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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]LOL!  I just did he problem with my DS and thought WTF??[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

So, I think there is a missing link between lesson 9 and 10. In general, the lessons are going from concrete to abstract, which is normal teaching method, but between lesson 9 and 10, more verbal explanation would help, as well as a picture.  If you superimpose the square on a typical grid/graph paper and then superimpose an array with the concrete representation (like an array of 10 stars as a 2x5 array), then you can see that each item in the array can be represented by a box of the grid. Furthermore, we can stop using the items in the array and just use the numbers.  Eventually, we will stop drawing the square and just use numbers, but for now, in second grade the teacher may want to keep the square shape because it links to geometry concepts like area and, later, volume.

The array/square also links to ideas about multiplication as repeated addition and the idea of distribution.  These often make more sense to kids with the visual of a square, although many kids (and adults) are OK with just memorizing the facts and rules of math. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics