Slashdot Mirror
Kids Have 'Math Anxiety' Thanks To Parents and Teachers, Report Finds (vice.com)
A new report out of the University of Cambridge studied the experiences of a total of 2,700 primary and secondary students in the UK and Italy and found that primary and secondary school girls had higher levels of both math anxiety and general anxiety than boys. "The study also focuses on how parents and teachers shape math performance and attitudes, perhaps without even realizing it," adds Motherboard. "In the same way that anxious parents can shape their children's anxiety, math-anxious mentors can shape how kids view their own math anxiety." From the report: The new study builds on previous research by highlighting the importance of teachers and parents' own math anxieties impacting students. Most students that the researchers talked to said that their anxiousness started when the math topics became more challenging, and they felt like they couldn't do them. Another reason the students' said they were struggling was because multiple teachers were teaching them math, and it became confusing across teaching styles. "Importantly -- and surprisingly -- this new research suggests that the majority of students experiencing maths anxiety have normal to high maths ability," Josh Hillman, Director of Education at the Nuffield Foundation, said in a press release.
Several of the excerpts of the interviews conducted by researchers with math-anxious kids are heartbreaking: Many described feelings that they knew the answers but panicked, or tried to battle through initial confusion. One child, around 9 or 10 years old, said: "Once, I think it was the first day and he picked on me, and I just kind of burst into tears because everybody was staring at me and I didn't know the answer. Well I probably knew it but I hadn't thought it through." Another described doing a fractions test: "It means like enormously [nervous], and enormously means like massively... I felt very unwell and I was really scared and because my table's in the corner, I kind of just like tried to not be in the lesson."
Several of the excerpts of the interviews conducted by researchers with math-anxious kids are heartbreaking: Many described feelings that they knew the answers but panicked, or tried to battle through initial confusion. One child, around 9 or 10 years old, said: "Once, I think it was the first day and he picked on me, and I just kind of burst into tears because everybody was staring at me and I didn't know the answer. Well I probably knew it but I hadn't thought it through." Another described doing a fractions test: "It means like enormously [nervous], and enormously means like massively... I felt very unwell and I was really scared and because my table's in the corner, I kind of just like tried to not be in the lesson."
What is something we all felt in high school?
But, math anxiety? Wow. If it existed, I rather convincingly suspect it was in back of dozens of other, considerably more important at the moment, social concerns.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
No anxiety from my daughter in elementary school. Had to do long division. We used M&Ms and she got to eat the remainder. Dad had to plan the problems carefully to attain remainders less than 5.
Once, I think it was the first day and he picked on me, and I just kind of burst into tears because everybody was staring at me and I didn't know the answer.
Not quite the same thing but there's no crying in Mathematics!
In the 1990s, the high school I attended didn't really teach math. Instead, it pushed people into groups and immediately threw them into the work with the expectation that the group could figure it out themselves. It was a rare day that the teacher actually lectured.
Meanwhile, real math teachers are ignored, because their strategy of actually teaching the math doesn't let schools artificially tamper with the scores.
If you want to get rid of math anxiety, a good first step would be to actually teach, not let everyone sink like a stone.
Maybe they should listen to Death Metal while doing homework to reduce that anxiety...
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
with a smartphone... lol.
[($)]
Part of it is because of constantly changing the way students are taught to do math. Especially as their parents cannot help them if they don't understand. I learned math in the 60s and 70s. There was nothing wrong with the way we were taught, and students today should be taught the same way! A couple of years ago a friend's grandchildren were trying to learn division. Their teacher was having them try to do it some weird and torturous way. I showed them how I learned to do long division, and they remarked how much easier it was than the method that they were being taught.
I know that these days everyone has a phone, tablet or a computer with a calculator program. That does not help if the person does not know how to properly formulate the problem.
because the kids are learning math differently (circles and lines everywhere, aka 'common core') than their parents did...
90% of people complaining about "Common Core" don't even know what it is. It is mostly just normal math, and understanding "circles and lines" is a very important part of math. Math is more than just arithmetic.
Girls can definitely do math. However, it seems like its more socially acceptable for them to brag about how they're bad at it. Maybe that's the real problem here.
The described situation is social anxiety. Any connection to math is purely incidental.
Actual math anxiety stems wholly from the fact that any sane person would be anxious if you told them you were going to force them to practice various riffs on elementary algebra for twelve years and call it "math."
It's more socially acceptable for girls to give up or never try at all. Doing so does not hurt their social status or dating chances.
Girls are born valuable and they know it. Boys have to earn their place and they know it too.
Just look for the "neckbeard" or "incel" comments as proof. What is the female version of those two terms? They don't exist, because no woman is without value.
God damn do I love Unicode.
Just look for the "neckbeard" or "incel" comments as proof. What is the female version of those two terms?
Crazy cat lady?
(Then again, its almost orthogonal to most of what's being discussed here.)
Will sort out the smart students from the average and well below average.
Allow the really smart to enter the more advanced math classes.
Put the average and well below average into math classes with math set to their ability.
The best students get to college on merit and ability.
The average and well below average get to study math they can understand.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's long been known that when kids are learning math:
* They have family who generally have had bad experiences when they learned math.
* They have teachers in their early years without the interest, ability, or confidence to teach math
The message comes across loud and and clear - math is hard/confusing/not for mere mortals.
Well, you could use more is a) the selection was better and b) there was more real-world connection.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What the hell is "social anxiety" and what does it have to do with math?
I don't respond to AC's.
The pacing of math is wrong for the vast majority of kids. Many are bored to death, just as many are confused and barely skating through. But our math education is all laid out on a rigid timeline. We need to not just get of rid of the idea of grades (4th grade math is a stupid concept), but we also need to actively collect dumb students and smart students into their own groups early on.
Math education should simply be standardized tests that you can take when you feel ready. Any other form of grading or advancement will inevitably lead to a poor education for the majority of the students.
Liberal agenda? I think it would be news to most that people like the Rockefellers were liberals.
When did you unilaterally decide arithmetic was no longer a branch of mathematics?
This 'nerd' is associated with everything considered smart.
That explains why you're an arsesmart farmer.
Maybe kids have trouble with math because they're taught that their unrefined and subjective emotions are significant. The apologist author of this paper seems be afflicted by the same problem.
5 in AP Calculus
Ah, a failing grade, then.
Ezekiel 23:20
When did simple arithmetic become mathematics?
In ancient Greek, "mathema" meant knowledge or learning.
"Mathematikos" meant a person who is fond of learning.
From there it became the Latin "mathematica," and then Old French "mathematique."
It became "mathematics" in the late 16th century when it was borrowed by English from the French.
Unfortunately, I didn't find any Minoan references that would hint at where the Greeks got the word. The roots are definitely deeper than stated.
I tried to understand the results of Common Core but I can't find any data to determine if it's helping....or if it's just different.
The answer most likely is "neither". It isn't helping much because it isn't different. Common Core is just a standardization of normal math education.
It's too polarizing of a topic to get non-biased data about as far as I can tell.
The polarization is mostly from idiots who have no idea what Common Core is.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the right think Common Core comes from the UN or the Federal government. It doesn't.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the left think Common Core means teach-to-the-test, and disempowers teachers. It doesn't. CC doesn't specify any particular tests, and it was designed by teachers.
I know you mean well. I know you solution of just passing tests seems like it would make sense to many as logical and reasonable. It would to me too if I had spent close to zero hours on the other side of the desk. Certainly not in a k-12 setting. Your idea does have some merits in a perfect world, but as it is we live in a resource limited world.
We do not structure our classes the way we do because they are the most effective for learning. We do it so the most kids can be reached per staffing dollar. Your class format would simply be unteachable. Kids often need help and explanations for each topic. Non-mathy kids (most) struggle with texts. If you personalize lessons to each kid, then you would need an incredible amount of teachers. Maybe as a society if we truly valued education, we could afford this. The bald truth is we do not. So, we don't.
In private schools, they do what really works which is have smaller, homogenous classes of about 10-14. This is good because students really do learn well from talking to each other. You can also read body language and give fast help as needed. This type of intervention is probably closest to what the OP meant.
The seriously bad mistake that has been introduced into the class since you have been in school is the idea of differentiated learning. Some genius had the idea it is more important to make kids feel good instead of actually teaching them at their level. So, math classes are no longer tracked in any meaningful way until late junior high. All kids of all ability levels are in the same room. The teacher is supposed to come up with lessons to reach all students. Which means you have to cater to less strong students. The average students quickly learn to play dumb so they get less work or at least easier stuff. The brighter kids just get bored.
