Random Arguments & Strawmen #15 |
||
Random Arguments & Strawmen #15
Your posts might look more intelligent if they weren't all about some progressive boogyman trying to spread his evil to the world.
Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » The first way was too direct and straight forward, we want to encourage non-linear thinking that doesn't rely on observation and definition which is against the post-modern new-think ideals. As sarcastic as that sounds, it's actually the reason they used wacky methods to teach math. "Common Core" was created by Liberal Professors who had zero teaching experience and instead were attempting to implement their own new thinking ideology starting at the youngest age possible, to prevent parents from corrupting children with old modernist thinking ways. On the "Common Core" approval and review boards there was exactly one teacher, she taught kindergarten and was overruled every time she pointed out the methods wouldn't be realistically feasible for K-12 education. So teaching our kids to be deductive is a bad thing? The best way to do Mental math is to simplify the problem which is what the "new way" does in that image vs. the almost non-mental "old way". Valefor.Sehachan said: » Your posts might look more intelligent if they weren't all about some progressive boogyman trying to spread his evil to the world. <.< >.> Umm those guys kinda existed and did real things to the world that resulted in lots of death, poverty and overall bad experiences. They were assisted by entities that are still in existence today, those entities make contributions to political parties around the world, including the USA. One has to look no further then all the failed or failing socialist states to see what happens when Progressives are allowed to push their ideology. fonewear said: » All this math while you could be playing FFXV ? Picked up my Copy but I have to wait for my wife to come home from his trip (This weekend). So I will just sit here in agony with the rest of you guys. Anyhow before someone tries to nit pick about my Common Core statement, CC itself doesn't prescribe or mandate any specific curriculum or material, only require strict standards and certification for that material. At the same time CC's standards were developed, the same people also developed curriculum's and material that was CC approved and provided either free or at low cost. So when an educational entity takes on CC they are provided with a choice, either use the prepackaged and readily available material or pay money to have new curriculum and material developed and CC certified. Schools' aren't going to go with that later option for the same reason they are forced to take on CC, lack of funding.
So while CC itself doesn't have a required ideological slant, the material provided and the standards for certification are heavily slanted towards progressive new-think. That "Genderbread person", or something similar, is required to be taught as part of a CC approved curriculum under "Gender Identity". Gets kinda weird when you start digging through the requirements and material. eliroo said: » Picked up my Copy but I have to wait for my wife to come home from his trip (This weekend). So I will just sit here in agony with the rest of you guys. from her* trip. Common core seems like an overly complex way of doing math going by that example.
fonewear said: » They have had us waiting for 9 years, it better be fun! I don't think I've ever been disappointed in a FF series game before, a little less excited to play a few but never disappointed. So I'm sure they will live up to the hype. eliroo said: » Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » The first way was too direct and straight forward, we want to encourage non-linear thinking that doesn't rely on observation and definition which is against the post-modern new-think ideals. As sarcastic as that sounds, it's actually the reason they used wacky methods to teach math. "Common Core" was created by Liberal Professors who had zero teaching experience and instead were attempting to implement their own new thinking ideology starting at the youngest age possible, to prevent parents from corrupting children with old modernist thinking ways. On the "Common Core" approval and review boards there was exactly one teacher, she taught kindergarten and was overruled every time she pointed out the methods wouldn't be realistically feasible for K-12 education. So teaching our kids to be deductive is a bad thing? The best way to do Mental math is to simplify the problem which is what the "new way" does in that image vs. the almost non-mental "old way". I'll tell you what the flaw is: Once a person figures out the method that works best for them; all desire to learn an alternative method to reach the same end is lost. The focus on number sense is a great concept but humans are inherently flawed. It's like: You know that 7x7=49 but did you know that if you know that but knew that 7x3=21 and 7x4=28 and that 3+4 = 7 then (7x3)+(7x4) = (7x7)? One it's so abstract with the attention span these days you lose them, they do not draw the deduction to connect the sum of 3 and 4 to the sum of the products. On top of the fact most kids just memorize doubles so they don't even care by the time you cover concepts like this. But there will be one kid who has been struggling the whole time who suddenly had an epiphany. This is coming from first hand experience. fonewear said: » Common core seems like an overly complex way of doing math going by that example. I think it is supposed to be less about doing the math and getting an outcome but rather how you get to outcome. fonewear said: » All this math while you could be playing FFXV ? I'm 6 hours in. 8 hours of playtime left today. Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math?
The abacus is oppressive too.
That's the fundamental premise - breaking a problem down into its basic elements so the methods become more intuitive instead of simply memorized. The viral examples that make their rounds on the internet aren't provided by any CC board and are probably a result of teachers adjusting to teaching in a way that differs from how they were taught.
I still use my fingers and toes to do math...so if it is over 20 I don't even bother !
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math? Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math? Again "Common Core" was a good concept that was usurped by Liberal Progressive university Professors deciding to use it as a tool for social change on a national level. Teaching the old way was too straight forward and they wanted to ensure the children were exposed to these complex abstract thinking methods. Abstract as in the ideal that everyone can "just share everything" and have happy lives. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math? Looks like it will better prepare kids for higher levels of math. The box method is vastly superior long form in terms of mental thinking. As Pleebo mentioned, teachers are probably doing a terrible job conveying this but I think the concept is something that should be taught. eliroo said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math? Looks like it will better prepare kids for higher levels of math. The box method is vastly superior long form in terms of mental thinking. As Pleebo mentioned, teachers are probably doing a terrible job conveying this but I think the concept is something that should be taught. "Vastly superior" is an opinion, but you're not presenting it as such. Beyond that, good ideas that cannot be implemented properly are bad ideas. There are other ways to teach children to think outside the box without screwing with their ability to think inside the box too. Don't worry when AI gets to the level of a high school student it won't be able to do Algebra.
Why can it not be implemented? These
Quote: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. Reason abstractly and quantitatively. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. Model with mathematics. Use appropriate tools strategically. Attend to precision. Look for and make use of structure. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/ Asura.Kingnobody said: » Siren.Mosin said: » The really scary thought is that this has a chance to usher in a whole wave of celebrity presidents, each as ***-awful as the last. Asura.Kingnobody said: » ... Do you even know how many departments, cabinet positions, and ambassadorships there are? Heck, even the federal government doesn't know how many agencies they have, much less positions of power there is to appoint. Or intentional hyperbole.
Speaking of hyperbole... *channels LG and Nausi levels of conspiracy thinking* RP&R XV was made the same week FF XV was released. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » .... RP&R XV was made the same week FF XV was released. Have we a Lordgrim signal? Bahamut.Ravael said: » eliroo said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are we now stretching to defend a really crappy method of teaching math? Looks like it will better prepare kids for higher levels of math. The box method is vastly superior long form in terms of mental thinking. As Pleebo mentioned, teachers are probably doing a terrible job conveying this but I think the concept is something that should be taught. "Vastly superior" is an opinion, but you're not presenting it as such. Beyond that, good ideas that cannot be implemented properly are bad ideas. There are other ways to teach children to think outside the box without screwing with their ability to think inside the box too. Advanced abstract thinking is something you get into near the end of High School and into University, it's not something suitable for younger children. Again the people who came up with this were University Professors who had never taught K-12, for them this was purely a theoretical experiment turned into opportunity to spread their ideology. If you want to learn abstract thinking just study Philosophy which should be required in high school.
|
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|