|
0 members (),
333
guests, and
80
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,733
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,733 |
I THOUGHT "comparing" was a very strange term to use for subtraction, even in fakey jargon world. Me too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694 |
Irena I don't think that Dude is arguing with you on the ways the question could be solved - but that the two parts of your sons answer do not match. Your son says "How many more legos are in the new set?" the answer to HIS sentence must be 10, your son is the one that formed a sentence to which the correct answer is subtraction not addition. Dude's problem is NOT directly with what the teacher asked, or the teacher's understanding, but with the internal consistency of your son's answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
All this pedantic, rule-based, mechanical procedure for processing "word problems" is something you could program a machine to do. It wouldn't need to understand a thing.
This "deeper understanding" stuff is distilled kool-aid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 417
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 417 |
He's 7... he did the work and understands the math... to say he did not score high enough for math differentiation because of word semantics in his writing choices for a DYSGRAPHIC 7yr old is just beyond ridiculous. Makes me so sad to see a little child treated to such an unbelievably incorrect standard. I'm glad he's going to get to move ahead but I see the teacher holding this as a trump card in her back pocket that he does not *really* belong there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I THOUGHT "comparing" was a very strange term to use for subtraction, even in fakey jargon world. Me too. Yes. All this pedantic, rule-based, mechanical procedure for processing "word problems" is something you could program a machine to do. It wouldn't need to understand a thing.
This "deeper understanding" stuff is distilled kool-aid. Indeed. Ergo, my notion to introduce Schrodinger's Lego Set.
Last edited by HowlerKarma; 09/26/13 07:24 PM.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032 |
All this pedantic, rule-based, mechanical procedure for processing "word problems" is something you could program a machine to do. It wouldn't need to understand a thing. So you're saying, then, that some sort of device, some sort of "calculating" device, could be contrived, in which one could, say, enter numbers and types of operations, and it would somehow extrude the answers? Witchcraft, I say!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Irena I don't think that Dude is arguing with you on the ways the question could be solved - but that the two parts of your sons answer do not match. Your son says "How many more legos are in the new set?" the answer to HIS sentence must be 10, your son is the one that formed a sentence to which the correct answer is subtraction not addition. Dude's problem is NOT directly with what the teacher asked, or the teacher's understanding, but with the internal consistency of your son's answer. This. Your son's answer (70 + 10 = 80) does express the relationships, so he clearly understands them. But it does not answer the question at hand. This expression answers a different question that was not asked: "There are 70 lego pieces in a lego set. A new set comes in the mail with 10 more pieces than the old set. How many legos are in the new set?" This would be an addition operation, using the two inputs provided, to produce a different solution. And here's a great example of why it matters: All this pedantic, rule-based, mechanical procedure for processing "word problems" is something you could program a machine to do. It wouldn't need to understand a thing. So you're saying, then, that some sort of device, some sort of "calculating" device, could be contrived, in which one could, say, enter numbers and types of operations, and it would somehow extrude the answers? Such a machine would be hopelessly dumb, so you'd have to walk it through, step by step, every process. If you didn't clearly identify what the inputs are and what to do with the output, as a major IT engineering company often says in its tech notes, results are unpredictable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
All this pedantic, rule-based, mechanical procedure for processing "word problems" is something you could program a machine to do. It wouldn't need to understand a thing. So you're saying, then, that some sort of device, some sort of "calculating" device, could be contrived, in which one could, say, enter numbers and types of operations, and it would somehow extrude the answers? No. That's not what I was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032 |
|
|
|
|
|
