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.