Division the Everyday Mathematics way!!!

5536 divided by 82 using traditional long division and then done the Everyday Mathematics way. Why do they teach this?

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Math
• education
• everyday
• mathematics

[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.

[thumblesswonder]

This is a joke, right? Please?

[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.

[lindareardon1]

@MrMaxwells third! (grade)

[MrMaxwells]

I think they start teaching them that in 4 grade

[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"

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