Why don’t we relate triangles to an array model? 2nd grade mcps homework

[Anonymous]

My older kid was helping DS and commented that you can also put two triangles together to make a square anyway? So maybe they should have said why can’t you use circles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

[Anonymous]

It's based on rows and columns. Therefore there are no triangles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

We’re doing that also. Our school was not using Eureka Math before this.

I do agree with the PP though. At least it’ll help your kid get used to the terms, like ‘array’?

Op here.

Our school hasn’t used eureka, but they’ve used array before. I have a handful of kids, so this isn’t my first mcps math rodeo.

I just don’t see the purpose of such a question. But, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Possibly?

They started this out with small circular disks that the guy used in videos.

Then, the worksheets went to various items.

Then, all of a sudden today it's only squares for an array, and they connected them. Definitely not clear, IMO. Especially for a second grader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

We’re doing that also. Our school was not using Eureka Math before this.

I do agree with the PP though. At least it’ll help your kid get used to the terms, like ‘array’?

Op here.

Our school hasn’t used eureka, but they’ve used array before. I have a handful of kids, so this isn’t my first mcps math rodeo.

I just don’t see the purpose of such a question. But, whatever.

I'm the PP and I'm with you completely.
We did the problem set, and I understand what they were trying to do - equal rows and column is a square, and unequal rows and columns is a rectangle.

But, the question was useless, and unnecessarily unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Interesting theory. I actually went back to check, because this would make sense.

But, no.

Lesson 3 is dogs, chickens, cats and hearts.

Lesson 4 is stars.

Lesson 5 is actually TRIANGLES (lol), faces, and hearts.

Lesson 6 is bears and trapezoids.

Lesson 7 is X's.

Lesson 8 is squares.

Lesson 9 is birds, chairs and rocks.

Lesson 10 is only squares and YOU CANNOT use triangles!! (emphasis mine)

I'm actually interested in the logic behind this sequence of lessons if anyone does know. OP got me thinking about it - and, because, really, I have nothing else to do right now anyway. Thanks quarantine.

[Anonymous]

It seems very conceptual for 2nd graders, but maybe that's just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Interesting theory. I actually went back to check, because this would make sense.

But, no.

Lesson 3 is dogs, chickens, cats and hearts.

Lesson 4 is stars.

Lesson 5 is actually TRIANGLES (lol), faces, and hearts.

Lesson 6 is bears and trapezoids.

Lesson 7 is X's.

Lesson 8 is squares.

Lesson 9 is birds, chairs and rocks.

Lesson 10 is only squares and YOU CANNOT use triangles!! (emphasis mine)

I'm actually interested in the logic behind this sequence of lessons if anyone does know. OP got me thinking about it - and, because, really, I have nothing else to do right now anyway. Thanks quarantine.

FWIW, I’m happy to suggest something to watch on Netflix, prime or STARZ ;0)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Interesting theory. I actually went back to check, because this would make sense.

But, no.

Lesson 3 is dogs, chickens, cats and hearts.

Lesson 4 is stars.

Lesson 5 is actually TRIANGLES (lol), faces, and hearts.

Lesson 6 is bears and trapezoids.

Lesson 7 is X's.

Lesson 8 is squares.

Lesson 9 is birds, chairs and rocks.

Lesson 10 is only squares and YOU CANNOT use triangles!! (emphasis mine)

I'm actually interested in the logic behind this sequence of lessons if anyone does know. OP got me thinking about it - and, because, really, I have nothing else to do right now anyway. Thanks quarantine.

FWIW, I’m happy to suggest something to watch on Netflix, prime or STARZ ;0)

LOL! Obviously I am ridiculously ready to get out of the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

Agree. I make her do this stuff but I’m wondering what the point is. She is getting much more challenging material through prodigy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

Agree. I make her do this stuff but I’m wondering what the point is. She is getting much more challenging material through prodigy.

We got the second grade set for Beast Academy. Workbooks and regular book. It's actually quite good, and DS enjoys it! Definitely better organized and more challenging than what we see in MCPS.

https://beastacademy.com/books/2A

A little pricey, but I'm thinking we'll continue with them, even after quarantine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Interesting theory. I actually went back to check, because this would make sense.

But, no.

Lesson 3 is dogs, chickens, cats and hearts.

Lesson 4 is stars.

Lesson 5 is actually TRIANGLES (lol), faces, and hearts.

Lesson 6 is bears and trapezoids.

Lesson 7 is X's.

Lesson 8 is squares.

Lesson 9 is birds, chairs and rocks.

Lesson 10 is only squares and YOU CANNOT use triangles!! (emphasis mine)

I'm actually interested in the logic behind this sequence of lessons if anyone does know. OP got me thinking about it - and, because, really, I have nothing else to do right now anyway. Thanks quarantine.

I think the question is referring to the SHAPE of the array itself, and NOT the shapes used in the array.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My second grader very confidently demonstrated how you could split squares and rectangles into triangles and therefore combine two arrays... Not correct, but very confident.

Often called upper triangle or lower triangle in linear algebra. The question is poorly considered.

PP, I love linear algebra, but we're talking about math for second-graders here.

Exactly. Which means you shouldn't be confusing them with odd questions that are definitely wrong. Triangles can be used to represent square arrays. It *IS* literally two triangles. Telling someone you can't use triangles to represent a matrix (an array) is simply wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL! I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??

Op here. My initial response was wtf?!?! Then I texted my sister who teaches for mcps, and she kindly sent me a link to a 200+ page doc and said, “I’m on a zoom meeting, but you can find the answer somewhere in here ;0)”

So I crowd sourced here. Thanks!

Candidly, I’m so tempted to just have my 2nd grader continue to focus on multiplication facts and division exercises I’ve been providing rather than this nonsense.

The other confusing thing (to me!) is that for all the prior exercises, they have had the kids using different objects!! Like chairs and faces, etc.

And today, our of nowhere, they have made the jump to say that you CAN’T actually use those shapes, and a ‘true’ array has to be made from squares.

Which is fine, but maybe they could have used squares all along?

I don't know about Eureka math, but the "Singapore Math" curriculum approach was to move from concrete symbols to pictorial representations to abstract symbols. I assume they're doing the same here.

Interesting theory. I actually went back to check, because this would make sense.

But, no.

Lesson 3 is dogs, chickens, cats and hearts.

Lesson 4 is stars.

Lesson 5 is actually TRIANGLES (lol), faces, and hearts.

Lesson 6 is bears and trapezoids.

Lesson 7 is X's.

Lesson 8 is squares.

Lesson 9 is birds, chairs and rocks.

Lesson 10 is only squares and YOU CANNOT use triangles!! (emphasis mine)

I'm actually interested in the logic behind this sequence of lessons if anyone does know. OP got me thinking about it - and, because, really, I have nothing else to do right now anyway. Thanks quarantine.

I think the question is referring to the SHAPE of the array itself, and NOT the shapes used in the array.

Ohhhh, do you mean ‘Why can’t you make an array look like a triangle?’