The one year I was in this system, I had honors kids mixed with special ed. It was not effective for anyone. The thing is, the special needs kid could learn math, but you had to go slower and re-explain. If he was with similar ability, then he could have advanced well. Since he was outclassed by most of his peers, he felt like a bother, which made it harder to reach him because he did not want his friends to get impatient. I truly loathe the administrators who came up with this scheme. It was so frustrating.
The best solution is to probably reduce class sizes to levels like private schools. Sadly, I do not foresee this happening. The other factor is that the U.S. spends more per student than any one else. What you might have never heard is that more than a lion's share of that funding goes into administration. So, even if you offer more, it won't go to the kids. If we want change, we need to change the culture of the schools and how they are ran. I am very pessimistic about such a change because there is way to much money being made by way to many. That sort of corruption is hard to conquer.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
It's a problem that's been with us for a while.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I know at least how they want people to do addition, and it's crap. Arithmetic needs no circles and lines. It is an algorithmic process.
They attempt to teach the kids mental shortcuts before they even know the long way, and that's why it fails. Worse, they teach the shortcut wrong.
And the nonsense about marking a useful thought process that arrives logically at the correct answer wrong because it's not the official holy thought process is wrong headed in the extreme.
Educators are constantly harping on parental involvement, but then they shove parents out of it by insisting on their odd approach to math where not only do the parents have no idea what the teacher wants to see for an answer, but if they start from scratch and teach THEIR child how to do arithmetic "the old way", the child will flunk even if he never produces an incorrect answer.
Why WOULDN'T that produce anxiety?
I have actually watched simple math problems being solved the common core way. It's cuckoo. Adding the common core way doesn't teach concepts because you need to be able to add BEFORE you can really get the concepts.
If THAT is just standardizing how they've already been teaching math (apparently after my time), it's no damned wonder there's so many people who can't do arithmetic if their battery goes dead.
I have actually watched simple math problems being solved the common core way. It's cuckoo.
Got any links? Common core is a US thing, so I don't really have a clue about it. I dont even really know how maths is taught in my own country any more since its been a bery long time since I've been in the primary or secondary education systems.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just look for the "neckbeard" or "incel" comments as proof. What is the female version of those two terms? They don't exist
"incel" was a term coined by a woman about herself.
It was co-opted by a very nasty, woman hating movement who have thoroughly poisoned the term. A comunity I suspect you're a part of because one of its defining attributes is pretending women have no troubles in anything at all ever.
Despite the whole thing being started by a woman.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Or maybe we need to start emphasizing actual valuable skills and achievements like math and disparaging clowns chasing pointless pursuits with no purpose like their "social image."
Arithmetic is not more than just arithmetic.
I was impressed to find my kid being taught something about symmetry in grade 5, something they may return to if they ever get to advanced physics.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Usually people are talking about arithmetic. You can't do arithmetic without knowing what you are doing. For that stuff you are better off just being a human calculator.
I'm going to go out on a limb here but I suppose it doesn't create anxiety because this is regarding anxiety in girls in the uk and italy, not the us.
Arithmetic needs no circles and lines. It is an algorithmic process.
You can approach it algorithmically and end up being able to get the right answer without understanding, or you can approach it algebraically and learn concepts that will be essential later.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
Seriously, Wikipedia is a site where everyone posts what they think with little oversight but UD it's a joke site, that doesn't even try to be a serious definition.
In Argentina, during the last right wing, US backed, dictatorship set theory was also removed from elementary school.
The reasoning was (translation is mine) that it 'promotes the Soviet idea of the collective, and of grouping as an indispensable relationship in problem solving'. I wonder how much of red scare factor was behind the similar move in the US.
"studied the experiences of a total of 2,700 primary and secondary students in the UK and Italy"
but ok.
There are Youtube videos on every common core math lesson. Common core does make sense, it is just different, and seems roundabout, but the idea is good.
You want to present Urban Dictionary (or any crowd-written internet site) as an authoritative information source? Ahahahaha....
Your comment makes me think of its opposite number in the UN cooling technology thread that claimed all liberals want a return a pre-industrial hunamity because NAAAATUUUUREEEE MAN.
Its of course ridiculous. That's not even what a majority of liberals think. That's a vocal fringe group.
And your comment is exactly the same but flipped the other way around.
No, most people who criticize common core do not think its some crazy UN conspiracy. Most people who criticize common core do so because it is a very strange and different way to do arithmetic than they are used to. The arguments I have heard for it by educators is that it helps get you thinking in the right mindset to deal with higher level math down the road. While this may be true, and I'm not sure, it does seem to be less efficient at the four basic operations, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. There is also a high degree of frustration on the part of parents who are unequipped to help their kids study common core or do their homework.
Think of it from the parents perspective:
I know I don't have the time in my day to learn number sense on top of everything else I have to fit in 24 hours. So if I see a homework assignment that instead of asking a simple math problem and instead uses some "made up" words and "fake" notation, I'll just throw my hands up.
Common Core is the Systemd of the education world. Might have a decent idea here or there but that has been completely muddle by poor implementation and leadership who rule with an iron fist.
Well, the Rockefellers were never socialists, to be sure. But "Rockefeller Republicans" is (or at least used to be) shorthand for the liberal wing of the Republican party.
I don't think we should be teaching elementary school kids alegbra until they have first mastered arithmetic. That's putting the cart before the horse.
There are just different types of brains. I know I learned differently when I was young. I don't know if no one tried to explain it to me correctly but I remember being totally bamboozled by math abstractions like variables and functions. like y=f(x) would cause an aneurysm. It turned out that my brain does perfectly fine dealing with these concepts as I am perfectly fine writing functional programs. Where my brain still has problems is reading long ass formulas with single letter variables. It must be some kind of defect. The exact same formula with well named variables is perfectly understood by my brain. Anyway, I digress. When my daughter was growing up she had a variety of math teachers and variety of ways of being taught math. When she had lousy teachers she did poorly. When she had good teachers she did really well. Even though she always though she sucked at math she was actually in honors math through out high school. She was by no means a math genious, those kids are obvious when you see them but she got good grades and did really well in the sat's and got into a fantastic university. She still thinks she sucks at math. .
Girls can definitely do math. However, it seems like its more socially acceptable for them to brag about how they're bad at it. Maybe that's the real problem here.
Females who can do math can do math. There is an important and critical distinction there.
In out time of flexible everything, from gender to claims that anyone can be anything they desire if they only try hard enough - the article is kind of correct - parents and teachers are causing a problem.
But this problem is going the wrong way. The poor young ladies brought to tears are perhaps not good at math. Not everyone is. Not all people with penises are good at math either.
And it is not necessarily the patriarchy's cancerous influence if less females are interested in math than people with penises.
If a woman is interested in math, and wants to pursue a career in a math heavy field, that is wonderful. That's the triumph of the individual. I've worked with women who make me look like a real slouch in these things. You go girl - you're bringing value.
But today's opposite pressure on young girls, a weird enforcement of disciplines that the girls may or may not be interested in, is stupid, and more likely to backfire than succeed. You can't ideologize interest.
You expose children to concepts, and if they like a field, you let them pursue it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Of internet slang terms? Sure.
Further, it is language, its definition is common usage. Sure they are cheekily phrased but consistently exactly the opposite of what the GP suggested, as is all usage of the term I've seen here (the only place I see anyone using this term).
This 'nerd' is associated with everything considered smart.
That explains why you're an arsesmart farmer.
arsesmart? I have questions.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think the problem is teachers and parents who don't really understand math intuitively are passing on a garbled version of the new curriculum. Or worse, they are passing on a math phobia. If parents replaced their criticism of new curriculum with "I can learn this approach", they would pass on to their kids the growth mindset about math that is the main key to their future success.
What is the difference?
Way back in the dark ages when I was in school....they were synonymous terms.....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
God I hated that, mom and dad basically grounded me till I got them memorized, but once I did, it stuck with me for life.
When doing anything math related to multiplying, I don't have to sit and think usually, I just know the answer.
Is the new math (some people are calling Comon Core?) methods not using any rote memorization and ways of teaching that seemed perfectly effective back in the prehistoric ages when I was in school?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Math requires logic and abstract thinking, both of which are slowly developing in children under 10 years of age.
That's why simple counting and rote memorization of addition and multiplication are the normal way of teaching math for the first few years of school.
Some faults just having kids go through the K - 9 grades
- Not using grid paper for multiplication and long division to ensure numbers are in the right columns
- Consumable textbooks / workbooks with much too little space to work the problem out
- Consumable textbooks / workbooks with 50% or more of the page space spent on pictures of animals, kids, balloons, etc not having anything to do with the problems
- Teachers combining multiple steps into a single step
- Teachers giving a shortcut way to compute the answer before the kids even understand and are proficient with the long way
- Teachers not insisting that kids write down what the already know before starting the problem
- Teachers not writing problems down using words instead of symbols -> (price paid) = (original cost) + (original cost) * (tax rate)
- Teachers not reinforcing how to rearrange terms in an X + Y + Z type of equation
The long way works and is proven via hundreds of years of trials to work.
The new math shortcuts have merit but only after high mastery of the long way.
It looks crazy because of four reasons:
1) You didn't grow up with it, and it's really unfamiliar to you.
2) More than likely, you've seen a bit of the middle, but not the fundamentals necessary to get there.
3) What you think is being taught is likely not what's being taught.
4) The teacher teaching it didn't grow up with it either, and may not be all that good at teaching it.
To the third point, where we learned one thing by rote learning, kids now are instead learning several methodological skills that accomplish the same thing, but which can later extend into higher order math. Rote learning doesn't provide that foundation. We look at them and say, "Why the hell are they making multiplication so fucking difficult?" In reality, they're not teaching multiplication, at least not the way we learned it. Entwined in what they're teaching are some linear algebra concepts and some matrix math.
Instead of doing rote memorization of times tables, they're teaching the process to multiply any numbers together. What's really confusing is that they're doing this at the point in school where we all just memorized the times tables up to maybe 12x12. If you don't understand that what they're teaching is fundamentally different than what you were taught, yeah, it looks crazy if you're expecting those kids to be memorizing what 8 * 6 is. That's not what they're doing.
"Why not just teach multiplication?" It's a valid question, but that presumes how we were taught multiplication is the best way. We really learned most of our math by brute forcing it all on rote memory. As that's our muscle memory, it seems to us that that's the easiest path forward. When we got to linear algebra and some of the higher order math, for a lot of us it was the same "new concepts, smash until understand" process that we learned in our earlier math classes. The idea with this new way of teaching math is to dispatch with all of that, and instead build in methods and processes from the beginning that can be leveraged in later math classes.
Fundamentally, it's pretty damn sound. Unfortunately, we're living in the first generation of a new way to do mathematics, and dealing with that sometimes rocky transition.
To the last point, I think that the next generation of math teachers will likely do a much better job teaching it, because they grew up with it. But it's a chicken and egg problem - kids can't learn a new way to do math if the teachers don't teach it, and the teachers can't teach it until they learn it. Unfortunately a whole lot of teachers haven't really learned it yet, in part because of the same cogitative dissonance we experience when looking at it. It's going to be a generation or two until math teachers are good at it, and unfortunately we're the ones that are suffering through it in the mean time.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Perhaps, but that's more of a semantic argument, as liberal today means something quite different from what it meant during the Gilded Age. The modern parallel is libertarian.
Just look for the "neckbeard" or "incel" comments as proof. What is the female version of those two terms? They don't exist
"incel" was a term coined by a woman about herself.
It was co-opted by a very nasty, woman hating movement who have thoroughly poisoned the term. A comunity I suspect you're a part of because one of its defining attributes is pretending women have no troubles in anything at all ever.
Despite the whole thing being started by a woman.
That may be how the word was initially used, but language evolves quickly. The only time I see people use the term incel is to insult men who have a differing view about a topic that mainly concerns women. Granted, most of the people being called incel appear to be assholes, but I don't think I've ever seen it applied to a woman in a derogatory way.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
It makes sense once you are already comfortable with doing the arithmetic, it does not make sense when you are just learning to do the arithmetic in the first place.
Best bet, go to youtube, search on common core math. You'll get pages of relevant videos.
The idea is to teach the algorithm. The child gets to see that it works and gets a sense of accomplishment. Then they learn why and how it works. Then they learn how to do it faster.
That seems a lot more likely to work than hiding the algorithm behind a mysterious process that ALSO gets memorized without understanding, and then expecting a connection to magically happen.
Parent of children that I have helped with Common Core math here ...
All by itself this is a reason I am pulling my kids out of public school at the end of this year.
