Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I'm older than you are. But since terminology seems to change, isn't it more important to understand the concepts and show that you understand them by working a problem. Understanding can be shown without knowing the vocabulary.

The vocabulary is part of the understanding.

Understanding can be shown without knowing the vocabulary.

Not in Common Core.

Yes, I'm older than you are. But since terminology seems to change, isn't it more important to understand the concepts and show that you understand them by working a problem. Understanding can be shown without knowing the vocabulary.

Anonymous wrote:

There must be new terminology since I did math. ??

There is likely new terminology since you studied math, because math and math education are dynamic fields. However, since you're being nitpicky about terminology, I'll point out that you surely "do" math every day. I know I do, whether I'm making a budget, or estimating how many gallons of gas I can buy with the dollars in my pocket, or figuring out a recipe.

Whether using the term "opposite" to convey the concept of additive inverse, is new terminology, I don't know. It was certainly in use when I studied prealgebra in the early '80's, but you may be older than I am.

Anonymous wrote:
Here's one where they make up concepts.

There is a number line shown with 0 at the center and the number 2.5 marked. It asks, "What is the opposite of 2.5?"

This question tests a knowledge of vocabulary. Why don't they just have a problem where you need to understand this concept to do the problem? This is a reading and vocabulary test.

There must be new terminology since I did math. ??

Anonymous wrote:
Here's one where they make up concepts.

There is a number line shown with 0 at the center and the number 2.5 marked. It asks, "What is the opposite of 2.5?"

Why did they use the word "opposite"? That isn't math terminology. They should have asked "what is the additive inverse of 2.5"? Right? The word opposite might throw someone off. I see how that is a made up concept.

Anonymous wrote:Here's one where they make up concepts.

There is a number line shown with 0 at the center and the number 2.5 marked. It asks, "What is the opposite of 2.5?"

This is not a new concept made up by PARCC. Opposite = additive inverse.

http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/opposite_numbers.html

There's nothing that special about Pearson textbooks and materials. Many of them are not even all that good. There's nothing stopping teachers from collaborating on course materials and texts, there's a ton of great technology out there for doing that on the internet. Write your own material and open source it! What better way to free yourself from folks like Pearson?


http://www.sharemylesson.com/home.aspx

Wow. Thank you for posting this. I already made an account and found two resources based on what I am teaching right now! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Anonymous wrote:You mean which test? 7th grade math practice test.

Could you post the whole question, please? Or did you post the whole question? I think that the question relates to this standard:

CCSS.Math.Content.7.NS.A.1.b
Understand p + q as the number located a distance |q| from p, in the positive or negative direction depending on whether q is positive or negative. Show that a number and its opposite have a sum of 0 (are additive inverses). Interpret sums of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except that when you know what a word means, you don't need evidence for the meaning from a text unless the meaning is ambiguous. Yes context has a time and place, especially when a word has an ambiguous or uknown meaning, but it does not create reality, nor should kids be taught that it does.

Who is teaching kids that it does? Did the test question use the word incorrectly?

No, the test asks which excerpt is evidence for the meaning. There were two that were related to the meaning, neither being more correct than the other for knowing the meaning. And if a kid already knows the meaning, it's a pointless exercise for them to guess which excerpt the question-writer thinks is legitimate evidence for the word between the two excerpts that were related to the word (I believe for the word recurrence one excerpt had to do with a repeated sound stopping and the other with a repeated sound continuing).

I've seen these types of vocabulary questions on the elementary school PARCC test. The first question asks what does some word mean as used in the passage, and the second question asks which sentence from the passage best demonstrates the meaning of the word. I think the point isn't just to show you know the meaning of the word, which is great if you already know it, but it is to be able to read the passage and use it to prove a point. It is basically a test of reading comprehension, which is what the PARCC test is supposed to be measuring.

For example if the word being defined is "recurring" -- can you read the passage and find an example of something that demonstrates an event that happens again and again?

You mean which test? 7th grade math practice test.

Anonymous wrote:Here's one where they make up concepts.

There is a number line shown with 0 at the center and the number 2.5 marked. It asks, "What is the opposite of 2.5?"

Where?

Here's one where they make up concepts.

There is a number line shown with 0 at the center and the number 2.5 marked. It asks, "What is the opposite of 2.5?"

Don't get me wrong. If a teacher wants to have an interesting class discussion about how to guess the meaning from these phrases when someone doesn't know, that's fine. But as a test of whether kids are learning the curriculum, it's bogus. And I am all for teaching kids to find evidence for claims (except starting in 1st grade is a little ridiculous, and that is what I hear is happening with Common Core), but this is a ridiculous question for testing and students' answers show nothing. The question assumes the child will not konw the word for one. And knowing it does not help you answer the next question (though it helps eliminate two of the 4 choices).