Can anyone explain this fancy new method of doing division to me? My son is having trouble with it, and these boxes make no sense to me! I have no problem just teaching him division the way I learned it, but I think they are expecting him to show his work in the way they are teaching it...
Our dd had to do this method last year, and I honestly don't remember how to do it I was completely confused by *why* the kids needed to do it this way, but my dd was able to explain the *how* to me - so if you can either ask the teacher or get an explanation from someone it's really not a tough concept, just a bit over-the-top for those of us who managed to survive school learning long division the old-fashioned way
BTW, my spouse and I went ahead and taught our dd how to do long-division the way we were taught, rather than learning how to do it this other way... and our dd thought our way was easier.. and oh my... did we get in trouble with her math teacher.... argh....
This sounds like the "Lattice" method and I thank my lucky stars our school doesn't use it. I have seen it being used in other local school districts for multiplication and division and it is very confusing to me (and almost everyone else that I've witnessed trying to figure it out).
To be fair, if a child was just learning to do multiplication and division maybe it would make sense, but for me already knowing how and then trying to figure out what number goes in what box was grueling.
Thanks - that was really easy to follow and not that wildly divergent from the traditional method after all - if that is what then OP was referring to.
Interesting Val! That's a different box method than what my kids were taught. I wish my dd was home so I could ask her to remind me how she was taught!
I think the lattice multiplication originated in Asia - our school district was parading it around a few years ago as the latest greatest way to teach multiplication. And then, oddly, it disappeared... hmmmmmmmm....
So anyway, my dd is home from school now, so I asked her if she could show me how her teacher had taught her to do long division. She said "Oh! Sure!" and made up a problem (dividing 5 into 12543) and then started to show me how to work it out... the old-fashioned way that we taught her how to divide So I explained that I wanted to see how she did it with the boxes etc... and she said "Oh! Yeah! I remember that! You use arrays!"... then... "Oh wow, I'm not going to do THAT problem that way - there are too many numbers!". So she decided to show me how to divide 5 into... 25. She started to draw out a 5x5 array, wrote the 5 divided into 25 equation and.... through the pencil down and said "I'm not gonna do that - it's too much work. Why do you want to know?" and then she bounced happily out of the room, after she'd solved the other problem the usual way.
So... I guess she isn't interested in explaining it to anyone... or recommending it as a worthwhile method
So evidently this is a method which is most useful for dividing, say...
10...
by, um-- five?
Yes, this is the problem with lattice division. It works well (?) for "neat clean, easy numbers" but get into larger numbers and 2 or three digit divisors and it becomes overwhelming. I actually had one of my high students show me how to do it last year and it does make sense, but it is not intuitive or useful past elementary school. I don't know how to explain it now though - sorry.
It wasn't lattice.... Of course the worksheet he brought home had YET ANOTHER DIFFERENT method on it. I poo-poo'd the whole thing and just taught him "normal" division. He was like oh, I can do that... and finished up the worksheet in like 2 minutes. *sigh* Hopefully he doesn't get marked off for not following their method.
(Apparently his math/science teacher quit! He told me she "retired" - it was her first year teaching. So he's had a parade of subs this week. Hopefully they fill the position quickly!!)
Can we rename "Everyday Math" and it's maddening methods to "Everyday Disaster"? It must be incredibly frustrating for all the parents trying to help their child with yet another convoluted and impracticable method that their child "MUST" learn to succeed in math class. I can almost hear the groans from all the parents when a new worksheet comes home each day.
Partial Quotients? That's the method my kids were taught at school for two years, right up until they were told at the end of 5th grade that they would have to learn the "old-fashioned parent way" because EDM wasn't used in middle school. Gaah! Thankfully I had shown my kids the "old-fashioned" way years before and they preferred that way anyway.
I help DD with her math homework, and she brought me a question with partial quotients. I had to throw up my hands on it. DW came to my rescue with a Youtube video on the method. I still wasn't able to help her, though, because the worksheet had bizarrely filled in some numbers in random places, and it wasn't at all intuitive as to why they'd chosen those.
It's not at all intuitive as to why one wouldn't simply use long division, but I digress.
It's strange that they call that alternative "long division," because partial quotients makes it much longer.
This week, DD brought home a question that required her to find the mode of a set of numbers, but first it required her to arrange them in a completely useless and counter-intuitive chart, whose name I forget (something like seed-and-tree).
So let's say the numbers were these: 79, 83, 88, 92, 93, 93, 96, 98.
Here's the chart:
7 | 9 8 | 3, 8 9 | 2, 3, 3, 6, 8
DD takes a look at this chart, and when asked to find the mode of this set of numbers, says, "3!"
The only thing more evil, IMO, is the ubiquitous Box and Whisker...
which seems specifically intended to induce confusion about statistical significance and measurement errors later on.
Wait! I think that I have just had an epiphany about why so few people seem to understand what is (or is not) intended with respect to "statistical significance." WOW. Thank you, New Math.
Oh god, stem and leaf and box and whisker. I remember those from a few years ago when DS was doing them. He understands them, thankfully, so he was able to explain them to me. (I do not look forward to DD getting there.) But ...just... WHY? Why do they have to take things that are perfectly understandable and turn them into counterintuitive collections of garbage?
Turning multiplication into an addition problem the way that box thing did may make it easier to come up with an answer (for people who haven't memorized their multiplication tables), but it doesn't in any way teach one how to multiply, or what multiplication actually is.
Isn't it insane? Why would you go through all that extra effort to do the same thing? And the only answer is: because you haven't learned the multiplication tables to know that if 8 times 7 is 56, then 6 is a good place to start for 83 going into 5567 or whatever. It just makes so much more work!
Wow. I am feeling SO SO very grateful that my DD learned long division the regular way. Just the regular old way.
Also, have I mentioned that she doesn't have to show her work this year with this teacher? Some part of me thinks this is a bit risky, but I think she has a teacher this year who "gets" GT kids. If she were struggling, maybe she would be asked to? She is luxuriating in this!
And here it seems they've just dropped everything but short division altogether - because you know as long as you get the general idea you can just use a calculator (or your iPod)....
Partial Quotients? That's the method my kids were taught at school for two years, right up until they were told at the end of 5th grade that they would have to learn the "old-fashioned parent way" because EDM wasn't used in middle school. Gaah! Thankfully I had shown my kids the "old-fashioned" way years before and they preferred that way anyway.
This is basically just the regular long division algorithm, except with a trial and error component if people aren't good at estimating the quotient. If you get each digit of the quotient right the first time, this method is almost exactly the same as the standard long division algorithm.
When the divisor is just a one digit number, however, there are definitely easier methods.
This reminds me of meringue. Just how much spare time did the person who invented this have, anyway?
But this is multiplication, not division. Is there some ungodly equivalent for division?
Yes, it's multiplication.
Originally Posted by polarbear
I think the lattice multiplication originated in Asia - our school district was parading it around a few years ago as the latest greatest way to teach multiplication. And then, oddly, it disappeared... hmmmmmmmm....
I don't understand these comments though. The lattice method is completely natural, and it is not that different from the standard long multiplication method.
Hopefully they fill the position quickly!!)