Ingram85 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Stefan beat me too it. Yeah we should change the 'subject' now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) You said: "an example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication". It therefore rather seemed you were talking about the status quo, rather than plans for a year's time. An example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication. The new curriculum states that we just have to teach the kids the method. It's straight after the sentence which you quoted Edited September 16, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'd give it up Stefan. Its not worth it chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Right back on it ........So I was in deep cleaning the fridge sunday and the other chef overcooks 2 fillets generally lays the blame on myself ..and now a good trip advisor review that mentions overcooked steaks ....Work will be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 You said: "an example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication". It therefore rather seemed you were talking about the status quo, rather than plans for a year's time. An example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication. The new curriculum states that we just have to teach the kids the method. It's straight after the sentence which you quoted Where does it say in the curriculum that no explanation of techniques is required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 That doesn't seem right... the techniques my wife learned on her PGCE last year.I'm worried that VT hasn't picked up on the potential of the above! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) That doesn't seem right... the techniques my wife learned on her PGCE last year. I'm worried that VT hasn't picked up on the potential of the above! She probably learned how to solve the definite integral of 2x from 10 to 13. Edited September 16, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'd prefer to use the grid method where the kids can see why and how the numbers are multiplied. Same question. 30 420 600 801 30 4 Add them together. Bish bash bosh. But nope. Not allowed.Sorry but I'm lost by that. What is it supposed to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Stefan beat me too it. Yeah we should change the 'subject' now Agreed. Let's do history, I enjoyed history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) You said: "an example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication". It therefore rather seemed you were talking about the status quo, rather than plans for a year's time. An example of this (which came up today) is long multiplication. The new curriculum states that we just have to teach the kids the method. It's straight after the sentence which you quoted Where does it say in the curriculum that no explanation of techniques is required? It says we just have to teach the column method. Which is sticking in the 0 as I demonstrated last page. That column method makes it incredibly difficult to understand the actual multiplication as written. (you have no idea how hard this is to explain over the internet on 2 hours sleep) Another example 31 x 45 Column method (i'm handwriting it to make it clearer, but ignore my huge zero . This isn't how I'd teach it either. Just using a key to show how this more of a method, than an understanding of how multiplication works) The method works without the pupil having to ever multiply their tens because you add the 0 in every time. It breaks each number down into units. And don't get me wrong, it does work every time. But say you're presented in a real world scenario where you don't have a pen and paper to write the method down, then you're not in a good place. With the grid method, one can understand that the numbers are made up on a ten and a unit. I'd prefer to use the grid method where the kids can see why and how the numbers are multiplied. Same question. 30 4 20 600 80 1 30 4 Add them together. Bish bash bosh. But nope. Not allowed. Sorry but I'm lost by that. What is it supposed to be? (Again, you have no idea how hard this is to explain over the internet on 2 hours sleep ) It's a grid. You break each number down into its tens and units. So 34 becomes 30 and 4. 21 becomes 20 and 1. You then put those integers into a grid. So 20x30, 20x4, 1x30, 1x4. Then you add them together. 30 4 20 600 80 1 30 4 714 I'm just basically repeating what I was told by an extremely experienced maths professor earlier today. Give me a conversation and I could explain what I mean to you every time, but this format is challenging. I'm glad we don't teach over a forum. And remember, I was just using long multiplication as an example of why teachers aren't happy. Not that everything is like this (it seems like I have to cover my back with every post I make) Edited September 16, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) Okay. I was being terribly slow. I get the 'grid' thing but it seems stupidly longwinded and horrid. Edit: I suppose it does actually represent the mental calculation that I would make but it doesn't neatly describe it on paper. I also understand what you mean by the 'zero goes here' - long multiplication is always taught that way, isn't it? (It's what we were taught - mentl calculation superceding it at a later date, obviously). And why doesn't it work in a 'real world' scenario? Can't people do that kind of thing in their head? Edited September 16, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'm probably old fashioned, but I'd say the first method would be much easier to do in your head than the second. 31 x 40, then x 5. Far too many things to keep track of in that second method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 All my memories are flooding back of why I **** despise maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't like to make a big deal about it, but I believe I'm the world's best at approximate per centages. It's both a gift and a curse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't like to make a big deal about it, but I believe I'm the world's best at approximate per centages. It's both a gift and a curse. I'd say there roughly a 55% chance that I'm better than you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't like to make a big deal about it, but I believe I'm the world's best at approximate per centages. It's both a gift and a curse. 50% each way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) I don't like to make a big deal about it, but I believe I'm the world's best at approximate per centages. It's both a gift and a curse. I'd say there is less than a 10% chance of that being true Edit - oh f&@k off and get a life those that beat me to it Edited September 16, 2013 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I love you all. 8% of the time 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) Yes, long multiplication was taught that way and has been taught that way for donkeys. It's what Gove would have been taught and Gove's own school experiences is what makes up the majority of the new curriculum. Your way of doing it isn't wrong at all. As I said, it's a perfectly good method and it does the trick. The method that we're encouraged to teach is just that though. A method. The calculations involved are just with units. There is no practise in multiplying with tens and therefore the understanding of what you're actually doing isn't there. In the grid, you can clearly see you're multiplying with 10s and units. Snowy, the grid is purely a starting point for how they'd systematically go about multiplying bigger numbers. After doing numerous sums with that method, they'd get used to multiplying 10's together and 10's and units, the pupil would get more confident with it and they wouldn't need the grid anymore. As I said, it's incredibly hard to explain in detail over a forum. Give me 5 minutes in person and you'd understand my point of view (and the point of view of most teachers) far more clearly. Edited September 16, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't like to make a big deal about it, but I believe I'm the world's best at approximate per centages. It's both a gift and a curse. Is that an admission that you're both a giver and a taker? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts