Division the Everyday Mathematics way!!!

[kerriberri6]

I think you are forgetting that while doing long division, you do need to do multiplication. This video failed to show that first a student must guess that 82 can multiply 7 times to get close to 5536. And I don't know any 5th grader who can multiply 82 x 7 off the top of their head. So, in the traditional method they still need to multiply to check, subtract, and continue the process. Teaching multiple methods of doing something is best, because no one algorithm will be understood by all.

[3orbiter]

1:07 to complete "OLD" loathsome long division ... vs ... 2:07 to arrive at the same answer with multiple external computations that can lead to errors, decimal place errors etc. Do kids have THAT much EXTRA time to use this method?

- I'll agree 100% that the lattice method of multiplication is one of the neatest improvements in math I've seen - but c'mon. This division approach is sorely lacking a dose of common sense. No wonder we lag behind the rest of the world in Math & Science.

[dander53]

The silent glide of the numbers hides all the reasons why millions of adults grew up loathing "long division". Sure, ignore the 6 and lets see how many 82s go into 553. Only it really isn't 553, & we never learned the 82s tables, so we have to do some pretty clever guestimating of a backwards guzinta with 8 & 55, unless the 2 or 3 change things, since it really isn't 55 or 8 is it... Backwards in-your-head multiplication guesstimates & numbers that have no meaning = traditional=division phobia.

[dander53]

The silent glide of the numbers hides all the reasons why millions of adults grew up loathing "long division". Sure, ignore the 6 and lets see how many 82s go into 553. Only it really isn't 553, & we never learned the 82s tables, so we have to do some pretty clever guestimating of a backwards guzinta with 8 & 55, unless the 2 or 3 change things, since it really isn't 55 or 8 is it ?

Backwards in-your-head multiplication guesstimates & numbers that have no meaning=traditional=division phobia.

[MrMaxwells]

I think they start teaching them that in 4 grade

[lindareardon1]

@MrMaxwells third! (grade)

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 My suggestion is that you blame students when they don't understand. It has nothing to do with how you teach or what you teach. Students don't listen, don't pay attention, aren't smart. This way you don't have to change anything that you do. Just because every other high achieving country teaches mathematics very differently than we do in the US, it can't be what we do. Our students are genetically inferior. If you keep doing what you're doing, I'm sure things will change.

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 Obviously you don't understand the complexity of medical research. Medical research involves examining the impact of various treatments under varying conditions. You attempt to justify your actions is understandable, though hardly laudable. The idea of helping students reason is hardly new (it was discussed around 1900). However, I can also understand your reluctance as there are many fads in education. The idea of helping student think will not go away.

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 " It's just another "bandwagon" in the education system; another program that claims it'll "save our students" And we wonder why most people view teaching not as a profession, but as voodoo. Teachers who ignore research are just like doctors who ignore research in medicine. What doctor would you go to, one who ignores research or one who uses research? I'm sure you have your blood drained each time you are ill.

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 "She knows math." If she did, she would recognize the relationship between the partial products algorithm and the traditional algorithm. However, she demonstrates a week knowledge of mathematics as well. Do you see the connection between the partial products algorithm and polynomial multiplication?

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 I've been a mathematics for more than 20 years. Most teachers have no idea what question to ask, so they don't recognize the superficial understanding that students have. As I said, keep believing your gut and trust no one. Unfortunately, you're like so many teachers in the US who don't rely on research or ask enough questions of students that help them deepen their understanding. Too bad.

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 Obvious you didn't read the article that notes that US students have always performed poorly with computation. This doesn't surprise me because you have stated that you don't rely on evidence, but what your "gut" tells you. If US mathematics instruction was so strong, we would expect many research mathematicians to currently be faculty members at US institutions. However, mathematics departments are dominated by non-US citizens.

[sleeper2345]

See "Mathematics Standards, Division, and Constructivism" on the mathematically sane website that describes why this "new" (it's not really new) algorithm makes good sense. This is the way adults and mathematicians think about division. However, for the mathematically weak, they fail to understand the underlying ideas and want to return to "the good old days that never were."

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 "No one can convince me that it DOESN'T work." Thus, you demonstrate that you cannot be convinced despite empirical evidence that this method is not as effective as other methods. Your position is irrational and based on your "beliefs" rather than reasoning. This keeps us from changing the way that we teach mathematics which has always been ineffective. Do a google search for "the good old days that never were." Click on the first link.

[sleeper2345]

@UncleJoey12 Actually the traditional division algorithm is very difficult to learn and makes little sense without some sophisticated understanding of place value. Most adults have no idea why the traditional division algorithm works. The method shone in this video was taught in many schools in the 1960s and is hardly "new."

[DubiousKing]

I can understand the idea behind Everyday Math, that breaking the problem down into smaller pieces should make it easier to understand. But in the long run it doesn't work, because when you get to working with larger numbers, such as the problem presented here, the work gets incredibly long and confusing.

[Thexxyyaa22699]

fuck everyday math its so fucking hard it used to be nice and easy. methods mek no sense

[rarrzero]

Partial quotients makes sense. It's not an impenetrable method that 'just works' like the traditional long division algorithm, and so it's much better for use when the focus is learning about division.

In a speed contest, certainly long division will triumph over partial quotients once you are into four digit numbers, but I wasn't aware that the US educational system's goal is to emphasize speed over understanding.

[ytnh]

Well, you could also keep subtracting the numerator from the denominator once, over and over again, and tally up how many times it takes to get down to less than the divisor. That may be more understandable the first time you do it, but like the Everyday Math method it is a pathetic algorythm to use as a replacement for long division.

[jelewis2]

Part of the US educational system's goal is in fact to make the standard algorithms for arithmetic automatic.

I believe however that elementary teachers ought to explain why this method works; it is similar to partial quotients except done in the most efficient manner for each partial quotient. It, like the other standard algorithms, relies deeply on the place-value system, and it is the most efficient system that always works consistently.

[bradman221]

fuck evary day math it fwucking swucks i am in 6th grade it so fwukin hard fuck it dude

[irisladybug19]

I'm sure the people developing everyday math have good intentions. The problem in teaching math the traditional way is not that only one algorithm is taught, it is that the concepts behind the algorithm are never learned by the students. Everyday math wants to fix this by teaching more unexplained algorithms. Now the problem is that students will be able to (or not, I'll leave that debate for another time) do several algorithms without understanding the concepts behind them.

[troyhambly]

after 7 years of using this crap, our school system has scrapped it and is now trying to get the kids back to where they should be. I felt so sorry for the teachers that were forced to teach the stuff and think the people who came up with the system should be arrested for making this country dumber!

[McKennahLane]

I'm a teacher...and our district uses Everyday Math

And yes..all of that DOES happen.

First...to give credit to the system: All of those steps ARE done in traditional math as well...but in your head. so be truthful. Though it's not opn paper it IS being done.

That said... by the time they get to fourth or fifth grade.. you start to say.. ok let's have a timed test. YOUR ways vs. the OLD way.

The old way beats them hands down. NOW..

[McKennahLane]

when you get into jr high and have 20-30 problems a night. Do you want to spend EXTRA time doing each problem the slow way?

NO.

SO, now let's break this down to the traditional method.

They use what they have learned already and translate it over.

Everyday Math celebrates that not all children compute the same way-so they validate ALL ways.  Once they have their method KNOWN, they translate that into the speedier traditional style.

Still, everyone needs to calculate in their heads.

[McKennahLane]

The higher-leveled students will come to see this faster. They will even voice... that's such a SLOW way to DO things.

CRITICAL THINKING!!! That's what you want to bring them to!!

The average to struggling students need work on the "breaking down" process. THUS all that work that later is done in the head.

The problem is when kids CLING to long-styled methods on paper and don't do it in their heads. That's when you have to say....

[McKennahLane]

Mom needs to buy 14 cans of beans at 69 cents each. She needs to know if she has enough money...what does she do?

Does she get out her paper and draw a lattice picture? SERIOUSLY????

No. She does it in her HEAD! Now we have to take that lattice ILLUSTRATION and translate it into a working method (traditional math) in your head.

SERIOUSLY. If you want to help your kids in Math..drill the times tables. THAT is where SO many kids are falling short. TOSS THE CALCULATOR

BRAIN power!

[rarrzero]

@McKennahLane Lattice multiplication is not the emphasized method in Everyday Mathematics; from what I understand, the most prominent method is the Partial Products method also shown in this video.

I guarantee you that unless that mom pulls out her piece of paper, she's not going to be doing the traditional algorithm any more than she'll be doing lattice multiplication. Mental multiplication is almost always done by partial products.

[sleeper2345]

Where is the rigor? No mathematical justification for the traditional method? Why do we continue to use an algorithm that adults and children don't understand?

*

Who does long division in real life in a timed test? Let's make sure schools are divorced from the real world!

[ytnh]

There is art and perfection in Mathematics done well. There is no art or perfection in Everyday Mathematics.... it seems more like a way to hold back students for a few years until they come to their senses and throw it all away. EM: another reason the US is not producing as many engineers anymore.

[sleeper2345]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You'd have to support the reason why you draw this conclusion. Note that every great mathematician has made many errors and used faulty reasoning. The mathematics you describe is divorced from the real world of mathematics. The reason the US does not produce many engineers is that mathematics is generally hated. Blaming the lack of engineers on a textbook that is used by few schools is faulty reasoning.

[tbb033]

Wow, no wonder kids are getting so "dumb" these days, if this is the kind of crap they're being taught instead of the old standbys.

[drunkenjudgement]

i have no idea what just happened lolz, i thought long division was hard enough but wtf was that

[Rametesaima]

I'm glad my parents actually took the time to educate me at home on how to do math correctly. Now I'm at college and I'm a math major! Thank you Mom and Dad!!!

[boonids]

Took longer to do it the Everyday math way.

Classic is best

[davevanfunk]

I taught fifth grade with U. of Chicago's Everyday Math. When I was confronted with time consuming algorithms such as this one, I would close my door and teach the way I learned many years ago (which is what many of us do) . My standardized test scores were pretty good. We are professionals, and we do know what we're doing. Give us credit.

[Embrigh]

There isn't much a way to get around long division, and I think that is what the everyday math people are getting at. Long division is simply multiplication and subtraction over and over again so perhaps they were trying to show how they made those parts easier. While I don't see anything wrong with lattice multiplication, partial fraction division, and their carry-first subtraction, I would assume they would teach this final method of integrating those pieces last.

[freesk8]

Long division uses fewer characters.

It is faster.

[achilles2000]

This curricula and others like it are in most school districts. No child will be left behind in math because no child will ever move off the starting line.

Another reason to get you child out of the government schools.

[sleeper2345]

@achilles2000 "This curricula and others like it are in most school districts." This is false. Everyday math is in less than 10% of schools. Most schools use textbooks that look like those in the 1970s except they have color.

[achilles2000]

@sleeper2345 You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say that Everyday math is used in most districts; I said that that curriculum AND others like it are used in most districts. What does "others like it mean"? It means that they follow the 1989 NCMT standards, and I know that most (that's at least 50% + 1 since you may not understand that either) districts use some form of this kind of math because I have discussed it with state officials with responsibility for curriculum.

[sleeper2345]

@achilles2000 All curricula claim to meet the NCTM standards, whether they actually do or not.

[achilles2000]

@sleeper2345 The point was that the 1989 standards were intended to promote approaches such as you find in Everyday math, and curriculum providers were pleased to oblige. I don't know that every math curriculum used in government schools claims to meet the standards. I'm sure most do. I would be surprised, however, if Saxon claims to meet those standards, although I guess it is possible now that it has been acquired by Harcourt-Achieve.

[sleeper2345]

@achilles2000 I wonder why Saxon has a big booth at the NCTM national conference if they don't claim to meet the NCTM Standards. I'm sure using reasoning in the classroom would be too much to expect of the Saxon authors. What are the NCTM Standards that you are against? Communcation? Reasoning? Problem Solving? Representations? Algebra? Number and Operation? BTW love your use of the term "government schools"

[teleutube]

"This way of teaching math is....like the man who goes all the way around the mountain when he wants to take a leak next door"

well said :D

[teleutube]

What the hell is this "every confusing day mathematics way with "lattice table", then move numbers to "column" division method ??

No wonder students going to 7th grade failed grasp polynominals division in algebra miserably, having to learn long traditional division all over again!

"IN THE NAME OF EDUCATION REFORM, We teach this way... "

good grief!

[emmafreee]

when I see this video, I'm so happy that my children live in Europe and don't need to grow up in America...

By the way... WHY IN HELL is there a chapter on how to use a calculator in the "everyday math"-book? 38 pages??? At least in Sweden, students are not even aloud to TOUCH a calculater before 8 grade!

This is outrageous!

[thumblesswonder]

This is a joke, right? Please?

[goodgirlzoe]

i hate this math! my son is "learning" this in his 5th grade class, and it's just garbage!! what ever happened to bringing home a math book with 10-20 problems for homework?! the students move on to something new every day (hence the "every day" part) and they don't review enough to retain the lesson. now i have to learn this craziness so i can help him come test day...it's like i'm in grade school all over again! balony!!!!

[tributes4life]

I dont like my school! They teach this in my 5th grade class :(

[boyersclass]

This type of math is really good for those students who don't understand the steps or the process of the algorithm that you or I used growing up. People learn in different ways and process ideas differently. Hopefully a teacher is showing students different ways to solve problems so that each student can then use the method that works best for them.

Having taught both these strategies to students, it has really helped them, while others still prefer the old methods we were taught in school.

[doctorx777]

What the bloody hell was that latticed matrix nonsense in the second part?

[easlern]

Short division still beats all!

[biukucanoe]

We teach this way because under education reform, everything has to be done differently than the old evil way. The district gets federal money if it picks any of the NSF funded no-math math books. Look up outcome based education reform if you want to see the entire reform beast and how it links up to standards based testing like WASL and a bunch of other bad ideas. The only thing standard about standards-based is that standard methods are not allowed.

[qorilla]

5536/82 is not 67.5

The result will be a rational number, because it's written as a fraction. So it will be either a finite decimal form, or and infinite REPEATING one.

The correct answer is: 67.51219 51219 51219... which can be written as: 67.51219 with dots over 5 and 9.

Saying 67.5 as the result is very bad. How can you know it will not be a finite decimal expansion with 2 decimals after the dot? Maybe after 67.51 it ends.

[Sharpsight51]

Is the second method necessarily worse? Perhaps not.

You casually gloss-over the mental arithmetic required in the first two steps of the "classic" method (6*82 and 7*82).

BUT, in the second method, you show every intermediate step including "long subtraction" or what-have-you... ludicrous.

This video's suggested argument (that the new method is inefficient) is confounded because it essentially assumes that people using the new methods aren't allowed to skip steps--which is just plain silly.

[penguinx42]

Exactly. Plus it completely ignores the fact that the point of partial quotients is to create easier multiplications. You don't need to use a lattice to multiply by 20!!!

But... the music sure was ominous for the second part, wasn't it? It must be bad then!

[gimedatnow]

Absolutely true! Lol. I guess people just like to stick to what they already know.

[harlean32]

True, you need to be able to multiply 82 x 6 which takes time, but the more often you do the "boring" fundamentals, the more the become ingrained in your mind--Everyday Math doesn't recognize that this is how people learn. You don't master the guitar if you don't practice proper fingering of a chord over and over again.

[stealyourself]

What the ever-loving fuck?!?

No wonder our school kids fail at everything; that is not math.

[Godanna42292]

WTF? Who was it that thought this was a good idea?

[Geglash88]

O_o

[fucku2be]

Is your point here that you do not know how to divide?

[ultimatespider17]

man i fear those poor kids of today

[moronpoliticsdotcom]

Forget the math. I just read the discussion which proves that whatever crazy method you learned already is good and clear and the one you don't know is evil and obscure. Traditional long division is pretty obscure and virtually no one knows what it means or how works. Just like flip a fraction and multiply to divide. I used to freak out other math teachers showing them you can just divide across. Ask somebody non-mathie who learned to flip it just why that works for a good laugh.

[moronpoliticsdotcom]

Well, well, well. Now I know I INVENTED something called the partial something or other method for division. Actually this is a good way to explain what the heck you are doing in the traditional long division method, which is the same method except you magically guess all the numbers right the first time. The amusing part is BOTH ways the wrong answer is found. A remainder is just ignored. Hope they don't work for me.

[austin51289]

The trade first, or look right method is a quicker and much more logical to apply to both subtraction to multiplication, subtraction, and addition; you start with an approximation and refine it.

Assume mental multiplication by 2? a person with an IQ of 70 can multiply by 2.

You fail to see that you can apply the algorithm without understanding it. You can't do that with Everyday Math because it requires understanding.

[alrivs]

First of all this video is a joke. I have taught this curriculum for five years and if you believe this garbage video you are a fool. Clearly children were considered inadequately prepared with the traditional algorithm or reform would not have been necessary. Get involved in education if you want to see the truth

[reaganalexandra]

I don't doubt that a properly administered EDM program can be effective but you should see the mess when it is not. PARENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT SUPPLEMENT and more often than not they are left in the dark.

[alrivs]

I worked as a math coordinator for three years with over twenty schools and have seen the variety of teaching in all areas. I agree with your comment, but anything is a mess if it's not properly taught - even the traditional methods that were failing our kids, too.

[Mudesi]

Are these people retarded?

[Fersommling]

I just heard of this for the first time today. I'm a single Baby Boomer. This way of teaching math is stupid. It's like the man who goes all the way around the mountain when he wants to take a leak next door.

[dominogold]

I agree with radrean, this video is completely deceptive meant to fool everyone -- it is not actually like this.

[audioambrosia]

Everyday Math is HORRIBLE! I have an elementary education degree, and honestly think that this is the most AWFUL math curriculum I've ever seen. My stepdaughter has been subjected to it throughout her elementary years, and we are going to pull her out of school and homeschool her to get away from this and other "progressive" educational methods that lead to disaster.

[renoboo]

My sister uses Everyday Mathematics in school [elementary] and she hates it. She hates math, but enjoys dividing the simple way. She gets her answers wrong trying the EM way. But she is getting better at it, but she does NOT enjoy EM. Not even her teacher likes it! She has been doing EM since 3rd grade. She enjoys the old Mcgraw hill stuff. But...I go over her homework, and I was like 'What the heck is this stuff?'

[radrean]

Your kidding! This video is done to fool all of you. I teach Everyday Math and this is silly. The process is much simpler and kids understand it. Hopefully people are smarter than to fall for a video like this.

[renoboo]

not every kid understands Everyday Mathematics

[az35sp]

omg so many nerds!!!!!

[MarineroDelMonte]

You made it complicated you simpleton

[murraybs]

What a mess!

I've taken calculus and had difficulty following this. And no, 67.5 is not the correct quotient. Repeating decimals FTL.

[botanical66]

We are starting Everyday Math at our school this year, after having Investigations.

The teachers will be baffled by lattice multiplication, and the kids will, as well.

That means more meth teaching for this parent.

[toddasmith]

Thanks for viewing; I know that 5536/82 is not exactly 67.5; in fact, there is no finite decimal representation of this quotient so any finite decimal answer will only be an approximation. I originally had a rather boring commentary that went along with the video but took it out because I figured that everyone knew how to divide and would rather listen to music.  A few clarifying comments were lost along the way. Sorry for the confusion.

[oneofthethree]

67.5 * 82 = 5535

[JennyFarlopez]

This is the kind of algorithm I use for division when I have to do it MENTALLY.

If everyday maths teaches kids to divide using a mental algorithm, what kind of mental arithmetic abilities will they have in the future? Will they be able to perform a simple 2x2 digit multiplication without actually having to write it on a paper?

[psychomummy]

I think Everyday Math has bigger problems then the "methods" they teach, like a serious lack of content and reliance on a calculator! I feel fortunate that my sons school does not use it. However it is this exact type of "new math" that has caused his math abilities to blossom!

Different strokes for different folks!

[psychomummy]

Honestly, it is different, but not that bad once you get used to it! A lot of people struggle with the "proper" way of doing it too! Kids failing math is not a new thing and North America is certainly full of adults of all ages who can't do simple math!

Some may like doing it one way, others another! What students need is a good teacher and clear instruction, no matter what "method" they are using!

[AMG736]

Come on Todd, are you being fair? Whether you agree with the alternative algorithms or not, you leave out a lot of steps during the 'traditional method.' Or are you assuming that 5th graders can multiply 82 by 6, 7 and 5 using mental math? By my calculations (counting, taught in any math program) you left out 3 multiplication problems and neglected to show the subtraction with borrowing that would take place during the traditional algorithm. Play fair.

[bogwash1]

Speaking as a maths teacher , this is bollocks.

[cultie2]

This video shows everything I wrote to the Everyday Math people. I did get a response from them.Their letter supported their program saying it does work. What did I expect them to say? I have a 3rd grader. We have not reached this level of Everyday Math torture. It must be hell in homes where no one knows what a partial sum is or the "lattice" method.Or for the children who come from homes where all of the tools needed for this program are unavailable. It is just ridiculous!

[AMG736]

I don't blame you for being angry! Your school district has definitely been neglectful if you didn't receive the 4 page Family Letter that precedes every unit, explaining the concepts and algorithms in the unit, as well as the answers to every Home Link on the last page. It's also disappointing to hear your district didn't purchase the required Student Reference Book that your child could bring home and use as additional support for the new concepts.

[harlean32]

I received that garbage, but why is it my job as a parent to relearn math, UNPAID, to teach my son? If I'm going to teach him, I'll teach him the proper way to learn which he does wonderfully with. Let him flunk the No Child Left Untested tests. I want him to actually MASTER MATH and he does it using traditional methods, just like Mom and Dad.

[renoboo]

thank you! EM is just difficult and its algorithms are unnecessary! Even though the Student Reference Book is supposed to 'help' the methods still are a load of cheese! [load of cheese lol] The lattice method made my sister get a low grade on one of the math tests! She was angry! Every here and then, she looks at the answers from the Study Links! But it's difficult! Bring back traditional methods!

[jaydamion]

5,536 / 82 does NOT equal 67.5--even by the beloved and better "traditional" method. Congratulations! You're an idiot!

[leftwinggirl]

What does it equal? My calculations show that it has no finite decimal expansion, but to one digit after the decimal point it is 67.5.  So what exactly is your point? Who is the idiot? Did *you* learn to divide using everyday math; maybe you're a good example of this flawed style of math education.

[jaydamion1]

You're right; it is not a finite decimal, which was my point--that should have been mentioned. Was it? If so, I missed it, and I apologize.

I'm not getting your last question though (the one without the question mark at the end). How many people missed the fact that the answer given, even using the traditional method, was inaccurate?

I didn't. So how exactly would that make me a "good example of this flawed style of math education"? Do tell.

[cynnful]

You're missing his point. It's not about the answer, it's about the method.

[jaydamion1]

No, I understand that it's about the method. My problem is that the people who jump up and down and scream about how bad the method is (and I agree, it is bad) should try to do so with some level of credibility.

Getting the answer WRONG is not a good step in the credibility direction.

[humblePOV]

Thank you! Thank you! How anyone could think that the Everyday Math way is better than traditional long division is mind boggling. Keep up the good work.

[notoriousfluffyg]

my son's school uses this idiot program and as a result i am putting him in private school next year, where they teach math the correct way.