Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core tests require the students to explain ON THE TESTS -- which are supposed to be assessing the students' understanding. (Or rather, I assume that the tests require the students to do that. I haven't seen the tests.) That is very different from being required to explain everything. If I didn't know better, I would conclude from these threads on DCUM that the Common Core requires that every time a child does 5x7, the child has to also write an accompanying essay explaining that the child knows that five times seven is 35 because if you have five things in a row, and you have seven rows, you have 35 things.

I'll let you in on a little secret: schools today PRACTICE constantly for tests. If it is a standard, it will be tested and it will be reviewed ad nauseum. That is the problem.

Really? That hasn't been my experience at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had grown up having to explaining it, he would be able to.

Probably would not have had the success he did if he had to slow down and explain everything.

Agreed. Luckily the Common Core standards do not call for him to slow down and explain everything.

Exactly. I had this discussion with a friend of mine who has trouble helping his kid with elementary school math. It's just different from the way we were taught in school but it's more helpful in learning core concepts not just rote computation skills which is how we learned Math.

My friend is also a physicist. His great uncle won the noble prize in physics. We both agree that this is a better way to teach Math.

The Common Core tests require the students to explain ON THE TESTS -- which are supposed to be assessing the students' understanding. (Or rather, I assume that the tests require the students to do that. I haven't seen the tests.) That is very different from being required to explain everything. If I didn't know better, I would conclude from these threads on DCUM that the Common Core requires that every time a child does 5x7, the child has to also write an accompanying essay explaining that the child knows that five times seven is 35 because if you have five things in a row, and you have seven rows, you have 35 things.

I'll let you in on a little secret: schools today PRACTICE constantly for tests. If it is a standard, it will be tested and it will be reviewed ad nauseum. That is the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Agreed. Luckily the Common Core standards do not call for him to slow down and explain everything.

Not true. At least, not with the tests that are currently in use.

The Common Core tests require the students to explain ON THE TESTS -- which are supposed to be assessing the students' understanding. (Or rather, I assume that the tests require the students to do that. I haven't seen the tests.) That is very different from being required to explain everything. If I didn't know better, I would conclude from these threads on DCUM that the Common Core requires that every time a child does 5x7, the child has to also write an accompanying essay explaining that the child knows that five times seven is 35 because if you have five things in a row, and you have seven rows, you have 35 things.

BAM, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-student-test-scores-drop-significantly-as-state-shifts-to-common-core/2014/07/11/7c0f960a-08f9-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

https://twitter.com/x0x0robinXoXo/status/515358849537409024/photo/1


another example

Agreed. Luckily the Common Core standards do not call for him to slow down and explain everything.

Not true. At least, not with the tests that are currently in use.

Anonymous wrote:

If he had grown up having to explaining it, he would be able to.

Probably would not have had the success he did if he had to slow down and explain everything.

Agreed. Luckily the Common Core standards do not call for him to slow down and explain everything.

If he had grown up having to explaining it, he would be able to.

Probably would not have had the success he did if he had to slow down and explain everything.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse has advance degree from MIT in nuclear physics. Guess what, he does great mental math. Clearly understands it. Had a hard time explaining basic math to DS.

If he had grown up having to explaining it, he would be able to.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse has advance degree from MIT in nuclear physics. Guess what, he does great mental math. Clearly understands it. Had a hard time explaining basic math to DS.

He has a hard time explaining that when you add 9 and 12, the answer is 21 because you can't have 11 in the ones place?

Anonymous wrote:

For example, do you know the law of exponents whereby a^m * a^n = a^(m+n)? Can you show or explain why that works, or do you just know that it works, because you memorized it?

Neither.

Neither what? You can't show why it works, and you also don't know that it works?

Spouse has advance degree from MIT in nuclear physics. Guess what, he does great mental math. Clearly understands it. Had a hard time explaining basic math to DS.

For example, do you know the law of exponents whereby a^m * a^n = a^(m+n)? Can you show or explain why that works, or do you just know that it works, because you memorized it?

Neither.

Anonymous wrote:Example: Just because someone is an engineer--that doesn't make him a good teacher. Can an artist explain how he paints his pictures? Are all writers good journalism professors?

Teaching is different from explaining. And explaining how art is created is different from explaining an algorithm in math.

For example, do you know the law of exponents whereby a^m * a^n = a^(m+n)? Can you show or explain why that works, or do you just know that it works, because you memorized it?