Are we doing too much hand-holding in today's society?

[Rethel34]

The issue is that it's all based around the number 10, and if the answer isn't the number 10 or directly related to 10, you have to make it relate to 10 and find your answer from there (at least the way her textbook seemed to say it). So the reasoning was that it's easier to tell a first- or second-grade student that it's "easier" or "more proper" to take 5+6, change it to 5+5+1, because 5+5=10, then add 1 to make 11 instead of doing the simple thing they try to show on children's television programs where you simply "count it out" on your fingers or a number line or using some other visual is simply absurd.

To teach a child, one must think like a child, and common core doesn't do that.

[dondon151]

um that's exactly how i learned math lol

you can't say that common core fails with a comparison between sample sizes of 1.

[Lord Raven]

I can tell you something - I wasn't raised in common core, and I struggled with math when I was younger despite not being introduced to it. It sounds like the teacher completely failed at their job.

Granted it has become one of my strong points in graduate school - my ability to do math concisely - but growing up was a different story.

[solrocknroll]

um that's exactly how i learned math lol

you can't say that common core fails with a comparison between sample sizes of 1.

Yeah, this is actually pretty clever for teaching children.

By teaching them to split up numbers into 5s and extras, you can help them grasp what they're learning.

Obviously we know that it's 5+8, but when a child is beginning, it's easy to learn that 5+5+3 is 13.

[shiningdialga]

I've got a few points to make. As far as what you're describing with your students, I'm not sure if this is so much connected to "handholding" as it is "lack of interest". There's a huge emphasis on doing extra-curricular activities to make yourself look good on a college resume even if you don't really like it, so that may be the case. I remember when I was in high school, as part of the math team (yes, I was that kid), there were several students who didn't really want to be there, but did so to have an extra line on their college application. The difference between those who really like it and those who didn't was obvious. I can't say for sure this is a new phenomenon either, but I can't say it isn't; I just don't have any evidence either way.

As for common core math, it's not "easier", it's more flexible. Teaching children to approach problems in different ways, even simple problems, encourages flexible thinking and reinforces the importance of being able to tackle problems from multiple angles. I'll never forget in fourth grade when we were doing division with remainders, and I had figured out that you could place the remainder over the divisor to get the remaining fraction. Instead of acknowledging that this was correct, my teacher instead rebuffed me for not doing it "the proper way". This method of teaching forces kids to use algorithms to solve problems instead of understanding, which hurts down the road when they learn more advanced concepts. I sometimes wonder if this rigid style is also why there is more coddling that you speak of, since people cannot handle the fact that there is not one right answer for things, like when reacting to common core.

When it comes to video games becoming "easier", I think it is more that they are (usually) better designed and the difference in audience. The higher difficulty of the games of yore seems to come from either poor design, or intentional efforts to pad out a game. Silver Surfer and Battletoads are considered some of the hardest games of all time, but this is only because the former requires insanely precise pattern memorization and the latter is just poorly put together in many aspects. Old RPGs are perfect examples of using padding, requiring repetitive grinding that is not real difficulty but busywork to make the title longer. As games got more memory, this padding wasn't as necessary, so many games became "easier" since they didn't require the same amount of padding to give the consumer enough playtime for their money.

I also think the change in game audience has influenced the difficulty of games to a degree. Over time, the main consumer of games has shifted from primarily children to children, teens, and adults. Adults do not have nearly as much time to play video games as children do, with jobs, family, and life in general. I know as 25 year old with a full time job and other responsibilities, I certainly do not want to spend my limited gaming hours grinding my 10,000th wererabbit just to have a high enough level to challenge the next boss. I'd much rather work through the game at a steady pace, taking on bosses multiple times and eventually defeating them after learning their weaknesses.

It's also true that yes, some people do not want to have a stiff challenge with every game, and only want to play for fun, many of these being the adults in question (guilty as charged). Developers are catering to these audiences, and there's nothing wrong with that, they are running a business. However, very difficult games are still alive and well. The Souls series is the most obvious example, but one good example I have played is Lightning Returns, specifically the combat. The combat in that game is ridiculously difficult, but if you master the mechanics (which are amazing) and go in with the right setup, almost any enemy can be mastered at any point. You have to perfect your guard, know the best positioning, equip the best commands, and understand how the enemy is staggered. It tests your mastery of the mechanics and never feels unfair. Shame the time limit really hurts the rest of the game...

[Wanuska]

Well there is handholding in society for middle-class people. Panem et circenses. Give people TVs and beer and food and they'll stop complaining. Entertain people to divert their attention from the real issues.

The big issue being that the lower class does not benefit from "handholding". Nobody gives a shit about em. And Murica still does not have Social Security. Kek we have that since 1945 folks. Stop making Iphones for the privileged and start caring about the poor guy next door who cannot afford to go to the fucking doctor ffs.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Wanuska

[Lord Raven]

the US does have social security... as for the rest, you're complaining about completely unrelated things to hand-holding

[UNLEASH IT]

On the subject of the so called casualisation in video games, I feel like a lot of the difficulty in older games came from them throwing things at you that couldn't possibly be accounted for unless you had a guide or played the game already. The Jugdral games in particular, were guilty of this.

[sirmola]

On the subject of the so called casualisation in video games, I feel like a lot of the difficulty in older games came from them throwing things at you that couldn't possibly be accounted for unless you had a guide or played the game already. The Jugdral games in particular, were guilty of this.

Many video games were also forced to throw you in the deep end due to lack of memory/cartridge space for tutorials. They were also often really short and hid the fact by being absurdly hard. All the handholding is often in new games now because it's easier then teaching mechanics organicaly, where as limitations in (say) super mario land forced that game to do it organically. Here is a good example video, showing how level 1-1 of super mario land is secretly a "soft" tutorial:

[The Geek]

The issue is that it's all based around the number 10, and if the answer isn't the number 10 or directly related to 10, you have to make it relate to 10 and find your answer from there (at least the way her textbook seemed to say it). So the reasoning was that it's easier to tell a first- or second-grade student that it's "easier" or "more proper" to take 5+6, change it to 5+5+1, because 5+5=10, then add 1 to make 11 instead of doing the simple thing they try to show on children's television programs where you simply "count it out" on your fingers or a number line or using some other visual is simply absurd.

To teach a child, one must think like a child, and common core doesn't do that.

The purpose of the roundabout reasoning is to help students get better at mental math. Relating things to ten is exactly the way that I and many of my friends who also excelled at math (we evened out when we got to college when lolcalculators were no longer banned) thought about problems.

As Phoenix Wright pointed out earlier, it's teaching math via teaching methods for problem solving rather than memorizing addition and multiplication tables like we did in elementary school.