The Lattice Method

Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

The Lattice Method; What is it good for?
Topic Started: Nov 13 2008, 11:03 AM (170 Views)
Whatever	Nov 13 2008, 11:03 AM Post #1
Advanced Member Posts: 595 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: June 4, 2007	The Lattice Method Of Multiplication http://longvalleymath.com/2008/04/28/more-on-the-lattice-method-of-mutliplication/ The lattice method is impossible to do in your head and does nothing more than hamper your kid’s ability to compete in the work place. According to Wikipedia it was introduced in Europe in 1202. Hmmm 1202? That sounds like a long time ago right? I wonder why people that invented the computer didn’t use it? Did Albert Einstein use it? How about Larry and Sergey? Why didn’t they use it when they invented Google? How about getting a man on the moon? Didn’t NASA use the lattice method? Obviously not. The same wikipedia article writes that computers that use a base 2 number system use the standard multiplication method. Imagine tomorrow you are in a meeting and you need to multiply two numbers together. You and your colleagues don’t have laptops or calculators on you; you have your cell phone but you don’t want to pull it out. All you have is pencil and paper and you need to multiply 345×12. You could Multiply it using the standard algorithm which you learned in elementary school Multiply in your head 345×10, 345×2, and then add the results together or draw pictures that look like this: While you are still drawing your boxes and lines your co-workers will have figured out the right answer and had enough time to laugh you out of the office. The lattice method is a perfect example of what’s wrong with Everyday Math. It is a gimmick that has been around for over 800 years and we don’t need it. The tried and true standard method works every time and is far more efficient. If Everyday Math is such a good curriculum than why don’t they go ahead and teach the most efficient method and give kids a choice? Why should a child have to learn this long method of using arts and crafts to figure out a simple math problem? They should NEVER have to learn the lattice method of multiplication but Everyday Math needs gimmicks to sell books. The Lattice Method should be Exhibit A as to why this needs to be recalled from our schools. Eric Frenchman Edited by Whatever, Nov 13 2008, 11:18 AM.



Plarval	Mar 15 2009, 01:27 PM Post #2
Newbie Posts: 3 Group: Members Member #367 Joined: March 15, 2009	I understand how you feel, but I can't exactly dismiss teaching this algorithm. That's what is missed many times when parents discuss these topics. I teach third grade. The traditional methods are taught along with the algorithms, which allows the students to see which one works for them. I could spend months with some students and get nowhere with the traditional methods of multiplication and division. Their brains just aren't wired that way. But if I pop up a Lattice or some of these other algorithms- it works for them. And that is what I'm supposed to be doing for these kids. If you have a child that you would want to use the traditional method with, great-run with it. But don't think every kid in my school is EVER going to be able to do this Math in their head. Yeah, many kids can pick up traditional math and do well, but not all kids can. And if it is a choice between drawing a a couple squares or giving up because they can't remember to put in the zero placeholders or split the factors into manageable problems, I'll take the silly squares. I wouldn't be a good teacher if I didn't offer a number of strategies to my students.



IlikeLIvonia	Mar 16 2009, 07:51 AM Post #3
Advanced Member Posts: 923 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: May 11, 2007	Plarval Mar 15 2009, 01:27 PM I understand how you feel, but I can't exactly dismiss teaching this algorithm. That's what is missed many times when parents discuss these topics. I teach third grade. The traditional methods are taught along with the algorithms, which allows the students to see which one works for them. I could spend months with some students and get nowhere with the traditional methods of multiplication and division. Their brains just aren't wired that way. But if I pop up a Lattice or some of these other algorithms- it works for them. And that is what I'm supposed to be doing for these kids. If you have a child that you would want to use the traditional method with, great-run with it. But don't think every kid in my school is EVER going to be able to do this Math in their head. Yeah, many kids can pick up traditional math and do well, but not all kids can. And if it is a choice between drawing a a couple squares or giving up because they can't remember to put in the zero placeholders or split the factors into manageable problems, I'll take the silly squares. I wouldn't be a good teacher if I didn't offer a number of strategies to my students. Thanks for posting. I think the problem most parents have with the alternative algorithms is that they are being taught in place of the standard algorithms. I don't think children should be required to master the focus algorithms if the traditional methods work for them. Multiple methods can be confusing to young children. The spiraling nature of the program is another problem. Unrelated topics are introduced and covered with little depth. For example, children are introduced to fractions without mastery of division. There is not enough practice within the program to master basic skills. Edited by IlikeLIvonia, Mar 16 2009, 07:54 AM.



