I just don't get it!

1…457910…23

Comments

  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,973
    Why the BBC will pixelate a logo on someone's shirt but will happily show an interview with a football manager against a backdrop looking like this...


    060816-backdrop-feature-1.jpg


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Capt Slog wrote:
    Why the BBC will pixelate a logo on someone's shirt but will happily show an interview with a football manager against a backdrop looking like this...


    060816-backdrop-feature-1.jpg

    All those companies have paid for that advertising space. If I go on BBC Breakfast with a huge logo across my shirt, it'll be pixelated or I'll be asked change.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....
  • cowsham
    cowsham Posts: 1,399
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Pross wrote:
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.

    Everyone multiplies in their head differently.

    For A levels calculus is fairly straight forward in that if you learn the rule and when to apply it (and the exam usually tells you which one to use) you just turn the handle and the right numbers pop out.

    Can’t comment on partial differentiation equations however.
    _
  • cowsham
    cowsham Posts: 1,399
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.

    Everyone multiplies in their head differently.

    For A levels calculus is fairly straight forward in that if you learn the rule and when to apply it (and the exam usually tells you which one to use) you just turn the handle and the right numbers pop out.

    Can’t comment on partial differentiation equations however.


    Does he mean differentiation by parts? Although I'd say integration by parts or partial integration is the more common or useful function.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Nah I think it’s differential equations with a whole bunch of unknown variables - it’s stuff they used in computer modelling and fluid dynamics.
    _
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,328
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....
    I wasn't tricked, but thought, after enjoying O-level and getting an A, I'd manage. I couldn't. Ended up with an O. And yes, that was a grade. That was 37 years ago. I've still got the paper somewhere.

    Fortunately I didn't need A-level maths to be a musician.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,308
    Ben6899 wrote:
    [If I go on BBC Breakfast with a huge logo across my shirt, it'll be pixelated or I'll be asked change.

    You're on breakfast TV?!
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    _89662268_p03tspfq.jpg
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.

    Everyone multiplies in their head differently.

    For A levels calculus is fairly straight forward in that if you learn the rule and when to apply it (and the exam usually tells you which one to use) you just turn the handle and the right numbers pop out.

    Can’t comment on partial differentiation equations however.

    This was just a different way of learning multiplication being taught to a bunch of 10 year olds. You did, for example, 1 x 3 and 2 x 3 but then instead of 3 x 3 you moved to 4 x 3 but worked it out by doubling the answer of 2 x 3 then did 8 x 3 by doubling that answer then had to go back to the gaps and work them out by adding. Seemed a very long winded way to do very simple maths.
  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    Ben6899 wrote:
    Capt Slog wrote:
    Why the BBC will pixelate a logo on someone's shirt but will happily show an interview with a football manager against a backdrop looking like this...


    060816-backdrop-feature-1.jpg

    All those companies have paid for that advertising space. If I go on BBC Breakfast with a huge logo across my shirt, it'll be pixelated or I'll be asked change.

    which might be true of the BBC, but Eurosport have a program called Lindsey Vonn:Chasing History, they show new episodes weekly, its an insight into the life & trials & tribulations of alpine skier Lindsey Vonn...fair enough no problem with that its actually very interesting behind the scenes look at a professional athlete. But her main personal sponsor is Red Bull, she literally never appears on camera without someform of Red Bull logo on display...except she would if Eurosport didnt just pixelate them all the time, except when she races and then they have no problem showing any ad logo paid or not !?!
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    I'm not on breakfast TV. Not anymore anyway.

    The Eurosport example muddies the water. I'm certainly no expert.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.

    Everyone multiplies in their head differently.

    For A levels calculus is fairly straight forward in that if you learn the rule and when to apply it (and the exam usually tells you which one to use) you just turn the handle and the right numbers pop out.

    Can’t comment on partial differentiation equations however.

    This was just a different way of learning multiplication being taught to a bunch of 10 year olds. You did, for example, 1 x 3 and 2 x 3 but then instead of 3 x 3 you moved to 4 x 3 but worked it out by doubling the answer of 2 x 3 then did 8 x 3 by doubling that answer then had to go back to the gaps and work them out by adding. Seemed a very long winded way to do very simple maths.

    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • cowsham
    cowsham Posts: 1,399
    rjsterry wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Cowsham wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Partial Differential Equations

    Differential calculus in general. I was tricked into doing A-level maths but I might as well have been studying Mandarin. Failed spectacularly. Complete waste of 2 years. Should have done Geography. And they got to go on field trips.

    You'd think after 44 years I'd have got over it....

    It was probably the subtraction by regrouping that done it -- I'm surprised anyone is able to do maths these days. Someone thought it was a good idea to replace " borrow and payback " with regrouping hence making the whole process of subtraction a confusing mess. Scoring out a zero and making it a ten then having to score that out again and make it a 9 -- what a waste of time and effort. American word for our good old borrow and payback is " One Up One Down" simple as fk and works for every situation. If it's not broke don't fix it.

    My niece was showing me some bizarre method of multiplication they'd been taught in year 6 at the weekend. Instead of just multiplying the numbers in old school times table format you multiplied the multiples and then worked your way back through filling in the gaps. I can't remember what they called it but it was a case of all of us, young and old, trying to work out how the hell it was supposed to be an easier system.

    Everyone multiplies in their head differently.

    For A levels calculus is fairly straight forward in that if you learn the rule and when to apply it (and the exam usually tells you which one to use) you just turn the handle and the right numbers pop out.

    Can’t comment on partial differentiation equations however.

    This was just a different way of learning multiplication being taught to a bunch of 10 year olds. You did, for example, 1 x 3 and 2 x 3 but then instead of 3 x 3 you moved to 4 x 3 but worked it out by doubling the answer of 2 x 3 then did 8 x 3 by doubling that answer then had to go back to the gaps and work them out by adding. Seemed a very long winded way to do very simple maths.

    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    But subtraction by regrouping is of the devil -- it's infiltrated all schools now and seems to have been adopted universally hence my entry on this thread -- my youngest son can cope with it but his working out looks a mess and takes far too long. Bring back 1 up 1 down!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

    In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

    More generally
    rjs wrote:
    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
    This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

    As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Nah I think it’s differential equations with a whole bunch of unknown variables - it’s stuff they used in computer modelling and fluid dynamics.

    On the semi advanced maths type stuff...I'm embarrassed by my inability to really understand Matrices, which would be fine if not for the fact I'm meant to be an engineer...
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    bompington wrote:
    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.

    I'm not sure about that. My daughter underwent a series of testing as part of research after completing treatment for a brain tumour when she was about 8 or 9. She got diagnosed with minor dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia and with traditional teaching methods her test scores were down in the bottom 20th percentile but when using other techniques was scoring up to the 95th percentile. If you ask her to try to memorise something parrot fashion she struggles but play her a song once and she'll be able to sing the tune back to you with most of the words, she's the first person in our choir to pick up new songs despite the music itself meaning nothing to her. I do think part of it is stimulating her interest though as she learns things much more quickly if she enjoys them!

    They identified various mechanisms to help her through school which we regularly pass to her teachers and which are almost universally ignored then when raised at parents evenings the teachers claim no knowledge. Unfortunately we're in an area with low achievement levels and so she can't get statemented to get the additional support whereas if she lived a couple of miles away in the next Council area she would do.

    I think you're probably right in situations where there are no special educational needs though.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    bompington wrote:
    Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

    In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

    More generally
    rjs wrote:
    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
    This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

    As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

    Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

    *feel free to correct me.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    Jez mon wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Nah I think it’s differential equations with a whole bunch of unknown variables - it’s stuff they used in computer modelling and fluid dynamics.

    On the semi advanced maths type stuff...I'm embarrassed by my inability to really understand Matrices, which would be fine if not for the fact I'm meant to be an engineer...

    The biggest problem I found with maths at Engineering degree level such as double diffrention and integration was lecturers didn't explain their practical use. We would just use numbers in formulas in lectures then get an exam putting it into a real world situation and didn't understand how to apply it. In one case the question referred to an annulus and pretty much none of us had a clue what an annulus was let alone how to apply the maths to it.
  • Tashman
    Tashman Posts: 3,495
    rjsterry wrote:
    Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

    *feel free to correct me.
    This entirely, I remember my French teacher pulling her hair out in the first few lessons as she had to teach us what verbs etc were as that had been dropped from the primary curriculum at the time. My kids know (IMHO) too much now about structure of the language. They need to be able to convey their thoughts, not write a thesis on language structure. I know I've struggled with the maths at times as their methodology just flummoxed me completely. Once I could work out whaat they were trying to achieve (the language around maths has also changed beyond recognition) I was able to work it out my way to check their answer :)
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,104
    rjsterry wrote:

    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Yes I seem to remember mine were taught long division using a method called "chunking" (might have that wrong). I remember thinking it was less intuitive than the method I assume most of us were all taught. There were a few similar things where methods differed too - across all subjects in fact things have changed quite a bit but you'd expect that in 40 odd years I suppose.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Pross wrote:
    In one case the question referred to an annulus and pretty much none of us had a clue what an annulus was let alone how to apply the maths to it.
    Ah, if you had studied Latin it would be much simpler...
  • cowsham
    cowsham Posts: 1,399
    rjsterry wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

    In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

    More generally
    rjs wrote:
    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
    This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

    As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

    Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

    *feel free to correct me.

    Where's fishfish when you need him?
  • crumbschief
    crumbschief Posts: 3,399
    Cowsham wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

    In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

    More generally
    rjs wrote:
    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
    This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

    As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

    Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

    *feel free to correct me.

    Where's fishfish when you need him?

    It's Friday he's probably getting battered.
  • cowsham
    cowsham Posts: 1,399
    Pross wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.

    I'm not sure about that. My daughter underwent a series of testing as part of research after completing treatment for a brain tumour when she was about 8 or 9. She got diagnosed with minor dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia and with traditional teaching methods her test scores were down in the bottom 20th percentile but when using other techniques was scoring up to the 95th percentile. If you ask her to try to memorise something parrot fashion she struggles but play her a song once and she'll be able to sing the tune back to you with most of the words, she's the first person in our choir to pick up new songs despite the music itself meaning nothing to her. I do think part of it is stimulating her interest though as she learns things much more quickly if she enjoys them!

    They identified various mechanisms to help her through school which we regularly pass to her teachers and which are almost universally ignored then when raised at parents evenings the teachers claim no knowledge. Unfortunately we're in an area with low achievement levels and so she can't get statemented to get the additional support whereas if she lived a couple of miles away in the next Council area she would do.

    I think you're probably right in situations where there are no special educational needs though.


    You've had it tough Pross -- great that your daughter is singing in the choir -- the music will mean more to her as she gets older I'm sure. I'm a great believer in music for healing and the way it compliments the words to help get them across (when the composer has put a bit of thought to this aspect of music - not always the case)
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    bompington wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    In one case the question referred to an annulus and pretty much none of us had a clue what an annulus was let alone how to apply the maths to it.
    Ah, if you had studied Latin it would be much simpler...

    Using Roman numerals? :shock:
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Robert88 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    In one case the question referred to an annulus and pretty much none of us had a clue what an annulus was let alone how to apply the maths to it.
    Ah, if you had studied Latin it would be much simpler...

    Using Roman numerals? :shock:
    I, for one, am entirely in favour of that
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

    In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

    More generally
    rjs wrote:
    The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

    Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
    This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

    As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

    Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

    *feel free to correct me.

    Yep it was trendy not to teach English grammar. I think my son was 6 when I could not help him indicate verbs, nouns etc in a text.

Categories