers correctly. Do you REALLY need to introduce more complexity right away?

Its not like the entire system was developed by a veritable legion of people that specialize precisely in education and mathematics to try and fix one of the worst education systems in the western world. There must be some glaringly obvious flaw in it that only random internet commentators can see.

Seriously, this whole argument is ridiculous. You're putting forth a concern you don't even bother to try and verify. So why bring it up in the first place? The third grade standards don't exist in a vacuum. This child didn't go through grade 1 and 2 of the regular system then suddenly got the evil complicated grade 3 CC sprung on him.

Laying out specific standards and building on them from grade to grade is the entire point.

[s_stabeler]

I'm more trying to ask if they got over-enthusiastic, and forgot that third-graders are supposed to be learning the basics- when, from what was said earlier in the thread, it only actually makes a difference at a rather higher level.

So in other words, i was actually wondering if they forgot , essentially, that they were creating standards for teaching pretty much everyone- rather than what sounds to me like standards for kids who are likely to go on to do higher maths.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Personal opinion - disconnected from a majority of this discussion - is that the common core in math specifically is designed to address deficiencies in American student's abilities to process more complex forms of math often brought about by rigid adherence to wrote procedure, memorization, and often lacking the creative problem solving more complex math (and yes, even programming) requires.

So the entire discussion has nothing to do with "following directions" which frankly if you know Bill Gates, is exactly the opposite of the problem he's trying to solve. He's the same guy that gave us:
" I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."

This teacher, (if they indeed pulled the "following directions" jag) ignored the commutative property of multiplication to do so. 5x3 and 3x5 are mathematically equivalent. I did read the ALA/MLA comparison which is an interesting take, but the problem is it's theoretically distinct. An ALA/MLA citation creates the outcome of citing a work, but that output being in the correct form is the goal. The final citation is not identical. Math in general, there is no such thing as "correct form" outside of perhaps significant digits in physics. In any problem in the real world, the child's answer was correct. In this case, the final answer is always identical regardless of the form it's in (provided it's mathematically sound.)

It is the teacher in this case with the problem and needs to work more diligently to understand what it is he/she is trying to teach, and express that better. To be frank, I'd even have accepted the correction with no point deduction if there's been something specifying "I was looking for you to read this left to right."

That still leaves the whole problem of, the entire point of complex math is to realize and substitute more difficult equations into mathematically simpler ones using relationships and properties. What this teacher is trying to teach is harmful, not helpful.

[Gravekeeper]

So in other words, i was actually wondering if they forgot , essentially, that they were creating standards for teaching pretty much everyone- rather than what sounds to me like standards for kids who are likely to go on to do higher maths.

You're still wondering if people who have dedicated their lives to this are making a mistake that only you, a random internet commentator with no qualifications or insight into the matter, can see. And again, if that is your concern, go actually find out. Don't just pointlessly bring up potential problems you're not even willing to substantiate. There's enough of that kind of shit in the US media to begin with without us helping.

The entirety of CC's standards are open and available to the public. If you want to know what it is or how it works, by all means, go read up. Then judge for yourself if there's a problem in the standards ( unlikely ) or the implementation at a state/local level in some areas ( very likely ).

This topic and the issues with CC wouldn't even be on the public radar had they been proposed under a different president. Its been completely turned into a political issue and its politics first, find something to try and justify said politics second. Hence all this bullshit.

There are a wide variety of very valid issues with implementing CC and the US education system in general people could be discussing. But no, lets argue for 10 pages over some random idiot parent's iPhone pic of her kid's homework.

[mjr]

This topic and the issues with CC wouldn't even be on the public radar had they been proposed under a different president.

I call BS on this.

There are a wide variety of very valid issues with implementing CC and the US education system in general people could be discussing. But no, lets argue for 10 pages over some random idiot parent's iPhone pic of her kid's homework.

You know, there's a simple way to not argue for "10 pages"...stop arguing.

[Gravekeeper]

I call BS on this.

Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

You know, there's a simple way to not argue for "10 pages"...stop arguing.

Says the guy that started the argument and has almost twice as many posts in said argument than any other single forum member present. If you want to live in a glass house, best put the shotgun down.

[mjr]

Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

I do know it to be true that I call BS on it.

Says the guy that started the argument and has almost twice as many posts in said argument than any other single forum member present. If you want to live in a glass house, best put the shotgun down.

Says the guy who continues to argue. It takes more than one to argue, you know.