mathmom	Mar 16 2009, 06:27 PM Post #4
Advanced Member Posts: 48 Group: Members Member #332 Joined: May 11, 2008	IlikeLIvonia Mar 16 2009, 07:51 AM Plarval Mar 15 2009, 01:27 PM I understand how you feel, but I can't exactly dismiss teaching this algorithm. That's what is missed many times when parents discuss these topics. I teach third grade. The traditional methods are taught along with the algorithms, which allows the students to see which one works for them. I could spend months with some students and get nowhere with the traditional methods of multiplication and division. Their brains just aren't wired that way. But if I pop up a Lattice or some of these other algorithms- it works for them. And that is what I'm supposed to be doing for these kids. If you have a child that you would want to use the traditional method with, great-run with it. But don't think every kid in my school is EVER going to be able to do this Math in their head. Yeah, many kids can pick up traditional math and do well, but not all kids can. And if it is a choice between drawing a a couple squares or giving up because they can't remember to put in the zero placeholders or split the factors into manageable problems, I'll take the silly squares. I wouldn't be a good teacher if I didn't offer a number of strategies to my students. Thanks for posting. I think the problem most parents have with the alternative algorithms is that they are being taught in place of the standard algorithms. I don't think children should be required to master the focus algorithms if the traditional methods work for them. Multiple methods can be confusing to young children. The spiraling nature of the program is another problem. Unrelated topics are introduced and covered with little depth. For example, children are introduced to fractions without mastery of division. There is not enough practice within the program to master basic skills. That is not true. Standard algorithms are being taught to 5th graders in our district as well as a review of the EM algorithms. My child has been allowed to choose which one he likes to use and is not forced to use one method over the other. It's good for the kids to see all ways and choose what works for them. My son used to like partial quotient division but since being introduced to the traditional division algorithm has switched. His teacher told me that he could do all his division that way if he liked it best, partial quotients was not mandatory.



Whatever	Mar 16 2009, 09:07 PM Post #5
Advanced Member Posts: 595 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: June 4, 2007	mathmom Mar 16 2009, 06:27 PM IlikeLIvonia Mar 16 2009, 07:51 AM Plarval Mar 15 2009, 01:27 PM I understand how you feel, but I can't exactly dismiss teaching this algorithm. That's what is missed many times when parents discuss these topics. I teach third grade. The traditional methods are taught along with the algorithms, which allows the students to see which one works for them. I could spend months with some students and get nowhere with the traditional methods of multiplication and division. Their brains just aren't wired that way. But if I pop up a Lattice or some of these other algorithms- it works for them. And that is what I'm supposed to be doing for these kids. If you have a child that you would want to use the traditional method with, great-run with it. But don't think every kid in my school is EVER going to be able to do this Math in their head. Yeah, many kids can pick up traditional math and do well, but not all kids can. And if it is a choice between drawing a a couple squares or giving up because they can't remember to put in the zero placeholders or split the factors into manageable problems, I'll take the silly squares. I wouldn't be a good teacher if I didn't offer a number of strategies to my students. Thanks for posting. I think the problem most parents have with the alternative algorithms is that they are being taught in place of the standard algorithms. I don't think children should be required to master the focus algorithms if the traditional methods work for them. Multiple methods can be confusing to young children. The spiraling nature of the program is another problem. Unrelated topics are introduced and covered with little depth. For example, children are introduced to fractions without mastery of division. There is not enough practice within the program to master basic skills. That is not true. Standard algorithms are being taught to 5th graders in our district as well as a review of the EM algorithms. My child has been allowed to choose which one he likes to use and is not forced to use one method over the other. It's good for the kids to see all ways and choose what works for them. My son used to like partial quotient division but since being introduced to the traditional division algorithm has switched. His teacher told me that he could do all his division that way if he liked it best, partial quotients was not mandatory. I think it depends on the teacher.


« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »