AA/Autum: more on this discussion on model system vs alegbra.. the following comment to a blog entry which i got the question from might interest the two of u..
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>
quote:</font>
At 11:17 PM, Lysithea said…
For a question like this, the best way to solve is to use algebra (and solving simultaneous equations), which I think even some of the secondary school students can't do them.
So the best thing is to teach your child algebra in P6, and all that crap about using pictures and guesswork and whatever they're supposed to use in p6 maths goes down the drain.
Trust me, my father taught me algebra in P6 to tackle such problems for my PSLE.
JPB: if the kids are supposed to use mental sums to do those questions, then no working need to be shown ya? So why are they marking down the kids if their working don't show what they want?
And i know it's not illogical because such questions are actually a precursor to learning algebra in sec 1, but if the question is badly phrased and the kids didn't know that they are supposed to break the numbers down like that, then it's the questions' fault right?
and trust me, there are a lot of 'badly phrased' questions in primary school maths. (compared with cambridge 'o' level standards)
At 7:11 AM, justpassingby said…
Lysithea - the question in question (heh) is taken from a point in the text where they are still teaching the children the steps towards doing it all mentally. If I'm not wrong, it's actually found nearer the beginning of the P1 syllabus, where they are still teaching number bonding. So in order to teach it, they have to set the questions that way lor. Later on, during the end of the year exams, and even in P2, there will be mental sums where they are not required to show working.
Ah yes, badly phrased questions. It's scary that just about anyone with a basic degree can write an assessment book these days you know? Complete with bad english and really, stuff that doesn't make sense. Just the other day, I was moaning and groaning over this in my son P3 book. Sigh.
I don't know the original presentation of the question ondine is citing, but from what I've seen in my children's books, it's obvious when a question is a number bonding one... so if your child (and you) have been keeping up with what is going on in the textbooks, you ought to be able to spot a number bonding question a mile away, because they always require you to split the numbers up. It's only when someone who doesn't have a kid who has gone through that looks at it, that the question looks ridiculous. When I first saw that kind of question before my eldest started P sch, I reacted the same way. After seeing number bonding in the context of the whole syllabus, it actually makes sense... because it is truly laborious to watch children try to add with fingers and toes when they could use something as simple as regrouping the numbers.
At 11:47 PM, Lysithea said…
jpb: if it's faster to count using fingers and/or toes than to use number bonding, then what is wrong with counting with fingers and toes? Just teach them to count faster! And what if some kids say 6+8=14! I memorize it! How?
Anyway, they're going to be using calculators very soon. I think the problem is the inflexibility of how things can be done, although the education system is supposed to be moving away from that, ya?
At 11:02 PM, justpassingby said…
hurhurhur, Lysithea, it's obvious we are from two very different camps lah... so let's just agree to disagree!
Peace....
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
.. Miser doesn't have chubby cheeks for sure!.. hahahah.. 
