<p>To me, what would be very interesting to know is how many kids attempted the question and got it wrong, as compared to how many shut down and didn’t try it (even if they marked a bubble). No way to really tell, but I wonder about it.</p>
<p>It plays into an American mental block against metrics.</p>
<p>Sadly, seeing metrics in any problem is enough to cause some weak students to hiccup over it and not even try. </p>
<p>Sadly, their logic isn’t there to recognize that the unit of measurement is irrelevant to getting this answer correct.</p>
<p>Sadly, they have an inability to guesstimate the answer (a spin-off of unfamiliarity with metrics) so the calculated answer can be mentally compared to this thought question, “Does my first answer make sense?” Students are trained to ask themselves this in elementary school, but if they are at sea in terms of the measurement system, they have no reality with which to self-monitor their first calculated answer. </p>
<p>Just creating an illustrative example: students might know feet and yards. If so, and their first answer calculates a kitchen tablecloth measurement length of “20 yards,” they know immediately that can’t be right, so go back to recalculate an answer more like “2 yards of fabric.” (Yes I know about width so please don’t split hairs and follow my main point, please ;)</p>
<p>Although some posters identified the box/ribbon as “a simple addition problem,” it’s a bit more than that, not that it should be beyond a h.s. student. It’s a multi-step word problem that includes some addition and some geometry (or algebra, depending how you want to describe the box). </p>
<p>There’s a host of skills required to teach young kids to approach word problems, including asking themselves “what’s the question really asking?” Approaching word problems is early in math lessons. WIth experience, they gain confidence (NOT “self-esteem,” just confidence with word problems, plain and simple.) </p>
<p>I’m just pointing out a few items where, if fundamental early education in math is weak, the weakness continues throughout high school.</p>
<p>Xiggi’s point is that the authors look to straw arguments, such as pop-on bows (too funny) to explain why the American kids might be less successful than kids from other nations. </p>
<p>I happen to agree with Xiggi that the authors’ article full of straw arguments represents the self-same problem they decry, namely, poor Math education in the USA. Problem is, the authors should be solving the educational problem, not personifying it.</p>