This would appear to be testing the concept of length from position 1 to position 2, helping students to understand that measuring from zero is not a necessity.
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
i suspect the cubes part is literal and this is meant to be performed with small colored cubes. I’ve seen stuff just like this. I suspect the difference is the slop of piling up many cubes.
Having taught math to young kids, I used cubes at the beginning to give a real feel to the numbers. Having tangible items to play with gave them a real world demonstration of how numbers work.
And when the kids grasped the physical manipulation, I would transition to paper exercises like you are looking at. And I would call those squares “cubes.” because doing so linked the physical with the abstract. And for some students, to suddenly switch terms could be confusing at first.
Teaching is about linking back to things the student already knows and is comfortable with.
6-12 are in Piagets “concrete operational” stage. They need manipulatives, things they can touch. Like you can do algebra with them - you just need to show them the explicit comparison with a scale and even ideally have them physically manipulate a scale to solve for x.
Even a lot of teens/I suspect many adults aren’t able to operate fully in “formal operations” mode.
What makes me homicidal is that the companies that make those cubes don’t make them a centimeter cubed. I want the kids to fucking measure them with rulers and be able to make that connection!
We used centimeter cubes when I was a kid. Actual plastic cubes. We could use it to add length, we could use it to add volume.
For an illustration of using them for adding lengths, a 2D certainly is fine. They know what the cubes looks like, and a 3D version would just add lines they would have to ignore. Unnecessary complexity.
As an adult who knows how basic addition and basic length measurement works, I would agree with you. The cubes are simplified to squares, that’s the correct name.
But for these kids that doesn’t know the difference of the terms and don’t need it yet, it’s another simplification to avoid unnecessary complexity.
This would appear to be testing the concept of length from position 1 to position 2, helping students to understand that measuring from zero is not a necessity.
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
i suspect the cubes part is literal and this is meant to be performed with small colored cubes. I’ve seen stuff just like this. I suspect the difference is the slop of piling up many cubes.
They’re cubes, but the scaling errors are inconsistent.
Having taught math to young kids, I used cubes at the beginning to give a real feel to the numbers. Having tangible items to play with gave them a real world demonstration of how numbers work.
And when the kids grasped the physical manipulation, I would transition to paper exercises like you are looking at. And I would call those squares “cubes.” because doing so linked the physical with the abstract. And for some students, to suddenly switch terms could be confusing at first.
Teaching is about linking back to things the student already knows and is comfortable with.
That’s how I learned algebra and it really really helped having a physical x and cubes or numbers on either side.
6-12 are in Piagets “concrete operational” stage. They need manipulatives, things they can touch. Like you can do algebra with them - you just need to show them the explicit comparison with a scale and even ideally have them physically manipulate a scale to solve for x.
Even a lot of teens/I suspect many adults aren’t able to operate fully in “formal operations” mode.
Maybe this assignment was meant to be done with those same cubes. Like physically placing them in the boxes.
What makes me homicidal is that the companies that make those cubes don’t make them a centimeter cubed. I want the kids to fucking measure them with rulers and be able to make that connection!
I don’t like either because they are actual units of measurements for volume and surface, respectively.
We used centimeter cubes when I was a kid. Actual plastic cubes. We could use it to add length, we could use it to add volume.
For an illustration of using them for adding lengths, a 2D certainly is fine. They know what the cubes looks like, and a 3D version would just add lines they would have to ignore. Unnecessary complexity.
As an adult who knows how basic addition and basic length measurement works, I would agree with you. The cubes are simplified to squares, that’s the correct name.
But for these kids that doesn’t know the difference of the terms and don’t need it yet, it’s another simplification to avoid unnecessary complexity.
Except it muddies meaning for no apparent reason.
To me it makes the meaning clearer by using the same term in two different contexts, to build upon and link to previous learning