The "ten boxes" are confusing supremo and often times my wife and I cannot help them. I have two science degrees, score 600 on the math part of the SAT, and passed Statistics for math majors in college with a B.
I have a buddy who is a high ranking admin in a charter school. I asked him what good it is being in the charter system if you have to follow the *OUTRAGEOUS* public school regulations, and he told me, "We don't have to teach Common Core".
Bam !!! He persuaded me.
Actually, I had good teachers. In the '70s. Good enough that I was able to work out decompositions that actually work for me while in upper elementary grades.
Note that in the '70s, we also had a form of "new math", but they sensibly waited until the 5th grade to delve into that AFTER we learned how to do arithmetic properly in order to expand on earlier successes. Of course, they then went on to belabor the point until I was sick of dealing with the obvious.
The common core topic being discussed here is arithmetic, not estimation. That topic was also taught later AFTER we had mastered arithmetic.
Not at all. I see what they're doing. I also see that they're putting the cart before the horse and wondering why the kids are getting nowhere.
While learning the tables, I learned the commutative property of addition and later multiplication by spotting the pattern in the printed table. That allowed me to halve the amount I had to memorize. Since we were concurrently learning to deal with addition and multiplication in columns with carrying, I also realized that I needn't bother memorizing the 11s and 12s. Through comparing addition and multiplication, it also instilled in me the knowledge that these were not discrete operations, but rather part of an internally consistent system known as mathematics.
A key to that is that I wasn't officially WRONG for not doing it some bass ackwards way involving circles and lines even though I had the correct answer and showed valid work to get there.
If the teachers don't understand it either, it is seriously irresponsible to sacrifice a generation of kids to that while they get up to speed rather than just having the teachers teach what they DO understand so that Johnny will be able to balance a check book.
Go look at what is actually being taught to the kids. End of the day, that's what actually matters.
But nevertheless, I did follow your link and as a result, I am more convinced than ever that it's a bad idea. What to hell is up with:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.2.OA.A.1 Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.1
How about learn how to ADD? Then learn how to estimate. If you know how to get the exact answer, it's easy to ballpark. If all you know is ballparking, the exact answer will still elude you.
Bad analogy: algebra may be taught without reference to numbers at all, only abstract operations. So it is simply wrong to talk about an arithmetic horse pulling an algebra cart.
I view your position as coming out on the side of drudgery, at the risk of turning many potentially good students of math away in disgust. Arithmetic also includes square roots, does "mastering" arithmetic include learning an algorithm for computing square roots, or should the students already be learning other abstract concepts before that? Do they ever even need to master square root arithmetic? Do they need to learn complex multiplication, which is also arithmetic, or should they learn the principle of distribution first? Perhaps you have your own private definition of "mastery", which includes some subset of arithmetic. If so, the only issue is which subset. Personally, I favor introducing some abstract concepts such as variables and associativity immediately after learning single digit addition. After all, how much arithmetic do you really need, to understand that (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)? Kids can easily learn this one with lego blocks.
These days, arithmetic and other more abstract branches of mathematics are introduced early and together. Students on the whole tend to progress further and faster than we old folks ever did. Something to keep in mind when shouting at those teacher kids to get off your algebra lawn.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
So, they don't have you memorize the multiplication tables, through the 12's like they did back in my day or other things like that?
Teach them first how to compute the results and memorize the answers later. Not only does this introduce powerful tools and concepts early, it reduces anxiety in the common case that some entry in the multiplication table slips the mind - it can always be constructed.
Kids don't even need to learn the decimal multiplication algorithm to do this, repetitive adding is perfectly sufficient, especially when combined with memorizing some of the results that were computed earlier.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Actually a big part of the problem in the world is that the social crap has taken over the universities. Virtually none of it gets replicated but it is touted as "science" and sadly credibility from real and reliable science like physical sciences rubs off on it.
I doubt it provides many answers, other than, "don't use this one."
Ah, I see you are one of _those_. Please stay in your filter-bubble.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The 'bar graph' approach to arithmetic I am talking about is a key part of arithmetic in Singapore math and similar curricula. It is useful for estimation, but that is not the main point of it. Kids that adopt these visualizations are often much better prepared for future work in word problems, negative numbers, and they come to understand math as the intuitive way numbers work rather than an algorithm to be memorized.
It's not unlike what I had in the first grade where we had images of concrete objects (sticks, oranges, etc) with the mumbers underneath.